NATO defense spending targets aren’t an obligation (well, they aren’t a spending obligation, just an obligation to make it a policy goal to move toward a spending target) and aren’t “funding NATO”.
That’s a double-misrepresentation popularized by Russian propaganda proxies seeking to sow discord in the West.
The whole point of NATO is shared defense. When one is attacked, all are attacked. If the US wasn't so heavily invested in their defense, they would certainly be spending more than they are now. The fact that so many countries have failed to meet their committed goal means they are being subsidized by those that have.
> The fact that so many countries have failed to meet their committed goal means they are being subsidized by those that have.
Nonsense. That's not how reality works. Countries like Luxembourg or Portugal aren't "subsidized" because they don't spend 2% of their GDP in dissuading Russia from invading other NATO members.
Also, military spending per GDP is set as a line in the sand. Germany doesn't meet the 2% mark but still is the second biggest supporter of Ukraine's defense against Russia's invasion, which is the whole reason of existence of NATO.
Keep calm. The US is now going to sell us weapons for shitloads of money in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The EU (specifically Germany who has resisted, Central and Eastern European states, some who have a corruption problem and where Russian propaganda is at home) is going to up their game now, after the fact. President Trump warned our politicians but to no avail. Only Poland has been doing it because the memory of what happened during WW2 is very much alive there.
Yes, any logic that explains the reality on the ground and makes US/NATO look bad must be Russian propaganda. Russkies have been making a lot of sense lately.
That’s a double-misrepresentation popularized by Russian propaganda proxies seeking to sow discord in the West.