NATO chief says Donald Trump puts US troops, allies at risk by saying Russia can 'do whatever the hell they want' with them

[danieldemol]

There's been a longstanding perception among certain factions of voters that the U.S. has been shouldering the lion's share of the burden of defense for the entire free world. Some Americans see it as a source of pride and national honor - the idea that America "saved the entire world" in WW2, an idea which was actively propagated among Americans all during the Cold War in order to engender and encourage public support for US militarism.

The same perception also heavily implies that America is doing it solely out of the goodness of her heart, that we take on extra expense and extra risk to ourselves - all because we selflessly care about the rest of the world and have no thought for ourselves.

At least, that's what the US government has wanted Americans to think about its military adventurism. Many Americans are still skeptical about it, such as the skepticism expressed about America's war aims in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan. They don't think that the government's stated pretexts were strictly on the up-and-up.

But on the other hand, those who have actually grown to believe the government's BS over the past decades might perceive it as America's government being conned and suckered into sacrificing America's interests for the sake of other countries' interests. It leads some Americans to think "Why are we bending over backwards to prop up the world system when America is suffering and doesn't benefit one iota? What's in it for us?"

For its part, the government just pays vague lip service to arguments related to "national interests," but in fact, the government has never given an honest answer to questions like that since the Vietnam War (and even then, it had to be a "leaked" answer).

Also, more than a few Europeans have expressed a degree of resentment about American hegemony and the fact that we have so many bases and troops in Europe already.

So, the consequence of government propaganda leads Americans to think that this is all some selfless sacrifice that the Europeans neither want nor appreciate - and all the while Americans are suffering in economic hard times. In a state like South Carolina which is at the lower end of the economic scale, where many people are living hand-to-mouth and barely scraping by, Trump's statement of "let them pay for their own defense" falls upon welcoming ears.

Since Trump hates people who can't pay their bills perhaps he will encourage Russia to invade the poor of south Carolina you refer to lol

 

[exchemist]

Since Trump hates people who can't pay their bills perhaps he will encourage Russia to invade the poor of south Carolina you refer to lol

This actually illustrates another lie on Trump's part.

There is no "bill". The guideline is for members of NATO to devote 2% of GDP towards their national defence, on forces and capabilities that can be deployed to NATO if the occasion arises. So it is a commitment to the level of their own defence expenditure. There is no "bill" from NATO for this.

The direct expenditure of NATO, which results in a direct "bill" to members, consists of just the command structures and administration, which is very small and for which everyone pays a a proportion. This is not at issue at all.

The problem, historically, has been that a number of members have not adhered to the guideline on their own defence expenditure but have spent less on their armed forces than 2%. It was fair enough for Trump to insist on all members spending 2% on their own defence and this is now being rectified, partly as a result of Trump's noises and more importantly partly due to the obvious threat to Europe from Russia.

 

[Stevicus]

Since Trump hates people who can't pay their bills perhaps he will encourage Russia to invade the poor of south Carolina you refer to lol

From what I've heard, even Trump doesn't pay his bills.

General Sherman invaded South Carolina. He is famous for his quote "war is hell."

He also wrote this:


"You, you the people of the South, believe there can be such a thing as peaceable secession. You don't know what you are doing. I know there can be no such thing. ... If you will have it, the North must fight you for its own preservation. Yes, South Carolina has by this act precipitated war. ... This country will be drenched in blood. God only knows how it will end. Perhaps the liberties of the whole country, of every section and every man will be destroyed, and yet you know that within the Union no man's liberty or property in all the South is endangered. ... Oh, it is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization. ... You people speak so lightly of war. You don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing. I know you are a brave, fighting people, but for every day of actual fighting, there are months of marching, exposure and suffering. More men die in war from sickness than are killed in battle. At best war is a frightful loss of life and property, and worse still is the demoralization of the people. ...

"You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people, but an earnest people and will fight too, and they are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it.

"Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The Northern people not only greatly outnumber the whites at the South, but they are a mechanical people with manufactures of every kind, while you are only agriculturists--a sparse population covering a large extent of territory, and in all history no nation of mere agriculturists ever made successful war against a nation of mechanics. ...

"The North can make a steam-engine, locomotive or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical and determined people on earth--right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with.

"At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, and shut out from the markets of Europe by blockade as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. ... if your people would but stop and think, they must see that in the end you will surely fail."

 

[Ponder This]

There are no such members.

There are members that do not contribute the 2% of GDP that was agreed as a guideline in 2006

I rest my case. We all know there are members who haven't contributed what they should have.

