Should the U.S. defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance formed by 28 countries in 1949 after the Second World War. To join NATO each member country pledged to spend at least 2% of their GDP on military spending and defense and defend each other against threats from any non-member country. At the NATO Summit of 2014, each member agreed on a goal of spending 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defense by 2024. Member nations further agreed to devote at least 20% of defense spending on major new equipment and associated Research and Development. As of 2020,…
Read moreNarrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes
@9FMNMPF2yrs2Y
I begin by saying something wholly obvious. There is no one in this House who does not wish to see a very wide measure of disarmament.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
Yes, and refusing to defend other NATO countries sets a dangerous precedent for the balance of global power
@9GYWVLR 2yrs2Y
NATO stipulations say you must use 2% of your gdp , it should be followed or renegotiated if that is no longer acceptable
@9H4W9GJRepublican2yrs2Y
NATO countries should not reap the benefits of the organizations if they cannot or will not agree to the stipulations of the treaty.
@Kaiwantsanap 2yrs2Y
We entered the nato agreement for a reason, and withdrawal at this time could cause war with countries that we are currently allied with. With the growing tensions between Russia and China and the United States, it’s a bad idea to leave and potentially start a war with nations that are currently our Allies
@CMCwarProgressive 7mos7MO
On March of 1938, Hitler annexed Austria into the German Reich and the allies did nothing. When Hitler annexed the Sudetenland on September 1938, the allies let it happen and even encouraged it in the Munich Agreement. When Hitler broke the Munich Agreement and annexed Bohemia and set up a Slovak puppet state, the allies did nothing. When Hitler demanded Lithuania give Germany Memel, the allies did nothing. It wasn’t until Germany’s invasion of Poland that the Allies finally put their boot down. This same logic applies to us refusing to aid out allies in case of a hypothetical Russian invasion.
@9FT9HDX2yrs2Y
It is not our responsibility. The balance of global power is not our concern, at least not until we have fully addressed the litany of issues crushing our own people.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, and we should withdraw from NATO
@92LT76V 2yrs2Y
Anti-NATO rhetoric will empower Russia and China to wage large-scale conventional war on all Western civilization, and may even be more emboldened to use weapons of mass destruction.
@9FQGQX82yrs2Y
I don’t think countries, even powerful ones like the US or Germany, using Anti-NATO rhetoric will really empower Russia or China. Nuclear weapons will never be used by either side; both understand the concept of MAD and will not risk nuclear annihilation just because some countries in NATO are not being supportive. It may embolden them to push their influence on the west and pacific respectively but I don’t see a conventional war nor nukes being used any time soon from a lack of support for NATO. Now, if a country like Poland withdrew from the alliance, then that would be a comple… Read more
@7HJNSX6Republican 2yrs2Y
I agree, we should continue to support NATO and look for future expansion into Europe but also in Asia (or the creation of another “NATO” in Asia).
@9NDJQTX 1yr1Y
Vladimir Putin offered to join NATO TWICE, and was rejected both times because the west was never interested in peace with Russia. Russia was 100 percent correct in invading Ukraine, and I am tired of pretending they weren't.
@9HLWQ69Libertarian2yrs2Y
NATO was established to deter the spread of Soviet influence in Europe. Since the wall fell over 30 years ago, NATO is obsolete.
@9FT9HDX2yrs2Y
America, a particularist nation, is a free and healthy nation. We are over concerned with foreign affairs, to the detriment of our people - agreements, like paris, are fine, but not alliances.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No
@9H4CTBZ2yrs2Y
Geopolitical dynamics and the evolving geopolitical landscape may impact the relevance and effectiveness of NATO. Strategic Focus adds a debate about whether NATO's strategic focus aligns with U.S. national interests in all cases as well.
@Kaiwantsanap 2yrs2Y
We are all human beings. What makes your life more valuable than theirs? What makes their safety and freedom less precious? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
@B45CSS36mos6MO
NATO has a policy that states that "an attack on one is an attack on all." Regardless of military defense spending, the US should defend all NATO members in any given situation.
