The 2% Rule and Trump's NATO Abandonment Threats 

Then again, because you're a western aligned petrostate, you're more than guaranteed protection from the US.

When did they invade? Cause the *War* has been going on for a (Far longer period) of time. Your oil is fine. Your one of the biggest spender that can even compete with *Russia*

​@@adam.maqavoyHe's referring to the "Special Military Operation". Yes, the invasion of Ukraine began in 2014. But the full scale invasion began in 22. But you already knew that. No need to be unnecessarily obtuse with people.

@@arutka2000 The world got its warning in 2014. The fact that it was possible to get off Russian gas in a matter in a matter of months proves that it could have painlessly been done in the prior 8 years. Norway's kinda a special case because of its own oil and gas reserves, but Europe broadly should have stopped procrastinating a decade ago.

@@adam.maqavoy Right now it seems Norway will reach the 2% of GDP target in 2024 so this video is a bit outdated. But in any case, it wasn't the invation in itself that changed the equation but the sanctions so it's 2022 that counts, not 2014. There are four factors this oversimplified "percentage of GDP by 2024" discussion misses, not only for Norway but for all NATO countries: 1. We don't know yet. The GDPs for 2024 are still guesses - educated guesses, yes, but still not at all certain. The national budgets aren't set in stone either. The actual spending will be different and not known until early 2025 at best. 2. Efficient resource management takes careful planning and that isn't done over night. This is especially relevant for Norway but also for other countries. According to Norway's 2021 GDP, millitary spending shuold be about 10 billion USD to reach the 2% target. Now we're suddenly talking 12 billions. It takes time to figure out the best way to spend that extra money. 3. Availability. Once you've decided what new shiny equipment you want to buy for your military you still have to wait for it to be delivered. In the current situation that can take years. The military industry of the NATO and NATO-friendly countries already had serious backlogs even before the Ukraine war. As it is now, not only do the manufacturers have to try their best to supply Ukraine, they also have to cater for all the countries around the world who figured out that Russia wasn't a reliable supplier after all. New factories have to be built (and are being built) to cover the increased demand and that again takes time. 4. The CFE treaty of 1990 is still in place and it limits the number of various weapon systems each European country is allowed to have. Russia violated the treaty long ago of course but the other signees have still been reluctant to do the same. This seems to be changing now but it has certainly been a factor that limited many countries' ability to reach the 2% target.

😅

Not glazing over melting, but out of their ears 😂

Supporting evidence and facts are a hard sell these days.

Does anyone know what Dr Spaniel looks like though?

​@@thomasjohnson2862 Dr Spaniel is an intellectual. It's about thinking, not looks. His thoughts are his "looks", so to speak. So lines on maps, his animations and illustrations, is actually his "looks". He may well not care that much about his personal visual appearance. Most of my university lecturers in Sweden don't put much or even any effort on looks. With funny examples, like one giving a lecture wearing a sweater inside-out! The lecturer had such a good flow going though, drawing economic diagrams with such fervor, that the chalk dust formed a cloud around him, that no one wanted to interrupt him to tell him before break - at which time he himself had also noticed. And we had a good laugh together.

Yeah, I always thought he/she lived in the White House.

@@warman1944 The white house really isn't that large. And it serves as both living quarters and working office for the president, so anything that hasn't absolutely got to be there, is probably a good idea to locate somewhere else. I don't think the vice president would appreciate living in a closet size space, like some college student.😉😄 Funny thing is the Royal palace in Stockholm. It's huge, because it was built (began 1697) to not only accomodate the king, but also accomodate parliment as well as the national library. Both of which however later had their own separate sizeable buildings built. These days however, the Swedish King only uses the city palace as office, and lives in another Royal palace just outside Stockholm, modeled as a mini version of the French Versallies palace. But the Swedish mini-version isn't that small either, since the Versallies palace is ABSOLUTELY INSANE in size!

@@warman1944 I assumed it was Blair House because that's where Harry was when he couldn't reside in the White House and they (some morons or other) tried to whack him. Just assumed that everyone moved down a residence.

Too many juicy targets living in one spot. ​@@warman1944

​@@andersgrassman6583would another would another Lisbeth Salander novel set in the present day make sense or has that ship sailed?

not a war

@@anreey8632 "There is no war in Ba Sing Se" head ahh

“Defeat your enemy before the battle has begun” - Sounds like something from Sun Tzu 🤔

@@UGNAvalon It'd be more accurate to say "Make sure your enemy knows that they'll be defeated before the war has begun". Simply being able to do so isn't enough to prevent the war, the other side needs to know it (whether true or not).

What if you will win and winning is beneficial

Lines In Sand ™ edition

Is this his voice or a program

@@george2113 it's really him

It wasn't Putin who did it.

Now he's responsible for the "war dividends", very true

​@@user-si2dr1pn3p Putin didn't do what?

@@user-si2dr1pn3p Yes, he has.

