Op-Ed: NATO, spending, politics, real needs, and utter drivel

An empty mast is seen among member-nations at the NATO headquarters, ahead of a flag-raising ceremony for new member Sweden – Copyright AFP/File JOHN THYS

The usual imbecile-level rhetoric about NATO is as pitiful as any illiterate commentary on anything could possibly be. The media coverage is arguably worse, and usually partisan. The absurd issue of NATO spending, for example, has almost no real-world connection with military realities.

To explain:

2% of what, for what? The relative amounts of money couldn’t be more diverse. It’s not like these economies are all huge and able to contribute unlimited sums of money.

2% of GDP, the stated target for spending, could be anything. 2% of some countries’ GDPs wouldn’t (and probably shouldn’t) buy an ice cream van at current military prices. The 2% figure evolves from an innocent benchmark to something beyond ludicrous in this context.

The actual military capacities of these countries are equally different. Luxembourg and Germany aren’t identical twins, for example.

Most of these can’t manufacture anything they need for themselves. Only France, the UK, US, Germany, Sweden and to some extent Poland actually have their own native armaments industries.

For some NATO countries, upgrading to modern military standards could involve almost total transformation.

Military systems involve support, maintenance, training, and shelf life include considerable turnover over time. (NATO does share the load for these things, but it still adds costs overall.)

If you spend 2% on systems, therefore, you’re spending about 3 times as much on everything else you’ll need.

Against whom? Russia is the obvious candidate, but Russia is also clearly in flux. Putin won’t be around forever. Russia may yet again become a different type of teddy bear or many teddy bears. If Russia does split up, as some prophesy, there’s no ball game.

What about obsolescence? Modern militaries are usually full of fossils. It’s clear from the Ukraine war that future warfare is going to involve multiple very different systems, tactics, and logistics. Should NATO countries invest in museum pieces for the sake of accountancy? That can’t be a good move.

Then there’s the little matter of maintaining a standing military force. That’s expensive, and usually a target for cuts in budgets just about everywhere at all times. This particularly includes the US defense budget.

Meanwhile, NATO has been battling with strange news about security leaks in Germany and Macron’s understandable but wilfully misinterpreted comments on Ukraine. The German issue is just a security leak about existing military systems. The French furore is spin. The image, however, is getting blurry. A united front on agreed positions would be a lot better and clear up the garbage.

Meanwhile, the US has been doing the correct thing of being the somewhat-encumbered arsenal of democracy, rather than a word that sounds similar to arsenal. Cost management by wealthy countries isn’t impossible, just unusual. If push comes to shove, cost management and cost-sharing can be improved drastically if necessary.

It’s not like the US would be desperately scraping nickels and dimes to fund any serious conflict. Nor would NATO’s local armaments industries.  The rhetoric is fraudulent, and rapidly approaching expiry. Politics can turn multiple times on the same dime in a day. The drivel has an even shorter shelf life.

The real needs are what matter. Ignore everything else.