Posted on 02/17/2025 8:05:57 AM PST by marcusmaximus
Donald Trump's return to the White House has brought NATO spending back under scrutiny, with Washington's warning that Europe should be prepared to defend itself from Russian aggression refocusing minds in Brussels.
The United States will 'no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship' regarding the war in Ukraine and will not be taken for 'suckers', Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said last week as he declared that fellow Nato members should be spending more.
The US is by far the biggest spender on defence overall - forking out a total of $967.7billion, equivalent to 3.38 per cent of the country's gross domestic product (GDP).
The UK by comparison spends around $81.4billion on defence, equivalent to 2.33 per cent of its GDP, with Sir Keir Starmer's government insisting it is on a 'path' to increasing this to 2.5 per cent.
While it beats the majority of its Nato allies on defence in terms of GDP, the US falls behind Poland and Estonia, whose military spending amount to 4.12 per cent and 3.43 per cent of their GDPs, and who each face more immediate threats due to their proximity to Russia's borders.
-snip-
many - including Spain, Canada, Italy and Portugal - failing to meet the 2 per cent goal set by the alliance more than a decade ago.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Washington warned us against foreign entanglements
US out of UN, UN out of the US
US out of NATO
I’m getting a kick out of Poland. Whatever your opinion is on the Russian Ukraine war, I think it us fair for them to be concerned and buy whatever up to date equipment they can.
I notice an inverse relationship between funding of defense and complaining about the U.S.
South Korea has developed a terrific new main battle tank, the K2 Black Panther, and Poland is ordering a lot of them.
I hope that Defense Secretary Hegseth changes the military’s procurement system.
Make it sensible, like the Marine Corps does.
I spent a career in defense. It’s not how much you spend. It’s how you spend it. I saw fantastic waste. The literal combat ships and Future Combat Systems are great examples. One was due to an admiral’s ego and the other was pure congressional and corporate fraud. It’s like there’s no oversight. Rumsfeld was the last guy who actually tackled the job.
It would be cheaper to fight a war against NATO than to keep them on welfare.
Ya gotta love Poland and the Poles.
Time to get out. There is no more USSR, no more communist divisions sitting on the German border and Germany is united. The only threat is from the Muslim immigrants these countries allowed in and were not going to save them this time.
Also, get out of the UN and get the UN out of the U.S. by Pulling out of national, we save $1 trillion immediately.
Yes, we’ve bought some bad weapons systems. We’ve invested huge amounts in others like Fleet Carriers I have serious questions about.
Another is we have WAY too many in ranks O5 and up. The number of Generals/Admirals we have is a complete joke given the size of the forces we have. We could easily eliminate 3/4s of those positions and STILL have MORE than we did in WWII when the military was 10-12 times its current size.
Another major source of waste is all the bases we have scattered all over the world. We need to close up a good number of them and bring the troops home.
Littoral combat ship program.
From Gates of Vienna
https://gatesofvienna.net/2025/02/everything-that-is-written-in-the-quran-i-stand-behind-it/
“Another major source of waste is all the bases we have scattered all over the world. We need to close up a good number of them and bring the troops home.”
I think you’ll find the vast majority of the 800 odd “bases” are not occupied or not occupied but for a very short time each year. What they enable is an amazing logistical flexibility. Before any of us knew about the first Gulf War, a friend who crewed on a large Airforce transport found herself landing on a tiny island with only an airstrip and a few abandoned buildings. In days, it was a big, operational air base covered with giant tents. It had been an air base in WWII and we still had the rights to it. (No water and no plants on this island.) We have many similar bases in out of the way places in Africa. If you suddenly find yourself in a Pacific war, they’re both conveniently close and yet far enough away they’re relatively safe. Everything within 1500 miles of China will be lost in the first day. We need those bases, and their cost is relatively cheap. Having those bases is the difference between being able to sustain forces anywhere in the world and not being able to do so.
Have each nation pay according to population, perhaps.
Poland, at 38m, shouldn't have to pay more than Italy (59m)
According to what I was able to Google, the EU has over triple the population of Russia and about ten times its GDP. Based on those underlying measures of potential power, can someone please explain to me why it is that the EU can’t defend itself from Russia and needs help from the US?
The Poles know that they might have to fight a two front war again like 1939.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.