Talk:NATO

Good articleNATO has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 13, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 9, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 26, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
September 6, 2013Good article reassessmentKept
October 20, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
March 10, 2022Good article reassessmentKept
August 2, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 27, 2020.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 4, 2004, November 21, 2004, April 4, 2005, April 4, 2006, April 4, 2007, April 4, 2008, April 4, 2009, April 4, 2010, April 4, 2011, April 4, 2013, April 4, 2016, April 4, 2017, April 4, 2019, April 4, 2020, April 4, 2022, April 4, 2024, and April 4, 2025.
Current status: Good article

NATO 2% of GDP spending graphs

The financial contribution of each member of NATO has been a topic of interest for many, including the historical failure of many NATO members to meet the NATO guideline of 2% of GDP spending. Suggest adding some graphs to show the spending and % of GDP for members including historical data to help readers understand how many countries for years failed to meet the 2% of GDP guideline. Data can be found here: https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf 178.153.41.28 (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea, but the thing is, graphs need to be made by somebody who makes graphs. I personally don't. Lova Falk (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there are some charts on the Member states of NATO page, which I added a few years ago, so a bit out of date now, but may help you. Maybe that page is a good one to link in the See Also section of this article. I'm not in a position to edit right now, otherwise would add it. Hope this helps! 2A02:C7C:D6CB:6300:244C:6749:3915:DCB7 (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Australia one of the Enhanced Opportunities Partners of NATO?

I can't find any source for counting Australia as a member of the Enhanced Opportunities Partners, nor the map in the article. Besides, in the article, Australia is counted as one of the global partner, too. 臺灣象象 (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 臺灣象象, please provide a source confirming that Australia is an Enhanced Opportunities Partner and not a Global partner. Lova Falk (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lova Falk:Sorry, what I’m trying to say is that there are no sources for Australia being an Enhanced Opportunities Partner, but it could have been incorrectly added to the article. Taiwanese Elephant🐘(talk|contribs) 07:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Taiwanese Elephant🐘 I am sorry I missunderstood. I found a source for Australia (and New Zealand) being global partners of Nato and I added that source to the article. Does that answer your concern? Lova Falk (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please add

Chief of Staff of U.S. Army Europe is Markus Laubenthal (Germany). He is the first non-American in this post.--Photographer's Box (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer's Box, U.S. Army Europe is not even mentioned in this article. It seems WP:UNDUE. If you disagree, please tell me. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I disagree. The Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) is the military headquarters of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Allied Command Operations (ACO) that commands all NATO operations worldwide. SHAPE is situated in the village of Casteau, near Mons, Belgium. Mr. Laubenthal is the Chief of SHAPE.--Photographer's Box (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, please tell me exactly which sentence you would like me to add where in the text. Lova Falk (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2025

Change for French name "Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord" to "Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique Nord" - Nord is capitalized in translators Guy with a KickTALK 23:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done tony 01:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of a criticism section

The article lacks a Criticism section.

Since my attempt at same was rejected, I suggest these remarks remain on this Talk page to indicate this deficiency until such time as this is rectified.

