Military Review

Only in fairy tales, white and fluffy are always kind and defenseless

72

Have you ever thought about why our perception of some countries, including powerful enough, affecting the geopolitical situation in the world, for the most part does not correspond to reality? Why are we so often surprised at the decisions or actions of these states, which destroy the entire harmonious logical system built in our imagination?


If you ask now about the countries that, in order to solve their own problems, may not hesitate to use military force, bypassing international treaties and decisions of the UN Security Council, then the majority will name Israel, the United States, possibly Russia and a couple of other countries. At the same time, for example, NATO member countries will remain on the list of those who will be forced to do this by their elder brother - the United States.

Even the fact that in American adventures in various countries of the world, servicemen of the alliance countries are necessarily exposed, does not change the attitude of the majority of ordinary people towards these countries.

“Well, what can they do if they are near the parliament, the presidential residence, all over the country, etc. are there American military bases? And their economy is completely dependent on the United States. "

We even feel sorry for them somewhere inside ourselves. Dependent countries, what to take from them ...

In the wild, white and fluffy don't survive


Today we will focus on those who seem to us. About those who created from their countries the image of such smart, kind, understanding everything, but weak-character states. States that would be happy not to be enemies, but they are simply forced to be. A sort of reluctant enemies. Evil Yankees bent the European countries. And they are forced to pretend that they are enemies of Russia. In fact, as soon as - so right away ... As soon as the Americans remove their hand from the European genitals, Europe will rush to Russia with assurances of love and friendship.

Remember those European axioms that are stubbornly hammering into our heads, explaining the existence of the NATO bloc? The block was created for European security! Okay. But the question arises, security from whom? From Russia, China, Iran, North Korea or some African Sao Tome and Principe? I understand that the alliance was created against the Department of Internal Affairs. But again there is a discrepancy. Just by the time of creation.

Today there are two main arguments that are forcing Europeans to spend more and more money on defense.

First, the growing threats to European security. The whole world wakes up in the morning and begins to invent tricks for this very safety of them. Africans don't even hunt for antelope, until some local sorcerer sends another plague on Europe. I won't write about Russians, Chinese and other North Koreans.

And secondly, you have to pay more for security if you do not want to become an outcast. We need to “share the financial burden more equitably” with security spending! Personally, it reminds me very much of our 90s, when brave guys in leather jackets came to the store and offered security services, "so that bandits do not run into you."

When the alliance was created, it was clear against whom it was being done. Both the Americans and their European allies perfectly understood the power and capabilities of the USSR. It is this, as well as the traditional American desire to "fight when victory is near and losses will be minimal" with large acquisitions after victory, that became the reason for the creation of the bloc. Europeans will fight on the European continent, and the United States will simply cut coupons from this war.

The situation has changed over time. The "poor" Europeans realized how well one can live under the American umbrella. Not only did the absence of huge military spending really help to quickly "get fat" economically, Europe began to understand that it was not at all necessary to fight with its eastern neighbor. The Americans will do it. And "powerful European armies" will become an appendage of American troops.

Only albinos, those very white and fluffy, do not live long in nature. The slowly mounting crisis in the United States has forced Washington to moderate its military appetites. And the effectiveness of investments in the military sphere began to fall catastrophically. With a military budget that exceeds the total budget of all other countries combined, the United States not only ceased to be leaders, but also began to lag behind in some positions.

And what is the way out of this situation for Europe? Continue to play the role of "poor relatives of a rich overseas" owner and ultimately get a serious economic stick from this owner? Or do what they demand, but at the same time preserve the outwardly the same policy as before: we are oppressed and powerless?

Europe chose the second option. Not yesterday, not even the day before yesterday. Practically from the beginning of the XXI century ... Probably, in my opinion, the Europeans are very fond of Israel's position on this issue. Huge military assistance from the United States and at the same time a fairly independent foreign policy. I remembered the saying about the bull and Jupiter ...

We will slowly, slowly descend and ...

It is clear that such statements require some facts on which they can be established, like a memorial plaque. Moreover, the statements should be generally known, but as if invisible to the majority. Therefore, I chose the most objective indicator - the military budget of the alliance countries. It's easy to check and it's easy to compare. And it is immediately clear what the country is preparing for.

I'll start with my first statement - when did Europe choose the second path? Remember when the alliance, in general, started talking about the need to increase the bloc's budget and distribute costs more evenly? It happened right after the famous terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001! It was then that the figure of 2% of the country's GDP appeared.

Europe, shocked by what had happened, no less than the Americans, realized with horror that it could not defend itself against terrorists. And the White House began to threaten to withdraw from programs to protect precisely European countries. 26 European countries were put at attention and instructed to zoom in! This is despite the fact that for the most part Europeans began to cut their military budget.

At that time, more than 2% of GDP was spent by only five states - the United States, Great Britain, France, Turkey and Greece. The rest by hook or by crook kicked off the budget increase as best they could. And, I must say, successfully. Even Canada pretended not to concern them.

Alliance expenses were growing. And incomes remained at almost the same level. Looking specifically at the numbers, the combined share of European countries and Canada fell from 2001% (2014 data) to 3,1% (1989 data) between 1,42 and 2015. The situation is rather strange. Europe, which needs to be protected, refuses to pay for services.

NATO must be ready for war with Russia


Remember the 2014 NATO summit in Bucharest? It was there that, in fact, Europe declared war on us. No, not openly, without diplomatic notes and other special effects. Let me remind you, I'm talking about the military budget. It was in Bucharest that the member countries of the alliance made a decision on a mandatory increase in military spending to 2% of GDP. And they not only made a decision, but also began to implement it.

I can't get past President Trump. We know a lot about his activities, but deliberately "forget" about it. Meanwhile, since he came to power in 2016, the Europeans have “accelerated dramatically” in increasing spending on NATO. The number of those who fulfilled the requirement increased. The neighbors of "aggressive Russia" were added - Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Estonia, Norway.

Moreover, already at the end of his presidential career, Donald Trump squeezed so much that the Americans have been shaking the Europeans since the formation of the bloc, that at the NATO summit in December 2019 in London, he already advised Europe to increase the military budget to 4% of GDP!

Here is what Colonel S. Korchagin writes about this in his article "Military expenditures of NATO countries":

“By the end of 2020, the expenditures of the United States of GDP will amount to 3,87%, Greece - 2,58%, Great Britain - 2,43%, Romania and Estonia - 2,38% each, Latvia - 2,01%, Poland - 2,3%, Lithuania - 2,28%.

France's military budget will exceed 2,1% of GDP. This is followed by Norway - 2,03%, Bulgaria - 1,93% and Turkey - 1,9%, Germany - 1,57%, the Netherlands - 1,4% and Canada - 1,45%.

The lowest costs relative to this indicator will remain in Italy and the Czech Republic (1,43% of GDP each), Hungary (1,33%), Slovenia (1,2%), Spain (1,16%) and Belgium (1,1%) ".

And now the question arises as to why a white and fluffy Europe is building up its muscles so much?

Is it only the Americans to blame for the fact that Ukrainian nationalists and fascists behave so freely?

I am often told about a kind of "Euro-Atlantic unity". I saw some kind of "unity" - in the zinc from the cartridges in the desert: the unity of the scorpions.

With the result that


We often talk about stereotypes that exist in the heads of others. At the same time, we absolutely do not notice exactly the same stereotypes in ourselves. Meanwhile, we have a lot of such templates. One of them was discussed today.

In the wild, those who are familiar with this very nature personally will confirm that the most dangerous creatures look just white and fluffy. “Here I am, so defenseless and delicious. Eat, don't be afraid. " The exotic Australian platypus, which always evokes just such good feelings, is actually a rather dangerous creature that the locals try not to meet.

NATO today is not only the United States, it is a powerful system that can cause a lot of trouble to any state. The alliance cannot be underestimated. And you can't perceive it as white and fluffy either. Especially today.

It’s not even the Ukrainian crisis, although it was this crisis that was the catalyst for the increase in NATO’s military spending. The point is in the redistribution of the world. Europe is afraid of losing its importance in world politics. Europe is wary of becoming what Asia has long been. The loss of leadership, albeit in tandem in the United States, will lead to a reduction in consumption. And nobody wants to eat less.

Therefore, with the appearance of the perfect harmlessness of Europe, one should not forget that no one wants to share their own, so that it becomes better for someone else's. This means that they will defend their own. And they, and we ...

The confrontation will persist for a long time. White and fluffy are defenseless only in children's fairy tales ...
Author:
72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Asad
    Asad April 13 2021 06: 13
    0
    The author buries the US economy early, it is clear that in ten years China will completely bypass the rival. Just interesting, China will also create a bloc of ,, vassals ,,?
    1. Sofa batyr
      Sofa batyr April 13 2021 06: 17
      +21
      In the wild, white and fluffy don't survive

      A very rash statement.

      Crouching Arctic fox, this is a particularly tenacious species yes He will come and will not ask permission.

      1. Civil
        Civil April 13 2021 06: 39
        -4
        1. Ring of enemies.
        2. Because of the United States, the prices of all products are rising.
        3. We are strong independent with nuclear weapons.
        4. We must be patient and unite around the ruling party.

