Subject: Re: Trump: I Would Encourage Russia...
I am starting to see this "getting closer" argument offered as a defense from mean old Trump hurting NATO's feelings.

You should realize that "getting close" is a meaningless statement allowing the person hearing it to read into it whatever warm and cuddly impression he needs to feel.

It actually isn't meaningless -

<snip> WIKI
Wales Pledge

For the first time, the Allies formally pledged to aim to move towards what had previously been an informal guideline based on Article 3 of spending 2% of their gross domestic products on defense, and 20% of that on new equipment.[21] For countries which spend less than 2% they agreed upon that these countries "aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade".[9] This pledge was the brainchild of US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel. In 2015, five of its 28 members met that goal.[22][23][24] In the aftermath of the pledge, defense spending increased among NATO members.[25] At the beginning of 2018, eight of the 29 members either were meeting the target or were close to it; six others had laid out plans to reach the target by 2024 as promised; and Norway and Denmark had unveiled plans to substantially boost defense spending (including Norway's planned purchase 52 new F-35 fighter jets).[26] <snip>

A pledge isn't hard and fast and I know of no enforcement mechanism. Here's the budget part of the pledge:

<Point 14 in the pledge, link below>
14. We agree to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets, to make the most
effective use of our funds and to further a more balanced sharing of costs and
responsibilities. Our overall security and defence depend both on how much we spend
and how we spend it. Increased investments should be directed towards meeting our
capability priorities, and Allies also need to display the political will to provide
required capabilities and deploy forces when they are needed. A strong defence
industry across the Alliance, including a stronger defence industry in Europe and
greater defence industrial cooperation within Europe and across the Atlantic, remains
essential for delivering the required capabilities. NATO and EU efforts to strengthen
defence capabilities are complementary. Taking current commitments into account,
we are guided by the following considerations:

o Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of
their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so.
Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major
equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.

o Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level
will:

 halt any decline in defence expenditure;
 aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
 aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to
meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability
shortfalls.

o Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on
major new equipment, including related Research & Development, will aim,
within a decade, to increase their annual investments to 20% or more of total
defence expenditures.

o All Allies will:
4
 ensure that their land, air and maritime forces meet NATO agreed
guidelines for deployability and sustainability and other agreed output
metrics;

 ensure that their armed forces can operate together effectively,
including through the implementation of agreed NATO standards and
doctrines.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu...

I also found this:

Abstract

Do informal international agreements without coercive mechanisms affect states’ behavior? While scholars have long been interested in this question, answering it often poses empirical challenges, particularly in the arena of international security. By asking and answering a narrower question—Is NATO’s Wales Pledge on defense spending working?—I can empirically test the extent to which states have adhered to a public agreement without formal or coercive enforcement mechanisms. I argue that the Wales Pledge has led to higher spending because NATO the organization uniquely enables allies to influence one another’s defense planning, publicly and privately. I find support for this argument by interrogating disaggregated defense expenditures of NATO and EU members, and by comparing NATO allies Denmark and Norway with non-allies Finland and Sweden. Although the Wales Pledge has been maligned, it served its purpose by encouraging allies to spend more on defense, particularly on equipment modernization.

https://academic.oup.com/isp/a...

Now it's normal that if there is nothing going on for any treaty, defense agreement, pledge, etc., that it gets weeds, mold, gets stale, and we have to spruce it up if anything happens. Each country in Europe is like a US state, and there's no enforcement mechanism. It's normal to have stragglers, expect it.

What isn't normal is the right's endorsement of not supporting Ukraine. What is your position on this Mike? We moved from a direct invasion of a NATO country to a proxy war with Russia, the bad actor. The right seems to have a love affair with Putin and Russia. I've had Russian friends and workmates.

I'm familiar with all of the normal excuses for not supporting Ukraine, they are all rationalizations.