The US is the only country to ever invoke NATO article 5. When the US did, militaries from all countries you listed came and fought the war in a far away land for roughly nothing at all. I can see where you're coming from with all your points, but I think they're very shortsighted. The money the US pours into NATO is minuscule compared to the income it receives from the petrodollar system. Already today we're seeing the nuclear weapons program discussion restart in many countries in Europe. The end result is a US that spends less on other countries, yes, but also a US that receives an order of magnitude less income from those countries than it previously did. All things considered, it will be a US with both less income and less influence.

> Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania are in NATO. "Defensive alliance" means the US bankrolls and guarantees their security, there is no two way street with them, they can do nothing for us.

They can do a lot of harm when used against you. The part of Europe, which had fallen under Russian domination at the end of WWII, is where the most advanced Soviet weapons were developed and manufactured, because it had the most educated population and most the skilled specialists. Romania, for instance, produced a significant amount of electronics for Soviet weapons. After the USSR collapsed, these factories were converted to producing control boards for Western vacuum cleaners and microwaves. Would you rather see Russia overrun Romania and convert these factories back to producing military radars, missile guidance systems, and sonars for nuclear submarines whose sole purpose is to sneak up on American cities and set them on fire? The Soviet S-75 SAMs on Cuba that shot down the American U-2 spy plane piloted by Rudolf Anderson had Romanian electronics inside, as had many other weapons that killed Americans all over the world. Ukraine manufactured the best Soviet nuclear missiles, now the very same factories are subcontractors for NASA. Poland was known for its shipyards, Bulgaria was a powerhouse of ammo manufacturing.

Denying Russia access to this pool of talent for the promise of helping those countries in case of a Russian invasion is an incredible bargain, especially considering that such a guarantee sharply reduces the risk of invasion in the first place. You get it all for free, as long as the guarantee remains credible enough to deter the invasion. All the US president has to do is appear believable when he says that he'll nuke Moscow if Russia invades Poland. That doesn't cost much.

Your view of "biggest is winner" is totally wrong. There is nothing wrong in supporting those small countries, they won't require you to move all your army to defend them. In fact, just by being allies keeps the peace, at a very low cost for both parts.

You have a very small frame. If you let Russia, for example, take all those small countries for free, suddenly you have a bigger enemy. Not saying that they would defeat the US, but they can make worse problems. Because those little countries you despise are historically peaceful, but Russia not so much. Because Russia leaders are unreliable, for example: https://www.newsweek.com/what-putin-has-said-about-russia-ta.... By keeping Russia at bay, the USA keeps the hegemony more easily and for less money.

Please, stop thinking that USA is "bankrolling" no one. USA spending on defense of those countries is basically zero. It's just a few military bases with a few dozens of people (20 in Bulgaria, 20 in Estonia, 20 in Finland, 20 in Latvia, 20 in Lithuania, 200 in Poland and 130 in Romania, the countries you named), and have nukes at home that they were going to have anyway. By contrast, those countries deployed to Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom, answering the USA call: Bulgaria 600, Estonia 250, Lithuania 270, Poland 2500 and Romania 1800. It was a bargain for the USA.

> Goodbye military industrial complex? Hallelujah!

I never said it was a bad thing per se. I only say that being an unreliable supplier of military goods makes you an undesirable business partner. A large share of the GDP of the US depends on military exports, so a large part of the population would have to find another job. Again: this is not bad per se. But, are you sure you (the USA) want this? How many Trump supporters and isolationists don't even suspect how much of the GDP is based on military exports?

Another unintended consequence might be China becoming a more reliable military supplier than the US, thus empowering their military industry. Are the USA interested in that happening?

Another consequence might be Europe becoming a significant player in the military industry, effectively moving jobs and GDP from USA to Europe.

> It's more absurd thinking

It was not about GDP, stop thinking in pure economical terms if you want to talk geopolitics. It was about influence. China has always been a wild card. But the USSR had a lot of influence over half Europe, half Hispan-America and half Africa. It's not about economy: put and support a dictatorship in a country like Cuba or North Korea, and it doesn't matter how uber poor they are. You now have two pains in the ass, one of them with nukes and ICBMs, the other was once very close to be a nuke base pointing to the USA.

For years, for decades, it was the USA who pressed the NATO expansion. It's imperialistic people like Putin the one who despises it. Again, you can be isolationist like Switzerland is in many senses, but then don't complain when others don't buy your shit, or develop nukes, or make friends with your enemies, or make alliances among themselves (like https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20250226-trump-says-eu-fo...).