        From a speech by Kim Jong-un with a warning about the impending famine in the DPRK.
        https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4769695

        I hope Vladimir Vladimirovich will send our country on a "Difficult Campaign" too. And all those who disagree in the Vladimir Central.
        We must take an example from the fraternal regime of the DPRK.
        1. Sofa batyr
          Sofa batyr April 13 2021 06: 46
          +7
          Quote: Civil
          We must take an example from the brotherly regime of the DPRK

          There is no leader - " With slanted and angry eyes " request

          Will you take the trouble to bring the Juche idea to the masses?

          "Chu" (주) - "host","che"(체) -"body, essence, substance, nature».
          I.e , "juche»This is the awareness of a person as a master of himself and of the entire surrounding world
          1. Civil
            Civil April 13 2021 06: 52
            -2
            Will you take the trouble to bring the Juche idea to the masses?

            As the United Russia Party and the Government will say! They will say that the masses will bring any ideas to themselves, including me. Even serfdom, the main thing is that the message about the introduction of serfdom begins with the words "In order to optimize and in accordance with the numerous requests of citizens ....". Well, the grateful people will cry for the sake of form and hand over their passports to the owners appointed from above.
            1. Sofa batyr
              Sofa batyr April 13 2021 06: 55
              +8
              Quote: Civil
              As the United Russia Party and the Government will say! They will say that the masses will bring any ideas to themselves, including me.

              You describe Biomass , plankton, not the people ...
              1. Civil
                Civil April 13 2021 08: 11
                -4
                Quote: Divan-batyr
                You are describing Biomass, plankton, not people ...


                You can't call your own people that way. This is how we are. Power is sacred.
                1. Vladimir Mashkov
                  Vladimir Mashkov April 13 2021 10: 53
                  +5
                  The main message (in my opinion) of Alexander's article is the following: NATO does not consist of sufferers, but of cunning aggressors who pretend to be sufferers, who should be feared and set up for a long confrontation. Sound idea. For those who have not yet understood this. smile
                  1. Civil
                    Civil April 13 2021 11: 01
                    -6
                    Quote: Vladimir Mashkov
                    The main message (in my opinion) of Alexander's article is the following: NATO does not consist of sufferers, but of cunning aggressors who pretend to be sufferers, who should be feared and set up for a long confrontation. Sound idea. For those who have not yet understood this.

                    There is one nuance, the question is ...
                    Why should the Russian people be patient if the elite quarreled with the West? Let them decide their own questions. What do we do with it?
                    1. Vladimir Mashkov
                      Vladimir Mashkov April 13 2021 11: 27
                      0
                      Quote: Civil
                      There is one nuance, the question is ...
                      Why should the Russian people be patient if the elite quarreled with the West? Let them decide their own questions. What do we do with it?

                      And you and the West have not quarreled and are friendly? And on what basis do you speak on behalf of the Russian people? Have a mandate? Is it really ... Putin himself? Are you actually in Russia?
                      1. Sofa batyr
                        Sofa batyr April 13 2021 12: 51
                        +1
                        Quote: Vladimir Mashkov
                        on what basis do you speak on behalf of the Russian people? Have a mandate?


                        I strongly agree that Civil has no right to declare on behalf of the whole of Russia about something, but you, perhaps, have taken upon yourself too much by speaking as a "people's prosecutor".

                        Quote: Vladimir Mashkov
                        Are you actually in Russia?


                        And you ?
                  2. Jaromir
                    Jaromir April 13 2021 15: 52
                    +13
                    Quote: Vladimir Mashkov
                    tune in to a prolonged confrontation

                    I agree with you. The West has considered us an enemy for 500 years already. Of these, the last 100 years, Western countries have been trying to destroy us. I want to say that we do not need to tune in to confrontation now. We must already be inclined to a long-term confrontation and call the West an enemy, not a partner. Now we must understand, those who have not yet understood that the West will never be our friend, brother, matchmaker. The West is our enemy! And the future of our people is at stake.
                  3. Nyrobsky
                    Nyrobsky April 13 2021 21: 30
                    +5
                    Quote: Vladimir Mashkov
                    The main message (in my opinion) of Alexander's article is as follows: NATO does not consist of sufferers, but of cunning aggressors who pretend to be sufferers who should be feared and set up for a long confrontation. Sound idea.

                    Yes, it is clear to the hedgehog. At one time, VVP suggested B. Clinton to consider the issue of Russia's joining the NATO bloc, after which the mattresses got nervous because the adoption of such a decision nullified the feasibility of the bloc's existence and would have led to significant financial losses for the military lobby, although the ideological rubbish at that time in Russia's relations with the USA and Europe disappeared with the collapse of the USSR. Consequently, the preservation of the bloc had a strategic purpose with the prospect of being used against Russia. It's just that, despite their wishes, Russia has not weakened to the level at which it would be convenient to digest it.
        2. Ka-52
          Ka-52 April 13 2021 08: 39
          +8
          2. Because of the United States, the prices of all products are rising.
          3. We are strong independent with nuclear weapons.
          4. We must be patient and unite around the ruling party.

          Does internal inflation cancel out the presence of an external threat? Is NATO located at the borders of the Russian Federation for beauty? And in your country, the United States is the world's stronghold of democracy, sowing peace throughout the world? Ask Saddam and Muammar about the possibility of maintaining independence without nuclear weapons.
          1. Civil
            Civil April 13 2021 08: 49
            -1
            Is NATO located at the borders of the Russian Federation for beauty?

            No, to take our oil and gas! And the Chinese have our forest. And instead of the Russian oligarchs Abramovich, Fridman and Mikhelson, put their American raw-material oligarchs Rothschild with Ilan Musk.
            And in your country, the United States is the world's stronghold of democracy, sowing peace throughout the world?
            It is the only imperialist power on the planet, disgusting but rich.
            Ask Saddam and Muammar about the possibility of maintaining independence without nuclear weapons.
            The leader of the Libyan Jamahiriya did not have great ancestors who, having broken the backs of the tsarist oligarchs and the German fascists, would have built a high-tech people's state and created nuclear weapons to defend it.
            and what, internal inflation cancels the presence of an external threat?

            There is no need to cover up economic failures with an external threat. It is not the NATO headquarters that raises heating prices at times.
            1. Ka-52
              Ka-52 April 13 2021 09: 31
              +3
              No, to take our oil and gas! And the Chinese have our forest.

              and without sarcasm and clown antics? Or why do US secretaries and presidents consistently declare the Russian Federation an enemy of the United States? Why are the concepts of either a preventive nuclear strike, or a limited one, or with the help of low-power nuclear warheads being born?
              It is the only imperialist power on the planet, disgusting but rich

              So all the same, this country is not biased in its actions? Doesn't it exert military-political pressure in its own interests?
              The leader of the Libyan Jamahiriya did not have great ancestors who, having broken the backs of the tsarist oligarchs and the German fascists, would have built a high-tech people's state and created nuclear weapons to defend it.

              I am not asking about the ancestors of Gaddafi. The question was simple: would the presence of nuclear weapons save or not save him from death, and the people of Libya from a civil war? There is no need to overshadow the fence with fascists and other heresy here.
              There is no need to cover up economic failures with an external threat. It is not the NATO headquarters that raises heating prices at times.

              Again, in case of dyslexic problems, does internal inflation cancel out an external threat? What does the price of heating have to do with it? Stabilization of prices for housing and communal services in Russia will automatically stop NATO expansion?
              1. Civil
                Civil April 13 2021 10: 16
                -7
                and without sarcasm and clown antics?

                The resources that we are already supplying to the West for electronic numbers. This is the most valuable thing in Russia. There is nothing else. Or will they come for millions of slaves? Will the beggar Voronezh rob? And yes, since we started talking about nuclear weapons. Any offensive is a nuclear war. So there is no need to wave ancient propaganda slogans here. Capitalism is both there. Only money is valuable. And for the Russian oligarchs and for the American ones.
                So all the same, this country is not biased in its actions? Doesn't it exert military-political pressure in its own interests?

                You open Wikipedia, read about imperialism. Everything is written there.
                would the presence of nuclear weapons save or not save him from death, and the people of Libya from a civil war ?.

                Of course yes, a great example of the DPRK. Such dictatorial regimes as the DPRK, Libya, Russia, Zimbabwe, in order to maintain their power, are simply obliged to have nuclear weapons for the impossibility of overthrowing. They are incapable of organizing democracy. An excellent example is Ukraine, which cannot organize its society for creative work without a tsar.
                Again, in case of dyslexic problems, does internal inflation cancel out an external threat?

                The presence of nuclear weapons turns all threats into television fairy tales. And no one believes it anymore. And already you can not write off the communal robbery on the conspiracies of the State Department.
                1. Ka-52
                  Ka-52 April 13 2021 10: 37
                  +5
                  The resources that we already supply to the West for electronic numbers. This is the most valuable thing in Russia. There is nothing else. Or will they come for millions of slaves? Will the beggar Voronezh rob?

                  it is demagoguery and verbiage. Is the question not clear to you? I ask again: why is NATO expanding, including more and more new members? Why are the main military targets of NATO on the territory of the Russian Federation? Why are the exercises in Europe conducted not with simple legends (like "a conditional adversary"), but specifically for the conflict with Russia? Why is Russia mentioned in the NATO Secretary General's statements solely as a potential enemy? What, not convenient questions?)
                  You open Wikipedia, read about imperialism. Everything is written there.

