23 out of 32 NATO countries now meet or exceed the 2% GDP defense spending target, not just the U.S. and Poland.
This isn’t money paid to NATO; it’s what each country invests in its own military. The idea that Poland would somehow be left footing the bill is just misinformation.
Also, NATO as an organization has a separate budget for operations, and the U.S. pays about 16% of that, not the majority. NATO wouldn’t just collapse financially if the U.S. left, it would be weakened, but European countries already outspend Russia on defense.
Imo
Source:
NATO Official Site
It's also important to note that there is no standard formula that each country who forms NATO utilizes to calculate their GDP. Note that %GDP equivelates into % of funding per citizen of that nation. The grand totals of dollars contributed will, of course, be higher for higher populous nations and lower for lower population members.
The outlier to that "population" above is of course Germany. Germany, by post
WW2 international agreement was limited to having a maximum of 100 000 military members despite it's large population. Since reunification with East Germany, they have been allowed an increase to 200 000. Context is important when discussing the contributors.
Likewise, on funding formulas to get at that particular % for a nation:
Some countries do not count the costs of:
- policing;
- their border services agencies;
- the costs to the taxpayers for free on-post military housing;
- the costs to the taxpayers for food allowances and housing allowances paid to members living off-post;
- their coast guards (if they have coasts)
Because many of us nations do not consider those things to be "Hard Military Contributions". The US does include those things. In Canada for example, we soldiers pay for our housing and meals from our paycheques whether we live on-post or off-post. We get none of that for free. Even when we are living in troops' quarters while on course or training, we pay R&Q (Rations and Quarters costs) from our own pay.
One day, perhaps
NATO will come up with a standarized format of what should be included/excluded. Once that's done, then every nation will be better comparable as to what their actual % GDP output is.
Again, the size of a nation's military is directly relective of it's total population size and also reflects in casualty numbers. For example, NATO Article 5 (NATO Collective Defence of each other) was invoked in the aftermath of September 11th and in defence of the US. The only time its ever been invoked. Every single NATO nation responded and sent toops into Afghanistan. 37 non-NATO nations also responded (Australia, New Zealand, UAE and
Ukraine amongst them). Approx 2/3rds of the casualties were US and 1/3 other nations of the coalition.
Source with screenshot from source below:
As for
NATO nations and their military size, they shake out akin to their populations as well. The US being the most populus nation and the largest NATO military.
1) US
2) Poland
3) Turkey
4) France
5) UK
Poland, of course, is the outlier here and has such a huge military precisely because ... well they border Russia. As does the USofA on it's north western flank. Russia is a dictatorial nation known not to honour international agreements and has proven itself to be quite able and likely to invade sovereign nations in aspiration of expanding their territory. Canada, also a sovereign nation and a democracy has also been threatened with annexation by a neighbour recently. The times, they are a changing.
IMO.