Josh Marshall provides a nice discussion of the difference between how NATO is funded versus how much each of its members spends on national defense, which begins with:
As we move toward the NATO Summit and the Putin-Trump summit, I thought it made sense to review some of the details behind the President’s demands that NATO member countries pay up and stop doing what he regards as freeloading on the US taxpayer dime. Most people have a general sense that Trump doesn’t seem to grasp how an alliance works, that it’s not meant to function as a protection racket. But the actual details are both sillier and more significant than it may seem on the surface.
While I applaud his discussion, something is amiss here:
The vastly greater amount is the combined military budgets of all the member countries combined, which was $921 billion in 2017. The great majority of that is made up of the US military budget. In 2017 the US military budget was $610 billion. The coming fiscal year puts it at $700 billion. (That big run-up is significant and we’ll return to it.) Some of that difference is driven by the fact that the US economy is far larger than any individual NATO member state. But the US also spends much more on a per capita basis. Staying with the 2017 numbers, the US spends 3.61% of GDP on defense. The next major NATO member is the UK down at 2.36% while most other major NATO powers are significantly under 2%. (Examples: France, 1.79%; Germany, 1.2% Canada, 1.02%)
Actually, U.S. national defense spending was over $744 billion in 2017, which came to 3.8% according to this source. Call me a pacifist but maybe we should all be spending less on the ability to wage war.
This is one of his more bizarre bugaboos. The purpose of NATO is essentially to contain the aggressors of world war two and to control Russian westward expansionist tendencies.
Germany and Japan give no indication of being problems at this point, which means the only reason it exists is to control Putin. Trump loves Putin and hates NATO, and his only rationale for hating NATO is it doesn’t spend enough to control Putin.
The NATO countries themselves should break free from American control and regain their national sovereignty. The world would be a much better place if America could no longer use Europe to project its power.
A better place for Putin. A worse place for anyone in Eastern Europe and more importantly American and Israeli defense contractors.
J. Goodwin – thanks. It does seem Putin’s agenda has taken over Trump’s America.
The US chooses to spend 700 billion. The MIC is at work. Maybe if we would close some of our 159+ military bases around the world the cost would come down. The Pentagon is the largest operator and owner of golf courses in the world. Ridiculous!
Welcome to Angry Bear. First Comments always go to moderation to weed out spammers and advertising.
Little more justification for a pentagon [troughers’] jobs program than arming up for Krugman’s space alien invasion.
Of course, US spends too much, and US keeps arming Muslim jihadi more enemies to keep the GWOT going!
Russia is essentially surrounded on its west by NATO which now sits across a sound in Estonia from St Petersburg And in Poland 250 km closer than Hitler was in June 1941.
Soviets viewed 1945 partition of German as satisfactory outcome of their war. US and England going off in to cold war mode and uniting west Germans was offensive to Soviets. NATO has never been about defense (what Patton said about defending).
Russia spends about (very rough) $80B US a year so the EU side of NATO outspends Russia by nearly 4 times.
US’ FY 2019 budget talking point is $719B with US object toward big war in NATO domain about 40% of the $719B. So war budgets for all NATO is closer to $600B against Putin’s little $80B.
Why do you suppose Trump is arguing on NATO being frugal?
May be to justify how much the US throws away in the pentagon trough?
The one argument for Europe spending more is “readiness”, that is the sum of equipment, maintaining the equipment, raising and exercising formations of people to operate the equipment.
What I see is Germany (and all those buying F-35 (used to be F-16)) buys a lot of airplanes, and tanks then lets the maintenance go so much of the equipment is broke down and there are not enough logistics to do a few operations. And their training pace is very low so the units may not be so effective nor reliable.
pgl if you look at the $719B for 2019 it is the budget, about 60 or 70% of it is expended (checks written) in one of more subsequent years. The census figures are checks written, not what congress budget in a given FY.
Trump’s attitude towards NATO and Russia is significant evidence in Mueller’s potential case of conspiracy against Trump. The “quid’ is firmly established.
Jack,
How does attitude (whatever that is) become evidence?
