Trump and NATO

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Seems like the running Trump thread has been closed...and so on Trump and his attitude to NATO

Democratic Senator Jack Reed yesterday having to teach the PotUS on the importance of NATO, given Trump's recent tweets and pronouncements on NATO whilst on the way to the NATO summit, and Reed goes on to emphasise the threat that Russia poses - noting that Putin is not "and I quote - fine" (Reeds words)

And on the issue of NATO funding Reed tells the PotUS.

NATO - "is in the US national interest and not because other countries are paying us for protection. We must look at the whole picture of allied contributions to the NATO operations" - and Reed then goes on to debunk Trump's complaints in respect of the contributions of the NATO, and recognises the NATO concerns over Trump having a 1:1 with Putin.

The motion offering strong support for NATO was passed by the Senate by 97 votes to 2 (with the two being the notional libertarians who dislike all such things).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJDTcAH0f-g

Meanwhile back in Europe European Council president Donald Tusk rebukes Trump

“Dear America, appreciate your allies,” European Council President Donald Tusk said Tuesday. “After all, you don’t have that many.”

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-tusk-donald-trump-eu-nato_us_5b457fcae4b0c523e263ee99

 

[User62651]

Not sure how strong NATO really is, has it ever been truly tested?

When we fought the Argies in Falklands I recall the French were selling them exocet missiles. No real loyalty, it's always about money.

If the Russians steamed into Estonia for example (which is a NATO member) as they did Crimea and east Ukraine, would NATO escalate to a full out war to drive them out? I have my doubts.

We do have the financial advantage of course, between US/Canada/Germany/France/UK/Netherlands and rest etc our combined defence spending dwarves what the Russians can spend. Putin has just 1 aircraft carrier...............but a shedload of nuclear missiles and a lot of manpower!

Trump is possibly correct that it's too easy to just lean on America to sort out any problems, all member states should at least meet the 2% of GDP defence spending I think for parity.

NATO is at the mercy of whatever the US president at the time thinks though. That's a weakness.

 

[IanM]

Good points, most members are ok with it, as long as the US keeps paying.

Not sure what right Tusk has to speak, isn't he just the chair of the Regional Chamber of Commerce? (see Brexit threads, the EU hasn't taken any sovereignty, it's just about trade! )

I always laugh when I hear about objections to the "put America first" strapline …. I'd have thought that was line-one of the Job Description of any head of state.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

NATO has run it's course......…USA and 'America First' says it all, they will not get involved in any conflict involving European countries.
There should be a standing EU Army, similar to NATO [but without the Americans] to support European interests.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Not sure how strong NATO really is, has it ever been truly tested?

When we fought the Argies in Falklands I recall the French were selling them exocet missiles. No real loyalty, it's always about money.

If the Russians steamed into Estonia for example (which is a NATO member) as they did Crimea and east Ukraine, would NATO escalate to a full out war to drive them out? I have my doubts.

We do have the financial advantage of course, between US/Canada/Germany/France/UK/Netherlands and rest etc our combined defence spending dwarves what the Russians can spend. Putin has just 1 aircraft carrier...............but a shedload of nuclear missiles and a lot of manpower!

Trump is possibly correct that it's too easy to just lean on America to sort out any problems, all member states should at least meet the 2% of GDP defence spending I think for parity.

NATO is at the mercy of whatever the US president at the time thinks though. That's a weakness.

NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States - and servicemen from NATO allies of the USA lost their lives on the back of that.

The words of the Democratic party Senator and the vote in the Senate do not suggest a huge weakness to the whims of the President.

Many US commentators and the Senator also pointed out how the US's allies contribute in other ways to NATO other than through the 2% target - the fact that European countries will host and support US military installations was not lost on the Senator. As he said...

"...is in the US national interest and not because other countries are paying us for protection. We must look at the whole picture of allied contributions to the NATO operations"

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

NATO has run it's course......…USA and 'America First' says it all, they will not get involved in any conflict involving European countries.
There should be a standing EU Army, similar to NATO [but without the Americans] to support European interests.

Which might seem logical but is an anathema to anti-EU ideologues and many who voted to leave the EU - even though at the same time they will be supporting Trump's view of NATO and it's non-value. I believe this sort of thinking is called cognitive dissonance.

 

[Tashyboy]

NATO has run it's course......…USA and 'America First' says it all, they will not get involved in any conflict involving European countries.
There should be a standing EU Army, similar to NATO [but without the Americans] to support European interests.

ER without stating the obvious, the people of this fine nation voted to get out of the EU. So how do you envisage us being in summat ( an eu army ) when we want to get out of it.

 

[Khamelion]

I think I heard this correct, but Trump was having a whine about why the Americans pay in to NATO to support the alliance, when countries like Germany get a lot of their oil from Russia, his argument being we are paying to support and keep you safe, yet you spend money to buy Oil from effectively someone who is our enemy or would be enemy.