@@user-si2dr1pn3p If you're implying that Orange Jesus may have had a hand, perhaps, but only at the margin. Absent Putin's aggression there would be little reason to change the status quo.

As an American, I have to sadly agree with this statement. I wish it wasn’t true and that we were a better ally, but the US can’t be counted on. Just ask Zelenskyy. He’s been fighting the Ruskies with one hand tied behind his back bc America refuses to send him everything he needs. We’re always dribbling out the support little bits at a time. 😣

"Getting the act together" is a bit of a stretch considering how far ahead of Russia Europe already was and is, Makes it sound like not enough money was being spent to deter Russia when in fact enough was being spent to easily defeat Russia. Europe deciding to double spending from only outspending Russia 5 to 1 to now outspending it 10 to 1 really isn't necessary, the Nordic countries don't need to have large enough militaries to handle Russia themselves.

@@HavaWM Problem is the US can't be everywhere at once, there's so many commitments that it already has and Ukraine can't get to the top of the list. I don't recall the US being the world police outside of the movie and how you can judge them as if they should drop everything for one country

​@@legoeasycompanyIt's amazing how much America is criticised by every country that relies on it for defence.

@@Pan_Z 15 years ago people bitched about the US in Iraq (which was a mistake), 10 years ago people bitched ago about the US intervening in other countries. And now current day people are bitching at the US to do something, amazing how people will flip so quickly.

Half and Half is Better!!!!

@@industrialathlete6096 maybe but in England we drink regular milk in Tea

Whole Milk all the way!! Anything else is just water dyed white 😂 (probably why i’ve started to get fat!)

Drink full fat milk and go for a run!

Skim milk is the best milk

That's nonsense.

@@CedarHunt Which part and why? Or do you not really know and it just seems some how wrong to you?

The whole thing. The proposal that freeloading allies are valuable just by being in the alliance is ridiculous. Also, nobody is saying NATO members contribute the same amount. The call is for members to spend an amount proportional to their GDP that they have already agreed to. So, the premise is false.

You keep using this word…”contributions” like some kind of Trump puppet. That’s not how NATO works. It’s not a collective, there’s no NATO army that everyone throws money in a pot to support. Every nation retains absolute sovereignty and decides its own military/defence policies according to it needs. Many countries have near zero risk of being invaded by some other country, they have no far flung empire to defend. Other countries like USA and France have substantial overseas interests and reliably use their military power for direct selfish interests. So let’s not have the daycares paying the same fire insurance premiums as the fireworks factory and pretend that’s being fair and equal.

​@@CedarHunt This premise is false. The 2% of GDP is a guideline, and not a rule. In addition more allies gives the NATO forces more territory to build bases, infrastructure, and conduct training. Putting pressure on NATO countries to spend more is completely fair, but to say that allies that fall below the 2% line is useless as a partner is flat out wrong.

Yes and no. Ukraine is not in NATO and, given the feeble Russian performance against Ukraine it is hard to believe that even the craziest Russian leader would attack a NATO country - Even 1% of NATO countries GDP is far more than 6% of Russian GDP

@@N.i.c.k.HI hope that this is the correct assessment.

@@N.i.c.k.H A Russian attack against NATO is very likely and probably has already happened (with Russia blowing up Nordstream and carrying out chemical weapons attacks in the UK). But it isn't the WW2 style 'invade to seize territory' attack. If Russia attacks it'll be northern Finland or another remote area, using some excuse about a 'buffer zone' or 'opressed ethnic Russians' so that they can de-escalate if it blows up. The Russian aim will be to challenge NATO Article 5. And when someone like Trump then backstabs his allies or worse there's a general 'Should we really go to full war over this strip of land' mood in NATO, article 5 has ceased to function, NATO has ceased to function and it'll be everyone for themselves, which would be a massive Russian victory. Russia will then wait 5-10 years to await further political NATO collapse, before starting to fully invade other countries like Romania, Estonia, etc.

​@@N.i.c.k.H Yes, but a single country's efforts are more efficient than 32 country's fragmented efforts. And as we all know, 70% of defense costs go to personnel, who in USA/Europe earn 10x more than in Russia (at least officially, they make up for meagre salary with corruption).

@@N.i.c.k.H Both UK and the US singed the Budapest Memorandum that was supposed to guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty.

Yes, I was wondering the same. What is to stop a country from solely expanding its enlisted ranks to achieve the 2% goal. The salary paid to the new soldiers plus the cost of education, training, new military housing construction, food, utilities, base related support and amenities, and spousal/family benefits can be 100% recycled and recaptured into the domestic economy. This would add a zero benefit to NATO while boosting domestic jobs, reducing unemployment, reducing domestic poverty, and reducing domestic poverty related crime. The 2% figure should be qualified and subject to NATO review and approval as to both quantity and quality in meeting the joint needs, and purposes, and goals of NATO as a whole.