Is NATO sacred? Is love of NATO a prerequisite for good, evil or being a PNAC troll?
Is hating Russia sacred? Is hate of Russia a prerequisite for good, evil or being a PNAC troll?
Patriotism is the last refuge of con artists.
Quid implies an action or work, not attitude.
Quid indeed implies action. How does dismantling NATO, as Russia desires, strike you as action? How about legitimizing Russia’s takeover of Crimea? Enough action there? These aren’t attitudes; they are actions. Hating Russia is not sacred; observing Russia’s behavior and responding accordingly is responsible foreign policy.
The Senate voted today in support of NATO as Trump begins his trip: 97-2! They know! The Republicans know he’s bought and paid for and they’re trying to stop him.
“The Republicans know he’s bought and paid for and they’re trying to stop him.”
The GOP is bought and paid for. They know that an empty resolution won’t stop him. This is just Kabuki. The only way they can stop him is with impeachment.
They have to wait for Mueller’s report before impeachment is even considered. In the meantime, the Kabuki performance is positioning them to avoid the blame.
” . . . before impeachment is even considered.”
Which will happen co-terminus with the first verified report of porcine aviation. It doesn’t matter what Mueller’s report says. Trump was right: he could shoot someone in cold blood and his base would still support him.
His base may support him but if he appears to be in danger of exposure and possible action by a new Congress, those not part of his base will want to avoid going down with him. I wasn’t suggesting that the current House would impeach him. The Republican senators voting on the NATO resolution are probably trying to discourage Trump from continuing to prove Mueller’s case and are seeking to avoid association with Trump’s actions vis a vis Russia.
JackD,
You and Joel.
Put aside the TDS and the Putin link meme!
The problem Trump has with NATO is they all trade with the Russians and if you buy the malarkey of a defensive NATO, then it is defending Russia’s customers. Pretty whacky if you put aside your TDS.
“How does dismantling NATO, as Russia desires, strike you as action?”
Why do you suppose Russia desires NATO dismantled? If NATO were to defend Germany, or to keep Germans from going after Poles and French why would Russia care about NATO?
Think.
Bill Clinton moved NATO into Kosovo. Camp Bondsteel is a going concern! Today!!
Clinton bombed Belgrade, including an expensive run of guided bombs from the million buck per flying hour B-2 on the PRC embassy.
Then Clinton Obama presided over dumping a Kyivan parliamentary elected politician, to be replaced by a new one with leanings toward the Ukraine Nazis who holds 21% of the seats in parliament….
Russia’s NATO problem is nothing to do with defending the Atlantic community. NATO since GW Bush is a PNAC tool!
Put aside the TDS!
A “good offense is a better defense” don’t hack it in the nuclear age!
I guess I don’t know what TDS is so I have no problem with putting it aside. The Putin link won’t go away no matter how much you wish it to. Ukraine would be under Russian control right now were it not for NATO. The notion that Russia poses no threat to other European countries smacks of whistling by the graveyard.
The reason that this country set up NATO in the first place was concern about the expansionist ambitions of the Soviet Union. Putin has expressed his belief that the demise of that entity was the greatest tragedy of modern history. His KGB training and experience reinforce his desire to reclaim that power and this country continues to have a vital interest in containing that ambition. NATO is one of our weapons assisting in that containment. Sorry; that meme ain’t goin’ nowhere. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work towards mutually beneficial agreements on a variety of topics. It does mean we shouldn’t turn our back to them and should keep a hand on our wallet.
@JackD,
TDS = “Trump Derangement Syndrome”
Ilsm is insulting us by implying that we are mindlessly reacting to Trump.
Just wait, he’ll call you both McCarthyites soon. His grasp on reality is not sturdy.
Em…..
JackD’s extreme over estimate of Russia’s capacity for war is not McCarthyism! It is deluded.
He did not read the above which my study over the years supports. Russia’s military is funded at 25% the level of the EU portion of NATO disregarding the US’ much larger contribution to aggression in East Europe.
However, that Ukluge is run by an oligarch whose “party” has 21% of the seats in the parliament is better than being Putin’s puppet is arguable. Not McCarthyite!
