Trump says US may abandon automatic protections for Nato countries

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Donald Trump has said that if he is elected president he may abandon a guarantee of protection to fellow Nato countries.
Speaking to the New York Times, Mr Trump said the US would only come to the aid of allies if they have "fulfilled their obligations to us".
Members of Nato have all signed a treaty that says they will come to the aid of any member that is attacked.
Mr Trump will speak on Thursday at the Republican National Convention.
In a preview of what he will tell convention-goers in his speech, he outlined a foreign policy strategy aimed at reducing US expenditure and involvement abroad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36852805

What with Russia "invading" Crimea, Turkeys possible meltdown, Crazy Terrorism, Brexit and other stuff. I wonder how this would change the future of the world (peace) ?

The idea that the US might become an unreliable ally is a nightmare for Nato's European members

 

[Painman]

One in which Europe sorts its own fucking problems out, without killing 10 million people in the process?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

One in which Europe sorts its own f****g problems out, without killing 10 million people in the process?

I've sometimes felt that it seems rather unfair that the US has given so much very expensive military support to all sorts of things, world wide, in the last few decades (and before then).

Why should just one country in the world, be contributing so much (potentially) to the world peace (sort of) and stability causes.

But I'd imagine that Nato still has so many countries in it (without the US), that it would still be powerful. But those remaining countries may need to spend more money on building up their military resources.

There has also been some rumors that the EU, may start up its own forces (Armies). So things could get interesting. Despite Brexit, the UK might consider joining it, if Nato was to drastically reduce and/or disappear.

 

[mikeymikec]

I think Trump should read up on how a military alliance works. Hint: Being wishy-washy about it is a good way to render it completely useless.

 

[Painman]

sometimes seems rather (potentially) (sort of)

Stop weasel-posting, motherfucker

 

[yllus]

The implicit agreement in NATO has been that the U.S. will continue to provide a large portion of the military muscle behind the organization for the following reasons:

- It means European nations, whom we're all afraid will go to war with each other, will maintain relatively small self-defence oriented forces
- In exchange, the U.S. gets some level of preferential treatment when it comes to trade and political say in international affairs
- Also, as the biggest economy, the U.S. benefits disproportionately from a lack of war and the continued dominance of its preferred systems of democracy and capitalism

This isn't a kindness of their hearts thing; international politics is never about that. This system works because it works for everyone.

 

[fskimospy]

The implicit agreement in NATO has been that the U.S. will continue to provide a large portion of the military muscle behind the organization for the following reasons:

- It means European nations, whom we're all afraid will go to war with each other, will maintain relatively small self-defence oriented forces
- In exchange, the U.S. gets some level of preferential treatment when it comes to trade and political say in international affairs
- Also, as the biggest economy, the U.S. benefits disproportionately from a lack of war and the continued dominance of its preferred systems of democracy and capitalism

This isn't a kindness of their hearts thing; international politics is never about that. This system works because it works for everyone.

It is baffling that people think the US has negotiated this situation out of kindness instead of strategic national interest.

What sucks is that Trump's stupidity is harming the US even though he isn't elected by making our allies wonder how sound our commitments really are. What an idiot.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

It is baffling that people think the US has negotiated this situation out of kindness instead of strategic national interest.

What sucks is that Trump's stupidity is harming the US even though he isn't elected by making our allies wonder how sound our commitments really are. What an idiot.

It could also back-fire in the longer term. Because it could make Russia's and China's military positions stronger. So not only would the US be more isolated, but it might have fewer friends to help it, if China and/or Russia gets nasty.

This Turkey "melt down", could have significantly wider implications. It is the gateway to many places, and losing it is not good.

Trump is sounding a bit like a "loose cannon". Ideally the US wants to build up and maintain relationships, NOT destroy them, with a few horrible words.

 

[BxgJ]

I think Trump should read up on how a military alliance works. Hint: Being wishy-washy about it is a good way to render it completely useless.

Exactly.

I don't know how the Trump apologists can rationalize this. It's blatantly obvious even to anyone who has bothered to think about it at all. If you have issues with other members of your alliance, you discuss them with those members, not publicly.

 

[cbrunny]

what a clown. more proof. fuck trump.

 

[Genx87]

I dont think we should pull out of NATO or even publicly debate it.

