106 NATO

<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">NATO is the very definition of an anachronism: it's conspicuously old-fashioned, from another time when the empire it was intended to confront has not been in existence for over a quarter-century. It's unclear whether NATO even serves U.S. purposes. NATO isn't about Europe and they know it, so they exploit the relationship. NATO-Europe contributes well short of the 2% promise that all NATO members were supposed to adhere to as gentlemen. In fact, while European membership in NATO has nearly doubled since 1990, defense spending by Europeans has gone down by 28%. The Europeans don’t contribute because they don’t want to, and don’t have to because the U.S. will simply bear the full burden of cost without them. NATO is from the days of paternalism, and most Western Europeans see it as nothing but American finger-in-the-pie.</p> <p>The ostensible NATO enemy is Russia, which most Western Europeans don't see as relevant to their security. The NATO nations demanding NATO intervention are Estonia & Latvia whom, combined, contribute only 11,000 troops. Ukraine & Georgia now want to join NATO: these nations were not only part of the Soviet Union but were also historically part of the Russian Empire. Bringing them into NATO is equivalent to Mexico & Canada joining Russia. Are Americans and Europeans expected to risk nuclear war over pissant countries? And why does that chance even exist? NATO is long past its reason to exist, and is nothing more than a dangerous war trigger that also happens to sap American resources for things not in America's interest.</p>