NATO: More Harm than Good?

[New Axiom]

Alright, so we all know NATO. That gigantor military alliance, the "Evil Empire's" rival. But I've been thinking, and I've come to the conclusion that NATO will end up causing more harm than good.

NATO hasn't had a true enemy since 1991 (the various terror groups don't count; those are why we have the Coalition) when the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact collapsed. Sure there was a need for NATO back then, when the soviets controlled practically half the world. But now NATO doesn't have a true enemy, and part of the North Atlantic Treaty-Article Five, according to Wikipedia-could be really harmful in the modern day world. The part I'm referring to is the part that says that the whole alliance must respond to an attack on a single nation.

So let's say in some wild scenario Russia attacks and declares war on the US. That would mean Turkey, both a NATO member and a Russian ally, would have to help the Americans in the ensuing war, meaning that all the effort the two have put into becoming allies would have failed.

Also, what about the current South China Sea Crisis? If America and China go at it, the rest of NATO would be dragged along into a war, one which would do more harm than good, or one where they don't have the money to fight said war.

Another conundrum that NATO could cause that I thought of is that, since during TRUMPOCOLYPSE NATO member nations will supposedly be forced to pay "their fair share," wouldn't that make non-member nations, such as Russia, China and NK, among others, feel even more threatened? What if they band together and make their own anti-NATO alliance? That could result in another-or further continuation of the last-Cold War.

What are your thoughts, NSG?
**DISCLAIMER: you posting here means your post will probably be thoroughly dissected, examined and scrutinized and commended in every possible aspect by the NationStates General community.

[Lavochkin]

NATO isn't really supposed to do it's job. It's more of a diplomatic threat, nations are less inclined to attack you if you have other big strong nations protecting you. For example the EU's military is a joke, but I would say the only reason why Russia isn't taunting the EU even more than it is is because a nation called America is a few thousand miles away ready to drop 7,000 nukes on their head.

In-fact NATO works exactly like nukes, as a whole they're stupid. But who wants to risk attacking a nuclear-armed country?

[New Axiom]

NATO isn't really supposed to do it's job. It's more of a diplomatic threat, nations are less inclined to attack you if you have other big strong nations protecting you. For example the EU's military is a joke, but I would say the only reason why Russia isn't taunting the EU even more than it is is because a nation called America is a few thousand miles away ready to drop 7,000 nukes on their head.

In-fact NATO works exactly like nukes, as a whole they're stupid. But who wants to risk attacking a nuclear-armed country?

Huh. That's a neat observation and a stupid but smart reason for NATO to exist.

[Vassenor]

NATO isn't really supposed to do it's job. It's more of a diplomatic threat, nations are less inclined to attack you if you have other big strong nations protecting you. For example the EU's military is a joke, but I would say the only reason why Russia isn't taunting the EU even more than it is is because a nation called America is a few thousand miles away ready to drop 7,000 nukes on their head.

In-fact NATO works exactly like nukes, as a whole they're stupid. But who wants to risk attacking a nuclear-armed country?

Pretty much. It's a way to retain a credible nuclear deterrent without the cost and political timebombs of actual nuclear weapons.

[Costa Fierro]

The whole point of Article Five as well as the nuclear deterrent is supposed to prevent a war from happening in the first place.

[Lavochkin]

NATO isn't really supposed to do it's job. It's more of a diplomatic threat, nations are less inclined to attack you if you have other big strong nations protecting you. For example the EU's military is a joke, but I would say the only reason why Russia isn't taunting the EU even more than it is is because a nation called America is a few thousand miles away ready to drop 7,000 nukes on their head.

In-fact NATO works exactly like nukes, as a whole they're stupid. But who wants to risk attacking a nuclear-armed country?

Huh. That's a neat observation and a stupid but smart reason for NATO to exist.

Yes and in-fact things like Trump destabilize this fine balance because it weakens the "assurance of mutually assured destruction". If say the U.S enacts a policy in where if NATO nations don't pay 2% of their GDP on defense (NATO's current recommendation), then the U.S won't defend their country, an aggressor like Russia would have more confidence in attacking this nation and once that does happen, NATO as a whole would fail like you said.

