Reasonable reasons to the European members of NATO increased defense spending does not exist. However, apparently, the budget will increase, since such an approach is full of lies and corruption, is correct — after all, he is sufficiently anti-Russian. So says political scientist Oskar Krejci.
První zprávy: Thursday club “New word” in Bratislava, You commented on the visit of US President Donald trump in the middle East and Europe. To sum up briefly, what topic was most important during this visit?
Oskar Krejci: the Sale of weapons.
In the case of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia is understandable, but in Europe?
— If briefly, in Europe, trump has demanded that NATO spending has reached 57% of global defence spending. According to the decision taken at the summit in Wales in 2014, 20% of these funds should be allocated for the purchase and development of new types of weapons. Predominantly American.
— So You mean the requirement to increase the expenses of the members of NATO up to two percent of GDP?
— All the hype around the plans to increase defense spending NATO up to two percent of GDP due primarily to the desire to sell arms. All of this absurdity, which can impose only due to the irresponsibility and incompetence of European politicians and because of the dedication of the largest Western media militant slogans. Militarism is issued for security protection.
Someone might argue that Your words sound very aggressive and biased. Do You have proof for these allegations?
For example, remember the study published by the Stockholm Institute for peace studies (SIPRI) a month before the NATO summit, which was the first participation of Donald trump. SIPRI is definitely one of the most authoritative centers, which is engaged in research in the field of armaments. The published material concerns the already mentioned two percent of GDP, and in the study on the basis of last year’s military expenditures estimated proposed changes. According to this analysis, if all the members of the Alliance will provide for the defense of two percent of GDP, this will entail budget cuts NATO 881 billion to $ 722 billion. Thus, the defence budget of NATO will be reduced to 159 billion, i.e. by 18%…
— It sounds strange. Trump really was what it was asking? As the Institute SIPRI could come to such numbers?
The trick is that last year the military expenditures of the United States reached 3.3% of GDP. These expenses in the amount of 611 billion dollars pathologically high. When you move the United States to two percent of GDP spending will be reduced by 240 billion, that is 39%.
Many people forget that the US armed forces and European armies are intended for different purposes. Suffice it to recall the actions that now the Pentagon is taking in the Western Pacific ocean. I mean Japan, Korea and American provocations in the South China sea. Why do European countries to assume part of the responsibility for this policy of Washington?
Deviate from the topic, so you better understand me. In the middle of last year, the center published a RAND Corporation analysis of options the war between the US and China. RAND is a respected research center in California, where engaged in political and military intelligence. From the mentioned analysis it follows that traditional war between the United States and China, start it in 2015, after a year of fighting would have led to lower U.S. GDP by 10% and the Chinese at 35%. But if the war began in 2025, both parties would have suffered the same economic loss. “In 2025 the United States will not be able to gain a decisive military advantage of operating even if the fighting drags on,” — said in the study. Many politicians may regard this information as a sign: that when, if not now? I should add that, according to the study from the RAND Corporation, today nuclear war between the US and China would destroy both countries. I’m not even talking about the fact that, most likely, this war would have taken a world scale, and the conflict would have been drawn and the Czech Republic.
Let’s go back to that paradoxical calculation according to which expenses in the amount of two percent of GDP would lead to a reduction of the budget of NATO. Probably, in Brussels, trump is still not achieved. Then what is its purpose?
Even at the Institute SIPRI do not believe that defense spending will be reduced to two percent of GDP. The calculation that I think is real, shows that if the United States will leave its defence expenditure at the present level, and the costs of other countries-members of the Alliance reached two percent of GDP, the total budget of NATO will grow from 881 to 962 billion billion a year.
Are those the 57% of the world’s defense spending, You mentioned earlier in the interview?
Yes. If the dream is about two percent of GDP come true, the budget of the Alliance will reach 57% of global defense spending. Thus, the 28 Western democracies will allocate more on defense than the other 170 countries in the world. You think it’s reasonable?
— And what exactly will change in the European member countries of NATO?
Professionals SIPRI estimate changes in military expenditure of European countries-members of the Alliance in connection with the transition to the required two percent of GDP and obtained data on the significant increase in European spending would increase from 254 billion to 320 billion a year. That is, the cost will increase by 66 billion or 26%. Such demands is absurd.
But in Brussels talking about the growing threat, for example, in the face of Russia.
— According to SIPRI, last year the defense budget of the Russian Federation amounted to 69,2 billion. I repeat: at the same time, total NATO budget has reached 881 billion, of which 254 billion dollars have on the European countries-members of the Alliance. Only through the propaganda that blinds you and dulls, someone else can talk about the need to further increase military spending because of the “Russian danger”. It is better to be thought of a rationalization of costs. After all the money wasting, not only in USA but also in European armed forces. This happens because of the stupidity, corruption, but also — and mainly — due to the lack of a reasonable political-military strategy.