@9L58VGS1yr1Y
Opposition to NATO tends to mainly come from pacifist organisations, workers movements, environmental groups and green parties, and socialist and communist political parties. Many of them believe NATO to be antithetical to global peace and stability, environmentally destructive, and an obstacle to nuclear disarmament.
@ISIDEWITH9yrs9Y
No, we should not defend any NATO country that spends less than 2% of their GDP on military defense
@9FMNMPF2yrs2Y
I think what this argument also ignores, is that the Europeans take a different political perspective on defense spending.
@B45CSS36mos6MO
NATO has a policy that states that "an attack on one is an attack on all." Regardless of military defense spending, the US should defend all NATO members in any given situation.
@B263Z5F 9mos9MO
It stands to benefit us more regardless because it maintains the world order we’ve set up which we benefit from greatly.
This completely defeats the purpose of a military alliance, no? Why would we let them in then be selective based on how much they spend? Completely pointless. You can make the arguement that they should spend more money but not that they should not be defended.
Yes, but should strongly encourage such nations to increase their support for NATO
@8XHGB7HLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes but demand they pay their fair share
@547W2M25yrs5Y
"Defending" each other is how wars are started. Hell no.
@5495QKW5yrs5Y
No, but add a clause that ensures a "tax" or reparation is made to the US from those countries that need defending (and under 2%) should they need the US military for defense or aid.
@548HSP85yrs5Y
We should not be expected to fund countries who prosper but do not fund their own defense -- why should we bear the cost when they can afford to do so?
@548YD535yrs5Y
No country deserves a free ride. Each country has a reasonable responsibility to defend and protect its citizens. But failure of a government to reasonably defend and protect its citizens doesn't absolve other countries from a moral responsibility to protect and preserve life to the best of their ability.
@5485KZ25yrs5Y
Yes, upon the condition that a lien (of sorts...) is placed on that country, resulting in a gained equitable interest to the People of the U.S. Maybe even going to so far as being a fund of mutual benefit, to the US and the country being protected. This could be practical if that country is better off spending their own budget on something which would bring more benefit to that country, thereby increasing a potential return to the US. Especially since the US has so much invested in its military already.
@9D3RPBQ2yrs2Y
@549GJYV5yrs5Y
It is the responsibility of the strong to protect (but not police) the weak, but that goes for all attacked and/or oppressed people--not just for NATO members. NATO, in itself, is an outmoded organisation, which actions since the fall of the Soviet Union arguably has done more to destabilise rather than the opposite.
@54B6PNZ5yrs5Y
We need to worry about our own backyard and stop saving the world.
@B6P37N82wks2W
I believe that this question is outdated, as major policy changes have taken place regarding US and NATO relations, and all 32 NATO countries have pledged to increase defence spending to 5% GDP by 2035.
@B6MSVFV2wks2W
NATO Should have a base requirement for military spending of all members involved to adequately ensure each member could assist each other should it be needed.
@9WTTLR811mos11MO
We should compel all nato allies to pay to the exact terms that were agreed upon by sed nato countries, if certain countries refuse to pay their dues, then their status as a legitimate nato ally should be questioned, and ultimately terminated upon their own refusal to agree to already established terms and agreements.
@9S2PDWW1yr1Y
The United States must defend any nation, that is part of NATO, regardless of their military contributions, but we must make demands that they contribute logistics to the United States military, if we are going to defend them. Providing additional rations, providing, supplies, or event services to help reduce the cost of our military operations.
@9HRWY9D 2yrs2Y
Yes, but revise the NATO agreement so that every country has to spend a certain amount of their GDP on military spending.
@9GZDTYYIndependent2yrs2Y
Yes, the U.S. should defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP, but we should encourage them to increase their military defense budgets so that they can defend themselves more effectively as well.
@5498TF55yrs5Y
We entered Nato with the agreement to defend our Nato partners. We should stick to this promise.
@549T7R35yrs5Y
Yes, The USA should pull out from NATO but still intervene or assist countries that are unable to defend themselves from hostile enemies or if the stability of the country is required for the benefit of our economy or national security.
@54B5TNP5yrs5Y
GDP? What is our relationship with each country? Are we trying to buy friendship from countries that hate us? We are paying groups so they can afford to kill us in the future. It's nuts.