I don't necessarily think the "2%" is in order to guarantee a more effectively combat force. I think it's more a way to prevent countries from letting their military just fall into absolute complacency. Or at the very least, intended to do. Whether it does may or may not matter. I think everyone just wants to see some effort.

I can't speak for the Europeans as a whole, but in France the insistence of Trump for the “2% of GDP” figure is widely interpreted as a “Buy American” command. And, effectively, most NATO countries comply. What remains to be seen is - in the hypothesis of a two-war situation - how much and at what rate the ammunition & spare parts would be delivered by the US arms manufacturers to these NATO countries, if there were a crunch in the US production facilities. With the prospect of a Trump-inspired “America First” Isolationist policy, and with the hapless situation in Congress for the ammunition resupply of the Ukrainian Forces, the NATO countries are not any more blindly confident in the width and orientation of Uncle Sam's umbrella. __ .

I can't speak for the Europeans as a whole, but in France the insistence of former Pres. Trump for the “2% of GDP” figure is widely interpreted as a “Buy American” command. And, effectively, most NATO countries comply. What remains to be seen is - in the hypothesis of a two-war situation - how much and at what rate the ammunition & spare parts would be delivered by the US arms manufacturers to these NATO countries, if there were a crunch in the US production facilities. With the prospect of a Trump-inspired “America First” Isolationist policy, and with the hapless situation in Congress for the ammunition resupply of the Ukrainian Forces, the NATO countries are not any more blindly confident in the width and orientation of Uncle Sam's umbrella. __ .

@@petertownsend252 The spending target includes a requirement that a given per cent of it is on new military hardware.

Interesting and I got so many questions. I'd love to know how those years were experienced by you. Things were pretty "wild" during those years. Without knowing the future I imagine there must have been times of creeping dread regarding how things were developing? Not connected but I'm curious about this; what were the view on Finland and Sweden regarding the cold war. Not asking about any particular field but about the possible development of the cold war in general?

@@JKS_Craftingalmost everyone was spending over 5%, the US was over 10%

@@bellisarius6968 No, that is incorrect. Let's take 1975 as an example. USA: 5.62% Canada: 1.86% UK: 5.34% Germany: 3.28% France: 3.20% Italy: 1.98% Belgium: 3.07% Turkey: 5.12% Greece: 5.85% Portugal: 4.10% Netherlands: 2.84% Norway: 3.21% Denmark: 2.40% Iceland: no military Luxembourg: 0.87% This is a snapshot in time. One may look at Greece and Turkey and conclude they were really pulling their weight, but the two were in a conflict over Cyprus, so defence spending jumped greatly for both, then fell to the 4.5% to 3.5% range a few years later once tension reduced and remained so until end of Cold War. Portugal's spending was decreasing from a high of 5.96% a few years earlier as it was dealing with colonial conflict. If we look at the flagrant under spenders of the past 50 years, the three are Canada, Luxembourg, and Iceland. Canada was under 2%, often well below, for 46 of the last 50 years. Luxembourg was just above 1% for only 5 of the past 50 years. And Iceland was nothing. Denmark has been under 2% since 1990. Norway under 2% since 2002. Netherlands under 2% since 1994, Portugal under 2% since 1998, Belgium since '92, Italy since '90, Germany since '92, Denmark since '90. Greece and Turkey has been above 2% consistently since the end of the Cold War. France has been mostly just below 2% since 2006. UK mostly above 2% - in the 2.3% to 2.5% range for most post-Cold War years with a 4-year period of being just under 2% until 2019. During the post-Cold War years the US ranged from nearly 6% to 3.12%, no year below 3%, and many years between 4% and 5%. In the post-WWII era its highest spending was in 1966 at 9.42% as it entered Vietnam. Post-Korea and pre-Vietnam it ranged from 7.6% to 9.3%. I omitted the new members because they've been under 2% consistently though Poland is nearly 4% now. Spain joined Nato in '82. It spent between 2.5% and 3% until the end of the Cold War. Since '95 it's been under 2%. Some may object with 'We're at 2%', but this is a recent development for most Nato members that were under 2% habitually since the end of the Cold War. Canadian PM Trudeau informed Nato that Canada will never attain 2%. All data from World Bank's development indicators.

@@bellisarius6968 No, that is incorrect. Let's take 1975 as an example. USA: 5.62% Canada: 1.86% UK: 5.34% Germany: 3.28% France: 3.20% Italy: 1.98% Belgium: 3.07% Turkey: 5.12% Greece: 5.85% Portugal: 4.10% Netherlands: 2.84% Norway: 3.21% Denmark: 2.40% I celand: no military Luxembourg: 0.87% This is a snapshot in time. One may look at Greece and Turkey and conclude they were really pulling their weight, but the two were in a conflict over Cyprus, so defence spending jumped greatly for both, then fell to the 4.5% to 3.5% range a few years later once tension reduced and remained so until end of Cold War. Portugal's spending was decreasing from a high of 5.96% a few years earlier as it was dealing with colonial conflict.

