Defending the free world

‘According to available data, over the last 50 years, Europe has spent on average around 1.8% - 2.2% of its GDP on defense, with recent trends showing a slight increase towards the 2% mark; however, this can vary significantly depending on the specific European country and time period analyzed.’

‘According to available data, over the last 50 years, the United States has spent on average around 3.5% of its GDP on defense. Some sources indicate a slightly higher figure, with a 50-year average closer to 4.2% of GDP.’

……..

Call the gap 1.5% of European GDP for 50 years. And let’s take the year 2000 as the representative median year.

‘According to available data, the European Union's GDP in the year 2000 was approximately $9.5 trillion USD in nominal terms, representing a significantly smaller figure compared to the US GDP at the time.’

…………..

The references are from enquiries to Google’s AI

So a rough number for the amount of money by which Europe has lagged the US in defending the free world is 50x 9500 billions x2/100=9500 billion or $9.5 trillion. This of course is not a current value of the number which would include the cumulative product of this money reinvested, which would be substantially larger.

Nor does it reflect various trends like the narrowing of the gap when when the GDP numbers were more recent and larger. It’s a SWAG, but sufficient for our purposes..

Put another way Europe owes the Free world one whole year of its entire economy. They should be less vociferous.

I would have to agree that Europe should have been paying the same as the US, particularly given the pickle the world is with a Mad Putin with nukes.

I wonder how it got to a situation where the EU was paying much less. America has been in more wars, but at the very least some of these must have been essential wars (without ulterior economic motives).

This is apparently a grievance that other US presidents have raised. Countries should spend at least 3%, although the US could also spend less of its GDP - assuming Europe spent 3%.

You seem to be missing the fact Merica has to spend so much more since invading other countries does take money (an awful lot of it) compared to European countries that don't (well except when they feel obliged to assist Merica kill all those women and children to get to the weapons of mass destruction)

Americas military spending is obviously far more since they have had to fund the invasions of Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan etc. Stop invading countries and they can spend a hell of a lot less and keep their current military size.

Why does Europe have to match the same spending (based on GDP) as America, if America spent 20% of GDP does that mean everyone has too as well. I expect there is some agreement in NATO on spending but would be surprised if America decides how much that figure is

Don't get me wrong I believe Europe needs to spend more and strengthen their defense's, Putin has shown them the folly of reducing the spending over the years.

The U.S. government has spent over $8 trillion on the war on terror, according to the Costs of War Project. This figure includes past expenditures and future obligations for veterans.

Explanation

1. The war on terror is the international military campaign launched by the U.S. after the September 11, 2001 attacks.
2. 
   
3. The war has also included large-scale surveillance, torture, drone strikes, and the Guantanamo Bay military prison.
4. 
   
5. The war has displaced 38 million people, the second largest number of forced displacements since 1900.
6. 
   
7. The war has caused more than 4.5 million deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, the Philippines, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
8. 
   
9. The war has also had a significant economic impact on the U.S.
10. 
    

The war on terror has also been costly for the U.S. in other ways, including:

1. Ongoing medical and disability expenditures for veterans
2. Waste, fraud, and abuse estimated to total between $31 billion and $60 billion
3. Corporate profits from Pentagon contracts
4. Lobbying by weapons makers

The Vietnam War cost $168 billion, or $1 trillion in today's dollars. 19 That included $111 billion in military operations and $28.5 billion in aid to South Vietnam. Even 40 years after the war, compensation benefits for Vietnam veterans and families were still estimated to cost $22 billion per year.

Wars fought for lame excuses (stop communism and revenge for 911)

I am no historian but are there any countries invaded by European countries that they instigated and dragged America into?

You can always tell when Moz knows Trump's is doing something undefendable when he feels compelled to make these whatboutism threads.

Also why does Europe owe New Zealand some of that money as we are not even a member of NATO Moz?

Or are we not part of the free world.

Living in NZ with China casting a large shadow I would be voting for more US military expenditure Sader. Even if not everything has been spent wisely. The Iraq war should never have happened,

The Korean War was to protect democracy in South Korea. The Vietnam war was inherited from France. The Serbian war was for Europe. The Kuwait war was to stop Iraq from dominating the global oil market and occupying Kuwait. The war against Afghanistan was to create consequences for Terrorism and diminish Al Queda.

America is geographically isolated. There is zero chance of it being invaded. It could be made even more formidable by channeling a fraction of what it spends to protect the rest of the world, to it’s own nuclear arsenal.

If anything the US should spend less per GNP dollar than Europe that benefits massively from the American spend.. ..a large amount of which goes to NATO.

The fact that the US is unable to articulate this clearly in ways it could be understood around the globe, is shocking given its deep pool of advertising talent.

And I know whenever I raise a valid point about the USA Anger will raise Trump.

And I know whenever I raise a valid point about the USA Anger will raise Trump.

Oh so you just randomly decided to make that post criticizing Europe completely oblivious to events relating to Ukraine in the last few days. Some coincidence.

