Should our country defend other NATO countries that maintain low military defense budgets relative to their GDP?

Yes, but the countries that do not meet the requirements, should have great pressure placed on them to do so, or risk ejection from the alliance.

Yes, but they should be encouraged to increase their expenditure and given restricted power in decision making unless they increase their expenditure

We should defend those who have a lower military defense budget than us and also have more than 2% level of corruption.

Yes, but we should have the right to pass on military expenses to the nation we defended, afterwards.

I honestly think it's more a matter of the circumstances of the conflict first and foremost, than if they're NATO members or with higher percentage military budgets.

No, but exceptions can be made to countries with genuine financial hardships.

Yes, but each country must maintain the same spend % in relation to their GDP so be sanctioned by NATO

If the NATO country in question has spent at least 2% of their GDP on military defense for the previous consecutive 5 years then the UK should defend them. If the country in question has spent less than 2% or has not consistently met this requirement then the UK's contribution towards their defense should be proportional to their actual spending.

Offer the amount of defense equivalent to the percentage they spend. I.e. if the country chooses to only spend 1% of their GDP, then offer half the defense promised to them, to incentivise their adherence to the NATO pact.

Uk should be willing to help out, but only if absolutely necessary.

Depends on how serious the context is.

We should definitely defend against invasion but not join other Nato nations in fights not on their own soil

Abolish capitalism and the state. And NATO.

Only défend our alliés and I mean real allies not ones who pretend just to get money and military and infrastructure

Yes, but only if they come under attack.

It should be taken on a case by case basis

Colonise smaller nations instead.

Yes we should and after we have defended this country demand they spend the 2% of GDP or we won't help next time they are attacked

Countries spening less than 2% should be removed from the organization

Yes but pressure them to spend the 2 %

It’s be best if we don’t get involved

No, and it this should be assessed relatively (flat rate % for all counties based on GDP).

Only if the country’s situation is reviewed and they are unable to invest more into their military

The UK should not be obliged to spend more time and money defending another country any more than a similarly placed country within NATO.

abolish the military and nato

Not unless they ask

There should be a mandatory percentage defence spend by all NATO members if they wish to join or remain in NATO. As long as they meet that we should defend them.

Yes, but not 'automatically', each case should be taken individually.

Yes, but pressure them to increase spending

No, unless it is dangerous to the UK to not defend these countries

NATO itself is horrible and should be dismantled.

Abolish all governments and militaries

Yes but a little amount so it doesn’t affect the country as much

Make peace not war

Work to get countries not spending what was agreed to toe the line

Yes, as When we are under attack we get support and can maintain a friendly relationship

Yes, but each member country of NATO should commit a specific percentage of GDP to defence

Yes, but all NATO countries should work to spending similar percentages of their GDPs on defence, but still factor in local issues and what makes sense for that country.

Yes but we should match their relative funding with the amount of support we provide

We should defend them, but they do need to reach some requirement

If they helped us

yes but only if said country can defend themselves without the interference of other nations

Yes but only financially viable

No, and we need to work towards abolishing NATO.

No, a requirement of nato should be that the country should have adequate spending

NATO needs to stop it’s expansion.

Yes, and it should also I) regularly ask other countries to increase spending, II) consider incurring other costs to such countries that don’t spend that much - eg on imports, asking for other benefits, and III) take a more proactive advocacy stance towards long term mutually agreed demilitarisation with other global military powers, eg using similar principles of reduction and monitoring that are seen with nuclear deproliferation

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military and political alliance used to guarantee each of its members' security and freedom. Created after World War II, the goal of NATO is to promote democratic values, co-operate on defence and security issues, and to build trust among members. This, in turn, helps prevent conflict from occurring. NATO also promotes a peaceful resolution of disputes. However, if diplomatic efforts do not work, the military alliance is used for crisis-management operations.

During the 2014 NATO summit, all members agreed to spend 2 per cent of their GDP…  Read mores on defence by 2025. However, according to data gathered in 2017, many nations still fall short of this threshold. For example, Germany still won't be at 2 per cent of their GDP spend in 2024, for example. And quite simply, this isn't on - especially when poorer NATO members such as Greece and Poland are pulling their weight.

Intervene and help other NATO countries Only when asked, and invited. If help requested then help on merit. Blind obligation the president of this question.