#Defense Spending

[mapsontheweb]

Countries which spend more than 4% of their GDP on defence.

by amazing__maps

[tomorrowusa]

Remember how Trump often whined about NATO members allegedly not paying enough for their own defense? Under President Joe Biden, over 70% of NATO members have reached their defense spending targets – a high for this century.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced on Monday that 23 of its 32 member states were expected to meet the alliance's defense spending commitments this year. That is 13 countries more compared to last year's data, and five more than an earlier estimate in February. "This is good for Europe and good for America," Stoltenberg said in a speech unveiling the newest numbers in Washington, "especially since much of this extra money is spent here in the United States."

One of the NATO members is Iceland which technically has no military. But the stats don't include Sweden, a strong investor in defense, which just joined this year.

And as Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg reminded us above, a lot of that European defense spending benefits US industries.

Speaking to DW, Davis Ellison, a strategic analyst from the Hague Center for Strategic Studies, said that the collective recognition of NATO targets is especially noticeable when examining how much defense spending is now dedicated to new equipment. "In the past, you had a lot of focus on personnel costs, which ranges everything from pension to health care and everything else," Ellison explained. "But now you have a much greater collective investment in equipment, which is more to meet NATO targets than anything else." The security expert pointed out that this extra spending compounded NATO's military might.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a wake-up call for liberal democracies. It's significant that four of the top six NATO countries for defense spending share a land border with Russia.

Trump's claim that our allies respected America more during his administration is a bizarre joke. In fact, they actually made fun of him behind his back. Remember this classic SNL sketch about a NATO summit in 2019?

The only international leaders who liked Trump were dictators who found him easy to manipulate.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia called Trump "creepy".

Malcolm Turnbull says Donald Trump's 'creepy' embrace of Vladimir Putin a threat to Australian security

NATO and other liberal democracies have become stronger since Trump's departure.

[usauthoritarianism]

[notwiselybuttoowell]

Joe Biden and the Democratic party’s climate credentials will be severely undermined if controversial legislation to fast-track energy projects is latched on to a must-pass defense bill, environmental leaders have warned.

Progressive lawmakers and hundreds of climate, public health and youth groups are urging the Democratic leadership to stop the latest attempt by Joe Manchin, the West Virginia fossil-fuel-friendly senator, to force through legislation that would weaken environmental protections and expedite permits and construction of pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure while restricting public input.

According to the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, Biden supports including Manchin’s deregulation bill in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an annual appropriations bill that will be voted on later this week. The final text of the proposed bill has not yet been published, but if pushed through as an appendage, it would lead to a sweeping decline in environmental protections and public participation without having been debated or scrutinized in committee hearings.

On Tuesday, more than 750 organizations sent a letter to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and congressional leadership opposing what they call a “cruel and direct attack on environmental justice communities”. If Pelosi permits the attachment of the dirty deal to the NDAA, it will be one of her final acts as speaker and threatens her credibility on climate, the groups said.

Manchin, who receives more campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry than any other lawmaker, also wants to limit legal challenges to new energy projects including the 303-mile Mountain Valley gas pipeline across the Appalachian mountains that has been stalled by concerned communities and environmental groups in West Virginia and Virginia.

Rashida Tlaib, the Democratic congresswoman from Michigan, called on her colleagues to stand up against the fossil fuel industry and the undemocratic manner in which leadership was trying to push through the bill without scrutiny. “It’s outrageous enough that Congress wants to spend another $847bn on our military-industrial complex, the largest annual military budget in history; we cannot allow them to then ram through Manchin’s dirty deal in the process.”

Tlaib urged her colleagues to also vote no. “We cannot again remain silent while the fossil fuel industry continues to pollute our neighborhoods and sacrifice the health of our residents for their own endless greed,” she said.

Manchin’s bill, described by environmentalists as a “fossil fuel wishlist”, was first attached as a side deal to Biden’s historic climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, but was eventually thwarted after widespread opposition from progressive Democrats and civil society groups.

[joeywreck]

Only a country with a fascist government could get away with this.

[edenfenixblogs]

I honestly expected to find antisemitic dogwhistles in here, but I didn’t. As for my qualifications in evaluating this: I majored in political science in college for a while (I did change my major. But that was not due to anything other than becoming disillusioned with some of the processes by which governments operate. But i did maintain a perfect 4.0 GPA in all my courses on both National and international political systems. I have also been actively learning about this conflict firsthand and in academic settings since I was seven years old and have engaged in moderated formal debates with fellow Jews as well as Muslims and non-Muslim goyim for both sides as a part of this process. Additionally, I am Jewish and pro-Palestine and am intimately affected by the conflict in Gaza. I also have family in Israel who are very frightened for their lives right now. And I have friends in Israel who are literally risking their lives to bring resources to Palestinian civilians and to protest the Likud government, Netanyahu, and the current military response from Israel.

