1. The 2% target is a non-binding guideline.
2. Germany has (for some time) a plan in place to increase the defense budget to meet the 2% target. It will increase on a year-by-year basis.
3. Germany spends quite a lot on foreign aid, which 'could' be understood as a risk preventing defense spending.
> 3. Germany spends quite a lot on foreign aid, which 'could' be understood as a risk preventing defense spending.
I was skeptical, so I looked it up. You are correct—Germany does spend a large percentage of its GNI on foreign aid [0]. However, as you put it 'could.' Ultimately you are comparing apples and oranges. Defense spending is different from foreign aid spending, although they may be related. So, this is not a strong argument IMHO.
> 1. The 2% target is a non-binding guideline.
Not fulfilling a non-binding obligation is also not a strong argument. It's a non-binding obligation for me to to wash my hands at home after touching raw chicken. It would still be irresponsible of me not to.
> 2. Germany has (for some time) a plan in place to increase the defense budget to meet the 2% target. It will increase on a year-by-year basis.
IMHO this is your strongest argument, but the fact that the level is not there yet after so many years of NATO, leaves the policy rightly open to criticism.
> Not fulfilling a non-binding obligation is also not a strong argument. It's a non-binding obligation for me to to wash my hands at home after touching raw chicken. It would still be irresponsible of me not to.
Well, if Trump thought it's such a good idea he should have pushed to make it an actual obligation with punishment when its not met.
Instead, he complained with the same misleading statements for 4 years straight.
He also claimed that other countries take advantage of the USA while not understanding that in exchange for not contributing as much, the USA has had (traditionally) more privileges when it comes to setting the direction of foreign policy.
> Well, if Trump thought it's such a good idea he should have pushed to make it an actual obligation with punishment when its not met.
I wasn’t saying anything about Trump. I was just responding to your arguments about Germany’s spending on NATO. Not sure where you read anything about Trump from my comment.
The UK classifies some of it's foreign aid budget as defence spending to meet it's NATO commitments. It may be a weak arguement to us, but there is a precedent for it.
1. The 2% target is a non-binding guideline. 2. Germany has (for some time) a plan in place to increase the defense budget to meet the 2% target. It will increase on a year-by-year basis. 3. Germany spends quite a lot on foreign aid, which 'could' be understood as a risk preventing defense spending.