US versus NATO

[PuckChaser]

Here's a good rundown of our defense budget vs GDP (that went down this year) from Lee Berthiaume.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4324547/canada-spending-less-defence-nato-report/

OTTAWA – Even as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prepares to defend against U.S. President Donald Trump’s demands that Canada invest more in defence, a new NATO report suggests Canadian military spending as a percentage of GDP will fall sharply this year.

Canada is expected to spend an estimated 1.23 per cent of its GDP on defence in 2018 – down from 1.36 per cent last year, says the annual report, which looks at military investments for all member states.

The decline is largely the result of two one-time expenses last year, said National Defence spokesman Daniel Le Bouthillier, one of which was a retroactive pay increase for service members that was included in the Liberal government’s defence policy.

The other was more unexpected: a $1.8-billion payment into the account that provides pensions for Forces members and their dependents.

Interesting piece hidden at the bottom of the article, our spending is actually worse than we thought:

The Liberal government actually changed the way Canada reports its defence spending to NATO last year, largely to ensure its investments were being properly acknowledged amid U.S. pressure to spend more.

That change saw the government include the cost of some veterans programs, deploying police on peacekeeping missions, coast guard operations and even computer support in the overall number.

The addition of those costs, which many other countries have long included in their own calculations, added approximately $4.4 billion to Canada’s reported defence spending in 2017.

Without those costs, Canada’s reported defence spending would have been around one per cent of GDP.

Seems like we're going to follow the Chretien model of Canadian military contribution: Cut the budget, maximize deployments (85 staff officers for eFRB HQ, 250 more trainers to Iraq plus a rumoured QRF for Mali of 250) with no long term investment to new troops or material. You can show "contributions" all you want, but if the cupboard is bare when NATO actually comes calling because we've deployed everything we possibly can, are we actually a solid partner?

 

[tomahawk6]

A carrier is accompanied by escorts including an attack sub.Cost of a battle group would be around $7m a day roughly.

 

[Infanteer]

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/07/trump-nato-defense-four-percent/564911/

An interesting perspective.  The primary threat the NATO's European member nations is not military, it is ideological.  Why break the bank to try to defend against migrant flows and disunity with tanks and ships?

I'm all for smart spending, which may or may not include increased spending.  But lets be realistic, 1st Guards Tank Army isn't going to make it past the Vistula, let alone the Rhine.  The 2% argument has nothing to do with defending Europe or the Treaty.  It has everything to do with the $700 billion dollar addiction to defence spending the U.S. has, and for the simple reason that a President who relishes his role as a disruptor has found a disruptive thread to pull on.

 

[tomahawk6]

It looks like Trump got his way at the NATO summit. ;D

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/11/trump-tangles-with-nato-leaders-in-testy-start-to-brussels-summit.html

NATO leaders pledged their “unwavering commitment” to boost defense spending on Wednesday, following stern words from President Trump criticizing European leaders for spending too little.

The U.S. and European allies signed a declaration stating they are “committed to improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of alliance membership.”

 

[Altair]

Here's a good rundown of our defense budget vs GDP (that went down this year) from Lee Berthiaume.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4324547/canada-spending-less-defence-nato-report/

Interesting piece hidden at the bottom of the article, our spending is actually worse than we thought:

Seems like we're going to follow the Chretien model of Canadian military contribution: Cut the budget, maximize deployments (85 staff officers for eFRB HQ, 250 more trainers to Iraq plus a rumoured QRF for Mali of 250) with no long term investment to new troops or material. You can show "contributions" all you want, but if the cupboard is bare when NATO actually comes calling because we've deployed everything we possibly can, are we actually a solid partner?

from the article you posted

The addition of those costs, which many other countries have long included in their own calculations, added approximately $4.4 billion to Canada’s reported defence spending in 2017.

  So why do countries like france get to count their germanderie and countries like canada not get to count the RCMP?

 

[Altair]

It looks like Trump got his way at the NATO summit. ;D

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/11/trump-tangles-with-nato-leaders-in-testy-start-to-brussels-summit.html

NATO leaders pledged their “unwavering commitment” to boost defense spending on Wednesday, following stern words from President Trump criticizing European leaders for spending too little.

The U.S. and European allies signed a declaration stating they are “committed to improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of alliance membership.”

very nice.

Effectively no change,  since non US NATO defense spending has been on the rise for years.

 

[tomahawk6]

Trump said today that defense spending should be 4%. It was a suggestion then whatever the figure is the budget should take into account for inflation.That last is my opinion.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-floats-idea-nato-allies-should-double-defense-spending-target/ar-AAzVY1b?ocid=spartanntp

 

[TwoTonShackle]

very nice.