Pros of this document: This is a very balanced, well-sourced, and thoughtful guide on how to approach discussions about war. I read through all the shortcut guides linked as well as the full-length pdf and the bibliography/works cited in order to be sure this was a reputable source worth sharing, and I find it to be credible. I find it has the intent of lowering the temperature and finding mutual humanity, and I believe the approach laid out here has the potential to achieve its goal. Some especially standout aspects of this document that show good faith intent:

Laying out the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide. They are very similar to each other in many ways. But they differ in important ways too. What is going on in Gaza is an ethnic cleansing paired with a callous disregard for human life and civilian death. This is not a softening of language or a refusal to condemn genocide. Ethnic cleansing is terrible and an affront to humanity. There is nothing soft about it.

Clearly stating that criticizing a nation (Israel or Palestine) or its people (Israelis or Palestinians) is not OK. Ever. The actions of a nation’s military are the responsibility of its current government and not an indication of the character of the nations citizens.

Cons: Very slightly limiting. This is overall a much better document than I have seen used in this way almost anywhere else. That said, I take issue with exactly three terms they say to avoid. I don’t think they are wrong to say to avoid this words. But I think that, specifically with regard to Gaza, there is more nuance in speech with regard to the terms than the document allows for.

Terrorist/Terrorism:

There’s a lot to unpack here. First and foremost, I want to acknowledge that calling people with brown skin or people of SWANA/MENA descent or nationality who happen to be upset about a political issue is unacceptable and an act of pure racism and Islamophobia. That is not up for debate. If you share a picture/video of a brown person being upset and use that to paint them as aggressive, that is awful.

Calling brown people who disagree with you terrorists or assuming that violence against Jews in diaspora is happening because of “Muslim terrorists” is patently false and a dogwhistle that I will not tolerate on my blog. Any post I see engaging in this behavior will be blocked and reported. The vast majority of violence against diasporic Jews is not caused by Muslims (who are not all Arabs) or Arabs (who are not all Muslims). Most violence against Jews in western countries is carried out by white Christians or culturally Christian extremists.

The document is correct that most people should avoid using the term terrorist/terrorism. I think that it is very valid to air on the side of not using it.

That said, not everyone you see using the term terrorist/terrorism is uninformed and here is how you can identify a trustworthy person discussing terrorism from someone using it as a dogwhistle. I encourage you to refer to this when evaluating discussions that use this term. Because while most people are woefully uninformed on the topic, some of the most thorough insights you’ll find come from people with a working knowledge of terrorism—even though it is a nebulous term.

People using the term terrorism should be able to tell you what it means without hesitation and that definition should come with caveats and not be straightforward.

Even legitimate experts in terrorism and counter terrorism do not have a full and fixed understanding of the term. It is nebulous at best.

People using this term should be able to tell you why they insist on using the term and are aware of the potential harm of misusing it.

People who use this term should be operating with their own fixed meaning or set of tenets that cannot be redefined down the line without an explicit notice to the community with which they are engaging. For instance, if I suddenly encountered a new source or study and chose to change my definition of terrorism, I would pin that information to my blog and explicitly introduce my definition of terrorism every time I use the phrase in every interaction until a norm on my blog was established.

With all that being said, I do plan to use the term terrorist/terrorism on my blog for several reasons: I have extensively studied the subject academically, stochastic terrorism is a legitimate factor in the ongoing conflict that affects all communities in diaspora (especially, but not exclusively, diasporic Jews) and I have a clearly understood set of principles by which I define terrorism. My definition is based on academic experience and lectures and discussion with counterterrorism experts. All of these points must be met without exception in order for me to consider something terrorist in nature.

Terrorism is illegal and non-governmental. State sponsored violence exists. Israel is currently carrying out such violence. But it is not terrorism. Terrorism does not involve an official national military.

