Public sentiment regarding the proposed increase of NATO defense spending to 5% of GDP is largely negative, with widespread skepticism about its realism and concerns about the detrimental impact on vital social programs. Many comments express a desire for greater investment in domestic welfare rather than military expenses, highlighting a stark disconnect between governmental military commitments and public priorities.

NATO

European Member Nations

United States

&gt; 2.01%

Minimal compliance is our national specialty.

Bayart

Spain will likely go below 1% again this year if tourism recovers.

binary_spaniard

We do spend that much, but we got less than Luxembourg for it. So much corruption in our military procurement, oh god.

b00c

What a nice list of NATO countries... jup... definetely nothing missing there...

Midvikudagur

Luxembourg be like: 

Ok I’ll try…


… happy now?

LordRupertMK

ImTheVayne

Interesting how, if you ignore the top 4, the spending seems to be proportional to the countries distance from the Russian border.

gONzOglIzlI

Without their GDPs themselves this is a really weird chart. "Germany and France DWARFED by Greek military spending" read the headline lol

at_least_its_unique

USA used to spend 9% at parts of the cold war

serious-Seaweedlover

Not gonna lie, I'm a little embarrassed and ashamed about Canada.

Link50L

The NATO guideline commitment is for 2024, those still under 2% have still a bit of time to make a bigger effort.

tnarref

Sad to see that we've entered a new period of mobilization. I guess the prospering times are over for Europe.

[deleted]

i dont know why but i feel like greece build their army because of another nato member

true-kirin

[Source](https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf)

Quite a few more interesting graphs/tables if you want to look through the source. [This one regarding how the money is spent is quite interesting](https://i.imgur.com/KibmGbx.png).

djmasti

Imagine if only we (Greece) were to spend that extra 1%-2% of gdp to improve education, infrastructure etc...

ypoxondrios

ItalianIrredentist

st3v702

The most exponential growth have Latvia and Lithuania. Even sky-rocket growth, I should say

Polska_News

Imagine if us just cut their military spending one day.

kriza69-LOL

So they all increased it, most of them with big increases, except the US but they're already way over 2%.

Heerrnn

Another example of chronic underinvestment in infrastructure. The effects of this become now more obvious - but it’s the same story as with education, healthcare, science, physical and climate crisis mitigation. In this case it’s the military infrastructure desperately needed in Europe. For all his bullshit, the bozo guy previously occupying the White House at least tried to push the NATO members to try to honor their word and reach the 2% of GDP level.

krassimircho

And Iceland is just 0% because they don't have a military

Happy_Craft14

If the EU Army becomes active, I think it would be a good thing to phase in mandatory contribution for the European army of 0.1% of GDP every year over a 20 year period, until hitting the 2% GDP per year.

Joltie

oiram12

Original_Griever

Croatia has this much because since last year our country added veterans pensions &amp; benefits as army cost.  
And we have 426000 "veterans" on a 3.88M population.  
So that is a huge paycheck and reason why army budget jumped.

TomexDesign

So the country at the end of the table, Germany spends 1.53% and Russia spends 4.3% on military. Russia spendings is getting significantly higher level of corruption (read more money wasted) but bottom line it’s the same 60-70B USD. Worth remembering that DE does much less geo distribution, less logistics,smaller army, no excessively expensive projects (ie nukes, space program, international expeditions in Transdniestra or Syria). In the end of the day DE has another ~3% of GDP to spent on making sure it’s economy grows bigger/decreases dependency in fossil fuels/people getting better healthcare. East of Germany everyone should be armed to the teeth but PL, HU, CZ,SK, RO economies combined are size of RU so the 2% spent on professional army is more or less equivalent of RU spending 4%. RU will depopulate faster than all of Central Europe and it’s economy will be insignificant in 20 years when renewables will be more popular/cheaper. All in all Romanians, Hungarians and Poles should hold on to their territories for another 10ish years and start building electric cars and solar panel factories for German companies.

