“Trump suggested NATO countries double their defense spending goal” (CNN). Why does this make sense? Wikipedia shows that France and Germany together (forget the rest of NATO!) already spend more than Russia, the hypothetical military opponent.
I don’t think that the answer can be “the Russians are inherently super efficient at everything and therefore we have to out-spend them by 20:1 to have any hope of holding our own.” When you want to buy something in Russia that is produced to international standards the costs are fairly similar to what you’d pay in the West.
Well… Money is important, but fighting wars also requires people willing to die for the cause. The fewer of those you have, the more money you have to spend to make up difference.
@ Andrea. What you say was true but doesn’t the advent of drones and remote strikes, robots, etc change the game – tilting it to favour the best technology rather than the biggest most willing armies of soldiers?
I think in real terms the money spent by Russia buys them about twice as much as the money spent in EU since most are labour costs. Big mac in Russia is half the price as in EU. In that sense an increase would be appropriate. US was/is paying excessively for starting expensive wars so not a good comparison.
We can lessen the trade deficit by getting them to buy more of our weapon systems? Thereby strengthening our defense contractor-based UBI program!
The difference between Russian nominal and PPP GDP is huge, 3x or so. Thus one rouble of Russian defense spending goes further than EU euros. That said, most NATO armies (other than US, UK, France, Turkey and Canada, possibly Poland) are Potemkin armies mostly for show, and it’s doubtful spending more would make much difference.
A gross disparity in military resources is probably a good thing as it will dissuade the Russians from adventurism in e.g., Syria (only 450,000 people dead) and Putin’s efforts to rebuild Greater Russia as we have seen in Ukraine and Georgia — and eventually inter alia Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and the Stans. Overwhelming strength is a good preventative against war — witness the 30 million dead in WW2 in part because Britain failed to keep up military expenditures and was seen as weak. Also your argument was likely used during the Reagan buildup that led to the collapse of the Evil Empire and and freedom (of one sort or another) for 350 million people. Remember in I think it was 1983 or 1984 1 million people took to the streets of NYC to protest that madman and lunatic Ronald Reagan, whose military buildup the wise and peace loving said could only lead to WW III — but au contraire the Reagan presidency was one of the more peaceful of the 20th century.
As others have mentioned, you can’t compare military budgets dollar for dollar, especially since labor costs are a big component and Russian troops don’t get paid much.
Russian military stuff is not necessarily produced to “international standards” which are hugely inflated when it comes to military stuff. Phil has often mentioned how when you want to incorporate something (say a GPS unit) into an airplane, that adds several zeroes onto the price for private aviation and even more zeroes for something that goes on an airliner. And then when you want to put it on a military jet, you can add some more zeroes after that. Whereas the Russians might not be adverse to just using the consumer item or a reverse engineered copy. American military philosophy is that “our troops should have the very best of everything” but the very best is often so expensive that we can’t afford to buy very many copies of whatever this “best” item is. The Russian philosophy is that “quantity has its own quality” and that considerations like being able to land on less than perfect airfields are more important than having the absolute “best” of everything. You can buy a lot of plow horses for the cost of one champion thoroughbred racehorse. The Russian Soyuz capsules look like primitive 1960s technology (because they are) but they are still flying while the American space shuttles were too expensive to fly even when they were not blowing up (which was a little too often).
Putin is very big on exploiting weakness. He is not going to take on a more powerful enemy head on but will make incremental gains when he senses an opening. So it is important not to give him openings.
Lastly, I would not trust any official budgets released by Russia. Putin is a Soviet – the Soviets did not even release accurate phone books or street maps, so what are the odds that Putin is releasing to the West his true military budget? Were the Little Green Men listed in the Russian military budget? Their chemical weapons production? You can be sure that there is a large “black” budget that doesn’t appear in any public sources and may even be unknown to Western intelligence agencies (or known only in a vague way).
What does this have to do with the Russian military spending?
IMHO, this is a negotiation technique that Trump uses to shift the equlibrium on what a reasonable amount of required military spending might look like. Whether his push is successful or not, the 4% threshold becomes the starting point in negotiations. If Europe says no, it will be taken as a NO to the 4% spending rather that 2%. This changes a definition of what deadbeat means. If you are reluctant to pay 4%, then 2% must be fine? great to know you there were no objections.
Here is a wonderful authentic Soviet joke I heard from a Russian friend: seems quite relevant to Trump’s demands of NATO.
The Politburo leader dies, the new supreme leader is elected and everyone guesses as to what the new Party line is going to be. During their first meeting, the new leader states that he has a radical 2-pronged approach: (i) indict 50% of Politburo for corruption, (ii) paint the Red Square all green. One of the old-time members asks, But why, why, why re-paint the symbol of Mother Russia in such a weird color? To which the new leader replies, Thank you tovarishch! I am very glad no one has any objections to point (i) of my plan.
Much of U.S. defense spending is sheer waste, e.g.
“Don’t drop that mug of Joe, it’s worth its weight in gold”
When a mobility airman drops a cup of coffee aboard an aircraft, the Air Force can be out $1,220.
Since 2016, the replacement cost for some of the service’s coffee mugs, which can reheat coffee and tea on air refueling tankers, has gone up more than $500 per cup, forcing the service to dish out $32,000 this year for just 25 cups, military.com recently reported.
