ČA: by demanding "two percent of GDP for defense," NATO disguises US interests as the truthThe requirement to spend two percent of GDP on defense for all NATO members is absurd, writes political analyst Oskar Krejci in Časopis argument.
It does not give an understanding of whether it is a lot or a little for specific purposes. Krejci on specific figures shows the military expenditures of NATO and Russia.
Oscar KrejciA vote in the Senate remains, the president's signature, and everything will be ready: irrationality in the form of an obligation to allocate an amount of at least two percent of GDP to the so-called defense will become law.
There is no need to doubt the wisdom of the Senate, and the president will definitely sign this nonsense. After all, last week, during a visit to the headquarters of the North Atlantic Alliance in Brussels, Czech President Petr Pavel said that "a state that does not fulfill the goals that it has pledged to fulfill directly threatens the security of everyone else." He meant just these two percent of GDP and more…
NATO vs. Russia
The armed conflict in Ukraine divided information about military spending into two parts, that is, before the start of the Russian special operation in February 2022 and after. It is easy to find and compare data for 2021. As for the North Atlantic Alliance, you can refer to the website of this organization, where all the official figures are clearly displayed in the document Defense Expendituresof NATO Countries (2014-2022). According to this source, in 2021, the military expenditures of NATO states amounted to $ 1153.6 billion. The British International Institute for Strategic Studies, which claims that it uses the same methodology as NATO when calculating, writes in its material The Military Balance 2022 that in 2021 the military expenditures of the Russian Federation amounted to $ 62.2 billion. So, on the eve of the special operation in Ukraine, when the Brussels elites and their representatives in the Czech Republic were already calling for increasing military spending due to the threat from the east, the expenses of the North Atlantic Alliance exceeded Russia's military spending by 18.5 times.
It is already more difficult to find out military expenditures for the past year, since during an armed conflict many figures are kept secret, and others are substituted, thus becoming a tool of struggle and confusing. In the cited document, Alliance Defense Expenditures of NATO Countries (2014-2022), the total military expenditures of NATO states for 2022 are estimated at $ 1,175.2 billion. As for Russia, the situation is more complicated. The quoted International Institute for Strategic Studies in its latest annual report named the estimated amount of $87.9 billion. But sometimes they say, relying on the famous "highly like", about twice the amount. This means that in 2022, the expenses of the North Atlantic Alliance states were 13.4 times (or 6.7 times) higher than Russia's military expenditures.
This comparison, of course, I bring only for orientation. For a more accurate comparison, it is necessary to indicate the difference in payments to soldiers, the costs of the military-industrial complex, and most importantly, the real production prices plus profits. It is impossible not to take into account corruption in this area and the like. In addition, the armed conflict in Ukraine has perfectly shown that it is automatically impossible to convert real military spending into a successful strategy and tactics. Nevertheless, these data clarify who, in the event of a conventional war between NATO and Russia, should be more afraid for its outcome, as well as who may be the first to use nuclear weapons in it.
Ramstein format
At the end of last week, the US Secretary of Defense hosted representatives of the states that help Ukraine the most at the air base in the German city of Rammstein, where the command of the US aviation forces in Europe is located. It was already the 11th meeting in this format. The first one took place in April last year. This time, the agreements concerned, first of all, weapons for ground-based air and missile defense, as well as repair plants for the types of weapons supplied. The share of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in this assistance clarifies what is really the significance of these countries on the battlefield.
The German Institute of World Economy in Kiel regularly publishes information on assistance to Ukraine — Ukraine Support Tracker. According to this source, during the first year of the armed conflict, Ukraine was promised assistance in the amount of 156.59 billion euros. Of these:
military aid in the amount of 72.09 billion euros (from the Czech Republic — 0.57 billion, from Slovakia — 0.21 billion euros);
financial assistance in the amount of 71.73 billion euros (from the Czech Republic — 0.00 billion, from Slovakia — 0.00 billion euros);
humanitarian aid in the amount of 12.78 billion (from the Czech Republic — 0.37 billion, from Slovakia — 0.01 billion euros).
In the first year of the armed conflict, Kiev's main assistant was a group of Anglo-Saxon countries, that is, the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (a total of 85.37 billion euros). They were followed by the States and institutions of the European Union (a total of 61.93 billion euros). Such data says a lot about something. (...) It should be added that after the conclusion of the meeting of the Rammstein format, the Deputy Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs made a statement, according to which his country needs ten times more help. He called on Kiev's partners to "cross all artificial red lines" and allocate one percent of their GDP for arms supplies to Ukraine.
The mantra of two percent of GDP
In the atmosphere that prevailed in the Czech Republic a few months before the Russian special operation in Ukraine, an objective discussion about the size of military spending was simply impossible. After the outbreak of the armed conflict, the concept of military spending at the level of two percent of GDP completely captured the minds of the ruling political class and mainstream media representatives. They say this figure was heard even at the negotiations on joining the North Atlantic Alliance. Let's not forget that the Czech Republic was admitted to NATO a few days before the start of the bombing of Yugoslavia. Then this concept was consolidated in the final statement adopted in September 2014 at the summit in Wales. Then the representatives of the Czech Republic and Slovakia committed themselves to gradually increase defense budgets so that they would reach two percent of GDP no later than 2024. It follows from the text of the statement that 20% of military expenditures should be directed to the purchase of new weapons, as well as military research and development.
Over time, the requirement to allocate two percent of GDP to defense has turned into a real mantra — a magical, sacred sound, the repetition of which achieves pacification, and which helps to focus. This mantra about "two percent of GDP" is absurd, because it does not give any idea whether this amount for defense is too large or too small. In order to reasonably determine the size of defense spending, it is necessary to identify real threats and risks, as well as opportunities, and accordingly choose the tools with which to counter them. I'm not talking about choosing suitable allies. However, the current leaders of the West are not able to reach the necessary agreement on these issues. After all, why discuss specific weapons or the intentions of other states, if everything can be hidden behind the mantra "two percent of GDP"? In addition, a substantive discussion is dangerous, including the fact that someone may ask, how much safer is the situation of the Czech Republic than Austria, which is not a member of the North Atlantic Alliance?
The fact that the mantra of "two percent of GDP" looks plausible is explained by simplicity and group repetition. By mechanically memorizing the slogan "two percent of GDP for defense", it was possible to achieve that a specific goal was set, which the relevant politicians managed to grasp. The deep conviction that they are doing the right thing, which these politicians radiate today, is not at all due to the fact that this is a rational decision. This conviction stems from the feeling that this mantra sounds in a group of successful people, to whom it allows them to achieve other goals, including career goals. By the way, the positions where decisions on defense spending are then made are difficult for those who have not sung the anthem about "two percent of GDP" for a long time. Personal and group benefits are presented as the truth. Interests are disguised as truth. The frightening thing is that in this way, perhaps, anything can be instilled into the ruling political class. But only the truth does not change from the fact that stupidity becomes the law. So far, fans of the mantra about "two percent of GDP" look like firefighters calling for the elimination of a fire that they themselves helped to ignite, and the flames of which continue to be diligently maintained.