Germany: Trump’s 5% NATO demand too costly, says Scholz

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-trumps-5-nato-demand-too-costly-says-scholz/a-71289250

by Several_Print4633

38 comments

  1. Trump is just high balling, so Nato countries will agree to 3 or 3,5% and will be happy they don’t have to pay 5%.

  2. I agree that we cannot continue underspending in defense, but I agree with Scholtz this time. Who is gonna pay for such a large increase in mil spending? The poor through further welfare cuts? The already overburdened middle class?

    Yes, we must be able to defend ourselves against both old (Russia) and possibly new (a Trumpist US) foes, but not at the cost of devolving into a third-world continent.

  3. Olaf, mate, why do we even entertain this? Laugh about it and move on. The demand is so ridiculous and stupid that it actually warrants laughing in Trump’s face and saying nothing else.

    Edit: to be clear, 5% would give Germany an annual military budget of €200 billion and give Germany and France alone a combined military strength equal to that of fucking China, not to mention there’d still be the entire rest of NATO. NATO works through the threat of combined military strength. The entire point of NATO is to work together so that member states do not have to entertain huge militaries. 5% is ridiculous.

  4. Even at the height of the cold war 5% of was too much. Most were around the 3-3.5% mark

  5. 5% of GDP would be 222.8 billion USD, which would place Germany in 4th place, right behind Russia with 290 billion USD, who are actively engaged in a war and spending 40% of their GDP.

    Obviously, that’s too costly, considering the demographic change and the strained welfare system in Germany.

  6. 5% is a massive amount though. Using 2-3% is more than enough to maintain a powerful military. Using more would mean a decrease in other important areas like education, healthcare, infrastructure and so on. 

    But then again, the play from Trump is that hes trying to pressure Europe to use even more money to buy American weapons.

  7. Stop throwing money on NATO, let’s start building a common EU defense.

  8. Trump is a tradesman, asking for 5% just to settle it around 3-3,5%.

  9. To be fair 5% is cheaper than a Russian invasion of Western Europe.

    We must all do more, better too much than not enough.

    .

  10. Before we make another target that only has to be implemented at some point in the next decade, how about having a talk about what NATO should be, what the US wants and what the EU is willing to do? After that we can decide who does what and how much “catching up” is actually needed. Then we have actual numbers we need to cover.

    If this ends up to become another version of “reach 2% by 2024” and “countries get to define how to spend a good portion of their miliary spending”, I am sure it will equally end in angry accusations.

  11. I don’t like his attitude, but I also can’t imagine how would we spend 5% on defense in a meaningful way. That is like a lot of money…

    Considering that Europe is not too interested in power projection, I just don’t know what we spend a trillion euros per year on. Like maybe 5000 additional F-35s per year or something?

    If you substract the 200 billion in veteran benefits, it would be like double the US budget, lol…

  13. Forget Trump. We are in a situation where we cannot rely on USA for defense, and for the USA to fulfill NATO obligations. 

    With Trump the whole post- WW2 security architecture is thrown out.

    We may even find ourselves fighting the USA one day. How much do we need to spend on defense should USA and Russia gang together against Europe?

  15. Ironically, not even the US spends 5% of their GDP in military.

    Not that I don’t agree with 5% especially for us in Europe. WWI and WWII proved that America stays away from world wars unless they get directly attacked.

    We definitely need. 5%

  18. I don’t mind more defence budget but more should be spend in the EU and less in the US.

  19. Go 3.5% and spend it on european made defense products, reduce the reliant on U.S.

  21. For those saying 5% is too much, yeah, you are probably right. I would just offer this factoid: Ukraine’s defense spending as a percentage of GDP is currently around 37%, even with all the military aid they are receiving.

  22. They would have to quadruple their military budget to over 200 billion a year, it probably is too costly.

  23. This makes no sense. Europeans complain about relying on U.S. military protection, but they’re unwilling to meet NATO’s defense spending target, which is exactly what they’d need to do to become militarily self-reliant. They can’t complain about U.S. dependence while refusing to take the steps necessary to end it

  24. I don’t mind his demand. if they agree to 3.5% i can live with this. but europe needs to boost its military production capability anyways. be it to return the favour when sh*t kicks off in taiwan or for our own sake on the eastern front. i am not a fan of Trump but he was right back in 2016 that Europe needs to wake the eff up. we learned the hard way in 2022. its kind of embarrassing that Trump still needs to remind us of the fact, that the times of “Frieden, Freude und Eierkuchen” are over. its a multipolar world and trade is not a guarantee for peace. A strong European continent is good for ourselves and NATO. si vis pace para bellum.

  25. While this is clearly some crass negotiation tactic, do my European friends here really think 2% of GDP is enough to rebuild your militaries – especially in the face of the US who wants to turn inward?

    Personally I think 3% is a more realistic goal with the world situation around us. 2% feels reasonable for maintaining a strong military but not the build up Europe needs if it doesn’t want to have to constantly kiss the ring of the US, China and even Russia

  26. I feel like almost every year we get news of germany having more tax revenue than ever, but for some reason we can never afford anything. The fact that debt is banned might be a factor, and the insane costs of social securiry.

  27. Too costly? Is it cheaper to drop your pants down and bend over for Russia?

  28. greedy for 5% but then go to 50%+ during crisis

  29. I don’t remember any agreement with the number 5%.

  30. It is costly, but it is a burden we all have to bare. Because our enemies is not stopping.

  31. 5% target would be 20% of the overall german spendings in 2023.

    The 2,1% were a bit more than 8%.

  32. I think the US should spend that much before demanding it from others. Not even Poland contributes 5%, and they have the highest percentage by GDP

  33. The Americans are only at 3.5% from my amateurish googling.

  34. First it’s 2%. Now all countries want to spend 2%, the orange raises to 5%. It’s just a very, very clear way of raising the bar and in few weeks saying “look they don’t comply”. It’s pathetic. Europe has its own nukes and defense. So what US leaves NATO. US loses a lot of allies and bases around the world. Don’t give this moron and followers a stage.

  35. That’s too much to ask. The UK is not at war. Why would we more than double our military budget? Especially since a majority of that new expenditure wouldn’t even be spent in the UK, and we’re struggling for recruits as it is.

  36. USA is at 3,45%. I wonder if they fancy increasing the defence budget with almost 50%

  37. A large portion of American defense spending is actually for sponsoring research and development done in universities.

    The EU could simply relabel their education and research spending to be defense spending.

Comments are closed.