[PaywallBuster]

`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.`

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%

[microtonal]

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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

[yyyk]

>For example, UK's and Germany's spending alone was almost as much as Russia

A lot of it goes to salaries, so in practice UK and Germany militaries have much less effective spend.

[Melio]

I'm not sure what you try to explain to me.

Independent of the military spending the military power of NATO is still bigger than Russia.

This is the point I made.