so, back in 1945, north america and europe entered into an alliance to prevent russian expansion into western europe. whether that was ever a serious threat, and how much of a driver it really was under the alliance, and whether it was ever what europe really wanted, are open questions, but that isn't the point; the basis of the alliance was to militarily protect western europe from communism, be it for altruistic reasons or to protect an export market.
somewhere along the way, the threat resolved and europe and russia interlinked economically.
now, we hear americans grumbling that europe is not "doing as much as we'd like". what does that mean? what is the basis for this expectation? it's as though the alliance was always offensive. that it's irresolvable. or - let's be real - that europe is an insolent province.
nato was not designed as a staging ground for an invasion of russia. or, at least, we're told it wasn't. america has no right to expect that europe will facilitate this; rather, it ought to expect the opposite, given the nature of american aggression.
a true spiritual successor to nato would be an alliance across europe (including russia) to minimize american influence.