                  I don’t need links to Wikipedia and to hyperism. Can you answer the question yourself or is the language stuck in one place?
                  Of course yes, a great example of the DPRK. Such dictatorial regimes as the DPRK, Libya, Russia, Zimbabwe, in order to maintain their power, are simply obliged to have nuclear weapons for the impossibility of overthrowing.

                  Let's leave Zimbabwe alone. And what are the problems of Gaddafi's dictatorship? Was his people starving? Suffer from his dictatorship? Let's take a look at the social conditions of life in Libya under him and compare, for example, with democratic Jordan. What is it that Libya in general and Gaddafi in particular did that deserve a military invasion? Dare to blackmail France with oil supplies?
                  The presence of nuclear weapons turns all threats into television fairy tales. And no one believes it anymore.

                  do not turn around like in a frying pan. A specific question - will the social well-being of the citizens of the Russian Federation immediately force the Americans to abandon the positioning of Russia as an adversary?
                  And already you can not write off the communal robbery on the conspiracies of the State Department.

                  and where is it written off to the State Department? Link pzhl. to a serious source. Well, if you are not balabol of course lol
                  1. Civil
                    Civil April 13 2021 10: 57
                    -5
                    this is demagoguery and verbiage

                    Well, truthful you are ours, what is such a wonderful conclusion based on? DO YOU consider our leadership of the country and Vladimir Vladimirovich personally to be incompetent people incapable of convincingly telling the West about their intention to use weapons in the face of threats? And apply it in the event of an attack on the Russian Federation? What do you think are weaklings?
                    Why is Russia mentioned in the NATO Secretary General's statements solely as a potential enemy?

                    You never know what a neighbor calls me, not so long ago, with a slap in the face, he dropped him into a puddle. Now he gets drunk and you can hear how fire is at me. But he will not attack. Knowing my character. And I believe, Vladimir Vladimirovich, that he will kick the horns when necessary. And you don't have to go shouting that "NATO is coming now."
                    And what are the problems of Gaddafi's dictatorship? Was his people starving? Suffer from his dictatorship? Let's take a look at the social conditions of life in Libya under him and compare, for example, with democratic Jordan.

                    Read the answers carefully. Democracy is not suitable for all peoples. There are countries where they prefer to lick the boots of the owner. This is a matter of taste, not politics. For example, Iraq, no democracy will develop there. Saddam is needed there. Ukraine is the king. Russia too.
                    Will the social well-being of the citizens of the Russian Federation immediately force the Americans to abandon the positioning of Russia as an adversary?

                    This is not a reason to spread rot on its own population, under the pretext of some external threat.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. A.TOR
                    A.TOR April 13 2021 14: 08
                    0
                    why is NATO expanding to include more and more new members?

                    NATO does not expand itself - the countries themselves want to become its members, this, you know, is some kind of security guarantee.
                    Especially now...
                    1. Jaromir
                      Jaromir April 13 2021 15: 55
                      +7
                      Quote: A.TOR
                      countries themselves want to become its members

                      Countries or their authorities?
                      1. A.TOR
                        A.TOR April 13 2021 16: 22
                        +1
                        Let me answer the question with a question: does the posing of the problem of "the country or their power" work in relation to Russia?
                        If - "yes", then - yes, if "no" - then no.
                    2. Ka-52
                      Ka-52 April 14 2021 04: 18
                      +1
                      NATO does not expand itself - the countries themselves want to become its members, this, you know, is some kind of security guarantee.

                      which one and from whom? Whom does Hungary or Czechoslovakia want to defend against? When the US gave carte blanche for the "small victorious war" in South Ossetia, they did not understand the consequences? They understood perfectly well. They knew that Russia would intervene. Thus, the rising hysteria about "a small but proud country oppressed by an aggressive bear" now gives rise to manipulation of Georgia's admission to NATO. Do you even think about what you write? What is the security guarantee? This is a guarantee of participation in all US adventures, that's for sure. Although if you are a resident of these very countries, then perhaps not surprised
                    3. Aleksandr97
                      Aleksandr97 April 14 2021 16: 18
                      0
                      Quite by chance, among the leadership of the Baltic non-states, all of a sudden, like the devil, loyal citizens with US and Canadian passports crawl out of the snuffbox. And it is surprising that the decisions they make are consistent with US policy. After the breakaway from the USSR, they DIDN'T have a real choice! Decisions on joining NATO had already been made overseas. Nobody cares about the opinion of the people, they are nothing more than cannon fodder or a dish for a nuclear barbecue, as you like. Regarding security guarantees for NATO members, it makes sense to first recall Poland in 1939, and then look at Greece-Turkey relations!
    2. avib
      avib April 13 2021 09: 27
      0
      The common problem between China and Russia is that they are countries without allies - unlike the United States. And neither those nor those have any particular prospects.
      1. A.TOR
        A.TOR April 13 2021 14: 09
        +1
        China as a cultural phenomenon is self-sufficient, Russia is not
        China several. thousands of years, it was formed in completely different conditions. Russia, or rather, its culture, is a derivative of the Western European one.
        What is presented by many as a "thousand-year history of Russian culture" is essentially a "pre-medieval" archaic, which has nothing to do with modern requirements and needs.
        1. ammunition
          ammunition April 13 2021 20: 39
          +1
          Quote: A.TOR
          China as a cultural phenomenon is self-sufficient

          As cultured - Yes. And as a military-political global force - No.
          China is squeezed. And it is easily blocked from the resources it needs. Such is its geographical position.
          Such space and freedom (geographical), such a storehouse of resources and such inaccessibility of its position as the Anglo-Saxons (USA + British Empire), China and close no.
          ---------------------
          For China to begin to represent a global power, it needs (at least!) To include Japan, both Koreas, Taiwan, Vietnam and Burma among its loyal vassals and allies.
          1. A.TOR
            A.TOR April 14 2021 11: 35
            +1
            You quite correctly noted this, however, the issue of resources, as well as the way of their delivery, can be resolved at the expense of Russia.
            The presence of external markets for sale and access to them is another matter.
        2. DV tam 25
          DV tam 25 April 19 2021 16: 25
          +1
          You do not know anything about China, do not disgrace yourself. You do not know anything about Russia, do not disgrace yourself. China has never been self-sufficient. Russia has always been self-sufficient. Who are the many? What is "pre-medieval" archaic? You are disgraced.
  2. nikvic46
    nikvic46 April 13 2021 06: 22
    +1
    "Foreign policy is a reflection of domestic policy." "Folk music, folk words".
    1. Sofa batyr
      Sofa batyr April 13 2021 06: 31
      +7
      Quote: nikvic46
      "Foreign policy is a reflection of domestic policy." "Folk music, folk words".

      New of the season! No harp - take a tambourine!
    2. Andrei Nikolaevich
      Andrei Nikolaevich April 13 2021 07: 18
      +3
      So we are reaping the fruits of our “humane” policy in its “fraternal countries” and “fraternal peoples.” And the former “brothers” - arm themselves and shit back at us. Destruction of each other is the meaning of existence and survival of all living things, in nature, and politics is no exception.
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich April 13 2021 06: 57
    +1
    “By the end of 2020, the expenditures of the United States of GDP will amount to 3,87%, Greece - 2,58%, Great Britain - 2,43%, Romania and Estonia - 2,38% each, Latvia - 2,01%, Poland - 2,3%, Lithuania - 2,28%.

    .

    the more Russophobic country, the higher the costs.

    Greece is another case, Turkey needs to resist it
    Bulgaria - 1,93%, Germany - 1,57%, the Netherlands - 1,4% and Canada - 1,45%.

    The lowest costs relative to this indicator will remain in Italy and the Czech Republic (1,43% of GDP each), Hungary (1,33%), Slovenia (1,2%), Spain (1,16%) and Belgium (1,1%) "

    Than wiser a country and the more it thinks about howling well-being, the less and richer its citizens are.
    1. pytar
      pytar April 13 2021 09: 51
      +1
      the more Russophobic country, the higher the costs.

      Absolutely wrong opinion. In relation to Vost. Europe, the poll shows the following result:

      https://news.ru/russia/bolgary-okazalis-glavnymi-storonnikami-rossii-i-putina-v-mire/

      Bulgaria - 1,93%, Germany - 1,57%, the Netherlands - 1,4% and Canada - 1,45%, Italy and the Czech Republic (1,43% of GDP each), Hungary (1,33%), Slovenia ( 1,2%), Spain (1,16%) and Belgium (1,1%) "

      The percentage of military spending is determined not by the attitude towards Russia, but by the size of the GDP of the NATO countries. There is a minimum required expense for the aircraft. Below them, it is impossible to maintain the existence of the sun at all! Since, for example, Bulgaria's GDP is much lower than that of Germany, the percentage of BP turns out to be higher, but the very size of these expenses is small in physical terms. The principle of "reasonable sufficiency" is at work here.

