2014 Nato Defense Spending Agreement

In September 2014, NATO leaders agreed at the Wales Summit that Allies, which spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on large-scale equipment, will aim to increase their annual investment to 20% or more of total defence spending within a decade. According to the national plans for 2019, all Allies will achieve this goal by 2024. If the 2% question focuses only on the countries that matter, the prospects for achieving the target – or even just a significant increase somewhere below the 2% threshold – are still quite bleak. The fact that the military value of 2% will be decided in these six countries does not bode well, as most of them will only slightly increase their spending like Germany, will struggle to keep it at its current level like the UK (albeit at a higher level), or will continue to reduce it like Italy and Spain This could be fair, even if the plate is mixed. Germany seems unfazed by its own underperformance from the 2% target, and Belgium has already said it will not strive to reach 2%.15 Belgian Defence Minister Steven Vandeput said in February 2015 that his country`s defence spending would fall to around 0.5% of GDP by 2019, saying the government would try to return to spending between 1.5% and 1.6% by 2030. This was widely seen as an indirect renunciation of the 2% promise of a government that had signed the Wales Declaration a few months earlier.16 But other countries, such as the United Kingdom, are making great efforts to ensure that they do not fall below the limit, as the loss of prestige and bargaining power within NATO would be considerable. In fact, the UK government has renamed parts of its budget so that spending can be accounted for as defence, keeping its defence budget down above the 2% mark.17 Although the 2% commitment is not a legally binding commitment by NATO member states, its inclusion in the declaration was widely seen as a sensible measure, even historical. The objective has been present in the debate on the future of NATO and burden-sharing at least since the Alliance`s summit in Riga in 2006. A month before the summit, Victoria Nuland, then U.S. ambassador to NATO, called the 2% measure ”unofficial ground” for NATO defense spending.2 But never had all the governments of the 28 NATO countries formally adopted it at the highest possible political level – a summit declaration.

Given the increased attention to security since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, the 2% issue has gained political relevance. In addition, the ten-year integrated implementation period leaves current governments immune and increases the temptation to leave painful implementation to successor governments. The chances of one of the signatory governments still being in power in 2024 are extremely slim. Ignoring a long-term commitment is therefore free of almost all political costs. For some Europeans, this is not a clear commitment on America`s part, and they continue to defend the U.S. government to show a greater commitment to Europe, especially its East. Others are irritated by something else: the more calculated and instrumental approach of the Readiness Action Plan as a tool for EUROPEAN NATO allies to spend more on defense.35 This not only smells of manipulation for some Europeans, but could also mean that the United States is paying too much attention to a measure that many Europeans have reservations about. Any author who spends less than a third of such an article without delving deeply into the cruelty of the Austerians of the Troika (EU, ECB, IMF) to ruin the growth and life of the peoples of Europe with their negative growth, the threat of deflation and the global unemployment of 11% is only deluding himself when he continues to talk about these mystical and mythical two percent. As long as these types of financing, in their narrow righteousness on reducing countries` deficits and debts, are not relaxed by a real political orientation and a return to Keynesian fiscal stimulus policies, nato`s types will not achieve significant increases in defense budgets.

Signalling 2% to them when the real danger is more than 3% deficits can only be a weak gesture – and besides, we have no idea what skills the 2% are buying, if any. ==References=====External links===* The official website urged Europeans to increase their capabilities, including the airlift, for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are now known as stupid. Now we come back to Putin`s threats – but in reality, he is bluffing: he has Europeans (not the financial guys who are collapsing in Europe) who are all worried about improving the defenses of NATO countries to distract them all from his main goal – to control Ukraine and prevent Ukraine from joining the EU and NATO. It has been very successful so far. But it will not attack the West; he is not so stupid. One last point: most of the defense people I know in America (I worked on defense issues in Washington for 51 years, including 13 years directly in NATO) would never lose their affection for Europe and their determination to keep it safe. Other NATO countries ”never spent enough, even during the Cold War; that is why we lost the Cold War (NO). However, the real politics of everything is both in the United States and the United States. and Europe, among these wealthy elites, will use defense and other excuses to brutally cut social safety nets on both sides of the Atlantic. Keep these things in mind.

For shrinking economies, the 2% measure makes it even easier to avoid spending increases, as governments can make adjustments to required NATO levels without doing much. If absolute defense spending remains the same in a declining economy, the percentage increases automatically, although in times of recession it may not be politically easy to maintain the same spending levels. In extreme cases, this could even lead countries to reach 2% while spending less on defense. But the lack of capacity of Member States to absorb significantly increased defence budgets is not the only factor casting doubt on the achievement of the 2% target. The biggest concern is that many NATO countries have accepted the 2% commitment in Wales, but do not really intend to keep this promise. ”The problem is not that most NATO allies will not reach the 2% mark. The problem comes from those who don`t even try,” as Kamp says.22 Initial budget decisions made around or after the Wales Summit, and even public announcements from many member states, seem to indicate that the political will to truly reach 2% is indeed underdeveloped across NATO. On 5 September 2014, the Heads of State and Government of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) issued a declaration following the Alliance Summit in Newport, Wales. This document presents NATO`s high-level conceptual response to the crisis that has been unfolding in Ukraine since autumn 2013. This crisis has led to a deterioration in relations between the West and Russia and is widely seen as a fundamental change in the European security architecture. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization – or NATO – is a military and political alliance used to guarantee the security and freedom of each of its members. NATO`s objective, which was founded after the Second World War, is to promote democratic values, cooperate on defence and security issues and build trust among its members.

This, in turn, helps prevent the emergence of conflicts. NATO also promotes the peaceful settlement of disputes. However, when diplomatic efforts do not work, the military alliance is used for crisis management operations. 10 ”Juncker: NATO is not enough, the EU needs an army”, EurActiv, 9 March 2015, www.euractiv.com/sections/global-europe/juncker-nato-not-enough-eu-needs-army-312724. For a critique of Juncker`s proposal, see Jan Techau, ”The Illusion of an Independent EU Army,” Judy Dempsey`s Strategic Europe (Blog), Carnegie Europe, 10 March 2015, carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=59296. Today, the volume of US defence spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the Alliance`s total defence spending. This is not the amount that the United States contributes to NATO`s operational operations as an organization, including its headquarters in Brussels and subordinate military commands (see the table of joint funding agreements for 2020 below). In addition, the U.S. defense budget covers liabilities outside the Euro-Atlantic area. It should be noted, however, that the Alliance relies on the United States to provide certain critical capabilities, such as reconnaissance, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare. In 2006, NATO defence ministers agreed to allocate at least two per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP) to defence spending. This guideline serves primarily as an indicator of a country`s political will to contribute to the Alliance`s joint defence efforts.

Some Allies may need to spend more to develop the capabilities that the Alliance requires of them. .

  • Okategoriserade

Go to Appearance - Infomation Author to create a infomation