This discussion about spending xxx% of GDP is the hype since Donald The Trump started his first election campaign and has dominated the press and the political rethoric since then. Is it usefull? Let's remember, it once started with providing military capabilities within a given alert time, and this contribution was regulary checked by NATO teams.
Now it is basically about spending money, wether it is for getting a new pavement in front of a military installation or money for public work or buy modern fighters, everything out of the budget counts, the US probably financed its Indycar adventure out of the defence budget. Let me stay with the US spending for a moment to make things clear, and my intention is not to devalue such spending. It will be interesting though how much of the US spending is out of NATO area of responsibility, in the Pacific and Indian ocean, all the aircraft carriers, the subs, the multiple US military bases around the globe, how much is NATO interest and how much is USA interest alone? In what areas would NATO had a say , and which are and would stay SECRET NO FOREIGN? How much of these large US assets is earmarked for NATO assignment or intended and useful for assignment in a NATO / Russia conflict?
Since Trump is ruling not only the White House but all governing agencies by the mood with which he comes out of bed in the morning, what leverage does this vast amount of US spending really carry in preventing a war in NATO territory? I haven't seen any statistic yet to look behind that money trap.
Or is it all about spending as much as possible and use the lump of it to buy American produced gadgets?
This is an excellent point that I never had considered when thinking about the big picture. Do you have any additional resources or point me in a direction to learn more about this topic?
I don't have any statistic, but I know that my unit (GAF) was high on moral, spirit and achievement, but the soldiers of other NATO countries were a lot better accomodated, fed and paid then our troops. On common exercises dislocated from the homebase we were not only worst paid, also our social life was miserable. It's all budget. We had no free golf courses, no Base Exchange or Comissary shops on base and no cheap housing on or off base, no housing areas to be used when on vacancy.
Just few examples out of my daily life as an Staff-Officer.
And, Article 5 obligates NATO to respond in support of USA if any nation ( or non-state actor?) attacks any of those (how many?) US bases all around the world. I think.
To NATO’s everlasting credit
A) they responded to 9/11 and backed the USA a lot in Afghanistan right from the get’go
And
NATO did not activate Article 5 to back USA’s assaults on Granada or Iraq either time. Although several NATO nations did join in those fights. Coalition of the Willing.
I don’t know if Article 5 could be triggered by Ansar Allah’s Houthi rebels) ongoing attacks on US navy officially.
For those who think Russia won't keep coming. Look at the Baltics spending. They sure think the Russians are coming.
This isn't lockroom talk either. This is real dollars at the cost of many other things. Would you sacrifice 20-33% of your income to just securing your home? Only if you are close to 100% you are in danger.
Bless us with real data! I'm may have to dig out my laptop. Skimming through what I can see on my phone, there may be something here for serious statistical analysis. It's just a hunch, maybe a Pearson's or a Spearman's...
Noteworthy that the United States [US] spends most of its defence budget OUTSIDE of the NATO framework. Bases in Asia, around the Pacific, Latin and South America, Africa and the Middle East, are far more costly than its bases and headquarters in Europe. Additionally US Foreign Policy has influenced its principal allies UK and France to relent on issues beyond the European theatre (e.g. coercion over the issue of Suez 1956 - which forced both to consequently withdraw from “East of Suez” and pressure forcing hurried withdrawals through the 1960s and later). US Foreign and Defence Policy has been to cement the US as the central global hegemony and it pays and has paid for the privilege…. The US cannot in all honesty say even a third of its defence spending is committed to NATO, whereas all the other NATO Nations cement the privilege and economies of scale that NATO offers. Read Lord Ismay’s “NATO the first five years” and consider how the muddle of Eisenhower’s foreign policies ended up very nearly dividing NATO and forcing the French out. Also US under Nixon, then Ford unilaterally reneged on the Breton Woods agreements (and BANCOR) which results in most of the current US debt problem and why Fort Knox still holds more British (and British Empire and French) gold than American. https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/null/2/1/216977/NATO-The_first_5_years_1949-1954__by_Lord_Ismay_.pdf
This spreadsheet is excellent. It would be even more useful if you could add the average of the % of GDP at the bottom of each year. We could then track the average % across each year, to see if the average is tracking up, or remaining the same. thx
GDP data is in the tables, and graph 2 addresses the concern about which countries are paying their "fair share" wrt the 2% target. Ryan's table doesn't have the % of GDP.
I occasionally use Docs, but not an expert. Is it possible to fix the Country column, and allow side scroll, to not have to trace back when the Country column scrolls off?
Or, I could use a real computer instead of this phone thing.
One very important thing to take into account with these expenditures is that different countries include different things in their military spending column. For example personnel insurances, pensions, benefits and healthcare are under military spending in the US. Not so in most other countries, and this is a LARGE figure.
Additionally you have countries that conscript their entire male population for up to a year. 1 year of their productive work life and taxes gone. What kind of economic cost does that carry? One that will never make any numbers sheet.
Given NATO members are supposed to to be spending 2% of their GDP, adding a column showing that percentage would be super helpful. Additionally, adding a separate tab that shows trend data over time would be helpful too. The base data is excellent. I was going to make a copy of the spreadsheet, add the additional suggestions and send back to you, but it looks as if you have things locked down. 👍
This discussion about spending xxx% of GDP is the hype since Donald The Trump started his first election campaign and has dominated the press and the political rethoric since then. Is it usefull? Let's remember, it once started with providing military capabilities within a given alert time, and this contribution was regulary checked by NATO teams.
