SECDEF tells NATO ministers they need to increase spending

[TimothyC]

In an ultimatum to America's allies, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told fellow NATO members Wednesday to increase military spending by year's end or risk seeing the U.S. curtail its defense support — a stark threat given Europe's deep unease already over U.S.-Russian relations.

Echoing President Donald Trump's demands for NATO countries to assume greater self-defense responsibility, Mattis said Washington will "moderate its commitment" to the alliance if countries fail to fall in line. He didn't offer details, but the pressure is sure to be felt, particularly by governments in Europe's eastern reaches that feel threatened by Russian expansionism.

Trump's Russia policy remains a mystery for many of America's closest international partners. As a candidate, the Republican president steered clear of criticizing Moscow for its 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region and repeatedly praised Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying he wanted a new era of cooperation between the former Cold War foes.

But that possibility grew murkier this week as Trump fired his national security adviser, Michael Flynn, over the retired Army lieutenant general's communications with Russia before Trump took office. The departure of Flynn, who also promoted the idea of working with Moscow, has added to speculation about how the U.S.-Russian relationship might evolve.

Amid the uncertainty from Washington, the Kremlin may be testing the West's resolve. A U.S. defense official said this week that Russia has deployed a cruise missile in violation of a Cold War-era nuclear arms control treaty. And violence has sporadically re-ignited in eastern Ukraine, where the U.S. and its partners say Moscow continues to back a separatist insurgency.

"No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of Western values," Mattis told the alliance's 27 other defense ministers, according to a text of his remarks. "Americans cannot care more for your children's future security than you do."

The entire alliance seemed to hang on Mattis' every word Wednesday. Officials crowded around televisions at the NATO meeting in Brussels to watch the retired general's initial appearance with Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. Defense ministers clustered around Mattis as he entered the meeting room.

Citing danger from Russia, Mattis told the closed meeting of ministers they must adopt a plan this year that sets dates for governments to meet a military funding goal of 2 percent of gross domestic product. He called the funding increase a "fair demand" based on the "political reality" in Washington, an apparent reference to Trump's past criticism of NATO as "obsolete" and his much-touted "'America First" mantra.

Noting the threat posed by the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, Mattis said: "Some in this alliance have looked away in denial of what is happening."

"We have failed to fill gaps in our NATO response force or to adapt," he added.

Trump has challenged the alliance to take on a greater share of military costs, even rattling European nations by suggesting the U.S. might not defend allies unwilling to fulfill their financial obligations as NATO members.

Mattis didn't go that far, and Wednesday's focus appeared to be on simply increasing military funding if not fully reaching the target. Many European governments face hostility to more military spending, especially as their slow economic recoveries force belt-tightening elsewhere.

The United States is by far NATO's most powerful member, spending more on defense than all the others combined. It devoted 3.61 percent of American GDP last year to military spending, according to NATO estimates — a level that has somewhat tapered off in recent years.

Germany, by contrast, spent 1.19 percent of its overall budget on defense. Ten countries commit even less, and seven — including Canada, Italy and Spain — would have to virtually double military spending to reach the target. Luxembourg would require a fourfold increase to get close.

Along with the U.S., the other countries that do reach NATO's benchmark for military spending are Britain, Estonia, Poland and debt-ridden Greece.

British's defense chief, Michael Fallon, said Mattis appeared to welcome a British proposal to create a road map for increased spending. "An annual increase that we're asking them to commit to would at least demonstrate good faith," he said.

Asked about Mattis' ultimatum, NATO chief Stoltenberg said allies need time to develop plans. Many are already talking about increasing commitments, he said.

"This is not the U.S. telling Europe to increase defense spending," Stoltenberg said, noting that allies committed three years ago already to increase spending over the next decade. He said: "I welcome all pressure, all support, to make sure that happens."

Despite the sharpness of his demand, Mattis appeared to recognize Europe's worries and its leaders' desire for clarity on America's commitment to NATO.

In a brief public statement, made while standing alongside Stoltenberg, Mattis called the alliance "a fundamental bedrock for the United States and for all the trans-Atlantic community."

___

Associated Press writer Lorne Cook contributed to this report.

Bolded one of the better lines.

[Gandalf]

I'm surprised American conservatives don't laud this as realpolitik in action.

[The Romulan Republic]

On the one hand, if we're going to have NATO, all members should meet their obligations.

