The American public remains largely supportive of NATO. According to the latest Gallup polling, majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents agree that our current NATO commitments should be maintained or increased. Only 16 percent think we should decrease our commitment and 12 percent think we should withdraw from the treaty organization entirely.
"The American public remains largely supportive of NATO." I would love to see a survey of the American public who could even define what NATO is, who funds it, what countries are members, etc.
Good point. B/C of this most questions on the subject offer a basic definition for respondents, such as Gallup's most recent work: "Some people feel that NATO, (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) the military organization of Western Europe and the United States, has outlived its usefulness, and that the United States should withdraw militarily from NATO. Others say that NATO still has a function in preserving peace in Europe. Do you feel we should increase our commitment to NATO, keep our commitment what it is now, decrease our commitment but still remain in NATO, or withdraw from NATO entirely?"
The responses might be different if you included the cost? "The budget for NATO is $1.3T, of which the United States contributes (68%). Only 11 of 31 NATO members are meeting their target contributions."
Most people want other member states to hit their 2 percent target but plurality of Americans would still defend NATO members even if they don't. From Newsweek: "A minority of respondents—48 percent—said the U.S. should still be committed to defending NATO allies who fail to reach the 2 percent spending threshold. Twenty-two percent were unsure, but a significant minority of 30 percent said the U.S. should not have to protect member states that are not reaching the defense expenditure target.
NATO's charter makes no differentiation between states based on their defense expenditure, not least because the 2 percent target was only adopted in 2014. Still, the responses hint at the deep-seated American frustration with allies perceived not to be pulling their weight, especially with the return of major warfare to Europe."
Thanks for the additional info. An interesting Gallup survey would be: "What is NATO?" I would bet the farm that a vast majority of Americans wouldn't have a clue.
This is a bit misleading - there's no "NATO budget," and these figures sound like they're toting up the defense budgets of NATO member nations. And of course we have the largest defense budget, but we also have commitments outside the North Atlantic region (Japan and South Korea, for instance).
It’s the combined defense budgets of NATO member states - not a “NATO budget.” It’s like adding up the budgets of all 50 states and saying that’s the U.S. national budget. NATO does not appropriate these funds and decide where to spend them; national governments do (based in part on commitments made to NATO).
And the question of European NATO members spending and doing more isn’t new; it was a live issue throughout the Cold War as well.
Curious that the chart jumps from 1986 to 2020. What happened in between? Is the rise in Blue support of NATO simply an anti-Trump reflex?
Anyway, here we are again with LP publishing yet another random warmongering neocon who (I confidently predict) will not respond to comments. I really want somebody to tell me why I'm supposed to want to spend money defending Ukraine when the West (1) refused to admit Ukraine to NATO back in 1999-2009 when a bunch of other Eastern European countries were admitted, thus creating a powerful deterent to Russia invading them (which worked, so far), and (2) did nothing in response to Russia's seizure of Crimea (part of Ukraine!) in 2014. This flashed any enormous green light at Putin to go ahead and take the rest. Which, after waiting 8 years to be sure he read the signals right, he did. But now we're supposed to be shocked, shocked! that Russia invaded Ukraine. Sorry, tell it to someone less gullible.
Look man, why don't you stop insulting people and acting like an idiot? Your last passive aggressive charge against Cook was answered by the author yet somehow you "confidently" missed it. If you don't like TLP or our guest contributors please feel free to unsubscribe but stop slinging personal insults at authors. This guy is a young research assistant and he was a toddler when the Iraq war started.
"The American public remains largely supportive of NATO." I would love to see a survey of the American public who could even define what NATO is, who funds it, what countries are members, etc.
Good point. B/C of this most questions on the subject offer a basic definition for respondents, such as Gallup's most recent work: "Some people feel that NATO, (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) the military organization of Western Europe and the United States, has outlived its usefulness, and that the United States should withdraw militarily from NATO. Others say that NATO still has a function in preserving peace in Europe. Do you feel we should increase our commitment to NATO, keep our commitment what it is now, decrease our commitment but still remain in NATO, or withdraw from NATO entirely?"
The responses might be different if you included the cost? "The budget for NATO is $1.3T, of which the United States contributes (68%). Only 11 of 31 NATO members are meeting their target contributions."
Most people want other member states to hit their 2 percent target but plurality of Americans would still defend NATO members even if they don't. From Newsweek: "A minority of respondents—48 percent—said the U.S. should still be committed to defending NATO allies who fail to reach the 2 percent spending threshold. Twenty-two percent were unsure, but a significant minority of 30 percent said the U.S. should not have to protect member states that are not reaching the defense expenditure target.
NATO's charter makes no differentiation between states based on their defense expenditure, not least because the 2 percent target was only adopted in 2014. Still, the responses hint at the deep-seated American frustration with allies perceived not to be pulling their weight, especially with the return of major warfare to Europe."
https://www.newsweek.com/us-nato-public-opinion-spending-1793956
Thanks for the additional info. An interesting Gallup survey would be: "What is NATO?" I would bet the farm that a vast majority of Americans wouldn't have a clue.
Thanks for reading and feedback, Marcia! Cheers
This is a bit misleading - there's no "NATO budget," and these figures sound like they're toting up the defense budgets of NATO member nations. And of course we have the largest defense budget, but we also have commitments outside the North Atlantic region (Japan and South Korea, for instance).
In addition, it's not exactly well known here but a number of these allies do actually pay to maintain American troops and bases on their territory. In 2021, Japan agreed to boost its commitments to $9.2 billion over the five period that started in 2022: http://japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/12/21/national/japan-us-military-host-nation-support-fiscal-2022/
Why is there no NATO budget?
My original figures came from this article:
"https://www.visualcapitalist.com/breaking-down-1-3t-in-nato-defense-spending/" Most articles only quote percentages, which I think is a just way to mask how much the U.S. is actually spending.
It’s the combined defense budgets of NATO member states - not a “NATO budget.” It’s like adding up the budgets of all 50 states and saying that’s the U.S. national budget. NATO does not appropriate these funds and decide where to spend them; national governments do (based in part on commitments made to NATO).
And the question of European NATO members spending and doing more isn’t new; it was a live issue throughout the Cold War as well.
Anyhow, thanks for the back and forth/additional information. Much appreciated.
Count me among the fraction of people who DO think we should support Ukraine but DON'T think NATO is a force for global peace and stability.
Curious that the chart jumps from 1986 to 2020. What happened in between? Is the rise in Blue support of NATO simply an anti-Trump reflex?
Anyway, here we are again with LP publishing yet another random warmongering neocon who (I confidently predict) will not respond to comments. I really want somebody to tell me why I'm supposed to want to spend money defending Ukraine when the West (1) refused to admit Ukraine to NATO back in 1999-2009 when a bunch of other Eastern European countries were admitted, thus creating a powerful deterent to Russia invading them (which worked, so far), and (2) did nothing in response to Russia's seizure of Crimea (part of Ukraine!) in 2014. This flashed any enormous green light at Putin to go ahead and take the rest. Which, after waiting 8 years to be sure he read the signals right, he did. But now we're supposed to be shocked, shocked! that Russia invaded Ukraine. Sorry, tell it to someone less gullible.
Look man, why don't you stop insulting people and acting like an idiot? Your last passive aggressive charge against Cook was answered by the author yet somehow you "confidently" missed it. If you don't like TLP or our guest contributors please feel free to unsubscribe but stop slinging personal insults at authors. This guy is a young research assistant and he was a toddler when the Iraq war started.