'Finally, Wikipedia must reflect a neutral point of view. This is accomplished through summarizing reliable sources, using impartial language, and ensuring that multiple points of view are presented...'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Policies_and_content M.mk (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts were rejected because you posted copyrighted content here, not because they were criticism.
It's not mandatory that an article contain a distinct "criticism" section; more often than not, criticisms are found inline in the general content of the article. This article contains inline criticism. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:14, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A distinct criticism section would be an improvement in my view. M.mk (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I did some word searches on items from Swanson's list of criticisms, and the article comes up with nothing. M.mk (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who "Swanson" is or why his criticisms in particular would be in the article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you would if you read and remembered my rejected attempt at a Criticism section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Swanson ~2026-40898-3 (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That your favored source isn't represented as a criticism does not mean that the article lacks criticism. The likelihood that a criticism section will be added that revolves entirely around a single author's opinions is vanishingly low; we require high quality sources, and if an opinion isn't represented in multiple sources, it will almost certainly fall under undue weight. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:25, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I need high-quality sources to report that a number of peace activists have criticisms of NATO? Very interesting, this world of Wikipedia. M.mk (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We need high quality sources for nearly everything on Wikipedia, because we don't take an editor's word for a given addition, and there's tens of millions of self-published blogs, personal sites, fan sites, grievance sites, and other completely unreliable sources out there that people try to use to insert their favored point of view.
Your proposed criticism section below uses what are known as weasel words. You've cited a grand total of three people, yet open with "Many peace activists [...]" (emphasis added). That would appear to be overstating it; at best - from those sources - you could state "Several peace activists [...]".
But more problematic is that "activists" are rarely good sources for unbiased critical claims. It's the nature of being an activist. Activist individuals and organizations are often rejected as sources on WP, because it can become a dueling mess between 'pro-' and 'anti-' activist stances, without critical analysis from uninvolved parties. That doesn't stop them from being added by editors relentlessly trying to insert their biased point of view as somehow a factual representation of X, Y, or Z.
I'd recommend that you expand your reading here on WP beyond just this article. The matter of expansion of NATO is discussed in History of NATO, which is linked to within this article (unsurprisingly at the top of the History section). As well, there is Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion (that really needs a more concise title), which goes into great detail on such matters.
Also worth noting, many people have expressed criticisms of NATO, and are more reliable as sources than activists alone - significant organizations, Presidents, other elected politicians, and more.
A far better approach to the criticisms would be to look for descriptions or quotes from news sources regarding what these peace activists have stated. Secondary sources are generally preferred here; verifiability tends to be easier with them than other sources.
As to your initial query in your proposal, I see nothing that suggests you are banned or blocked. If there is no edit request link, that suggests you aren't under any restrictions, meaning you can edit the article directly. That said however, I would strongly caution not doing so until you are better familiar with Wikipedia's policies (start with WP:PILLARS), and learn how to correctly insert citations. Improper/inadequate citations (formatting and/or reliability) often result in a speedy reversion of the material.
Apologies for the wall of text. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:05, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the article History of NATO.
Is that the place to mention this sort of thing?
Hundreds protest in The Hague against NATO, days before the Dutch city hosts alliance summit
By MIKE CORDER
Updated 8:35 PM GMT-6, June 22, 2025
Leer en español
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — Hundreds of people protested Sunday against NATO and military spending and against a possible conflict with Iran, two days before a summit of the alliance in The Hague that is seeking to increase allies’ defense budgets....
Or does it go in-line somewhere in this article?
The only mention of peace movement protests in History of NATO that I find are in the time range '1983 and 1984.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO#1962%E2%80%931991:_D%C3%A9tente_and_escalation M.mk (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
'...more reliable as sources than activists alone - significant organizations, Presidents, other elected politicians...'
Presidents and other elected politicians are not reliable sources in case you haven't noticed, tho many people like to believe they are especially if they voted for them.
Please define 'significant organizations.' M.mk (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Setting Trump aside...
Hillary Clinton answers for saying politicians need 'a public and a private position' on issues
https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-public-and-private-positions-2016-10
Plus the idea of campaign promises... M.mk (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Title is from his famous statement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Governments_Lie:_Truth,_Deception_and_the_Spirit_of_I._F._Stone M.mk (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So the proposal below is ‘inspired’ by my stumbling upon this ‘orphan’ NATO-related page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-NATO_parties_and_organizations
As it has been stated that criticism sections to Wikipedia articles are disfavored, I would nonetheless think it would be a challenge to thread this in at some point in the NATO article.
So I propose the below as a very brief Criticism section.
Thank you.
Criticism
Criticism of NATO comes from, for instance, pacifist organizations, workers movements, environmental groups, and some political parties. Many of them believe NATO to be antithetical to global peace and stability, environmentally destructive, and an obstacle to nuclear disarmament. There are also libertarian and far-right political parties who oppose NATO, believing it to be antithetical to the ideals of limited government, non-interventionism and anti-globalization.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-NATO_parties_and_organizations M.mk (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'll say this -- if there were grounds to have a separate "Criticism of NATO" section rather than in-line criticisms, this is at least broadly speaking a reasonable level of breath/depth and scope. You'd likely want to precede it with a template like {{main|List of anti-Nato parties and organizations}}. The main issue however, is how to accomplish the sourcing. For the first sentence, it's fairly easy: for each example of "pacifist organizations", "workers movements", "environmental groups" and "political parties", you'd add a citation to an example of each. The second is more challenging: You'd need a reliable source that states "many" NATO critics specifically hold the "antithetical to..." portion for all three claims up to nuclear disarmament. That could be one source saying that "many" believe all three, or it could be individual sources for each claim for which the source ascribes that view to "many". For the third sentence, you'd again provide an example of each for libertarian, and for far-right, and similarly to the previous sentence you'd need to either show one source saying "far right + libertarian believe it antithetical to limited gov't, non-interventionism and anti-globalization" or you could provide an example each of a far-right and a libertarian party for each of the three claims of what it's antithetical to. If sources aren't available for all those things, you'd need to either trim claims to what can be supported, or wordsmith them to that which is supported. There is also a secondary problem, which is that while this is a reasonable length and scope of a criticism section for the cases in which we have one, these sections tend to act as magnets for more and more critical material to accrete onto them until they reach NPOV-violating amounts of undue weight. This is a major reason why criticism sections tend to be disfavored -- because they require constant maintenance beyond that of in-line prose, just to remain on the right side of policy. I hope that's helpful advice for your proposal. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 03:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the sourcing can be found, I think one possibility is to put it as a paragraph (but not it's own section) in the history section, depending on when the sources are from. meamemg (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I remain profoundly skeptical of criticism sections on Wikipedia in general, and on this article specifically, and further skeptical of the motivations of the editors adding criticism. There's just a lot of COI editors out there. Indeed, literal cyber armies of them. Since I didn't see it referenced in this discussion, I did want to be sure include the links to the other times this suggestion has been raised over the last seventeen years, and I'll note, been rejected: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. The answer each time is that criticism needs to be in context and in prose and not sectioned out. So I would certainly want a rock solid clear consensus, even a RfC, for a section or paragraph to be added here. Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 18:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Word. CAVincent (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Criticism section

