• koper@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    The 2 percent of GDP target is imaginary. They made it up, in no small part because of lobbying from the defense industry. There is no reason for NATO to spend so much more than all other countries combined.

    Stopping Russia should have been done through economic and diplomatic means. No amount of NATO bombs or tanks would have stopped the invasion. It only would have fueled the flames and given legitimacy to Russia’s claimed insecurity. Economic power is much stronger than military sabre rattling. The EU is founded on that exact principle and it’s the reason why it’s still together.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      The 2 percent of GDP target is imaginary.

      The target was set so that no country would be able to join NATO and then just let everyone else pay for everything. You contribute to the common defense or you GTFO.

      We can bicker about 2% being too high or too low and whether the target should have been adjusted Post Cold War but any argument that some target isn’t necessary is just silliness.

      No amount of NATO bombs or tanks would have stopped the invasion.

      Oh I’m fairly certain that NATO military power would have stopped the invasion in the first 24 hours. A single flight of F-35s would have made those original Russian convoy’s cease to exist à la the Highway of Death from 1991.

      Even now NATO military power could substantially end the ground war in Ukraine before the end of the month.

      It only would have fueled the flames and given legitimacy to Russia’s claimed insecurity.

      So what? NATO didn’t do it and there’s STILL an ongoing war with a casualty toll well over a million and millions more displaced.

      Economic power is much stronger than military sabre rattling.

      Then the EU should have flexed them in 2014. They didn’t and here we are.