In all gratefulness to the question generating team, and for this very lively and fun question. 😊 I submit the following:
The below clarification hinges on whether or not Spain truly did or did not agree . The wording in the communique is up for debate, and NATO stated there were no side deals made with Spain. (Reuters, MSN, Euronews, Breaking Defense).
I am conflicted as the language in the communique was changed from “All Allies” to “Allies” but does this make it true that Spain has an opt out and is not an ally. This appears to be a fallacy. I’m leaning towards a “Fallacy of Presumption.”https://www.languagehumanities.org/what-is-a-fallacy-of-presumption.htm (But may be another fallacy as well). Just because wording was changed from “All Allies” to “Allies” does not exclude Spain from being grouped with “Allies.”
NATO is also holding Spain to the review in 2029 (Reuters), and this is explicit in the statement in the official communique text addressing all members. Thus NATO is assuming that Spain is a member and should be treated as such. "Allies agree that this 5% commitment will comprise two essential categories of defence investment. Allies will allocate at least 3.5% of GDP annually based on the agreed definition of NATO defence expenditure by 2035 …. The trajectory and balance of spending under this plan will be reviewed in 2029, in light of the strategic environment and updated Capability Targets.” (NATO, official text).
Several NATO members have affirmed that Spain has agreed to the same text they have (Belgium, Lithuania, Estonia).
"NATO’s 32 allies have agreed to a compromise deal to dedicate at least 3.5% of GDP to core military needs by 2035, and 1.5% to broader security-related items like cybersecurity and infrastructure.Rutte said that Spain had not been granted an “opt-out” from the pledge, despite Madrid claiming it had agreed it would not have to reach the headline figure of five percent.” “NATO does not have as an alliance opt-outs, side deals, etc., because we all have to chip in,” Rutte said.” https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news-corner/nato-chief-no-opt-out-for-spain-on-5-spending-target/
The question whether Spain will agree to meet the 5% spending target is a different question than this one.
If that was the actual forecasting question, I think this would not be such a debate. In my opinion, the original question still needs to be voided, and a new question opened initiated “Re: Will Spain agree to NATO’s 5% spending target by 31, July?
As we can see above - there is news stating “NATO’s 32 allies have agreed to a compromise deal to dedicate at least 3.5% GDP” would resolve this specific question as: Yes.
Question clarification
Issued on 07/01/25 08:59amWhile NATO members reached an agreement on a 5% GDP defense spending target at the June 2025 summit in The Hague, this question will remain open because Spain has explicitly stated that they will not meet this new target. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez declared that Spain would not have to meet the 5% spending target and would only spend 2.1% of GDP to meet its NATO obligations (France24, Fortune Europe, Breaking Defense). Early reports said that NATO accommodated Spain by changing the agreement language from "we commit" to "allies commit," to allow flexibility (Reuters, CNBC). However, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte rejected Spain's claim that they are exempt (The Corner). Since the resolution criteria requires unanimous agreement from all 32 NATO members to spend 5% of GDP on defense, and Spain has not agreed to this target, the question cannot resolve "Yes" at this time.
+1 - and an explicit agreement that, under these unforeseen circumstances (the official communique saying one thing, while some -but not all- news sources saying another), the wisest choice seems to be to just void the question.
I agree that some -but not all- news has caused a serious problem with resolving this question! This question will go down in forecasting history as a great logical mystery. I’ve thought about this, (not quite an Occam’s Razor explanation); but perhaps, due to the ambiguity in the resolution criteria - a great amount of information was generated that may be of use to anyone researching or wanting information about this topic. Lesson learned: When engaged in dissenting opinion, it may be best NOT to forecast probabilities at the same time! It wreaks brier score havoc.