The whole point of NATO is like a policeman with a fake gun holding it against a bank-robber. The bank robber doesn't know if the cops gun is fake or not, but the robber has no way of finding out without getting killed, thus a stalemate is created, even if the robber is much more heavily armed and stronger than the cop. However if the cops bluff is blown, and the robber knows (or at-least believes) the gun is most likely fake, the robber is more inclined to attack, and thus the cop is screwed.

[Kirav]

Yes, NATO does more harm than good to Russian and Chinese geopolitical ambitions. It's truly terrible that Russia has to worry about the possibility of retaliation by the US, UK, France, and Germany when it carries out armed interventions in Eastern Europe. It's poor sportsmanship for countries like Poland and Estonia to be able to call on their allies for help in the event of a Russian invasion and have an actual chance of surviving instead of playing fair and facing Russia one-on-one. As for Turkey, it would be a real tragedy if it had to choose between the democratic West on one hand and a Russian/Chinese camp that wouldn't give its increasingly authoritarian leaders such a hard time on the other.

A stronger NATO would definitely make Russia, China, and North Korea feel threatened, and we wouldn't want that! All they're trying to do is protect and advance their own national interests, sometimes by use or threat of force (as countries often do), and NATO has the gall to use or threaten force to protect the interests of its members when they conflict with those of Russia et al. We will only see peace in this world when governments stop having competing interests and using force to pursue them, and if the Western powers value peace as much as they claim to, they will put an end to this menacing behaviour and let their geopolitical opponents do whatever the hell they please.

[New haven america]

Yes... for Russia and China.

[Hirota]

The part I'm referring to is the part that says that the whole alliance must respond to an attack on a single nation.

You are talking about Article 5 & 6 - it's worth including both here in full (and a link to the whole document)

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Lets see how these apply to your two scenarios

So let's say in some wild scenario Russia attacks and declares war on the US. That would mean Turkey, both a NATO member and a Russian ally, would have to help the Americans in the ensuing war, meaning that all the effort the two have put into becoming allies would have failed.

Provided it was attack on the US mainland? Sure. Hawaii and the other US Pacific territories almost certainly do not get covered by Article 5.

Also, what about the current South China Sea Crisis? If America and China go at it, the rest of NATO would be dragged along into a war, one which would do more harm than good, or one where they don't have the money to fight said war.

South China is not covered by Articles 5 or 6. The US reportedly has bases in the South China Sea, but these are not US Soil.

Another conundrum that NATO could cause that I thought of is that, since during TRUMPOCOLYPSE NATO member nations will supposedly be forced to pay "their fair share,"

Presumably on the basis the US would be able to reduce their involvement to "their fair share"

What if they band together and make their own anti-NATO alliance? That could result in another-or further continuation of the last-Cold War.

I'd point you to Article 9 of the Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship which some consider a defacto mutual defence agreement:

When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.

It is difficult to demonstrate that this agreement caused an increase in global tensions.

What are your thoughts, NSG?

A lot of panic about nothing with a distinct lack of evidence.

[New Axiom]

Yes, NATO does more harm than good to Russian and Chinese geopolitical ambitions. It's truly terrible that Russia has to worry about the possibility of retaliation by the US, UK, France, and Germany when it carries out armed interventions in Eastern Europe. It's poor sportsmanship for countries like Poland and Estonia to be able to call on their allies for help in the event of a Russian invasion and have an actual chance of surviving instead of playing fair and facing Russia one-on-one. As for Turkey, it would be a real tragedy if it had to choose between the democratic West on one hand and a Russian/Chinese camp that wouldn't give its increasingly authoritarian leaders such a hard time on the other.

A stronger NATO would definitely make Russia, China, and North Korea feel threatened, and we wouldn't want that! All they're trying to do is protect and advance their own national interests, sometimes by use or threat of force (as countries often do), and NATO has the gall to use or threaten force to protect the interests of its members when they conflict with those of Russia et al. We will only see peace in this world when governments stop having competing interests and using force to pursue them, and if the Western powers value peace as much as they claim to, they will put an end to this menacing behaviour and let their geopolitical opponents do whatever the hell they please.