— I noted that even Berlin was not ecstatic about the requirements to increase spending to two percent of GDP.
— For Germany, this requirement means expenditures in the amount of $ 69 billion per year (up to 41.1 billion). If you rank the countries of the world that more spending on defense, in the new conditions of Germany from the ninth place will be moved to the fourth. Some German economists and analysts in the field of security believe that the cost increase is too great and not justified. I think so too. In addition, Germany may again become a military challenge to Europe.
The Minister of defence of the Czech Republic and other Czech politicians have promised to increase military spending to two percent of GDP. Where this will lead, according to SIPRI?
— Czech defense spending will increase from two to 3.9 billion dollars, and the Czech Republic will move from 60 places in the ranking to 47th place. As for Slovakia, there is the military budget will increase from one billion to 1.8 billion, and the country with 67 seats will move to 62. I repeat that this can happen without preliminary analyses of threats and risks, with no public debate — just because someone has something someone promised. And this is called democracy!
Let’s go back to what it was in Riyadh. Why the agreements remind You of the decision within NATO?
— Donald trump signed a contract to supply weapons to Saudi Arabia in the amount of 110 billion dollars, and in the next ten years there would send the weapons for another $ 350 billion. The white house has called these arrangements “mutual extension… of relations in the sphere of security.” However, the United States sold Saudi Arabia weapons worth billions of dollars under President Barack Obama. According to available data, in 2013 the national security Agency (NSA) (this is a special service of the Ministry of defense, which we talked about last week) has Riyadh “direct analytic and technical support” in the interests of “internal security”. Longer still the cooperation of the Saudis to the CIA. By the way, the close relations between Washington and Riyadh originated in February 1945 when, immediately after the Yalta conference, President Franklin Roosevelt met with Saudi king on a military ship of the United States, dropped anchor in the Suez canal.
There are two reasons for the special relations between Washington and Riyadh. First, it is oil, and second, Washington complexes against Iran, which the White house can not shed since the overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979. Riyadh, in turn, perceives Tehran as an inevitable competitor. Indeed, in the Iran — Persians not Arabs, the Shiites, not the Sunnis, and the Islamic democracy instead of monarchy.
— The role played by the bellicose Iranian policy against Israel.
— A separate conversation. The Saudi army was “trained” in Yemen. According to some sources, in 2015 the local “civil” war, invisible for the West, killed nearly eight, and according to others 16, thousand people. Who the Saudi army will fight, when will the “training” and get a new weapon for 400 billion? Will Israel be safe?
According to SIPRI, last year Saudi Arabia has allocated for the defense of 10.4% of their GDP. However, the ideal partner of the Pentagon and the example for Europe is improving its military spending last year reached a record 16.7 per cent of GDP.
— He distributes weapons and ammunition in accordance with the interests of the Arab Sunni monarchies and, of course, by agreement with the United States. Similarly, Washington is trying to make NATO an “trading station”. In this regard, I would like to recall the words of the recently departed Zbigniew Brzezinski, who said that the weapons exist in order to use it.
That is, apparently, the war in the middle East will never end? Do you think that this is the plan of Washington?
— What is the plan? The military and scientists need to consider all scenarios, but the politicians decide everything. They make decisions directly about what they want to achieve, and indirectly about the consequences of the chaos that they sow.
On Thursday in Bratislava, we discussed the depressing hopelessness that emanates from the above given figures. Simple rational calculations show that all the talk about the Russian or Chinese threat is nothing. Reasonable reasons for the increase in defence spending of European NATO countries there. Nevertheless, these costs are likely to be increased.
— In Your opinion, how could it not explain?
— Who? The defense Ministers that came out of the environment, far from the real world? Weapons sales is not a performance, but the trade in human death. Or do you want to show these figures are from the SIPRI Brussels generals? No, they they are known. Just some believe such an approach is full of lies and corruption, right, because he was sufficiently anti-Russian. And the rest? Imagine a man who changed the office in Prague to a place in Brussels.
Most remember about their good intentions up to the moment I get my first paycheck. The speech of such amounts which are simple to Czech General not even dreamed of. And then these people understand what to change they can not do anything, but I can live happily ever after. The same happens with “our” representatives in the European Commission and the European Parliament.
In a capitalist system, military expenditures are not the subject of academic debate. The main thing — interests. You can’t convince Prime Ministers and Ministers, who are vowing to increase military spending to two percent of GDP, is that all this dangerous nonsense. These politicians just need to be replaced, otherwise they will be armed, to arm and arm up to the tragic denouement.