Trump says US may abandon automatic protections for Nato countries

[Genx87]

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........

Yup, isnt it strange times? The dems are electing a warhawk who cant wait to get us into another foreign policy disaster.

 

[Subyman]

Do people not understand history? NATO was created after WW2 for protection against soviet influence. With Putin in power it is needed just as much as back then, look at Crimea! He will attack and liberate countries without protections. He's already done it. How stupid do we have to be to not see this? (Using Trumps own words.)

 

[DrunkenSano]

Do people not understand history? NATO was created after WW2 for protection against soviet influence. With Putin in power it is needed just as much as back then, look at Crimea! He will attack and liberate countries without protections. He's already done it. How stupid do we have to be to not see this? (Using Trumps own words.)

Problem is, the European countries in NATO are not taking it as seriously as they should. They should be putting more money into defense spending because they are the ones that will be directly affected, however we seem to be the ones spending the most to defend them.

 

[theeedude]

Trump is a Putin puppet. Look at his campaign chief. Same guy Putin sent to install his puppet in Ukraine.

 

[Subyman]

Problem is, the European countries in NATO are not taking it as seriously as they should. They should be putting more money into defense spending because they are the ones that will be directly affected, however we seem to be the ones spending the most to defend them.

Just curious where you get that idea? Many border countries with Russia take it very seriously. There are "war games" practiced monthly. Norway, for example, has the highest military spending per capita of all NATO countries.

 

[zinfamous]

Sorry, Trump can't do that. It is US policy and despite what Trump thinks and what his mindless minions absolutely seem to believe, POTUS is beholden to US policy and not the other way around.

I wonder if his groupies actually understand that he is boldly lying about these things and simply don't care, or if they are stupid enough to actually think that he can do these things?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

The target of 2% is rather arbitrary. It requires some countries to spend money simply for the sake of spending money. Not spending to meet their military needs and commitments. Many of the countries in NATO underspend while still maintaining effective forces for international participation. Hell there's only been one Article 5 campaign to date and many countries contributed.

It's like people think the obligation is to hand money over to NATO when this is discussed.

 

[evident]

how the F do people think that trump is strong on defense after he makes dumbass statements like this.

Hey vets who support trump, are you really this stupid? if you can't see past his pandering to you- his baldface lies about donating money to vet causes yet not donating jack shit until the "liberal media" called him out on it, how about his actual foreign policy statements?!

how does this make america great?

 

[fskimospy]

how the F do people think that trump is strong on defense after he makes dumbass statements like this.

Hey vets who support trump, are you really this stupid? how does this make america great?

Again, what really sucks is that this moron even saying it probably weakens our alliances. What are other countries supposed to think when one of the two people who may become president is openly stating that we may not abide by the security guarantee that is literally the founding principle of NATO?

What an incredibly stupid piece of shit this guy is.

 

[Subyman]

how the F do people think that trump is strong on defense after he makes dumbass statements like this.

Hey vets who support trump, are you really this stupid? how does this make america great?

The most troubling statement Trump has said is his stance on nuclear nonproliferation. Him wanting to expand the number of countries that have nukes is incredibly ignorant.

Then there are the laughable statements such as him saying he would broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians LOL

 

[glenn1]

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

Yes, and only 5 countries met it last year. Trump's approach would have been better if he argued we should kick out of NATO any nation repeatedly missing their spending commitments.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193

 

[zinfamous]

Just curious where you get that idea? Many border countries with Russia take it very seriously. There are "war games" practiced monthly. Norway, for example, has the highest military spending per capita of all NATO countries.

yeah, that was a mindboggling statement. The Baltic states think about this every day and over the last 6 years they have been ramping up serious US presence and Estonia and Lithuania, especially, have been strengthening their own military recruitment and training.

But these are tiny nations and they really can't afford such commitments, but it isn't for lack of wanting to.

