NATO: Why is spending 2% of GDP on defence so controversial?

Only seven of NATO's 30 allied countries met the military spending target of 2% of GDP set by the North Atlantic Alliance in 2022.

Subscribe to our thematic channels:

#World

[egooidios]

The only reason the low spenders spend so little is because they sit comfortably on the back, living the good life, while the front row countries take the heat away. All the weight falls to Poland, Greece and the Baltic countries and Finland to keep spending. Offcourse, those countries face existential threats. But as a Greek personally the only presense and comfort I feel in NATO comes from the USA and France. The rest are there for the photos.

[donmikn]

Nato needs to increase their productions by 10 to 1 from Russia

[KjetilBalstad]

This is why 2% is accepted as guidelines but not absolute rules, and another key factor is the difference in GDP relative to population. For example, Norway and Finland has the same population size, but 2% of Norways GDP equals 5% of Finlands GDP, and with small populations just spending money isn't straight forward while also getting the wanted effect, not just a bloat. With a 1.6% of GDP Norway was the 2nd spender measured in per capita in all of NATO, and 7th in the world.

[Edwin]

I am an American Soldier, and I find it unfair that the USA has to defend Europe and pay more than 2 percent. Only 6 countries take their defense seriously, so why should we sacrifice our social programs, and they can't do the same? I guess Trump was correct in his comments.

[donmikn]

Nato should start increasing the defence budget to 5% GDP or more . Nato should consider spending couple hundreds billions on their defence

[TheLookingsunset]

It’s tragic, we must takem from education and healthcare to sponsor the military 😞. I wish the authoritarian regimes didn’t behave like it’s Europe in 16th century