I'm less familiar with the situation in Eastern Europe. Many countries joined NATO as quickly as possible, because they understood the Russian doctrine and saw a real threat there. Russia tries to surround itself with puppets / friends / allies, by force if necessary, to avoid having to fight in its own territory. Many East European countries didn't want to be part of that so soon after the fall of communism. But it looks like the idea of being in friendly terms with Russia instead of fully committing to the West never went away.
They have such beautiful names for this: "The end of history". Yes, really. "The peace dividend". "The unipolar moment". "Military-to-civilian conversion".
The idea of all these is slightly different, but boils down to that because first the cold war ended and then communism "died" with the Soviet union, democracy would just win everywhere without any effort from anyone (or at least, no effort from anyone but the US). Because of this wars and militaries and ... would just end. Because why would you have these between trade-based democracy? Let's just leave some military rescue units in place and get rid of the rest!
In reality it was progress that ended. Or, at least, a lot of technological progress ended with the end of defense spending. For example, the EU (technically France), was the first nation with a starlink-like satellite network. Of course it was version 0.01beta of starlink, not remotely close to the capabilities of the current version, but it did do packet transmission over very long distances). I have helped write software to make it's use more tolerable. They let it wither and die, just like everyone since.
> They have such beautiful names for this: "The end of history". Yes, really. "The peace dividend". "The unipolar moment". "Military-to-civilian conversion".
* "The end of history" - coined by Francis Fukuyama, an American political scientist.
* "The unipolar moment" - coined by Charles Krauthammer, an American political columnist.
* "The peace dividend" - older term, popularized by George HW Bush, an American president.
* "Military-to-civilian conversion" - older term, popularized by Seymour Melman, an American professor of industrial engineering.And, to be clear, the US not having health care is a policy decision on the part of the US, not some lack of funding, as becomes clear when one looks at the expenditure per capita on healthcare in the US compared to other developed countries.
If the US wanted the 2% target to be met before then, you should have negotiated an earlier deadline. Don't agree to one deadline and then cry because an arbitrary earlier one hasn't been met.
Of course they have renegotiated, and so now the target is 2% by 2027, with all historical arrears forgiven, and several countries have already publicly announced they agreed to it, won't do it (Ireland and Spain I'm aware of, I doubt they're the only ones)
You could also see this as most countries joining, promising to do this starting in 1949. Not even in the first years did most countries do this (except France). So most countries are let's generously say 1% of GDP in arrears, for 75 years now ...
Could you please share where the 2% were defined in the requirements since 1949, and where the 4% are currently defined?
As I already stated, the 2% requirement I'm aware of was negotiated in 2014, to be reached by the end of 2024. If this is indeed where the 2% come from, it's obviously completely ridiculous to act like the member countries didn't meet the requirements - it wasn't a requirement of the treaty they signed!