NATO splits over defense spending increase

11
NATO splits over defense spending increase

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that a number of countries in the alliance oppose an increase in the ceiling on defense contributions. Currently, it is 2% of the GDP of each of the countries of the Alliance.

In an interview with the German news agency DPA, Stoltenberg did not name the countries opposed to the increase in dues, but it is assumed that they are the UK, Poland and Lithuania.



The authorities of Germany, Canada and Belgium oppose this idea. The defense spending of these countries in the NATO format is less than 2% of GDP. For example, Germany spent no more than 2022% on defense in 1,44.

According to the agreement concluded in 2014, the target amount of defense spending in the amount of 2% of the GDP of a NATO member country is not mandatory. The bloc expects to conclude an agreement on a new mandatory contribution at the next NATO summit, which is scheduled to be held in July 2023 in Vilnius.

Under pressure from the United States, the NATO leadership continues to actively pursue a policy aimed at increasing defense spending. Washington insists on the need for a more even distribution of financial spending against the backdrop of confrontation between Moscow and Beijing.

At present, about 70% of the financing of the military component of the NATO bloc comes from the United States, in connection with which Washington insists on increasing the level of military spending of the alliance member countries to 2% of the national GDP.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

11 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -1
    January 3 2023
    Unity in the NATO bloc is maintained only at the expense of an uncle with a whip, if not for him, this bloc will crumble the next day ...
    1. 0
      January 3 2023
      Yes, they always tinder among themselves about 2% of GDP .... but now it’s not at all up to it! degreasing Europe with mattresses.
      1. 0
        January 3 2023
        Washington insists on increasing the level of military spending of the alliance member countries to 2% of the national GDP.

        Of course, it is necessary to load the US military-industrial complex with military orders to the fullest !!!
    2. +1
      January 3 2023
      Quote: Tartar 174
      Unity in the NATO bloc is maintained only at the expense of an uncle with a whip, if not for him, this bloc will crumble the next day ...

      Well said ..!!
      And we are in Russia, as usual. Another backbone on the account !!

      And our boys too And the devils are not our brothers ..
      Here they are guys, ready .. soldier
    3. 0
      January 4 2023
      The unity of the NATO bloc is supported by Nabiulina and Siluanov. They help to plunder Russia, and for robbery, forceful support is also needed.
  2. 0
    January 3 2023
    If in European countries there would be at least one head of state of the caliber of, for example, De Gaulle, then they could quite elegantly roll mattresses. Well, for example - Germany is not opposed to allocating more than 2% for defense, provided that these 2% go to contracts with German arms manufacturers ... And the mattresses would instantly howl, as if they were being cut with a rusty shovel without anesthesia)
    1. 0
      January 3 2023
      Quote from Bingo
      If in European countries there would be at least one head of state of the caliber of, for example, De Gaulle

      We must look at them as a pack of predators. In any pack of predators, usually the most powerful predator poisons the second most powerful predator. In the situation, the United States castrated itself by destroying its leader, it turned out that Germany turned out to be the most powerful predator in the Western Hemisphere. And the second most powerful was England, and England knew that Germany would soon begin to eat it, because there was no other way. Tony Blair did everything not to be devoured, he immediately brought the UK into the EU. You can fight with someone only by giving a distinctive characteristic to your people in relation to those whom you are going to eat. England was out of the EU and under threat. Tony Blair removed this threat by adding Britain to the EU. If Germany tried to do something bad to England at that moment, she simply could not explain it to all other countries. In this sense, the UK was very lucky, again they had good leadership at that moment.
  3. 0
    January 3 2023
    since the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, they have relaxed ... we could have been robbed without an army ... they are used to low costs ... realities are changing BUT many are not just not ready to pay more ... there is no money ... budgets and so subsidized ...
  4. +1
    January 3 2023
    It is easy to increase the printing of money for defense ... but REALLY accelerate and increase the production of the necessary range of weapons in order to somehow resist Russia - they need no less for this decade!
  5. +2
    January 3 2023
    NATO splits over defense spending increase
    . Who gets the most benefits from the fact that everyone's spending on weapons is growing??? There is no need to guess, minke whales and their military-industrial complex!
  6. 0
    January 3 2023
    Worthless news, they decide how much to increase spending by 50% or 100%. Someone says that the printing press will break, and someone says nothing, we will make a new one if the old one fails.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"