Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, echoing his boss in Washington, warned on Wednesday that the amount of American support for NATO could depend on whether other countries meet their own spending commitments.
"Americans cannot care more for your children's future security than you do," Mr. Mattis said in his first speech to NATO allies since becoming defense secretary. "I owe it to you to give you clarity on the political reality in the United States and to state the fair demand from my country's people in concrete terms."
"America will meet its responsibilities," he said, but he made clear that American support had its limits.
In his speech to NATO defense ministers, Mr. Mattis repeated a call made by previous American secretaries of defense, for European allies to spend more on their militaries. His comments on Wednesday give teeth to President Trump's expressed skepticism about the alliance.
What's more, Mr. Mattis went further than his predecessors in apparently linking American contributions to the alliance to what other countries spend.
"If your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense," he said.
Source: The New York Times
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Saturday February 18 2017, @09:22PM
It would be nice to see the US drastically cut its 'defense' spending and allocate some money to education, health, etc. Unlikely though, and I'm guessing spending will go up anyway, just being spent on "non-NATO" things.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 18 2017, @09:54PM
A Europe able to defend itself could become a threat to America.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:01PM
Not the way you imply.
A europe able to attack itself could become a threat to world stability.
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:09PM
And a US able to attack the world is not a threat to said world stability...
Most of the civilised world still lives in a trauma based denial that US actually have NUKED 2 cities in a country, and threatened east europe with the same treatment...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2, Informative) by Sulla on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:22PM
Oh wow, we actually NUKED a country? Oh geez the inhumanity! We should have just invaded from the south while the Russians invaded from the north! The Japanese of the 1940s were so peaceful and eager to surrender or come to terms with some sort of peace. I am sure that after Russia raped, literally, the entire top half of their country as well as whatever they could grab of Korea and China and the United States killed armed civilians the world would be a better place. As an example of the great world we could have had without the bombs, we could have had another highly successful East/West Berlin situation. Such a shame!
No defence on Truman's liberal use of threats of the atomic bomb against the Soviets early on in the "things only we have" era. Truman was a dick.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2, Insightful) by zugedneb on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:56PM
They were both in economic crisis and resource shortage "long" before WW2.
It was also said resource shortage that led them into war.
There was no "real" reason to nuke 2 cities in a country that in reality had no resource to continue the war.
The "true" reason was to warn the russians.
And russians, communist or not, are a big part of europe.
To be mentioned last, the communists did fear the kind of internal conflict that you could see in ex Yugoslavia.
It was not imperialism per se that drove them to rigor, it was exaggerated fear of civil war.
By and large, the commies did for their lazy people what they could.
They educated them, military service was mandatory, and they built lot of condo complexes to save them from the misery of 5 people living in a room...
Why do you othink all those 10+ story buildings, that the evil commies constructed, were filled as soon as they finished?
They were not the devils we know them as today...
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sulla on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:11AM
Cannibalism involving indian soldiers
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/war-crimes-wwii-japanese-practised-cannibalism-indian-soldiers-1460601 [ibtimes.co.uk]
Russian rape of Germany
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_during_the_occupation_of_Germany [wikipedia.org]
Opperation Waterfall
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall [wikipedia.org]
Burma railway
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10382906/Burma-Railway-British-POW-breaks-silence-over-horrors.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Nanking massacare
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre [wikipedia.org]
Was the atonic bombing awful? Yes. Was worse than us losing up to another 500k soldiers and countless hundreds of thousands of Japanese conscripted civilians? No. Was it worse than allowing the Russians to treat parts of Japan like Germany? No. Were the bombs worse than the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo? No. Would there have been more firebombings if not for the bombs? Hell yes.
I for one am glad that at least a million people didnt die. But who knows how many of the 30 million possible conscripts and 5 million soldiers would have had to die before their government surrendered. Every mile of the mainland an Iwo.
Keep modding me troll, thats fine. I don't care if part of it was to scare the Russians. At the end of the day standing on the side of the bomb in these two instances is standing on the side of life.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: -1, Troll) by zugedneb on Sunday February 19 2017, @02:13AM
still, you dont make sense.
you came to europe, spilled american blood, left us with a cold ware that made the old problems here worse...
and left us with the fucking jews...
u want me to thank you?
you just made things worse.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @04:18PM
you are not a troll, just stupid and ignorant which meddles with your capability to give meaning to reality
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday February 19 2017, @06:52PM
I for one am glad that at least a million people didnt die. But who knows how many of the 30 million possible conscripts and 5 million soldiers would have had to die before their government surrendered.