But us pulling out would only be a nightmare because European countries have woefully underfunded their military for decades because the US tax payer picked up the slack. If Europe funded their own defense they would have no problem defending themselves against Russia.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

I've done some digging (and found the following and/or was supplied it from another forum like source), and found out that 28 years ago, Trump apparently said that he does NOT like the fact that the US is spending so much money on the military. When other countries are NOT necessarily paying their fair share.
He even says (28 years ago), he probably won't try and become president.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEPs17_AkTI&feature=youtu.be

 

[Painman]

I don't think we should pull out of NATO or even publicly debate it.

You are a collectivist.

 

[Genx87]

You are a collectivist.

lol

 

[K1052]

I dont think we should pull out of NATO or even publicly debate it.

But us pulling out would only be a nightmare because European countries have woefully underfunded their military for decades because the US tax payer picked up the slack. If Europe funded their own defense they would have no problem defending themselves against Russia.

For the larger powers that's true but a lot of the other countries simply can't afford what it would cost to build up the capability to to fend off an agressor like Russia on their own. As with most of his other foreign policy ideas this would throw our diplomatic credibility right into the shitter.

 

[sunzt]

So the conservative party, the republicans, elected a liberal isolationist who will make us the best military in the world by pulling back on international military commitments and reducing defense spending........

 

[Atreus21]

Aren't NATO members under some obligation to keep their defense spending at a certain level that has been repeatedly ignored?

 

[Joepublic2]

For the larger powers that's true but a lot of the other countries simply can't afford what it would cost to build up the capability to to fend off an agressor like Russia on their own. As with most of his other foreign policy ideas this would throw our diplomatic credibility right into the shitter.

The US should keep the peace but the countries we're protecting should chip in on the bill. The roman empire exacted tribute from countries it protected from barbarians, so why shouldn't the US?

 

[fskimospy]

The US should keep the peace but these smaller countries we're protecting should chip in on the bill. The roman empire exacted tribute from countries it protected from barbarians, so why shouldn't the US?

Those countries frequently do chip in. Japan pays billions for the US presence. Those deployments aren't just for the benefit of those countries either, they are integral for our ability to project power worldwide on short notice. It seems that Trump doesn't know this, which is deeply concerning for a presidential candidate.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

Aren't NATO members under some obligation to keep their defense spending at a certain level that has been repeatedly ignored?

I think it is 2% of GDP to be spent on the military, for each country.

The US, UK and Greece maintain this, and at least one other, but many others don't (apparently).

I'm disappointed in this, and hope/wish that they would regulate it better. There should be mechanisms for handling countries which don't honor their agreements.

 

[Joepublic2]

Those countries frequently do chip in. Japan pays billions for the US presence. Those deployments aren't just for the benefit of those countries either, they are integral for our ability to project power worldwide on short notice. It seems that Trump doesn't know this, which is deeply concerning for a presidential candidate.

Obviously they need to pay more when US overseas deployments and bases are still costing the tax payers billions.

 

[DrunkenSano]

I think it is 2% of GDP to be spent on the military, for each country.

The US, UK and Greece maintain this, and at least one other, but many others don't (apparently).

I'm disappointed in this, and hope/wish that they would regulate it better. There should be mechanisms for handling countries which don't honor their agreements.

That's why we should only be protecting countries that actually pay. Also, do we want to protect countries like Turkey that is being taken over by a dictator?

 

[K1052]

The US should keep the peace but the countries we're protecting should chip in on the bill. The roman empire exacted tribute from countries it protected from barbarians, so why shouldn't the US?

We decided quite some time ago that the offset in gained stability, an increased sphere of influence, the ability to project significant military power globally was worth the expenditure. Also as noted above in many cases host nations do pay.

 

[K1052]

Also, do we want to protect countries like Turkey that is being taken over by a dictator?

Hence Kerry's warning to Erdogan that tipping the country into a dictatorship would imperil their NATO status...

 

[Genx87]

For the larger powers that's true but a lot of the other countries simply can't afford what it would cost to build up the capability to to fend off an agressor like Russia on their own. As with most of his other foreign policy ideas this would throw our diplomatic credibility right into the shitter.

Nato\EU as a whole if every country spent 3-4% of GDP on defense would be fine. Estonia on its own I agree would not stand a chance against Russia even if they spent 90% on their military. But if NATO\EU would approach our levels of spending Russia would be like a fart in the wind. The EU as a whole is bigger than the US economy. Their spending collectively should approach or surpass ours and that would crush Russias military spending.

At the end of the day I dont agree with Trump about leaving NATO. But I do agree with him Europe needs to spend their own money defending themselves and not rely on the US tax payer to do it for then.