@@bellisarius6968 No. Let's take 1975 as an example. USA: 5.62%; Canada: 1.86%; UK: 5.34%; Germany: 3.28%; France: 3.20%; Italy: 1.98%; Belgium: 3.07%; Turkey: 5.12%; Greece: 5.85%; Portugal: 4.10%; Netherlands: 2.84%; Norway: 3.21%; Denmark: 2.40%; Iceland: no military; Luxembourg: 0.87% This is a snapshot in time. One may look at Greece and Turkey and conclude they were really pulling their weight, but the two were in a conflict over Cyprus, so defence spending jumped greatly for both, then fell to the 4.5% to 3.5% range a few years later once tension reduced and remained so until end of Cold War. Portugal's spending was decreasing from a high of 5.96% a few years earlier as it was dealing with colonial conflict.

Thats old news and you know it.

no i got updated in 2024 @@adam.maqavoy

​@@adam.maqavoyIt's new enough to not have been mentioned in the video... probably because the earliest reports of Denmark spending above 2% came less than 2 months ago, in mid-February this year.

I always thought the Danes were some of the toughest customers in NATO.

Can you explain further​@@MM22966

You are Norwegian I assume. Brother, I love Norway, and as an American , I back you guys up all the way whatever Norway does. I have confidence Norway will do the right thing next year.

As I understand it, you would actually have reaches the 2% earlier. If oil prices hadn't suddenly risen. So if I understand correctly, it wasn't a matter of a slow system. But rather Global changes that made you wealthier, then predicted, after you're military budget was set. So in my mind, Norway is doing it's part. Anyway, the 2% is just an arbitrary guideline, not a har limit. And you guys have been aiming for it.

@@soul0360 Politicians can only use 3% of the oil income for the budget, 97% goes out of the country investing heavily in stocks, projects and housing all over the world. But that also makes it so we can't just sell those assets at when ever we want, we want to profit from it. So even though Norway have a high income from the oil industry, most of those money is saved for the future generations when the oil isnt a option anymore. And it creats millions of jobs all over the world, like in the US 400K Americans are making a living from our projects and it effects over a million jobs. On top of that the military planning takes time, and because of the uncertainty around Sweden and Finland NATO members it made it harder. Because Norway wants to work close with the rest of the Nordic countries.

Give us our oil!🇸🇪

@@dahlizz99 you had the chance at getting oil fields back in the 60s for parts of Volvo, but the deal never went though because of Volvo. So i guess you'll have to blame them.

they are sneaky fookers

Angela Merkel: We would like to welcome your country to the European Union Zelensky: Oh fuck! Sorry, yes! Wow, abs Ukrainians have been waiting for this so much time, thank you very much. Angela Merkel: Oh no no no no, sorry, I meant to call to Montenegro Zelensky: в в Черногорию отправляют пять миллионов ракет Черногорию отправляют пять миллионов ракет

None of what you are claiming is true.

This has been an ongoing issue for many years, to massive frustration of especially france who has been very vocal about this. But with the departure of the uk out of the eu a large obstacle to this has gone away recently.

@@CedarHunt all of it is true, your ignorance on it does not make it false. EU nations however with the help of statements made by Trump have increased support for a joint EU armed force and defense and even convinced parts of the opposition in EU to be pro EU armed forces. So if Trump was thinking "America first" in relation to manufacturing in the weaponry department then he has utterly failed his nation.

@@ashamahee No surprise when Trump utterly fails his nation! Happens every day.

Do you have any idea? How much of a shit show it would be to try to get the many militaries of europe to operate under a single security apparatus?

Here, 4% is considered regular milk. But a lot of people do go for "Medium" milk...

I call it ``red milk`` (it comes in red bags/red capped jugs) 3.25% is the most bone-in milk I can find around here.

You should try to train your palate to accept less cream in milk; I heard you get significant cardiovascular benefits with even 2%. ...Of course, I just split the difference with the amount of cheese🧀 I eat

Sounds like Poland.

I agree 100%. I only buy at least 3.8% organic grass fed milk. And yogurt gotta be 10% fat at least.

The U.S. interferes with other countries and has military bases all over the planet. If it didn't try to make the rest of the world into little Americas perhaps it wouldn't require as much assistance from others. I'd bet that most of the world sees America as the biggest threat to stability over all. When was the last time that the U.S.A. was not involved in an armed conflict? Their economy is driven by war - there is no real accounting for the budget of the Pentagon whereas politicians , especially Republicans bemoan spending on helping the poorer members of its society with anything, calling it socialism. The people at the top of the food chain, however have their hands out whenever there is a downturn in the economy. The Staes has but one objective-money and lots of it. That's the real religion in the country.

It might be because U.S. is spearheading the discourse, but I don't understand why this isn't mentioned, as is for many countries in Nato a big chunk of the said 2% are pumping it directly into the American economy or rather the military industrial complex.