The general ignorance from such unread American conservatives is that the countries that need NATO the most somehow command the same GDP power as a nation like the US or even Germany that have very long histories of independent economic development and that through some bizarre wishing-away of history, were not occupied for 70 years when half of their populations were murdered by the Soviets and their countries turned into fallow wastelands through piss-poor agricultural experimentation and government-imposed blocks on personal and private development. Even after independence, these countries suffer from vocal Russian minority populations within their borders that both refuse to leave for the far shittier living conditions in their beloved Russia, yet spend no small amount of energy claiming that they are 2nd-class victims of racism and bigotry within countries that they actively hate and actually believe they still have the full legal right to maintain their roles as occupiers. (Not having Russian as an official language in these non-slavic countries with no cultural or historical relationship to Russia is to these Russians proof of discrimination). This is a cascade of events that not one, single modern developed country can even pretend to have experienced in a comparable manner. And yet despite this, these are some of the fastest-growing economies in Europe today.

Look, the best recovery from the 2008 financial crisis:
http://www.economist.com/news/finan...atvia-exception-or-exemplar-extreme-economics

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_19_Special_Issue_October_2012/21.pdf

These countries are not Germany and they are not Greece, but despite remarkable gains and beating all other countries within the EU in terms of stable, remarkable recovery and developing successful economies that are, quite frankly, only ~25 years old at this point, there is only so much GDP that countries with populations of roughly 2 or 3 million each can output.

So tell me, neocon hacks: what are these tiny countries supposed to do when , for the last 3 decades Russia has been threatening to invade, reclaim what they seem to believe is "rightfully theirs", and holding military exercises across the border every single year of their legitimate independence?

"Oh sorry, you can't pay your bill--looks like we are just going to have step aside--YET AGAIN--and let the Russians invade and occupy your sovereign nations."

I wonder how many conservative hacks would think this way if their families and neighbors were captured and carted away overnight and sent off to prison camps to die while their property was confiscated and re-populated with peasants from a foreign invading country.

 

[zinfamous]

Yes, and only 5 countries met it last year. Trump's approach would have been better if he argued we should kick out of NATO any nation repeatedly missing their spending commitments.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-calls-for-rise-in-defence-spending-by-alliance-members-1434978193

No, not at all. Not in any kind of real world reality that exists in the non-fantasy outside of Trump's swollen melon. Not in any kind of fantasy world that exists among his acolytes that believe such fantasies reflect an actual global world.

Such hackery, this kind of thinking. Such profound and dangerous ignorance to even suggest such a fucking idiotic policy.

see above.

 

[glenn1]

No, not at all. Not in any kind of real world reality that exists in the non-fantasy outside of Trump's swollen melon. Not in any kind of fantasy world that exists among his acolytes that believe such fantasies reflect an actual global world.

Such hackery, this kind of thinking. Such profound and dangerous ignorance to even suggest such a fucking idiotic policy.

see above.

What a poetic response. Your creative use of ad hom profanity was particularly persuasive. And yes, I think that if you can't honor your obligations that you shouldn't get the benefits of the agreement. I have no pity that Estonia might have to spend a bit more on defense to reach their targets, if they can't afford 2% of GDP in the face of the massive threat from Russia posited in that post then perhaps they need to reexamine their spending priorities.

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

The most troubling statement Trump has said is his stance on nuclear nonproliferation. Him wanting to expand the number of countries that have nukes is incredibly ignorant.

Then there are the laughable statements such as him saying he would broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians LOL

On the one hand attempting to improve Palestinian/Israeli relationships or even Peace would be a very good thing.

On the other it is a bit like saying "Let's make peace with ISIL/ISIS, what could possible go wrong . . .".

My guess would be that the Palestinians would need some kind of overall leader for the Palestinians, who can unit them, get on with Israel and is a relatively peaceful leader, who wants to and can negotiate a peace deal or at least better relationships.

In practice they (Palestinians) seem to just vote in highly violent and totally untrustworthy, latest version of some terrible terrorist group, such as the PLO, Hamas or similar to ones like Hezbollah etc.

I don't properly understand why, but somehow these communities like the Palestinians seem to end up with highly antagonistic, anti-west leaders.

E.g. Turkey at the moment.

Ironically what is happening to Turkey at the moment, is another GIANT reason, why we still actively need organisations such as Nato. To help us (the west), battle potential future enemies.

What is going to happen if the current migrant crisis (Syria), is made massively worse/bigger, because Turkey goes a similar route. Significant (real) civil war there, is now much closer to becoming a reality.

