A large majority of NATO countries were above 2% in 2024, and will continue to increase their spending in 2025. Every European NATO member has increased their spending since the Russian invasion, though a few are still trailing the 2% goal.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
They will probably have to increase it further especially if there ends being a DMZ between Russia and Ukraine that needs to be maintained by a NATO peacekeeping force, with no US troops involved.
Were they?
The majority of countries pledged to have it above 2% but haven't actually done so as of yet.
Nato seems to think so.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf
Basically:
Nato seems to think so.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf
Basically:
From the NATO document.
If you look at the actual budgets that passed, things are somewhat different. For example, Germany right now has pledged to a very high %, doubling their defense budget by 20XX, but are really struggling to find the money from somewhere admist governmental chaos.
I'll have to take your word for it, because I'm certainly not going to go through 29 individual budgets and gauge whether or not it represents an increase in defence spending per GDP. Have you? Realistically all anyone can go off is reporting and what Nato themselves say.
I actually did start that process, in my original drafted response to your post and categorized them into 3 groups, "Meets 2%", "Surpasses 2%" and "Sub 2%"
I did the major countries like UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and then couldn't be bothered digging into Albanian and Czech parliamentary docs and trying to translate the relevant parts and gave up
But yeah that NATO doc isn't very accurate because Czech Republic only reached the 2% mark in Q1 2025 and yet the NATO doc said it did so in 2024 Q2.
Europe has been steadily increasing its defence spending over the last 10 years to meet or surpass to the US agreed guideline of 2%. This is just low hanging fruit rhetoric Trump uses because the US spends 3.5%, as if that spend has anything to do with Europe. The US spends as much as it does to secure its own influence worldwide and to counter the influence of its adversaries. Its main adversary for the last 70 years to this day being what lies on the eastern European border, thus it is in the US's own interests to station forces in Europe.
Its not like the US has even spent much extra to contribute to the current situation, it has been coming out of the existing defence budget, its not been extra to the US taxpayer. Wherever it comes from, its also some of the most efficient defence expenditure they've ever incurred. So far their contribution works out as 0.4% of GDP to potentially remove the threat of its greatest enemy for the foreseeable future. Its a brain dead easy decision that only a corrupt tosspot would not double down on.
Trump has only until recently talked about NATO contributions as if they are actual payments of money to NATO. There is no sense or rational in what he talks about, he is at least consistent with it.
I disagree with this assessment. Of the big 5 major European economies (Italy, France, UK, Germany, Spain), not a single one of them have actually kept their defence platforms or readiness up to standard.
It's not about what they're spending entirely (although that in itself has been shambolic), but there's just no coherency and petty politics and really screwed any kind of meaningful force strength in Europe.
I mean ffs, Germany France and UK combined doesn't have enough hardware to form a single Armoured Corps level unit. France and UK combined can barely form a Armoured Division.
Its pretty tragic to be quite honest. Gone are the days of the 80's where West Germany had 12 Panzer Divisions arrayed against East Germany, with 1000+ MBT's covering the Fulda gap alone. Where British Garrisons in Germany could on their own form an Armoured Corps.
The Luftwaffe, RAF and French Air Force combined have about enough airlift capacity to support 1 division. The availability and readiness of the Eurofighters makes the F-14 Tomcat look like an easy to maintain plane.
I agree that US has interests in Europe it also ought to help protect but Europe is taking the piss. When the three biggest militaries of Europe combined cannot even form a single Armoured Corps due to lack of hardware then unfortunately the Americans have a point. They have their interests but surely, surely, Europe needs to get its head out of its ass.
The Royal Navy went from a 2 carrier ,12 destroyer, 20 frigate force in the late 80's to, right now, half that number.
It's depressing to think about really. US V Corps is the weakest US Army Corps by far out of all the activate Corps level commands, and yet V Corps is probably the strongest fighting force in Europe.
That is depressing.
My first time in this thread for over a year.
I have mixed feelings about this. Ukraine is getting shafted but it’s high time Europe takes its security seriously and stop depending on a basket case of a country as guarantee of its security. I would love European countries telling America to get rid of its bases there.
