You didn’t say that.
I got triggered since you only linked US military spending to european social security programs while leaving out other aspects, a reasoning which I only know from US conservatives including Trump.
If I mistook you I’m sorry.
You’re right of course.
But two things I’d like to point out:
Yes, the US WAS the military of the treaty. WAS being the important part here as the trust that made this arragement possible is heavily eroded today due to the lunatic in charge.
You’re first paragraph is onesided and resembles the talking points of the Trump admin. The reality is more complex: The Us would have spend that money anyways as it aimed for global military domination during and after the cold war. The NATO treaty allowd to convert this alread spend money not only in hard military but also in soft power: The US gained massive multi-level influence in the member states due to the military depency and also bought their international voices (for example inside the UN) with it. It was a win-win situation with kooperative cost advantages for both sides. Not a one sided deal to the disadvantage of the US as Americans seem to be made believe by Trump and his oligarchy.
Also this isn’t a new law but a remain of the cold war era.
What exactly is the point of hoping for the US to stay when their contribution currently seems to boil down to blackmailing and threats of abandonment should shit really hit the fan? This sounds more like an abusive relationship than a defence treaty…
Based comment, have an upvote good Sir and a splendid easter!