      The smarter the country and the more it thinks about its well-being, the more they / military expenses / are less and richer than its citizens.

      According to your "logic" North Korea is an extremely unreasonable country! By the way, the ATS countries spent many times more on military expenditures than they do now. Obviously your hardening suffers from a lack of argumentation ...
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich April 13 2021 10: 03
        0
        Quote: pytar
        Absolutely wrong opinion.

        absolutely correct opinion.

        Once again, if it didn't come from the first:
        “At the end of 2020, the expenditures of the United States of GDP will amount to 3,87%, Greece - 2,58%, Great Britain - 2,43%, Romania and Estonia - 2,38% each, Latvia - 2,01%, Poland - 2,3%, Lithuania - 2,28% .:
        -these all countries are selective Russophobes and they have a high percentage of GDP for defense.

        This is confirmed by your card.
        Quote: pytar
        Since, for example, Bulgaria's GDP is significantly lower than that of Germany, the percentage of BP is higher,

        and how much then should be lower the Bulgarian defense interest is the same US percent- according to your oak logic.lol

        And it is more than twice as high.
        Quote: pytar
        According to your "logic" North Korea is an extremely unreasonable country!

        country where chronic hunger - must think about bread / rice
        Quote: pytar
        ... Obviously your hardening suffers from a lack of argumentation ...

        yours hardening dispenses with no arguments at all.
        1. pytar
          pytar April 13 2021 10: 35
          -1
          -these all countries are selective Russophobes and they have a high percentage of GDP for defense.

          Andrey, Greece is definitely not Russophobic. They have problems with Turkey, which is also in the lead in terms of the cost of the Armed Forces. SASCH and the UK have global interests around the world. And without Russophobia, they would have the same expenses for the Armed Forces. As for Poland, Baltic Rep. and Romania, there is Russophilia, but defense spending is most likely determined by the state in which their armed forces are located. It is not the best, with the exception of up to a certain level of Polish.
          and how much lower then the Bulgarian percentage for defense should be the same percentage for the United States, according to your oak logic

          This is your "logic" oak. The United States has a military presence throughout the world. The GDP is enormous, the expenditure is enormous.
          For tens of years, our expenditures on the Armed Forces were below the "living wage". The technique is so outdated that it is necessary to somehow repair and change it. If you haven't supported your car for a long time, at one point you will have to make more expenses on it, right?
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich April 13 2021 20: 38
            0
            Quote: pytar
            Greece is definitely not Russophobic. They have problems with Turkey

            it is agreed by me
            Quote: pytar
            ... SASCH and the UK have global interests around the world. AND without russophobia, their expenses for the aircraft would be the same.

            nonsense
            Quote: pytar
            As for Poland, Baltic Rep. and Romania, Russophilia is, but the expenditure on defense is most likely determined from the state in which their armed forces are located.

            no
            Quote: pytar
            This is your "logic" oak. The United States has a military presence throughout the world. The GDP is enormous, the expenditure is enormous.

            AND? according to your oak logic, the us% should have less bulgaria
        2. Foul skeptic
          Foul skeptic April 13 2021 14: 25
          +1
          the more Russophobic the country, the higher the costs
          The wiser a country and the more it thinks about howling well-being, the less and richer they are its citizens.
          all countries are selective Russophobes and they have a high percentage of GDP for defense

          Maybe, nevertheless, the share of military spending to GDP does not show "militancy" (and, moreover, "Russophobia"), but the degree of painlessness for the economy of covering military expenses?
          Maybe a monetary value of defense spending is better suited for such an analysis?
          Is Serbia a Russophobe or a Russophile, if its% of military spending to GDP is higher than that of the Poles and the Balts? Should Belarus be afraid if its% of military spending to GDP is higher than that of Japan? What about the well-being of citizens of African countries, where many% of military spending is less than one, like Switzerland? Well, in accordance with your theses.
          Why do you write country A into "militant fobes" in relation to country B, if A% of military spending is lower than that of B, and not vice versa?
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich April 13 2021 20: 47
            -1
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            Maybe, nevertheless, the share of military spending to GDP does not show "militancy" (and, moreover, "Russophobia"), but the degree of painlessness for the economy of covering military expenses?

            or maybe not?
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            Is Serbia a Russophobe or a Russophile, if its% of military spending to GDP is higher than that of the Poles and the Balts?

            it was about НАТО... Got it, didn't it?
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            Maybe a monetary value of defense spending is better suited for such an analysis?

            or maybe not?

            Okay, let's say $ 1. AND? This is enough for some, not for some.
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            ? What about the well-being of citizens of African countries, where many% of military spending is less than one

            they are more prosperous than their neighbors, who have more than 1%. And it doesn't get through?
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            Why do you write country A into "militant fobes" in relation to country B, if A% of military spending is lower than that of B, and not vice versa?

            1. by swing.

            2. A-allies "C", which is higher. And it didn't make it ...
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich April 14 2021 11: 22
                -1
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                Maybe not. That's why I use the subjunctive mood. A call to think. And not to make categorical statements.

                none of your business.

                What I think is right, then I write.
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                I'll give you one more idea, use it - real Russophobes can be calculated by the size of GDP, the smaller it is, the stronger the country is against Russia. How do you like it? Why, it all fits together, see for yourself by looking at the GDP of the NATO countries

                by myself , ..... (C) -here and have fun with their delirium-by ourselves
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                Yeah, and that is why you differentiate between "Russophobia" in Greece and Turkey, which are in the same block. With the same success one can say that Poland and the Balts are not building up their military service against Russia, but against Germany. Just in case, historical memory, so to speak.

                yes carry whatever delirium- so what?
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                No, it's definitely better here
                From it, the next step will be the ratio of costs in monetary terms to the number of people. And, lo and behold, the picture is transformed and it becomes extremely clear why, in percentage terms, the picture is as it is.

                picture ... what?
                what are you talking about?
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                Express your thoughts more clearly. To say what you wanted with this set of words?

                didn't get it? Read it again. Hundred times
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                Oh yeah. Sierra Leone and Ghana are certainly more prosperous than Morocco and Egypt, Bangladesh is more prosperous than China, and Mongolia is more prosperous than Russia. Continue to dig in.

                yes, of course: they have a greater percentage of their GDP for well-being than those neighbors from their GDP.

                dawned not?
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                "C" has a higher% than who? At "B"? But everything is exactly the opposite.

                than B: see US and Russia.
                Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                What is it that you don't think of, everything is awry ... Maybe because with the initially far-fetched "theory" it cannot be otherwise?

                everything is simpler: you have no brains to understand simple, clear facts.
                1. Foul skeptic
                  Foul skeptic April 14 2021 12: 03
                  +1
                  here and have fun with your delirium -sam

                  And how is it different from
                  the more Russophobic the country, the higher the costs

                  by the degree of delusion? Nothing. I have shown this to you by making an example similar in delirium. The only difference is that I understand their identity, but you apparently do not.
                  Yes, carry any nonsense, so what?

                  Are you deeply worried that you have infringed on your championship laurels? laughing Don't worry, you are the undisputed first place.
                  picture ... what?

                  Don't keep the thread of the conversation? I accept that the repetition of the word "picture" in the text did not add literary content to it, but to understand the meaning of what was written, this should not have been an obstacle. It's all bad, of course.
                  yes, of course: they have a greater percentage of their GDP for well-being than those neighbors from their GDP.
                  dawned not?

                  No need to deviate from your original postulate
                  the less (% of expenses - my note) and the richer are its citizens

                  This was said in the COMPARISON of countries, which means there was no abstract, "less is spent on defense in the country, it means more on something else in the country," but quite concrete "in this country, the citizens are richer than in that country, because in this country there is less reasonable government spends on defense. " And what was meant by comparison with other countries you yourself confirmed with these words:
                  they better off than neighborswith more than 1%.

                  tongue
                  than B: see US and Russia.

                  1) Do you have a block of two countries? It seems like no.
                  2) You thought my example with the countries of Africa and Switzerland was not correct, because you had to look at
                  neighbors.

                  So don't change your own principles, watch your neighbors. tongue
                  than B: see US and Russia.

                  I looked. And you? I even left you a link. What's with the%?
                  1. Olgovich
                    Olgovich April 14 2021 13: 09
                    -1
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    And how is it different from
                    the more Russophobic the country, the higher the costs

                    than any nonsense (yours here) - from the facts
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    ... I have shown this to you by making an example similar in delirium.

                    analogy only exists in your brains
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    Are you worried that you have infringed on your championship laurels? Don't worry, you are the undisputed first place.

                    you can never take it away
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    Don't keep the thread of the conversation? I accept that the repetition of the word "picture" in the text did not add literary content to it, but to understand the meaning of what was written, this should not have been an obstacle. It's all bad, of course.

                    I feel bad for you. AND?

                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    This was said in the COMPARISON of countries, which means there was no abstract, "less is spent on defense in the country, it means more on something else in the country," but quite concrete "in this country, the citizens are richer than in that country, because in this country there is less reasonable government spends on defense. "

                    not for you to tell me what I meant. It just didn't get to you.

