Still, nowhere near the billions, trillions we spend on them.
Other than the UK, and to a lesser extent, Canada, NZ and Australia which the US can ally as the Five Eyes without the NATO apparatus, is there any war we engaged since the formation of the alliance where the contribution by continental European allies made a significant difference to the outcome and yes, that question applies to Afghanistan, the only time Article five was invoked with US special forces militarily winning within two months and then changing the mission and proceeding to lose over the next 20 years. Vietnam, Iraq 1 and 2, Libya, the Balkans (which was of national security interest to continental Europe and little to the Five Eyes)? We do fine on our own militarily winning wars at the outset and ultimately losing them by changing the mission to pacification and reconstruction. My point is that continental European mlitary contributions, although nice for the feel good optics of multinationalism, have always been militarily insignificant and irrelvant to ultimate war outcome Quite honestly, IMHO that is much too high a price to pay for the fiction of a NATO alliance of equally contributing partners that is in reality a NATO reliance on one with the fat guy doing all the substantial rowing in defending continental Europe that has more population and GDP in the aggregate than the US. Maybe a little tough love is in order requiring them to form their own joint standing army and alliance for their defense with a separate Five Eyes alliance that operates independently and has no hard baked in commitments to a continent reluctant to defend itself.
Trump gave the a get off your a$$ moment good deal.
the average (in dollars) of what each country spends should have always been our maximum contribution!
these welfare mongers need to pull their own weight.
#MAGA
France and Germany are falling behind.