For the same reason, their 2.1% of GDP is of greater significance to NATO than Finland’s 3.5% of GDP (+1.5% to local infrastructure)
So, in my opinion, it’s good that they belong to both NATO and the EU.
4 Likes
8 Likes
Why NATO’s 5% Target Misses the Point
According to the video, Europe should focus on more than just arguing about a single percentage figure in defense. The use of money is inefficient, a disproportionate amount of money is spent on personnel (and pensions), and weapons manufactured in Europe cost many times more compared to those manufactured elsewhere. Each country protects its own arms production, which makes the arms industry fragmented and economies of scale are lacking. Instead of increasing defense budgets, a better outcome would be achieved through cooperation and efficiency. Goals should be defined and efforts made to find the most cost-effective ways to achieve them, rather than pouring more money into a rotten system and seeing what happens.
12 Likes
Now that the 12-day war in the Middle East was “wrapped up,” it’s time to return to Donakd Trump’s next thoughts:
“U.S. President Donald Trump does not unequivocally commit to defending all member states of the military alliance NATO in the face of a military attack.”
8 Likes
I have also been pondering this. Of course, it’s easier to just pick a number and everyone then agrees that it’s well done, but somehow, as a taxpayer, I would hope that someone in NATO would consider what that 5% is based on and what it is precisely intended to achieve. For every country to now buy, for example, full warehouses of tanks produced at Western European price levels would simply be a senseless burning of money.
I don’t know what is being discussed behind closed doors, but one could hope that 1. resources and common capabilities would together be at least double what they would be if China, Russia, and North Korea/Iran formed an alliance. Some politician asked, quite reasonably in my opinion, that if Russia spends 150 billion on weapons, what is the basis for us in Europe needing to spend 1000 billion.
2 The cost of production: does it make sense to produce weapons at many times the price it costs in Ukraine, Russia, or China?
Thirdly, new technologies and drones, their development and consideration.
Fourthly, hybrid influencing: the way Russia has been allowed to conduct hybrid influencing is part of warfare, and it would be desirable to address and prevent it much more effectively than in the past, and hopefully, we’ll pay them back in kind. For example, I see no reason why Western intelligence services shouldn’t carry out sabotages in Russia at least on the same scale as Russia does in the West.
I don’t know, this is just a completely layman’s reflection now that NATO seems to be Trump’s sycophant club, and at least publicly it appears that this spending is not at a very optimal level, and possibly the same level of capability could be achieved with less money if there was a bit of coordination on who handles which area, where production takes place, etc.
3 Likes
Isn’t the purpose of NATO to somewhat coordinate how each member state contributes to defense so that the overall system remains somewhat sensible? At least they plan defense together quite a lot there.
I understand this to mean that the goal is not to fight an even battle, but to defeat the opponent with clear superiority. And even better is for the opponent to understand not to even try. And if a battle does ensue, that money could be expected to save quite a lot of human lives, which then again matters for recovery from war.
Well, it has become quite clear in the Ukrainian conflict that there are many differences in various weapons. The most striking example is probably armored vehicles and especially tanks. When hit, a Russian product is spectacularly destroyed, and with a high probability, so is the crew. A Western one also suffers greatly, but the crew is more likely to survive, and the equipment might even be repairable. So, in my eyes, it really is worth paying for quality.
I am also a layman, but things can be examined from many sources, and at least I imagine that quite sensible things are being done on the military side in NATO. Politicians are always a bit harder to understand.
EDIT: and I don’t mean that there isn’t room for efficiency improvements in spending and planning, especially in Europe, but if we compare to these potential adversaries, things are still quite good. China is certainly a big question mark, but the information leaking from there would suggest problems familiar from Russia.
3 Likes
Exactly, but that’s precisely why I’m asking what, for example, that 5% is based on. If procurements are not biased but are made purely based on capability, for example in Ukraine where production is many times cheaper, would 2.5% defense spending then be enough to achieve a clearly superior capability against potential threats?
It just feels like we’re being pushed into this, at least politically, but no one is explaining to the taxpayers exactly what is intended to be achieved. As a European taxpayer, I am certainly interested in whether we are now spending 1000 billion a year on producing tanks at German wage levels to be stored in Portugal. If one looks at the published procurements of various countries and what has been donated to Ukraine, it seems that a considerable amount of overlap is being built, while the message from Ukraine is that absurdly cheap mass-produced drones are at least currently the most important equipment, which of course does not mean that other things can be abandoned, but some capabilities inevitably become obsolete as a result.
I am not at all against increasing defense spending per se, but the future and well-being of Europe also depend on other things, and I would gladly see 500 billion in annual extra investments in Europe now, for example, in artificial intelligence or, from a human perspective, in healthcare.
All countries certainly prioritize their own interests as much as possible, but at the EU level, it is very well recognized that some kind of coordination and optimization must exist so that things can be done sensibly. Therefore, a program has been formed in the EU (how else 
).
Today, member state representatives (Coreper) adopted a mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament on the proposal to establish the European Defence Industry Programme and a framework of measures to ensure the timely availability and supply of defence products (EDIP).
Its purpose is to increase the competitiveness of member states in the defense industry, lower material procurement costs, and reduce possible obstacles, and most likely it does not mean that every country produces its own cannon ammunition.
EDIP aims to enhance the readiness of the EU’s defence industry by strengthening the competitiveness of the European Defence Technological and Industrial Base (EDTIB) and its ability to adjust to structural changes required by the evolving security landscape.
