DEFENCE (AGAIN)
DEFENCE (AGAIN!)
In recent posts I have looked at the possibility of NATO without the US and at the parlous state of British defences. I have also looked at the proportion of their GDP that NATO members spend on defence, the agreed minimum being 2%. The major providers in terms of troops and tanks made available to NATO are the USA, Poland, the UK, France and Germany, these two latter spending less than the agreed 2%. Of the other European members who spend 2 % or more only Finland has an army of the size and equipment to make a major contribution in any deterrent to or defence against Russia, although currently this might only be within Finland’s own borders. Those who spend 2% or more are shown in the table below.
NATO MEMBERS SPENDING THE AGREED MINIUM (2%)
OR MORE OF GDP
Poland 3.9
USA 3.49
Greece 3.1
Estonia 2.7
Lithuania 2.5
Finland 2.45
Romania 2.4
Latvia 2.3
UK 2.1
Slovakia 2.03
This is not necessarily helpful as although Poland spends a higher percentage of her GDP than does the USA, her GDP is one twentieth of that of the USA. Two major European nations, France and Germany, spend only 1.9% and 1.6% respectively but currently allocate more troops than Poland, although with the recent announcement of a planned expansion of the Polish armed forces this may change.
In real terms the total amount that each of the top seventeen nation spends on defence is shown in the next table, below. Of these Norway, Ukraine, Denmark, Greece, Sweden, Finland and the three Baltic states have compulsory military service, which means that the personnel costs (pay, quarters, pensions etc) are much lower as a percentage of their military budget than those of nations which have all volunteer regular forces. The Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) would probably be the next object of Russian expansion if Ukraine falls, but their total combined population is but 5.6 million and their armed forces are small, relying largely on reservists who have completed their compulsory military service. All do, however, spend well over 2% of GDP on defence. All have benefited from British and American training and combined exercises and their defence policies are very much reliant on Article Five.
NATO MEMBERS’ DEFENCE SPENDING IN US $
USA $842 bn
UK $68.5 bn
Germany $55.8 bn
France $53.6 bn
Italy $33.5 bn
Canada $23.8 bn
Spain $20.3 bn
Poland $16.6 bn
Netherlands $15.6 bn
Turkey $10.6 bn
Norway $8.4 bn
Greece $8.1 bn
Sweden $7.7 bn
Belgium $6.9 bn
Denmark $5.5 bn
Romania $5.2 bn
Sweden, while not a major spender, has one of the worlds most effective armaments industries and is well worth having in NATO for that alone. More interesting perhaps than just the total spend – and it can be seen that next to the USA the UK is the biggest spender – is the amount per head of the population that each member spends, shown in the next table.
NATO SPENDING PER HEAD OF POPULATION
Norway $1527
UK $1007
Denmark $916
Netherlands $891
France $782
Greece $771
Sweden $733
Germany $664
Canada $615
Belgium $575
Italy $549
Poland $436
Spain $431
Romania $288
Turkey $127
Finland $114
While it would not be reasonable to expect every member to spend the same amount per head – some nations are considerable richer than others, so percentage of GDP is a fairer comparison – it should however be noted that the USA spends $2,476 per head of its population, two and a half times that of the UK.
The total population of the European members of NATO is 576 million who spend $370 billion on defence. The population of the USA is 341 million who spend $842 billion on defence. Even if Hungary, Croatia and Turkey do not step up to the plate in the event of war with Russia, however one calculates it there can be little doubt that Europe – more at immediate risk from Russia than the USA – does not spend enough on her own defence. Put another way, the GDP of the USA is $21 trillion, that of the European members of NATO combined is $26 trillion, so with a population 68% larger than the USA, and a larger GDP, Europe spends 56% less on defence.
They say you can prove anything with statistics, but food for thought?