Effectively no change,  since non US NATO defense spending has been on the rise for years.

Bang on, exactly what was committed to in the 2014 Summit, but now Trump can claim he was the driving force. I'm sure there was a ton of  : when his 4% GDP came up. Looking forward to his self-BZ tweets.

 

[Jarnhamar]

The 1.23% GDP Canada will spend on the military this year over last year's 1.36% (the Canadian press) will really teach Trump Canada can't be pushed around.

At least we don't have any up coming NATO commitments or new missions.

 

[Altair]

The 1.23% GDP Canada will spend on the military this year over last year's 1.36% (the Canadian press) will really teach Trump Canada can't be pushed around.

At least we don't have any up coming NATO commitments or new missions.

which goes to show how the 2 percent target is rather useless.

Canada spent more on retroactive soldier pay and pensions,  yet our defense spending jumped yo 1.36, and because we don't spend extra on pensions and retroactive soldier pay this year it drops to 1.23.

Lost in all this is the canadian forces not gaining or losing any capabilities or effectiveness.

We are as ineffective this year as we were last year.

 

[daftandbarmy]

from the article you posted
  So why do countries like france get to count their germanderie and countries like canada not get to count the RCMP?

Nice Freudian slip

The CRS, for one, are not like the RCMP. They did, however, start up in Vichy France which, I guess, nominally makes them a 'Germanderie'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnies_R%C3%A9publicaines_de_S%C3%A9curit%C3%A9

 

[PuckChaser]

So why do countries like france get to count their germanderie and countries like canada not get to count the RCMP?

So we should add the RCMP in, to get close to a number that you said is a poor metric instead of actually investing money into the CAF to generate real capabilities? Adding the RCMP in won't change the fact that even using the poor metric, we're slipping further and further away from where other major NATO partners are.

 

[Altair]

So we should add the RCMP in, to get close to a number that you said is a poor metric instead of actually investing money into the CAF to generate real capabilities? Adding the RCMP in won't change the fact that even using the poor metric, we're slipping further and further away from where other major NATO partners are.

So you will find me of two minds.

I agree,  canada and others need to increase investment in their armed forces.

But the way the American president is focusing on that two percent guideline I would be willing to find creative ways to get to 2 percent to shut him up.

 

[PuckChaser]

But the way the American president is focusing on that two percent guideline I would be willing to find creative ways to get to 2 percent to shut him up.

So its not about whats right or wrong for the Alliance, it's about blind hatred of the US President; so much so that anything he says cannot possibly be correct.

 

[Jarnhamar]

So its not about whats right or wrong for the Alliance, it's about blind hatred of the US President;

Someone's late to the party 

 

[Good2Golf]

Bang on, exactly what was committed to in the 2014 Summit, but now Trump can claim he was the driving force. I'm sure there was a ton of  : when his 4% GDP came up. Looking forward to his self-BZ tweets.

4 is the new 2!  ;D

Funny that, the re-brand on the 2014 promise drawn out by Obama.  ;D

Regards
G2G

 

[CBH99]

I think the general point is that if the US wants to include non-military spending as part of their calculations to get to 3% GDP, other countries COULD do the same & get substantially closer to the 2% Trump wants.

I think everybody on this forum is in general agreement on the basic matter...money needs to be spent wisely & capabilities need to be procured/generated effectively.  If that can be accomplished by wisely spending 1.5% of GDP, great.  If it requires sloppy spending of 2% GDP, so be it.

But I think we all agree...using 2% of GDP just for the sake of using it doesn't guarantee new capabilities that can be used.

 

[Altair]

So its not about whats right or wrong for the Alliance, it's about blind hatred of the US President; so much so that anything he says cannot possibly be correct.

if you want to ignore everywhere I've said he was off to a good start before going too far, that's on you.

 

[Loachman]

We could buy a lot of kit and build a lot of infrastructure fairly quickly by doubling our defence budget.

Recruiting, training, and developing enough people, however, is a completely different matter.

We went through an expansion in the 1980s, but it was very modest compared to a budgetary doubling, and we started with a much healthier organization

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

This entire issue is a matter of perspective.  I'm not convinced we need to be spending 2% of our GDP on Defence; however, a lot of the military and defence issues we face today are a direct result of the fact that we are moving toward a multipolar world.

For certain the United States could defeat Russia militarily if it committed a substantial amount of resources to do so.  It can't do this though because commiting all its military resources to the European theatre would leave it in a poor position elsewhere. 

Thinking about this, it makes perfect sense for the United States to try and put pressure on the rest of NATO to make additional investments as it no longer has the capacity to match both China and Russia simultaneously.

Long term, the BRICS countries are a major threat to US Hegemony world wide.