Will Trump destroy NATO?

[Aristides]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-plot-plant-bombs-cargo-planes-western-official-says-rcna178748

 

How will Trump handle this.

 

[Nationalist]

31 minutes ago, Aristides said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-plot-plant-bombs-cargo-planes-western-official-says-rcna178748

 

How will Trump handle this.

 

What can he do? Nothing. What would you expect him to do?

Edited November 9, 2024 by Nationalist

[User]

19 hours ago, Matthew said:

Trump attended multiple NATO meetings and refused to affirm our article 5 commitments for years.

Again:

You are just playing some dumb gotcha game that Trump didn't say the magic phrase, so lets ignore all the things he actually did to strengthen NATO. 

[Matthew]

1 hour ago, User said:

You are just playing some dumb gotcha game that Trump didn't say the magic phrase, so lets ignore all the things he actually did to strengthen NATO. 

Repeatedly making the whole world doubt our commitment to the core promise of NATO was and continues to be a policy choice, not a one off gotcha moment.

[DUI_Offender]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-plot-plant-bombs-cargo-planes-western-official-says-rcna178748

 

How will Trump handle this.

 

Trump will listen to Putin, and Putin will stroke Trump's ego, and deny everything. Trump will believe him, and do nothing.

[DUI_Offender]

2 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Repeatedly making the whole world doubt our commitment to the core promise of NATO was and continues to be a policy choice, not a one off gotcha moment.

I would just ignore him. His love for Trump makes him blind to the reality of the situation. 

There are quite a few of us who ahve User on "ignore." I find having him on ignore makes browsing this forum a more enjoyable experience.

 

[Aristides]

10 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

Trump will listen to Putin, and Putin will stroke Trump's ego, and deny everything. Trump will believe him, and do nothing.

If a US bound cargo flight gets blown out of the air, doing nothing will be problematic. He's the prez, he won't be able to ignore it. On the other hand, if Trump abandons Ukraine, the US will no longer be a target. Seems to me  that Putin has more chips in this game than Trump.

Edited November 9, 2024 by Aristides

[DUI_Offender]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

If a US bound cargo flight gets blown out of the air, doing nothing will be problematic. He's the prez, he won't be able to ignore it. On the other hand, if Trump abandons Ukraine, the US will no longer be a target. Seems to me  that Putin has more chips in this game than Trump.

The play book has been out for some time on trump. World leaders, especially autocratic ones, just stroke Trump's ego, and compliment him. Then Trump lets them do as they please. I would not put it past Trump to blame the Democrats, Ukraine, (or whatever Putin tells him) if Putin ever attacked American ships.

Trump has never had America's best interests in mind. 

[gatomontes99]

11 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

The play book has been out for some time on trump. World leaders, especially autocratic ones, just stroke Trump's ego, and compliment him. Then Trump lets them do as they please. I would not put it past Trump to blame the Democrats, Ukraine, (or whatever Putin tells him) if Putin ever attacked American ships.

Trump has never had America's best interests in mind. 

Can you prove any of that?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Repeatedly making the whole world doubt our commitment to the core promise of NATO was and continues to be a policy choice, not a one off gotcha moment.

Call it what you will, it still worked. As long as the other countries believe that us would support nATO and pay the bills no matter what, they were free to relax and not pull their weight. Now that they realize that's not the case and that trump might actually potentially leave the alliance they're taking steps to make sure that they are pulling their own weight.

NATO is significantly stronger as a result

[User]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Repeatedly making the whole world doubt our commitment to the core promise of NATO was and continues to be a policy choice, not a one off gotcha moment.

France made the world doubt our commitment, Trump did not. 

Again, you are more interested in playing silly games, while you ignore what Trump actually did. 

[Matthew]

35 minutes ago, User said:

France made the world doubt our commitment

It's solely the power and responsibility of the president--not France--to communicate US foreign policy with the world. Any impression of cracks or doubts in US resolve is the fault of the President first (and sometimes Congress second, though not in this case).

[User]

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

It's solely the power and responsibility of the president--not France--to communicate US foreign policy with the world. Any impression of cracks or doubts in US resolve is the fault of the President first (and sometimes Congress second, though not in this case).

Again, you are more interested in playing silly games, while you ignore what Trump actually did. 

[Matthew]

Just now, User said:

Again, you are more interested in playing silly games, while you ignore what Trump actually did. 

Well Europeans are very concerned right now that the US is no longer going to be with them and that they would have to face Russian and Chinese aggression alone. If our allies feel this about us it means the reverse will also be true and that they therefore feel less obligated to support us. The US is already right now weaker and more isolated in the world because of Trump.

[User]

12 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Well Europeans are very concerned right now that the US is no longer going to be with them and that they would have to face Russian and Chinese aggression alone. If our allies feel this about us it means the reverse will also be true and that they therefore feel less obligated to support us. The US is already right now weaker and more isolated in the world because of Trump.

Again, I am more interested in actions than feelings and perceptions. 

When people like you spend years pushing the arguments you are, sure. People feel a certain way. 

The reality is that NATO nations in Europe have not been paying their fair share. Trump is the first President to call them out for it and push them hard to change. That makes NATO stronger and hurts peoples feelings like yours, who are more interested in sound bites than actions. 

 

[Matthew]

7 minutes ago, User said:

feelings and perceptions

The feelings and perceptions of your allies matter when the issue is confidence in your mututal protection agreement.

8 minutes ago, User said:

Trump is the first President to call them out for it

Not true, calling out europeans for not meeting their defense spending goals has been a hallmark of US diplomacy with NATO for decades (for both parties). Obama and Bush II did this many many times.

