> That's a very dangerous game to play when Russia is waiting for an opening to stomp the baltic countries.
politics has always been a dangerous game. This didn't just start this election cycle.
> It's not worth risking the integrity of NATO over 2% of the GDP of 3 broke-ass (but strategically important) countries.
NATO has no integrity if member countries do not follow the terms of the agreement. How can we expect them to support us if needed against Russia in the future if they aren't doing it now? Just because the US has a strong enough military to stand against russia alone doesn't mean that it would not be better if all the NATO countries helped out. I mean, thats the whole point of the treaty: stronger together, united against a common enemy.
politics has always been a dangerous game. This didn't just start this election cycle.
> It's not worth risking the integrity of NATO over 2% of the GDP of 3 broke-ass (but strategically important) countries.
NATO has no integrity if member countries do not follow the terms of the agreement. How can we expect them to support us if needed against Russia in the future if they aren't doing it now? Just because the US has a strong enough military to stand against russia alone doesn't mean that it would not be better if all the NATO countries helped out. I mean, thats the whole point of the treaty: stronger together, united against a common enemy.