contradicts signed contracts of portugal for its membership in PESCO. There is no separate army, there is an explicit complimentary cooperative to NATO (for now). This nothing more than colport a certain viewpoint, not reflected in effective policy.
6
Brinabavd4 days ago
+14
Of course! the Spanish intended to free ride off a pan-European force while the Portuguese mean to pull their own weight in the EU/NATO
14
Dookienator3 days ago
+10
The previous reply is sponsored by the Axis of Epstein
10
mascachopo7 hr ago
+1
Spain fulfils every single one of NATO's operational targets and all commitments as an ally, offers its own bases to the US, so far has never asked for help under attack and much less when attacking others, which is by the way no part of any agreement. Who is the free rider here?
1
Weak-Subject93763 days ago
-2
Boss, Span is the 4th largest economy in the EU. There economy is 450% larger than portugal. Whatever their reasoning, their contributions to the EU are su substantial so it is impossible for them to "free ride." Get out of here with your bias, angry rant
-2
Vlad_TheInhalerr3 days ago
+7
Because being part of the largest economies is equal to contributing?
Spain has had a major deficit for years, does not uphold the agreed upon %'s for defense.
That's the whole idea about proportionally spending you f****** tool.
If Spain with its huge economy delivers less then half of portugal's %s they spend LESS, not more because "Their economy is bigger".
To give the actual numbers:
Spain had \~1.28% for a long time making it one of the worst in the entire NATO.
Portugal had \~1.5%, but has been increasing this and aimed for achieving the 2% in 2025.
That means that Spain, despite having "450% as large an economy" ends up spending \~36% LESS then Portugal. So much for the strongest shoulders carrying the biggest weight right?
Stupid cringy 1 year old bot accounts glazing the Spanish tankie PM.
Go cheer on Iran some more you terrorism glazing morons.
7
Dookienator3 days ago
+3
I don't want to aggravate you but as of 2024 portugal spends 1,55% of its $321,440 M GDP(2025) on NATO while spain spends 1,28% of its $1,799,511 M GDP. This maths out to portugal contributing $4982 M on NATO while spain has contributed $23,033 M on NATO. So in 2025 spain has contributed 4X as much as portugal to NATO. I don't really get where any of your numbers come from an I fear you are arguing in bad faith. My sources are NATO's 2024 report and the IMF.
3
Vlad_TheInhalerr3 days ago
+6
>So in 2025 spain has contributed 4X as much as portugal to NATO.
Right, meaning that if we put the facts straight:
Spain - 50m people, 450% larger GDP then portugal
Portugal - 10m people
Spain ending up with "4x as much" would mean they contribute significantly less if we are taking relative numbers into account.
Aside from that, Portugal isn't currently having a PM that is constantly trying to be in the shine for his 'great opposition' and 'social ideas' and whatever. Sanchez is being glazed on listnook because he's opening talks with f****** Iran of all nations, all while being extremely critical of Israel.
Which is fine, but don't talk to f****** Iran then unless you're a filthy hypocrite.
Aside from that:
Portugal's target is already set at 2%, the exact numbers in which a country has or has not paid up or is approaching this is more difficult to find which is why simple searches can easily show you the targets or policies/thought behind the current direction.
Maybe you are right and they are still lower, but in my quick 2 minute search, the most information you find is that they are atleast close to the 2% 'supposedly'.
If Portugal is unable to achieve their goal in the first year or two, I'm not going to be too harsh as long as the INTENT is there. If they fail to reach it after that, we've got a problem there too.
Spain OTOH is openly stating they don't care, nor have any plans to increase this number. All while expecting the rest of us to keep defending them and pay it up, in addition to having the guts to call for an EU army despite not having your target of 2%/5% reached.
6
anortef3 days ago
Spain accepted the objectives, we just disagree that we need to up spending to 5% for achieving those objectives. The 5% figure, which not even the US reach, was Trump bullying NATO so everyone buys more weapons from the US and anyone defending this charade should sit down and think about it more.
0
Vlad_TheInhalerr3 days ago
+6
>Spain accepted the objectives
Which objective? Having your military viewed as a f****** joke? Like the rest of the EU? Because you already do. I mean, we're as far west as we can get and have no hostiles around us. Why would we keep spending at this point? Lmao, i'd hardball the EU so hard that either Spain and other nations comply or you just veto everything they want. Then again, my country unfortunately doesn't have the balls or stature to do this despite us being the largest contributor together with Germany on a per head level.