JazzyGroovyFunky

Interestingly enough we have Trump and his NATO policies to thank for that to a large extent.

eroica1804

It’s sad thinking that a positive trend in military expenditures is seen as a good thing by people here….

stefasaki

I think 2014 might be a bad start point, I think a lot of increase happened around 2018, when Europe realized that US might not always be there.
I know several countries upped their spend and started to replace very costly gear.

Matshelge

auchjemand

Puzzleheaded_Gear464

Curious, what caused the increase spending in the European nations? Was it Trump's admonishment? Or just readjustment in the face of increased tensions with Russia?

Omaestre

As a Dane I feel embarrassed we haven’t kept our end of the bargain with a simple 2%

magicmelis1312

Wonder if Putin is manipulating military stock prices

Taiwaneseguy

&gt;Once adopted, all member nations except Spain will have until 2035 to reach the goal of 5%.

It will be interesting to see how many members actually hit that 5% target. My estimate is that we will see quite a few not hit this target, based on historic trends...

krazydude22

Honestly I feel like 3% would be much more realistic but then again even now with the 2% it feels like every country cheats the agreement by labeling a bunch of unrelated shit as 'military spending', so who knows, if the goal is 5% then maybe the militaries will get the 2-3% that they were actually promised.

MLG_Blazer

EuroFederalist

RIdiculous. That ends up being like half the federal budget for most states. That's simply not going to happen and is pure appeasement for Agent Orange.

Belydrith

People need to understand that not everything can be fixed by throwing money at it. The biggest problem in the EU is that it's - unlike the US - not a singular federal state. Every country within the EU has it's own domestic and economic interests which won't be given up. On top of that there is already a competition on who gets the big military contracts. Also it would be insane if large sums are actually going to the US-based contractors (which is of course the main reason why the US pushes its NATO partners to invest more to be honest). Now, 5% (even if 1.5% of those are "infrastructure") is a lot of money for any country. Most economies are struggling at the moment and there are rising tensions within the society. If the additional military spending will lead to extreme cuts on important programs (like social welfare, education, health or even cultural aspects) we end up with even more polarization and political instability.

ForTheChillz

There is no way all countries will reach 5% and they know it, the highest in Europe is Poland by 4.12 and it is already a gigantic amount for their gdp. To be clear the US itself spend 3.4. We need to rearm but the 5% objective is completely unrealistic. Also I wonder where all the money comes from, for sure there will be important cuts in social welfare, and our democracies are already crippled with extreme far right parties becoming always more powerful. Another doubt I have is that this rearm will just be an American plan to make us more and more dependant on them and their weapons, I don't really believe that Trump and company want an indipendent and competitive Europe, since they seems to promote divisions backing up extreme parties, but I could be wrong.

Urzuck

Still feels like an arbitrary number. Why 3,5% or 5%? Have they made an assessment of how much is needed, or are we just pulling numbers out of Trumps ass? 

If it must be 5%, fine, so be it. But it's still a vague figure to me and I haven't seen this question answered. The moment we spend 1 euro too much on x, any government body/finance departement will push back. But now, everyone seems to just take the percentage as is. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against increasing spending, it just feels like we are throwing money at a problem, without much logic. Money we have many other uses for as well.

L-Malvo

Oh boy.....our country is gonna have a field day with this. A new government incoming and pro Russia mindset is gonna skyrocket.

Admiral_Janovsky

I totally agree with higher defence spending for most nations, but this feels like a weak attempt to appease Trump who clearly has no interest in Europe anymore.

Much better would be to accept that and focus entirely on building a European army and allocating 0.5% GDP to arming Ukraine in perpetuity. That way we remain in NATO, ensure our independence of the US, benefit homegrown economies and companies and support local jobs, and allow Ukraine to defend themselves and prevent Russia from widening the war or opening a new front.

Also buying guns is useless while we allow social media companies and unmitigated propaganda to convince our populations that we need to tear the EU apart and leave NATO and capitulate to imperialists in Moscow or Islamofascists in Tehran.

r0w33

Gonna be great when the austerity needed to meet this results in all of Europe electing far right Nazi parties… now with huge militaries

A_Brown_Crayon

Friendly reminder that the US said it wouldn't reach 5% itself.