The fact that trump thinks the way to get alliance partners to act is to threaten to blow up the entire alliance probably explains why he's never had a successful relationship with a woman, why his businesses all fail, why his previous associates despise him, and why his kids apparently hate him.

[herbie]

Well he managed to convince people in his first term with his billionaire beancounter philosophy that the only worth to NATO is the amount of money they spend. So much so many Canadians readily drank the KoolAid.

Let's boot Iceland out - they spend dick shit. Pull out all NATO bases and leave them defenceless! C'mon put your money where your mouth is.

Pay for every single Canadian's CORE training ans give them an assault rifle if they pass. That'll cost 2%

[User]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

The feelings and perceptions of your allies matter when the issue is confidence in your mututal protection agreement.

You know what matters more than feelings? $$$

Actually spending more $$$ to the mutual aid and defense of the alliance. 

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

Not true,

Notice how you cut my sentence in half and are only dishonestly arguing against a portion of it. Now, add in the and. 

 

[Matthew]

15 minutes ago, User said:

You know what matters more than feelings? $$$

A military alliance is a trust and a willingness engage in shared sacrifice. Sometimes that involves money, but it is not a monetary transaction. Have you ever been married? If so, what matters more in your marriage--mutual trust or money?

15 minutes ago, User said:

Notice how you cut my sentence in half

One part was a matter of fact and the other was a matter of opinion. As you should know by now, I always opt for the demonstrably factual argument and ignore the subjective fluff.

Edited November 9, 2024 by Matthew

[User]

1 minute ago, Matthew said:

A military alliance is a trust and a willingness engage in shared sacrifice. Sometimes that involves money, but it is not a monetary transaction. Have you ever been married? If so, what matters more in your marriage--mutual trust or money?

Mutual trust is built on every member fulfilling their commitments. The fact that other members got their feelings hurt because Trump pressured them to meet their commitments is on them. 

3 minutes ago, Matthew said:

One part was a matter of fact and the other was a matter of opinion. As you should know by now, I always opt for the demonstrably factual argument and ignore the subjective fluff.

They were both fact, which is why you ignored the one you couldn't argue against... which was part of the entire statement. 

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Matthew said:

Well Europeans are very concerned right now that the US is no longer going to be with them and that they would have to face Russian and Chinese aggression alone. If our allies feel this about us it means the reverse will also be true and that they therefore feel less obligated to support us. The US is already right now weaker and more isolated in the world because of Trump.

No, they are not.

[Matthew]

17 hours ago, User said:

Mutual trust is built on every member fulfilling their commitments.

I agree, which is exactly the problem with Donald Trump.

The 2% target is not a formal commitment. It is a suggested commitment proposed at NATO's 2002 summit in Prague and has turned into a major benchmark for assessing NATO members, but nothing more.

The actual formal commitments of NATO are laid out in the 1949 NATO treaty. It is these commitments that trump has thrown into doubt and therefore created a lack of trust.

17 hours ago, User said:

They were both fact

The level of hardness of one's pressure is not an objectively measurable thing. For example it was Bush II's administration that elevated the obscure 2% figure into a spending goal in the first place and later tried (and failed) to make it a requirement. Nevertheless, bringing this 2% target to the forefront in the early 2000s was an actual leap in policy.

Edited November 10, 2024 by Matthew

[User]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

I agree, which is exactly the problem with Donald Trump.

The 2% target is not a formal commitment. It is a suggested commitment proposed at NATO's 2002 summit in Prague and has turned into a major benchmark for assessing NATO members, but nothing more.

The actual formal commitments of NATO are laid out in the 1949 NATO treaty. It is these commitments that trump has thrown into doubt and therefore created a lack of trust.

This is comical. You are now going to pick nits on what constitutes a "formal" commitment as you are here arguing over Trump not saying a magic phrase that is neither a formal or informal commitment NATO members all agreed upon every new elected leader uttering. 

Give me a break. 

That aside, the 2% commitment is still in fact a commitment NATO members have agreed to several times starting in 2006 and again in 2014. Because actually spending $$$ on your military is what makes NATO strong. 

It doesn't matter if Trump comes out and says the magic words every day of the week for 8 years straight if no one has a military capability actually to contribute to that common defense. 

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

The level of hardness of one's pressure is not an objectively measurable thing.

Sure dude. You are here arguing about how much Trump uttering magic words matters while ignoring Trump pushing people in NATO to actually increase spending on their military... 

NATO Members Ramp Up Defense Spending After Pressure From Trump

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-16/nato-members-ramp-up-defense-spending-after-pressure-from-trump?embedded-checkout=true

[-TSS-]

I think the 2% demand is fair. Obviously even a country like Estonia spent 100% they still wouldn't have a credible defence since they are so small in the first place. That's why 2% is a fair demand.

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, User said:

you are here arguing over Trump not saying a magic phrase that is neither a formal or informal commitment NATO

Article 5 of the nato treaty is in fact a formal commitment. Trump's weakness in communicating an unwavering policy of upholing that agreement is not nit picking.

 

3 hours ago, User said:

the 2% commitment is still in fact a commitment NATO members have agreed to several times starting in 2006 and again in 2014.

Its not officially a formal commitment. In 2014 it was a 10 year goal that counties informally agreed to work towards. No treaty was signed or any other kind of binding agreement.

3 hours ago, User said:

It doesn't matter if Trump comes out and says the magic words every day of the week for 8 years straight if no one has a military capability actually to contribute to that common defense. 

Not true, the strategic value of the alliance is first in the solidity the agreement. Second the sum total of our alliance's populations and economic capacities. Third the upkeep and preparedness of our arsenal. Weakening the most important item in order to marginally improve preparedness is deeply ignorant.