                    And yes: "in this country, the citizens are richer than in that country, because in this country a reasonable government spends less on defense." since they receive a larger percentage of their GDP for well-being than those neighbors from their GDP.
                    dawned not?
                    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                    I looked. And you? I even left you a link. What's with the%?

                    share of defense spending in relation to the country's GDP
                    Russia - will be, respectively, in 2021 2,7%, in 2022 - 2,6%, in 2023 - 2,5%.

                    USA-above.
                    1. Foul skeptic
                      Foul skeptic April 14 2021 15: 05
                      +1
                      not for you to tell me what I meant. It just didn't get to you.

                      It doesn't reach you that the determining criterion for the% of defense spending will be ECONOMY, not "Russophobia."
                      You have conditionally 100 soldiers whom you feed, dress, put on shoes, heal, etc. Last year you had a nominal GDP of 1 banknotes, and this year 000 banknotes because of the conditional crisis. And you still need to feed, put on shoes, heal your 000 soldiers. Therefore, you spent the same conditional 800 banknotes in this year that this year. Nothing has changed with your military power, and even more so with your military claims in relation to other countries. And the% for defense has increased.
                      And yes: "in this country, citizens are richer than in thatbecause in this, a sensible government spends less on defense. " since they receive a larger percentage of their GDP for well-being than those neighbors from their GDP.

                      wassat
                      You will transfer your fantasies to mortal earth and see that this statement is NOT fulfilled. Because you, having written this, agree with what was written to you earlier
                      Sierra Leone and Ghana are certainly more prosperous than Morocco and Egypt, Bangladesh is more prosperous than China, and Mongolia is more prosperous than Russia.

                      which is NOT true
                      Sierra Leone / Morocco
                      % for defense 0,73 / 3,09
                      balance "for well-being" (%) 99,27 > 96,91
                      "prosperity" (GDP) per capita, USD 527,53 < 3204,1
                      And all because they have been trying to explain to you since yesterday that a larger percentage - a RELATIVE value - does not mean a larger ABSOLUTE value.
                      share of defense spending in relation to the country's GDP
                      Russia, respectively, in 2021 will be 2,7%, in 2022 - 2,6%, in 2023 - 2,5%.
                      USA-above.

                      laughing
                      This is called dividing the skin of an unkilled bear.
                      1) All that is known so far is that which was previously laid down for defense in 2021 - 3,113 trillion. rubles, in 2022 - 3,231, in 2023 - 3,257.
                      2) Nothing prevents you from changing this amount. As it was in 2019, when 2,914 trillion was forecasted in the budget. rubles, but in fact the budget was revised and 2,998 trillion rubles were allocated.
                      3) The share of hidden costs in the budget is growing, if in 2019 it was 16,9%, in 2020 - 18,2%, then in 2021 it is already 20,6%. It is forecasted for another 4,1 trillion. rub.
                      4) You do not know what the GDP will actually be in these years - this is a question for the future.
                      5) In fact, and not hypothetically, you can only look at the expenses already incurred. And they show that we spent more% of GDP on defense than even USA (I selected the word "even" because you are stubbornly trying to "ignore" other countries of the bloc, since then the difference is quite noticeable, and this does not fit into your absurd theory - everything is according to Hegel's principle - if the facts contradict my theory, so much the worse for the facts laughing ). When the future confirms the figures of 2,7-2,5%, then you can say the opposite.
                      6) And again I return to what has been said more than once - the change in the relative value is not directly related to the absolute value... Your% decreased from 3,88 to 2,5, and in money spending increased from 2,998 to 3,257 trillion. rub.
                      1. Olgovich
                        Olgovich April 14 2021 15: 48
                        -2
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You have conditionally 100 soldiers whom you feed, dress, put on shoes, heal, etc. Last year you had a nominal GDP of 1 banknotes, and this year 000 banknotes because of the conditional crisis. And you still need to feed, put on shoes, heal your 000 soldiers. Therefore, you spent the same conditional 800 banknotes in this year that this year. Nothing has changed with your military power, and even more so with your military claims in relation to other countries. A% for defense increased

                        nonsense, the soldier will become less, they will eat and be treated worse, the percentage will remain
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You will transfer your fantasies to mortal earth and see that this statement is NOT fulfilled. Because you, having written this, agree with what was written to you earlier
                        Sierra Leone and Ghana are certainly more prosperous than Morocco and Egypt, Bangladesh is more prosperous than China, and Mongolia is more prosperous than Russia.

                        which is NOT true

                        corresponds to: it didn't reach you for the third time that:
                        "In this country, the citizens are richer than in that country, because in this country a reasonable government spends less on defense." since they receive a larger percentage of their GDP for well-being than those neighbors from their GDP.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        In fact, and not hypothetically, you can only look at the expenses already incurred. And they show that we spent more% of GDP on defense than even the United States.

                        lying - the share of the budget of the Russian Ministry of Defense in the gross domestic product in 2019 - 2,9%,
                        “By the end of 2020, the expenditures of the United States of GDP will amount to 3,87%, Greece - 2,58%, Great Britain - 2,43%, Romania and Estonia - 2,38% each, Latvia - 2,01%, Poland - 2,3%, Lithuania - 2,28%.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        that you are stubbornly trying to "ignore" other countries of the bloc, because then the difference is quite noticeable, and this does not fit into your absurd theory -

                        fit absolutely, this percentage grows for them, but for us it falls
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        When the future confirms the figures of 2,7-2,5%, then you can say the opposite.

                        you can be silent even now - with your lies and rumors
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And again I return to what has been said more than once - the change in the relative value is not directly related to the absolute value. Your% has decreased from 3,88 to 2,5, and in money spending has increased from 2,998 to 3,257 trillion. rub.

                        and what can you buy with them? does not reach again?
                      2. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic April 14 2021 18: 04
                        +2
                        nonsense, the soldier will become less, they will eat and be treated worse, the percentage will remain

                        belay
                        Why will there be fewer soldiers when 100 soldiers are needed to ensure safety? And why will it be worse to feed them, if to ensure safety it is necessary that the soldier should not be carried by the wind? A comrade from Bulgaria justly wrote to you yesterday that there is always that minimum, beyond which the state will not cross, so as not to lose its defense capability. Moreover, the minimum is not in percent, but in real money. For Russia, for example, this is an amount of 1,4 trillion. rub. Less simply, it will not be possible to keep the current personnel in combat readiness.
                        Therefore, before accusing someone of excessive militarization, we would first look at the structure of the military spending of the countries you are accused of (and in dynamics). The structure of Russian spending (not classified):
                        50,6% - drug maintenance and maintenance of current combat readiness
                        35,1% - arms purchases
                        10,1% - R&D
                        4,2% - renovation
                        For the "accused", would you give a similar layout?
                        And also I recommend to consider the degree of "militarization" by considering the number of the Armed Forces in% of the working population of the country.
                        corresponds to:

                        The richer is the one with $ 527,53 or the one with $ 3204,1? No, it's even simpler - which is more - 527 or 3204? laughing
                        lying - the share of the budget of the Russian Ministry of Defense in the gross domestic product in 2019 is 2,9%,

                        Sincere advice, before throwing such accusations, it is better to remain silent and double-check yourself, preferably several times. Defense Ministry spending is only a fraction of military spending. Do you have the courage and decency to apologize? Or as always?
                        and what can you buy with them?

                        "At the end of 2020, the expenditures of the United States from will make 3,87%, Greece - 2,58%, Great Britain - 2,43%, Romania and Estonia - 2,38% each, Latvia - 2,01%, Poland - 2,3%, Lithuania - 2,28%.

                        Are you not confused by the imperfect form of the verb? Again, you pass forecasts as a fait accompli. There is no SIPRI report for the past year yet.
                        and what can you buy with them?

                        Uh-uh ... is it possible to buy something for 3 trillion rubles? Definitely you can. For example 2,5 trillion matchboxes.
                        request
                      3. Olgovich
                        Olgovich April 14 2021 20: 39
                        -2
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Why will there be fewer soldiers if 100 soldiers are needed to ensure security?

                        no money.

                        if you don't have enough money, you will eat less, and not as much as you need.

                        This is a famous experience
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Therefore, before accusing someone of excessive militarization, we would first look at the structure of the military spending of the countries you are accused of (and in dynamics). The structure of Russian spending (not classified):
                        50,6% - drug maintenance and maintenance of current combat readiness
                        35,1% - arms purchases
                        10,1% - R&D
                        4,2% - renovation
                        For the "accused", would you give a similar layout?
                        And also I recommend to consider the degree of "militarization" by considering the number of the Armed Forces in% of the working population of the country.

                        the accused INCREASE the percentage of GDP for defense - this is militarization and this is what the United States demands.

                        And shove your mindless layouts in there, yeah
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        I also recommend to consider the degree of "militarization"

                        and I recommend that you do not whip nonsense about the “degree of“ militarization. ”What is the degree, who is talking about it, your erome? fool
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Sincere advice, before throwing such accusations, it is better to remain silent and double-check yourself, preferably several times. Defense Ministry spending is only a fraction of military spending. Do you have the courage and decency to apologize? Or as always?