I'm not seeing an edit request link to click on. Does that mean I am banned here?

Here is my second attempt for y'all to tell me what's wrong with it. I am able to do footnote-link edits, but I think that would come later.

Criticism

Many peace activists have a number of criticisms of NATO. For instance, they ask, since the end of the Warsaw Pact with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, why is there still a NATO?

In their book, NATO: What You Need to Know, activists Medea Benjamin of CodePink and David Swanson of World BEYOND War argue that the North Atlantic Treaty violates the Charter of the United Nations.

[Footnote: Benjamin, Medea; Swanson, David (2024). NATO: What You Need to Know. OR Books. ISBN 978-1682195208 ]

When Germany reunited and became a member of NATO, the Soviet Union was assured that NATO would not further expand toward the Soviet Union, but under U.S. President Clinton, this pledge was broken when, in 1999, Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic officially joined NATO. Concerning this expansion of NATO, American diplomat George F. Kennan said this was "the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era."

[Footnote: James Goldgeier, Brookings Institution, “The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO: How, When, Why, and What Next?“ June 1, 1999. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-u-s-decision-to-enlarge-nato-how-when-why-and-what-next/ ]

Many peace activists argue that NATO expansion was a factor provoking Russia to invade Ukraine in 2022.

[Footnote: Russia’s Demands Have Changed https://davidswanson.org/russias-demands-have-changed/ ]

These and a number of other problems have Benjamin, Swanson and other peace activists calling for the abolition of NATO.