Europe isn't complaining about the US pulling back from Europe or the American's calling out the lack of European defense spending though your original post is still one sided tosh. There has been an acknowledgement by European leaders that they where not spending enough on defense and that Trump pulling back from Europe was always a strong possibility, they should have been more pro active and there is absolutely no point bitching about it either now either.

What European leaders are complaining about is the idea that Trump appears to be making far too many concessions to the Russian's, is trying to negotiate a deal without European input that somehow Europe is obligated to follow and send its troops to Ukraine. That's absolutely nuts.

Europe is also complaining about the absolutely stupid and appalling JD Vance speech in Munich where he attacked European countries over free speech and the supposed enemy from within while barely mentioning Russia. Which is absolutely rich coming from someone from the Trump administration, as well as what they perceive as American interference and defacto endorsement of the far right in the German election.

The media in Europe and Ukraine also are complaining about the US trying to pressure Ukraine into a very one sided deal regarding Ukraine's rare minerals that came across as a cynical shake down of a country fighting for its very survival and Trumps absolutely rubbish comments about Zelensky and Trumps shifting of the blame onto Ukraine.

There is also people in Europe and elsewhere that point out, the US and UK gave Ukraine security guarantees when they gave up their nukes back in the 1990's. This appears to be the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) reneging on that deal.

Although, it is debatable if America is still part of the free world, given they elected Trump who wants to colonise Greenland, and Canada - by force has not been ruled out.

Realistically America will never use force against Greenland and Canada. The country won’t accept it. America has been the most benign super power the world has known. Not necessarily for any moral reasons, Americans are happy with what they have…..there is no serious desire to add geography. The strategic importance of Greenland will likely be resolved with an expanded military presence .

Now I know you see the world through a Trump lens Anger. But no I didn’t start the string because of anything that happened to Trump this week. Personally I think his statements on the Ukraine and the lack of clear motivation for tariffs hurt his agenda.

Tariffs should be easy….the principle is equal tariffs, country by country. Right now they are biased against the US. Thar chart should be shared with the public. The differences could be addressed over 3 years in a 3 step increase by year in US tariffs, with an offer to match every cut. A clear principle and an adjustment protocol the markets could absorb.

In the case of the Ukraine, there is some history going back to the prior election. But it’s all been unnecessarily confrontational. I don’t for one second believe the US wants more than favored nation status in the case of rare earth minerals and if granted will only serve to increase Ukraine’s security. It isn’t NATO but it’s an important bond between the countries.

So once again I think Trump has opened up important issues, while doing a terrible job of selling his ideas.

As for why I started the string, I’m reading Alex Karp’s book which I referenced in a separate string. He actually shows a chart of European and US defense expenditures which was interesting, so I pushed the analysis to get some sense of the cumulative number.

No coincidence Anger, try to get over this Woke suspicion of everything.

I don’t for one second believe the US wants more than favored nation status in the case of rare earth minerals and if granted will only serve to increase Ukraine’s security. It isn’t NATO but it’s an important bond between the countries.

The reportedly gave Zelensky less than 4 hours to review and sign the deal. There is also reports of threats to cut of Ukraine access to Starlink unless they sign the deal which apparently has been sent back to the Ukrainians but has not been significantly amended.

As for it improving Ukraine's security how does it do that?. What the assumption is that if there is America personal be they civilian or military mining these resources, that alone will deter future Russian aggression. What company would be bathshit insane enough to spend the time and effort (because it would take years if not decades to return a profit) trying to extract Ukrainian rare earth minerals in a part of the world that could potentially be overun by the Russian's before they ever saw a return on their investment.

Even if you could get American companies to go to Ukraine to set up their and the Russian's decided okay we will attack Ukraine and bypass the American companies and infrastructure to avoid provoking America how would that be any help to Ukraine.

No coincidence Anger, try to get over this Woke suspicion of everything.

You often throw out threads critical of Europe. Comes across as a sense of deep insecurity.

No one held a gun to America's head and forced them to spend so much on their military. No one forced them to be the global watchman, they chose to do it themselves because they wanted too, not out of some sense of altruism but because it allowed them to police a global economic and political system that ultimately benefited them the most and maintained them as the preeminent global power. Now yes Europe also benefited, but I don't see why Europe should be on the hock for America's military presence in the Pacific, Middle East or Caribbean regions. Why don't you go ask those regions to pay more money. Likewise you would do well to remember that Nato's article 5 was only ever used once by America's and its European NATO allies came to the US's assistance and fought in the US's war. The military bases the US has in Europe allows the US to muck about in the middle east with much more ease than would have been otherwise been possible. Basically Europe outsourced its defense to the US (which benefited America arm's manufacturers) in exchange for effectively agreeing to basically follow the US's lead on geopolitical matters.

If the US no longer wants to operate the way it has in the past, that's down to them of course but it puts the world on a much more uncertain path that will almost certainly not be consequence free.

