I am seeing lots of reports that Finland and Sweden will be joining NATO soon. I’ll be more impressed if both of those countries start spending more than 2% of GDP on their militaries. Otherwise it looks like a wild grab at a dollar bill, keeping their levels of social spending up on Uncle Sugar’s tab.
Dave Schuler: Otherwise it looks like a wild grab at a dollar bill, keeping their levels of social spending up on Uncle Sugar’s tab.
It’s a common trope that Europe built its welfare state by shortchanging defense. But, for instance, Sweden used to spend nearly 4% of GDP on the military, but reduced that after the end of the Cold War.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=FI-SE-FR-DE-GB
ETA: Most European countries are moving towards increased military spending, including Sweden and Finland.
My first thought was that this reinforces Russian paranoia and inferiority complex. At this point, I think a conventional war is inevitable.
The Cold War ended 30 years ago and Sweden hasn’t been to war in more than 200 years. Their entire military program is completely untested. It will take time and investment. “Moving towards” and having accomplished it are two different things.
Funny thing about numbers. They are measurable.
Trope my ass.
Finland and Sweden were not part of NATO so they didnt agree to the 2% metric. Now that they feel the need to join I would expect their spending to change. They have been sending weapons already including their anti tank missile. Despite Dave casting aspersions on them I dont see any reason to doubt them. I also know that when deployed in the ME during our wars there the Finns were thought to be very well trained, excellent fighters as reported by Exum and a bunch of the other milblogs.
Steve
We were responding to this:
Dave Schuler: Uncle Sugar’s tab
After WWII, Sweden built its social system while maintaining significant military spending. Like the U.S. and other European powers, they cut spending as a percentage of GDP after the end of the Cold War. Sweden is not a part of NATO, and the U.S. and NATO are not under an obligation to defend it. Sweden has geographic advantages for defense, and as you note, it has been a long time since they have had to defend the Swedish homeland. (Sweden had military troops in Afghanistan.) Where is Uncle Sugar?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-finland-further-strengthen-security-cooperation-2022-03-05/
High school, contortionist, crap. Europe in its entirety has relied on, as Dave called it, Uncle Sugar, for as long as one can remember. NATO or not, 50 years ago or 25 years ago until now. If you are not paying for this, you can pay for that. Its not complicated.
You guys sound like the type still inspecting dictionaries to discover the meaning of “is,” or “sex”…………as you understand it, of course. (snicker)
Are you similarly unable to tell what a woman is?
I don’t see it as “casting aspersions” as much as the hard-headed pragmatism for which my natal state was given its nickname. We have considerable experience with countries that say they’ll do one thing but do something else entirely. What sort of allies will the Swedes be? Time will tell.
Drew: Funny thing about numbers. They are measurable.
Military spending as percentage of GDP in 1972 (50 years ago):
France, 3.2
Germany, 3.2
Sweden, 3.4
U.K., 5.2
(Numbers are mathematical objects.)
Dave Schuler: What sort of allies will the Swedes be? Time will tell.
Even though Sweden is not a part of NATO, they answered the call of the United States to send troops to Afghanistan. (Sweden considered the Iraq invasion to be a breach of international law — and a strategic mistake.)
So did I.
Zach –
You conveniently forgot to publish US numbers. You conveniently forgot to publish numbers over time. Pure sophistry.
And are you really going to argue that Europe is pulling its proportional weight? The word bizarre was invented for a reason.
When we were attacked Finland and Sweden both showed up to help fight in Afghanistan. AFAICT they had no obligation to do that. They showed up prepared and they fought well. I think that earns them the benefit of the doubt rather than claiming they intend to just sponge off the US. They both had soldiers die in the effort as well as a number wounded. Showing up just because its the right thing to do and willing to put lives on the line. That impresses me a lot.
Steve
Drew: You conveniently forgot to publish numbers over time.
We conveniently posted the numbers over time on our first comment. For your convenience, here it is again (with U.S. added):
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=FI-SE-FR-DE-GB-US
Keep in mind that U.S. spending also includes for the Pacific theater. All countries show reduced spending over time.
Drew: And are you really going to argue that Europe is pulling its proportional weight?
Historically, yes. Military spending as percentage of GDP in 1960:
France, 5.4
Germany, 3.8
Sweden, 3.8 (which is not even part of NATO)
U.K., 7.1
U.S., 9.0 (includes spending for Pacific theater)
Europe has cut too much since the end of the Cold War, but most of Europe has committed to increased spending. NATO Europe and Canada spends about $320 billion per year on defense spending. Russia spends about $62 billion. Readiness is a generally more important issue.
I agree. That’s why I mention so frequently that the only militaries in NATO at the highest level of readiness are ours and the French. I suspect that for other NATO members to achieve a higher level of readiness will require them to spend considerably more than the suggested 2% of GDP. I question whether that’s politically possible for them.
Dave Schuler: I suspect that for other NATO members to achieve a higher level of readiness will require them to spend considerably more than the suggested 2% of GDP.
Readiness has to do with maintaining and using the equipment you have, rather than always buying new stuff. Spending just requires a better balance. Europe already outspends Russia by a five-one ratio, not including U.S. expenditures. Russia does have lower cost labor, but that low-cost labor doesn’t always work out.
Readiness also has to do with the equipment, resources, and training that you have. If you don’t have the equipment, resources, or training to achieve the highest level of readiness, you won’t achieve it regardless of how well you maintain and use your existing equipment.
Dave Schuler: Readiness also has to do with the equipment, resources, and training that you have.
NATO has the equipment. They lack readiness due to lack of consistent maintenance, training, and positioning allowing for a quick response to a crisis.
NATO’s Readiness Action Plan
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160627_1607-factsheet-rap-en.pdf
That is incorrect. They don’t have the equipment, the men, or the training. The only country in Europe capable of doing its own logistics is France. A military must be able to do its own logistics to be at the highest level of readiness. Germany, Poland, Italy, etc. rely on the U. S. for logistics.
Dave Schuler: They don’t have the equipment, the men, or the training.
Sweden deploys the Stridsvagn tank redesigned for the heavily forested north European environment. Germany builds modernized Leopard 2 battle tanks. Britain has its own Apache attack helicopters. What they generally lack is skilled manpower, due to lack of training; and the ability to rapidly respond, due to poor logistical preparation. A large portion of their equipment can’t be deployed due to maintenance and supply issues. Solve that and you double their power.
NATO needs to conduct more joint military exercises to improve its training and readiness. That does cost money, and some upgraded equipment will almost certainly be required, but readiness for NATO members is more a matter of learning to use what they already have.
Dave Schuler: A military must be able to do its own logistics to be at the highest level of readiness.
Yes, NATO nations should be able to operate independently, at least for a while, but NATO is an alliance, and any attack will make use of the unique skills of each member. Ukraine has shown that a determined force with sufficient supply can hold off even a massed invader. A NATO member just has to hold on for a while. They are not expected to stand alone.