If JackD/Joel do not see what the US has done in Ukraine, Estonia and Poland; moving NATO east as aggressive not defensive then you all should not question my “grasp on reality”.
What Gore Vidal said about the hold of permanent war propaganda on you all!
Oddly enough, this deluded poster agrees with you that NATO has spooked Russia by moving east and , in the process, broke George G.W. Bush’s promise but I also do not believe that that excuses Russia’s aggression towards Crimea and Ukraine. They simply do not belong to him whatever “provocations” Putin believes he has sustained. I would, personally, have no problem with neutralizing those countries but, of course, that is not possible since Russia insists on having the ability to position military elements as close to the NATO line as possible.
Deluded is a term also well applied to those who believe the Russians to be warm and fuzzy neighbors with no aspirations for dominance over the lands of others. You can take the boy out of the KGB but you can’t take the KGB out of the boy. Do you know any Poles or East Germans?
I’ve known several Poles and East Germans and even spent some time in the former GDR. In the latter case, I was told not to attempt speaking German there because people might think I was Russian and ignore me. The suspicion and resentment runs deep in them.
I also know several Russians and have been to Moscow twice. I’ve never met any Russians who longed for Stalin or the USSR. None of the Russians I know admire or support Putin.
JackD,
“Russia spooked” by US moving the NATO nuclear trip wire to Estonia! Makes sense to me. Why don’t that make sense to you given the events of July 1941, and US aggressions in Serbia?
Why do you use the word Russia’s aggression? I would enjoy a thoughtful response which implies you are not brainwashed by Krystol-Kagan neocon memes.
What do you think is sacred about Crimea and Donetz staying in Ukraine? Why did the Tsar defend Sevastopol from the British and French in mid 19th century who were helping the Turks keep Orthodox Christian Balkan territory? Not so that Lord Tennyson could write a poem about a poorly done cavalry charge.
What is that NATO line? When did the county of Estonia become the focus of trillions in US war profiteering aka ‘national security’ (I see Austin Powers’ nemisis with his pinky to his lip)? Is that a redline where we should turn the key on the doomsday machine?
Why use the “KGB boy” pejorative, is it same as orange president?
Again some thought and no canned feedback of military industry complex propaganda.
Joel,
Do you want to live under Reagan and Nixon?
Both of you:
Here is Atlantic Council war mongering blither for your gratification, affirmation and enjoyment:
Ilsm,
You can’t really be as naive as you sound with respect to Russia’s aggressiveness and tendency towards acquisition of territory. Its behavior as the leader of the Soviet Union was not that long ago. I’m not going to continue the back and forth with you about Russia’s behavior. If you think it’s justified, I simply don’t agree with you. You might give a little thought to how much territory you are willing to accept Russia’s taking. All of its former satellites? Some of them? Which ones? The fact that it once “owned” places doesn’t mean that that is appropriate and tolerable today. There were many empires throughout human history. That does not many any of them should be replicated. NATO was formed following WWII for the express purpose of containing the Soviet Union. It collapsed of its own weight. I can see little purpose in allowing Putin to try to put it together again. Humpty Dumpty and all that. . .
Jackd
Russia’s behavior to defend itself from militarist US and its new betrayal as NATO expands it network of pawns is understandable, justifiable is not a factor.
Look who broke up Serbia, look who broke up Libya, Iraq, look who tried it on Syria funding al Qaeda, and look at the military junta running Egypt.
If naïve includes not being paranoid about Putin who controls $80B a year against NATO’s $900B per year war chest then I am naive.
If naïve is not buying your militarist, neocon line, call me naïve!
ilsm:
Who broke up Yugoslavia a country which never existed before WWI? Yugoslavia was a quilt of countries which existed separately pre and past the Hapsburgs. Are you looking to review the history of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, his assassination, and WWI? 250,000 Serbian soldiers were killed. ~700,000 causalities. What is your point? The area was always a hot bed of issues and conflicts the same as when the Hapsburgs ruled.
@ilsm:
“Do you want to live under Reagan and Nixon?”
I already did. They are both dead. Did you have a point?
