>When the DoD talks about preparing for near-peer adversaries, Russia is not the primary concern. Are you kidding? Then what's Grafenwöhr for? Entire procureme

>When the DoD talks about preparing for near-peer adversaries, Russia is not the primary concern. Are you kidding? Then what's Grafenwöhr for? Entire procurement strategies have been - and are - focused on countering Russian military hardware (the IAV is just one example - there are plenty of others). >Do you really think we would stop spending massive amounts of money on military technology development if NATO didn't exist? You should really reconsider that statement, and which clause follows from the other. This has nothing to do with my first point, which no one seems interested in answering. My original question was attempting to tease out why people think NATO is useful in a post-post Cold War world. I don't think it is, and struggle to understand this obsession with Russia that continues to warp people's perception of the global security situation. Instead people pivot to "well it was actually about reducing the amount of nuclear weapons" or "we would spend that money anyway", neither of which address the fundamental question of whether or not NATO in its present form is useful or whether the US should have to continue shouldering the vast majority of the security responsibility in the Western World.