It could be matching theory for outcome though. The unpopular opinion may still be wrong too. Russia was quite different in 1999, or better in 1992, to the point of joining NATO, and China was nowhere the threat of today, and it could be different reasons- not keeping NATO - which caused today's standup. So, basically, the situation seem to be more complex.
replyUSA had no part in that push?
replyNATO expansion was pretty controversial in the US
replyhttps://time.com/archive/6731121/how-clinton-decided-on-nato...
Perhaps but the US was pushing NATO to invest more in war for years suggesting they didn't believe war was in the past
replyCorrection: The US was pushing NATO to invest more in US gear.
replyThat was the hope but nothing stopped the EU from making their own stuff.
replyNothing, only the gentle hand of US influence over their internal affairs, and the typical nationalistic bickering among themselves.
replyThose are impediments for sure, but they are not blockers, and if they had the will, they would have overcome that. Most, probably all NATO countries do have their own military industrial complex of some sort and the US is buying from them. Although, it certainly is the case that the US is the largest supplier of military equipment and so, yes, the US would benefit most from efforts to increase military spending.
replyI agree, the will was never there.
replyWe will see whether the new realities of the war in Ukraine and Trump's approach to Europe will substantially change that.
The whole economic and societal tensions in the west make things tougher...
That's because they have more to gain from that.
reply