Europe

4856 readers

30 users here now

Europe

Rules:

All sources allowed. Voting decides what is reliable unless
Articles which have been proven false beyond any doubt may be removed
No personal attacks
Posts in English, translations allowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml

Spanish PM rejects Nato’s ‘unreasonable’ 5% GDP target for defence spending – as it happened (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml to c/europe@lemmy.ml

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In a letter responding to Rutte’s proposals for next week’s Nato summit in the Hague, first reported by the Spanish newspaper El País, Sánchez declared his opposition for the proposed change arguing “it is not necessary to fulfil our commitments to the alliance.”

He explained that the figure “has nothing to do with the level of commitment to collective defence,” with Spain confidence it can do enough with lower spending.

He added that adopting the target would have adverse effects for the Spanish economy, as it would force the government to raise taxes, cut public services and slow down its plans on green transition. “We choose not to make those sacrifices,” he reportedly said.

The paper said that the new Nato target had been expected to be adopted unanimously, but Spain’s objection could now trigger further discussions on its adoption.

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] edel@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Any department that ask for a larger budget needs to FIRST provide the objectives & alignment :

Objectives & Alignment for any major budget increase proposal. 1. Strategic Goals: Linking with strategy such as efficiency improvements... 2. Past Performance & some sort of ROI 3. Historical Data (cost savings, productivity gains...) 4. Gaps or Shortfalls: Highlight unmet needs due to past underfunding. 5. Detailed Cost Breakdown (line-Item Justification: Itemize expenses...) 6. Prioritization: Rank expenses by urgency/impact (for instance "must-have" vs "nice-to-have") 7. Expected Outcomes (Quantifiable Benefits: Project measurable results) 8. Timeline: Specify when results will materialize (short-term vs. long-term gains). 9. Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plans: Address potential concerns (e.g., phased spending, contingency measures). 10. Supporting Evidence (Compare budgets to other comparable (US, Russia &China) and see what works and what does not. 11. Alternatives & Flexibility (Propose phased funding, reallocating existing budgets, or pilot programs…)

Let me tell you, NONE of that has been provided… we need more soldiers? Better training? More F-35s? more submarines? Drones, Tanks? No one in NATO´s top sphere knows, or has said anything… they just claim they need far, far more money. No sovereign NATO country should approve any increase beyond inflation, let alone double or triple amounts. This is just plain and simple a mayor public funds thievery! Kudos for Spain on this.

[–] edel@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

But the problem with NATO is far, far deeper. Spain today is in the middle of a scandal for a corruption case involving 0.5 million EUR that has gridlocked the government, when just last week increased its military budget in 7000 million EUR and no one had said for what exactly!

Europeans countries that really want to tackle corruption… focus for these tremendous fund allocations that are not being tracked properly or are we going to do like US shipping planes to Baghdad full of sacks with dollars that practically all went unaccounted for. First was with Covid, then Ukraine (that became the new Baghdad*) and now and for the coming two years will be NATO.

All NATO members, specially European ones, should find ways of leaving NATO because, and we all will see, NATO will end up leaving you when it sees it cannot milk you any more. A PanEuropean coalition would have been an alternative a decade ago, but with the level of vassalism reached today, it would make no difference at all. Going after a model such as Switzerland’s or 1960s Finland’s is best for now.

Go to certain Spanish Mediterranean locations and you will see hubris of super wealthy Ukrainians like never seen before 2023).

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago

Okay comrade.

[–] modulus@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is why in spite of the periodic verraten-ing the PSOE does, it is still measurably better than the alternatives.

[–] fushuan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's really sad that the only alternatives we have are PP (ultra corrupt, aligned with rightwing policies that help corporations with little social movements bar none) and PSOE (corrupt, overspending in movements that will help society, but pocketing a lot of corrupt money on the way). I'm not even mentioning Vox, and Podemos was bullied into nonexistence with pressure from all sides.

For God's sake, everyone forgot how the fucking president was in the Panama papers (M. Rajoy, aka mister X) and he didn't have to resign, let alone lose elections?

At least this happened 2 years from elections, let's see if the govt is able to pick up the good wave it was having lately. As corrupt as they are, at least they spend way more on society than the alternative (not counting Podemos/Sumar because for now they have 0 chance of winning).

[–] scott@lemmy.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

Lmao only 5%? I wish.