[Footnote: Benjamin, Medea; Swanson, David (2024). NATO: What You Need to Know. OR Books. ISBN 978-1682195208 ] M.mk (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can incorporate mention this sort of news in the proposed Criticism section:
Hague NATO summit protest shifts focus to Iran
By Yiming Woo
June 22, 202511:00 AM CDT Updated June 22, 2025
...Thousands marched...
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/hague-nato-summit-protest-shifts-focus-iran-2025-06-22/ M.mk (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, where to begin. You say "Many peace activists have a number of criticisms of NATO." You have provided no sources that support the claim that there are "many peace activists" who believe this -- pointing to Medea Benjamin and David Swanson does not establish that their beliefs are held by anyone other than those two individuals. Further, your two examples are a professional CodePink opposition activist with no expertise on NATO whatsoever, and David Swanson, a pro-Russian blogger with similarly no expertise on the subject. The statement about NATO expansion is incredibly deceptive -- you note that the *Soviet Union* was assured that NATO would not further expand towards the Soviet Union. You fail to note that in 1999, the Soviet Union no longer existed and had not for almost a decade at that point. So the suggestion that "this pledge was broken" is of course, nonsensical on its face. You also are omitting extensive academic research about the relative importance of Kennan's perception about NATO expansion from the quote, for instance "It is widely accepted that Kennan’s opposition to NATO was grounded in realism about international affairs. A careful study of the development of his thinking, based on his private papers and archival sources from many countries, suggests that his perceptions of developments inside Russia and his imagination of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe were more important than any foreign policy doctrine." Same paper also cites Kennan's own admission in 1989 that he was an old man who lacked the strength to conduct rigorous international affairs analysis (" In April 1989, at the age of 85, he confided in his diary that he did not have the strength to be more than a ‘casual observer’ of international politics") and "The failings of Kennan’s ‘expertise’ were striking. There was no one more aware of that than Kennan himself, who often noted that he had been an ordinary newspaper reader without access to much information for decades." It's also quite interesting that you cite Kennan so closely juxtaposed to the question about "Why should NATO still exist after the Soviet Union" when Kennan himself absolutely believed that NATO still needed to exist beyond the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In his presentation on 9 May 1989, Kennan admitted that NATO would still be needed for some time to come, but only if it was transformed into an organisation that was not directed against any specific foreign power and would act as a ‘general manifestation of military-political prudence on the part of the whole western European community’. You then write "These and a number of other problems have Benjamin, Swanson, and other peace activists calling for the abolition of NATO." -- you have not established the "other peace activists" portion of this, nor have you established "a number of other problems" exist. The entire thing is a mess of unchecked POV-pushing and original research combined with synthesis. And on top of all of that, none of this establishes a solid reason for why we should have a disfavored criticism section rather than directly sourced, in-line criticisms where relevant. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the mess has at least in part been reciprocated, sorry to say.
    Medea Benjamin is good enough for Ralph Nader if not for you.
    https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/p/ukraine-senseless-conflict
    'David Swanson, a pro-Russian...'
    We need high quality sources for nearly everything on Wikipedia...
    What is your source for that characterization?
    Oh, wait, you jumped to a conclusion, didn't you?
    Shall I jump to a conclusion that you -- and the others here -- are pro-NATO?
    I mention 'others here' because I rather threw a ball out onto the playing field here and no one with the expertise for the exactitude you require has lent a hand helping to express that there is plenty of criticism of NATO that needs to be reported here or on the History of NATO page because to not to do so is to effectively lie by omission about NATO which is classic propaganda.
    And Wikipedia is to be collaborative, right?
    Back to your David Swanson jumped-conclusion, hopefully he is a high quality source on his own self:
    "Russia out of Ukraine, NATO out of existence."
    and
    "You cannot just state that you oppose both sides [of a war such as Russia-Ukraine], because that will quite literally be understood by almost everyone as asserting the unrelated and ridiculous proposition that the two sides are identical, and that will be understood as outrageous propaganda on behalf of whichever side the listener opposes."