>The 5% figure, which not even the US reach, was Trump bullying NATO so everyone buys more weapons from the US and anyone defending this charade should sit down and think about it more.
This might be the "Listnook response", because everything is Trump's fault that is negative for any EU country, but it isn't the whole truth. Realistically, and most people that have atleast a slight form of knowledge and awareness on that line (Militarily), will easily tell you that 5% is neccesary for the first few years to compensate the years of below 2% that the EU nations have had. Atleast if you want your armed forced to reach a accepteable level in a short time.
The NAVO norm was 2%, nobody complied except the USA. The USA therefore has less of a need to push to 5% since they've upheld a standard to a much higher level.
Evidence is that almost no EU country could deploy a decent military force to either Greenland, or now the strait. We (NL) for example, threw in a frigate, which didn't even have its primary gun.
Now you can cover that up and say "But the gun's purpose was for a different role then the frigate was meant to cover..." at the end of the day, you sent out military equipment with people on there, with not even close to 100% readyness.
That's f****** humiliating and should NEVER happen.
Aside from that, expecting a modern nation to spend 5% of its expenses (I'd calculate based on expenses, not flat GDP), on military is not the 'insane number' you are making it out to be, considering it is what keeps us safe.
Pacifism is a f****** detrimental disease and 'brain thought' that has been introduced by a lot of academics in the cold war age, which was propogated by most communist-tied groups and parties and has it's core belief with Mao's march.
It's a belief which is absolutely detrimental and unrealistic. If I put down my weapons we won't suddenly have world peace. We'll have a world ruled by someone who didn't put them down. So I'd rather have a strong military ran by democratically aligned western governments, instead of not.
6
anortef3 days ago
Your benchmarking is missleading because NATO is a defensive alliance which means there is no realistic scenario in which we need to deploy overseas and more specially so as an European army because the era of empire building is gone and we do not need to replicate what the US does.
We do not need more than half a dozen navy combat groups with carriers and powerprojection to anywhere in the world. Do you know what we need? Enough to realistically defend our borders.
0
Vlad_TheInhalerr3 days ago
+4
>Enough to realistically defend our borders.
Are you making a joke? In a world, where rockets are launched across the world, you think an army that stays within your own borders is enough to be called a defensive force?
If you want to project power, you need carrier fleets.
If you want to defend your own lands, you have to be able to disable any installation your enemy has, within their own borders.
So by trying to discredit the outlook you dislike, you're achieving the opposite and showing WHY you DO need carrier groups. Why you DO need power projection over the entire world.
If you want to achieve the air supperiority to achieve this, you're going to have to be able to strike fast, accurate and deadly with no time to respond. That is not at all in line with having "a small force within your own borders".
What happens when your enemy blocks a part of the ocean which you need for transportation? Are you going to look at them menacingly and write a strong worded letter? Seems to be working out fine right now doesn't it.
4
anortef3 days ago
+1
Your position seems to be that either you scale like the US or your army is useless.
We do not need to be able to engage in several fronts around the world, we are not the world police like the US likes to paint itself while pillages around. We do not need 9 Carrier Strike Groups, we can have only one and add long range missiles and long range air combat.
I firmly refuse that we need to reach 5% of GPD spending for defence just because the cheeto in chief says so.
We define objectives of readiness and capability and the spanish high command, which I am pretty sure have a better understanding than most listnookors, assured Sanchez that a little over 2% was more than enough to reach the objectives.
1
darkvaris3 days ago
Been a lot of weirdos who are suddenly experts in Spain since Sanchez told off Trump and Bibi
0
Vlad_TheInhalerr3 days ago
+3
It's not being an expert. It's being a part of european nations, and specifically one that carries a lot of proportional weight and sees his own expenses, taxes and shit increasing whilst being a somewhat fiscally responsible country.
Pensions age is going up, and more negatives too. All while France and Spain do f*** all. Years ago Italy wanted to reduce the pension age while contributing less to the EU per head then we do.
At the same time, on the other side of the fence, France, Spain are some of the biggest shouters of things, yet have abysmal finances and fiscal policies but expect the rest of the union to pay up for them in "Shared debt" plans and more.
Why is a frenchman or spaniard allowed to have better circumstances and am I going to end up paying for it? Mybe don't have idiotic social policies and handing out ID's like candy to half a million people might make me a bit more lenient to them, but as it stands now. F*** them.
