Because for years, the US enjoyed having NATO as a power projection tool, made mostly for them, is now complaining that the countries willingly letting them set up military bases inside their borders are not paying enough? (Even though it is a target for the future and not right now.)

Because the US just decided that the most important environmental agreement of our generation isn't worth sacrificing _coal_ jobs?

Indeed, it's not surprising. We could have collaboration. Turns out, as usual, the US is fucking up. It's okay, we'll live.

Mentioning the Paris "agreement" in a thread about NATO is a red herring. Moreover, the "collaboration" you mention implies that everybody is contributing fairly, which is not what is happening with NATO (or even the UN) right now.

Assume European countries were all spending 2% of GDP for military capabilities within NATO. What exactly would that buy them?

More military interventions with more refugees arriving at European borders?

There is basically no real threat to European countries atm. Russia is heckling a bit in Ukraine. Supplying Kalashnikovs to separatists and such. But in general, Russia is retreating. With Montenegro joining NATO and things going bad in Syria, Russia is losing access to the Mediterranean sea. And they run out of money quickly!

If things go wrong, special forces (a few hundred men) and French atomic missiles pose enough of a threat for rogue dictators. The large countries can't afford a war, because economic ties are too strong.

Military spending in Europe is exactly where it needs to be. Low. Humanitarian help throughout the world and keeping the inner stability of society (social security, health-care, retirement, ...) gives a lot more bang for the buck. (pun intended)

>here is basically no real threat to European countries atm.

The key word here is atm (at this moment, I guess). The problem with military capabilities is that they can't ramp up quickly -- it takes years. Relying on what's needed atm is shortsightedness at very least. Many countries in history paid a very painful price for it, or even ceased to exist. A very recent example is Ukraine. It had exactly the same attitude -- "we don't have enemies atm, why bother". Until suddenly it had.

Perfect, then they don't need US' $$ (or NATO) either, so... everybody's happy ?

Nah, NATO is required for that to work. It's like a group ticket. The more you are, the cheaper it gets for each individual. NATO only needs to collectively have more capability than the biggest external threat. More than that is overspending.

And the US are not paying $$ for anybodys army. And they know very well how to use their own capabilities outside of NATO and for their own interests.

Do you mean overspending as the US currently do, to compensate for European countries are not paying their fair share, while getting most of the outcome ?

Because this is the bottom of it. European countries want the protection, while not paying their share, and making fun on Uncle Sam spending so much on their military, and not enough on their social program.

The US spends more on military than the next 8 countries combined. A quarter of that would be enough for NATO, which is for defense only, now that the Cold War is over.

Europeans don't want the US playing global super power. They don't need it. And they ain't paying for it.

So, we do agree that NATO is a thing of the past and that the US, as well, can lower their payment to the organisation ?

[the answer to this question is of course "no", European countries still want the US to be paying for their "protection".]

Ok so, yet again, it seems that there should be no problem with the US doing their own thing?