It will be far more costly and risky for us, and the rest of the world, if Ukraine breaks

Per what I could find on line, so far, US has contributed $73B, and EU countries $27B, to support Ukraine’s war with Russia.
Apparently, grumbling by Republicans in the House has gotten the attention of Europeans, because I heard on today’s news the the Germans and others are beginning to realize that some of Uncle Sam’s purse string watchers are getting wise.

First I’d like to assure you that I have always admired the Norwegian military and equipment, and particularly admire the anti-Nazi accomplishments of the military and civilians of Norway during WWII.

Secondly, I know what NATO’s Article 5 is.

The current US President constantly bleats that all taxpayers should pay “their fair share”.
Why shouldn’t that Progressive idea apply to Norway’s taxpayers/defense contribution to NATO?
With Norway’s fat sovereign wealth fund the taxpayers could easily afford to spend more to make their military even more lethal to the enemy, like the US does, by applying Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity training for the Armed Forces.

I thought nonsense like this was beneath you, Al: “Uncle Sugardaddy’s armed forces are there as backup”.
Never even heard of NASAMS, the Norwegian-developed missile defense system credited with near 100% success rate in Ukraine?
Also sold to the US and a number of other countries.

That’s the whole idea: if one member country is attacked, the others will come to the rescue, and don’t be too surprised if Norway is the first to attack Russia, if that country attacks the US! Don’t underestimate Norway’s capabilities, nor their weaponry! The country is small, but very modern and well equipped, – they have even supplied Ukraine with some of the most effective missiles the world has ever seen, developed in Norway. Even the US is fabricating certain weaponry on licenses from Norway.

How in the world did US tax payers get into this? Don’t you understand what I wrote?

Al: The 2% is just a suggested NATO guideline, and not anything the US has to substitute for if a country is below, any more than the US is getting a relief from countries spending more than 2%. There is no impact on us. Let me use Norway as an example: That country takes national defense very seriously, for obvious reasons: sharing a border with Russia, and being run over by the Nazis in WWII. Yet, they spend a little less than 2%. Why? It is not that they can’t afford more, it is because they have decided they don’t need more! That country’s defense is very solid, with an advanced weapon industry, with weaponry delivered to Ukraine, and even sold to other countries, including the US, which also produces weapons on licenses from Norway. Relative to its small size population wise, Norway has a relatively large GNP, which the defense percentage is related to. With no change in defense spending, the NATO percentage would have been larger with a lower GNP! Simple math, actually.