How can we motivate the other 22 NATO member nations to meet their 2% GDP?

Col Joseph Lenertz — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 08:58:40 -0500

Six members of the 28-member NATO alliance meet the commitment they signed up to when they joined. The rest enjoy the protection of the US and the rest of NATO without paying their fair share. What carrots and sticks would be most effective in getting them to meet their commitments?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-11

Military spending by NATO members

Does America contribute more than its fair share?

Response by CW5 Sam R. Baker made Feb 21 at 2017 9:05 AM

CW5 Sam R. Baker — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:05:47 -0500

Last week I thought it was only 3 Nations meeting the 2%, something must have changed, but in the political realm we stand, the threat of pulling out and leading from the front is most likely not the best option. It is a reasonable request and they all signed the agreement, 2% is peanuts.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2017 9:06 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:06:34 -0500

IMO until you actually hold their feet to the fire they will continue to provide less then what they agreed to. I would reduce the number of training events that we participate in with their country and increase those that do pull their weight.

I do agree with the SecDef and the Brits who proposed a phased in plan to allow those countries to catch up.

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Feb 21 at 2017 9:13 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:13:47 -0500

Probably some sort of reverse carrot before the horse concept. Pull back from cross training, exercises, financial support etc. with countries that aren't living up to obligations and shift emphasis to countries that are. In the short term this isn't going to impact NATO operations, but will send the message that unless obligations are met their country will become second or third class members of the organization. In the long term NATO will learn to operate with less emphasis on support to countries not living up to their obligations.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Feb 21 at 2017 9:58 AM

MCPO Roger Collins — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:58:47 -0500

Expulsion is the answer. There are Volunteer Fire Departments that can only exist by way of annual dues. Guess what can and does happen when someone doesn't pay their dues? A big bill or refusal to provide services when called out to a non-paying domicile in flames.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2017 9:58 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 09:58:49 -0500

It's pretty sad that countries like Greece, given its recent issues, and Turkey have met their commitment every year since 1991, and a country like Estonia that has been getting on its feet since leaving the USSR meets it, even if it's inconsistently. But countries like The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, and Luxembourg, which are 4 of the top 10 richest countries in Europe, either don't meet the commitment or barely contribute at all.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Feb 21 at 2017 10:40 AM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:40:06 -0500

The only thing I can think that might work would be to pull the personnel piece out of it. Pull back to our 2% as I am sure we are spending more than our fair share. Quit sending as many of our armed personnel to support NATO missions. Let some of these others pick up the pace and when they see it isn't getting done and they haven't been doing all they can do then maybe they will realize uncle sugar ain't so bad after all and they can pony up. Just my two cents. Simple as best as I can get it. Just think the money we spend is too much and the lives we are sending just isn't worth it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2017 11:10 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:10:20 -0500

Why should a country like Denmark or Germany spend more on it's military? I don't believe they see any real threat of a military invasion by a foreign country.

NATO is a tool we use to exercise influence in the region, it would be foolish for us to undermine a tool that continues to help facilitate a close relationship between our military and the military forces of European nations.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Feb 21 at 2017 11:41 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:41:13 -0500

Three fold approach.
1:If we currently provide aid to one of those countries, all future payments will have the amount of Their last NATO alliance support deficit deducted post approved aid $$ amounts. IOW, if US Congress approves $1 mil in aid Marquezina in FY 19... and Marquezina had pledged $.8mil in NATO support FY 18, but transfered NONE, the US will provide no more than $.2 mil for FY 19 to Marquezina
2: Lean on other NATO countries to lobby the deficit ones... any country two years behind in NATO pledges will go on a list, said list and the $ amount deficit will be added up annually, and the US pledge overall to NATO will be reduced that amount for next FY.
3: De-fund NATO, evict them from the US HQ facilities. If they wish to purchase with hard cash the facility at fair market value, or other such property in the US , Fine. But no tax deals, no US appropriated funds will be used, no legal exceptions for NATO members in the US, they pay for license plate, pay parking tickets, their visiting members must have a valid visa, approved though the same system used by some potential immigrant in new Deli. No FREE LUNCH.

Response by SFC George Smith made Feb 21 at 2017 11:56 AM

SFC George Smith — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 11:56:19 -0500

thats going to take a Lot of effort to get Nations to go from Consumer based to a Production based society...