Fun-Adhesiveness7881

All for more spending at the moment, but i feel like they just wanted to pick a round and ambitious number that sounds good. 5% is ridiculously enormous. And also brings the "at what cost" question up. If we're giving up "nice things" like cultural projects for this, what are we even protecting with our new big sticks?

Scottybadotty

I'm still in doubt about this. The primary goal for Europe is a credible defense against Russia, but by all accounts Russia is bleeding bad. Demographically and technologically they do not stand a chance in a larger conflict nor do I think they can sustain this for 5 years. They'll crash long before that and they'll crash long and hard. 5% by 2035 is both too much in the long run, and too little right now. 

But all around the world military leaders have concluded that the risk of war has become an acceptable cost, and some might argue a 5% can get us back to a more stable peace. But i think that's far too optimistic. You need more than defense spending to change that. 

At the same time, it will do the economy a lot of good. Also, Europe is far too timid and considerate of the US's position - even as they descend into idiot driven fascism. 

I guess we'll see.

throwaway490215

We can never ever pay that, in not even 1 universe. We won't get 5% for sure.

jarnokee963

As long as we do this internally to the EU, sure. God knows our industries need a push.

RoomyRoots

Without consent from the people they are taxing.

Ninevehenian

Why 5%? I thought thats the ridiculous requirement from Trump? Why Europe would agree to Trump?

Lovevas

Who are we going to buy the weapons of I wonder?

Danpez890

2024 NATO Parliamentary Assembly report suggests 5% at a minimum is required in the event that a major war breaks out -- think Russia attacking a NATO member, and support provided by China. Even then it will be tough.

When you cook the books and include civilian infrastructure projects, that NATO member is in serious trouble.

In the meantime, we in the west continue to send billions of dollars China's way so that we can have our access to cheap labour and profit$$$, as they build a war machine to use against us.

Our only saving grace is that we have people like Trump in charge who will drill baby drill us to a climate catastrophe before all this happens. Maybe.

wgracelyn

mavihuber

Those saying 3.5% (in core defense spending; the 1.5% "defense-related" part is so broad it can be anything) is too high, just look at "frontline states" like Poland, which will be at 4.7% in core defense spending in 2025 not 2035, and the Baltic States that could go 5-6%.

That's what those in the eastern flank feel they need to do to have a chance to resist Russian aggression for as long as it takes while their allies (apart from the NATO battalion or brigade deployed on their territories), take their time to mobilize and reinforce them.

Other NATO allies are not being asked to spend like the frontline states, but 3.5% by freakin 2035 (there'll possibly be gradual targets perhaps like 2.5% by 202x, 3% by 20xx, and so on) for them to share the burden of collective defense is significant but reasonable, given what frontline countries are doing standing guard at the outer walls of European defense.

Those that don't want to make the commitment probably can't be expected to show up if there's actual trouble anyway. There'll always be freeloaders but here's to hoping most of the alliance, with-or-without-the-USA, do the right thing and share the burden of collective European defense.

DefInnit

That's a massive win for Trump and I can't accept we are conceding him so easily

Klutzy-Weakness-937

Money for science: no

Money for tech: no

Money for civilian infraestructure: no

Money for health: no

Money for education: no

Money for culture: no

Money to USA arms industry and Trump: big and fat YES baby  After all we still are USA laptop bitches.

(Even if we need to increase the budget for defense spending, 5% is just insane.)

pc0999

Until 2035? Come on Pedro, you could have promised that 5% easily…

flipyflop9

Free rider Spain is exempt. The rest should consider themselves lucky if they only need to spend 5%.

edit. A lot of westerners are living in a world that no longer exists. Spend 5% or expect us to chance sides ( and you'll then spend 10% ). We are not your meatshield.

KernunQc7

It's very important. At this point, Russia is an enemy state to Western countries and should be treated as such.