I have mixed feelings about this. Ukraine is getting shafted but it’s high time Europe takes its security seriously and stop depending on a basket case of a country as guarantee of its security. I would love European countries telling America to get rid of its bases there.
People should really check accounts and facts when someone is spouting something on the internet.
The genre of "unsourced text on a semi-related image claiming something big" should just die entirely.
Trump did take out ads in 1987.
https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...lity-and-russia-relations-trace-back-to-1987/
Very good post.
I can only speak about the UK and more especially the RAF.
We used to have about 100 Tornado jets just in bases in Germany alone. With double that number at various bases in the UK being a mix of bombers and air defence jets.
The current Typhoon fleet numbers just over 100, plus a few tens of F35B.
The Typhoon is as you say far easier to maintain. But still very low in numbers.
I am always very suspicious of the claims about the 2% figures and actually how that is being accounted for. For example how much of that is indirect such as upkeep of military housing stock and things like that.
That post I was quoting would legitimately be a lot better without quoting that weird account, that I'm pretty sure is at least partially AI slop.
UK Troops in Ukraine is one hell of a development.
Isn't that in case of a peace deal?
sure, but this whole thing was trending to basically give Russia everything and try and scam Ukraine out of 50% of their mineral wealth. To see anything positive coming up, but especially ally troops in the region is a surprise.
It was always this, though. I mean, people were saying that Ukraine were being hit from both "sides" almost immediately after the invasion. That it would be a proxy-war (for a time) but primarily a debt-trap where the US would want repayment and the Ukrainians would not be able to pay. Same with EU. And then enter Blackrock, etc. And this is what will now happen with any reconstruction. A bit like Greece some 15 years ago.
https://preview.redd.it/50wccvr9mp5...p4&s=ea8063f2a7024a595cef44b08044e9d2555969bd
It's a bit like that when I read your posts which concern decreased militarism. We never agree but why is it depressing? Maybe you have to be in the military structure to see it as you do or maybe not.
The EU has no natural enemy which requires massive armies except those who still pretend that the Russians want to invade Warsaw. Or is Turkey going to invade the East?
Social spending would suffer when it cannot possibly suffer anymore than it already has (a complete shambles EU wide). It ought to get its priorities right. You can have a strong deterrent without a massive force of ships. And not spend more than 2% of your GDP on this kind of moral bankruptcy.
Yeah sure, keep having this mentality and then when shit happens (see: 2014 and 2022), you realize Europe is helpless and has to cry to daddy USA each and every time.
Only next time, USA might not even be there due to a geopolitical alignment shift.
Hard power is a requirement for every nation or bloc - to believe otherwise is just naive.
Which surely means for the UK tens of billions of pounds of defence spending, and a coherent defence plan with other European states, as no country is big enough on its own to do everything? Is that level of spending even possible without spooking financial markets?
Nuclear submarines and a sufficient army is enough. What, to be cold, did the Russian's annexation of Crimea actually do to Europe? Or even its invasion of Ukraine (which never did, as is now known, extend beyond Ukraine, however criminal that is)?
I think it's naive to pine for a militaristic order.
No.
This is where it ends. The EU and UK have a "housing, healthcare, and education" deficit. They cannot afford more than they spend already on military items. It will destroy the EU/UK quicker than an invasion. The social fabric, what is left ,will be burned.
The US cannot afford its trillion dollar a year habit, either, when you look at the same metrics. These are what are required for security and safety, the actual threat, which is internal when animus is allowed to build which makes populations swing far in this or that direction. Not some fantasied invasion theory. You can do both with deterrents which do not require hegemonic levels of spending.
The fallacy, which is known, of having an "enemy" which must be both weak and strong at the same time (Russia now, terrorism a decade ago). It's an excuse, not an explanation. Ukraine, absolutely, was (or has been) in Russia's crosshairs. But Europe isn't and never has (in the past however many decades). To use the performance of the Russians as "weak" (they cannot even take Ukraine) and then "strong" (we must spend all we have on a massive fleet) is insanity.