On the other hand, I really don't care for the Orange Fascist's regime effectively dictating to NATO members "pay up or we'll screw you over against Russia"- particularly when America's support against Russia can no longer be counted on anyway.

Its not so much the demand that pisses me off, but the threat and the context in which it is made.

[Gandalf]

On the one hand, if we're going to have NATO, all members should meet their obligations.

On the other hand, I really don't care for the Orange Fascist's regime effectively dictating to NATO members "pay up or we'll screw you over against Russia"- particularly when America's support against Russia can no longer be counted on anyway.

Its not so much the demand that pisses me off, but the threat and the context in which it is made.

Amusingly, from the bottom of the article:

Asked about Mattis' ultimatum, NATO chief Stoltenberg said allies need time to develop plans. Many are already talking about increasing commitments, he said.

"This is not the U.S. telling Europe to increase defense spending," Stoltenberg said, noting that allies committed three years ago already to increase spending over the next decade. He said: "I welcome all pressure, all support, to make sure that happens."

To take this at face value, it looks a lot like Trump's admin yelling at people to do what they were already doing, in order to take credit for it having happened. He'll win points from the party faithful, so that they can start to say things like "I don't like him personally, but he was good with [pet issue]."

[Tribble]

Well, most NATO countries do tend to drag their heels when it comes to military spending for as long as possible. A very public kick in the ass on the USA's part has been long overdue (though I'd prefer it if it had been coming from the Democrats of course). Hopefully this will help ensure that NATO countries start taking their obligations seriously.

[Coop D'etat]

Informed commentary around here isn't at all enthused about the GDP percentage metric being used as a measurement of pulling our weight in the alliance, in contrast to actually doing things for NATO. After spending years bleeding in Kandahar and volunteering to put a brigade in Latvia in the name of NATO solidarity there isn't much stomach for being lectured to while Greece who does pretty much nothing for NATO can be held up as the poster child.

[Tribble]

Informed commentary around here isn't at all enthused about the GDP percentage metric being used as a measurement of pulling our weight in the alliance, in contrast to actually doing things for NATO. After spending years bleeding in Kandahar and volunteering to put a brigade in Latvia in the name of NATO solidarity there isn't much stomach for being lectured to while Greece who does pretty much nothing for NATO can be held up as the poster child.

I agree that GDP percentage shouldn't be the only metric used in terms of pulling weight, but it is important. In Canada for example our military spending is woefully inadequate even though we contribute a fair amount to international operations (our government sees it as Operation: Bleed our Troops Dry 'Cause We Don't Want To Spend Money). I'm actually hoping this will spur our government at least equip our military forces adequately, if not expand it to the minimum levels our Department of National Defence said it needed to be.

[Coop D'etat]

I agree that GDP percentage shouldn't be the only metric used in terms of pulling weight, but it is important. In Canada for example our military spending is woefully inadequate even though we contribute a fair amount to international operations (our government sees it as Operation: Bleed our Troops Dry 'Cause We Don't Want To Spend Money). I'm actually hoping this will spur our government at least equip our military forces adequately, if not expand it to the minimum levels our Department of National Defence said it needed to be.

Its woefully inadequate only if you have a burning desire to commit to expeditionary warfare. For the amount of involvement the public actually wants to have in these things, the funding level isn't that bad. If any government actually tried to spend to the completely unrealistic 2% number, the public is going to rightly ask if that money might be better spent on a hospitial or something.

The Americans of course spend way more per capita, but they're the ones who are invested in getting the status and benefits of being a superpower. There's no big benefit to spending a similar level for the dubious honour of being a junior partner to their great power games.

The previous Conservative government seemed to understand this, which is why despite talking a big game they tanked the military budget even more than the Liberals ever did.

[The Romulan Republic]

On the one hand, if we're going to have NATO, all members should meet their obligations.

On the other hand, I really don't care for the Orange Fascist's regime effectively dictating to NATO members "pay up or we'll screw you over against Russia"- particularly when America's support against Russia can no longer be counted on anyway.

Its not so much the demand that pisses me off, but the threat and the context in which it is made.

Amusingly, from the bottom of the article:

Asked about Mattis' ultimatum, NATO chief Stoltenberg said allies need time to develop plans. Many are already talking about increasing commitments, he said.

