They don’t like President Trump, but …

They know that President Trump speaks the truth, and can’t deny it. NATO realizes that they need the United States and must come to an agreement in order to preserve the organization. While there is quibbling about the exact percentage, it is true, and can’t be denied, that the United States pays the largest portion of NATO defense spending, whether directly or indirectly.

NATO’s Stoltenberg:

[Data and more video below the fold]

Trump-Stoltenberg breakfast meeting:

In their report on June 27, NATO states that the United States pays about 22% of their direct budget (the 2% of GDP that is often discussed; also called common funding), but much more of the indirect budget. These contributions are the largest and come, for instance, when a member volunteers equipment or troops to a military operation and bears the costs of the decision to do so. Indirect funding is at the discretion of the member country. In summary:

The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, exceeds that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence. This imbalance has been a constant, with variations, throughout the history of the Alliance and more so since the tragic events of 11 September 2001, after which the United States significantly increased its defence spending. The gap between defence spending in the United States compared to Canada and European members combined has therefore increased.

Today, the volume of the US defence expenditure effectively represents some 67 per cent of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole in real terms¹. This does not mean that the United States covers 67 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organisation, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.

Direct (common) NATO funding. What each country pays:

Only 5 of the 28 NATO countries currently are meeting or exceeding their 2% of GDP target. They are the United States, Greece, Great Britain, Estonia, and Poland.

More information that you may find of interest:

5 facts about global military spending


This entry was posted in Government, Military, News International, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to They don’t like President Trump, but …

  1. auscitizenmom says:

    I wonder if he has threatened to drop our spending down to what they are spending. That should build a fire under them.

    Liked by 4 people

    • The whole GDP metric is a racket.

      Liked by 4 people

    • jeans2nd says:

      How bouts we just move those troops in Germany to Poland? Is it not better to watch Russia from Poland, who is much much closer to Russia, than from Germany? After all, Poland was one of the first countries Russia (USSR) invaded in the late 30s, Germany was the last. (and Poland buys our gas, and actually likes us)

      Liked by 4 people

      • stella says:

        I read that Poland is willing to put up a couple of billion dollars to make that happen.

        Liked by 4 people

        • czarowniczy says:

          Poland, like the rest of the old Bloc countries, has been trying to rebuild what Germany destroyed and the Russians screwed up.
          Poland’s determined to build a formidable military but it has that ‘guns versus butter’ issue. It also has a problem with large groups of commiephiles who’re the result of a few generations of Communists controlling the country – lotta kapos who long for the old days. Then there’s that Moslem influx issue…
          Poland was controlled by various neighbors for centuries and now they’re free they have no intentions of having that freedom taken away again. They’ve spent a lot adapting their military equipment to NATO standards and have been gaining combat experience in GWOT deployments. Poland’s put more of its GDP into improving its defense systems than any other ex-Bloc country but then if the Russians decide to regain their old near-abroad or come into Europe it would be Poland that takes the major hit.

          Liked by 2 people

          • stella says:

            Here’s the article I saw:

            Poland offers up to $2 billion for a permanent US military presence


            Liked by 5 people

            • czarowniczy says:

              Poland wants a permanant US presence in Poland for the same reason I’d want a moat full of hungry cros around my house were I still to be living in NOLA.
              Note that the main reason the old Bloc countries scrambled to join NATO, even though it diverted vital resources needed elsewhere in their economies, was the fear of Mother Russia coming home again. We are building a radar missile early warning site in Poland to match the NATO site (OK, mostly US built and funded but we let them say it was theirs) in Romania but Poland still wants permanant US basing there as an anchor, baby. Thing is, Trump can pick up those US bases in Germany that cost us an arm and a leg gto masintain and move them to Poland, saving a ton of money. A lot of that money we spend in Poland will come right back here too.
              Stay tuned, sports fans.

              Liked by 4 people

  2. Gil says:

    You know id like to see a series of charts comparing how much on defense vs social welfare for citizens vs welfare for invaders and vs top spending projects within each country. When countries whose defense we pay for build or finance crap that could potentially harm us, theres a major conflict of interest.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. lovely says:

    Why don’t a few NATO countries band together and hunt down the billions of dollars Obama illegally gifted his friends the Iranian Mullahs? One place to start looking would be Obama’s off shore accounts.

    I just had an idea.

    Let’s tell the whiners, the greedy bastards and the ignorant quackerinos that that all money found to be gained by illegal activities conducted by Clinton, Obama, Lynch, Jarrett, Holder et al will be used to cover the debt and dues of any of the NATO countries that assist in discovering that money and the unveiling of the crimes that led to the accumulation of said money.

    Liked by 3 people

    • stella says:

      Here’s one:

      How Obama admin subverted plan to take down Taliban drug running, just like it shut down operation against Hezbollah

      Liked by 4 people

      • lovely says:

        Obama should face justice. I hope does on this side of the coin.

        Liked by 2 people

      • czarowniczy says:

        OK, let’s put on our tinfoil hats but I’m gonna say it – again – the POtuS wasn’t alone.
        We invade Afghanistan in 2001, US makes contact with Northern Alliance and begins to roll back the Taliban.
        The Taliban had really put a damper on opium production in Afghanistan, but right behind the Northen Alliance’s advance the poppy fields were being replanted. One of our field commanders there ordered herbicide spraying equipment brought in that could be attached to the Blackhawks and used to kill off the poppy fields. Suddenly State gets wind of it and orders the Army general to stand down, he’s forbidden to spray and the equipment will be locked away. Bush II did not countermand the order and within months the price of heroin plummeted on US streets.
        Then we have that gushing pipeline of narcotics from China that’s as familiar to folks in the drug/counterdrug world as their hands are. I won’t bother once again talking about the huge poppy fields in Laos during the Vietnam war or our immense, longterm presense in Latin and South America that hasn’t made much of a dent in the drug business over the last few decades.
        Ot appears drugses be here to stay, and as we die off and generations of children are slowly raised to believe that drugs aren’t so bad if used with intelligence and restraint…

        Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.