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.
Meanwhile, in Bosnia (our next-door neighbors, sharing the overwhelming majority of our eastern border), the president of Republika Srpska (which controls half of Bosnia) has been in talks with Putin directly for months. The content of those discussions is undisclosed, but just this month he called a referendum on statehood -- a direct violation of the Dayton Agreement and a prelude to yet another Balkan War.
If you think Russia hasn't already begun invading Europe, you've really not been paying attention. With Ukraine looking likely to fall, I'd tremble if I lived in a Baltic state. Hell, I'm trembling over here and -- to give you an idea of how close to Western Europe the threat is coming -- I can see Italy on a clear day.
He very clearly explained his thought process for this type of thing in the Art of the deal. To paraphrase, he started with an extreme position (disbanding NATO) so that he can meet the other party somewhere in the middle (they pay their fair share and do their part militarily).
Overall it would seem he was very successful with this.