[dijit]

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.

[red-iron-pine]

> 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.

[dijit]

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.