    And why even mention Russia as you did? Is this not English-language Wikipedia?
    Or is it U.S. Wikipedia?
    Do not people, perhaps from New Zealand, explore English-language Wikipedia?
    "Here are (at least) 10 reasons why NATO ought to be disbanded..."
    --Dennis Kucinich
    https://mountvernonnews.com/stories/649153333-op-ed-kucinich-the-dissolution-of-nato-may-be-the-only-way-to-prevent-wwiii
    "Right at the beginning of all of this [Ukraine to join NATO], serious senior statesmen, people like [George] Kennan for example and others* warned that the expansion of NATO to the east is going to cause a disaster. I mean, it's like having the Warsaw Pact on the Mexican border. It's inconceivable. And others, senior people warned about this, but policymakers didn't care. Just go ahead."
    --Noam Chomsky
    • Here is an 'other' -- how many do you need?
    "The thinkers and analysts that U.S. officials conferred with likewise made clear that the anxieties of Russian elites over NATO and its expansion, and the lengths they might go to counteract it. Many were transmitted by then-U.S. Ambassador to Russia William Burns, who is presently Biden’s CIA director."
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/02/03/diplomatic-cables-prove-top-u-s-officials-knew-they-were-crossing-russias-red-lines-on-nato-expansion/
    'You fail to note that in 1999, the Soviet Union no longer existed and had not for almost a decade at that point. So the suggestion that "this pledge was broken" is of course, nonsensical on its face.'
    That is clever. And along with the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the disablement and disposal of all nuclear weapons on Russian territory, right?
    Sorry that I caught Kennan on a bad day. My bad.
    I will add Kaarel Piirimäe to my list of undeniably notable people and play it safe and regard only people with PhD's as knowledgeable.
    'you have not established the "other peace activists" portion of this, nor have you established "a number of other problems" exist.'
    May
    https://www.no-to-nato.org/
    be humbly submitted for consideration. M.mk (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to find a coherent argument amidst all that. If one exists, would you mind presenting it? Your point seems to be "Other kooks cite him." See WP:FRINGE. Counterpunch, by the way, is by consensus on this project a generally unreliable source. Kucinich's criticisms can be easily included inline and do not require a separate criticism section. There is no indication that "No to NATO" is a reliable source, nor that it represents "many peace activists" or that it's opinions are meaningfully relevant to the NATO article. The "No to NATO Network", whose site you linked appears to have little to no meaningful reliable source coverage that could support the weight of making this claim in wikivoice. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 05:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Western Alliance for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Western Alliance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Alliance until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Western alliance" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Western alliance has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 19 § Western alliance until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Soft power / Cultural diplomacy section removed

@Patrickneil, can you please undo the unjustified reversion according to a misenterpretation of WP:NOTE? We can discuss about summarizing what was there, about this particular case, but deleting the whole content is the correct way forward, in my opinion. After your deletion: 1) there is no way for the reader that there is a committee dedicated to cultural affairs (still to the present day) and 2) that there is this other type of influence, not strictly related to military affairs, that is part of the organization. Josep a11 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "is not the correct way forward". And the revision Josep a11 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I just don't think the 1953 Committee on Information and Cultural Relations was an important enough NATO body to get mentioned, let alone its own section, on this article with its general overview article scope. My suggestion might be that it could get mentioned just as the predecessor to NATO's Committee on Public Diplomacy on a more specific article like Foreign relations of NATO. But scope is defined by consensus, so I'm happy to hear what others here think.-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 14:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2026

Remove "Excluding the US" under spending; it's not A. Not relevant and is US-Centric or B. seems to suggest we should be listing the funding off all span(Countries\{x})!=span(Countries) for all x in Countries. ~2025-41964-58 (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request.

I think the status quo is justifiable, as the source also has with- and without the U.S. figures in the table and graphs. Slomo666 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:NATO