New member states such as Sweden, Finland and the Baltic states are expected to upgrade their arsenals with technology that is available mainly from the States. And they call it democracy.@@Johnny-Sideburns

There are NATO standards for many things to avoid redundancies/incompatible ammo/etc and create economies of scale, ie small arms chambering/ammunition, mortar/artillery sizes, etc. Essentially the most used, highly expendable items. But then each country has specialty items that might not fit with other systems but are in low enough usage that many just buy "off the shelf" (like sniper systems, really light/novel machine guns for special forces, things like that) The higher-end things like fighters is where it get's to be a redundant mess. Like if Ukraine were to receive F-16's and the fighters from Sweden (I think... can't remember their name. I think Saab has something to do with them) that means you need bespoke maintenance crews for each system, and air maintenance is one of the costliest of all expenditures. Though they were just admitted to the alliance (or is that still in limbo?) so I assume they'll be brought into line with stocking F16/18/35, etc in time? Idk, no clue if missiles produced in different counties can all be used on a platform like the F-16? Someone with air knowledge would have to chime in on that... Really don't know how you solve for this as you'd essentially need a single government overseeing defense. I'm sure US defense contractors would gladly take the business, but I don't see all the European contractors being on board with it, lol.

Solution: obtain license to construct the platform in question, then build it locally. That way you both have local employment AND a logistics chain to maintain that platform.

Thank you so much! That was very generous.

@@Gametheory101 but does it cover 2% of his gdp?

And the text wasn't missing an "and" where he pointed to.

Poland gets it. Arguing how to parse the NATO guidelines has no bearing on what the US actually does.

Oh, they were definitely abandoned in WW2. The Germans barely had anything on the French border. If they had actually invaded they would've taken much of the country practically unopposed and forced them to move their forces from Poland to stop it. Don't know what that would've meant regarding the Soviet invasion, though.

Uh yeah, as the other guy said, France and Britain definitely could have done something about it, France did actually invade Germany while Germany was invading Poland, the French field marshal decided it had to be a trap because they were rushing forward practically unopposed towards the industrial centers of Germany so he ordered a retreat back to the Maginot and waited for the Germans to stop being busy in Poland and come protect their borders. Germany in fact had left the French border almost utterly undefended as they didn't think France would actually uphold their promises to Poland and just like with the invasion of Czechoslovakia Hitlers plan was to just surrender and say it was all a prank if the French had acted.

I wish he mentioned how Poland spent more than the US (as % of GDP) last year

And those states that freeloaded to the benefit of their social welfare systems can step in by taking in more refugees, medically caring for more of the war-wounded, and/or sending more cash to sustain the Ukrainian federal govt., medical supplies, and humanitarian aid.

There is some of that going on (the F35 project for example) but it doesn't really work on a large scale for a variety of reasons, from the fact that national militaries always need to be self-reliant to a degree, to different requirements, budgets, philosophies of spending/military prep, internal politics, preserving the national defense industry, and even things like preparing against those times when an alliance is NOT going to be there. Imagine if the United States went to war, and France disagreed with the reason (which has happened), and a key widget the US military needed to fight was ONLY produced in France? Nobody would tolerate that on a wide scale, and they don't. (and not just the US)

@@MM22966 , yeah, that could be a problem. I was thinking of this for smaller European nations which would be less likely to fight wars on their own. Nowadays, I don't think Belgium isn't going to get up to much without NATO or the European Union.

@@no1ofconsequence936 That is true, but the way the NATO charter is written (and this episode makes plain), the smaller countries could REFUSE to fight or assist in supporting operations, and that could cause all sorts of problems if NATO was more...I guess co-dependent is the closest term.

@@MM22966 , fair.

100% this. It is so annoying how journalists miscommunicate it, and even some politicians.

Also, it's how much countries should spend on THEIR OWN MILITARY. Listening to the Orangegutan it sounds like it's as if NATO members are supposed to pay money to the US and/or the US is footing the bill instead.

An agreement to start doing something in a decade is kinda silly, don't you think? That is probably why people assumed differently.

Unfortunately, none of that matters. Trump is likely to be President. It doesn't matter if he's wrong. He'd probably wave the white flag in Ukraine, and maybe just abandon NATO entirely. His supporters will be cheering him on. It would be a terrible idea, but there's nothing to be gained by arguing with him. Speaking as an American, I can confidently say the US is not a reliable partner. Spouting "it's only a guideline!" won't matter much with Russian tanks rolling across Europe. 2014 was the time to stop procrastinating.

​@captainufo4587 yes that's obviously stupid, but it does cost the US money when Nato countries free ride. We have to spend that much more because we are covering for the free riders.

On trite what? Doesn't really make sense - did you mean trivia?

Donny will sell you out if he thinks he can turn a buck doing it. So brush up on your Russian.

@@Tannhauser62 I mean we waste money on trite or trivial or political programs while we sacrifice Defence spending that could stop putin AND help ourselves And Ukraine at the same time.