Nice strawman, it is when Trump explicitly states regarding Russia, "I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want" that Trump is putting NATO at risk by encouraging Russia and yes it is unhinged in my view.

Ignoring context is what makes your argument a strawman.

Ponder harder. You're either being disingenuous or have terrible reading comprehension. Don't allow a thirst for boot lacquer to blind you to the irresponsible recklessness of Trump's words.

Read harder. Being a member of an alliance and not contributing is irresponsible. Keep in mind that being in NATO means that if your country is attacked then:

a state of war would automatically exist between all these countries and the attacker

This isn't some casual diplomatic circle-jerk. We are talking about war.

 

[danieldemol]

Ignoring context is what makes your argument a strawman.

There is no context that makes encouraging a dictator to send his armies on a rampage killing innocents ok in my view. If there were you would have provided the context with an accompanying logical explanation, but you haven't as I see it.

 

[exchemist]

This isn't some casual diplomatic circle-jerk. We are talking about war.

We are talking about deterrence.

And automatic mutual defence assistance is exactly what membership of NATO demands, of all its members. For Trump to complain about some members not spending the full 2% of GDP on their defence forces is fair enough, but for the most powerful member to tear up the mutual commitment clause destroys the whole alliance at a stroke.

Trump is a Russian agent.

P.S. Did you see how Trump has only now found a way to comment on Navalny's state-organised death, in which he makes no criticism at all of the Russian regime but, taking an onion from his pocket, manages somehow to make it all about himself, as a supposed victim? How one's heart bleeds.

 

[Revoltingest]

And he has no influence on where the military prefers to station their troops. We have seen this. Trump had ordered 6,000 troops to be relocated from Germany to Poland (as his try at punishing us for our low military budget). The brass immediately answered "YES, SIR!" - and then dragged their feet. Until that order was rescinded by Biden, not one US soldier left Germany (or planned to) for Poland.
That was a power demonstration, that showed who really commands the military.

How is this known?

 

[Heyo]

How is this known?

By following the news.

 

[Revoltingest]

By following the news.

We all do that.
But not all claims are cromulent.
So I ask.
What links do you have to
shed light & show evidence?

 

[Heyo]

We all do that.

You obviously didn't.

But not all claims are cromulent.
So I ask.
What links do you have to
shed light & show evidence?

I'm too lazy to search for that, what you should have witnessed yourself, if you had paid attention to the news. (And not confident enough in your ability to accept evidence.)

 

[Revoltingest]

You obviously didn't.

Oh, right...you read news.
Those who disagree with you don't.
That's why you have The Truth.

I'm too lazy to search for that, what you should have witnessed yourself, if you had paid attention to the news. (And not confident enough in your ability to accept evidence.)

If this is no more than what you surmise,
then this is to confuse opinion with fact.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Reading Churchill's memoirs about WWII, he makes a strong case that confronting Hitler early would probably have prevented or that war.

In America we had the America Firsters saying that there was no way the Britain could win against Hitler so it would be a waste of money to support it. We had a Congress that dug in its heels against such aid. Roosevelt fought to support Britain.

Just before the war, we had the German-American Bund, an American Nazi Party who cloaked themselves in the flag and patriotism, co-opting our first American president, George Washington.

Across the globe, strongmen were seizing the reins of government: Franco, Mussolini, Tojo, Hitler.

These things are parallels to what is happening today.

 

[Revoltingest]

Reading Churchill's memoirs about WWII, he makes a strong case that confronting Hitler early would probably have prevented or that war.

In America we had the America Firsters saying that there was no way the Britain could win against Hitler so it would be a waste of money to support it. We had a Congress that dug in its heels against such aid. Roosevelt fought to support Britain.

Just before the war, we had the German-American Bund, an American Nazi Party who cloaked themselves in the flag and patriotism, co-opting our first American president, George Washington.

Across the globe, strongmen were seizing the reins of government: Franco, Mussolini, Tojo, Hitler.

These things are parallels to what is happening today.

I say that supporting Ukraine's defense is an investment
in curbing Putin's potential rampage across eastern Europe,
& perhaps even making China's invasion of Taiwan less likely.
What say you?

 

[Wandering Monk]

I say that supporting Ukraine's defense is an investment
in curbing Putin's potential rampage across eastern Europe,
& perhaps even making China's invasion of Taiwan less likely.
What say you?

Aye, says I.

 

[exchemist]

Reading Churchill's memoirs about WWII, he makes a strong case that confronting Hitler early would probably have prevented or that war.

In America we had the America Firsters saying that there was no way the Britain could win against Hitler so it would be a waste of money to support it. We had a Congress that dug in its heels against such aid. Roosevelt fought to support Britain.

