Spain rejects Nato plan for member states to spend 5% of GDP on defence
www.theguardian.com
PM Pedro Sánchez says he wants a ‘more flexible formula’ that would make target optional or allow Madrid to opt out

NATO, led by new Secretary General Mark Rutte, raises the level of minimum defense budget expenditures to 5% of GDP, from the previous 2%. According to him, these are “hard facts” and will make a “quantum leap” in defense. Among these are the purchase of 700 F—35s, an increase in spending on air defense systems by 400% from current ones, thousands of tanks, armored vehicles, as well as an increase in the production of missiles and projectiles.

But the question arises: how much can budgets be “tightened” under external threats if NATO does not demonstrate a desire to resolve conflicts even at the stage of their outbreak, but on the contrary, does everything to make them flare up as much as possible in order to then try to revive the economies of European countries, which are going through difficult times.

  • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
    56·
    23 hours ago

    There is two fundamental problems on the European side.

    Spending 40%, or even 50% of your budget, which the 5% GDP would mean for many countries, on defense is not sustainable without fighting a war to plunder other nations resources and reserves.

    Thanks to Israel and the US we are looking at another wave of strongly increasing energy costs. This has the more and more probable chance of EU countries going back to Russian energy, bankrolling Russias strained war chest. Alternatively, or rather a mix of both, this also causes a recession as people cannot spend on other consumption and the industrial outputs will be more expensive and less thought after globally.

    So we see increasing spending on the one side facing less income on the other side and no “return on investment” unless using those weapons. Aside from the social unrest that comes with rising prices, we just got kneecapped financially by Israel and the US and would be limping into whatever war comes next while Russia gets a financial relieve.

    It would be much smarter to streamline defenses, mainly ensure anti-air abilities, focus on economic sanctions against Russia and develop a sovereign foreign policy independent from the treacherous US. Following Trumps dream of buying all the weapons from his MIC buddies instead will further cement our dependence on the US and being used as an expendable pawn by them.

    I think Sanchez is having a much clearer view of what is going on than Merz, Macron or Starmer.

    • Hotznplotzn@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      4·
      18 hours ago

      ‘All of Ukraine is ours’ — Putin on Russia’s territorial ambitions in Ukraine

      Russian President Vladimir Putin said “all of Ukraine” belonged to Russia in a speech on June 20 at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, amid increasingly aggressive official statements about Moscow’s final territorial ambitions in Ukraine.

      Putin’s claim was based on the false narrative often pushed both by himself as leader and by Russian propaganda that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people.”

      The narrative has long figured prominently in Putin’s rhetoric, often brought up as justification for its aggression in Ukraine.

      In July 2021, just half a year before the full-scale invasion, the Russian leader stoked fears of a larger attack when he wrote and published an essay on the “historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians.”

      […]

      • Saleh@feddit.orgEnglish
        13·
        18 hours ago

        So do you think German, French and British boots will be on the ground in Ukraine soon? Do you support the natural resources of Ukraine to go to these countries as a reward or do you want them to stay with Ukraine? If the latter that means the armies will need to march until Moscow and seize control of the Russian resources to finance themselves. Aside from the Russian nuclear deterrent this will mean millions of people needed to be drafted to be able to occupy western Russia properly.

        These armies need to be financed. And that means going to war. If Ukraine will not be paying for these armies, then it will require invading another country. Aside from Russia, other options would be countries in North Africa such as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya. Maybe seizing Egypt would be good for taking control of the Suez channel and using these revenues.

        You cannot sustain putting half the budget of a nation into the military without going to war, or maybe enslaving your population to finance the military, which is not economically sustainable though.