                        send is enough.
                        % Of GDP given-and it was about him... your wiggling boogers are not interesting
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Is it possible to conclude on the basis of these facts that the unfriendly nature of the determining criterion in the percentage of defense spending from GDP is impossible?

                        it is possible and should: the degree of Russophobia is growing, and the percentage of GDP for defense among these Russophobes is also growing:it's just a fact.

                        PS WHAT do you want? WHAT do you achieve by clinging to and clinging to my words and comments?

                        You have never proven anything, and you will never prove anything.
                      4. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic April 15 2021 11: 53
                        +2
                        [quote] no money.
                        if you don't have enough money, you will eat less, and not as much as you need.
                        This is a well-known experience [/ quote]
                        No, this means that it is not the army that will eat less, but the civilians will eat less. And this is a well-known experience. Armenia is a good example. The poorest country in its region, where final household consumption has fallen from 2014% to 88,5% of GDP since 77,3, increased its defense spending from GDP from 4 to 5% (the highest in the region). Because he perfectly understands how important the armed forces are to the country. Or during the Second World War - food became less, and consumption rates decreased for the civilian population, and not for the military. Even the Far East who stood the whole war ate many times better than the civilians, because everyone understood perfectly well that not today or tomorrow the situation could turn so that they had to go into battle, and therefore they needed strength. The story itself does not agree with you. And, moreover, it is not necessary to simplify and reduce everything to nutrition. Modern aircraft are technology. And you still need to service the existing one so as not to turn it into scrap metal.
                        [quote] the USA requires it [/ quote]
                        No, no, wait - according to your "theory" the costs are increasing, because "Russophobes" ... And then it turns out - the United States is demanding. wassat
                        Tell me, since the beginning of the 21st century and until 2014, the Poles and Balts were "Russophiles", well, since the% has decreased? laughing tongue
                        [Quote] about the "degree of" militarization ". What, in u, degree, who is talking about it, you erome? [/ quote]
                        Really? winked
                        That is, in the chain of comments above, you are comparing the% for the defense of different countries, here, for example, is only one of these comments:
                        [quote] selected Russophobes and they have high percentage of GDP for defense[/ Quote]
                        And then you yourself explain what this% for defense means
                        [quote] INCREASE percent of GDP for defense is militarization[/ Quote]
                        Cheerful you are a man
                        tongue
                        [Quote]% of GDP is given, and it was about him. your boogers are not interesting [/ quote]
                        Not. It was about
                        [quote] percentage GDP for defense[/ Quote]
                        instead of which you thoughtlessly slapped only the expenses of the MO.
                        My 3,88% are confirmed that SIPRI, that the knoema database (even a link was given to you), that the mass of conventional media. Here is an article for you on RIA, where 3,88% of total expenses (rounded to tenths in the article) appears in ONE text and with only MO expenses.
                        [quote] ... In 2019, Russian military spending increased by 4,5% and amounted to $ 65,1 billion. Experts point out that military spending amounted to 3,9% of GDP, this is one of the highest rates in Europe .... [
                        Share budget Ministry of Defense of Russia in gross domestic product in 2019 - 2,9%... / quote]
                        [quote] https://ria.ru/20210128/oboronka-1594973029.html [/ quote]
                        So, is there not enough courage and decency to apologize?
                        [Quote] the degree of Russophobia is growing, and the percentage of GDP for defense among these Russophobes is also growing [/ quote]
                        Why this percentage increased last year is written to you in the very article of Korchagin, which you have not read. You just grabbed the stub of one of the paragraphs of this article given on VO, which completely sounds like this:
                        [quote] At the end of 2020, the expenditures of the United States from the level of GDP will amount to 3,87%, Greece - 2,58, Great Britain - 2,43, Romania and Estonia - 2,38 each, Latvia - 2,01, Poland - 2,3, 2,28, Lithuania - 2,1% France's military budget will exceed 2,03% of GDP. This is followed by Norway - 1,93%, Bulgaria - 1,9% and Turkey - 1,57%, Germany - 1,4%, the Netherlands - 1,45% and Canada - XNUMX%
                        The lowest costs relative to this indicator will remain in Italy and the Czech Republic (1,43% of GDP each), Hungary (1,33%), Slovenia (1,2%), Spain (1,16%) and Belgium (1,1%) ...
                        NATO members will spend an average of 2020% of GDP on defense in 2,85, according to NATO's annual report. The improvement in indicators is explained by the fact that in most countries, due to the COVID-2019 pandemic, economic indicators have decreased, and this has led to a decrease in gross domestic product.[/ Quote]
                        The reason is ECONOMY, not "Russophobia"
                        [quote] You have never proven anything and you will never prove anything [/ quote]
                        Found something to be proud of laughing
                        I don’t count on it after our dialogue about the dispersion ellipse of aircraft cannons. It was the Rubicon lol
                      5. Olgovich
                        Olgovich April 15 2021 13: 24
                        -3
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        No, this means that it is not the army that will eat less, but the civilians will eat less.

                        you will eat less, for a salary
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Or the period of the Second World War

                        now is not the Second World War
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        No, no, wait - according to your "theory" the costs are increasing, because "Russophobes" ... And then it turns out - the United States is demanding.

                        and those fobes and those.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Tell me, since the beginning of the 21st century and until 2014, the Poles and Balts were "Russophiles", well, since the% has decreased?

                        fobs, but now they are furious.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Cheerful you are a man

                        you are a poorly understood person
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        The share of the budget of the Russian Ministry of Defense in the gross domestic product in 2019 is 2,9% ... / quote]
                        https://ria.ru/20210128/oboronka-1594973029.html

                        So, is there not enough courage and decency to apologize?

                        In accordance with the Law on the Federal Budget for 2020, allocations for the "National Defense" section will amount to 3 million rubles ( 2,4% of GDP; $ 48,9 billion),
                        In 2019, $ 716 billion was allocated for the military needs of the United States (3,1% of GDP).

                        enough: I'm sending
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        NATO members will spend an average of 2020% of GDP on defense in 2,85, according to NATO's annual report. Improving performance

                        the percentage has been growing since 2014 - too ... a pandemic? fool
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Found something to be proud of

                        statement of fact - what "pride?"

                        Who are you, Nobody?
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Found something to be proud of
                        I don’t count on it after our dialogue about the dispersion ellipse of aircraft cannons. It was the Rubicon

                        well you are obdl, yes lol
                      6. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic April 15 2021 15: 11
                        +2
                        you will eat less, for a salary

                        How do you confirm that the state, if it has to save, tries to do it not for the army, but for the civilian sector.
                        now is not the Second World War

                        Really? How astute you are. Naturally, now is not the Second World War. But the example, like the example with Armenia, shows that the state, if it has to save money, tries to do it not with the army, but with the civilian sector.
                        and those fobes and those

                        On health, and those fobes, and these fobes, in general, all fobes are all around. But at the same time it turned out that your theory about the dominant influence of phobia on the% of spending was refuted by you, who admitted that it was increased according to the requirements of the United States.
                        fobs, but

                        Then it goes against your theory. Since they are fobs, regardless of whether the% of spending on defense rises or falls, it cannot be argued that someone is a fob on the basis of an increase in spending, since he can be a fob even if they decrease. According to your own words. So your theory, well, this is recourse
                        In accordance with the Law on the Federal Budget for 2020, allocations for the National Defense section will amount to RUB 3 million (056% of GDP; $ 223,9 billion)
                        In 2019, the US military allocated $ 716 billion (3,1% of GDP)

                        Do you understand that this data is from an article from December 2019? This is FORECAST. During the year, the budget is a) recalculated b) redistributed. Therefore, one should look not at forecasts, but at the actual results of the year. And they are such that instead of 3,056 trillion. rubles spent on defense 3,168 trillion. rub. And GDP fell by 3,1% to 106,607 trillion. rub. That is, in fact, at the end of the year, we received 3% of GDP for defense, and not 2,4% predicted.
                        In the United States in 2019, $ 716 billion and 3,1% - ALSO the forecast. In fact, in 2019 it turned out to be 731 billion and 3,41%.
                        And then you, in your repertoire, compare Russia in 2020 with the USA in 2019. You have already been told by 2019: Russia - 3,88%, the United States - 3,41%.
                        the percentage has been growing since 2014 - too ... a pandemic?

                        This paragraph explains the actual increase in comparison with the forecast for a particular year in relation to the numbers that were used in the article on VO and which you operate in your "theory".
                        Growth since 2014 is not a pandemic, no, your irony missed the mark.
                        The growth since 2014 is a consequence of the decisions of the NATO summit in Bucharest, and the reason for this summit is the seizure of Crimea. Here's a starting point.
                        And in the article by Korchagin, which you have not read, it says about it.
                        The situation began to change after the events of 2014 in Ukraine.

                        well you

                        Yes, yes, but do not remind me when? Maybe when you were shown a scan from a manual for pilots, where it was written in white about the dispersion ellipse of aircraft cannons in Russian?
                        lol tongue
                      7. Olgovich
                        Olgovich April 15 2021 19: 28
                        -3
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        How do you confirm that the state, if it has to save, tries to do it not for the army, but for the civilian sector.

