The US is obviously the global Big Dog, but NATO's got three other top-ten-by-expenditure militaries in it, plus two more of the very-small count of global nuclear powers (Britain, France), and three of maybe a half-dozen countries with notable navies that aren't the US (Britain, France, Italy). Expanding to look at the top-20 by expenditure, you pick up another five entries that are NATO members.
The rest of NATO gives you basically another China's worth of military (they're #2 by spending), so it's not nothing, to put it mildly.
The geography controlled by and the economic power of the bloc is also important, for logistical reasons. Having not just open trade and maybe some donations in wartime but outright military support for your supply lines is huge, plus intel sharing and such.
Like all things such as this, it's controversial and there is no such thing as a unified vision.
For some people, yes... In fact US involvement is largely a controversial topic because joining NATO, to some people and politicians, is tantamount to putting US military bases in your country.
The reality is, when people talk about the benefits of NATO they will strongly lean on the fact that it's many countries in a pact together. Decidedly not hiding behind the coat-tails of the US- in fact the US involvement, at least in political circles, is generally seen as a net-negative.
> Decidedly not hiding behind the coat-tails of the US- in fact the US involvement, at least in political circles, is generally seen as a net-negative.
Too bad their funding didn't match that rhetoric until after Russia was already invading Ukraine. It'll be years yet before Germany's military will be up to snuff, and outside of France, the UK, and Poland, most of the NATO armies would struggle if they encountered any resistance on-par with what the Russians are putting out.
Nor are their logistics and production capable of keeping up w/ the high-intensity peer/near-peer fight that we're seeing in UKR.
2% of GDP is the recommended amount, Ukraine managed to hold them back before financial aid came to bear with around 3%.
UK spends 2.2% (an all time low!), France just under 2%. These are much larger economies so expenditure is definitely greater than Ukraines in absolute terms.
Are you suggesting that they should pay more? Why? Seems like the current amount is effective.
If US backs from NATO expect nukes in every country.
It's already bad for us in Poland to not have nukes and capability to nuke Moscov at will. We were developing nukes in 80s but guy got assasinated (either RU or US).
The US may be the bulk of the military might backing NATO, but it’s the collectiveness of the alliance is a pretty important piece IMO. If the US were to some way be compromised, say, through a debilitating first strike (unlikely), or Trump-esque domestic factors making them unreliable, you still have a huge, powerful coalition.
The rest of NATO gives you basically another China's worth of military (they're #2 by spending), so it's not nothing, to put it mildly.
The geography controlled by and the economic power of the bloc is also important, for logistical reasons. Having not just open trade and maybe some donations in wartime but outright military support for your supply lines is huge, plus intel sharing and such.