NATO is the greatest power projection project the in the history of the world, and is in no small part why the US has achieved hegemonic status. The ability for the US to wage wars on the opposite side of the globe without major logistical issues is greatly aided by NATO bases that are simultaneously in very friendly territory, and much closer to the action.

NATO membership also means NATO equipment, which the US's military-industrial complex disproportionate benefits from, but also serves as lock-in: those extremely expensive aircraft are basically scrap without the appropriate service contracts and part availability, meaning any military that aligns itself with the US's tech is far less likely to be able to wage wars we don't approve of.

NATO also brings stability: nuclear red-line borders are unlikely to be invaded, reducing the chances of conflicts that are bad for business. A peaceful world is a profitable world, and those profits disproportionately go to the US.

NATO also provides soft power projection: NATO membership is a huge boon to its members, which grants the US leverage politically to encourage member states to adopt pro-US policies.

The US benefitted from NATO because if the Soviets has overrun Western Europe, there would have been what was essentially a single country (or a country and its satellites which it dominates militarily) stretching from the North Atlantic to the North Pacific, a country that probably would have become wealthier than the US and consequently eventually stronger militarily (if it had the political will to do so, which it probably would have). It was probably worth the expense for the US to have tried hard to prevent the formation of such a wealthier peer, just as it was worth the expense to prevent Germany from uniting most of Europe under its system during WWII (even ignoring the moral reasons for getting involved): being the wealthiest country in the system with the strongest military makes it less likely the country's civilians will get hurt or killed (by e.g. an invasion or a naval blockade).

In other words, there has been a strong streak of national self-interest (correctly calculated IMHO -- at least until the end of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union) in the US's contributions to NATO.

Where are you going to sell your Pepsi Cola to?

That’s silly to say considering the one and only time article five was invoked was by the USA after 9/11.

the US believes Russia invading more of Europe is not in their interest. I'm not sure why that is hard to understand.

feedin the trolls mon ami, they be shillbots. they be putting out literal russian, like on RT, talking points.

> It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.

NATO is the only reason why the EU buys so much US weapons in the first place, the benefit to the US is enormous.

>it seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.

So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ?

From me a Romanian, feels very shitty that our soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan for America but now if we will need help Trumpists will not help back.

>So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ?

Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.

>Setting aside for a moment the rather large conflict that ended in 1945 - if you're in your late 20s or older, both Libya and Kosovo happened within your lifetime and meet your criteria.

1 That was not an Article 5 thing,

2 how many USA soldiers gave their life in Kosovoa?

3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.

>3 1945/ww2 I think USA was attacked by Japan, americans did not enter the world to protect Europe, they were forced in the war so they had no choice then to fight their enemies wherever they are.

The American strategy in WWII was "Germany First" despite it having been the Japanese that attacked us.

And that strategy was somehow altruistic ? Explain? And explain why waiting to defend "Europe"

Anyway we talking about NATO, USA used Art5 and Europeans died for USA, but now Trumpists complain that we are not doing enough and USA will not return the favor

This history on this is well documented. The US was helping the allies before entering the war by providing weapons and resources. Before being attacked the US was isolationist (like “Trumpists”). It took getting punched in the mouth to muster the resolve to join the war. The attack on Pearl Harbor brought the UK to war with Japan and solidified allied resolve.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarations_of_war_during_W...

> how many USA soldiers gave their life in Kosovoa?

Based on a quick wiki scan looks like two. This accounts for all NATO casualties. No Romanians were killed in Kosovo.

A combined total of 30 Romanians were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.