Search the Community

Given its aggressive tone it's more likely NATO attacks Russia.

Lies? Can you substantiate your POV that Trump doesn’t want to abandon NATO?

They've been told that once Russia takes over Ukraine (despite the war going on 2 years now and with token help from NATO, with no end in sight) they're going to be invading NATO countries. No, really.

Stoltenberg is obviously a TRUMP/MAGA toadie. Dimwits like redhawk and tiberius turning on NATO in 3…2…

rest assured, the feelings are mutual. His views on NATO compliment his views on the military...that service and especially imprisonment and death for the sake of the country is for idiots. Given that belief, it's hardly surprising that he thinks spending US money on NATO is a waste. btw, if NATO is so unsuccessful as currently run, why is Putin so against it? Why all the fighting to stop more nations from joining? The answer is that it is and will continue to be an effective alliance that worries Russia greatly....

NATO you say. G7 G20

How about this for anyone cool with the current NATO funding arrangement? We organize a 2 week cruise with you and your spouse and 5 other couples where you agree to pay 80% of the total cost of the 12 vacationers. Sound fair? That's pretty much NATO budgeting.

More like sacrificing them in a proxy war while paying off their political leaders and oligarchs. The standard blood for money arrangement. The question is how far are we willing to go? Are they going to "green light" bombing raids on Russia to be flown out of NATO country bases? And if the Russians consider those bases "fair game" and attack them to destroy those aircraft then what? Article 5? So then NATO forces attack Russia with overwhelming conventional forces and Russia rather than lose the battle and territory deploy tactical nuclear weapons? Are they bluffing about their will to do this? What if they're not? Will we respond? And then they launch ICBM's on cities like NY and Washington. EMP discharges take out electric grids and the world plunges into darkness. And we respond back and its lights out for the human race and civilization for a few hundred years or more. Are western leaders willing to risk the end of the world and my life and the lives of the people I'm responsible for and everyone else on the planet along with almost all animal and plant species in order to "save Ukrainian democracy"? In the context of that cost I suggest your democracy at all costs looks like an expensive proposition. Because this is ultimately where we're headed and if anyone things otherwise, well, they might be the one's on drugs.

Bill Clinton on who should pay for NATO expansion: https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/07/09/clinton/ “But he noted that most of the expansion's costs, estimated at $35 billion over 12 years, should be borne by new NATO members. D!ck face bashing Trump for wanting what he wanted.

It's all they have, along with Russia, Russia, Russia. Never mind that, again, the Dems are the party of anti-Semites now, which has drawn in many White Supremacists because they also hate Jews. And the isolationism thing because they believe he was/is trying to destroy NATO is just dumb. Sure Trump threatened NATO (I don't like the way he said it, but it got the desired results) but now they're stronger than ever.

So thousands and thousands more Ukrainians will die? For how long? It's been going on for over 2 years. It's a trench war stalemate. We thought it might turn into WW III,but really it's turned into WW I. I would prefer we and NATO countries put our resources to trying for a diplomatic end to this carnage. Not to mention with all the trouble Russia is having with Ukraine it gives me little fear they will attack a NATO country and what would happen if they did. They would get their doors blown in.

NATO chief says record number of U.S. allies will hit spending target You don’t say…

that's what he tells you rubes and you buy it...he dislikes NATO because Putin despises it.

Putin can't even beat a corrupt country that's getting minor assistance from the rest of the World. How do you guys think Putin's going to be able to invade a NATO country that will have full backing and resources of NATO members?

China has fallen back due to covid. Has nothing to do with nato, foh. You are the Partisan hack

Yes yes in a hypothetical situation in which NATO allies refused to pay their share. You get that, right? Yes or no?

Trump has a history of wanting to pull the US out of NATO. When he knew he politically couldn't do that (during his first term) - he decided to embarrass our allies about their dues. July 21, 2016 | Donald Trump Remarks on NATO Trigger Alarm Bells in Europe

Glancing through this….all I can surmise is this. Putin has defeated the US and NATO without even engaging them militarily. He is planted a leader here that is going to support him and break up NATO. Even more impressive he has gotten a significant portion of the US media machine and a chunk of our citizens to go along with it. Amazing.

Oh come on, he recently said he would allow Putin to invade NATO countries. If the US under trump are going to follow isolationist policies, of all the countries in the world, why oh why would Haiti be an exception.

Bill, Obama and Hillary all wanted NATO nations to ante up. Now the Left is acting outraged on the issue. LW hypocrisy on display, as usual.

Vietnam isn't bordering European NATO nations. interesting that the right was pro vietnam war and the left anti vietnam on the population level. For Ukraine, it's flipped.

Who is forgetting that some countries aren't meeting the 2% guideline? The biggest jump in NATO funding came after Russia invaded Crimea. It's been increasing ever since. Sure, we would like the Europeans and Canada to pay more. Threatening countries with a Russian invasion isn't the way to achieve this and plays right into Putins hand. NATO is a threat to him. A fact that trump either doesn't understand or does comprehend and sides with Putin. It IS about US politics. Staffers in trump's last administration reported he wanted out of NATO. He is the R party now, sadly.

The question is, absent direct NATO involvement in combat operations, what does anyone think we can supply that will push the Russians back? As the biggest issue is they're losing the war of attrition and running out of well-trained and capable combat soldiers.

TAKING TRUMP SERIOUSLY In 2016, Salena Zito made the brilliant observation that “the press takes [Donald Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.” Trump’s recent comments about NATO are a perfect illustration. On Saturday, Trump riffed on the importance of NATO members meeting their treaty commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defense: That prompted predictable pearl-clutching in Europe, while Joe Biden responded with outrage: It was obvious to the non-demented that Trump was not actually encouraging Russia to invade NATO members who don’t pay their 2%, but rather emphasizing one of his favorite themes: that America shouldn’t allow itself to be taken advantage of by allies who don’t bear their share of the cost. And it turns out that, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth, this was obvious to NATO allies themselves. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/02/taking-trump-seriously.php .

Article 5 is a bedrock principle of NATO. He wants to blow it up. Make it meaningless. Do you know the last time article 5 was used? Hint: it was to protect the US. Article 5 provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, each and every other member of the Alliance will consider this act of violence as an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked.