And not quite. It is an accounting metric. How and where that money is used is a different matter.
For instance: We could LABEL the outlays for a contingent of troops stationed in Germany as costs to NATO, OCCUPATION, or something else.
And there are ways to relabel outlays onto NATO to argue meeting the 2% or 5% threshold. For instance, it would not surprise me if EU/NATO countries involved in the Ukraine war try to sell their "solidarity" as a NATO outlay.
22 trillion to NATO. This version of the world economy fails to mention this tidbit.
True.
And not quite. It is an accounting metric. How and where that money is used is a different matter.
For instance: We could LABEL the outlays for a contingent of troops stationed in Germany as costs to NATO, OCCUPATION, or something else.
And there are ways to relabel outlays onto NATO to argue meeting the 2% or 5% threshold. For instance, it would not surprise me if EU/NATO countries involved in the Ukraine war try to sell their "solidarity" as a NATO outlay.
Bookkeeping is a rather talmudic exercise.
Yes. Good reason non bookkeepers need to examine fungible funds (grin).