"This is not the U.S. telling Europe to increase defense spending," Stoltenberg said, noting that allies committed three years ago already to increase spending over the next decade. He said: "I welcome all pressure, all support, to make sure that happens."

To take this at face value, it looks a lot like Trump's admin yelling at people to do what they were already doing, in order to take credit for it having happened. He'll win points from the party faithful, so that they can start to say things like "I don't like him personally, but he was good with [pet issue]."

Trump bullshits. In other news, water is wet.

Edit: Not surprised that other NATO members would be stepping up funding anyway, given that a) Russia is an increasing threat and b) they probably feel less certain about relying on US protection with Trump in charge.

[Tribble]

I agree that GDP percentage shouldn't be the only metric used in terms of pulling weight, but it is important. In Canada for example our military spending is woefully inadequate even though we contribute a fair amount to international operations (our government sees it as Operation: Bleed our Troops Dry 'Cause We Don't Want To Spend Money). I'm actually hoping this will spur our government at least equip our military forces adequately, if not expand it to the minimum levels our Department of National Defence said it needed to be.

Its woefully inadequate only if you have a burning desire to commit to expeditionary warfare. For the amount of involvement the public actually wants to have in these things, the funding level isn't that bad. If any government actually tried to spend to the completely unrealistic 2% number, the public is going to rightly ask if that money might be better spent on a hospitial or something.

The Americans of course spend way more per capita, but they're the ones who are invested in getting the status and benefits of being a superpower. There's no big benefit to spending a similar level for the dubious honour of being a junior partner to their great power games.

The previous Conservative government seemed to understand this, which is why despite talking a big game they tanked the military budget even more than the Liberals ever did.

I disagree: woefully inadequate sums up Canada's military spending over the past several decades, and our military is in no shape to even adequately defend our own territory, let alone going on foreign adventures:

We do not have any real heavy combat land vehicle.
We do not have ships which have significant anti-aircraft armaments, and we would require escorts in our own territory if we were to ever face any hostile aircraft.
We do not have re-supply ships.
We do not have any military ships which can operate in the Artic.
Our ships inventories of missiles and torpedoes are severely outdated and in low supply, with no date on significant replacements.
Our ships do not generally participate in NATO exercises even when in Canadian waters due to lack of funding for fuel.
We're still using helicopters from the 1960s which have the tendency to fall out of the sky and require 100 hours of mechanical work for every hour of flight. The replacements are civilian helicopters which are incapable of mounting anywhere near the weapons of the previous generation and have been deemed the DND to be dangerous to fly in the Artic (you know, 90% of the country) barring major costly modifications --> no date on when they are actually going to arrive.
We are still using jets from the 1980s, and have now effectively cancelled their (admittingly long overdue and over budget) replacements with designs which are at best already outdated and still overpriced.
Our jets current missile stock is obsolete, running low, and with no date yet on replacements.
We do not have large military cargo aircraft, and must rent said aircraft from the US whenever we want to ferry large equipment / troops around (even in our own borders).
The military cargo aircraft we do have is so old we literally have to raid our museums for spare parts to keep them running.
Our land vehicles are so old and broken down that it's well known that many have tarps underneath them for all the leakage.
We are still have ~6,800 short full time members than our own official policies dictate that we have.
And we are so short on infantry ammo that training is restricted to 49 bullets per soldier per year.
etc. etc. etc.


The solution to this from all parties: why, cut the funding further of course!

The Conservatives and Liberals have even gone one step further by arguing in court that the government is under no moral or legal obligation to help veterans who are injured in the course of their duties, and they should consider themselves damn lucky if they get anything at all.

There is a reason why I created a thread a couple of months ago discussing whether or not Canada needs a military. If the public is perfectly happy with the current state of affairs (and by some accounts the public desires to gut the budget further) and all political parties agree, why bother? We're just needlessly putting our own troops at risk by giving them horribly obsolete equipment (when they get equipment) and gutting their ability to even train properly. Just give the US that money to help maintain their nuclear deterrent stockpile and call it a day.

[Simon_Jester]

My sentiments on this matter are on record from before the election or I wouldn't be able to stomach saying this, but...

Honestly, I have been making observations along these lines for some time. I'm aware that a number of NATO nations are trying to build themselves up from the relative low of defense spending that they (understandably) fell towards with the end of the Cold War in the '90s.

