发生错误 详情 隐藏
您有未保存页面 恢复 取消
In July, after the NATO summit in Brussels, US President Donald Trump tweeted that "the United States is spending far more on NATO than any other country. This is not fair, nor is it acceptable." But, is the US spending more on NATO than other members? And, if so, is the US spending level unfair relative to that which the US—and the other 28 members—have agreed? Let's look at the data.
 
Measure 1: Defense Expenditures. In 2018,* the US will spend an estimated $706 billion on defense globally. The US defense budget represents US priorities and spending globally and not money spent for or on behalf of NATO or for the mutual defense of the alliance members. NATO-Europe is expected to spend $286 billion on defense in 2018.
  • Personnel expenditures constitute the largest single category of anticipated US defense expenditures in 2018 (42.5%)—which includes pensions paid to retirees—followed by equipment and related R&D (26.8%).
  • Defense infrastructure makes up only 1.3 percent of total US defense expenditures in 2018, down from 3.1 percent 2011. 
Measure 2: Share of GDP. In 2014, NATO members agreed as a signal of political will and validation of the alliance to increase defense expenditures to at least two percent of GDP by 2024. According to 2018 estimates, by this measure a few countries have already met the commitment while other countries are still working up to the 2024 standard: the US, 3.5 percent; Greece, 2.3 percent; Estonia, 2.1 percent, and the UK, 2.1 percent.
 
Measure 3: Contribution to the NATO Common Funding. Based on an agreed GDP-based cost sharing formula, the largest share of direct funding of NATO's $2.5 billion Common Fund by the 29-member alliance** is from the largest economy: the United States. In 2017, the US contribution made up 22 percent of NATO's common fund, or about $550 million. Europe's total contribution was $1.8 billion. Learn more about direct funding to NATO here.
 
If the US President wants to argue in favor of alliance members more rapidly reaching a 2 percent minimum in defense spending in light of the threats posed to global security by non-alliance actors, that policy argument would supersede the data used herein to examine current commitments of NATO members.
 
*Figures for 2017 and 2018 are estimates. The NATO Europe and NATO total aggregates for 2017 include Montenegro, which became an ally member on 5 June 2017.
** The Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries dataset does not include Iceland. 

相关数据透视

Global Firepower - 2016 | Data and Charts

Global Firepower (GFP) provides a unique analytical display of data concerning today's world military powers. Over 100 world powers are considering in the ranking which allows for a broad spectrum of comparisons to be achieved concerning relative military strengths. The Global Firepower ranking is based strictly on each nations potential conventional war-making capabilities across land, sea and air. The nuclear capability is not taken into account. The final ranking also incorporates values related to resources, finances and geography. The Global Firepower ranking is based on a formula utilizing over fifty different factors, compiled and...

Military Expenditures Summary

Global Firepower 2015

Select the indicator and choose countries from the ranking lists to compare the countries Power Index & Country Ranks      Man Power      Land Systems       Air Power      Naval Strength      Compare Countries

Nigeria: Armed Conflicts, Military Spending, and the Economic Context

During the mid-to-late 2000s, Nigeria struggled to reign in the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, better known simply as MEND. MEND is a militant group based in the southwest of Nigeria in the Niger Delta, Nigeria's primary onshore oil production region.  The group sought increased economic benefits for residents of the Niger Delta from the country's oil production and reparations for destruction of the environment by foreign oil companies. The group's guerrilla warfare tactics and deadly bombings were only part of the reason it was so potent; the group also caused severe economic losses by disrupting or shutting in oil and...