> NATO really depends on the US.

Yes. By design. But if the US decouples, the rest of the countries can and will make their own alliance, with blackjack and hookers. Greenland thing is peak wierdness and the only explanation of it would be pride, stupidity or active undermining of NATO.

> Trump's attitude towards NATO member state spend it widely publicized [0] so I don't think there's much to debate here. Trump wanted member states to spend more, not less.

Yes. But, you have a very shallow reading of this and you're taking things at face value. He latched on the spending as a pretext, and as a way to increase US income for the defense industry. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the security of NATO countries. US has entered a very transactional, bully, phase and this is a bad way to maintain international standing.

> it forced US to spend huge amounts of money and military hardware which the EU simply didn't have

- Europe's monetary aid for Ukraine far outweighs that of the US.

- The US military aid for Ukraine mostly consisted of old and obsolete hardware.

- Since about a year or so, all weapons and munitions delivered by the US are paid for by Europe.

Also, I took a look on the paper you linked. I have no idea what you want to prove with it, since it all but confirms the stance I already explained:

  "There was also a second related initiative, the European Defense Fund, that will support continental defense research and development. The projects were widely seen as attempts to address a long-standing American concern – that Europe lacks usable military equipment, and is overly reliant on Washington for military deployments.

  But instead of reacting with satisfaction that the continent was finally addressing a long-standing weakness, the United States expressed frustration, noting that the projects could decrease trans-Atlantic cooperation and could also cut out American defense companies from bidding on future European defense projects."

> At the outset, he doesn't want to carry the burden of NATO alone.

The US chose to be the premiere military power and as a result reaped the benefits that come with having bases all over the world. This absurd claim by Trump that the relationship is one-sided is completely without merit. It was mutually beneficial, arguably better for the US. Just like being the world’s reserve currency. The complicated system of soft power reinforced by the threat of hard power that the US created over the last 80 years was no small feat and frankly we will never get that back now. Maybe it’s for the best! But this nonsense about NATO being a one-sided deal where Europe overwhelmingly benefits from US dollars/military presence is absolutely ridiculous and just another piece of evidence that Trump has no clue how foreign policy works.

Additionally, any argument about not wanting to spend all that money lacks legitimacy given how the administration is spending.

> You don’t think that the person you’re replying to is Donald Trump, do you?

I'm confused how this interpretation could ever come about. No, I mean his point about "Trump trying to bolster NATO" is comic, as Trump is actively weakening NATO, no matter his stated goals wrt. improving funding and having member states "carry their load". _Especially_ his threats to Greenland and Canada, for no apparent reason. It's really mind-boggling. Perhaps my fault, since I expect mental consistency from post-truth populists and authoritarians.