The program’s goals are quite sensible. Through joint procurements by countries, orders can be concentrated into larger batches, thus gaining the benefits of mass production. In addition, rationalizing cross-country value chains in the area of production is a topic.
In particular, the EDIP will boost cooperation in defence procurement, improve and accelerate the ability of defence industry supply chains to adapt, facilitate cross-border cooperation, increase manufacturing capacities and reduce lead production time for defence products, thereby addressing existing capability gaps.
Then, a crucial part is Ukraine’s involvement. Ukraine’s own equipment production is supported, and most likely, a lot of state-of-the-art weaponry, tested to be effective on the battlefield, will be purchased from there in the future. 
Furthermore, it will contribute to the reconstruction and modernisation of the Ukrainian Defence Technological and Industrial Base, with a view to its future integration into the EDTIB.
This is certainly not a perfect solution either - in the hodgepodge of European countries, there is no such thing - but the situation is not very different in the United States either, after all. States fiercely compete for defense production jobs and jealously guard their own production. Below is a map marking defense equipment production sites in the United States.
Source: https://inkstick.substack.com/p/google-suppressed-a-map-of-us-defense
5 Likes
Indeed, in the USA, there is a really tough and fierce competition for military orders and, before that, for one’s own product to get into military tests. Military orders are huge, and few companies are in a position like Oshkosh, which could be described as a preferred supplier.
Regarding Finland’s 5%, it should above all be clear what it includes; currently, every other country except Finland calculates it in a way that benefits itself, while Finland obediently calculates it as it should be. Without that, the entire 5% can be discarded, unless we want half of the NATO countries to be free riders.
2 Likes
3 Likes
Yle’s journalists at it again. The best tax-funded garbage. Though it’s admitted that keeping up with Trump’s statements, especially if one is swayed by ideological baggage, is quite challenging.
3 Likes
I understand that the 5% target is a high-level definition, backed by identified underinvestment over the last 20-30 years and the need to increase defensive capabilities due to perceived threats. I also believe there are Cold War era experiences regarding what kind of expenditures economies can sustain – for example, I found this paper NATO defense expenditures in 1949-2017
As for what is intended to be achieved with these funds, NATO has at least identified certain targets for 2030, which can be found here: 2106-factsheet-nato2030-en.pdf
Behind this is also NATO’s Strategic Concept, information on which can also be found on NATO’s website. Thus, clear areas for development have been identified.
Furthermore, the EU has, for its part, sought to more strongly coordinate the development of defense among member states, and a good document regarding these objectives can also be found here: qu-03-23-421-en-n-web.pdf
Part of the reason for the ambiguity is likely, on the one hand, to keep some capabilities secret and, on the other hand, the need to signal the greatest possible potential to adversaries. So, the solution to this dilemma is intentional ambiguity, where the 5% target, for its part, acts as a deterrent.
Furthermore, regarding the issue of cost levels, I have understood that the matter is not quite so simple. For example, Perun’s videos on the subject, in my opinion, explain this aspect quite well (Here, for instance, https://youtu.be/7Z_gTGJc7nQ?si=1FXQd2HHtO8AZIaW, I believe this topic is discussed – that channel has covered the topic in several videos and significantly changed my own understanding).
And finally, it’s good to remember that what we are told about the war in Ukraine is only part of the truth, and it is influenced by the realities of both sides. These may not directly translate to another situation.
And yet, regarding drones, it’s interesting that within a relatively short period, in two different locations (Ukraine’s strike against Russian strategic aviation and, on the other hand, Israel’s strike against Iranian air defense), very similar activity was observed: drones assembled and launched in the target country to destroy military targets there – is that a coincidence, or could it be about capabilities and strategies developed somewhere? So, can we convincingly argue that tax money is not being used for sensible targets, at least in some cases? Related to this, one can also consider how much of this drone development is Ukrainian innovation and how much comes from suggestions and ideas from elsewhere (Ukrainians have certainly done very valuable applied development)?
Furthermore, one can also ask what portion of the money spent on defense development ends up promoting other economic development? There are certainly studies on this topic, and quite a few well-known examples.
1 Like
Rutte yesterday
Donald today
We live in strange times… 
8 Likes
Interesting read. The article dissects Sauli Niinistö’s diary entries after the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. The President’s concern for Finland’s security situation is starkly evident. We had and have the right person for the job at the right time.
7 Likes
From last month. Quite some citizen activism 
1 Like
Increasing the budget is never the right way to expand. This is like the famous social and healthcare reform (sote). First, money was given, and then wild planners, with the help of consultants, distributed it. Then the list was longer than the purse.
It’s the same with defense. Those unaccustomed to money hastily acquire “that something.” One must appear diligent, competent…
Every politician tries to benefit - I made the deal, I solved it, I said it back then…
Every company tries to benefit - our solution is the best and domestic and…, in our opinion.
Every province and village tries to benefit - when security of supply is this and that.
Every state tries to benefit - when self-sufficiency is this and that.
Every criminal mind tries to benefit - when their friend also gets some.
The payer is the one who should benefit, i.e., the ordinary taxpayer and the Ukrainian fighter.
Is Finland the only one trying to make sense of things here?
2 Likes
Finland’s 14-year anti-personnel landmine ban is finally over.
A rather ridiculous political stunt by Finnish politicians, especially considering that Russia never even considered joining the ban treaty.
EDIT; and for Russia, compliance with international treaties is optional anyway.
Mika Aaltola hails the end of “stupidity”
29 Likes
It’s good to give Trump a little dig every now and then 
7 Likes