@Run:
“The area was always a hot bed of issues and conflicts the same as when the Hapsburgs ruled.”
Someone said that the Balkans generate more history than they can consume locally.
Joel:
Europe is rich in history. People point to Bismarck giving him credit for the rise in German militaristic tendencies. It is better to look to the rise of the Prussians under the Hohenzollerns. Frederick the great gave Germany its militaristic tendencies and they thrived under it. Austria was the sick man of Europe always on the edge of nabkruptcy and always quelling some uprising in these little ethnic regions tied to its rule. It could ill afford to go to war and the people were tired of the taxes to fund them.
Run,
What Bismarck said about the Balkans, goes for Ukraine and Estonia.
“Not worth the bones of a Prussian infantryman”.
Same for Ukraine!
Why bring up St Augustine’s Just War?
My point: the US war press (Joel and Jack repeating) is making US militarism and unleashing state sanctioned mass murder a fake morality play. Putin not “justified”!
What is right when US busts up one kluged country 5000 miles away under Clinton and twenty odd years later rages over the Donetz region of a Soviet established country wanting out or the Russians taking back what they bled over in 1858? Ukraine is 6000 miles away!
Then saying these events should make Germans want to unleash their to be nascent war machine!
It is alright for the US to break up but not the enemy.
We have always been at war with Russia.
Joel,
To some Stalin was a saint just like St Ronald.
I have several life long friends of Balt decent. I would not do for the Balt any more than Bismarck for the Balkans.
Who is the counter or foil to Russia?
Since Frederick, Germany was always the potential power in Europe.
Stalino Oblast may come back?
“I have several life long friends of Balt decent [sic].”
My most recent PhD student is Bosnian. She still remembers fleeing Serb bombs.
Clinton didn’t “bust up” Yugoslavia. It flew apart on its own after Tito died, aided by Croatia and Serbia butchering Bosnians and Serbia butchering Kosovars. I’d say Bosnia is better off now than when Slobodan Milošević was president of Serbia. YMMV.
Oh the humanity! Unleash the expensive US military industry complex for money and blood!
The Hitler analogy is so much better than fake nukes. Not!
Clinton may or may not have helped Germany send a mechanized brigade equipment set to Croatia so that ‘formation’ of the Teutonic order could break out. It occurred.
Sarajevo is a case for why neocon war mongers should hate Orthodox Christians and take up for al Qaeda in from Belgrade to Siberia , forever!
Kosovo, well maybe US’ NATO could close down Camp Bonesteel! After 21 years keeping Salafism in Europe safe.
Of course, Milosovic was sold as the latest incarnation of Hitler, while Clinton through Obama acted it out!
Now the neocon war mongers ‘should hate’ meme on Orthodox Christians in Russia is Putin is Hitler.
While the main Saudi dog whistle blower Mohamed bin Salman says Iran is run by people “worse than Hitler” while he prods neocon war mongers to regime change Iran.
Deflection . . .
Who is the counter or foil to Russia?
Since Frederick, Germany was always the potential power in Europe.
Stalino Oblast may come back?
You must have someone in mind.
Run,
The reasons Wilson wanted a League of Nations.
It would be a lot cheaper and less anxiety to let the UN run Europe who is little better organized than when the Teutonic order set up camp in what is now Poland and after dealing with all the pagans and Orthodox left the secular Prussian Duchy.
Who ever balances Russia if it is to make kluge countries safe from their major minorities, we might as well build fall out shelters.
NATO is good for permanent war profits, not much else.
Who is the whoever? You must have some idea? Trumps BS is not a solution either. $800 billion is not solution either and we built the military industry.
Run,
You are making me decide?
“Who is the whoever?
My idea is no one. The media, I think it part of a broad psyop, makes it personal, the image of Hitler assigned to every leader who the media sponsors do not “like” or seem at odds with the media sponsors’ image of the “order”. Any article I start reading about the sacred “post WW II order” is intended propaganda. That order is not worth defending. Any organized murder for the “order” violates most of St Augustine’s Just War doctrine.
