Interesting question, and begs the question as to whether NATO is obsolete, as argued in an article in The National Interest a few days ago:

[link to nationalinterest.org]

Clearly, the original purpose of NATO is not as pressing as it once was with the fall of the Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union. Is Russia not a threat at all? Does the US have no interests at all that are protected by NATO?

I have a question; why did candidate Trump say NATO is obsolete and President Trump say NATO “is no longer obsolete”? This and other articles say that President Trump admitted he did not know much about NATO when he first called it “obsolete” when he was candidate Trump.

[link to thehill.com]

I don’t know if that is true, but something changed Trump’s mind, and it is important that we understand that before jumping to conclusions one way or the other about the US leaving NATO or it being obsolete, and specifically if it serves no interest critical to the US? I know I was not happy about other NATO members actions after the US invoked Article 5 after 9/11. Other NATO countries did not do their fair share for “collective defense”, but if the worst happens in Europe the US must be “all in”? Collective defense, one of the bedrock principles of NATO, cuts all ways.

There is absolutely no issue about the NATO members not paying their fair share; it is not even close. Why in 2014 each NATO member had a decade to get to the 2% spending level is beyond me; it should be happening now, and other countries need to step up to the plate both in spending and having military equipment battle ready, in addition to true “collective defense”.

As I said this is an interesting question, and I would love to hear why Trump changed his mind.