NATO NUMBER-CRUNCHING

Today, the yearly summit of NATO opens in Brussels. The meeting comes at a critical moment for the security alliance, as Alex noted yesterday, but important discussions about its future are likely to be overshadowed by President Trump’s repeated calls for members to make good on their collective commitment to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense.


Given all the attention, we can’t help asking: where did that number come from, and does it really matter? Here’s Gabe with some perspective:

The oft-touted 2 percent of GDP target was officially adopted as a collective NATO goal at a 2014 summit in Wales. The idea was to start a long-term process that would see European members carry more weight on defense at a time when the US was looking to expand its military commitments elsewhere in the world (read: Asia). The target is a goal, not a requirement, that the 29-member alliance has agreed to fulfil by 2024. Five countries currently satisfy it, and 16 are now on target to do so by 2024.

As an indicator of countries’ contributions, the two percent target has its limits. It’s a barometer of domestic spending, rather than direct contributions of troops or other support to specific NATO operations. And it offers little perspective on whether funds are funneled towards collective objectives – such as upgrading equipment or investing in new technologies – or largely spent on domestic concerns, like paying soldiers’ pensions. NATO members have also agreed to a lesser known, but arguably more important, goal to spend 20 percent of their defense budgets on major equipment upgrades and R&D of lasting value to the alliance.

The upshot: While the 2 percent target offers a broad gauge of countries’ defense investment, it obscures important information about their long-term commitment to NATO. That won’t stop President Trump, who prides himself on getting Americans their money’s worth, from using it as ammunition. But as you follow the almost inevitable combustion set to take place as he squares off against other alliance members over the next two days, remember that 2 percent is just a number.

The goal of Eni's High Performance Computing is to perfect and industrialize low carbon energy technologies developed in collaboration with research centers. Eni's efforts are helping to generate energy from waves and guarantee access to energy in remote areas thanks to light-weight and flexible organic photovoltaic panels


Watch Eni's new docuseries on HPC5

Nicholas Thompson, editor-in-chief of WIRED, explains the feud between Trump and Twitter and weighs in on Elon Musk's ambitious space plans:

What is happening between Trump and Twitter?

A lot. Twitter decided it had to fact check the president because the president said something that wasn't entirely true, and perhaps was false, about voting. Twitter cares a lot about lies about voting. So, they fact check Trump. Trump got really mad, said he's going to get rid of some of the laws that protect Twitter from liability when people say bad things on their platform. That started war number one.

More Show less

Trump promised a statement about China. Today's announcement was not about China. Most significant was about the World Health Organization, which is a distraction for Trump because it's weaker. They're reliant on the US, have no ability to hit back. But announcing they're pulling all funding and pulling out of the World Health Organization, the international governmental organization tasked with responding to pandemics, in the middle of a pandemic, is one of the stupidest foreign policy decisions that President Trump could make.

More Show less

The world's worst health crisis in a hundred years might not seem like the best time for the World Health Organization's biggest financial supporter to threaten to pull the plug on its operations, but that's where we are. On Friday afternoon, President Trump announced that the US is withdrawing entirely from the Organization.

The move comes ten days after the White House sent a withering four-page letter to the organization's Director General which accused the organization of ignoring early warnings about the virus' spread and bowing to Chinese efforts to downplay its severity. The letter closed with a threat to withdraw within 30 days unless the WHO shaped up to better serve "American interests." In the end, the Administration had patience only for 10 days after all.

More Show less