So who to balance Putin (we have in other empire locales: Assad, Khameini, some faceless mullah in the countryside in Afghanistan, Xi…. with Putin the psyop meme says are on a career path to match Hitler!!!!)
No one on this side of the Atlantic any way
“Trumps BS is not a solution either.” Of course not. Trump is playing to his base while not offended the psyops sponsors in any way other than selling commercial time on the media news shows. Trump has no career ambition aside from money.
“$800 billion is not solution either and we built the military industry.”
I went in to the Air Force in 1972 as a logistician, I never left, my experience is like Forrest Gump I have been places, seen way too much. Been around too many war plans and later seen too much money tossed out for weapons flowing in to the trough.
The pentagon is a trough, a jobs program and source of stable dividends for shareholders in a protected sector of the US economy. In UK war contractor companies are elements of Whitehall and their entities are guaranteed existence and set levels of employment. I once did a job selling to them.
There is a lot of capability in the US military despite the main reason is flowing tax money.
Unfortunately, it is capability for something that looks like what Guderarian planned for France.
We, the US, do not build nations! We spend money that fills pockets.
So who should balance Putin? No one in sight of Trump or whomever is sitting in the cat house on Pennsylvania Ave.
ilsm:
You have created a vacuum with your stance. Russia intends to fill that vacuum. I believe you crticized Obama for not getting involved. His policy was not to do so and mistakes were made a long the way. I do not believe Russia is a figment of a psyop. They have and always will do as they intend to do. The Middle East was disrupted when went to war with Irag. Asia became a part of that disruption with Afghanistan. Military spending and it are not the answer. I think Obama came the closest.
What do the Europeans think about Ukraine?
Being retired I have plenty of time to review the various neocon psyops going around the MSM, much of it hidden in TDS.
My criticism of Obama is/was his closet neocon, letting Clinton run through Libya, not getting out of the twin quagmires left by W, sending Libyan arms through Benghazi to jihadis in Syria and CIA/pentagon uncontrolled funding al Qaeda in Syria.
I do not know why you think I see Obama as anything but a fraudulent peace prize closet neocon.
My stand to the middle east is further to the left of Andrew Bacevich. US has nothing but trouble for the Middle East, except for the Salafis Saudis, who are most of the trouble in the ME.
As to what Europe thinks of the Russia’s supposed land grabs: they are not arming up! Their military industry troughs are good at 1.3% GDP.
ilsm:
Nobody thought you have respect for Obama. The reality was his being 100% opposed by Repubs even before he took office. Yet a subhuman, a black man stymied the Republicans did have measurable success. Sure, I wish he had stomped on them a few times myself. I think I “already” agreed with you we messed up the Middle East.
No one will go to war in the East and they will continue to stare each other down. The war will start somewhere else and perhaps it will be Syria and escalate to Eastern Europe. It is then NATO will move on Russia. In the mean time, there is a jawboning vacuum which nobody has filled. US $800 billion build of weapons is entirely on us. No one else has asked for it and I believe Europe would be happier if we did continue our gradual movement back to the US. We bumble around too much and place them in jeopardy. This president is the lowest in terms of quality than any others before him.
Perhaps it is time to westernize Russia the same as e did China.
Run,
I can be disappointed with Obama, I voted for him over both McCain and Romney.
With the last election I preferred Stein to Clinton mostly because I was trained on things the party thought nothings.
I pray for peace. I do not want the permanent war with everyone some think tank don’t like for my grandkids.
We got through the 80’s with no Armageddon, why tempt it now?
I am old and war don’t bother me.
ilsm:
Nobody thought you have respect for Obama . . .
Perhaps it is time to westernize Russia the same as we did China.
“Of course, Milosovic was sold as the latest incarnation of Hitler, while Clinton through Obama acted it out!”
Wrong.
Hitler sought a greater Germany. Milošević sought a greater Serbia. Clinton and Obama sought a greater America in the Balkans? Your specious attempts at analogy are either ignorant or dishonest.
On the historical evidence, Milošević wasn’t “sold” as Hitler, he behaved as Hitler. Any attempt to compare what Milošević did in Bosnia and Kosovo to what Clinton did in Serbia to end the barbarisms is obscene.