Britain to increase defence spending

[Blackleaf]

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer today announced that Britain will increase her defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 as the USA pressures European nations to spend more on their defence.

Britain will be one of the few NATO members to meet the NATO requirement for defence spending as percentage of national GDP.

Starmer is to cut the foreign aid budget to spend more on national defence.

The PM also said that he will increase defence spending to 3% if Labour win the next election.

Starmer agreed with Trump by saying that all European nations need to "step up" on their defence spending.

Starmer: "We have got to rise to this generational challenge."

 

[Serryah]

View attachment 27706

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer today announced that Britain will increase her defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 as the USA pressures European nations to spend more on their defence.

Britain will be one of the few NATO members to meet the NATO requirement for defence spending as percentage of national GDP.

Starmer is to cut the foreign aid budget to spend more on national defence.

The PM also said that he will increase defence spending to 3% if Labour win the next election.

Starmer: "We have got to rise to this generational challenge."

Good for Britain.

Canada needs to step the fuck up to do the same.

NATO countries now need to increase spending if only to make up for when the US pulls out. Waiting until after they're gone is too late.

 

[Blackleaf]

Good for Britain.

Canada needs to step the fuck up to do the same.

NATO countries now need to increase spending if only to make up for when the US pulls out. Waiting until after they're gone is too late.

The US has been doing almost all the heavy lifting in NATO for too long now. NATO countries are required to spend at least 2% of their wealth on defence. Only the USA, Britain, Estonia and Greece meet those requirements. The USA is also much bigger than any other NATO country so almost everything that NATO does is dominated by the USA. I wouldn't blame them if they decided to pull out and say to the rest of us: "Okay. You're on your own. You aren't pulling your weight. Look after yourselves."

 

[Serryah]

NATO countries are required to spend at least 2% of their wealth on defence. Only the USA, Britain, Estonia and Greece meet those requirements.

Um... wrong.

NATO countries are NOT required to spend at least 2% of their "wealth" on defence. They're supposed to spend 2% of their GDP which is NOT equal to wealth of a country. Wealth is a totally different thing.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/01/gdp-frog-matchbox-david-pilling-growth-delusion/

"Is GDP really such a bad measure of wealth?
GDP is not a measure of “wealth” at all. It is a measure of income. It is a backward-looking “flow” measure that tells you the value of goods and services produced in a given period in the past. It tells you nothing about whether you can produce the same amount again next year. For that, you need a balance sheet - a measure of wealth. Companies have balance sheets as well as income statements. Nations don’t.
When Nigeria was busy selling high-priced oil to the world before the price crash, its GDP was soaring. But its wealth was falling. Oil deposits were used up, but cash was not reinvested in human, physical and technological capacities to ensure future income. Only wealth accounts could have drawn attention to that.
In January, the World Bank will release a groundbreaking study of comprehensive wealth for 141 countries between 1994 and 2014. It is well worth a read."


As for only USA, Britain, Estonia and Greece meeting the requirements, again, wrong.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

From the NATO page itself:

In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending, to help ensure the Alliance's continued military readiness. This decision was taken in response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East. The 2014 Defence Investment Pledge built on an earlier commitment to meeting this 2% of GDP guideline, agreed in 2006 by NATO Defence Ministers. The 2% of GDP guideline is an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to contribute to NATO’s common defence efforts.


In 2024, 23 Allies are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2% of GDP in defence, compared to only three Allies in 2014. Over the past decade, European Allies and Canada have steadily increased their collective investment in defence – from 1.43% of their combined GDP in 2014, to 2.02% in 2024, when they are investing a combined total of more than USD 430 billion in defence.


In order to ensure that these funds are spent in the most effective and efficient way to acquire and deploy modern capabilities, NATO Allies have also agreed that at least 20% of defence expenditure should be devoted to major new equipment. This includes associated research and development, perceived as a crucial indicator for the scale and pace of modernisation."

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

Source: NATO • *2024 numbers are estimates. Iceland excluded as it does not have a standing army.


So as usual, you're full of shit.

 

[Blackleaf]

Um... wrong.

NATO countries are NOT required to spend at least 2% of their "wealth" on defence. They're supposed to spend 2% of their GDP which is NOT equal to wealth of a country. Wealth is a totally different thing.