In 2013, Ukraine had no enemies either. On one side non-violent EU, on other a brotherly russia.
Well, we see how that turned out.
It was known that Russia had massive tensions with Ukraine back then. Read the internal communications (wikileaks) and so on. It was only a surprise in hindsight that Russia annexed Crimea, because many expected it after what happened there.
Europe could easily have a much stronger army without spending more. It would "only" need to become as efficient as the Israeli army.
Which is a massive change, but it would be possible if the politicial will is there. Which it isn't, because still nobody feels the urgency to move in that direction.
Which is a massive change, but it would be possible if the politicial will is there. Which it isn't, because still nobody feels the urgency to move in that direction.
Militaristic order?
Nobody is asking for a Prussian Von Clauswitz style Military society.
What we're asking for is an actual functional military. You talk about only needing Submarines and a sufficient Army. What about the Baltics and Central Eastern Europe? Only France and UK even have ballistic subs. If Eastern Europe runs into problems do Western Europe just sit back and say "Not our problem?".
Are you suggesting Central and Eastern Europe start developing nuclear weapons programs?
The point of a military isn't to deter threats of now, its for deterring threats for the future. If you don't do that and the future comes and you're not prepared, it's much more expensive economically and socially to gain readiness. Look at the amount of money Poland is now having to throw to have that deterrance. I mean USA spent over a decade worrying about militia forces in the middle east, put its air force and navy on the back-foot for that entire period and all of a sudden find itself unprepared for a Pacific War over Taiwan.
You don't believe an Island nation should have a navy? Just an army and nuclear subs? No Air Force?
Christ.
National conscription and heavy reliance on foreign money. It might be efficient, but it isn't without many problems. It's also in the process of conducting the most evil things seen since Rwanda.
What
Nobody in Ukraine or Russian citizens expected that. The threat the Russian's gave was sanctions during Euromaidan, which they actually did go through with. Suddenly, Spetznaz rolled through Crimea and little green men appeared in the Donbass.
I don't recall being shocked. Not Ukrainian or Russian but it wasn't a massive a surprise to me and then having researched it, it scarcely became any more surprising.What
Nobody in Ukraine or Russian citizens expected that. The threat the Russian's gave was sanctions during Euromaidan, which they actually did go through with. Suddenly, Spetznaz rolled through Crimea and little green men appeared in the Donbass.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ticipated-the-russian-invasion-of-crimea.html
There are many of these cables.
Well it was entirely shocking for Ukrainian given that various AFU units were on holiday when the whole shambles happened. Units were scattered across the whole Crimea and there was no prepardness from the military (unlike, say 2022). The navy couldn't even get to sea before Russian units reached the main military port.
Any inevitability is done through the lens of hindsight and post-event analysis because at the time, it was a shock for almost everyone.
Not some military analysts who had a keen eye on things. Doing their jobs, really, as the cables (you can go through the thousands of them) forebode.
I was literally in British Military Intelligence at the time. This is just revisionist nonsense.
Maybe that's why you need more spending? Clearly not that intelligent. Others could see it and you couldn't.
Open source political cables, thanks to wikileaks, provide a backdrop where the annexation is a contingency. It wasn't completely unknown. Proven pretty easily.
Would you settle on: Some analysts worried about that, but it wasn't the accepted majority opinion?
Without Ukraine being involved it stinks of nothing more than “how are we going to divide this country up between ourselves?”
Exactly that imo. I said this years ago and was attacked for it but this is how it was going to end after a certain time imo. Ukraine being squeezed from three different areas (Russia, EU, and US). It has nothing to do with whether they ought to have defended against the invasion (yes) but the motives of those who were willing to bleed Russia dry to a certain extent but not beyond that limit whereby their investment is entirely compromised. This was predictable because I saw/heard many people predict it. It's sad because Ukraine is the loser here.
They will champion a Marshall styled plan but it will be private equity which takes over the resources of what is left of Ukraine proper in exchange for all those billions of Euros and Dollars.
I’m not sure many people from the Baltics would agree with you