Terrorism targets civilians to achieve political goals. Activism targets political issues, education, awareness, and policy change in order to achieve its goals: This point is what distinguishes terrorism from activism in MANY cases. Harming children and civilians as a primary method of achieving any sort of political goal—even one related to a specific policy—is terrorist behavior. Legitimate activism should target policies or even politicians (for instance, removing Likud politicians and Netanyahu specifically) from office. If that activism includes causing active physical harm to any of those politicians, their families, or even those who vote for them, then that behavior has taken on aspects of terrorism and is no longer legitimate activism. I am happy to elaborate on this upon request, but this post is long enough already so I’ll cut this off here. However, even if civilians are targeted by non-governmental violence by people attempting to achieve political goals, that alone is not terrorism. That is violent political extremism. To be terrorism, it must adhere to the next and final point:

Terrorism is cell-based: While violent political extremism is unacceptable, it is not terrorism. A fundamental aspect of terrorism that makes it insidious and hard to root out is that they are not operated centrally like a government. They are instead operated by a network of decentralized cells. I won’t get too deep into this, because it could be and has been a subject of many a dissertation. But basically, if one entire cell (or group of terrorists) were wiped out, another cell from the network would arise to replace it as the primary leader of the terrorist network. (Again, this is a very simplified summary of what I mean by cell based). It’s why killing Osama Bin Laden didn’t suddenly end Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Osama was, for a time, a recognized leader of the terrorist movement and organization, but murdering him and everyone close to him only briefly destabilized the power of the those terrorist groups. Because there were other groups ready to fill the void of his absence and ultimately able to do so in a relatively short span of time. However, being violent and operating a network of cells is not terrorism in itself. Its primary goals must be political in order for it to qualify as a terrorist organization according to the definition I was taught. It is for this reason that drug rings, gangs, mafias, and smuggling rings are not terrorist organizations.

Given all that information, and despite the fact that Hamas members were legally elected to office in Palestine, Hamas is a terrorist organization. Why is this? Because Hamas won 74 of 132 seats in the 2006 Palestinian elections. At the time, the Middle East Quartet stipulated that all future Palestinian governments must be “committed to non-violence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements”. These were called the Quartet principles. Since then, Hamas has engaged in state-sponsored extremist violence against Palestinians, suppressed their right to vote, repeatedly cancelled elections—none of which fits my definition of terrorism. HOWEVER, it is still bad. But the parts that make it terrorism still hold true. Hamas controls Palestine, but its near-totalitarian hold on the state is not a reflection of the will of its citizens—as the right to vote freely has been intimidated away and elections have not been held regularly or even throughout all of Palestine.

Also, there are terrorists within the Palestinian government because they are members of the Hamas terrorist organization. But the Palestinian government itself is not a terrorist organization.

As for illegality and violence against civilians to achieve political goals? In addition to elected government officials refusing to recognize Israel as agreed after the elections, Hamas terrorists have repeatedly been the first to break ceasefires by bombing Israeli population centers as well violently suppressing resistance within Palestine. Even on 10/7, that was a terrorist attack that illegally violated the ceasefire agreement that was brokered in May of this same year. Indeed, Hamas even violated ceasefires they initiated, negotiated, and brokered themselves as well as ceasefires negotiated and initiated by Israel and ceasefires initiated by Egypt as well as those with widespread international support and those with widespread support within The Arab League. They have even rejected offers of extended ceasefire from Israel repeatedly and with with violence, including bombs.

What about cells? Hamas is not solely operating within governments or even just the government of Palestine. There are/have been confirmed cells in Lebanon, and a variety of regional capitols—including but not limited to Doha, Qatar, and Cairo.

Their tactics include traditional military attacks (rockets, grenades, other long and short range bombs, air defense missiles, grenades, antitank missiles, etc.) as well as more personal/individual violence such as kidnapping, suicide vests, gun violence, and sexual assault. They also engage in cyber espionage and computer-based violence. And these attacks have primarily targeted individual civilians.

I will not call Hamas members “militants” because I don’t believe it serves their victims to ascribe them military-backing or legitimacy. Their desire for political outcomes is reliant completely and only on causing terror and death among their opposition.

If that means you find yourself unable to engage with my blog, so be it. And I’m sorry. I respect your boundaries and understand if the misuse of terrorist is too much of a dog whistle for you to engage with me on this. Lord knows many innocent people have been baselessly called terrorists based solely on their religion, skin color, or sympathy for Palestinian civilians. I promise to never use the term in such a manner or to demonize people I disagree with simply due to disagreement.

However, Hamas is a terrorist organization by every definition I’ve ever encountered. And I will not soften my language about Hamas and Hamas members. I also don’t believe that most Palestinians support Hamas. Palestine is not Hamas. Palestinians are not terrorists. But Hamas members are terrorists.

So that is my stance on the matter and how I will use the term on my blog. I still do not condone and will not discuss the “war on terror” as that is a separate issue from terrorism itself. I understand that this is more nuance than a typical online discussion has, so if you are not actually familiar with terrorism, I’d still endorse avoiding the word.

