While Russia's neighbours are hastily armed, another NATO members argue about how much GDP should be allocated to defence. And they don't truly realize that it's not about percentages, it's about the collapse of management and confusion of public opinion.
NATO's fresh secretary-general, Mark Rutte, he's been giving pamphlet-style reflections in fresh weeks.
After reporting back to the U.S. military backwardness (“China acquire modern weapon systems and equipment 5 to six times faster than the US) Rutte moved on to the western alliance as a whole, whose military production, as it turns out, is 4 times smaller than Russian.
‘There is data saying that We produce as much as Russia produces within 3 months. Can you imagine that? But Russian economy is no greater than the economy of Belgium and the Netherlands combined. Is it possible to imagine that Belgium and the Netherlands produce within 3 months what the full NATO, from California to Turkey, produces within a year?”
Should we take specified calculations seriously? Finally, financial statistic show something different.
Russia vs. West
Russia's military spending is rather estimable, although it remains classified. In 2025 Moscow plans to spend 13.5 trillion rubles (according to the current course of PLN 556 billion) on the alleged national defence. This means 6.3% of GDP expected.
It's actual that that's not all it seems to be for military purposes. Rutte speaks of "7-8 percent if not more". Let's agree more. Especially since military spending plans are always crossed. So let's presume that in reality this year they will scope $200 billion (PLN 813 billion).
Let's compare this to the current expenses of the West. The Stockholm SIPRI Institute is considered to be the most reliable origin in this field. He has not yet published data for 2024, but military spending of most western countries in 2023 (calculated per current dollar) was about the same as at present.
The United States has 916 billion dollars ($3.7 trillion), the United Kingdom 75 billion (PLN 304 billion), Germany 67 billion (272 billion), France 61 billion (PLN 248 billion).
And China $296 billion (PLN1.2 trillion).
Ukrainian Needs
If we consider the backing of the army and the military-industrial complex as a measurement of military power, then it turns out that the United States is 3 times China. And the 3 strongest Western European powers have already invested more in their power a year ago than Russia intends to invest this year. What should we believe?
We should believe the facts of war. Ukraine's military spending in 2025 will scope 54 billion dollars (219 billion PLN). To keep balance on the fronts, western deliveries this year should give Ukraine approx. 100-150 billion dollars (406-609 billion PLN) more for weapons. Will they? Doesn't look like it.
For 3 incomplete years of war, all military exports of Western countries to Ukraine amounted to no more than 150 billion dollars (PLN 609 billion). There's no indication that this year will increase. For example, US deliveries were completely discontinued from October 2023 to March 2024. And no 1 can foretell what the administration will do now. Donald Trump.
However, Western non-military aid, including direct budget support, was and will seemingly stay no little than military supplies. Part of this aid can be converted into military production itself Ukraine through additional usage of the capabilities of the local military-industrial complex and the location of European weapons production there.
However, these projects are carried out with large difficulty and at best promise to increase Ukrainian military production by 10-12 billion dollars (40-48 billion zlotys) this year.
Defence discussions
Comparing these figures, we see that Ukraine's yearly request for western military supplies is almost twice (by a good $50 billion, or around PLN 203 billion) higher than what Kiev actually receives. Over time, problems increase alternatively than are solved.
In the first year of the war supplies provided a military parity, which allowed balance on the fronts. Then the old supplies of weapons in the West ended, and the production of fresh ones, specified as missiles, did not go. The actual productivity of the western arsenals proved not only to be smaller, but to be many times smaller than what seemed to be due to authoritative military spending.
Omar Marques / AFPNATO exercises in Poland
Trump demanded that US allies halt being stingy and rise military spending from the current average 2 % of GDP Lithuania and Estonia signalled that they would do so. The another allies take their time making promises, but agree to talk about raising spending to, say, 3% of GDP at the yearly NATO summit in June.
NATO members are divided into 4 groups in terms of increased military spending.
Four groups in NATO
The first is the United States (3.3% of GDP in 2024). It's not clear if Trump will fight for 5% of his expenses at home. On the 1 hand, you gotta do something about an abruptly discovered Chinese advantage. On the another hand, if you number money, the United States is already spending much more on reinforcements than the PRC.
Secondly, there are countries bordering Russia. They don't should be talked into it due to the fact that they're rushing their armor. Poland — Present NATO champion In terms of expenditure (approximately 4.2% of GDP in 2024), it is the most determined. Compared to pre-war 2021, her defence spending has more than doubled. Defence expenditure Finland also doubled during the same period. The figures in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania exceeded 3% of GDP and could shortly emergence to 5%
The 3rd group are the powers located in the heart of Europe, mainly Germany and France. They are aware of their economical power and respond to current needs in their own way. They even increased defence spending to 2% of GDP. But they don't want to rush them any further.
Finally, the 4th group — favouring countries in safe distance from Russia And they have no intention of competing with China. These are Italy, Spain and Canada. Their military spending does not exceed 1.5% of GDP and will not be seriously increased.
The West must wake up
But it's not just about the money. The applicable return even from NATO's current spending is disproportionately small. Mark Rutte looks at the point erstwhile he calls on the military sector to "he was not afraid of innovation and took risks".
The ability of Western bureaucracy to subject production to current needs has been severely reduced by the general collapse of state management and the accumulation of outdated or artificial priorities that block any different solutions. Especially since confused public opinion does not send clear signals to the top.
In specified an atmosphere, spending on the military, if growing, is with large difficulty, and what is already is mostly thrown into the mud.
The giants of Western manufacture and discipline utilized carelessly waste money, producing super costly weapons systems that will not last for military use, and sometimes are not even brought to readiness.
The current western military-industrial complex takes care of the process, while Russian and Chinese care about the outcome. Hence their present Advantage, with much more modest expenditure and economical and method capabilities.
Unfortunately, the only thing that can change the situation in the West is alive and well felt Fear of an Invasion of the Absolute Enemy. Fear that has already forced Russia's immediate neighbours to hurry to prepare for defense.
