Should our country defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP?

Yes, but put less effort into the defense of NATO countries that spend less than 2% of their GDP on military defense

NO. Like most NATO is old and out of date for the modern world. Time for a newer World Treaty Organization!

Yes, but at the same time, encourage that Country to up it's share to 2% of their GDP otherwise funding will be pulled.

You cannot mandate arbiterially the amount a country should spend as their are economics of scale. However, countries should layout what they can afford and how much they will spend to protect themselves and others if they are part of a security pact, and this should be conditional to membership - if they fail to meet a stated obligation, then they are on their own should another country engage militarily with them.

Maintain defence but raise their requirements over time to a minimum standard when financial capable

I think this has to be considered case by case but in principle I think we should defend nato countries from invasion and attack.

Yes, but they should be encouraged to increase their expenditure and given restricted power in decision making unless they increase their expenditure

No - we should defend current NATO countries however NATO must enforce membership pledges or remove those countries who do not comply from the alliance

Yes, but the UK (and the US) should use levers of power to ensure that no country is able to be a free-rider of collective security guarantees.

I think any country that refuses to pay its fair share should be aided in finding a way to increase the spending - however if they refuse to do so still and then go to war I don’t see why anyone else should have to fight for them

Yes, but we should nevertheless encourage all NATO countries to spend a prescribed proportion of their GDP on defence.

It depends the threat we are defending them on if it there fault it’s on them if it an outside entity that’s out fault

We should defend those who have a lower military defense budget than us and also have more than 2% level of corruption.

No, and send an ultimatum to NATO countries that spend less than 2.5% of their GPD on military defense stating that unless they increase their spending, they will be expelled from NATO within 3-5 years.

NATO membership should be contingent on the same percentage spending - therefore all should support each other ’

Yes, But we should be able to send a bill to that country for the support they have needed because they didn't meet their obligations

We should abide by the side of NATO but for those who put them selves in the danger , should only expect aid rather than man power

Yes but if they are to remain a member they should have deadlines by which they need to be spending accordingly

Yes but you get out what you put in. Pressure should be put on so that everyone is putting in as much as everyone else…. as originally agreed

we should still defend them, however we should also encourage them to spend more on their military defense

Yes we should, it would be dangerous not to. But i dont think we should be spending 2% on our military

No, but we should push for a minimum spend to GDP ratio for all NATO members unless there are exceptional circumstances

All countries should be required to contribute the same % of their GDP or risk not being protected or a part of.

Yes but with the caveat that the member fulfils its commitments as agreed on membership and is strategically important to the wider safety and security of the members

Yes, but we should have the right to pass on military expenses to the nation we defended, afterwards.

Yes, however we should give timelines on their exit from NATO unless they bring their spend in line.

No we need to leave NATO and create a alliance with Russia China and any other country that wants to join

We should stand by our allies, however if it comes to an us or them situation the government should look after the UK first and work to help our ally once the UK's security has been confirmed

Yes, but we should be pushing for a NATO reform where a penalty applies if a country fails to meet its commitment.

Yes, but a binding agreement follows, should we protect and build their country into a better defence, they become our allies and defend us should we need it.

Yes but NATO should invoice the country for 2% of its GDP less it's military spending so it cost them the same as other nations.

yes, but we should not blindly defend countries based on NATO. The reason for conflict should be taken into account before supporting

Yes, but more restrictions on access of advanced weaponry systems to those who spends less than 2% of their GDP on military defense

Yes, but there should be more active encouragement of countries to participate 2% of their GDP, and countries that are allies but not NATO members

Yes, as they are treaty allies but treaty related sanctions should be applied to those nations failing to meet the 2% requirement

I honestly think it's more a matter of the circumstances of the conflict first and foremost, than if they're NATO members or with higher percentage military budgets.

Yes, we should be the better ally, but apply pressure to the country as refusing to defend other NATO countries sets a dangerous precedent for the balance of global power, and the whole point of Article 5 is to defend one another.

If I’m nato we support no matter the situation

Yes, but staying non-interventionist and not joining in their wars.

Yes, but countries must work rapidly to meet their spending commitments.

Yes, however we should encourage them to increase their military spending to a relative level similar to our own

Yes 99% wont and no 1% will

No, but exceptions can be made to countries with genuine financial hardships.

