Trump still Doesn't Understand how NATO works.

[Kulindahr]

In his head there is a crown, which we shall not ignore.
(I can't imagine him reading a novel, sad to say)

I would think Trump regards crowns as commodities to be bought and sold -- if only he were wealthy enough.

 

[gsdx]

^ But I imagine he fancies himself wearing one.

 

[eastofeden]

I think any 8th grade C Student knows more about NATO and everything else in the world than Trump. The guy is a fucking idiot...and an up close and personal example of the Emperor who isn't wearing any clothes.

At this point..I hold the entire Republican Party responsible for EVERYTHING he does. I don't think for a second any of them actually believe he isn't in bed with the Kremlin. He borrowed money from them..it is painfully simple to connect the dots. It isn't as if he is clever...he pretty much admits it and actually helps anyone investigating him and his cronies.

 

[ballcaphair]

In hindsight I watched the inauguration with a friend and he is very anti-trump he wrestled with me until I got a solid grip on him. He began to cry and was angry that I was not upset that trump was sworn in. He berated me for not being also horrified. He was angry that I was not angry. I'd been silent because I thought, who know? We're together a lot, he is gay, more horrified than before. I admitted that I had voted fore Johnson. He slapped me hard, kissed my cheek and completely broke down. I can keep my emotions in check, but in my heart, I believe he was completely on point. I apologized to him and must apologize to at least half of you for misjudging this whole thing by tens of thousands of miles.

 

[rareboy]

Four Pinocchios.

Despite being constantly fact checked for over a year...

During the campaign, we originally gave Trump’s NATO comments Three Pinnochios, as more of the burden for defense of Europe falls on American shoulders. But enough time has passed, with so little change in the president’s rhetoric, that we are increasing the rating to Four Pinocchios.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...months-of-fact-checks/?utm_term=.05cc424834a7

 

[Kulindahr]

^ But I imagine he fancies himself wearing one.

Perhaps, but I suspect he thinks he's better than any royalty -- they'd just be more people he can tell "You're fired!"

 

[Kulindahr]

In hindsight I watched the inauguration with a friend and he is very anti-trump he wrestled with me until I got a solid grip on him. He began to cry and was angry that I was not upset that trump was sworn in. He berated me for not being also horrified. He was angry that I was not angry. I'd been silent because I thought, who know? We're together a lot, he is gay, more horrified than before. I admitted that I had voted fore Johnson. He slapped me hard, kissed my cheek and completely broke down. I can keep my emotions in check, but in my heart, I believe he was completely on point. I apologized to him and must apologize to at least half of you for misjudging this whole thing by tens of thousands of miles.

I still agree with a neighbor across the street: on election night, for the American public it was just a question of how we were all going to get fucked. But neither of us suspected it would be this bad.

 

[ballcaphair]

I still agree with a neighbor across the street: on election night, for the American public it was just a question of how we were all going to get fucked. But neither of us suspected it would be this bad.

I am so with you on this. Not in my wildest dreams did I consider this Charlatan would be so bold, so covert and illicit. He is burning down our house and congress blathers! This is surreal and horrible.

 

[gsdx]

Apparently, Trump not only doesn't understand how NATO works, he doesn't even know what it's for.

After apparently moderating his stance toward an organization he once dismissed as obsolete, Trump used last week's meeting to publicly denounce Europe's low defense spending, while also surprising many NATO leaders present by urging them also to focus on illegal immigration.

Many at NATO headquarters are now unsure of the alliance's future direction under Trump, according to seven current and former alliance diplomats, some of whom attended Tuesday's debriefing at NATO's inner sanctum, the North Atlantic Council.

"Trump showed we have fundamental differences about what NATO is for," said one senior European NATO diplomat. "NATO is designed to defend the territory of its members, not stop terrorism or immigration. We are heading in opposite directions."

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/refreshing-strange-trumps-demands-drive-wedge-nato-133801540.html

 

[eastofeden]

Apparently, Trump not only doesn't understand how NATO works, he doesn't even know what it's for.



https://ca.news.yahoo.com/refreshing-strange-trumps-demands-drive-wedge-nato-133801540.html

Apparently Putin hasn't explained it to his little puppet yet....