If anything (in my opinion), the world seems to be a much more dangerous place, now, compared to how it was 20 years ago. Then (1990's), Russia was more a theoretical risk, although Russia did do some bad things even then.

Whereas these days Russia (Crimea/Ukraine), China (significant, forceful military developments in the South China sea, openly threatening the US with nuclear submarine launched weapon, attacks), various Islamic world issues, including ISIS who seem to be actively attacking the West all over the place.

NATO is probably much more important than it was, twenty years ago.

E.g. What if the Turkey/Syria situation gets much worse and out of control. With military action by the west becoming very important. A weakened or even abandoned Nato, could create some simmering nightmare stuff, which just gets worse and worse.

Russia might exploit the worsening situation in Syria/Turkey to their own advantage, and suddenly bring in their fast response soldiers nonsense like in Crimea.

ISIS also seems to exploit weaknesses like Syria and any other countries that are suffering issues.

tl;dr
These times seem to be when we should be strengthening and building up Nato capabilities and international ties.
Not destroying it by an apparently foolish and ill thought out speech, in an attempt to win the US presidency.

 

[chucky2]

So other NATO countries will have to actually spend what they should have been spending all along to at least pretend to meet their NATO obligations and actually be somewhat useful? OMG! That evil Trump, he's so dumb! Meanwhile, the Savior O'Bummer believes the same thing...ruh ro!

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

So other NATO countries will have to actually spend what they should have been spending all along to at least pretend to meet their NATO obligations and actually be somewhat useful? OMG! That evil Trump, he's so dumb! Meanwhile, the Savior O'Bummer believes the same thing...ruh ro!

In all fairness, Trump aside, many of the other Nato countries have been too complacent. It's funding probably needs a big shakeup.

It's unfair for the US, to be one of the few countries holding it up, as previously agreed.

But election speeches like that, are probably just not the right way of doing it.

Some people are worried that a loud-mouthed, angry Trump could end up starting some needless wars, instead of calmly sorting things out. It may need some tricky negotiations, to sort out whatever ends up happening with Turkey and other problem areas.

tl;dr
The world needs more great leaders. Not accountant types who's penny pinching ends up starting wars, which cost massively more than the money the leader was trying to save in the first place.

 

[K1052]

So other NATO countries will have to actually spend what they should have been spending all along to at least pretend to meet their NATO obligations and actually be somewhat useful? OMG! That evil Trump, he's so dumb! Meanwhile, the Savior O'Bummer believes the same thing...ruh ro!

Obama never said or even implied that he would withhold help under article V because a country hasn't met its spend. Neither has any president R or D that came before him.

 

[BxgJ]

Obama never said or even implied that he would withhold help under article V because a country hasn't met its spend. Neither has any president R or D that came before him.

I doubt he (the poster you responded to) can understand the very important distinction.

 

[chucky2]

In all fairness, Trump aside, many of the other Nato countries have been too complacent. It's funding probably needs a big shakeup.

It's unfair for the US, to be one of the few countries holding it up, as previously agreed.

But election speeches like that, are probably just not the right way of doing it.

It's an election speech, like all election speeches, it has a high degree of meaningless. But, it's not a guaranteed meaningless, so if Trump were to be elected, other NATO countries not meeting their obligations (financially or capability, far more important that financially IMO) would still need to pay at least come attention to his viewpoint.

Some people are worried that a loud-mouthed, angry Trump could end up starting some needless wars, instead of calmly sorting things out. It may need some tricky negotiations, to sort out whatever ends up happening with Turkey and other problem areas.

These people are F'ing retarded, and generally nod up and down at only each other while professing such retardation. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them, and they make great efforts to grow their numbers. Turkey is going to do Turkey, they've got a populace that supports their current dictator in training and just stopped a coup from the moderate portion of their country. The best thing we could do in respect to Turkey is hold F-35 to them and see if they're eventually able to unf*ck themselves.

tl;dr
The world needs more great leaders. Not accountant types who's penny pinching ends up starting wars, which cost massively more than the money the leader was trying to save in the first place.

