Talk:Member states of NATO
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Member states of NATO article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
 | WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Member states of NATO is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBMAC). The current restrictions are:
|
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Military Expenditure
I just wanted to point that US military expenditure includes veterans' affairs (for instance) that are covered by social security expenditure in many European countries and therefore do not feature in their military expenditure. Accordingly, listing percentages here is misleading, as EU military expenditure does not include these. By that measure, a list of these factors should either be further itemised to include these factors or at least have the percentage value marked by an explanatory asterisk. As it stands, listing a comparison of non-US and US defense spending in such an uncommented way could be seen as going counter to the neutrality that an institution such as Wikipedia should aspire to. This is like comparing apples to oranges. Ondundozonananandana (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
What numbers are we comparing?
What constitutes a "Military reserve force"?
- In case a country has the conscription, then by law, everybody who served the … months of mandatory service, transfers to the reserve forces. There are laws written (and passed by parliament) for this. I don't know about the "military capabilities" (what "tier" they are?) or the willingness to participate in some conflict abroad, but it is the law. Now, you cannot and shall not compare these reserves with the National Guard (United States). It is a different concept, of how to organize this issue. The german Bundesgrenzschutz had military combatant status until 1994. By law. What about those articles? They no longer do, and were renamed some years later. The Italian Carabinieri and the Guardia di Finanza still do have, by law, military combatant status. Similarly there is no US counterpart for the Technisches Hilfswerk (THW). Such duties are done by armed forces. There is nothing wrong with either concept, it's just when you have to force-compare stuff, numbers, where does an organization belong to and why? This should be more clearly stated in this article!
- Money: what exactly constitutes "military spending"? Is it anything that the Ministry of defence decided to spent money on (and parliament approved)? User:ScotXWt@lk 17:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Wrong border
Ukraine doesn't have crimea anymore. ~2026-30478-8 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Military expenditure
The figures and commentary on those figures should really be updated following the Russo-Ukrainian war, every member now hits the 2% target. — jonas (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2026 (UTC)