You're making a huge leap of logic. You seem to rely on the claim that nations remain militarised because of some concrete, immediate threat (in this case, you named Russia, but I understand that you probably didn't mean for that to be taken super-literally).
i named russia as an immediate threat to whom? my thoughts on this are the opposite, that "i don't think russia or china are significant threats to us hegemony or sovereignty, and i don't think that nato's usefulness is at all constrained to deterring russia from europe." are you conflating me with
this post?
NATO, as a whole, needs to maintain a reasonable degree of hard power so that if an immediate threat appears, they don't suddenly scramble to assemble a force. If other nations aren't playing their part in the agreement, the USA has the option of playing World Police and overspending to make up for others' failures (currently the status quo). It also has the option of exerting pressure on other NATO members and demanding that they contribute fairly. Should it choose to do so, and should NATO listen, the option of reducing US military spending is then somewhat more available (although that doesn't mean it would be pursued - I can't read Trump's mind).
i generally agree, and therein lies my issue with what trump said. the biggest risks are that nato members leave or contribute less (speaking of germany: we don't want them to leave nato. like, at all.), that we significantly damage our ability to negotiate future agreements in good faith, and that we encourage potential adversaries to adopt a more aggressive posture. the biggest upside is that maybe some other legislatures will adjust their budgets accordingly, and then maybe when the next budget is passed we can save a few bucks on our own defense spending. i want a president who is better at risk/reward than that.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?322386-1/discussion-future-us-militaryat 26:50, perkins basically describes that our military's strategic doctrine is premised on making it clear to all potential adversaries that us victory is necessarily guaranteed, and that while doing so prevents/deters conflict, it is obviously much more expensive. this is the sort of thing that informs my opinion that our military budget is set by our own national priorities, isn't going to change due to nato member spending, and, most importantly, that both hard power and soft power are integral to our operations abroad.
i see things from a slightly different perspective: we have the option to field any size military force we want to and leave any alliances we don't want to support. we field the largest military force on the planet because it's in our best interest. we secure europe though the nato alliance because it's in our best interest; and, as rushy rightly points out, this is as much about being in command of the entire military situation in europe as it is about combining arms. all of that money we spend is money we want to spend because it buys us the things we want. now, if we can get nato allies to spend some of
their cash buying us the shit we want, then that's just gravy.
"Friend or foe?" is one of the few things you really shouldn't get wrong when discussing military operations. Unless it's WW1. Fuck WW1.
again, excluding that one word in that one sentence, i do not think i've described russia as entirely one or the other. i described our relationship with russia (in comparison with our relations with the dprk) in much more detail than "we're allies," and i even provided quality sources echoing some of the distinctions i made. if you want me to pick one side or the other, then i think they're more friend than foe.
NATO, the EU, the EEA, Schengen, etc. these are all efforts to solidify countries under strong alliance banners. The current political manifesto is to control countries through alliances and treaties. They haven't been kicked out of NATO because having the US leech their defense capabilities is the primary purpose of the treaty. Once these nations have a military that is verging on falling apart entirely, they'll have to subsume and allow foreign control of their nation. The only nukes in Germany belong to the US. The only nukes in Turkey belong to the US. An ungodly percentage of Europe's entire military belongs to the US. We've been effectively invading and occupying 'allies' for decades.
a little hyperbolic, but otherwise i basically agree. we have a significant stake in maintaining as much authority as possible over member state militaries. europe being under a single military and diplomatic roof is good for america.
This isn't about our budget. I never even once complained that we spend too much yet you continually bring up this straw man.
well, you're on about how shitty it is that these other nations aren't paying their "fair" share. if it's not about the money, then what is it about? fairness?