All things Russia and Ukraine...

First off, I did not base my post on Republican or Democrat tomfoolery/talking points because I agree they are partisan points of view, and information is cherry picked to make their own position look correct and their opponents wrong.

Secondly, I do not pretend to understand the intricacies in how the accounting is done to figure the percentages. I will say that if Obama and Trump both stated the spending was an issue, then chances are it is. Orange man didn't just create the issue out of thin air. I did provide the Obama comment in my previous post, "in 2014 President Obama also expressed concern over the lack of financial commitment by many NATO members when he told EU leaders in Brussels, “If we have collective defense, it means everyone has to chip in, and I have concern about diminished efforts by some in NATO,” he said. “Our freedom isn't free,” he said, adding that it was necessary to “pay for the assets, the personnel, the training... for deterrent force.”"

Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis, non-partisan and not shy to give his opinion, and in the best position to know the actual situation was quoted in my post as well. "Jim Mattis told NATO member countries 15 February 2017 they must increase defense spending by the end of the year, or the U.S. might "moderate its commitment" to the alliance. Mattis said NATO must agree on a plan that would see governments increase military spending to 2 percent of GDP. "No longer can the American taxpayer carry a disproportionate share of the defense of Western values," Mattis said. "If your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense."

Third: Back to the accounting, I used several sources that cited the figures I used, the most comprehensive was the Global Security website...Defense Spending - North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) (globalsecurity.org)
The 73%-3/4's figure is not direct costs, but direct costs plus infrastructure, equipment/munitions acquired and maintained for support of NATO operations, joint training costs for training with NATO partners, actual NATO operations, different NATO initiatives (which the US usually contributes the lion's share of the costs) etc. the actual direct cost would be 22% of NATO's common funded budgets. The US maintains bases Joint bases, Army bases, Airforce bases, Naval bases, War Prepositioned Stock bases in most NATO countries, while they may have some use in ancillary operations, their main benefit is to support NATO, these costs are in addition to the 22%. Another factor that must be considered is the sheer size of the US Military in relation to the militaries of most NATO countries, even NATO as a whole. I've used this example before, but it serves to illustrate the point. The US Marine Corps by far the smallest of the US military branches is larger than the entire army. navy, air force and reserves of the UK. They operate more fighters, total fixed wing aircraft, rotary wing aircraft and until they recently divested themselves of their tanks, more armor. When I was in the Marine Corps, I did two NATO deployments to Norway, one to Spain and one to Turkey. All those floats were costs of NATO, the ships, fuel, supplies, munitions, troop pay, aircraft hours, etc. Both the Norway deployments were strictly to practice interoperability with Norwegian and other NATO forces based upon a defense of Norway, as part of a greater European defense from Soviet/Warsaw Pact aggression. The deployment to Spain we were to relieve the 34th MAU as the ARG in the Med, and we were to have a large exercise with Portugal (NATO). When we arrived in Rota (US/Spanish Naval Base-NATO, "infrastructure") we were diverted to Lebanon, evacuated civilians and landed to provide security. Then after about 15 days we left, ported in Italy (US/Italian Naval Bases-NATO) and prepared for a scheduled September exercise with Turkey (NATO), but some silly Fuk assassinated the Lebanese President elect, then the Israelis cordoned off the refugee camps and let their proxy-Lebanese Militia massacre a bunch of old men, women and children (we'd shipped all the fighters off), so we got sent back to Beirut. Back to the point, in addition to paying to staff and maintain the US Naval base at Rota, a sub-facility of the larger Spanish Naval base, the US permanently stations four Aegis-DDG's there, per NATO request to bolster their missile defense systems in the area, per the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to provide ballistic missile defense to Europe. In addition to the four DDG's, we deployed an AN/TPY-2 radar system in Turkey, an Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System (AAMDS) in Romania, an AAMDS in Poland, and a Command-and-Control Battle Management and Communication node at Ramstein Air Base, all for European Ballistic missile defense, in addition to the 22%. A legitimate cost to the US taxpayer while not a direct payment to NATO. As a scale comparison, the UK Navy at present only has six DDG's (Type 45), so we've got 2/3d's of Britain's total number of DDG's stationed in Rota. The maintenance, fuel, supplies, personnel, etc. for these four ships are part of the equation, as are the costs of the AAMDS systems, their manning and maintenance, and the infrastructure upgrades for Ramstein Air base, and the personnel to operate the Command-and-Control Center, and the cost of the radar system and its support and operational personnel in Turkey...Continued...