The USA had secretly been fighting the Japanese in China;
[...] the US, Britain, and the Netherlands East Indies initiated oil and steel embargoes against Japan in August 1941.
-- http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/wwiipaccauses_2.htm [about.com]
[...] Japan was faced with an 'ABCD encirclement' of America, Britain, China and the Dutch, all of which threatened Japanese markets and interests in Asia.
[...]
When Japan occupied southern Indochina [in July 1941], the United States imposed a de facto oil embargo.
-- http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/japan_quest_empire_01.shtml [bbc.co.uk]
It's fairly obvious that the attack on Pearl Harbour was a response to that. The Japanese may have been ready, after that attack, to negotiate an end to the war: the attack may have been an attempt to improve their bargaining position. After the Potsdam meeting, the Allies publicly insisted on unconditional surrender; in private, Japanese diplomats were attempting to negotiate. The war could have been ended without bloodshed--but Japanese expansionism might not have been stopped so effectively as it was.
Recall that Japan had defeated the Russian Empire in 1905.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War [wikipedia.org]
The western powers were, I think, quite fearful of Japan's rapid industrialisation and territorial ambitions (perhaps part of the fear was over the fact that the Japanese were Asian rather than European). Mere peace wasn't enough: Japan had to be de-fanged.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @05:58AM
Because the commies destroyed their everyday living at countryside? Forced them into "cooperatives"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @06:00PM
Why do you othink all those 10+ story buildings, that the evil commies constructed, were filled as soon as they finished?
Like the House of Soviets in Kaliningrad and the Palace of Soviets in Moscow, for example?
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Monday February 20 2017, @02:01AM
Where at in Europe are you from exactly? I went back and reread your post and realized that all I got out of it was a "the bombs were bad... they werent devils" and jumped to the conclusion that you were defending the Japanese.
I am wondering where you are from because I lived in Alaska for a number of years and knew a few Ukrainian refugees that fled the horror that was communism. The rejection of "western" farming "techniques" like crop rotations and refusal of "western" crops specially bread for cold conditions caused millions to starve to death. Evidently the fair and proper communist method of farming is letting the land lay fallow.
If you grew up in the US then I understand why you defend communism, you probably went to a school like mine that taught Stalin as misunderstood and a man of the people. This is false, he was a dictator. Russia's experiment of communism gave dividends of starvation, work camps, and assassinations.
We are not innocent ourselves, the United States has its massive share of the blame. But Stalin was a massive threat and expansionist enough that NATO was needed.
I wont take the time to link you to any information as it will likely go unread. The USSR might have ended up okay if they hadn't needed to keep up with an arms race. But had it not been US/Nato it would have been China. They, through failed policies and KGB operations, put at least 50m people into the ground.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Monday February 20 2017, @05:40AM
romania.
can tell you what about eye witnesses though: i was around when newly arrived people were asking the ones who got residence (sweden) about what they should write as reson for getting the residence.
i know what those people wrote, and i know for a fact that of the families that got the residence, not a shit has ever happened them.
the propcess was a lottery, and who got to stay and not has not roots in any real cause.
but reast assured, that some fucking faggot was reading their storys, and filed reports on them, and they did end up as statistics over regime commited atrocities.
i can also tell you that people lived 5-inna-room before the commies built the condo complexes
my mother and me was living in a semibasement room with her grandmother, because the children of her grandmother had inherited the rest of the apartments in the house.
we had nowhere to live, until we moved to a newly constructed condo in a 13 story building.
strangely, i have so many anecdotes myself, mostly of the imbecility and overall psychological inadeptness of east european people, but noboody wants to listen.
so much more juicy to listen to all these tales about imagined atrocities.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Monday February 20 2017, @06:17PM
Why did people live 5-inna-room before the commies built the condo complexes? Why did these people not build their own homes? What situations effected their lives that made this happen?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I was doing some research this morning and it looked like massive housing shortages were caused in the 1930s and early 1940s due to soviet industrialization projects demolishing homes to build industry up. Not to mention housing destruction due to the war with the Germans. The soviets started construction of these condo complexes in the late 1940s to make up for the losses due to the war and industralization.
I would be interested in knowing when the housing crisis began and whether it was only caused by the war (in which case any nation would have helped solve the problem) or whether caused by a combination involving industry and destruction of homes to free up land for it (only would have happened in USSR, examples factories and displacement from Dam building).
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1) by zugedneb on Monday February 20 2017, @05:44AM
the violence that the us police seems to have made culture was unimaginable in a commusnit country.
millions of people killed by the government in a country where every man has gone through mandatory military service, and know where and how many weapons there are in circulation?
are you an idiot or what?
who imbecils family ended up in the ground, so that nobody reacted?
