NATO Chief of Staff said on Dutch TV that the planned pan-European increase in defense spending is not sufficient to replace the USA, which would cost vastly more and take multiple decades
—
amsync
NATO Chief of Staff said on Dutch TV that the planned pan-European increase in defense spending is not sufficient to replace the USA, which would cost vastly more and take multiple decades
—
amsync
24 comments
Replace the US in doing exactly what? They spend a lot but for their own interests.
We don’t need aircraft carriers to make them chill somewhere in the Pacific Ocean. I understand thought the fear Teflon has to lose his job.
As much as it sucks, he is right.
While we can make really good vehicles, decent missiles and probably competitive fighter jets in 2030+, we lack critical capabilities (strategic enablers) that you cannot build in a few years.
But we have to start soon or later!
Euro nuke!
We don’t need massive power projection component, at least not from the get go. First thing we need is defensive capabilities (across the board: air, sea, land, cyber) and long range retaliatory and interdiction measures (ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, rocket artillery).
Fully offensive and heavy expeditionary component can wait.
Below is a verbatim translation in English of the answer provided by the NATO CoS during the interview
TV Host: Some have claimed that the planned 3.5% spending is not sufficient, do we have to do more based on the current world situation and new world order?
Geoffrey van Leeuwen (NATO CoS): we’re at the beginning of investing, we have just started… If you really wanted something like European independence in defense [independent of the USA] then you need a completely new program…then you would need to go back to the drawing board… you would need to spend much more… our 3.5% target is based on continued close cooperation with the USA not only in the nuclear umbrella, long range weapons, ISR, intelligence… everything you want to know about the enemy.. before we could have that independently we are multiple decades in the future with a much more significant cost… we have planned all our increases within the NATO existing structure, if governments want something else it will be much more expensive.
Edit: to prevent any confusion, the interview was with the Chief of Staff to Rutte, not Rutte himself. That said, this guy is pictured everywhere from Brussels to the White House and is his right hand man
I don’t understand why everyone hates on the guy. He is not wrong no matter how much you don’t like it. We mint not need to reach that level but he is not wrong that we’ll technically need to spend like 10% of our collective GDPs in order to reach their “powerlevel“.
For now we need to build an army that’s strong enough to defend ourselves from external threats. We can expand later (to project power, and win wars outside of Europe) if for whatever reason we want to do that.
If Europe goes on with its current new investment plans then that will make a huge difference.
Europe is already spending at a pace Russia can’t keep up with and the gap will increase.
To further boost EU capabilities even loftier spending pledges isn’t the solution. Now the focus needs to be on structural changes that gives more bang for our bucks.
The entire “replace the US” focus is a distraction and how hard they are to replace depends on how much you believe they currently bring to the table. And that is ultimately more about political trust than military power.
We should focus less on the US and more on Russia and other security concerns. What do we need to face the challenges Europe faces.
Sounds like some guy propping up his own business.
Yes, we needed to increase defense spending. Many countries didn´t even have bare cupboards anymore: the cupboards themselves were gone.
But spending more than the “agreed” 3.5/5%? That´s silly. For starters because using GDP as a baseline doesn´t make sense. More importantly, increasing our defense budgets doesn´t necessarily mean having better defense. There are a lot of efficiency gains to be made. European armies should standardize, both in their organization, equipment, doctrine, …
Just throwing more money at the problem is plain stupid.
Natos executives are paid by usa we shouldn’t listen to them
Forget power projection if we could start with the ability to hold our own continent. Ammo, long range strike capability, command and control, ammo, domestic drone industry, a2ad, logistics, second strike capability that covers whole continent and isn’t political, ammo.
I mean that’s not really wrong; replacing the US in our security architecture is in my view now completely inevitable, but it will cost a lot and take decades.
They better get going. It will help the economy to build more, buy less.
Bru we do NOT want to conquer the world, we only want to defend ourselves from all these assholes out there. I highly doubt we need decades for this goal
Does not seem all that dire. Considering that the European GDP is eight times more than russia’s, I don’t think that there will be much of a problem.
[https://www.ft.com/content/93d44b5a-a087-4059-9891-f18c77efca4b](https://www.ft.com/content/93d44b5a-a087-4059-9891-f18c77efca4b)
Military spending in Russia, whose economy President Vladimir Putin has put on a war footing, now outstrips all of Europe’s defence budgets combined, according to a study.
Total Russian defence spending soared last year by 42 per cent in real terms to Rbs13.1tn. That is equivalent to $462bn on the basis of purchasing power parity, which adjusts for what currencies can buy in their home countries.
European defence budgets by comparison, including the UK and EU member states, rose almost 12 per cent last year to $457bn — slightly less than Moscow’s spending, the International Institute for Strategic Studies think-tank said on Wednesday.
The US has roughly spent 3-4% of GDP on defense for the past 20 years. That includes have quite a few forces fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq. It also includes having 13 carrier battle groups and bases all around the planet. Europeans somewhere between 1-2%. Obviously we can replace the Americans without people feeling a lot of hardship. Going to 5% will be felt but will also overshoot quite a lot.
Europeans are as capable as Americans. If we want to, we can replace the equipment and manpower contribution from the US. What is harder is stuff like military intelligence (we would need a European Military Intelligence Service).
We also have a fragmented defense industry. That means that we are wasting a ton of money there. Why does almost every nation have their own frigate design? How many companies are making similar military radars? How many different air defense systems do we have (why does Italians and French SAMP/T systems use different radars)? We will need to consolidate the defense industry so that it is no longer national.
I think a lot of countries would accept that as long as the defense industry ensured that jobs were created all over Europe (based on defense spending). However, there are also countries that would want to resist this (aka France).
Then there is the need for nukes. Yes, France and the UK have nukes but will they use them to defend Zilupe (Latvia)? And indeed, the hardest part will be to create a credible structure – both conventional and nuclear – where the Russians know that they cannot divide us. Because only if the Russians know that we actually stand together – that it isn’t just words on a piece of paper – only then will we deter them.
You know what? That’s fine. US power is diminishing as we speak. Allies aren’t looking long term the empire is crumbling from the inside.
Careful, Mark! This will trigger Reddit’s arm chair generals!
Good reason to start today
I don’t really think a post-US NATO needs to be as strong as it was before, just strong enough so that any of Russia, China, or the US would lose enough assets going up against it that they would end up being dogmeat for the other two. Honestly, we are pretty much there now. We really just need to grow a little, modernize, and introduce a more practical focus on readiness, industrial capacity, and unaided deployability.
We only need to be better than Russia.
So do nothing ?
So now is a good time to start
Of course spending far too little for 30 years cannot be compensated for a short period of just enough spending. This should be self-evident.
The fact of the matter is that per the FT, Europe saved around 280 billion PPP annually since the end of the Cold War by spending less on defense.