Just before the war, we had the German-American Bund, an American Nazi Party who cloaked themselves in the flag and patriotism, co-opting our first American president, George Washington.

View attachment 88597

Across the globe, strongmen were seizing the reins of government: Franco, Mussolini, Tojo, Hitler.

These things are parallels to what is happening today.

View attachment 88595

 

[Ponder This]

There is no context that makes encouraging a dictator to send his armies on a rampage killing innocents ok in my view. If there were you would have provided the context with an accompanying logical explanation, but you haven't as I see it.

The context you've ignored is the fundamental nature of the alliance which is NATO in which all should contribute to the benefit of all.

For Trump to complain about some members not spending the full 2% of GDP on their defence forces is fair enough

That's exactly it.

but for the most powerful member to tear up the mutual commitment clause destroys the whole alliance at a stroke

That didn't happen though. The one clause has not been isolated and torn up all by itself. Rather the question was, essentially, what if a NATO member decides to say FU to the rest of its members.

Trump is a Russian agent.

LoL. Ridiculous.

P.S. Did you see how Trump has only now found a way to comment on Navalny's state-organised death, in which he makes no criticism at all of the Russian regime but, taking an onion from his pocket, manages somehow to make it all about himself, as a supposed victim? How one's heart bleeds.

I get that you don't think Trump is being unfairly treated by the courts, but your heart bleeds because Trump pointed out that the Russian courts were unfair to Navalny? o.o
Did you notice Biden putting 500 new sanctions on Russia because of Navalny's death? Biden's unhinged! First of all, that he didn't already have these sanctions in place (because Russia invaded Ukraine and he made this big speech talking about how tough he was being on Russia with sanctions) and second that he thinks sanctions are the appropriate response to Navalny's death (sanctions are a type of economic warfare that hurts civilian populations) and third because sanctions have been continuously proven to be ineffective (for example, Russian economy up 50% since those first sanctions were introduced for invading Ukraine). Then Biden has the gall to accuse Trump of not directly condemning Putin for Navalny's death as if shutting down diplomatic options for talk with your enemies is laudable. Really Biden's trying desperately to score political points at any cost - no matter how harmful to the future of the U.S., to the future of Europe, or to the future of the world!

 

[SkepticThinker]

The context you've ignored is the fundamental nature of the alliance which is NATO in which all should contribute to the benefit of all.


That's exactly it.


That didn't happen though. The one clause has not been isolated and torn up all by itself. Rather the question was, essentially, what if a NATO member decides to say FU to the rest of its members.


LoL. Ridiculous.


I get that you don't think Trump is being unfairly treated by the courts, but your heart bleeds because Trump pointed out that the Russian courts were unfair to Navalny? o.o
Did you notice Biden putting 500 new sanctions on Russia because of Navalny's death? Biden's unhinged! First of all, that he didn't already have these sanctions in place (because Russia invaded Ukraine and he made this big speech talking about how tough he was being on Russia with sanctions) and second that he thinks sanctions are the appropriate response to Navalny's death (sanctions are a type of economic warfare that hurts civilian populations) and third because sanctions have been continuously proven to be ineffective (for example, Russian economy up 50% since those first sanctions were introduced for invading Ukraine). Then Biden has the gall to accuse Trump of not directly condemning Putin for Navalny's death as if shutting down diplomatic options for talk with your enemies is laudable. Really Biden's trying desperately to score political points at any cost - no matter how harmful to the future of the U.S., to the future of Europe, or to the future of the world!

What do you think the proper response to the murder of a journalist by a world leader should be? Do you think that's good for the world?

 

[fantome profane]

(for example, Russian economy up 50% since those first sanctions were introduced for invading Ukraine).

According to who? Putin?

 

[danieldemol]

The context you've ignored is the fundamental nature of the alliance which is NATO in which all should contribute to the benefit of all.

I haven't ignored the context, the context does not make it ok to encourage dictators to go on murderous rampages.

If you ever struggle to make a payment one day I sure hope for your sake there is no one cheering on killers to murder you in cold blood.

 

[Ponder This]

According to who? Putin?

With Russian economy far from collapse, U.S. opts for tougher punishment

Two years after President Biden spoke of dealing the Russian economy “a crushing blow” following the invasion of Ukraine, Russia this year is expected to grow faster than the United States, Germany, France or the United Kingdom.

How Russia has avoided bankrupting itself after 2 years of waging war in Ukraine
The West tried to crush Russia’s economy. Why hasn’t it worked?

Is there any legitimate news outlet that doesn't report how the Russian economy has rebounded from sanctions? LoL, "Putin".