Mar 17, 2024 07:47 PM
(This post was last modified: Mar 17, 2024 09:12 PM by C C.)
First revolves around EDIS and EDIP efforts, which includes procurement acts which have more or less been serving as welfare programs for bolstering capability gaps in the European defense industry. Since many taxpayers in the EU countries may be ideologically averse to overtly or directly paying for more military-related spending (and increasing the rate of buying from manufacturers on the continent is also a better sell).
In terms of NATO membership, it's a tad surprising that Canada is one of those below the [tentative] 2% promise made back in 2014.
- - - - - - - - -
(EU community) Understanding the EU’s New Defense Industrial Strategy
https://carnegieendowment.org/2024/03/08...-pub-91937
EXCERPTS: More than three-quarters of the defense acquisitions by EU member states between the start of Russia’s invasion and June 2023 were made from outside the EU, with the United States alone representing 63 percent. But buying from third countries involves minimal European technology and intellectual property content and poses a risk to local skills and knowledge. It can also be harder to justify before European taxpayers who are asked to accept higher defense spending. The strategy envisions that by 2030, at least 50 percent of member states’ procurement budget (60 percent by 2035) should go to EU-based suppliers and that at least 40 percent of defense equipment should be procured in a collaborative manner.
[...] The EC cannot do much about the fact that European countries still look to the United States for protection. Although the new strategy does point out the fragility of this arrangement, that same tenuousness might be even more reason for some governments to try to curry favor in Washington. The EC can, however, work to increase European defense supply chains’ reliability. Now that war has returned to the continent, defense planners want to make sure their own militaries have access to all necessary defense equipment in times of crisis. The EC is keen to establish European security of supply, irrespective of the member state in which suppliers are located. It wants intra-EU defense trade to represent at least one-third of the value of the EU defense market.
= = = = = =
NATO: Which countries are paying their fair share on defence?
https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-w...re-defence
EXCERPTS: One trend seen is that countries bordering Ukraine, Russia, or its neighbour and ally Belarus are spending increasingly more following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Estonia (2.73%), Lithuania (2.54%), Finland (2.45%), Romania (2.44%), Hungary (2.43%) and Latvia (2.07%) are all exceeding the alliance's guideline for defence expenditure.
[...] The nations falling short of the alliance's target in 2023 were France (1.90%), Montenegro (1.87%), North Macedonia (1.87%), Bulgaria (1.84%), Croatia (1.79%), Albania (1.76%), the Netherlands (1.70%), Norway (1.67%), Denmark (1.65%), Czech Republic (1.50%), Portugal (1.48%), Italy (1.46%), Canada (1.38%), Slovenia (1.35%), Turkey (1.31%), Spain (1.26%), Belgium (1.13%) and Luxembourg (0.72%).
- - - - - - - - -
Fact-checking Trump's comments urging Russia to invade 'delinquent' NATO members
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fa...to-members
EXCERPT: NATO members don’t pay to belong and don’t owe the organization anything other than contributions to a largely administrative fund. Trump clearly wasn’t referring to those administrative payments.
His frequent complaint during his presidency, and now, has been how much NATO countries put into their own military budgets.
U.S. presidents before him raised that concern. In fact, it was in 2014, during the Barack Obama administration, that NATO members agreed to move “toward” spending 2 percent of GDP on national defense by 2024. Stoltenberg also has said members needed to invest more in their militaries.
_
In terms of NATO membership, it's a tad surprising that Canada is one of those below the [tentative] 2% promise made back in 2014.
- - - - - - - - -
(EU community) Understanding the EU’s New Defense Industrial Strategy
https://carnegieendowment.org/2024/03/08...-pub-91937
EXCERPTS: More than three-quarters of the defense acquisitions by EU member states between the start of Russia’s invasion and June 2023 were made from outside the EU, with the United States alone representing 63 percent. But buying from third countries involves minimal European technology and intellectual property content and poses a risk to local skills and knowledge. It can also be harder to justify before European taxpayers who are asked to accept higher defense spending. The strategy envisions that by 2030, at least 50 percent of member states’ procurement budget (60 percent by 2035) should go to EU-based suppliers and that at least 40 percent of defense equipment should be procured in a collaborative manner.
[...] The EC cannot do much about the fact that European countries still look to the United States for protection. Although the new strategy does point out the fragility of this arrangement, that same tenuousness might be even more reason for some governments to try to curry favor in Washington. The EC can, however, work to increase European defense supply chains’ reliability. Now that war has returned to the continent, defense planners want to make sure their own militaries have access to all necessary defense equipment in times of crisis. The EC is keen to establish European security of supply, irrespective of the member state in which suppliers are located. It wants intra-EU defense trade to represent at least one-third of the value of the EU defense market.
= = = = = =
NATO: Which countries are paying their fair share on defence?
https://www.forces.net/news/world/nato-w...re-defence
EXCERPTS: One trend seen is that countries bordering Ukraine, Russia, or its neighbour and ally Belarus are spending increasingly more following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.
Estonia (2.73%), Lithuania (2.54%), Finland (2.45%), Romania (2.44%), Hungary (2.43%) and Latvia (2.07%) are all exceeding the alliance's guideline for defence expenditure.
[...] The nations falling short of the alliance's target in 2023 were France (1.90%), Montenegro (1.87%), North Macedonia (1.87%), Bulgaria (1.84%), Croatia (1.79%), Albania (1.76%), the Netherlands (1.70%), Norway (1.67%), Denmark (1.65%), Czech Republic (1.50%), Portugal (1.48%), Italy (1.46%), Canada (1.38%), Slovenia (1.35%), Turkey (1.31%), Spain (1.26%), Belgium (1.13%) and Luxembourg (0.72%).
- - - - - - - - -
Fact-checking Trump's comments urging Russia to invade 'delinquent' NATO members
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fa...to-members
EXCERPT: NATO members don’t pay to belong and don’t owe the organization anything other than contributions to a largely administrative fund. Trump clearly wasn’t referring to those administrative payments.
His frequent complaint during his presidency, and now, has been how much NATO countries put into their own military budgets.
U.S. presidents before him raised that concern. In fact, it was in 2014, during the Barack Obama administration, that NATO members agreed to move “toward” spending 2 percent of GDP on national defense by 2024. Stoltenberg also has said members needed to invest more in their militaries.
_