No, it is literally not. The charter is here[1], read it yourself.
To my knowledge it was first mentioned in 2006, the press briefing [2] states
Finally, I should add that Allies through the comprehensive political guidance have committed to endeavour, to meet the 2% target of GDP devoted to defence spending. Let me be clear, this is not a hard commitment that they will do it. But it is a commitment to work towards it. And that will be a first within the Alliance.
aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade
1: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm
2: https://www.nato.int/docu/speech/2006/s060608m.htm
3: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_112964.htm
It's much better to acknowledge that the deal the United States signed up for was to cover security for the entire European continent until 2024.
This narrative that all NATO members are just freeloading of the USA is a fiction.
Furthermore, your argument that one partner in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, ie. the USA, is shouldering all of the work falls flat, because the only member of the NATO ever invoking the pact defense clause, ie. article 5, was the USA and ALL OTHER members responded by honoring the treaty, ie. supporting the USA to the best of their abilities in invading Afghanistan and maintaining an occupation force for 21 years. Even if you think not much of the abilities of US' NATO allies, most of the time the effort of the other NATO members at least matched the US effort. The USA couldn't have done it all by itself, just consider the range of transport vehicles. I can't change if you think that's nothing, but that's on you.
>The USA couldn't have done it all by itself, just consider the range of transport vehicles
Not sure how to parse this. No one has the transport capabilities even close to ours.
Frankly, this issue has been percolating for a while now and it's better that we rip the band aid off and get it over with. We should've done this 25 years ago, but 9/11 happened and we got distracted. The AFG Campaign was extremely telling, both in terms of what a post-Soviet Union NATO could bring itself to do and the actual capabilities of the non-US partners. For what it's worth, Robert Gates (SECDEF at the time) was making some similar points back in 2011[1]:
>Today, I would like to share some parting thoughts about the state of the now 60-plus year old transatlantic security project, to include:
>Where the alliance mission stands in Afghanistan as we enter a critical transition phase; NATO’s serious capability gaps and other institutional shortcomings laid bare by the Libya operation; The military – and political – necessity of fixing these shortcomings if the transatlantic security alliance is going to be viable going forward; And more broadly, the growing difficulty for the U.S. to sustain current support for NATO if the American taxpayer continues to carry most of the burden in the Alliance.
>The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress – and in the American body politic writ large – to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense. Nations apparently willing and eager for American taxpayers to assume the growing security burden left by reductions in European defense budgets.
>Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, future U.S. political leaders—those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me—may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.
Emphasis added. This was 14 years ago. Pity that it took the reality of a land war in Eastern Europe and the possibility of no American security presence for the Europeans to take this point seriously.
[1] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/text-of-spe...
You came out pretty strong, stating that something was "literally part of the charter", and thats just wrong. And sometimes I think it is worth pointing out glaring errors.
Instead of "2%" beeing in the charter, it was a goal to have it done by 2024, and most countries managed. Which is very different from even the most charitable interpretation of your post.
> Europe’s dependence on the United States for its security means that the United States possesses a de facto veto on the direction of European defense. Since the 1990s, the United States has typically used its effective veto power to block the defense ambitions of the European Union. This has frequently resulted in an absurd situation where Washington loudly insists that Europe do more on defense but then strongly objects when Europe’s political union—the European Union—tries to answer the call. This policy approach has been a grand strategic error—one that has weakened NATO militarily, strained the trans-Atlantic alliance, and contributed to the relative decline in Europe’s global clout. As a result, one of America’s closest partners and allies of first resort is not nearly as powerful as it could be.
Honestly, the interesting thing question here is: (A) Does the EU have to political will to bankroll Ukraine. (B) Will the US keep selling weapons the Ukraine, if funded by the EU.
I suspect (B) is a hard YES. Anything would end US military industry.
On (A) I'm less certain, the EU has had a hard time finding consensus. The EU can do big things, even when it's hard, the EU did so under covid.
0. https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/news/ukraine-support-af...
I mean, that's true for any democracy. The EU has its fair share of them elected to high offices.
- the EU started getting nasty towards American tech before trump.
- pitching a fit about chicom 5G equipment.
- remember when trump pointed out the iran nuclear deal was really bad and not enforced/verified at all, withdrew, and the EU retaliated by pulling over 200 sanctions against iran?
- ongoing attempts to tariff us more than we tariff them due to their own economic inadequacy, dating back at least to the chicken tax.
etc.
since the inception of the EU, eurocrats got this crazy idea that europe can and should be some sort of great power in a multilateral order. of course, they took none of the substantive actions to build the necessary military and economic infrastructure. they were only too happy to accept all the benefits of letting us shoulder the burden of continental defense and literally couldn't manage the basic first step of not funneling billions per year to moscow in natgas purchases. instead they keep trying to be independent, getting a little friendlier with china, trying to make some sort of point that they're their own people, we don't set their policy, blah blah blah. it reminds me of a teenager acting out for no other reason than to show "he's his own man now" and "you can't stop him".
fine, but europe has enjoyed massive benefits from America, particularly post-wwii. if you want the benefits of a client state relationship, or client continent, be prepared to go along with the foreign policy of your benefactor.
i don't want to rag on just the EU here. there's been a trend of various countries breaking down the relationship of following American foreign policy in exchange for a lot of benefits. but trump's responses were ham-fisted and he was pretty rude about them publicly, so he catches full blame. like fish in the ocean, they ceased to remember they swam in an ocean of American prosperity.
Arguably the US isn’t either anymore . It is pretty clear that Trump won’t enforce Article 5 when Russia is the aggressive party. Which, by itself, might be a preparation to take Greenland. Both US and Russia are already interfering in the upcoming elections there.
It doesn’t sound crazy anymore, considering the shitshow we’ve seen the last four weeks sounded crazy before the inauguration.
Ukraine’s potential NATO membership is one of Russia’s main demands for ending the war. Additionally, Ukraine participated in the coalition that invaded Iraq in 2003.
Part of NATO's charter is literally "spend minimum 2% GDP on military" and it was just ignored for much of the time.
But honestly I don't know why this entire comment section has turned to NATO NATO NATO. Ukraine isn't in NATO. And if the Budapest Memorandum is what you're referencing, France and UK signed too. It's not as if the US hasn't contributed to the war already.