@5496WQD5yrs5Y
we are not the worlds military, we should not have to monitor and defend unless war is declared
@99R93ZZ2yrs2Y
Yes, but pressure them to increase their military spending
@9F58DH3 2yrs2Y
Yes, but the countries should be strongly encouraged to increase their defense budgets
@9F42V2J2yrs2Y
I don't have enough knowledge to have an opinion.
@9DWBCS82yrs2Y
It really depends on the circumstance
@9D7MBVR2yrs2Y
Yes, but raise the 2% GDP agreement to a 4% GDP agreement
@9D682YP2yrs2Y
No, we should not defend any NATO country that has a high level of corruption and that spends less than 2% of its GDP on military defense.Let Europe do it.
@9D4XNST2yrs2Y
No. If they can't maintain the set requirements to be part of Nato, then they should not even be allowed to be part of Nato. Removed and ban them from Nato, and treat them as our Enemies.
@9D4R2MD2yrs2Y
We should wean other NATO countries off our support and pressure them to begin spending more on their military and defending themselves.
@94KB4J63yrs3Y
No, this is too expensive
@98SQB2V3yrs3Y
No but we shouldn’t withdraw from nato
@974M84S3yrs3Y
@95SCJLY3yrs3Y
Yes, but NATO should be abolished instead.
@85QWNPG5yrs5Y
Yes, but raise the minimum amount and require all member states to meet a defense spending of at least 5% of GDP, or swiftly be dropped from NATO. We are not going to be the sole defender, and allow these countries to build up socialist ‘paradises’ off our protection, we are a large enough country as is, if they want to be state then they know how to apply.
@8HNLZYV5yrs5Y
No, disband NATO as its existence is no longer relevant
@96P8K72Libertarian 1wk1W
Yes; disregarding NATO’s Article 5 would cause America’s trustworthiness to plummet as well as potentially cause countries who are on the fence about siding with America or its enemies to choose America’s enemies
@B6RHQRYRepublican1wk1W
yes but relative to their spending if they spend more they get more defense from the us if less then less support to built up pressure
@B6R6GMV1wk1W
It depends on the size of the military-any country with a sizable military does not need defending, but those with small or underdeveloped militaries or no militaries do. This does not exclude the US from coming to an ally country's defense in times of war.
@B6R4DT21wk1W
Yes, but these countries should have legitimate reasons for not achieving 2%, not just because they don't feel like using their own money and want to rely on other nations.
@B6Q8N7J2wks2W
on one hand it depends because you should also consider what the people want, on the other, you're the one who joined the military you knew what you where signing up for. I'm not entirely sure that is a good question
@B6PT49Q2wks2W
The U.S should, and to me, though it depends on the conflict, because I generally don't support war, but we must demand and make other countries increase their defense spending. It's unfair, and they are too dependent.
@B6NGZJQ2wks2W
Yes, but those countries should have to repay the U.S or countries helping them either through trade or resources.
@B6MF6R72wks2W
Yes but if their is war or big disagreements with some of those decisions that we should be careful and be aware of the consequences.
@B6LZQQ33wks3W
No. Ona case-by-case basis, we should use leverage to make NATO allies do their part if they want us to invest our resources in their defense.
@B6LKNX23wks3W
We should warn these countries that support will either be withdrawn and or limited, but, not for the next 10-15 years to give these countries time to plan and budget for this change.
@B6LGB3Y3wks3W
I think that the U.S should defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets but to certain limits and conditions because not all countries have the amount of money the U.S and other countries can make so it can be understandable but I also think that we shouldn't be to involved in military affairs of other countries to the point were fighting in their wars and making it more personal to the the U.S unless it comes to atrocious actions being made then it would be the right thing to help and be more involved. I also think they should not help other countries if they do it with the intention of starting a proxy war because that's just unethical and unnecessary.
@3yh33h3Independent3wks3W
No, and any country that does not contribute at least 4% of its GDP to its military should be automatically expelled from NATO. Retaining membership in NATO should require an adequate military budget. No free riders.
@B6GYYXJ4wks4W
Yes if they pay their fair share into NATO I don’t care what they spend on their own nations military
@B6GXXZ4Republican 4wks4W
As long as those nations uphold the values of freedom such as of the press, speech, and religion yes.