​@@rogerpennel1798touch grass

​@@bc-guy852Canada is expected to double defense spending by 2026/27. In the meantime, they definitely need to at least make a noticeable increase.

Also that is the planned war time strength with total reserve of 870 000.

@@justskip4595 "where did you get the number of 180 000 strong army for Finland?" The website of the Finnish Army (Maavoimat) lists its war-time strength as 180k men. You can easily check this yourself. Of course, the Navy and the Air Force come on top of that but they'd likely wield much smaller numbers. "planned war time strength with total reserve of 870 000" I think that's just the total size of the reserve, i.e. it's the amount of people who have gone through military training and are still military age (and haven't fallen out of the reserve for some other reason). That amount of people couldn't actually called up, at least not very soon, so it's more of a paper figure.

@@seneca983 I have never heard of that and in all official stuff I have seen different numbers than that. Searching through stuff I find Intti website mentioning the 280k, news talking about 280k, Ruotuväki also with 280k (which is basically army news paper) and only differing number I found was a pdf from Puolustusvoimat that has 230k in it and no date for the pdf. What is the reason for me mentioning the size of reserve is that it's indication that the number he claimed to be motivated troops would likely be higher than the one stated as it did not account for those that would be rotated in or could likely be tapped in other ways. Also if for some reason you would choose to go with the Maavoimat only which I could not verify with my search, you'd for some strange reason be only focusing on one section of the Defense Forces. I still think the number stated in the video is wrong one to use even if it would have different explanation that misspeaking 280k as 180k.

​@@seneca983I am not sure, but maybe 180 000 knows their wartime position and have trained also after military service. Some of them are training voluntarily and have military gears home.

@@jounisaari9471 I don't think the 180k refers to any particular subset of the reserve. More likely, it's the amount that could and would be called up in a war, at least in initial rounds of mobilization. The entire reserve can't be mobilized because there probably isn't gear for everybody nor enough staff officers to lead that many units. Also, people would still be needed in the civilian economy too. Thus the planned war time strength of 180k for the Army. Though, I suspect in a protracted war more would be mobilized eventually.

White patterned skirt that is, and seated

More like "who's Leslie?"

For murricans it is, they love that shit. Or at least they used to

I shared your sentiment in the past, but I think the Ukraine war has demonstrated - soberingly so - how relatively light of a time we had it in OIF/OEF. Even if you go full Suchomimus propaganda mode and say 'lol russia 2 dum slava submarine hurr', you can still discard the entire Russian experience if full as incompetence and look at our own casualties in Vietnam instead. There's still an incredible gulf in between the figures. Not like it hurts any less to think how many people we lost for how little we gained in the two decades post-2001 but any way you slice it, could have been so, so, so much worse.

I dropped the ball!

fake news

3,5% is the way

If you use 1% enough, you'll get used to it, like how I hear the swampy taste of Florida's "tap" water "should" go away if you stay there long enough.

Its glorified water

I wouldn't get mah hopes up. However I digress.

Sir, you made my day! 😂

Nah not glorifying a country who worships alt right nationalists that murdered thousands of poles in Poland cough* I mean western Ukraine. Nor will I glorify the Waffen SS cosplayers Azov pests

That’s not true, the USA was the first to successfully call upon collective assistance. Portugal tried in 1961 to get NATO assistance when India forcefully annexed Portugal's colony of Goa. The rest of NATO said no, they wouldn’t help in maintaining colonial empires.

@@Kaiserboo1871 Portugal didn't try because it didn't have the legal standing under article 6 to activate article 5. The reason the US was able to use article 5 is because 9/11 hit NYC.

The US doesn't need NATO. The inverse is not true.

That’s not an excuse for underfunding. Also it’s disrespectful af to the soldiers who fought.

Is Ukraine the only non-NATO country to call upon said collective assistance?

Except the US contributed (until the current fight in Congress) about 7 TIMES all other NATO contributions to Ukraine. I find your comments about "American coffers, companies and paychecks" disingenuous, too, since all of the contributions (not just the US ones) are structured in such a way as to give the Ukrainians gear that is mostly in storage that is already paid for, so the new money (from their own budget) goes to replace brand-new gear for their own military. Or (like arty shells) being produced & bought in-country at their own factories, THEN gets shipped to Ukraine to fight with.

@@MM22966 wtf are you on about, where are you finding those numbers and does those sites only count publicly announced aid or try to find out what is actually being sent? USA has delivered far less aid than Europe, even if you(like I suspect you do) only look at military aid and not financial aid or other costs. Financial aid being one of those areas where Europe outspends "USA 7 TIMES" because USA isn't willing to do anything that actually costs it money and instead focuses on delivering things that they were going to pay a lot more to get rid of than it cost to send it to Ukraine.

