@Blickers,
Obviously, NATO is a very important component of the geopolitical strategy of the US and was crucial in retarding the aggression of the USSR. When did I ever say otherwise?
However, the original signatory nations didn't do us a favor by becoming members, and the Eastern European nations, the Baltic States and Turkey were all desperate to become members and not because they were of the belief that the Western Euro countries and Iceland would save them from Russian invasion. Clearly, they, just like the original members, wanted the protection of the US military promised by the treaty.
Without the US, NATO is pretty much a joke. The Pew polling demonstrates that most of the citizens of the Euro members of NATO are counting on the US to come to their rescue if Russia attacks and are not inclined to see their country come to the aide of a neighbor under a similar attack. How these citizens feel about NATO and their own defense matters, because it is their resistance to increased defense spending that has their leaders dragging their feet on the 2% commitment. Should Russian tanks roll into one or more of the Balkan States, and, for any reason, the US doesn't respond, if the people of Italy, Germany, the UK et al make it clear to their leaders that they don't want to go to war with Russia, do you really think any of their leaders are going to tell them "Too bad. We signed a treaty and regardless of what the US does we have to come to Estonia's aide?" Don't make me laugh.
Whether or not one accepts that European members of NATO get more benefit from it than the US they at least get the same, and it is entirely reasonable to expect them to pay for that benefit. Even if they all meet their spending commitments the primary burden of the treaty obligations falls on the US.
This is an absurd argument. There is absolutely no reason why the members should not meet the equitable commitment to which they all agreed. The only reason you are making the effort to cover for them is because it's Trump who is calling them out. We all know that if it had been Obama lecturing them you would have been all for it.
And since you are such a believer in the strategic importance of NATO, and so concerned about actions or statements that might undermine its integrity, what the hell message, about the solidity of NATO, do you think the reluctance to meet the spending commitment has been sent to Putin? He can read Pew polling, and he can certainly tell that all along, the biggest promoter of NATO has been the US. If he can somehow cause the US to distance itself from the obligations of the treaty, he can and will be a hell of a lot more aggressive with Europe.
A grand Jury was convened on August 3, 2017. 