Military pressure can and has resulted in wars which is generally bad for everyone. Forgive me if I'd rather find stability through diplomacy and handshakes rather than war and loss of life and Micheal Bay explosions.

[New Axiom]

The part I'm referring to is the part that says that the whole alliance must respond to an attack on a single nation.

You are talking about Article 5 & 6 - it's worth including both here in full (and a link to the whole document)

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

Lets see how these apply to your two scenarios

So let's say in some wild scenario Russia attacks and declares war on the US. That would mean Turkey, both a NATO member and a Russian ally, would have to help the Americans in the ensuing war, meaning that all the effort the two have put into becoming allies would have failed.

Provided it was attack on the US mainland? Sure. Hawaii and the other US Pacific territories almost certainly do not get covered by Article 5.

Also, what about the current South China Sea Crisis? If America and China go at it, the rest of NATO would be dragged along into a war, one which would do more harm than good, or one where they don't have the money to fight said war.

South China is not covered by Articles 5 or 6. The US reportedly has bases in the South China Sea, but these are not US Soil.

Another conundrum that NATO could cause that I thought of is that, since during TRUMPOCOLYPSE NATO member nations will supposedly be forced to pay "their fair share,"

Presumably on the basis the US would be able to reduce their involvement to "their fair share"

What if they band together and make their own anti-NATO alliance? That could result in another-or further continuation of the last-Cold War.

I'd point you to Article 9 of the Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship which some consider a defacto mutual defence agreement:

When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.

It is difficult to demonstrate that this agreement caused an increase in global tensions.

What are your thoughts, NSG?

A lot of panic about nothing with a distinct lack of evidence.

Huh. Thank you for the links. But wouldn't it be possible, at least in the case of the South China Sea, for the US to consider said bases to "technically" be US soil? I realize that would be a highly unlikely and foolish move, but you never know.

[Valaran]

I'm fine with NATO.

[New haven america]

Yes, NATO does more harm than good to Russian and Chinese geopolitical ambitions. It's truly terrible that Russia has to worry about the possibility of retaliation by the US, UK, France, and Germany when it carries out armed interventions in Eastern Europe. It's poor sportsmanship for countries like Poland and Estonia to be able to call on their allies for help in the event of a Russian invasion and have an actual chance of surviving instead of playing fair and facing Russia one-on-one. As for Turkey, it would be a real tragedy if it had to choose between the democratic West on one hand and a Russian/Chinese camp that wouldn't give its increasingly authoritarian leaders such a hard time on the other.

A stronger NATO would definitely make Russia, China, and North Korea feel threatened, and we wouldn't want that! All they're trying to do is protect and advance their own national interests, sometimes by use or threat of force (as countries often do), and NATO has the gall to use or threaten force to protect the interests of its members when they conflict with those of Russia et al. We will only see peace in this world when governments stop having competing interests and using force to pursue them, and if the Western powers value peace as much as they claim to, they will put an end to this menacing behaviour and let their geopolitical opponents do whatever the hell they please.

Military pressure can and has resulted in wars which is generally bad for everyone. Forgive me if I'd rather find stability through diplomacy and handshakes rather than war and loss of life and Micheal Bay explosions.

Over the past decade Russia has: Started or instigated 3 wars (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Crimea/Ukraine) in an attempt to gain territory, continued supporting multiple authoritarian governments (China, NK, Syria, etc...), continued lessening the Civil Rights of the Russian people, and stole information from the US' DNC (And leaked info about the DNC) and RNC (Which helped a Pro-Russian candidate win the US Presidency).

I don't think the Russian Government is the type to solve problems through diplomacy...

And that's just Russia, both China and NK have been acting up as well.

[The East Marches]

I'm fine with NATO.

Its a liability unless the continent takes its defense seriously. It lulls them into a false sense of complacency.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm fine with NATO.