Both numbers are already humiliating. 10 operational And only 128 exist in the first place. During the cold war Germany had more than 1000 (!!!) jets. But right now even keeping 128 operational is expected to much from the German government. 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

Germany says a tank isn't operational if it lacks a headlight, the Russians sends fully operational tanks without gunners to Kyiv because the gun wasn't working anyway. There is a slight amount of context lacking if you think only 10 of those 128 planes would fly combat missions successfully during a situation that demanded it. Countries have different standards, there should be alarm bells ringing for you when you say one of the most rigid beaurocratic and known for high quality countries in the world only says 10 of 128 main combat jets aren't operational. Far more than 10 are, 10 are the number that filled every single check box of the inspector, including the checkbox for whether the cup holder folded correctly or the cockpit had the new car smell.

@@freedomfighter22222 yes you are correct and I "cherry picked" the 2018 situation to emphasize my point. However, If you have a zero defect military standard you then need the logistics to back that up. The Germans can't have it both ways and not meet their commitments because they don't want to stock excessive spares.

Source: Bild (well known toilet roll paper). The problem with much of the media hype about Germanys hardware is a good part of it suffers from a translation issue. 1 report that has been parroted mixes German/English phrases up. Where the English 'combat ready' was used to refer to something more akin to presently active response forces which are on patrol. The hype from that 1 report/translation flowed down and contaminated many reports thereafter. At least thats what Ive read. So basically be careful. Dont auto-buy the hype.

@@tedcrilly46 yes I cherry picked that story to make a point. However I suspect where there is smoke there's fire. Based on what I heard from people serving in Afgan, it is more true than not. They called ISAF, I Saw Americans Fighting.

Extra cream for me, thanks.

Amateurs. I've trained my palate with enough intense dark chocolate by now for me to find even semi-sweet chocolate to be nice and creamy.

Not completely correct. There is tritium formed in-situ, but there is also stored tritium used to boost the fission core explosion. This is one of the mechanisms by which the yield of the weapons can be dialed as desired.

Cause.. ppl are different? And not all like them.

@@adam.maqavoy People who don't like brussel sprouts don't qualify as people...

Geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan (love him or hate him) predicts a Germany collapse I think before the turn of the century. Potentially for the very reasons you're outlining.

Yeah, for a short period of time PRE-COVID... but interest rates aren't fixed & what if they rise again? You could cripple your economy overnight! Being able to borrow to cover peaks in spending is useful, but it's just not sustainable in the long-term to run a budget defecit.

it's not austerity but basic spending responsability. YOU decided to fuck over your economy with stupid green policies (closing nuclear plants for example), so now you pay for it. economic growth happens not with deficit spending but with a good underlying structure, and when you destroy your industry and energy sector no amount of debt will help you

@@davidescristofaros2241 That is extremely wishful thinking. You have to spend money to make money. Nobody’s advocating for the type of debt spending that the US follows, but not being able to go into any debt is atrocious for an economy, because it can’t react to change in a time of need or make investments that will outpace the debt in question. Germany is clearly feeling the effects of this policy rn, as it has made them unable to adapt to the large shifts in the economy seen over the past few years. While it is great to be frugal with spending, locking yourself into a no debt system is economic suicide driven only by ideology and no real common sense

This is such an economically bankrupt comment I'm sure not sure where to start. 1) The debt break that was added to the Constitution under Merkel had broad public and multi-party support. It was introduced after the Greek debt disaster, and is kind of necessary for the sake of the European Union. 2) Taking in a bunch of 0% loans from a central bank is a voodoo practice that causes inflation. 3) As another comment highlighted, random government spending is not how prosperity is formed. This is a nakedly authoritarian argument, and concerning. Germany sabotaged its own energy production due to a nuclear scare, then became dependent upon Russia for energy. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, energy prices soared. This was Germany's own doing, and has nothing to do with debt. 4) Running constant deficits, year after year, with no crisis to justify it, with no intent to reduce debt-to-GDP ratio, is utterly immoral. It simply burdens future generations with unconscionable debts. This isn't "austerity" or whatever. It's called basic fiscal responsibility.

Oopsy

@@Gametheory101 hi prof. Spaniel ... I have some very urgent questions, you seem inactive on Twitter where can I contact you ...your email?🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

This!!! ❤

@@LordWalsallian I've been trying to gain enough weight to be safe for surgery these last 2 years. Pints and pints of whole milk played a key role!

Yeah... Basically, this is a failure to read the Terms and Conditions of joining a Gym. Every Nato country spends exactly what it considers it needs to to keep itself safe or to advance its own foreign policy, It's not a charge for keeping other countries safe. The US has an expansive, far-reaching foreign policy. Hence they spend more. Greece considers themselves vulnerable to Turkey and Cyprus, hence THEY spend more. Germany does NOT have problematic neighbours or a an expansive, interventionist foreign policy, hence it does not spend as much of its GDP.

Damn almost as if they have a larger economy than literally everyone else in the alliance combined

US: Europe needs to defend itself US citizens: YEAH FUCK THE FREELOADERS Europe: Okay let's make a supranational army to defend ourselves US: NO, you need to be dependent on me US: Also buy $billions of my weapons, ok thanks bye Europe: ...

