Originally Posted by
etudiant
Plus as the late Lyndon B Johnson used to say, it is much better to have people inside the tent p**ing out than the other way around.
I don't think that applies to NATO, for three reasons: 1) all NATO decisions are taken by consensus, so having more members 'in the tent' weakens its decision-making power; 2) each additional member state is another potential victim of an aggression which would force an Article V decision, a very risky thing indeed for the Alliance (especially in view of the first reason); 3) each additional member increases espionage risk and thereby drives down the amount and quality of information shared at Alliance level, to the detriment of other members.
Whatever each member brings to the Alliance has to be worth the increase in collective risk. There's clearly some benefit from having states with the political clout of France, Germany and Turkey on board. Others will bring territorial or basing advantages. No doubt these countries price these factors into their calculations. The rest need to pay their way: it's no surprise the Baltic states all meet the 2%!