Mark Rutte wants to spend on the high prices of the Cold War, but Russia is not at all the same opponent, which answers the question of his true motives.
Translated by readers of Les-Crises
Mark Rutte, Otan’s new general secretary, called on the alliance to participate in continuing Cold War military spending until 2030.
However, it is a matter of fact in the spirit of Otan’s citizens that modern Russia presents the same level of threat as the Soviet Union. But you don’t have to click through the chips to understand whether the comparison is wrong and intentional.
Rutte’s announcement echoes the appeal made by Donald Trump in favor of a 3% increase in US expenditures, a move made by the British business mogul’s foreign affairs secretary. . After all, the United States accounts for 3.38% of the PIB for defense, which represents two levels of total expenditures in OTAN. Three other members – Poland, Estonia and Greece – rely on more than 3%, while most members are not interested in the actual target of 2%.
“In the event of a Cold War, the Europeans would well stop plus 3% of PIB for defence,” Rutte declared.
However, the comparison with the Cold War is actually wrong. The Soviet Union was a state directly in sync with the Soviet Union’s states and its gateway groups to Western Europe. Because Jamaica’s Soviet economy was similar to that of the United States, it represented less than the US PNB movement in 1984. However, the Soviets relied heavily on defense and establishing a relationship with the Soviet Union. The CIA, in 1982, estimated that total Soviet military spending had exceeded American spending by a small margin in 1980.
In the 1980s, the Soviet Union fielded a standing army of 4.3 million, which was more than twice the size of the US standing army. In 1990, the Soviet Union had a population of 288 million, compared to 250 million Americans. There is no comparable opponent, it is more important, after the basic criteria.
This comparison can only be applied later. Russia is not as far as it is in the traditional economic, demographic or military plan, a simultaneous plan comparable to the United States or the Otan coalition in its group. The only exception is Russia’s nuclear arsenal, which is comparable in strength.
Le PIB russe is 24.5 times less than the PIB shared among L’OTAN members and 11.5 times less than the celui des États-Unis. Its population is about two and a half times smaller than the American population. Its effective military forces, which are largely accumulated, in their entirety represent only 45% of the total standing armies in OTAN. In the war of exploitation with Otan, as Russia always seeks to avoid, it does not dispose of the demographic or economic reserves necessary for the importer.
The comparison with the Cold War is neither a big choice nor a frame of reference. As difficult as it is to maintain defense expenditures at the present level, Otan is the largest military empire the world knows. Select SIPRI database [Stockholm International Peace Research Institute]In 2023, OTAN represents 57% of global expenditures in defense.
In order to achieve this goal, with current spending levels, Otan relies on five times more defense support from China than Russia. September is more than the Asia group than China and India, 10 days more than the Middle East, 20 days more than Latin America, and 31 days more than Africa.
If OTAN received 3% of defense spending, this would represent an increase in the environment of $260 billion in actual value. This is 1.8 days more than Russia must spend on defense in 2025 ($145 billion). To be clear, almost the entirety of this amount will depend on Russian gateways, in Europe, although the United States has already crossed the 3% barrier. European countries in Otan 3 and a half days ago spent additional money on defense equipment, which means Russia will start operating in 2025.
Until more powerful Otans discover that the Russians before they realize that the Russians are no closer to the point of reaching Riga?
What serves these exorbitant expenses in OTAN? We talked about the need to actually relaunch the defense industry in OTAN “Video from the article”, and also emphasize that a significant part of the funds will go to military equipment.
Currently, following OTAN data, 32% of defense expenditures are considered off-limits to equipment (30% for the US). However, after that, Otan spends approximately $472 billion every year on military equipment alone, the equivalent of 3.2 days plus Russia’s total military spending in 2025. But it can’t be real Terrible « vidée de sa Essence ». The task of exceeding 3% has contributed to adding $83.5 billion every year to this huge number.
It’s no surprise that global defense companies, even in the top five offerings that are American, are already setting revenue records. The United States account for 57% of the global defense industry, in addition to national production for export. However, 3% of defense expenditures suggests that US companies will bring in combined revenues as well as two higher expenditures than Russia’s total military expenditures.
But Europe will certainly depend more on what America decides on the day of withdrawal from the alliance. But not before retiring from OTAN. If you pick someone that Donald Trump adores, that’s a benefit, and the OTAAN alliance is a huge vehicle for American entrepreneurs. On the Russian coast, alone, it seems, has chosen a formidable and – for all – foreboding military alliance, which seeks to emerge once again. In any case, Otan belongs to Russia because the Soviet Union became a satellite of Western Europe in the last quarter of the year. If Russia has an overwhelming war in Ukraine, it’s not at all like it would have invaded Otan at that time. It is the mission to prevent OTAN from approaching the border.
*
Ian Proud was a member of the British Queen’s Diplomatic Corps from 1999 to 2023. He was Economic Adviser to the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 until February 2019. Before being posted to Moscow, 10 years ago Downing Street organized the 2013 G8 summit in Lake Love Ernie in Northern Ireland. Read more, Incompetent in Moscow: How British Diplomacy Failed in Russia, 2014-2019 [Un inadapté à Moscou : comment la diplomatie britannique en Russie a échoué, 2014-2019].
The views examined by the authors of Responsible Statecraft do not necessarily reflect the cells of the Quincy Institute or its associates.
Translated by readers of Les-Crises
We suggest you this article to zoom in on your thinking hero. This does not necessarily mean that we agree with the vision that has been developed. In any case, we are responsible for our reporting. [Lire plus]We never buy into the idea that an author might be able to achieve success — and still less that he might be able to do so in the future. Thank you for signaling us through the contact form all information related to the author who may not have his reputation.