This is grounds for removal. Orban was terrible, Sanchez is going to be terrible to IMHO. If Spain willingly votes for him, why can I not critique him like we all give critique on Trump? It reflects the attitude of the people in Spain.
Yes, this aggravates me, and that is not related to Trump and bibi.
Despite that, I do think Sanchez is an absolute f****** tool for doing what he does and antagonizing, refusing allies access and other things I PERSONALLY do not support and will always critique when I can.
3
darkvaris3 days ago
-1
I mean up until recently basically all nato countries weren’t “paying their own way”.
But it seems like NATO is dead and it’s clear you don’t have a principled stand on this since you spent your previous comment accusing the other poster of cheering on terrorism. Weirdly though you say that as if cheering on the actions of Israel and the US right now wouldn’t also be cheering terror.
-1
Vlad_TheInhalerr3 days ago
+3
>Weirdly though you say that as if cheering on the actions of Israel and the US right now wouldn’t also be cheering terror.
Fact: Iran is the largest supporter and causer of organisations that we in the west view as "Terrorists", groups that have caused many lives to be lost. I remember the attacks in NL, BE and Germany. I remember the attack on Barcelona. So yes, Iran is factually, objectively and morally worse then Israel, in every single f****** way.
So yes, attacking that regime isn't suddenly "Wow this is fantastic". But it certainly isn't "Oh no you are so bad because you are killing bad guys".
I'm also not blaming USA or Israel for bombing a school if that f****** school is built next to a military site or target. That's on Iran.
>I mean up until recently basically all nato countries weren’t “paying their own way”.
100% true! Which is why SOME atleast are now agreeing to go up to 5% to compensate for their mistakes and false belief in 'peace in the world is achieved by not having weapons'.
Spain still isn't willing to budge at this point, which makes it, objectively worse then the others.
3
anortef3 days ago
+2
Oh god, I now realise you are Dutch, that explains a lot.
2
Vlad_TheInhalerr3 days ago
+2
Yeah, we're one of the people who directly know about Spanish 'arrogance' and disdain for human life that is not their own. And their dishonorable and disgusting side.
It's somewhat hard coded in our DNA.
Unfortunately your comment rightfully does not address any of the other things because you know you're wrong and can't refute those points so personal attacks are the way to go.
2
darkvaris3 days ago
Man with great power comes great responsibility and meanwhile Israel is flattening villages in yet another country that didn’t attack them.
No more time to be wasted with you.
0
Vlad_TheInhalerr3 days ago
+3
>another country that didn’t attack them.
Seeing as you are talking about country, are you talking about Lebanon?
The country that 'unofficially' houses Hezbollah, which uses their presence to shoot rockets at Israel?
That sounds like attacking to me.
Or Iran? Which also shoots rockets at them?
Or Palestine/Gaza, which is de-facto controlled by Hamas, which shoots rockets at them.
Anything I missed here?
3
Apprehensive-Cost4824 days ago
-15
Vassal mentality. Go sovereign or go home
-15
npc_housecat4 days ago
+12
It's not one or the other. You can commit a section of forces to a unified army while keeping the majority local.
12
hippodribble3 days ago
+1
If Portugal could design the rations, all EU troops would develop a love of Portuguese food. The tourism windfall could be huge.
1
Brinabavd3 days ago
+2
somebody send steve1989 a Portuguese MRE
2
hippodribble2 days ago
+1
Petiscos and a small bottle of Douro...
1
pedrolopes76822 days ago
+1
Yes, we need more tourism, there are still affordable places if we know where to look.
1
JohnPoet271 day ago
+1
Mais turismo? Tu es dono de algum testaurante/hotel?? Ja estamos a rebentar pelas costuras com turistas, nao precisamos de mais!!
1
pedrolopes76821 day ago
+1
Esqueci-me que n estou no 2westerneurope4u, onde sarcasmo é o modo normal de comunicação.
1
eggnogui2 days ago
+3
Ah yes, Nuno Melo, our defense minister.
Yeah, he's a clown and a Trump bootlicker, like most of the current right-wing government.
3
pedrosfm3 days ago
-3
Worth keeping in mind our current centre-right government (Portugal’s) is far too aligned with the orange shit stain and has been allowing the US to use the Lajes airbase in the Azores however they see fit for the stupid war in Iran.
Personally I support a central European army, which doesn’t necessarily have to be huge or replace individual national armies. But the EU does need a military body to project strength, unity and effectiveness as the transnational entity it is.
-3
anortef3 days ago
+2
And to get more out of each euro by jointly investing.
32 Comments