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by zugedneb on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:17PM
...europe attacking itself by throwing out the muslim and jewish shit?
It must be what you meant... Or?
Must be great tragedy...
Already, my tears are flowing.
old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:56AM
I've heard a reasonable theory that Europe is being deliberately weakened by the migrant invasion so that it would not present a threat to American hegemony...however, that theory is in conflict with recommending the building up of EU defense -- maybe someday to the point of having an EU military.
One thing is for sure, though -- after we rescue the fertile Arab women from the Middle-East, we should carpet-bomb the remaining population and divide the spoils between all the worlds' superpowers. Might as well do it now because the Middle-East is supposed to become uninhabitable in a decade or two due to rising temperatures -- which means we will see Islamic hordes of extraordinary magnitude invading our borders, you know, because they have no concept of birth-control.
Actually it would be cool to resettle all of the Arabs into Africa and set up cameras everywhere and charge Western societies to watch the bedlam on pay-per-view -- It would be like a combination of Mad Max and Hunger Games!
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:15PM
cut its 'defense' spending and allocate some money to education, health, etc.
Yes, because as we all know the military gets the lions share of federal funding.
Oh, wait, less than 1/5th ??? [nationalpriorities.org].
Oh, what an inconvenient truth.
And, for you non U.S.ians, who may not know, Education is handled and paid for predominantly by the State Governments, because that's the way people want it. Local-ish control. The Federal department of Education acts mostly as "standards organization".
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:29PM
That's a ridiculously large proportion. I'm not sure what you think people expect that it is.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:48AM
Its not ridiculously large. Defense the major Constitutional mandated responsibility of the US Government.
Its only about 3.6% of GDP [wikipedia.org].
If the US wasn't pulling the largest share in NATO [quoracdn.net] the defense budget wouldn't have to be so large.
No NATO country even even spends enough to defend its own territory from even a small attack except the US, Germany, and maybe the UK.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Informative) by zocalo on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:36PM
By sheer number of Dollars spent the US wins hands down, of course, but by GDP the biggest spenders on the relevant Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] are Oman (16.2%) and Saudia Arabia (13.7%). Switching to a per-capita [wikipedia.org] ranking messes up the rankings considerably again - in that case, the US is fourth, behind Saudia Arabia, Singapore and Israel. Which ever way you slice it though, the US is consistently near the top of the list.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @10:09AM
"but by GDP the biggest spenders on the relevant Wikipedia page are Oman (16.2%) and Saudia Arabia (13.7%)."
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but by every metric you list, there is no NATO member spending more (GDP or per-capita) than the US which is Mattis' point.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by zocalo on Sunday February 19 2017, @03:18PM
You've also missed Mattis' point. It's not that the US spends more than any other country in NATO (no one disputes that), it's that some of the other countries in NATO are not meeting their obligations to spend a minimum of 2% of their GDP on defence. That the US is out in front at 3.3% of GDP is beside the point since that extra 1.3% is entirely down the US's budget allocations - there's nothing stopping the US from reducing its spend to 2% of GDP, and even if they did, they'd still be able to complain about those not doing so. The US has every right to complain about other nations not meeting their commitments, but unless they are claiming their extra 1.3% of their GDP is to make up a shortfall in NATO's budget (which they're not), then they can't really use that extra voluntary spend to help make their point.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:07AM
After common-core I agree with the Trumpian viewpoint that the Department of Education should be abolished entirely.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:08PM
The Soviet monster was slain long ago. The Islamic monster isn't yet recognized as a monster.
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:47PM
The monster of not being the pre-eminent power in the world. Authoritarians hate what they cannot control because it makes them crap their pants.
I am being serious here. Much like for elections where the phrase is "Its the Economy, Stupid!", the phrase for US foreign policy should be: "Its Hegemony, Stupid!".
Trump just wants it cheaper.
So to translate this statement in this context:
"We want to own the world for cheaper guys, so stump up some cash!"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday February 18 2017, @11:02PM
Yes, I recognize that you are serious. And, you are also right. But, as England discovered, empire is costly. We can't afford to maintain the hegemony, especially with America's wealth being steadily leached away by the megacorporations moving to China, or anyplace else with no regulation, no taxes, but lots of slave labor.
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:29AM
I did not say it was a good idea. I did not say it was not going to end. I was also not disagreeing with you rather just answering your question in an albeit generic/generalised way.
I also agree with you on China. Most people miss it because they only feed the noisy chick but China is better at the long game than...well...anyone. (and have been for 1000s of years to my knowledge)
The authoritarian mindset is that that they cannot afford NOT to maintain it. It is in the subtext of pretty much all their foreign policy/budgets. What we (and to a large extent even US citizens) personally think about "their" reasoning is irrelevant.