Now it is basically about spending money, wether it is for getting a new pavement in front of a military installation or money for public work or buy modern fighters, everything out of the budget counts, the US probably financed its Indycar adventure out of the defence budget. Let me stay with the US spending for a moment to make things clear, and my intention is not to devalue such spending. It will be interesting though how much of the US spending is out of NATO area of responsibility, in the Pacific and Indian ocean, all the aircraft carriers, the subs, the multiple US military bases around the globe, how much is NATO interest and how much is USA interest alone? In what areas would NATO had a say , and which are and would stay SECRET NO FOREIGN? How much of these large US assets is earmarked for NATO assignment or intended and useful for assignment in a NATO / Russia conflict?
Since Trump is ruling not only the White House but all governing agencies by the mood with which he comes out of bed in the morning, what leverage does this vast amount of US spending really carry in preventing a war in NATO territory? I haven't seen any statistic yet to look behind that money trap.
Or is it all about spending as much as possible and use the lump of it to buy American produced gadgets?
This is an excellent point that I never had considered when thinking about the big picture. Do you have any additional resources or point me in a direction to learn more about this topic?
I don't have any statistic, but I know that my unit (GAF) was high on moral, spirit and achievement, but the soldiers of other NATO countries were a lot better accomodated, fed and paid then our troops. On common exercises dislocated from the homebase we were not only worst paid, also our social life was miserable. It's all budget. We had no free golf courses, no Base Exchange or Comissary shops on base and no cheap housing on or off base, no housing areas to be used when on vacancy.
Just few examples out of my daily life as an Staff-Officer.
Yes.
And, Article 5 obligates NATO to respond in support of USA if any nation ( or non-state actor?) attacks any of those (how many?) US bases all around the world. I think.
To NATO’s everlasting credit
A) they responded to 9/11 and backed the USA a lot in Afghanistan right from the get’go
And
NATO did not activate Article 5 to back USA’s assaults on Granada or Iraq either time. Although several NATO nations did join in those fights. Coalition of the Willing.
I don’t know if Article 5 could be triggered by Ansar Allah’s Houthi rebels) ongoing attacks on US navy officially.
For those who think Russia won't keep coming. Look at the Baltics spending. They sure think the Russians are coming.
This isn't lockroom talk either. This is real dollars at the cost of many other things. Would you sacrifice 20-33% of your income to just securing your home? Only if you are close to 100% you are in danger.
Bless us with real data! I'm may have to dig out my laptop. Skimming through what I can see on my phone, there may be something here for serious statistical analysis. It's just a hunch, maybe a Pearson's or a Spearman's...
This is neat! Can you lock/freeze the first column is it easier to read the later columns?
Thanks, Ryan.
Noteworthy that the United States [US] spends most of its defence budget OUTSIDE of the NATO framework. Bases in Asia, around the Pacific, Latin and South America, Africa and the Middle East, are far more costly than its bases and headquarters in Europe. Additionally US Foreign Policy has influenced its principal allies UK and France to relent on issues beyond the European theatre (e.g. coercion over the issue of Suez 1956 - which forced both to consequently withdraw from “East of Suez” and pressure forcing hurried withdrawals through the 1960s and later). US Foreign and Defence Policy has been to cement the US as the central global hegemony and it pays and has paid for the privilege…. The US cannot in all honesty say even a third of its defence spending is committed to NATO, whereas all the other NATO Nations cement the privilege and economies of scale that NATO offers. Read Lord Ismay’s “NATO the first five years” and consider how the muddle of Eisenhower’s foreign policies ended up very nearly dividing NATO and forcing the French out. Also US under Nixon, then Ford unilaterally reneged on the Breton Woods agreements (and BANCOR) which results in most of the current US debt problem and why Fort Knox still holds more British (and British Empire and French) gold than American. https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/null/2/1/216977/NATO-The_first_5_years_1949-1954__by_Lord_Ismay_.pdf
I pulled the figures, recast the columns, and built a chart. This will help me examine some European defense stocks for investment. Thank you, Ryan!
This spreadsheet is excellent. It would be even more useful if you could add the average of the % of GDP at the bottom of each year. We could then track the average % across each year, to see if the average is tracking up, or remaining the same. thx
GDP data is in the tables, and graph 2 addresses the concern about which countries are paying their "fair share" wrt the 2% target. Ryan's table doesn't have the % of GDP.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/7/pdf/230707-def-exp-2023-en.pdf
Plot it please
Plot how?
I occasionally use Docs, but not an expert. Is it possible to fix the Country column, and allow side scroll, to not have to trace back when the Country column scrolls off?
Or, I could use a real computer instead of this phone thing.
just ctrl+C and ctrl+V it into any online GPT and ask it to make it to your liking.
LLMs hallucinate data. Verify its output, although modifying it oneself might be quicker.
Thank you the suggestion. I was hoping Ryan would do it to make it easier for others.
One very important thing to take into account with these expenditures is that different countries include different things in their military spending column. For example personnel insurances, pensions, benefits and healthcare are under military spending in the US. Not so in most other countries, and this is a LARGE figure.
Additionally you have countries that conscript their entire male population for up to a year. 1 year of their productive work life and taxes gone. What kind of economic cost does that carry? One that will never make any numbers sheet.
Spending is up so Great. Is there any directive on what they are to spend the funds on? Is there any oversite?
Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't NATO publish this data already?
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_216897.htm
NATO doesn’t include GDP data, though. The sheet has both, side by side.
Given NATO members are supposed to to be spending 2% of their GDP, adding a column showing that percentage would be super helpful. Additionally, adding a separate tab that shows trend data over time would be helpful too. The base data is excellent. I was going to make a copy of the spreadsheet, add the additional suggestions and send back to you, but it looks as if you have things locked down. 👍