[Mick]

You are correct, we support NATO purely selfishly and for protection against the Russian threat (perhaps even the Chinese). That said, prior administrations failed to get the fellow NATO parties to pay their agreed upon commitments. The diplomatic approach failed, the appeals to their readiness fell on deaf ears. Trump called the Euros bluff, if you don't pay what you agreed to, we're out, and you're on your own. Unconventional and ballsy approached, but it seemed to work, didn't it? After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

No, it didn't work. Things in Germany are still AFU. There is once again a promise of spending more money, but that won't happen if the NATO nations populations don't want it to happen. Trump made that harder, not easier, by making the local leaders look like they were caving in to the USA again. In point of fact, the USA can't call the European nations bluff. Even if not one European soldier decided to help us fight Russia, we would still prefer to do it in Europe than points west. They know that and our military absolutely knows that. We aren't leaving NATO, because that would be worse for us than for them, and they know it.

The trick here is that there are lots of members of the European public who want to avoid being overrun in a great power struggle between Russia and the USA. Those people want a stronger European defense. The USA needs to mobilize those people with effective information and comparison of the Table of Organization of European forces to Russian forces. The European heads of state will always spend the minimum their population will allow. We need to make that minimum politically acceptable number bigger. Right now, Europe is depending on the Poles to defend them. Tell a German or a Frenchman that and they will not be happy campers.

Over the past five years, only Bulgaria among NATO nations has materially increased its percentage contribution to NATO defense to the American GDP % level, and Lithuania, Latvia and Romania have boosted theirs to 2% of GDP.  USA is at 3.42% of GDP.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/...123-en.pdf

There's one approach to the NATO imbalance of contributions that we haven't tried.  Instead of trying to get our "allies" to fulfill the obligations to which they'd agreed, let's lower the ocean, so to speak.  The 2020 defense budget is $738 billion.  Lots of it includes "aspirational" purchases:
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/201...-congress/

It's pretty clear that we can't afford a defense budget that sizable, particularly in the post-pandemic world.  So instead of browbeating fellow NATO nations, why not reduce our expenditures (over time) to half of our current 3.42%, say to 1.71%?  That puts us in line with most of the other NATO nations.  I daresay a defense budget of a mere $369 billion could still keep the world protected.  And close some overseas bases, we only have 800.

[Mick]

You are correct, we support NATO purely selfishly and for protection against the Russian threat (perhaps even the Chinese). That said, prior administrations failed to get the fellow NATO parties to pay their agreed upon commitments. The diplomatic approach failed, the appeals to their readiness fell on deaf ears. Trump called the Euros bluff, if you don't pay what you agreed to, we're out, and you're on your own. Unconventional and ballsy approached, but it seemed to work, didn't it? After all, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

No, it didn't work. Things in Germany are still AFU. There is once again a promise of spending more money, but that won't happen if the NATO nations populations don't want it to happen. Trump made that harder, not easier, by making the local leaders look like they were caving in to the USA again. In point of fact, the USA can't call the European nations bluff. Even if not one European soldier decided to help us fight Russia, we would still prefer to do it in Europe than points west. They know that and our military absolutely knows that. We aren't leaving NATO, because that would be worse for us than for them, and they know it.

The trick here is that there are lots of members of the European public who want to avoid being overrun in a great power struggle between Russia and the USA. Those people want a stronger European defense. The USA needs to mobilize those people with effective information and comparison of the Table of Organization of European forces to Russian forces. The European heads of state will always spend the minimum their population will allow. We need to make that minimum politically acceptable number bigger. Right now, Europe is depending on the Poles to defend them. Tell a German or a Frenchman that and they will not be happy campers.

Over the past five years, only Bulgaria among NATO nations has materially increased its percentage contribution to NATO defense to the American GDP % level, and Lithuania, Latvia and Romania have boosted theirs to 2% of GDP.  USA is at 3.42% of GDP.
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/...123-en.pdf

There's one approach to the NATO imbalance of contributions that we haven't tried.  Instead of trying to get our "allies" to fulfill the obligations to which they'd agreed, let's lower the ocean, so to speak.  The 2020 defense budget is $738 billion.  Lots of it includes "aspirational" purchases:
https://www.defensenews.com/congress/201...-congress/

It's pretty clear that we can't afford a defense budget that sizable, particularly in the post-pandemic world.  So instead of browbeating fellow NATO nations, why not reduce our expenditures (over time) to half of our current 3.42%, say to 1.71%?  That puts us in line with most of the other NATO nations.  I daresay a defense budget of a mere $369 billion could still keep the world protected.  And close some overseas bases, we only have 800.