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2018/01/gdp-frog-matchbox-david-pilling-growth-delusion/

"Is GDP really such a bad measure of wealth?
GDP is not a measure of “wealth” at all. It is a measure of income. It is a backward-looking “flow” measure that tells you the value of goods and services produced in a given period in the past. It tells you nothing about whether you can produce the same amount again next year. For that, you need a balance sheet - a measure of wealth. Companies have balance sheets as well as income statements. Nations don’t.
When Nigeria was busy selling high-priced oil to the world before the price crash, its GDP was soaring. But its wealth was falling. Oil deposits were used up, but cash was not reinvested in human, physical and technological capacities to ensure future income. Only wealth accounts could have drawn attention to that.
In January, the World Bank will release a groundbreaking study of comprehensive wealth for 141 countries between 1994 and 2014. It is well worth a read."


As for only USA, Britain, Estonia and Greece meeting the requirements, again, wrong.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

From the NATO page itself:

In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending, to help ensure the Alliance's continued military readiness. This decision was taken in response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East. The 2014 Defence Investment Pledge built on an earlier commitment to meeting this 2% of GDP guideline, agreed in 2006 by NATO Defence Ministers. The 2% of GDP guideline is an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to contribute to NATO’s common defence efforts.


In 2024, 23 Allies are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2% of GDP in defence, compared to only three Allies in 2014. Over the past decade, European Allies and Canada have steadily increased their collective investment in defence – from 1.43% of their combined GDP in 2014, to 2.02% in 2024, when they are investing a combined total of more than USD 430 billion in defence.


In order to ensure that these funds are spent in the most effective and efficient way to acquire and deploy modern capabilities, NATO Allies have also agreed that at least 20% of defence expenditure should be devoted to major new equipment. This includes associated research and development, perceived as a crucial indicator for the scale and pace of modernisation."

https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf

View attachment 27709

Source: NATO • *2024 numbers are estimates. Iceland excluded as it does not have a standing army.


So as usual, you're full of shit.

Oh, so it looks as though you're right but only RECENTLY. Go back just a few years and I would have been right.

 

[Blackleaf]

An Israeli-style "Iron Dome" and AI military drones on Britain's shopping list as America's closest ally responds to America's demand for European countries to spend more on their defences.

British Prime Minister warns the country - and the world - of "dangerous new era" as the deadliest war in Europe since World War II rages...

‘Iron Dome’ and AI drones on shopping list as Starmer signals new era of defence

Prime Minister warns nation of ‘dangerous new era’ as he prepares to meet Donald Trump in Washington

inews.co.uk

 

[Serryah]

Oh, so it looks as though you're right but only RECENTLY. Go back just a few years and I would have been right.

How much would "just a few years" be?

For the 2% agreement? 2006.

For Countries stepping up for that goal? Yes, those were more recent, thanks to Russia. But then no one believed Russia would be this aggressive to the point that a world or at least European land war would happen again. Personally I've thought since the 90's during the first Gulf War that Canada needed to up it's spending and military but...

I digress.

You're making excuses for being wrong. But at least you did admit that the info was right.

 

[Blackleaf]

How much would "just a few years" be?

For the 2% agreement? 2006.

For Countries stepping up for that goal? Yes, those were more recent, thanks to Russia. But then no one believed Russia would be this aggressive to the point that a world or at least European land war would happen again. Personally I've thought since the 90's during the first Gulf War that Canada needed to up it's spending and military but...

I digress.

You're making excuses for being wrong. But at least you did admit that the info was right.

That 2% defence spending is a NATO agreement. It should be the case ALL THE TIME. Yet most of you don't pull your weight. The Americans and British, of course, meet their NATO requirements all the time. Even little Greece and Estonia meet their requirements. France, Germany and Italy even lag behind at times.

But it's only now that so many other countries suddenly realised they need to step up and stop relying on the Americans.

Also, look at that chart and you'll see that Canada is almost rock bottom. It's embarrassing. Almost every NATO country spends more of its GDP on defence than Canada.

Basically, 70% of NATO consists of the mighty USA. It's no wonder she wants her friends to do more.

 

[Blackleaf]

Sargon of Akkad: 100 years ago Britain ruled supreme as the world's foremost power. Her armies held vast swathes of land and her gargantuan navy controlled the oceans. But why do Britain's politicians nowadays let the great nation slide into oblivion?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Because, bled white by World War II, you were no longer able to hold them.

 

[Serryah]

Sargon of Akkad: 100 years ago Britain ruled supreme as the world's foremost power. Her armies held vast swathes of land and her gargantuan navy controlled the oceans. But why do Britain's politicians nowadays let the great nation slide into oblivion?

Because by WWI, it began to realize that they had TOO much territory to "Control" so when the locals started to demand their freedom from British rule, it was either fight losing wars, continuously or let the places go.

Just as Rome learned.

Just as the Greeks learned.

The Moguls

Britain was just the most recent country to learn this. It's lucky that it didn't fall completely and managed to maintain itself as still SOME sort of power in the world.