Well I'm finding it difficult to find the exact T&C, so I guess it depends on who you're listening to. I'm sure I read an article recently that basically argued that anyone spending more than they did the previous year was at least succeeding in getting closer to 2%, which was the implied expectation of "with the aim" or whatever the exact language is. The article certainly left me thinking that the language was loose enough that there was no actual obligation to spend 2% of GDP. I'd go further... if there is such an obligation, then why is it only a problem now Trump is in office? Why didn't NATO send debt collectors to Latvia when they first failed to pay their 2%?