Search the Community

Because it doesn’t there is some kind of negotiation on payment going on in NATO. You do not welcome attacks on your allies Why is this so hard to understand?

here's what you and orange man don't understand (from a CNN editorial): As with much foreign policy, the Republican frontrunner radically misunderstood the nature and purpose of this relationship. NATO is not an alliance based on dues: it is the largest military bloc in history, formed to face down the Soviet threat, based on the collective defense that an attack on one is an attack on all – a principle enshrined in Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty. It’s purpose which suits the US profoundly: The White House invoked Article 5 after 9/11. And since NATO’s creation, US might has been often packaged globally as the expression of a dozens-strong consensus. NATO helps bolster the US’s ebbing position as the sole hyperpower. Strip away this vast alliance, and its diplomatic and economic might, and the US looks quite lonely on the world stage. In short, the US will almost certainly always spend much more than anyone else on its military, regardless of its allies. NATO gives it a global bedrock of legitimacy, support for the dollar, and the post-Soviet hegemony it thrives upon.

That doesn't show he waited. You are making no sense. Are you saying he was scared of Trump? Trump praised the invasion. Heck, he's inviting Putin to attack NATO. Biden's the one that ignored the nuclear blackmail and has aided Ukraine. ("Expert" posters on this board said we were going to have a nuclear war if we aided Ukraine, lol) Putin should have invaded under Trump, he would have won, as Trump would never had lifted a finger to save that republic What are you trying to say, Putin fears Trump, or they are such good friends that Putin wanted to help Trump by not ruffling any feathers. You support a really screwed up person

Oh, it's "diplomatic niceties." Great euphemism for sucking up to dictators... Anyway, it will be as futile as Ukraine. Taiwan is not a member of NATO.

Anoth another reason to strengthen NATO. If these scumbags turn some of law enforcement or the military, we can ask for aid in doing just that. Personally, I think putting the Jan 6 shite behind bars will be a cautionary tale for many would be insurrectionists. But more insurance is often good.

Oh look you said big guy and that got the monkeys excited! Almost as excited they get when they regurgitate any story reflecting negatively on Ukraine. Oh how i envy the simple-minded. I don't know what Joe's plan is in terms of getting members to spend more. I do hope he does something. Not threatening to not help Nato members if attacked, I'm not an imbecile, but certainly he has economic and diplomatic levers at his disposal. They'll regret it if there's escalation that's for certain.

Never mind that in the clip it provides, Trump was talking about countries that don't pay into NATO. Not countries that do. It's the same stupid ***** with them.

And in fact after Trump said that the NATO allies decided they would pony up their fair share. Funny how that worked out, ain't it ?

Oh we understand. The NATO allies all want the perks and protection from the treaty but when it comes to actually investing in it, not so much.

He invaded under Barry and Joke but not Trump. What more proof do you need? And he strengthened NATO. Germany is spending more than they have in over a generation.

You missed the whole point on this Putin is smart he’s evil, but smart. There was no reason to invade Ukraine whenever Trump was carrying a water for him, blowing up NATO. Trump got kicked out he attacked America said no we don’t need a dictator in office I believe that this is entirely possible It’s been weaponized it happened and didn’t get the fanfare that it didn’t previous years before Trump and Biden It is laughable to say that Trump strengthened NATO

explain why you believe that. cuz many world leaders don't. you wanna get rid of NATO too, right? No need for it. Putin is as gentle as a kitten....

Finland joining NATO basically doubled the length of Russia’s border with NATO countries but Russia did nothing about it. If Russia was attacking Ukraine to prevent NATO encroachment, wouldn’t they have tried to stop Finland from joining? It’s almost as if the NATO talking point is a fig leaf to distract from Russia’s revanchism…

Yeah because he already pulled your strings like the dumbasses you are... What did he say, John? Did he say he was going to pull out of NATO? Did he say he wouldn't support NATO members who paid their fair share? Did he say he would tell Russia to invade them? Nope. But that's what the left is parroting.

Very convincing. He dislikes nato because to the us its a money pit. How can someone this old be this dense. Critical thinking is not your forte.