SamDuck159

2035 for 5%? hahaha, nice joke. There will be many many countries who will not even get close to 3.5%.... also mandatory armies will be a norm in Europe. Far right in surge even more.

InCloud44

Yeah, no. Spain will not be paying 5% thank you very much.

wannacumnbeatmeoff

Like did they thought about it? Like, majority of nato countries can't afford to spend 5% of their GDP on defense. Why dont go step by step. Try to reach 3% and see how possible is that.

Torakkk

Professional-Link887

Sure, just only spend the bare minimum on weapons from us

lolrogii

the question is what will they cut to finance it, and will it finance domestic production?

ThroawayJimilyJones

rochvegas5

If we actually start getting close to, or consistently hitting the 5% target, you can take it as a confirmation, that our leaders intend to go to war. This is retarded and makes no sense in any other case.

Electrical-Tie-7982

The target date is strategically after Trump's presidency.

Maleficent-Light-318

such irrealistic target... and a waste of resources that could be used to fund healthcare &amp; education.

Yeah, because we have no better way to spend that money...

Russia, China and Iran are simply not big enough of a threat to central and western European countries to warrant this, and sorry but I will not be dying for any eastern European country, or Israel (especially not them) and tbh not even my own country. Our political leaders do so little for us, but expect so much.

Papayomato

This is stupid and only helps the military-industrial complex to stir up more wars and destruction.

Weak_Employee_3726

Turns out that Trump knows how to get what he wants in the end, doesn't it?

Rightricket

Spain is the only one not lying it seems. If any Western European nation increases defence to 5% of GDP, I will change genders.

Cultural_Thing1712

Sufficient-Trade-349

Starting to dislike the EU. Our guys are really bootlicking Trump so badly. At this point it's just embarrassing.

Shexter

Classic Spain. Have your representatives try to insult other representatives in the EU for not "caring" about israel gaza, but refuse to increase defence spending in Europe

tikitakaenjoyer

I am pretty sure all of this is priced in . So something unexpected needs to happen for us to take advantage of this news

international_swiss

Tutonkofc

Defence stocks have been selling off this month. Keep watching the trend for a good entry. As how to choose which stock to buy, there’s a few ETFs to start with, if you don’t want to spend time researching individual stocks. Overall, Germany and UK companies seem would benefit most.

Natural_Berry_8007

Professional investors responded seconds after the news dropped. Whatever opportunity there was is long gone. To play this game, you need an information advantage over the rest of the market. Becoming buddies with a powerful politician might be a good start ;)

eitohka

Don’t put your money on American arms manufacturers, but on European.

TatraPoodle

All priced in. Did you see Rheinmetall AG go up?

derping1234

Well, if they don't plan on cutting other expenses, and they just increase spending, then besides defense stocks, gold or other hedges against inflation are set to keep going up.

Savings-Leading4618

Invest in the Romanian company that does the maintenance for the new 18 F-16 jets. They just got more jets for free.

Aerostar Bacău. Ticker: ARS

marcoti33

Pretty sure it will be financed by inflation. Buy assets or even better save in hard money.

felipasset

Like all news, if you've read about it, it's too late to do anything about it. 

Low-Introduction-565

Don’t. 
The main impact this will have in most country is changing the policy on what does count as a military spending.

InvestmentLoose5714

BigPomegranate8890

Perhaps think of auxiliary companies that will get the contracts via "mixed use" portion of the 5% allotment.

zukeen

Choose ETF, do not pick-up singular companies.

Sadlave89

You invest before, aspiring the change. Not after when things are already underway. It's not like the industry is caught off guard by this announcement. NATO decided after aligning this with all the stakeholders, including the industry. And working up towards this there had been loads of comments and announcements that spending should and probably would have been increased. 

My 2 cents: invest broadly and passively in generic index funds and don't try to chase winners/dragons as you will often be too late. Meaning you will buy high, not low.

JohnnyJordaan

daeneryssith

NATO leaders agreed to increase defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, prompted by perceived threats from Russia and terrorism, sparking debates over the potential reallocation of funds from social programs.

NATO Defense Spending Increase

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want