NATO was not established to provide security to the US, you’re deluded if that’s what you believe

Not every country receives annual billions of $ from EU funds (tax money of other european countries) as donations like Poland does. Nor is every country as well off economically at this moment with a skyrocketing economic growth (also due to Ukrainian migrants)… some even haves big energy crisis going ever since 2022, you know. Also not every country borders Russia and Ukraine, like again, Poland does. What some other country - like Germany - don’t spend directly on their military they instead of that spend it by donating that money through funds to other NATO nations such as Poland (10+ billion $ annually ever since 2004) or to Ukraine. Not all of them, but some. Let’s not forget that either.

​@@Ultima-Signa we don't receive many $ dollars in the EU, it's mostly € euros...

@@Ultima-Signa the reality is that countries that take their defense seriously find a way to do it. If north korea can make itself extremely difficult to attack, most european countries can too. Its a matter of priorities. The problem is that the citizens of several wealthy European countries arent willing to face austerity or debt to secure their freedom.

Yeah, don't want Europe to be too armed or you will start killing each other again, and again...

Great solution encourage alliance members not to trade with each other, thereby reducing economic growth and weakening the alliance wait what was the goal again?

He talks like a businessman. If they don't pay, then what's the point?

@unreal4010 He acts more like a grifter, though. He tries to get out of paying himself as much as he can. He's not a great analogy to the American MIC, because we have a lot of reasons to keep our military spending high, regardless of what the rest of NATO is doing.

@@unreal4010 he talks like a fool who doesnt even understand how the alliance works and it is dangerous and damaging.

​@unreal4010 Businessmen understand the topic. Watch the video again.

Failed businessmen should never lecture on how to conduct buisness....the orange mess needs to learn to hold his tongue

Its a little more complicated than this. With the reunification came a lot of fear for Germany being the hegemon on the European continent again, both armies combined had almost a million soldiers and by far the largest land army in Europe when it comes to tanks etc. So that army had to be downsized and transformed to a more global army like the French and British which it had never been designed to be, thus no great capabilities to do anything in Africa. Today it has this capabilities (kinda) but is not an army anymore to fight large land battles. So roll backwards now (Zeitenwende). Another thing people like to overlook, and that has something to do with the hegemon thing: If Germany had spend 2% of GPD it would have outspend Russia on its own. Germanys target for decades was de-escalation with Russia, keep military spendings low (on both sides) and by all means prevent another war with them. Sure, in 2014 they should have reacted to the fact that Russia wasnt interested in de-escalation but was turning towards confrontation. But you know, saber rattling isn't always the best choice so the politics of de-escalation was kept in place. Was that right in the hindsight? No.

After the fall of the wall, germany had to integrate several millions of east germans in its economy (and politics, social services, judiciary, etc.). Including vast amount of stockpiles of soviet weapons. Maintaining is expensive, so I get that germany, seeing that there was no immediate threat, invested in its economy rather than in their military. I'm french and I like to bash their actual military, but cut them some slack, their political system has been designed to prevent a quick and sudden rearmament

Among the "freeriders" Canada is near the top.

@@seneca983 absolutely embarrassingly inexcusably true 🇨🇦 Trump's comments might infuriate freeloaders, but the weakness of NATO is freeloading, not deviating from the traditional rhetoric.

He isn't actually going to do that of course. He qualified that in a recent interview.

Almost all of those assets are mobile. Yes, they're not in Europe at this moment but if there was a major war with Russia they could all theoretically get there. Plus remember russia has a pacific coast too.

Logic fails... Not everything the other members spend stays in Europe either.

​@@TheFireGiver The US can't suddenly shift its entire military to Europe in the event of a war with Russia, since it needs to be present in Asia to deter China. And we aren't talking about in the event of a war, we're talking about things now, since its the way things are now that Americans never stop bitching about. In a war, everything would change.

Most of the US military could be relocated to Europe very quickly in a crisis. This isn't a valid point.

@@TheFireGiver Ummm, you mean you can sail the carrier ships up the Rhine and Danube to engage the Russian army? And move all the US military bases around the world to Europe? And leave Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan etc at the mercy of China? And abandon USA's interests in the Middle East? (That last one might acutally be a good idea in many ways but not something the movers and shakers in USA would fancy.) (To clarify my first point: even if we excluded USA NATO's air and naval powers would be so much stronger than Russia's it's not even funny. So it's all about land power.) (Edit: Don't get me wrong. The reinforcements USA could provide in a potential armed conflict in Europe would be very valuable and welcome. But saying that most of the US military forces could be deployed to Europe is a huge exaggeration.)

That is because Greece has been close to war with Turkey for decades. Turkey is also a NATO member. Geopolitics are complicated...😄

It's also because it's their economy crash around then which lowered their gpd in line with their actual defence spending.