`In light of this, we agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; we will direct our defence budgets as efficiently and effectively as possible; we will aim to move towards the existing NATO guideline of spending 2% of GDP on defence within a decade, with a view to fulfilling NATO capability priorities. We will display the political will to provide required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed.`
NATO can have higher military power, but mostly coming from the USA spending 4% of GDP in military, while the "pacifist" European countries keep under spending, with most of them at only 1%
Although European NATO members have been underspending, it's also a question of 1-2% of what.
For example, UK's ($59.2b) and Germany's ($52.8b) spending alone was almost as much as Russia ($61.7b) [1]. The combined economies of EU Nato members is so much larger than Russia's that even with 1-2% spending, their military spending outnumbers that of Russia by a large margin.
That said, I agree that all NATO countries should spend at least the required 2%.
Just want to counter the wrong impression of military power. Even the European NATO members have vastly more military power than Russia, let alone the full NATO including the US.
Of course, nukes change the equation, but once nukes start getting used, we are all doomed. Furthermore, neither the Russians, Ukrainians, Europeans or Americans want a nuclear war.
The russian army is propaganda and nukes. Putin’s psychological warfare triggered images of the soviet army in us making us think they are unstoppable. Seems like we were wrong. Sure russia can do damage but its nowhere near the image it tries to project. Furthermore, russians aren’t monsters and they are against such a war.
> Furthermore, russians aren’t monsters and they are against such a war.
While that's certainly true, Putin is a product of Russian culture. Just as the Russian state is today, and just as it was 30, 50, 70, 100 years ago.
The people of Russia are responsible for what's going on. Putin is a very logical outcome to their culture of power, conquest and empire lust. They cheered when Putin took Crimea, they reveled in the expansion of empire, it made them feel good, and Putin fed off of it. They are responsible. For how many centuries does an outcome have to persist before the people of a nation are held responsible morally for what has occurred? Golly gee, those poor Russian people, they're just never responsible for anything that happens even if a thousand years goes by. I just can't figure out why Russia keeps ending up with authoritarian leaders, century after century. Must be some bad luck, that's all.
And Americans don't bear responsibility for Iraq or the military industrial complex. Bull, of course they do. Yeah, but Putin is a dictator! The Russian people greatly applauded Putin's successes, gave him credit for things he didn't deserve credit for (oil prices artificially bolstering their economy during the Bush years), tolerated his behavior and extreme human rights abuses, and have never actually attempted to remove him from power (only relatively small challenges to his power have ever occurred). Overall they've barely lifted a finger in his direction to curb his behavior. They are responsible in every possible way.
How many monsters, tsars, conquerers have to come out of Russia before it becomes obvious that it's springing directly from the Russian culture. The Russian culture is made by the Russian people. Thus, they're responsible.
The German people were also responsible for Hitler, they made the culture of the region that produced him ideologically. They cheered the notion of empire and conquest openly, they reveled in the successes of their war machines.
If one goes swimming in the history of cultures that repeatedly produce leaders with the conquering, empire mentality, you see many similarities. Putin has the mentality of European conquerers of centuries past, he represents a regressive disease ideologically. Russia is the only major nation that is part of Europe today that is still holding onto (largely) vanquished ideologies of conquest and empire that were very common in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries (and before).
For Russia to not just get another authoritarian after Putin, the people of Russia have to consciously change their culture. Other European nations have done so, have eliminated barbaric cultures of conquest and empire, including prominently the Germans, French and British among others.
Just like germans were shown a better path and became undeniably democratic and a kind nation once their own despotic system was put to an end so can russians be free.
Russians for the most part simply dont know better. They are told by politicians and religious figures that and injustice has been made, that everyone hates them, that we are coming for their resources and that they are the only ones that can save them.
Their systems are clogged by putinist criminals, their courts are infested by mafias, while their culture is ideologically hijacked.
But the russians have it in them. They are part of european culture and have proven time and again they are.
Just like with nazi germans they are the first victim. I hold no grudge against russians. I think russia should be a developed, have a powerful economy and become a democratic free country. One can only hope.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180610061817/https://www.nato....
NATO can have higher military power, but mostly coming from the USA spending 4% of GDP in military, while the "pacifist" European countries keep under spending, with most of them at only 1%