If that is correct he has a point,

but

If for arguments sake the EU countries in NATO rejected anything from Russia and their member states and chose to buy from solely NATO countries instead, isn't he just going to start the cold war all over again. The armed forces growing in size along with border tensions.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I think I heard this correct, but Trump was having a whine about why the Americans pay in to NATO to support the alliance, when countries like Germany get a lot of their oil from Russia, his argument being we are paying to support and keep you safe, yet you spend money to buy Oil from effectively someone who is our enemy or would be enemy.

If that is correct he has a point,

but

If for arguments sake the EU countries in NATO rejected anything from Russia and their member states and chose to buy from solely NATO countries instead, isn't he just going to start the cold war all over again. The armed forces growing in size along with border tensions.

...and I am a little baffled that he would want Germany upping it's military game significantly in the face of resurgent right wing / fascist feelings in Germany and his wish to see the EU disintegrate....

 

[ColchesterFC]

I don't recall a thread along similar lines when Obama criticised the other NATO members for not meeting the 2% target and when he called them complacent for failing to meet the target - not a whimper then about all the other contributions European countries make to NATO. Or when he suggested that if Greece during the height of its' problems could meet the target then other countries should as well. Or when he called European states "free riders" for wanting America to act in North Africa without as he put it putting any "skin in the game".

But I guess that because it's Trump some people aren't happy. Looks almost as though it's a case of playing the man not the ball, something which is very prevalent on the forum in general.

 

[MadAdey]

I was watching CNN last night and they spoke to an economic expert. HE showed how what the US is spending is saving them even more money. The ability to use military establishments across Europe and the support that is given by other NATO countries is key to the US having strategic control around the world. How will they get their fast jets across to the middle east? I know from being in the RAF the cost that was involved in transiting Tornado F3s in and out of the Falklands.

When the USAF move aircraft they use air to air refueling from their tankers based in Europe. You can't even get to the UK from the US without refueling at least once, let alone to the middle east, that would take probably 3 in flight refuels. Now they would have to start paying other Air Forces to help them which would cost them a fortune.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I don't recall a thread along similar lines when Obama criticised the other NATO members for not meeting the 2% target and when he called them complacent for failing to meet the target - not a whimper then about all the other contributions European countries make to NATO. Or when he suggested that if Greece during the height of its' problems could meet the target then other countries should as well. Or when he called European states "free riders" for wanting America to act in North Africa without as he put it putting any "skin in the game".

But I guess that because it's Trump some people aren't happy. Looks almost as though it's a case of playing the man not the ball, something which is very prevalent on the forum in general.

Because Obama was never as critical and dismissive of NATO as a concept as Trump is. For Trump it's not all about the money - it's about the very existence of NATO - an organisation only in place as far as he is concerned so that Europe can shirk it's responsibilities and rely upon the US for it's defence.

The Senator was scathing of Trump. And the Senate voted 97:2 in support of the motion.

 

[drdel]

Germany and others have had a free ride . Brexit and Nato are fundamentally different arrangements.

Trump is correct.

 

[MadAdey]

Germany and others have had a free ride . Brexit and Nato are fundamentally different arrangements.

Trump is correct.

Correct about what? Other NATO members not put the same amount of money in, but they give the US free use of military establishments across Europe giving them the ability to have a strategic frontline this side of the world. Without that what will they do??

 

[Beezerk]

Can’t believe it, I made some absolutely world changing comments in that Trump thread and its gone now.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Can’t believe it, I made some absolutely world changing comments in that Trump thread and its gone now.

I believe you were quoted in Brussels today 😁. Gone but not forgotten.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

ER without stating the obvious, the people of this fine nation voted to get out of the EU. So how do you envisage us being in summat ( an eu army ) when we want to get out of it.

I have absolutely no idea how the UK defence will work once we get our country back.
Without the USA and the EU I would say that we will be quite lonely.

 

[Imurg]

So....you have to be in the EU to be part of NATO......??
When did USA join the EU?
Why should anything change?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I have absolutely no idea how the UK defence will work once we get our country back.
Without the USA and the EU I would say that we will be quite lonely.

EU has nothing to do with the UK defence

The UK defence will carry on working as it does within NATO

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Correct about what? Other NATO members not put the same amount of money in, but they give the US free use of military establishments across Europe giving them the ability to have a strategic frontline this side of the world. Without that what will they do??

exactly what the Senator was saying - a view supported 97:2 by US Senators. I struggle that so many in the UK seem to disagree with the US Senate....

What the Senate is worried about is the way that Trump was ignoring many of the other ways European countries support the US in NATO - and using that deliberate ignorance/misunderstanding to focus on the 2% and use that to undermine NATO - making the US's NATO allies worry about the sanctity and inviolability of Article 5 as he sucks up to the despot Putin.

And Trump's cultish supporters in the US hear Trump criticise and undermine NATO and individual countries, and these supporters believe his rhetoric and builds up resentment with NATO. What Trump says is the truth - regardless of whether or not it actually is - and ignoring the fact that - by his own words and out of his own mouth - Trump is a PROVEN liar - someone who truly cannot be trusted. And the Senate recognise and share concerns with their NATO allies over what Trump will be saying 1:1 with Putin.