Its a liability unless the continent takes its defense seriously. It lulls them into a false sense of complacency.

Why is it a liability?

[The East Marches]

Its a liability unless the continent takes its defense seriously. It lulls them into a false sense of complacency.

Why is it a liability?

Because the European countries that should pull their weight believe the Uncle Sam's guarantee is enough to keep them safe. So they devote no money at all to defense when they could easily match Russia, a country with the GDP of Spain, by putting a small fraction of effort. That sort of thing leads our allies to act in a manner that is dangerous. For we could be forced to pay for their weakness.

[Baltenstein]

One of the most necessary institutions of our time, that will hopefully continue to exist for a long time.

As other posters said before, it's not so much what NATO can or should do actively, it's what it's preventing by its mere existence. While Russia, as aforementioned, is the main offender in terms of revanchist politics and renewed hostilities towards its Western neighbors, there's also Turkey behaving aggressively towards its smaller neighbors as well.
In both of these cases, NATO membership is a huge security guarantee for the smaller countries.

The two current main issues with NATO that needs to be resolved are:

1.) The status of Turkey, which under Erdogan has become a de facto rogue state and enemy within. If the US absolutely must keep their military assets in Turkey they should do so on a bilateral basis. Aside from that, Turkey should be removed as much from the NATO command and decision-making structure as possible.

2.) The European countries (especially Germany) must increase their defense budgets and share their part of the burden. One of the very few points on which I agree with the president-elect.

[Costa Fierro]

Why is it a liability?

Because the European countries that should pull their weight believe the Uncle Sam's guarantee is enough to keep them safe. So they devote no money at all to defense when they could easily match Russia, a country with the GDP of Spain, by putting a small fraction of effort. That sort of thing leads our allies to act in a manner that is dangerous. For we could be forced to pay for their weakness.

Oh, it's that "hurr dumb euros are riding us" argument again.

*audible sigh*

First off, the Russian economy is thrice the size of Spain's. Secondly, America's military budget is bigger than the entire GDP of 18 NATO member states and thirdly, a lot of these countries do not have enough money to go towards defence spending because they're either bankrupt, poor or ridiculously small. How can you expect countries to "pull their weight" when America's budget is larger than the total defence spending of European NATO members combined?

And you also have to think: who exactly is NATO going to fight? Russia is nowhere near powerful enough to take on the entirety of Europe plus the United States and Canada. It possesses a lot of nuclear weapons but militarily it'd struggle to make it into Germany. And this is before we get to Trump's puppet master in Moscow who is looking forwards to four years of no antagonisation from the Americans. And China is on the other side of the world and are quite content bullying Vietnam over the South China Sea. Who does that leave to fight? Terrorists? Maybe bring democracy and freedom fries to Belarus?

[The East Marches]

Because the European countries that should pull their weight believe the Uncle Sam's guarantee is enough to keep them safe. So they devote no money at all to defense when they could easily match Russia, a country with the GDP of Spain, by putting a small fraction of effort. That sort of thing leads our allies to act in a manner that is dangerous. For we could be forced to pay for their weakness.

Oh, it's that "hurr dumb euros are riding us" argument again.

*audible sigh*

First off, the Russian economy is thrice the size of Spain's. Secondly, America's military budget is bigger than the entire GDP of 18 NATO member states and thirdly, a lot of these countries do not have enough money to go towards defence spending because they're either bankrupt, poor or ridiculously small. How can you expect countries to "pull their weight" when America's budget is larger than the total defence spending of European NATO members combined?

And you also have to think: who exactly is NATO going to fight? Russia is nowhere near powerful enough to take on the entirety of Europe plus the United States and Canada. It possesses a lot of nuclear weapons but militarily it'd struggle to make it into Germany. And this is before we get to Trump's puppet master in Moscow who is looking forwards to four years of no antagonisation from the Americans. And China is on the other side of the world and are quite content bullying Vietnam over the South China Sea. Who does that leave to fight? Terrorists? Maybe bring democracy and freedom fries to Belarus?