Of course strong commercial relationships add to security, particularly if it involves a critical strategic resource. And the deal on rare earth minerals will be fair, no matter what games are played in negotiation or distorted in the press.

I throw out threads critical of Europe, because I am critical of Europe….what the blue blazes would I be insecure about. America is soaring and Europe is stagnating .

As for the US making the choice to defend the Western world, Europe benefits from that more than America does for the totally obvious reason that Europe is more at risk. When you outsource something you pay for it….or at a minimum you pay the amount you agreed to pay.

And if Europe have no responsibility for stability in the Pacific, why should the US have any responsibility for Europe? You can parse this any way you like the simple fact is the US could spend way less and be secure. The main beneficiary of that largesse has been Europe….which still hasn’t met it’s contractual commitments, let alone it’s fair share.

SIES & the US joins Belarus Iran NKorea & Russia to vote against UN resolution on Ukraine war.

The whole thread reeks of that self virtue that has been become one hallmark of liberal nations. One first pressing demand from a liberal public is to be described as benevolent. It is why liberal nations demand a global control over means of communication as losing that control will open ways for way different narratives than theirs. And narratives grounded in facts contrary to the propaganda spurred about liberal nations' benevolence.

Just this little extract:

Realistically America will never use force against Greenland and Canada. The country won’t accept it. America has been the most benign super power the world has known. Not necessarily for any moral reasons, Americans are happy with what they have…..there is no serious desire to add geography. The strategic importance of Greenland will likely be resolved with an expanded military presence .

The first sentence was already addressed in a dedicated thread: the demand to perceive Trump as bluffing. Trump is not serious, everyone knows it. it is a very perverse distortion of reality as it fits the demand of liberal people to be considered benevolent: any deal can not be perceived as forced on people due to a threat since the threat is non existent. People who sign a deal will not sign because they are coerced. It is a very perverse way of thinking. Of course, Trump is very serious, all people who are forced to deal with his threats know it and they will negotiate knowing the threat is real. Now the threat being real does not mean it can be easily enacted. The balance of power matters. Canada already faced an attempt of invasion from the US that failed so it is very difficult to enact the threat. The Greenland would have been a perfect place for land expansion as it is packed with natural resources and a low population count. The absorption of it would have paid itself off easily. It is crazy to see that the costs of absorption are not factored in when it comes to deal with land expansion. Absorbing new land would have to involve unity of territory. The US can not ignore it as the english crown made the mistakes of ignoring unity of territory by passing specific legislature for the thirteen colonies, specific legislature that allowed the soon to become US to grow an effort of separation. If the english crown had respected unity of territory, there would have never been slavery in the colonies, and therefore no capital to fund the war for independence. Back to Greenland, it is part of the EU or something, so then again, the balance of power acts. Notice by the way that threats to seize the canal of Panama or displacing Gazza inhabitants are ignored because the balance of power allows it to happen. It has nothing to do with a some kind of benevolence from the US People that would reject invading Canada or the Greenland. The US people perceive quite well the balance of power and know that invading Canada or the EU will not be that easy. The US have been running a business of farming the poor and extorting the weak since 1776 and neither Canada or the EU are weak or poor enough to fit the bill.

Once this reminded, the claim about military presence is a joke. The US can not absorb all territories they want to control globally so a new military base is by all means US expansion. China is a rising trading power and as such is confronted with the reality that trading means trade routes and that control over trade means control over trade routes. As such , they are facing the mapping of the world forced by liberal nations through colonization and such. Liberal nations have the global control over the trade routes. So much that by the way, when China managed to secure a deal to open a naval base somewhere in East Africa led the US military to declare that China had opened a military base too close to the US borders. very easy to understand as any military base opened by China is a step closer to secure their own trade routes and loosen the US grip on the global trade routes. Even though in this regard, the award goes to liberal Australia that managed to declare that China opening a military base on China (mainland) was China opening a military base too close to the Australian borders. For simple minded people, it is crazy.

The insistence of presenting the US as a benevolent power, a classical demand by liberals, is another expression of how perverse the liberal way of thinking is. The US are essentially racist so they commonly hide their malevolence behind the fact they have harmed non white people mostly so it does not matter. Even more, the claim of the benevolence of the US do not resist hsitorical insights. The US have been peculiarly effective in being malevolent. As they know this, there is a perverse twist behind the claim of the US being benevolent: no matter how bad the US have been, in the liberal mindset, it could have been worse. This is how liberals conceive being benevolent. The US may have been malevolent yet they could have been more malevolent so in a perverted way of seeing things, the US have been benevolent. Even funnier, when assessing their claim they could have been more malevolent, quite often, it must be concluded that the US have been as malevolent as they could be and that liberal only fancy to be more malevolent.

"SIES & the US joins Belarus Iran NKorea & Russia to vote against UN resolution on Ukraine war."

Whooossssshhh!!!