No but we should encourage Nato to lower the percentage of GDP a country must spend on Defense.

Another complicated issue that I do not know enough about - but it shouldn’t be about money primarily.

We need to work towards resolving conflict not escalating it. If we provide funds it should be for the safety of citizens not necessarily arms.

Depends on the real term troop commitments made to operations. E.g. Italy spends under 2% but makes the third largest troop commitment per capita to NATO missions.

Yes, but hold them to account and encourage them to increase defence spending.

...this is more complex than the responses allow.

Yes, but each country must maintain the same spend % in relation to their GDP so be sanctioned by NATO

Yes we should because that is what NATO is about and we need to keep the balance of power. However, NATO countries need to pull their weight and if they can't afford it, then they need to come to a resolution so they can pay what they can.

The 2% threshold needs to be encouraged by the organisation or persistently not meeting this should result in that country leaving the organisation.

If the NATO country in question has spent at least 2% of their GDP on military defense for the previous consecutive 5 years then the UK should defend them. If the country in question has spent less than 2% or has not consistently met this requirement then the UK's contribution towards their defense should be proportional to their actual spending.

Yes. However they should be encouraged and/or it should be required for them to spend the 2% to stay within nato.

Countries and alliances should be defended and supported. However NATO is a system which has provoked non member states and caused geopolitical turmoil, and therefore should be reduced in influence

Nato as a whole should have each member play to its strengths, if some countries can provide more of an economic or natural resource benefit, then they should concentrate on that and other countries should defend them, but share the benifits. So nato as a whole can grow and be productive without every member being the same but just different sizes. Some countries make better tanks, so make tanks, some countries make better aircraft, so make aircraft. Everyone's different so use that, bit make sure everyone contributes something useful.

NATO coubtries should work together to ensure that worldwide, there are enough resources to defend any country within NATO. But no single country should be relied upon more heavily than another.

Offer the amount of defense equivalent to the percentage they spend. I.e. if the country chooses to only spend 1% of their GDP, then offer half the defense promised to them, to incentivise their adherence to the NATO pact.

Only if there are no repercussions for our country.

Yes, but those nations should be pressured to meet the 2% requirement.

Yes, but attempt to persuade countries to increase military spending where it is below 2% of GDP.

all depends if they started the attack or they where in the wrong

the military is defunct

every country should put in the same amount relative to their gdp where possible

Uk should be willing to help out, but only if absolutely necessary.

All NATO member states should contribute a fixed rate to the budget.

Only if the benefits outweigh not defending

We have an obligation too, but need to strongly encourage all members to spend 2% for the good of us all

Depends on how serious the context is.

if they do not care why should we

Only in special circumstances

Not informed about the topic

We should definitely defend against invasion but not join other Nato nations in fights not on their own soil

It should depend on each case, the UK should not be a policeman of the world and involve itself in every military conflict

Only for countries under threat of Russian imperialism, such as those in Eastern Europe

Abolish capitalism and the state. And NATO.

What is a nato country

Yes we should defend them, but they should be paying the agreed 2%, it should be enforced.

Only help those who are compliant with the uk and making comparable contributions

No but only after making it clear this is the new stance

Only défend our alliés and I mean real allies not ones who pretend just to get money and military and infrastructure

Too complex to call.

Yes, but only if they come under attack.

Yes but there should be ongoing review of the need for NATO and the contributions by members.

We shouldn't be defending any country except our own.

Still defend but nation's that fail to meet the 2% GDP threshold should lose their seat at the table

It should be taken on a case by case basis

Colonise smaller nations instead.

Yes we should and after we have defended this country demand they spend the 2% of GDP or we won't help next time they are attacked

Countries spening less than 2% should be removed from the organization

Yes, that’s what nato is for and those who can’t meet the military spending minimum should leave

Yes, but strongly push for higher spending from said countries

Yes, as long as we remain in nato

No, NATO is outdated and a new network of allies needs to be formalized.

Yes but pressure them to spend the 2 %

Yes, and refusing to defend other NATO countries sets a dangerous precedent for the balance of global power, but we should be pressurinng them to increase their spending.

Yes, all NATO countries should be defended but countries should be required to spend at least 2% of GDP to stay in NATO.

Depending if it is beneficial to our Geopolitical good

It should be judged on a case by case basis.