Do large amount of Americans think that " We all know Russia will win."? Also, Finland builds its army? As in, NATO seems to be so eager on Finland joining cause they think they will gain something too.
> I'm just tired of the USA paying for everything when we don't have the money.
Which seems to be one of the things that made the previous President the President.
I do believe Trump was correct to criticize the lack of defense spending by many NATO countries and I too think Europeans should largely defend themselves. Personally I favor a multi polar world and would like the U.S. to retreat so to speak.
You should note that even Trump held Finland as a counterexample to European NATO countries that don't pull their own weight.
Finland is not a country that spends all it's money on social programs and doesn't have a military. Instead, we still have mandatory male conscription, and a very well-armed reserve.
Historically, we have trusted our defense in the principle of being strong enough that even if we knew that the Soviets/Russians could eventually beat us, the costs we could inflict on them would massively outweigh any possible benefit from conquering us. This no longer works because in Ukraine Putin has shown that he does not do cost/benefit analysis for his foreign policy.
My personal view on the matter is that I support an imperial retreat by the U.S. The EU needs to listen more to the Baltics regarding defense and foreign policy.
That being said, I understand the american feelings about this, as a lot of stuff have had the wrong priorities in the US for a long time, which I would argue is an internal matter and nothing to do with NATO (or its members).
/offtopic
I support a more isolationist U.S. policy. It’s time for America to engage in an imperial retreat.
And I want to emphasize DEFENSE. Not "invade other countries in trillion dollar regime change operations". It was US Congress that signed off on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
It does not do it for free. It gets many benefits from "the rest of the world". Like buying US debt, trading oil in US dollars, access to cheap labor, bigger market etc. etc. Nothing of what it does is "free". This giant war spending also helps them to bomb other countries into oblivion when they feel like.
The people who whine about NATO members "not paying enough" seem to think all the other NATO countries have got rid of their armies and are defended only by US troops permanently stationed there. That's not how it works: They all have their own defense forces. Trump was whining that those are not big enough (and he was probably even [at least mainly] right there), but that just means that if there is a war in any NATO country, it will only be able to do "too small a part" in its own defense, and the other ones (yes, given their size, mainly the USA) will have to help more than they otherwise would. But until that happens, this "missing money" doesn't actually come out of any US budget; it's just not being spent at all.
For once, not even "just another one of Trump's lies", but certainly a huge over-simplification by / for the more naïve of his followers.
Some sized and equipped military force is required for a credible NATO defense from Russia.
The origins of that force's components is a zero sum game. If they don't come from one country, they must come from another.
The US currently spends ~3.5% of GDP on its military. The EU (in total) spends ~1.6%. I believe the UK is at ~2.5%. The NATO target is 2% of GDP. See specifically, graphs 2-4: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pd...
If the US spent less, it's possible Europeans would not choose to make up the difference. But if they didn't, they'd certainly be less secure.
It's a complicated topic, but the idea that the US is paying for more European defense than Europeans is well-supported.
(Fyi Not American.) That seems wrong, because America does already spend so much on their Military budget to have a 'preventative' presence plus standing force ready to respond. They spend each year keeping that force built, trained, operating etc .. regardless of if it's used.
That seems pretty obvious too, I don't know if your argument was made in good faith?
That's like saying a 4WD SUV, which is much heavier because it can in theory go off road at any time, doesn't burn any extra fuel if you never take it off road. Maintaining the capability to send a huge expeditionary force to Europe at any time is mind-bendingly expensive.
>> Trump was whining that those are not big enough (and he was probably even [at least mainly] right there)