But if the de facto policy of a NATO member state devolves toward "do not pay for equipment and supplies to maintain a basic functional set of armed forces," there does come a certain point at which other NATO members are entitled to ask "how can we commit to defending you, if you will not defend yourself? Do we derive any direct benefit from committing to fight on your behalf, if you are in the process of letting your own ability to fight on our behalf wither away?"

I mean, it'd be folly for a NATO member to say to the US "you're right, we're not going to defend ourselves, take the money we would have spent and do it for us." Especially with Trumpolini in charge, because he's a brute and an ass. But if I'm NOT going to say that, then if my country spends pocket change on its own military while trying to stay in an alliance with the US, then I am effectively in the position of trying to get the US to treat its own military budget as a very odd sort of foreign aid spent on my behalf.

It's one thing for a country that can't afford to defend itself against a powerful neighbor asking for 'aid money' in the form of US ships, troops, and planes. It's another matter entirely when First World countries that have simply chosen not to spend the money elect to do the same.

[Ralin]

So, am I missing something here or is it pretty obvious that the main benefit the US gets out of all this is that by subsidizing the defense of other NATO members we ensure that other wealthy 1st World nations don't increase their military spending to the point where they can act against US interests if they want to in the future?

I mean, I'm not just talking about a hypothetical war with the US. If the United States and France are at loggerheads over how to deal with some country in North Africa or the Middle East with France wanting to punish them for some terrorist attack or whatever and the US urging restraint it's pretty clearly to America's benefit if France flat out doesn't have the ability to bomb/invade said country on their own. I can think of a lot of scenarios where similar logic would apply. Seems to me that it's worth paying a premium for having final say on that sort of thing. Sort of like how we don't have to worry about the fallout from Japan attacking North Korea so long as Japan doesn't have enough of a military to do so in the first place.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, that isn't much of a benefit compared to the price tag.

Historically the US paid a lot of money to keep heavy forces in Europe to defend against the Soviets. The benefit of this was obvious: it gave Western European countries confidence that the US would fight to defend them against a conventional invasion by Soviet forces. This is a tricky thing to convince people of in a nuclear-armed world, because you have to ask yourself "would the Americans really accept Russian nuclear bombs headed for New York as the price of fighting to stop Russian tanks headed for Paris?" By physically placing US troops in position to intercept those tanks, and arming them with nuclear weapons, the US

This allowed the US to hold together a stable anti-Soviet alliance in Western Europe, rather than risking having each individual country be rolled up piecemeal by a combination of its own internal communist parties and Soviet intervention from outside.

After the Soviets collapsed, a lot of NATO member states wound down their militaries to a large degree. The US, not so much. This left the US in a position of spending proportionately more... but there wasn't really a specific purpose like "reduce foreign nations to military impotence" behind it. It was just a thing that the US kept doing rather than ceasing to do.

[FTeik]

Considering, that the EU has players as large as Germany, France, Spain and Poland on one side and members like Luxemburg, Austria and Slowakia on the other a huge amount of coordination, cooperation and renouncement of national interests/sovereignity would be necessary to create a credible/effective deterrent/force-capable of large-scale-intervention. Just think of the number of different assault rifles, howitzers, tanks, helicopters, submarines and warships in use by the non-US-NATO-members.

Side-question: How much would you be willing to bet, that this is just a ploy to increase business for Lockhead, Boing and other defence-contractors? Because on the one side the US claims it would like a stronger engagement of the Europeans, on the other the weakness of the other NATO-members has allowed the US to keep their dominant position.

[K. A. Pital]

I mean, I'm not just talking about a hypothetical war with the US. If the United States and France are at loggerheads over how to deal with some country in North Africa or the Middle East with France wanting to punish them for some terrorist attack or whatever and the US urging restraint it's pretty clearly to America's benefit if France flat out doesn't have the ability to bomb/invade said country on their own.

France is actually one of the few European countries that does have this ability. And it uses it - and had used it - quite often.

A bit OT, but a better example is Germany.

[FireNexus]

My sentiments on this matter are on record from before the election or I wouldn't be able to stomach saying this, but...

Honestly, I have been making observations along these lines for some time. I'm aware that a number of NATO nations are trying to build themselves up from the relative low of defense spending that they (understandably) fell towards with the end of the Cold War in the '90s.