We have to cross an ocean and offload gear to get fighting the Russians. What forces do the Europeans have to stop them while we get there? Not to mention we are tied in the ME and facing China at the moment.

Just because our military budget is bigger does not mean we suddenly have more troops and less obligations. As a global power, we are stretched thin. We face the same problem as the Roman Legions to paraphrase Stratfor. There are too many barbarians and too few of us. While are units are enormously effective, we simply have a limited amount of them.

It is not wrong or unjust for us to ask Europe carry its fair share of the burden and spend a measly 2% of GDP while we are chugging along at 4%. We should not subsidize the defense of Europe when they are capable of doing it themselves. If we were facing a single theater, I might agree with you. That is clearly not the case now.

By the way, here is the Spain reference.

[Lady Scylla]

It's a deterrent. I say it's done its job nicely.

[Populi-Terrae]

Alright, so we all know NATO. That gigantor military alliance, the "Evil Empire's" rival. But I've been thinking, and I've come to the conclusion that NATO will end up causing more harm than good.

NATO hasn't had a true enemy since 1991 (the various terror groups don't count; those are why we have the Coalition) when the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact collapsed. Sure there was a need for NATO back then, when the soviets controlled practically half the world. But now NATO doesn't have a true enemy, and part of the North Atlantic Treaty-Article Five, according to Wikipedia-could be really harmful in the modern day world. The part I'm referring to is the part that says that the whole alliance must respond to an attack on a single nation.

So let's say in some wild scenario Russia attacks and declares war on the US. That would mean Turkey, both a NATO member and a Russian ally, would have to help the Americans in the ensuing war, meaning that all the effort the two have put into becoming allies would have failed.

Also, what about the current South China Sea Crisis? If America and China go at it, the rest of NATO would be dragged along into a war, one which would do more harm than good, or one where they don't have the money to fight said war.

Another conundrum that NATO could cause that I thought of is that, since during TRUMPOCOLYPSE NATO member nations will supposedly be forced to pay "their fair share," wouldn't that make non-member nations, such as Russia, China and NK, among others, feel even more threatened? What if they band together and make their own anti-NATO alliance? That could result in another-or further continuation of the last-Cold War.

What are your thoughts, NSG?
**DISCLAIMER: you posting here means your post will probably be thoroughly dissected, examined and scrutinized and commended in every possible aspect by the NationStates General community.

I believe that NATO needs to continue it's existence until Russia and it's allies stop their aggression. Europe was brought to the brink of war when Russia illegally annexed the Crimea and fermented a civil war in Ukraine. Not only that, Russia also invaded Georgia in 2008. As long as Russia keeps provoking other countries, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has a purpose.

[Uxupox]

Huh. That's a neat observation and a stupid but smart reason for NATO to exist.

Yes and in-fact things like Trump destabilize this fine balance because it weakens the "assurance of mutually assured destruction". If say the U.S enacts a policy in where if NATO nations don't pay 2% of their GDP on defense (NATO's current recommendation), then the U.S won't defend their country, an aggressor like Russia would have more confidence in attacking this nation and once that does happen, NATO as a whole would fail like you said.

The whole point of NATO is like a policeman with a fake gun holding it against a bank-robber. The bank robber doesn't know if the cops gun is fake or not, but the robber has no way of finding out without getting killed, thus a stalemate is created, even if the robber is much more heavily armed and stronger than the cop. However if the cops bluff is blown, and the robber knows (or at-least believes) the gun is most likely fake, the robber is more inclined to attack, and thus the cop is screwed.

Who is Russia gonna attack? Poland?

[Costa Fierro]

We have to cross an ocean and offload gear to get fighting the Russians.

Not quite. These blokes exist, albeit a bit small. Not to mention the Americans have strategic bombing and missile capabilities, enough to cripple Russian communications networks.

What forces do the Europeans have to stop them while we get there?

In total, not including the United States and Canada, just over five million personnel.

Not to mention we are tied in the ME and facing China at the moment.