Note the statement here is to stop it because it is a waste of money, just to make other people pay for it to spread the waste around.
I am not a US citizen if that was not obvious - not that this should matter...
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:08AM
the megacorporations moving to China, or anyplace else with no regulation, no taxes, but lots of slave labor.
That's what megacorporations [wikipedia.org] do [wikipedia.org].
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 19 2017, @01:25AM
That's why megacorporations should have been regulated several decades ago. When I was a child, I read futuristic stories of corporations exercising more power than any nation could. I thought that was kinda crazy at the time. I had to exercise that "suspended disbelief" to enjoy the stories. Today, we see that exact thing happening.
True, it was already happening when I was a child, I just didn't recognize it at the time because I was a child. All the banana republics, for example. And, Operation Ajax, which literally destroyed a healthy democracy, at the behest of a a corporate entity. Today, those corporate monsters are becoming more obvious. There are at least two dozen corporations today, which could hire a mercenary force to overthrow any number of smaller nations. Of course, open armed conflict isn't really their style. They prefer more subtle methods of overthrowing a government. Still - there it is - corporate entities with more power than established governments.
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @03:54AM
Yeah because if they went forward with open armed conflict the entire world (except a few nutjob countries) would annihilate them SO FAST! Right now they're trying to gain enough control to let them operate on the same level as nation states.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 19 2017, @04:14AM
Dr. Mutwara's first language probably isn't English, but he's still a good read.
https://southernafrican.news/2016/03/15/private-military-companies-go-way-back-in-history/ [southernafrican.news]
You might do a little web searching on blood diamonds, along with the nations listed in Dr. Mutwara's article. I think it safe to say that the wages paid to many, if not most, mercenary forces come from corporate coffers. The mercenaries may bankrupt the nation that hired them, but their wages are guaranteed by a corporation, somewhere. With lots of money, and a little disinformation, much can be accomplished.
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by jmorris on Saturday February 18 2017, @10:52PM
Seriously, what did Mattis say that shouldn't have been said decades ago? The amazing thing has been America being stupid (yea I know why certain people have supported this policy, buy why have we kept electing the evil people?) for generations, paying to defend Europe so it could afford to sleep in a welfare socialist dream. Wake up sunshine, reality calling and the world has changed while you slept.
Beyond that, can someone explain exactly why NATO exists other than the widely known immortality of any government project or program? The Soviet menace is long in the grave and Europe is surrendering to the Islamist threat.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 18 2017, @11:56PM
umm. Ukraine?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Gaaark on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:03AM
We all need to pay our fair share, however you want to decide fairness, BUT!
BUT, how much of the problems right now were caused BY the U.S.?
-Selling arms to Afghanistan so they could fight Russia, and then finding those weapons turned on them.
-Disrupting elections in foreign countries (sounds oddly familiar of late) which then causes military coups and the rise of war lords
-Invading foreign countries that undeniably have WMD (or, maybe they were undeniably wrong...ooops, sorry)
So much destabilisation: is this due to the rise of the military industrial complex that Truman(?) warned about?
If the US would stay more defensive instead of always warring, maybe the world would be more stable and would also need to spend less on NATO (but what would the Military industrial complex have to say about THAT?
Maybe NATO should ban the selling of weapons... Bet the US would pull out of NATO quick!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 4, Informative) by RedGreen on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:40AM
"is this due to the rise of the military industrial complex that Truman(?) warned about?"
Eisenhower would be the president you are thinking of there.
"Cervantes definitely was prescient in describing a senile Don fighting against windmills." -- larryjoe on /.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday February 19 2017, @04:48AM
Thanks... Didn't feel like Googling on the tablet. ;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Sunday February 19 2017, @12:03PM
Your welcome.
"Cervantes definitely was prescient in describing a senile Don fighting against windmills." -- larryjoe on /.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 19 2017, @07:27AM
Letting aside NATO is a military alliance (would you really want a military organization interfere in commerce? What's next? NATO banning marijuana?), here are some facts:
- Germany's arms export to EU7.5B [dw.com]
- France's arms exports to EU16.9B [iiss.org]
- Britain now the second largest arm dealer [independent.co.uk] - selling arms to «39 of the 51 countries ranked “not free” on the Freedom House "Freedom in the world" report, and 22 of the 30 countries on the UK Government’s own human rights watch list.»
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Sunday February 19 2017, @02:50PM
They could interfere in military commerce, sure.