All these are valid thoughts, but sometimes things are (or ought to be) simple, at least from an operational (read: question admin) point of view: when you have your pro team with forecasts ranging from 1% to 55% (after June 25, when all the pieces of the puzzle were visible on the table, and effectively there was not any forecasting element anymore), plus an outlier at 90% (yourself), this is a telltale signal advising you that you have pretty valid reasons to void the question... Especially since the question is actually just a 'quickfire" one, meant to train newcomers to the forecasting practice, and not to produce any actual insights for decision makers...
Dear Question Clarification Team:
In all gratefulness to the question generating team, and for this very lively and fun question. 😊 I submit the following:
The below clarification hinges on whether or not Spain truly did or did not agree . The wording in the communique is up for debate, and NATO stated there were no side deals made with Spain. (Reuters, MSN, Euronews, Breaking Defense).
I am conflicted as the language in the communique was changed from “All Allies” to “Allies” but does this make it true that Spain has an opt out and is not an ally. This appears to be a fallacy. I’m leaning towards a “Fallacy of Presumption.” https://www.languagehumanities.org/what-is-a-fallacy-of-presumption.htm (But may be another fallacy as well). Just because wording was changed from “All Allies” to “Allies” does not exclude Spain from being grouped with “Allies.”
NATO is also holding Spain to the review in 2029 (Reuters), and this is explicit in the statement in the official communique text addressing all members. Thus NATO is assuming that Spain is a member and should be treated as such. "Allies agree that this 5% commitment will comprise two essential categories of defence investment. Allies will allocate at least 3.5% of GDP annually based on the agreed definition of NATO defence expenditure by 2035 …. The trajectory and balance of spending under this plan will be reviewed in 2029, in light of the strategic environment and updated Capability Targets.” (NATO, official text).
Several NATO members have affirmed that Spain has agreed to the same text they have (Belgium, Lithuania, Estonia).
"NATO’s 32 allies have agreed to a compromise deal to dedicate at least 3.5% of GDP to core military needs by 2035, and 1.5% to broader security-related items like cybersecurity and infrastructure.Rutte said that Spain had not been granted an “opt-out” from the pledge, despite Madrid claiming it had agreed it would not have to reach the headline figure of five percent.” “NATO does not have as an alliance opt-outs, side deals, etc., because we all have to chip in,” Rutte said.” https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news-corner/nato-chief-no-opt-out-for-spain-on-5-spending-target/
The question whether Spain will agree to meet the 5% spending target is a different question than this one.
If that was the actual forecasting question, I think this would not be such a debate. In my opinion, the original question still needs to be voided, and a new question opened initiated “Re: Will Spain agree to NATO’s 5% spending target by 31, July?
As we can see above - there is news stating “NATO’s 32 allies have agreed to a compromise deal to dedicate at least 3.5% GDP” would resolve this specific question as: Yes.
Question clarification
Issued on 07/01/25 08:59amWhile NATO members reached an agreement on a 5% GDP defense spending target at the June 2025 summit in The Hague, this question will remain open because Spain has explicitly stated that they will not meet this new target. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez declared that Spain would not have to meet the 5% spending target and would only spend 2.1% of GDP to meet its NATO obligations (France24, Fortune Europe, Breaking Defense). Early reports said that NATO accommodated Spain by changing the agreement language from "we commit" to "allies commit," to allow flexibility (Reuters, CNBC). However, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte rejected Spain's claim that they are exempt (The Corner). Since the resolution criteria requires unanimous agreement from all 32 NATO members to spend 5% of GDP on defense, and Spain has not agreed to this target, the question cannot resolve "Yes" at this time.@ctsats ,
I agree that some -but not all- news has caused a serious problem with resolving this question! This question will go down in forecasting history as a great logical mystery. I’ve thought about this, (not quite an Occam’s Razor explanation); but perhaps, due to the ambiguity in the resolution criteria - a great amount of information was generated that may be of use to anyone researching or wanting information about this topic. Lesson learned: When engaged in dissenting opinion, it may be best NOT to forecast probabilities at the same time! It wreaks brier score havoc.