No you are not. A bombing campaign isn't tying your hands anymore than having an entire carrier group plus 50,000 odd personnel in South Korea and Japan isn't "tying" America up.

Just because our military budget is bigger does not mean we suddenly have more troops and less obligations. As a global power, we are stretched thin.

Not really. You have a lot of troops in a lot of places.

It is not wrong or unjust for us to ask Europe carry its fair share of the burden and spend a measly 2% of GDP while we are chugging along at 4%.

Actually it's quite ignorant, not only of the economic situation in the EU but also because you don't need to spend two percent of your nation's GDP to have a well trained, well equipped, professional fighting force.

We should not subsidize the defense of Europe when they are capable of doing it themselves.

You're not. America doesn't pay for European defense. Never has. The fact that the US only maintains a battalion sized force in Europe shows that you have very little to do with it these days.

By the way, here is the Spain reference.

So an economy still nearly twice the size of Spain's is "the same size"?

[The Realist Polities]

Yes, NATO does more harm than good to Russian and Chinese geopolitical ambitions. It's truly terrible that Russia has to worry about the possibility of retaliation by the US, UK, France, and Germany when it carries out armed interventions in Eastern Europe. It's poor sportsmanship for countries like Poland and Estonia to be able to call on their allies for help in the event of a Russian invasion and have an actual chance of surviving instead of playing fair and facing Russia one-on-one. As for Turkey, it would be a real tragedy if it had to choose between the democratic West on one hand and a Russian/Chinese camp that wouldn't give its increasingly authoritarian leaders such a hard time on the other.

A stronger NATO would definitely make Russia, China, and North Korea feel threatened, and we wouldn't want that! All they're trying to do is protect and advance their own national interests, sometimes by use or threat of force (as countries often do), and NATO has the gall to use or threaten force to protect the interests of its members when they conflict with those of Russia et al. We will only see peace in this world when governments stop having competing interests and using force to pursue them, and if the Western powers value peace as much as they claim to, they will put an end to this menacing behaviour and let their geopolitical opponents do whatever the hell they please.

So Kirav, a self-proclaimed Realist being sarcastic about the national interest and appealing to ideals in foreign policy?...
I'm disappointed.

The problem with NATO is not that it stands for the national interests of its member-states but rather that post-1989, NATO became the progressivist internationale, admitting states based on ideology and intervening militarily for ideological reasons as well.

If Poland has a beef with Russia, NATO should never be involved because Russia - unlike the USSR - is not a common threat to the alliance.
Just as NATO was not involved in tensions between Israel and Turkey, Morocco and Spain, US and China, etc.

NATO's problem is that it has degenerated into a political ideological org rather than being a strictly military technical one.

[Uxupox]

We have to cross an ocean and offload gear to get fighting the Russians.

Not quite. These blokes exist, albeit a bit small. Not to mention the Americans have strategic bombing and missile capabilities, enough to cripple Russian communications networks.

What forces do the Europeans have to stop them while we get there?

In total, not including the United States and Canada, just over five million personnel.

Not to mention we are tied in the ME and facing China at the moment.

No you are not. A bombing campaign isn't tying your hands anymore than having an entire carrier group plus 50,000 odd personnel in South Korea and Japan isn't "tying" America up.

Just because our military budget is bigger does not mean we suddenly have more troops and less obligations. As a global power, we are stretched thin.

Not really. You have a lot of troops in a lot of places.

It is not wrong or unjust for us to ask Europe carry its fair share of the burden and spend a measly 2% of GDP while we are chugging along at 4%.

Actually it's quite ignorant, not only of the economic situation in the EU but also because you don't need to spend two percent of your nation's GDP to have a well trained, well equipped, professional fighting force.

We should not subsidize the defense of Europe when they are capable of doing it themselves.

You're not. America doesn't pay for European defense. Never has. The fact that the US only maintains a battalion sized force in Europe shows that you have very little to do with it these days.

By the way, here is the Spain reference.

So an economy still nearly twice the size of Spain's is "the same size"?

The US doesn't maintain a battalion sized force in Europe. It's a lot bigger than that. A lot bigger.