But if the de facto policy of a NATO member state devolves toward "do not pay for equipment and supplies to maintain a basic functional set of armed forces," there does come a certain point at which other NATO members are entitled to ask "how can we commit to defending you, if you will not defend yourself? Do we derive any direct benefit from committing to fight on your behalf, if you are in the process of letting your own ability to fight on our behalf wither away?"

I mean, it'd be folly for a NATO member to say to the US "you're right, we're not going to defend ourselves, take the money we would have spent and do it for us." Especially with Trumpolini in charge, because he's a brute and an ass. But if I'm NOT going to say that, then if my country spends pocket change on its own military while trying to stay in an alliance with the US, then I am effectively in the position of trying to get the US to treat its own military budget as a very odd sort of foreign aid spent on my behalf.

It's one thing for a country that can't afford to defend itself against a powerful neighbor asking for 'aid money' in the form of US ships, troops, and planes. It's another matter entirely when First World countries that have simply chosen not to spend the money elect to do the same.

We derive a direct benefit from nobody in the developed world being willing to get into a slugfest with anyone else in the developed world. The point of NATO post-Cold War is to make it so nobody ever bothers to fight in places that are economically important. Having them wind their militaries down actually enhances that benefit.

The US is going to spend on a giant military for as long as we have the money or the available credit. Count on it. The relative commitment of particular NATO states doesn't matter, because it pales in comparison to the capacity we were going to keep available regardless.

[K. A. Pital]

The point of NATO post-Cold War is to make it so nobody ever bothers to fight in places that are economically important.

You do realize that this sounds like eternal oppression of the weaker? "We strong and rich nations can fight you at any time, but don't dare you!"

[Flagg]

The point of NATO post-Cold War is to make it so nobody ever bothers to fight in places that are economically important.

You do realize that this sounds like eternal oppression of the weaker? "We strong and rich nations can fight you at any time, but don't dare you!"

It sounds like it because that's what it is.

[Ralin]

The point of NATO post-Cold War is to make it so nobody ever bothers to fight in places that are economically important.

You do realize that this sounds like eternal oppression of the weaker? "We strong and rich nations can fight you at any time, but don't dare you!"

I'm not sure I follow.

[K. A. Pital]

The point of NATO post-Cold War is to make it so nobody ever bothers to fight in places that are economically important.

You do realize that this sounds like eternal oppression of the weaker? "We strong and rich nations can fight you at any time, but don't dare you!"

I'm not sure I follow.

This basically means that NATO exists to make sure there are no wars that would negative affect the First World (all nations inside NATO), but at the same time it unites all the powerful ex-colonial powers together so that they can effectively make war anywhere else in the world at their whim.

This is also what really happens, as it turned out in the 20-something post-Cold War years - NATO nations did not just "defend" themselves - there was no one to defend from - but they have casually invaded or bombed a bunch of other nations under the flimsiest excuses (while of course totally not giving two shits about something huge, like Rwanda).

[Thanas]

EU nations had already committed to spending more before Trump, not sure if this is anything except grandstanding.

[Lost Soal]

EU nations had already committed to spending more before Trump, not sure if this is anything except grandstanding.

Because he gets to proclaim that he forced them to increase spending just like he shouted about how he's stopped companies from cutting jobs when they weren't going to in the first place.

[Simon_Jester]

The point of NATO post-Cold War is to make it so nobody ever bothers to fight in places that are economically important.

You do realize that this sounds like eternal oppression of the weaker? "We strong and rich nations can fight you at any time, but don't dare you!"

The weak nations were just as oppressed, or even much more oppressed, back when powerful and wealthy nations did fight each other on their home soil. Imperialism is a problem, but wars between the imperialist powers are not the solution to that problem, because they simply result in the loser's empire being integrated into the winner's.

[Ralin]

This basically means that NATO exists to make sure there are no wars that would negative affect the First World (all nations inside NATO), but at the same time it unites all the powerful ex-colonial powers together so that they can effectively make war anywhere else in the world at their whim.

You do realize that this sounds like eternal oppression of the weaker? "We strong and rich nations can fight you at any time, but don't dare you!"

Wouldn't you say that about most anything that involves those countries remaining wealthy, powerful and not being destroyed in their political and economic forms?

[Shroom Man 777]

I've read that Obama did something similar because he's tired of "free riders" contributing zilch while benefiting from the US security umbrella...