                        I confirm that you will eat less - not according to need, but according to income
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Really? How astute you are. Naturally, now is not the Second World War. But the example, like the example with Armenia, shows that the state, if it has to save money, tries to do it not with the army, but with the civilian sector.

                        shows nothing - now is not war
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        On health, and those fobes, and these fobes, in general, all fobes are all around. But at the same time it turned out that your theory about the dominant influence of phobia on the% of spending was refuted by you, who admitted that it was increased according to the requirements of the United States.

                        at the request of the USA in -according to your phobia-or someone objected? No? So put your "logic" in there, yeah ...
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Then it goes against your theory. Since they are fobs, regardless of whether the% of spending on defense rises or falls, it cannot be argued that someone is a fob on the basis of an increase in spending, since he can be a fob even if they decrease. According to your own words. So your theory, well, this is

                        stupid "logic": hack on the forehead, the more Russophobic NATO country, the higher the% of GDP for defense.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Do you understand that this data is from an article from December 2019? This is FORECAST. During the year, the budget is a) recalculated b) redistributed. Therefore, one should look not at forecasts, but at the actual results of the year. And they are such that instead of 3,056 trillion. rubles spent on defense 3,168 trillion. rub. And GDP fell by 3,1% to 106,607 trillion. rub. That is, in fact, at the end of the year, we received 3% of GDP for defense, and not 2,4% predicted.
                        In the United States in 2019, $ 716 billion and 3,1% - ALSO the forecast. In fact, in 2019 it turned out to be 731 billion and 3,41%.
                        And then you, in your repertoire, compare Russia in 2020 with the USA in 2019. You have already been told by 2019: Russia - 3,88%, USA - 3,41%.

                        you, too, are told, shove your "experts" in the y.

                        The figure is correct above, and for the US it is higher.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Growth since 2014 is not a pandemic, no, your irony missed the mark.

                        you your delirium Set
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Growth since 2014 is a consequence of the decisions of the NATO summit in Bucharest, and the reason for this summit is capture Crimea. Here's a starting point.

                        Crimea NOBODY seized hack it down on your narrow forehead.

                        The starting point is the coup of the West in Ukraine.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic

                        Yes, yes, but do not remind me when? Maybe when you were shown a scan from a manual for pilots, where it was written in white about the dispersion ellipse of aircraft cannons in Russian?

                        Let me remind you: that's when you got used to it.

                        but as always. yes
                      8. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic April 16 2021 16: 10
                        +1
                        I confirm that you will eat less - not according to need, but according to income

                        Of course, I will "eat" less, since I am in the civilian sector, so my "ration" will decrease, but will remain in the military sector. Everything is in full accordance with my words. tongue
                        In Russia, in 2020, for example, in order not to cut the rations for the national defense, when it turned out that revenues had decreased, they cut the rations for housing and communal services, for which the budget was reduced, from memory, to 82% of the planned.
                        shows nothing - now is not war

                        Shows, shows, I certainly understand that you agree with this, like a sickle to ... Although it is unlikely that a person who does not have the courage to apologize for unfounded accusations of lies is unlikely.
                        at the request of the United States in accordance with its phobia, or did someone objected? No?

                        1) Objected in what? Implemented by cost share arrangements? And on what basis? Are they special?
                        2) And Norway, France, Romania and Greece are also obtained in accordance with Russophobia or following the decisions of the summit (in your words, at the request of the United States)? laughing
                        What is it, some Russophobes around repeat
                        the more Russophobic NATO country, the higher the% of GDP for defense.

                        1) Why not the one that increased its actual spending on defense by a larger percentage?
                        2) Why claims against the country-subject of "Russophobia", which has less% of GDP for defense than the country-subject of "Russophobia"?
                        you, too, are told, shove your "experts" in the y.

                        Yes, you are the only one, D'Artagnan laughing
                        The figure is correct above, and for the US it is higher.

                        1) Is 3,41 more than 3,88?
                        2) Why only the United States appears in your country? What about other countries? BUT? Come on, don't hesitate.
                        Crimea NOBODY has captured hack it down on your narrow forehead

                        And what is the name of the blocking by the armed forces of one state of the administrative and military facilities of another state? Don't like the word "capture"? Okay, let it be "annexation under the guise of secession"
                        The starting point is the coup of the West in Ukraine.

                        belay
                        Yeah, that is, the "West" began to increase its defense spending in response to its own coup? wassat Do you use illegal substances?
                        Let me remind you: that's when you

                        No, it was you then who showed that you do not understand even elementary things and at the same time are so incapable of perceiving information (one of the signs of mental limitation) that you are not able to admit your mistakes. And, from that moment, your value as a member of any discussion with your participation in this forum has become zero.
                      9. Olgovich
                        Olgovich April 16 2021 20: 13
                        -2
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And what is the name of the blocking by the armed forces of one state administrative and military facilities of another state? Don't like the word "capture"? Okay let it be "annexation under the guise of secession "

                        showed their Russophobic muro. Fuuuuu!

                        It is called, hack to death on your narrow-flattened, - Reunification of Crimea with Russia.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        No, it was you then who showed that you do not understand even basic things and at the same time are so incapable of perceiving information (one of the signs of mental limitation) that you are not able to admit your mistakes

                        no, it was you who showed that you do not understand even basic things and at the same time are so incapable of perceiving information (one of the signs of mental disability) that you are not able to admit your mistakes
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And, from now on, your value as panelist with your participation in this forum has become zero.

                        reasoning ZERO..

                        Who are you, Nobody, a member of the debate to give assessments?

                        No one. So do not get out of this concept with them - they are not needed by anyone and are not interesting. When will it come?

                        PS the correct numbers are given ABOVE. Didn't you get it the third time?

                        PS Member, discussions - you do not notice that it is YOU all time imposed and all you climb and climb, with your useless boring bast shoes brain curse-"discussions"? Look.

                        You are not interesting to me and I do not need you.

                        Tired of and.
                      10. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic April 19 2021 12: 11
                        0
                        showed, after all, their Russophobic dull. Fuuuuuu!

                        laughing You are funny.
                        Your posts contain less and less meaningful information. Therefore, we have to repeat the questions:
                        1) Objected in what? Implemented by cost share arrangements? And on what basis? Are they special?
                        2) And Norway, France, Romania and Greece are also obtained in accordance with Russophobia or following the decisions of the summit (in your words, at the request of the United States)?
                        3) Why not the one that increased its actual spending on defense by a larger percentage?
                        4) Why claims against the country-subject of "Russophobia", which has less% of GDP for defense than the country-subject of "Russophobia"?
                        5) Is 3,41 more than 3,88?
                        6) Why only the United States appears in your country? What about other countries?
                        7) What is the name of the blocking by the armed forces of one state of the administrative and military facilities of another state?
                        8) Which is more - 527 or 3204?
                        9) Do you have a block of two countries?
                        10) Are you not confused by the imperfect form of the verb?
                        11) I even left you a link. What's with the%?
                        the correct numbers are given ABOVE

                        Well yes. By me laughing
                        YOU impose yourself all the time

                        It's not my fault that you are constantly gushing with such "theories". How can you pass by. laughing Wouldn't write nonsense, I wouldn't notice you. It's simple.
                      11. Olgovich
                        Olgovich April 19 2021 14: 15
                        -2
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        You are funny.
                        Your posts contain less and less meaningful information. Therefore, we have to repeat the questions:
                        1) Objected in what? Implemented by cost share arrangements? And on what basis? Are they special?
                        2) And Norway, France, Romania and Greece are also obtained in accordance with Russophobia or following the decisions of the summit (in your words, at the request of the United States)?
                        3) Why not the one that increased its actual spending on defense by a larger percentage?
                        4) Why claims against the country-subject of "Russophobia", which has less% of GDP for defense than the country-subject of "Russophobia"?
                        5) Is 3,41 more than 3,88?
                        6) Why only the United States appears in your country? What about other countries?
                        7) What is the name of the blocking by the armed forces of one state of the administrative and military facilities of another state?
                        8) Which is more - 527 or 3204?
                        9) Do you have a block of two countries?
                        10) Are you not confused by the imperfect form of the verb?
                        11) I even left you a link. What's with the%?

                        you are ignorant-free.

                        The CORRECT numbers are mine. Everything has been explained already THREE times
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        It's not my fault that you are constantly gushing with such "theories". How can you pass by. Wouldn't write nonsense I would not notice youl. It's simple.

                        yes, I do not see either you or your mockery at all: ay! where are you?

                        Not to see an ignorant Russophobe ...

                        Free, yes.

                        And memorize the main thing: Crimea is Russia.
                      12. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic April 19 2021 14: 27
                        0
                        The CORRECT numbers are mine.

