Quote (thesnipa @ Jan 23 2019 07:05pm)
while somewhat true on all fronts isn't it really countries like Greece, who dont pay in, dont send people to wars, etc that are really the "takers" in the EU. Germany has it's faults, no doubt, but at least they have an economy of more than pickpockets.
From the time article 5 was imposed for the first time ~17 years ago, Greece has joined around 6 Nato missions, including Afghanistan. They even continued to spend 2% of their reduced GDP on the military.
The bit awkward part is that I'm glimpsing at a few stats. And actually find the 2% being an oversimplified number. There are times where you can do with less and there are times where you need more. And.. If a military budget is 1.5 of the GDP, but 1% is actually used for NATO supporting missions, then they contribute a fucklot. While if you have 2% GPD military, staying at home, they don't reduce costs for other nations today. I'd say that's a more important ratio to keep in mind while asking if a country "contributes". total army spending / spending on contribution to NATO missions.
Then again the real question today is: How much of NATO do we need to secure energy resources in the middle east, when we are planning to be a lot more self reliant, and how much of a combined western defensive military do we need in a world where powers are slowly shifting towards the East (out of "our" hands.)
While that is happening I can reassure a few out here that my country is going to order another squadron of F-35's. As our liberal government seems to think it's important to invest a bit more in the military, slowly getting closer to the 2%.
/e they are liberals, not that right for US's standards.
This post was edited by Knoppie on Jan 24 2019 01:11pm