No NATO member that spends less than 2% of their GDP on defense should be invited to attend US military schools. Don't spend 2%? We don't take you seriously and you can't send military students to CGSC or War College.
The proper solution for Belgium and Luxembourg is quit pretending they should remain as countries. France gets the French speakers, Netherlands the Flemish speakers.
I like that the article is upbeat, but have some doubts. If spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense is only treated as a kind of gentleman's agreement and not a hard and fast by-law of NATO, I would not expect to see the worst of the long time slackers to ever reach a 2% goal. Where is the incentive to the shirkers without some Right Now consequences? I say "Right Now consequences" because you can be sure they'll be caterwauling for rescue and promising to pay up their arrears just as soon as they are liberated and get a Marshall Plan, only then to shoot for that 2% goal as soon as they are on their feet again. How about "You are either a NATO member in good standing or you're out?" It's a grasshopper and ant thing. NATO and the world needs some tough love.
It's time to add Japan, South Korea and Australia and NZ. Geography and name be damned. If the ACC can add SMU and Stanford and Cal (Atlantic Coast what/where/why?), then NATO should invite any and all desiring to join the ranks. Those 4 would have no problems meeting the 2% goal.
As an aside, I'm not sure if Sweden moving to 2% is due to its biggest external threat or its more current and growing internal threat.
Maybe an amendment to the charter suggesting that non-2% members can participate in exercises and whatnot, but arent entitled to article 5??? Geographically that wouldnt have equal implications for all, for instance, Spain isnt likely to be Putins next object of desire, but it still makes a point...
"You have small friends, you have large friends. You have rich friends, you have poor friends. You have friends who are naturally good in one area, other friends who are better in another."
... and you have generous friends and freeloading friends. Friends who will pick up the bar tab and others who will cover the tip. Friends who are on solid financial ground and those who are going through a bumpy patch. And then you have LUX. :</
It only took 30 years (since the fall of the USSR) for Europe to reverted back to its roots of petty territorial disputes and tribal enmity. The USA should follow Washington's advice, step back and buy lots of popcorn. We need to look after our own self interest.
A 2% of GDP defense budget budget is a good starting point, but I am more interested in the capabilities being bought with this money. A couple of F35s, a submarine, or a half-a-dozen land attack cruise missiles really doesn't impact the defense picture.
The one that breaks my heart most is Canada. Have friends in the RCN, from back when it was just Canadian Forces. Tough, extremely efficient, did the work-around when widgets weren’t in the budget, and folks I would be proud and happy to see standing with us when the feces hit the fan. And they would, with everything they had. Sadly, they didn’t have much. But the spirit? Outstanding.
What is the structure around the tiny countries like a Luxumbourg, Slovenia, Slovakia and Albania...given their population size & economy, should they even field a complete army/air force but, instead focus their military-NATO contributions on specialty areas like CSAR, electronic warfare, logistics, medical, engineering?
No NATO member that spends less than 2% of their GDP on defense should be invited to attend US military schools. Don't spend 2%? We don't take you seriously and you can't send military students to CGSC or War College.
The proper solution for Belgium and Luxembourg is quit pretending they should remain as countries. France gets the French speakers, Netherlands the Flemish speakers.
And great shooting by the Ukrainians!
I like that the article is upbeat, but have some doubts. If spending at least 2% of their GDP on defense is only treated as a kind of gentleman's agreement and not a hard and fast by-law of NATO, I would not expect to see the worst of the long time slackers to ever reach a 2% goal. Where is the incentive to the shirkers without some Right Now consequences? I say "Right Now consequences" because you can be sure they'll be caterwauling for rescue and promising to pay up their arrears just as soon as they are liberated and get a Marshall Plan, only then to shoot for that 2% goal as soon as they are on their feet again. How about "You are either a NATO member in good standing or you're out?" It's a grasshopper and ant thing. NATO and the world needs some tough love.
It's time to add Japan, South Korea and Australia and NZ. Geography and name be damned. If the ACC can add SMU and Stanford and Cal (Atlantic Coast what/where/why?), then NATO should invite any and all desiring to join the ranks. Those 4 would have no problems meeting the 2% goal.
As an aside, I'm not sure if Sweden moving to 2% is due to its biggest external threat or its more current and growing internal threat.
Sweden et al. remind me of the Florida residents who decide they need more homeowners insurance when the hurricane is a day away.
Maybe an amendment to the charter suggesting that non-2% members can participate in exercises and whatnot, but arent entitled to article 5??? Geographically that wouldnt have equal implications for all, for instance, Spain isnt likely to be Putins next object of desire, but it still makes a point...
"You have small friends, you have large friends. You have rich friends, you have poor friends. You have friends who are naturally good in one area, other friends who are better in another."
... and you have generous friends and freeloading friends. Friends who will pick up the bar tab and others who will cover the tip. Friends who are on solid financial ground and those who are going through a bumpy patch. And then you have LUX. :</
I'm impressed most by Greece.
Why should an Islamist country which is not paying its fair share and threatening the US be given veto power over new members?
Great article, Sal.
Big fan posted you to Insty often...they are paying attention.
It only took 30 years (since the fall of the USSR) for Europe to reverted back to its roots of petty territorial disputes and tribal enmity. The USA should follow Washington's advice, step back and buy lots of popcorn. We need to look after our own self interest.
Remind the Germans that both the Poles now have 4 times their tank force, 1000 versus 250, and haven't forgotten Warsaw..
A 2% of GDP defense budget budget is a good starting point, but I am more interested in the capabilities being bought with this money. A couple of F35s, a submarine, or a half-a-dozen land attack cruise missiles really doesn't impact the defense picture.
The one that breaks my heart most is Canada. Have friends in the RCN, from back when it was just Canadian Forces. Tough, extremely efficient, did the work-around when widgets weren’t in the budget, and folks I would be proud and happy to see standing with us when the feces hit the fan. And they would, with everything they had. Sadly, they didn’t have much. But the spirit? Outstanding.
What is the structure around the tiny countries like a Luxumbourg, Slovenia, Slovakia and Albania...given their population size & economy, should they even field a complete army/air force but, instead focus their military-NATO contributions on specialty areas like CSAR, electronic warfare, logistics, medical, engineering?
So the Swedes, like the Germans, pinky swear to increase their defense spending to 2%. Really. This time they mean it.