Defense spending: My objection to avoiding this is a lot simpler than my objection to avoiding mentioning terrorism or terrorists. Rather, considering every single discussion of defense spending as a topic we should avoid does remove some of the most important usage of the term defense spending. Again, I’m only talking about Israel/Palestine right now. I am not referring to US defense spending. Specifically, much of Israel’s defense spending is actually defense. The Iron Dome not only fires bombs (which is not defensive and is violence). It also intercepts rockets that Hamas fires into Israel and which also target civilian population centers. International aid sent to Israel does in fact support the function of intercepting rockets without any civilian casualties at all. We should be allowed to discuss this. And we should be allowed to investigate exactly how much of Israel’s military spending is actually spent on defensive rather than offensive tactics. We can’t answer those questions if we don’t talk about it. And if we don’t talk about it, it paints all rockets fired by Israel as offensive, which is false. We all deserve to know how many rockets are fired offensively vs. defensively. So, I’d say to avoid using “defense spending” as a replacement for military spending, but proceed with caution and use it sparingly when contextually appropriate.

Targeted Attacks: Like the usage of “defense spending” avoid usage of this term unless you are doing so in a specific and contextualized manner.

I agree that you should avoid terms like “surgical strike” or “enemy target” which both imply the only victims of an attack are “bad guys.” This is almost never true. Civilians are almost always killed in targeted attacks. And any discussion thereof should acknowledge this.

That said, I do think it is important to distinguish between Israel or Hamas bombing a specific target versus either force dropping bombs indiscriminately. Anyone who has been studying this conflict for more than a year knows that Hamas builds bases under Palestinian community buildings (hospitals, pre schools, libraries, etc) in order to make civilian death very difficult to avoid and then cast the Israelis as indiscriminately bombing children and injured civilians. This is a part of how Hamas terrorists use violence to achieve political goals. Additionally, Hamas terrorists also target Israeli buses and community centers when attacking. HOWEVER, it is absolutely just and correct to condemn Israel’s bombing of civilians and community buildings as well as to not allow the government to minimize the murder their bombs inflicted upon civilians during targeted attacks. Just because the attack “targets” a terrorist cell known to be hiding under a school, that does not make the bombing right or just. It does not mean there was no way to stop Hamas without it. It doesn’t even mean there is no way to kill Hamas terrorists without it. Israel has a famously skilled and respected intelligence community. Why are they not instead deploying field agents to target individual terrorists? Why do they not use field agents to arrest and try terrorists rather than just kill them? These are things that we must be able to discuss if we ever hope to reach peace between Israel and Palestine. Why would a “targeted” attack ever involve dozens of civilian deaths? We must interrogate this. We must question the efficiency and effectiveness of any system with such large targets and margins of error. “Targeted” does not mean targeted well or fairly. But it is very different than indiscriminate intentional death specifically and only to civilians. As always, nuance is key. Proceed with caution. And verify everything three times before opening your mouth on any subject here.

If you feel a little crazy looking at news coverage of Gaza or any other military operations, I HIGHLY recommend looking at the Words About War guide which provides lists of misleading phrases commonly used by governments and the media to obscure the realities of war. Sitting down with a news article with this guide and replacing things like "enemy noncombatant" with "civilians" will change the entire way you look at war news and the media as an agent of the military machine. They also have a special guide on Gaza!!

[head-post]

EC chief von der Leyen pledges to increase EU defence spending

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has pledged to boost EU defence spending and strengthen the defence industry over the next five years.

European Commission chief outlined her programme for a second mandate on Wednesday and urged MEPs in Strasbourg to support her and her new team of commissioners. The German Commission President’s second mandate was approved by MEPs in Strasbourg with a majority of 370 in favour and 282 against.

Ahead of the vote, citing Europe’s historic struggle to overcome conflict and tyranny, she warned of growing threats to the European system, from wars in Ukraine and the Middle East to a competitiveness gap with the United States and China.

Ms von der Leyen said the EU must develop its defence capabilities, promising to prepare a proposal on the future of European defence within the first 100 days of the new commission. She told MEPs:

“Russia is spending up to 9% of its GDP on defence. Europe is spending on average 1.9%. There is something wrong in this equation. Our defence spending must increase. We need a single market for defence. We need to strengthen the defence industrial base.”

Ms. von der Leyen has previously said the EU needs to invest €500 billion in defence over the next decade if it is to keep up with Russia and China.