Doesn't matter, he's "defeated" them. Never mind that the "2 week" war with Ukraine is now over 2 years old. But yeah, he's defeated the US and NATO.

Thanks for some historical perspective. So the Messiah implored NATO to pay their fair share and they didn't. So Trump says "pay up or we're out."

And Putin is lucky Ukraine is not part of NATO; yet. Oh, this is fun - what did he say? Make sure you check in with @Westside before answering.

It's just as sad to twist comments to make them fit a narrative. Again, Barry told NATO they had to pay more in 2014. Obviously they didn't listen. They are now...

Did you actually read the article before you posted this? You should, it has some salient points. Personally, I think Salena Zito's observation from 7 years ago is key to bridging a lot of divides. As a person I think Trump is gross, but the axe he is grinding about our Nato partners not holding up their end of the bargain is valid. Hell, the NATO Secretary General even agrees.

they aren't "promises". 2% GDP is a guideline. more at the CNN link above t: All of these Trump claims are false. While a majority of NATO members do not meet the alliance’s target of each member spending a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, the 2% target is a “guideline” that does not create bills, debts or legal obligations if it is not met. In fact, the guideline doesn’t require payments to NATO or the US at all. Rather, it simply requires each country to spend on their own defense programs. When Trump was president, the guideline was written in forgiving language that made clear that it was not a firm commitment. That version of the guideline, created at a NATO summit in Wales in 2014, said members that had yet to reach 2% would “aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls.” In other words, the members that were below 2% in 2014 didn’t even have to promise to hit the target by 2024 – simply to make an effort to do so by then. NATO does require members to make direct contributions to fund the organization’s own operations. But there is no sign that members have failed to make those contributions, which constitute a tiny fraction of the allies’ defense spending, and Trump has made clear that his talk of debts is about the 2% guideline. Stephen Saideman, the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University in Canada, said in a Monday email that the word “inaccurate really does not cover Trump’s protection racket/country club perception of dues owed to the US.”

I really hesitate to do this, but reading this thread, and specifically the Trump/NATO/Russia issue. Most countries in NATO have been grossly negligent in living up to promises re funding as a % of GDP. This has real consequences regarding the US. If the ability of NATO to respond to a legitimate threat, ie., Russia involves one country providing almost all of the capability, is is really not an alliance as proposed. That is the situation, though recent promises, if enacted, make is more equitable. During Trump's admin, it was horribly one sided. Germany and Canada, specifically, were grossly under funded. That gets to mission capability. When you are relying on one nation to handle: airlift tanking (air to air refueling) electronic warfare night capability intel supply chain replenishment anti air suppression stealth capability combat search and rescue And I could go on. In a conflict, that disproportionate capability, which has already resulted in the US taxpayer and their grandchildren bearing much more $ to maintain, results in far more US casualties, as the US handles the far more dangerous missions, and far less NATO alliance casualties NATO relies on the US for all of this, and it was much worse two years ago. I can't stand Trump, and I think there are more effective ways to point this stuff out, but he is correct. You either have an alliance with everyone living up to their promises, or you don't. Eventually, if there is some desirable tragedy to Russia's military capability that removes them as a threat, there's no need for NATO, but we are not there yet.

Getting away from Russia's influence has helped every single former Russian satellite state tremendously when it comes to corruption. There's a reason for that. It's beaten into their culture. Excising cancer isn't easy. Ukraine is a f'd up country. They are trying to westernize/ be what we call normal. Russia doesn't like that. Yes nato encroachment factors too, lots of factors. But Russia definitely wants their control over Ukraine.

Germany now spends 2 percent of gdp. Just as many NATO nations are working towards. A 180 from the lefts narrative when the orange dude was in office.

They're hoping everyone forgets...because it started under Barry. I wonder if Barry knew beforehand, which is what led him to tell Medvedev on a hot mic for Putin to wait until he gets re-elected? And they've been told to believe Putin will start invading NATO countries. Because he's doing such a great job with a corrupt non-NATO one...