The 60th Aerial Port Squadron at Travis Air Force Base recently revealed that it has spent nearly $56,000 to replace broken hot cups over the past three years. The culprit, they say, is a faulty plastic handle known to break on impact. Each time a handle breaks, the Air Force is forced to order a whole new cup, as replacement parts are no longer made.
“It’s just one more example of the military overspending on really simple items,” said Dan Grazier, the Jack Shanahan Military Fellow at the Project On Government Oversight and a former Marine Corps tank officer.
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2018/07/09/dont-drop-that-mug-of-joe-its-worth-its-weight-in-gold/#.W0TEFxof2lw.twitter
Kaleidic,
For the cost of 100 of our coffee cups, the Russians can get the Donald elected.
It’s a ploy to legitimize America’s irrational obsession with the military and “national defense” despite being geographically one of the safest. If other counties spend more, the more sane we appear. The paranoia carries over into personal “self-defense” and our obsession with firearms.
The real, non-hypothetical military opponents are going to be China and all those Muslims that Europe imported. Who will be able to cause destruction at a magnitude that can’t be measured by military budgets.
It’s not illegitimate to ask for European countries to contribute more to the defence of liberal democracy, in particular their own continent. As a European tax payer, I believe we should do it, in particular, coordinate a EU wide force, even more relevant with the Brexit. Nevertheless, I certainly don’t want my government or other EU ones to spend more on military than on science and education, for instance.
However, as usual, his orangeness the President dumbs down things into simplistic views that don’t cover complex nuances. Two of those:
1. Forcing others to increase military spending allows the US to justify their own spending, at a time where every sheriff’s office is equipped to fight wars and invade countries.
2. The American military, first and foremost, serves to – legitimately – protect American interests. The 35 000 American troops in Germany are not there to make sure Germans live a comfortable life. European safety is a byproduct of American interests, namely the establishment of a liberal, rules-based, trade-favourable world order, from which the US have been one of, if not the most rewarded nation in the world.
I’m not saying this is illegitimate, I’m not saying the US don’t deserve to be paid off for the investments they made/make, and I’m not saying Europe didn’t benefit immensely from that as well. And for that reason, it is legitimate to ask European countries to step up.
But saying that the US is being taken advantage is utterly ridiculous. And the President’s commitment to liberal democracy is tenuous at most.
Thank you for the perspective Fransisco!
Let’s say, generally speaking, there is a geo-political game that involves two parties, call them “US” and “EU” for clarity, who are tied up in a polemics about what constitutes a fair contribution of “US” to the defense of their friend “EU”. The parties do respect each other, but they grew apart over time and they just can’t agree, and so they agree to disagree. What do responsible adults do in such a case? How about they shake hands and go their own separate ways? A no-fault divorce with no child support! philG must be proud!!!
I think it should be fine for the “EU” not to be forced to pay their “fair share”, and for the “US” to just leave the military organization of the family alliance formerly known as “NATO” (while–maybe–still being somewhat involved in the political structure of the organization). Both parties have clearly contributed to the other’s side well-being and they’vereaped the benefits of the co-operation, and that is totally fine yet is not sustainable any longer.
Assuming both parties are responsible adults, why blame each other? isn’t it time to shake hands and move on?
The whole thing is really strange. It is strange that so many NATO members do not reach the 2 percent of GDP for military security. It seems like a really small commitment to make. The vast majority of these members can afford to pay for it. We are not talking about Zimbabwe here. So yes, they are free loading. I think that is pretty clear.
On top of that, there is constantly clamoring from NATO members about the threat of Russia, which has a GDP the size of…. Italy. Italy! Yes it has invaded other countries, which is a cause for concern. However some would say, it was done in response to a provocation (e.g. Ukraine & Georgia). So why not put the money where the mouth is?
The other problem is, let’s say the USA pulls out of NATO, I guarantee you the successor EU military will start a third world war by getting involved in some sort of military entanglements. They may be peaceful now, but Europeans are very provincial and warlike (even the progressives) and having seen them now up close for a couple of years I can tell you they will do it again if not under the thumb of the USA. And that’s someone who hates how much the USA calls the shots in Europe and was hoping the pan-european EU would change direction for the better. They can’t stand each other and things would quickly break down if the USA were to leave. I don’t really know what is the best way out of USA hegemony…
@anon #15
That is certainly a possibility, but as responsible adults, what you should do is have responsible and constructive discussions, before breaking apart and citing “irreconcilable differences”.
What Trump does is use the bullying technique: do this or we’ll leave! I’ll recognise that Europe is likely the one that has the most to lose from a US withdrawal, but Trump misrepresents NATO as serving just to protect Europe. The US would lose influence, control and resources in the overall “arsenal” that the country uses to protect its interests. What are the personnel at airforce and army bases in Germany doing, day in day out? If the US decides to leave, it’s certainly their prerogative – much like the British and Brexit – just paint the whole picture and don’t selectively pick and choose just the pros, leaving the cons out.
@GermanL #16 – Only the nordic countries, Germany, Austria, Belgium and France spend more than 2% of GDP on R&D. UK and Slovenia, above 1.5%, and all others below 1.2% – «It seems like a really small commitment to make.» Do you care to revise that statement?
« So why not put the money where the mouth is?» Spending money in weapons won’t do the job, unless you send in troops. Clearly, being far poorer than all the other Western countries, including the USA, didn’t prevent them to invade and annex a foreign territory. And saying it was ukrainian provocation? Really?