Trump has for years inaccurately described how NATO funding works. NATO has a target that each member country spends a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, and most countries are not meeting that target. But the figure is a guideline and not a binding contract, nor does it create “bills”; member countries haven’t been failing to pay their share of NATO’s common budget to run the organization.
"Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough"
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/10/p...ato/index.html
But then
"With rising U.S. debt, flagging military recruiting, and a defense industrial base that can't keep up with the challenge from both Russia and China", where is the alternative?
Even Kamala Harris would most probably have stopped support for Ukraine.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...-term-00164517
During the campaign, Trump made it clear that he opposes arming Ukraine and considers Kyiv at least partially responsible for Russia's invasion.
When I win the elections "I will end the war in one day", he said. In this situation it will be a win for Russia – which will come back stronger in a decade for the baltic states and Poland.
"The right response for Europe is not to cry publicly, but to take a deep breath and return with a wise plan for rebalancing in NATO to save it" Jakub Janda, director of the European Values Center for Security Policy in Prague, said Wednesday.
And our glorious german chancellors, from Merkel to Scholz, did and do nothing defense-wise. God knows where all this money went, but as Scholz said "I cannot remember." Funny how the west and the EU criticizes Ukraine for corruption when it's the same here.