LOL, that ain't Billary then, and I really doubt it'll be Trump. It could have been Bernie, and while he really couldn't have got anything his little true to heart socialist mind wanted, he'd at least been authentic and acted as a check on the entity (which Billary is made from) that is Politician in DC. The Dems F'd that option up though, there is no going back. We're stuck with Politician Egomaniac Billary, or, Egomaniac Trump. One could vote Johnson I suppose, as a protest vote. Or, Vermin Supreme. I hate dissing Johnson by voting Vermin Supreme but it really isn't that bad a choice given the two major contenders.

Obama never said or even implied that he would withhold help under article V because a country hasn't met its spend. Neither has any president R or D that came before him.

Right, and that's exactly why the rest of NATO LOL's at US while we let them blow their money on other shit while we foot the bill and nearly all the lifting. There is no stick to our displeasure, no consequence. Trumps statement is throwing it out there that if they keep making excuses and/or behaving in such a manner if he's elected, there might be a stick. Except those NATO countries and the head nodders on the Left to not like that...

 

[chucky2]

I doubt he (the poster you responded to) can understand the very important distinction.

Looks like you doubted wrong... Let me guess: Lefty head nodder?

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

It's an election speech, like all election speeches, it has a high degree of meaningless. But, it's not a guaranteed meaningless, so if Trump were to be elected, other NATO countries not meeting their obligations (financially or capability, far more important that financially IMO) would still need to pay at least come attention to his viewpoint.

I agree. It is an election speech, and hopefully doesn't have to be taken too seriously.

I suspect that Trump is trying to say all sorts of stuff, to try and keep everyone happy. To maximize his chances of winning the elections.

It is NOT particularly clear, how Trump will turn out. If he becomes president.

Looking at the current president, and are there lessons to be learnt.
My feeling about Obama (as regards the military), was that he lost things a number of years ago. It was when he said, something on the lines of "Chemical weapons attacks in Syria, are a line in the sand. Which if crossed, will cause terrible consequences for the Syrian leadership (Assad)".

What happens ?
There is a relatively massive chemical attack in Syria. Obama does basically NOTHING. In my mind, he lost ALL credibility (military wise), after that point.

 

[ivwshane]

I agree. It is an election speech, and hopefully doesn't have to be taken too seriously.

I suspect that Trump is trying to say all sorts of stuff, to try and keep everyone happy. To maximize his chances of winning the elections.

It is NOT particularly clear, how Trump will turn out. If he becomes president.

Looking at the current president, and are there lessons to be learnt.
My feeling about Obama (as regards the military), was that he lost things a number of years ago. It was when he said, something on the lines of "Chemical weapons attacks in Syria, are a line in the sand. Which if crossed, will cause terrible consequences for the Syrian leadership (Assad)".

What happens ?
There is a relatively massive chemical attack in Syria. Obama does basically NOTHING. In my mind, he lost ALL credibility (military wise), after that point.

He did nothing? As I recall, instead of using military force, diplomatic force was used instead and all the chemical weapons were removed. Militarily speaking, you can't ask for a better outcome than that!

 

[BxgJ]

Looks like you doubted wrong... Let me guess: Lefty head nodder?

No, actually you said just what I expected. If you want to force the issue with the allies, fine. Do it in treaty negotiations, which are usually behind closed doors, though privacy isn't absolutely necessary. What you don't do is mouth off about it during a campaign, causing uncertainty about whether the US will honor it's treaty obligations negotiated in good faith. Do so during negotiations. Hell call for a renegotiation of the treaty if need be.

Doing what Trump did imperils not just our allies faith in us wrt nato, but for any nation for any alliance with the US.

And no, I'm just a bit left of center. Not that it matters. :|

 

[SOFTengCOMPelec]

He did nothing? As I recall, instead of using military force, diplomatic force was used instead and all the chemical weapons were removed. Militarily speaking, you can't ask for a better outcome than that!

SORRY you are right. Obama secured the removal of HUGE quantities (hopefully essentially all) of Syria's chemical weapons capabilities. Which could have fallen into ISIS's hands by now. That was a massively good thing for Obama to get sorted, probably much better than another mini-war or whatever the alternative solution(s) would have been.

Yes, well done, Obama. My recollection of events is failing me here, quite badly.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/17/obama-red-line-erased-as-assad-chemical-weapons-us/