Defence spending as a priority

In March, von der Leyen said that the EU needs to continue its policy of strengthening the armed forces of the bloc’s member states and to start producing new weapons for defence purposes. She also has prioritised the creation of a “European Defence Union.” Von der Leyen has nominated politicians from two frontline states for key positions: Kaja Kallas, former prime minister of Estonia, will become the EU’s chief diplomat on December 1, and Andrius Kubilius, former prime minister of Lithuania, will become the EU’s first-ever defence commissioner.

Earlier, the European Commission published the EU’s first ever defence industrial strategy. The document envisages the development of common defence projects within the bloc: by 2030, 40% of defence procurement by EU countries should be conducted on a joint basis.

Read more HERE

[trendynewsnow]

Trump's Foreign Policy Team: Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz Set to Shape U.S. Strategy

Trump’s Foreign Policy Team: Rubio and Waltz President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly set to appoint Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Mike Waltz as National Security Adviser. These selections, although not yet finalized, reflect Trump’s overarching foreign policy priorities. Both Rubio and Waltz have emphasized a retrenchment of U.S. involvement abroad, advocating for a more isolationist…

[russianreader]

Teachers' Day in Bryansk

A martial dance performance, given, allegedly, at the recent Teachers’ Day celebration in Bryansk Source: Kolokol XXI (Telegram), 6 October 2024 Distinguished teachers awarded for their many years of work and achievements On October 5, the country and the Bryansk Region celebrate Teachers’ Day. This is the day when our teachers are thanked and given flowers, and concerts and matinees are…

[govtshutdown]

The Senate's Defense Appropriations Act

[mapsontheweb]

NATO countries that spend the required 2% of their GDP on defense yearly.

by powerfulcountries

[tomorrowusa]

^^^ from @visegrád24

Yet another way Putin’s invasion has had the opposite effect.

Putin has been trying to make Russia great again by throwing its military weight around. He has only succeeded in showing the world he commands a third-rate armed forces and has alarmed neighbors into bolstering their own military establishments.

Poland is the latest country in Europe to announce a significant hike in its national security spending. Some others...

Macron: France to hike military spending by a third

Germany To Buy U.S.-Made Fighter Jets As Military Spending Prompted By War In Ukraine Ramps Up

North Macedonia is set to increase its defense budget to $542 million by 2027, says GlobalData

Yes, even North Macedonia (population: 2,130,936) is not taking its security for granted.

After winning the runoff election on Saturday, Czech President-elect Petr Pavel made a call to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy –– one of his first calls after the election.

Russia’s neighbors are not being cowed into submission by Putin’s aggression. Eastern Europe in particular remembers the 40+ miserable years as satellite states of the USSR and wants no repeat.

[ennovance]

NATO members' defence spending as a % of GDP in 2021 and 2024. Green indicates an increase. Red a decrease

[loudlylovingreview]

David Vine and Theresa (Isa) Arriola: The Military-Industrial Complex Is Killing Us All

Freeing Ourselves from the Monster Destroying Our Planet and Our Futures We need to talk about what bombs do in war. Bombs shred flesh. Bombs shatter bones. Bombs dismember. Bombs cause brains, lungs, and other organs to shake so violently they bleed, rupture, and cease functioning. Bombs injure. Bombs kill. Bombs destroy. Bombs also make people rich. When a bomb explodes, someone profits. And…

[ivygorgon]

Please cut wasteful Pentagon spending now!

AN OPEN LETTER to THE PRESIDENT & U.S. CONGRESS

887 so far! Help us get to 1,000 signers!

I am a constituent who believes the failure to control wasteful Pentagon spending makes it harder to meet our country’s needs. The U.S. spends more on the military than any other country in the world, yet we repeatedly fail to spend the required amount of funds on food, housing, health care, and education that our communities need.

Recently, the DoD failed its audit for the sixth time in a row when it failed to account for $1.9 trillion―half its $3.8 trillion budget.

The Department of Defense is the only federal agency that has never passed a full audit and they didn’t even complete audits until 2018.

As your constituent, I am asking you to cut wasteful Defense spending in FY 2025 government funding bills.

Federal dollars that go to wasteful Department of Defense contracts are funds that do not go to meet human needs. One-third to one-half of the Pentagon budget goes to corporate military contractors that drastically price gouge the DoD by as much as 40%.

Trillions of dollars spent―and unaccounted for―undermine our security by preventing us from investing in the shared prosperity that comes from more housing, climate and public health protections, ending hunger, and more education.

Please cut wasteful Pentagon spending and invest that money in vulnerable communities.

▶ Created on April 22 by Jess Craven · 886 signers in the past 7 days

📱 Text SIGN PESFXZ to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409