 

Continued...
I mentioned Norway earlier, the Marine Corps maintains a Marine Corps Prepositioning Program-Norway (MCPP-N) there. In climate-controlled caves, and two above ground facilities, jointly staffed by Norwegian and US personnel, the Marine Corps stores the equipment, munitions, supplies, arctic tents, skis, snowshoes, and ice chains for tactical vehicles and the aircraft necessary to defend Norway and NATO's northern flank in time of war. The facilities are located at:

Frigaard-Ground equipment & supplies-192,577 sq ft of storage space
Tromsdal-Ground equipment & supplies-218,281 sq ft of storage space
Bjugn-Ground equipment & supplies-118,941 sq ft of storage space
Værnes Garrison-Rotary wing aviation reception site-57,079 sq ft of storage space
Ørland Main Air Station-Fixed-wing aviation reception site-19,768 sq ft of storage space
Hammernesodden-Ground munitions-19,142 sq ft of storage space
Hammerkammen-Ground munitions-20,164 sq ft of storage space
Kalvaa-Air & ground munitions-27,169 sq ft of storage space

In 2012 the Marine Corps started replacing and modernizing the equipment stored at the facility, Germany was complaining about spending money on equipment, this is not part of the 22% of the budget direct cost, but how is this not a NATO related cost for the DoD? The Army, Navy and Air Force all have many, similar facilities spread all over the NATO countries, the costs to staff, maintain, guard and upgrade the contents of these Pre-Positioned Stock facilities is substantial.
Some other, miscellaneous costs associated with NATO from a US State Department web site:
-NATO Airborne Early Warning Control (NAEW&C – “NATO AWACS”). The NAEW&C consists of 16 E-3A AWACS aircraft based in Geilenkirchen, Germany. Sixteen nations contribute funding for modernization programs and certain operational costs related to the NAEW&C force, and the UK makes contributions-in-kind from its national inventory of 6 E-3D AWACS aircraft based in Waddington, UK. The two largest contributors are the U.S. (with a 40 percent cost share) and Germany (27 percent)
-Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) system. AGS system capabilities will enable the Alliance to perform persistent high-altitude, long-endurance, and unmanned surveillance from aerial platforms with very advanced sensors. AGS includes five Global Hawk Block 40 unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as a ground and support segment.... Fifteen NATO allies are together acquiring AGS for a total of €1.3B, with the U.S. paying a 42 percent acquisition cost share for this critical requirement, as well as 28 percent of the operations costs which are shared across 26 nations.
-C-17 Strategic Airlift Command (SAC). Ten NATO allies plus two Partnership for Peace countries....operate three Boeing C-17 strategic transport aircraft out of Papa Air Base, Hungary. The U.S. acquisition cost share was 33 percent (for which the United States provided one C-17 aircraft as its contribution). The U.S. annual operations cost share is 31 percent (of a total annual cost of $153 million). So, 12 nations plus the US, 13 countries and we provide 1/3 of the upfront costs and pay close to a third of the operating costs. How is this equitable? If divided equally the other twelve countries are each only responsible for 5.75% of the annual operating costs and for buying 16.6% of an aircraft.

In 2021, the US spent $811 billion total on defense, the combined total for defense spending by the other 29 NATO members was $363 billion. If we assume 100% of the spending by these other 29 nations went towards NATO related costs, which it didn't, the US spent $448 billion more on defense than their total combined defense expenditures. NATO Defense Spending: How Much Does Each Country Contribute? (visualcapitalist.com)

 

I learnt that during the last 6 months some 4-6 Putin's money men have died without a mentioned reason. Clearing of the table like Hitler after July 20th 1944.
I read that Hitler loved watching the hanging of the blamed but Göbbels left feeling sick. The top accused were almost hanged and then put down and hanged again with piano wire.

 

Jep, but perhaps money well spent? You pay a lot and send guns but our sons die, not yours. China might be a different thing. Two Carriers already to protect Taiwan. And the Ukraine war definitely will show China what could happen after invasion. So it is double important to the US that Russia fails. Peter the Great must ""die".kph..

 

Hmmm…Russia just announced a carrier killer missile…I’m sure they would (in the same vein as west supplying Ukraine) hand a few over to China…That would make things interesting…

 

Wonder about the climate in Donbass,;when I was in Bosnia there was talk that during summer the heat caused that both sides only rested. Russia says they only rest for a while. Too hot??

 

The other way around...China has had similar missiles(anti-ship ballistic missiles with conventional maneuvering reentry vehicle/s) since 2010. Did they give the Russians access to some of their technology?

 

No other way around...

“The Zmeevik ballistic missile with hypersonic combat equipment has been in development for quite a long time. It is designed to destroy large surface targets, primarily aircraft carriers.”

Russia Develops Zmeevik Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile - Naval News

 

Sorry I agree with CAC here.

China might try to get all possible technology right now as Putin is in need of "friends"...

 

Ukraine says they have destroyed some 10 Russian ammo depots in Eastern Ukraine.
Too bad.

 

Kai, don't misunderstand me, I am not arguing that NATO isn't a good and worthy thing. What I am saying is that until Russian aggression most recently opened their eyes, many NATO countries, (not all) were unwilling to fund the equipment, munitions and personnel necessary for their shared defense. They were willing to sit back and let the US bear a disproportionate burden.

You said;

I don't think any Finnish sons have died recently in defense of NATO, (two did die in NATO's (ISAF) Afghanistan mission, one in 2007 and one in 2011) nor Americans, or anyone's but Ukrainians, who are not a NATO country. We do have considerable troops stationed in NATO, according to a 29 June 2022, DoD Fact Sheet it's over 100,000 American sons, with more to follow if NATO is attacked. Also, since the date of the fact sheet more assets and personnel are pouring into the region. For example:
USAF deploys F-35s for Nato’s Air Shielding mission (airforce-technology.com) 8 July, 2022 more Air Force equipment and personnel.

