- Jun 2014
From the article you cited a few posts ago:There was an agreement that they would aim towards reaching the non-binding 2% guideline - not that they would be required to actually reach it - just making effort to try to. As to the rest... Sure, but why would you think that increased funding would help in that case? You just destroyed your own argument for increased funding there. And i doubt i would feel comfortable if Russia attacked - then again I'm not in a NATO member state. Here most of the people are still trained to fight against invasion. We have probably got more artillery than what NATO does in Europe, and reserves of about 1 000 000 men. Sure the Russians would eventually overcome us - but that is not a reason to give up, only to fight to very end regardless of the odds or prospects.
"Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline..."
Yet you state, "not that they would be required to actually reach it - just making effort to try to." I hope these nations military forces' aim is better than that of their politicians. Otherwise, somebody might be in trouble...