If they can't stop the selling of arms, how can they possibly stop war? Warring countries want to buy, selfish countries want to sell: NATO steps in and says no, warring countries have to resort to clubs, NATO stops the war.
But this won't happen because of the money selfish countries (read corrupted governments) can make.
Too bad: Earth could be such a nice place to live, except for the money you can make from people dying.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 19 2017, @07:15PM
That is entirely what this whole story is about. Everything else you say is irrelevant. These countries formed an alliance and they all made commitments. They're just being asked to keep to their commitments. There are millions of very nervous people in the EU right now, and they are nervous because Putin feels the need to swing his dick around to show the people back home how manly he is and how great of an empire they have. I'm not sure how you can blame that on the US.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday February 20 2017, @12:57AM
And you seem to be saying that the only nervous people live in the EU:
How about the people in the middle East, you know, the Iraq/Iran area:
The US disrupts Iran by helping out the Shaw in power
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cia-assisted-coup-overthrows-government-of-iran [history.com]
When that doesn't work out well, they help Khomeini to power
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36431160 [bbc.com]
When that didn't work out
"Less than a year later, Khomeini - while holding the US Charge d'Affaires and dozens of other Americans during the Iranian hostage crisis - declared: "America can't do a damn thing."
He then celebrated the first anniversary of his victory with a major proclamation: Iran was going to fight American Imperialism worldwide.
"We will export our revolution to the entire world," he said, once again asserting: "This is an Islamic revolution."
Iraq invades Iran, thinking it is weakened, then the US invades Iraq over W.M.D. (read O.I.L.), and that leads us to this whole mess.
If America had stayed out of the middle East, we MIGHT be a whole lot better off... but we'll never know, now.
Damn, I hate typing on a tablet.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 5, Interesting) by looorg on Sunday February 19 2017, @03:25AM
I would agree with Mattis, the 2% recommendation should be fulfilled by all that want to be in NATO. From what I have read it was downplayed a bit just the day after, included in that I have seen that Norway has already said they won't bring it up to 2% any time soon - their current 2020 projection is 1.57% (currently it's 1.56%). I find it quite disturbing how the GNP spending on Military has dropped to these low levels for most of Europe. Around 1 to 1.5% is the current norm. Some 40 years ago it was at least double what it is today. Sure the red menace was still alive and kicking but it's still remarkably how it has been allowed to drop. Sweden isn't part of NATO but they have let their GNP spending on defence drop from 3.1% in the 70's to about 1% today, you can't build a military for that kind of money - certainly not for a country that is the third largest by landmass in Europe (not counting Russia).
There is a large disparity between countries in NATO to, just like with members of the EU. It might not make sense for some countries to spend that much on defence. Just imagine the states of the USA where their own countries - Vermont would never spend as much on defence as say Texas -- they are small and not afraid of the Canadians while the Texans are well .. Texans. Then there are also other aspects such as political and cultural. Do some countries really belong in NATO. Some where clearly allowed in for geopolitical reasons - large borders with Russia and other Warsaw Pact countries, some where even in the WP, suitable locations for bases and sigint collection spots. Not cause they had big and functional armies.
A related problem is that a lot of countries in Europe after the collapse of the USSR decided to reform their military forces so they could be used more aboard instead of just at home. Sadly they even tried to do this on the cheap so it amounted to almost nothing good. Then in the early 2000:s a lot of them realized their mistake and wanted to reform form national defence. But at that time there didn't seem to be much of a threat so it was mostly ignored and just talked about. Now parts of Europe and NATO once again share a border with warzones and they are slowly starting to spend. Better late then never. But panic spending never really turns into good spending.
That said it's sometimes a bit rich to here the US bitch about how much they spend on "defending Europe" and playing world police. Nobody asked for that. It's a role they kind of took upon themselves. So it might not be that hard to conclude that if the US wants to spend large chunks of money on their military then you let them. Fine by us. It's not like the USA hasn't got value for their money - military power gives influence. If the USA would start to spend less and other countries more there will eventually come a time when the other parties tell the USA to go fuck off and we don't need or want you anymore. Which might feel great but your power and influence goes to then. It's nice to have another continent as a buffer and filled with toadies that like you (for the most part). So it's not all sunshine and rainbows. Nobody is going to buy US military equipment anymore then besides the USA and some close allies that you have not totally managed to alienate. Europe can be self-sufficient in that regard. Buying USA products is in that regards a bit of a "thank you for the protection" purchase. So the threats to pull back can be somewhat hollow and have unforeseen consequences.
My main fear regarding if NATO steps back is that the idiots in the EU might see that as an invitation to step in and really build their own EU-army. That would be a fucking disaster of epic proportions.