And I do know about sending your sons in Harm's Way, I sent one to Iraq during its most deadly period, then on a later deployment to Africa and another son to Afghanistan during the epic 2010-2011 Sangin fight.


Chris-Iraq

Ryan-Afghanistan

And to illustrate William T. Sherman's comment, that "war is hell", a picture Ryan had of an IED strike on Marines trying to open Route 611 in support of 3d Bn 5th Marines fighting in Sangin, 2010.

This is incorrect and in addition to some of the "additional costs" I listed in post #482, you list the truth in your post.

From Biak's post: "These annual contributions from alliance members don’t cover the costs of NATO training exercises or military operations. When these costs arise, they are generally funded by participating individual nations."

As you pointed out, the Common Funding Arrangement for NATO is $2.76 billion of which the US portion is $442 million. On the surface this seems reasonable but add the $205 million for military construction associated with NATO and you have $647 million, an accounting trick to make the US NATO direct costs look smaller. Then you have the EDI, which you did reference in your post:

"And then there’s the so-called European Deterrence Initiative, (EDI) requested at just under $3.7 billion in FY22. This is a program to, “[c]ontinue to enhance the capability and readiness of U.S. Forces, NATO Allies, and regional partners of the U.S. for a faster response to any aggression in Europe and transnational threats by a regional adversary against the sovereign territory of NATO nations.” It’s hard to argue that this program isn’t an additional “cost” to NATO membership, although it isn’t required under any NATO agreement. It’s equally difficult to parse exactly what portion of this program benefits the United States alone, rather than our allies."

Per the DoD the FY22 budget for EDI is $3.8 not $3.7 billion (ahh, what's a 100 million between friends ) with a projected FY23 cost of $4.2 billion. So, right there US NATO spending for this one initiative is $1.04 billion more than the total NATO common fund for 2022 and next year its $1.44 billion more, and yes, the EDI spending is 100% NATO related.
This brings us back to the main argument, which is really comparing apples and oranges. The US expects NATO countries to abide by the mutually agreed to, 2% GDP defense spending level. For most countries, that don't have a lot of overseas commitments this spending directly benefits that nations security and the security of the region. The US NATO spending is to enhance our allies national and regional security, if we chose to, we could sit over here behind our big moat and do nothing.
From the DoD factsheet: "All of these combat-credible forces and enablers are supported by significant investments in the long-term U.S. presence in Europe. In Fiscal Year 2022, DoD continues to execute $3.8 billion in European Deterrence Initiative funding (with another $4.2 billion requested in FY23) for rotational forces, exercises, infrastructure (construction of storage facilities, airfield upgrades, and training complexes) and prepositioned equipment. Our robust exercise program also complements our forces that are forward-stationed or rotating through the theater and serves to increase our presence while building interoperability with NATO allies."

 

Oh yeah, one thing I forgot. The EDI (European Defense Initiative) which is $3.8 billion this year, is often mentioned as an afterthought in relation to US defense spending. The other 29 NATO countries have a combined total for defense spending of $363 billion. The EDI alone, for the single other country, the US, is 10.5% of the other 29's total defense spending.

 

It is obvious you did a lot of work here. We have changed our mind, it seems, after Russia attacked Ukraine. But unlike other countries we have a working army and we spend Money to keep it that way and also increase our fighting power in case of attack.
We already have Hornets and made a deal for F-35's to replace them. As a candidate for a new NATO member us and Sweden are good. We have done operations together and men in countries under NATO like we in IFOR and SFOR in the 90's. It remains now will the NATO countries accept us into NATO.

 

Agree.

 

Russia can ja be happy there is no 40 million of us. Maybe one day...kph

 

In Finland you learn the enemy comes from the east...always...It happens again. How come Moomies and Astrid Lindgren are nazis? You are f****** nazis. You don't even know who Moomies are. Morons. Send them to Ukraine.

 

https://www.thelocal.se/20220503/fact-check-has-russia-launched-an-anti-swedish-propaganda-campaign/

Russia smears Pippi Longstocking author as Nazi in propaganda posters

Moomin features in anti-Finland propaganda on Moscow streets

Moomin features in anti-Finland propaganda on Moscow streets

A campaign against pending Nato members Finland and Sweden appears to be a continuation of similar propaganda seen in the Russian capital last May.

You don´t even know what you´re talking about, ''''holes.

Go read one book first. OH, I forgot, you cannot read. Then go to Ukraine with a wooden ak-47.

 

Nazi?


Muumis.

Definite nazis that threaten Putin.
I love yoi morons when you dont know what is happening. Go to Ukraine with your wooden ak-47.

 

If I was Juggernaut I would walk to Kreml and destroy everything. You Russians say our children's bambis are nazis. Why cannot I make your ass****** nazis? As well? Like Hammurabi: eye for an eye , and Russia owes us more than two eyes...