Germany. EU. Same thing.
Right. And we don't owe it to the world to play defender of peace. So if we're overspending on protecting allied interests that aren't meeting their end of the bargain, the deal should be renegotiated. It's fairly simple.
You are overspending on your own, not our problem. Do you understand how the system of direct payment and indirect contribution works? But with all the damage you have caused, you kinda do owe the world somewhat, as we did too a while back.
But, that wasn't the question anyway, it still has nothing to do with trade at all. Its not even in the same realm. A trade deal gives a framework for actors in a system, like companies, clients, customers etc.
Military spending is a governmental budget issue. There is no connection that makes sense, especially when you look at the level where its decided on here.
The fact that you scramble it together only makes me believe you got no clue, sorry.
Lets say we are neighbours, a trade deal for example would allow our kids to trade toys at their leisure. While NATO would be something like me allowing you to use our pool on mondays.
Now, if I neglect to have our pool cleaned one week, would you go to your kids and tell them they are not allowed to trade toys anymore? That would make you a bad parent, my friend.