                        Oh yes, what could be inside your consciousness a generally unplowed field for specialists to understand)))
                        Crimea is Russia

                        And the sky is blue and the water is wet laughing
                        Naturally, since 2014, Crimea has become part of the Russian Federation and is so at the present time. Have you decided to report known things? Better give answers to questions:
                        1) Objected in what? Implemented by cost share arrangements? And on what basis? Are they special?
                        2) And Norway, France, Romania and Greece are also obtained in accordance with Russophobia or following the decisions of the summit (in your words, at the request of the United States)?
                        3) Why not the one that increased its actual spending on defense by a larger percentage?
                        4) Why claims against the country-subject of "Russophobia", which has less% of GDP for defense than the country-subject of "Russophobia"?
                        5) Is 3,41 more than 3,88?
                        6) Why only the United States appears in your country? What about other countries?
                        7) What is the name of the blocking by the armed forces of one state of the administrative and military facilities of another state?
                        8) Which is more - 527 or 3204?
                        9) Do you have a block of two countries?
                        10) Are you not confused by the imperfect form of the verb?
                        11) I even left you a link. What's with the%?
                        12) "The West" began to increase its defense spending in response to its own coup?
                      13. Olgovich
                        Olgovich April 19 2021 14: 56
                        -2
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Oh yes, what could be inside your consciousness a generally unplowed field for specialists to understand)))

                        no specialists will help you already
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        And the sky is blue and the water is wet
                        Naturally, since 2014, Crimea has become a part of the Russian Federation and is so at the present time. Have you decided to report known things?

                        in your opinion he was captured by Russia, a liar.
                        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
                        Better give answers to questions:

                        What is better is not for you to decide, Nobody.

                        ALL already answered three times.

                        Didn't get it? Your problems.

                        To freedom! yes
                      14. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic April 19 2021 15: 57
                        0
                        in your opinion it is captured by Russia

                        Why "in my opinion"? I didn’t come up with the terms "annexation" and "secession".
                        You see what your trouble is ... you will not be able to play the card "oh, how bad he is - he has taken Crimea from him." In such cases, they do not operate with the concepts of good or bad, but only expedient or impractical. Leave the kindergarten to others. tongue
                        ALL already answered three times

                        You have NOT answered any of the 12 questions above, let alone three. Indicate where you previously answered them. Just copy the text in the answer. You can not? Because there are no answers. tongue
                      15. pytar
                        pytar April 19 2021 17: 33
                        -1
                        Timur, you have incredible patience! Respect to you! hi
                        Unfortunately, there is such a weight: "You can't show a blind person, you can't tell a deaf person, (I follow the site rules) you can't prove it ..." laughing
                      16. Foul skeptic
                        Foul skeptic April 19 2021 17: 52
                        -1
                        Good day, Boyan. Well, why should I be nervous ...)) There is no reason.
                        Comrade Olgovich and I have had a long-standing relationship. I will not say that it is productive, usually everything happens in a similar vein.
                      17. Olgovich
                        Olgovich April 19 2021 20: 18
                        -1
                        Quote: pytar
                        Timur, you have incredible patience! Respect to you!
                        Unfortunately, there is such a weight: "You cannot show to a blind, you cannot tell a deaf, (here I follow the rules of the site) you can't prove it ...

                        Yes, You- you can't prove it ... lol

                        that's why we shut up, yeah ...
  • Foul skeptic
    Foul skeptic April 14 2021 15: 35
    0
    from the facts

    the question is not to the facts, but to the CONCLUSIONS from the facts.
    1) Poland and the Baltic states consider Russia a threat - a fact.
    2) The policy of Poland and the Baltic states is unfriendly - a fact.
    3) The share of defense spending in GDP in a particular year in Poland is 2,3%, Estonia - 2,38%, Latvia - 2,01%, Lithuania - 2,28% - fact.
    And they are not arguing with this.
    4) Is it possible to conclude on the basis of these facts that the unfriendly nature of the determining criterion in the percentage of defense spending from GDP is impossible.
  • parusnik
    parusnik April 13 2021 07: 20
    +1
    The point is in the redistribution of the world.
    No need to rush with words, who divides what? Who wants to take what from whom? If at the beginning of the 20th century there were still national corporations, then after WWI there were TNCs, they rule the world, and not the United States with NATO, NATO is only a weapon in their hands of TNCs. You still cannot understand that the enemy of humanity is capitalism. You are not believe me, the capitalist has no patriotism, he only has interests, and even the Russian one.
  • Keyser soze
    Keyser soze April 13 2021 07: 21
    +2
    I read the article a second time. Again I did not understand anything. It is clear that NATO is bad, white and fluffy and that they should be feared, because they do not want to spend even 2% of GDP on armaments, and the confrontation will be long.

    This is from the category "two crows flew, and the second especially" ....
    1. pytar
      pytar April 13 2021 10: 05
      0
      I read the article a second time. Again I did not understand anything. It is clear that NATO is bad, white and fluffy and that they should be feared, because they do not want to spend even 2% of GDP on armaments, and the confrontation will be long.

      What the author wanted to say is not clear! Countries East. Europe, visiting the police station and spent many times more on military purposes than now. As an example, Bulgaria spent about 12% of its GDP in the Internal Affairs Directorate, now less than 2%. It does not seem that the country NATO is going to attack the Russian Federation.
      The general informational background created by rus-media looks strange. One side is constantly blowing "the enemy is at the borders, NATO is about to attack", and on the other hand, there are abundant materials showing the degradation and decrease in the combat capability of the armed forces of the NATO countries.
  • Dimy4
    Dimy4 April 13 2021 07: 52
    +1
    older brother is the United States.

    It would be more correct, in my opinion, to call the United States a suzerain, since everyone else is not brothers or sisters for them, but vassals.
    1. Asad
      Asad April 13 2021 09: 42
      +4
      And in the days of the USSR, the countries participating in the Warsaw Pact, who were you in your opinion?
  • Maks1995
    Maks1995 April 13 2021 08: 51
    -2
    Everything is correct. White and toothed. And if you change the names of the countries Europe to the Russian Federation, then nothing will change
  • tihonmarine
    tihonmarine April 13 2021 08: 56
    +3
    And now the question arises as to why a white and fluffy Europe is building up its muscles so much?

    The same questions arise, why did Europe build up its muscles before WWII and also before WWII, and the Patriotic War of 1812 must also not be forgotten. Muscle building always leads to war. And against whom this "muscle building" is going in Russia, everyone knows, except for Russophobes.
  • Petrik66
    Petrik66 April 13 2021 09: 59
    0
    Stalin asked: "How many divisions does the Pope have?" Either Laval, or Churchill, or he said, or not, but this does not change the meaning. Do you want to be listened to, you want to defend your economic interests, be ready to send your troops where they are being infringed upon. Remember China in Libya, wiped off and quickly hit the road from there, lost face and money. The Yankes very clearly showed - Who is in charge in the forest. Europeans so far only unfasten the roofs to the states, but the understanding that no one is going to reckon with them at all (Germany first of all) comes.
  • A. Privalov
    A. Privalov April 13 2021 15: 47
    +3
    Looking at the figures given in the article, we see a very incomplete picture.
    For example, we read in the article:
    At the end of 2020, the expenditures of the United States from the level of GDP will amount to 3,87%, ..., Great Britain - 2,43%, ...

    Horror, but the purest truth!
    However, looking at the more complete data, you can see something else and draw some completely unexpected conclusions.

    Before us is military spending by countries of the world - a plate on which materials from the Stockholm Institute for Peace Research (The office is well-known, quite decent. The figures are trustworthy, the data for 2019 are given. In 2020, there were no dramatic changes.)

    What we see: from 2010 to 2019, US military spending decreased by 15% !
    Great Britain's spending fell by the same amount.
    The costs of Italy, Spain, Greece (-23%) and Belgium (-7,3) fell, they are not visible on the table, since I gave only the TOP-20, while Greece is in 34th place and Belgium is in 39th place.

    At the same time, during the same period, military spending, say, Russia grew by 30% just like Israel's always at war. lol And the share of the GDP of these countries (%) is clearly lower than the Russian one.
    The costs of a number of countries have increased even more, but for most of them, this is in no way connected with their Russophobia, NATO membership, or any other hostility to the Russian Federation.

    What does the author want to convince us of? Is it better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick? Who would argue!
    The worst and most useless government spending is military spending.
    But here, there are nuances ...
    Yes, tanks, missiles and planes are neither to eat, nor to put on, nor to smear on bread. The cost is high, a lot of raw materials are consumed, the workers have been paid for them, and all this disgrace needs to be stored and serviced ... This is from the point of view of the state budget.
    But even without weapons, this world is lousy. In a moment they will bite off, devour and do not blink an eye. The precedents are known. hi
  • lopvlad
    lopvlad April 13 2021 22: 07
    +2
    Therefore, with the appearance of the perfect harmlessness of Europe


    Well, this semblance of harmlessness, if it exists, is only for the USE generation.
    We lost more than 26.6 million people from the actions of harmless Europe in the Second World War.
  • Graduate student
    Graduate student April 18 2021 23: 03
    +11
    If you ask now about the countries that, in order to solve their own problems, can not hesitate to use military force, bypassing international treaties and decisions of the UN Security Council, then the majority will name Israel, the United States, possibly Russia.

    The United States almost always acts bypassing the UN. But how is Russia on this list?