@B6F2CRXIndependent1mo1MO
Yes, but we should continue to pressure other NATO countries to increase their defense budgets relative to their GDP.
@B6DTPKD1mo1MO
Yes, but the US has a long history of warmongering and abusing power so we need to tread lightly and only support peacekeeping, anti- fascist countries.
@B659WJ51mo1MO
Yes, while continuing pressure on those countries and other members to assure appropriate investment in preventing aggression against NATO members
@B6557QY 2mos2MO
Yes but we should absolutely encourage them to pay their fair share or in the future there will be no defense
@squiggly_miggly 2mos2MO
Yes, The U.S. should defend NATO allies, but also expect them to increase their defense contributions fairly, so the burden is shared and America’s resources are used responsibly.
@9J3CNTLRepublican 2mos2MO
Yes but only if push comes to shove, they still need to make an effort at contributing to the NATO defense budget.
@8TJ5HWXRepublican 2mos2MO
No, we shouldn't be obligated to defend any NATO country that spends less than 2% of their GDP on military defense, or any NATO country that directly started the conflict for no good reason. But we shouldn't encourage the opposing country to hurt said NATO country, nor should we try and blackmail other NATO countries into staying out of it, too.
@B62JJPC 2mos2MO
We should rather encourage or renegotiate the agreement to better allow nations to not bankrupt themselves.
Neutral countries should not have to spend a large percentage of their GDP on the military. If they get into some sort of conflict where they can't defend themselves then we should encourage them to ramp up spending, but not refuse to defend them.
@B5YZY4HRepublican2mos2MO
No, we should not have entangling alliances. We should only defend countries when they are at war when it is in our national interest and when we have the funds to do so properly.
@B5XQM2G2mos2MO
Yes, but give the said country a time range limit to increase their defense budget. After that maximum time range limit is passed and no required increase, the US can just forget about defending that country.
Yes, but we should push them to maintain a greater budget if they are at risk or have a relatively large population, GDP, or wealthy and very well off
@kigyarx18Independent 3mos3MO
Yes, when push comes to shove, but we should push those countries to spend at least 3.5% of their GDP on defense.
@B5WDD243mos3MO
Yes, but we should still apply other forms of pressure like economic to ensure that every member pays their fair share.
@B5VQQSJ3mos3MO
No, the US should force other members to pay a proportional share according to their economic strength, and warn against them if they fail to do so.
@B5VFL5H3mos3MO
Yes, but they should be able to provide solid evidence for why they cannot increase their budget to defend themselves. If there is no reason they cannot fund their own military, they should be responsible first. Then, if they still require assistance, we should assist.
@B5TVZT4Libertarian3mos3MO
If they can afford it, they should spend on their military instead of taking advantage of other NATO countries. NATO was made to help each other not to take advantage if each other
@B5TLM2L3mos3MO
Yes, the "export" of military strength is the exchange America pays to be a net drain on resources, globally.
@B5SW3H23mos3MO
I'm Ok that the U.S. assists and defends others NATO nations, but each NATO member must pay equally and we shouldn't foot the bill on everything in NATO.
@B5SN6FP3mos3MO
We should not play a pivotal role in their defense but arming and play a critical role of defense if it benefits NATO and the US with its invocation of Article 5
@B5SCHX63mos3MO
We should, but our NATO allies need to spend more than 2% of their GDP on military defense in hopes of countering a Russian attack
@B5RWZ7J3mos3MO
Yes, but the United States should encourage by all means members of NATO to increase their own military spending.
@B5M34D74mos4MO
Yes, but only through humanitarian and non-violent defensive aid with strict accountability and strong supervision
@B5LZQQ74mos4MO
Their military defense budgets don't matter, they should contribute to us if they want us to defend them.
@B5FWKCP4mos4MO
If they are actively in danger yes. But the country has a responsibility to protect it's people, and it should be doing that for themselves.
@B5FDSP7Peace and Freedom4mos4MO
Countries that had failed to increase their military budgets to above 2% of Gross Domestic Product. we should not defend.
@B5BQYMS4mos4MO
No, the United States spends to much on military and force more powerful NATO members to increase their own spending.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