...but I suspect if he did...his little puppet would gladly throw Europe under the bus since he has nothing but admiration and respect for Putin...

To our European friends...the majority of us are as horrified as you are. Hopefully we can come back from this..but maybe not....

 

[rareboy]

I'm honestly not sure how the US ever recovers from this.

It could quite possibly be the defining moment marking the end of the American century.

What a crying shame.

 

[bankside]

It makes no sense for NATO to set a contribution rate and then not ensure all of its member meet it.

The smart thing to do though would be to revisit the rate. It might not need to be as high as in the middle of the Cold War. How often does NATO hold a "rate review" process?

The other thing they might do a thing the same time is a cap, btw...

 

[Kulindahr]

Apparently, Trump not only doesn't understand how NATO works, he doesn't even know what it's for.



https://ca.news.yahoo.com/refreshing-strange-trumps-demands-drive-wedge-nato-133801540.html

Well, NATO did step up to join the U.S. in fighting terrorism, stating it regarded terrorist attacks on the U.S. as attacks on all members. The odd thing about Trump's notion is that it was the U.S. which decided to pretty much go it alone, at least back at the beginning. But either way, NATO's efforts against terrorism pre-date Trump by two administrations.....

 

[Kulindahr]

It makes no sense for NATO to set a contribution rate and then not ensure all of its member meet it.

The smart thing to do though would be to revisit the rate. It might not need to be as high as in the middle of the Cold War. How often does NATO hold a "rate review" process?

The other thing they might do a thing the same time is a cap, btw...

I think there's an annual review, at least according to some general I heard on the tube. The thing is, that 2% figure is to be worked toward over a number of years, and so long as the review finds everyone is making progress there's no issue -- unless some leaders think other countries aren't making progress fast enough, but that's just talk since there's no mechanism to change things.

 

[gsdx]

Well, NATO did step up to join the U.S. in fighting terrorism, stating it regarded terrorist attacks on the U.S. as attacks on all members. The odd thing about Trump's notion is that it was the U.S. which decided to pretty much go it alone, at least back at the beginning. But either way, NATO's efforts against terrorism pre-date Trump by two administrations.....

But that's fighting terrorism in their own individual countries. Trump wants them to join him and go to war against it, and that isn't what NATO is for.

 

[ballcaphair]

But that's fighting terrorism in their own individual countries. Trump wants them to join him and go to war against it, and that isn't what NATO is for.

It is sad when a leader does not understand a friendship founded on life or death. That leader is an uninformed fool. But, you already know that. Alas.

 

[opinterph]

It makes no sense for NATO to set a contribution rate and then not ensure all of its member meet it.

The smart thing to do though would be to revisit the rate. It might not need to be as high as in the middle of the Cold War. How often does NATO hold a "rate review" process?

The pledge for all NATO members to move toward investing 2 percent of GDP in defense spending was revisited at the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Wales in September 2014.

Taking current commitments into account, we are guided by the following considerations:

Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue to do so.

Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:

• halt any decline in defence expenditure;

• aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;

• 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.

US President Obama made remarks during a press conference while he was in attendance at the Wales Summit:

… all 28 NATO nations have pledged to increase their investments in defense and to move toward investing 2 percent of their GDP in our collective security. These resources will help NATO invest in critical capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and missile defense. And this commitment makes clear that NATO will not be complacent. Our Alliance will reverse the decline in defense spending and rise to meet the challenges that we face in the 21st century.

Remarks by President Obama at NATO Summit Press Conference (The White House [archive]; September 5, 2014)

The following article was published one year after the Wales Summit:

The relevance of 2 percent, in reality, also does not depend on all 28 member states—just on a small handful. An increase in defense spending would only have a meaningful impact in terms of increased military capabilities in NATO if it came from the top six spenders (the United States excluded). These are, in descending order, as of 2015: the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Canada. In all other countries, with the possible exception of the Netherlands, the small volume of their defense spending indicates that an increase to 2 percent would not constitute a meaningful growth in real capabilities, even if the additional money were spent in the wisest possible way.

The Politics of 2 Percent: NATO and the Security Vacuum in Europe (Carnegie Europe; September 2015)

And a more recent discussion, including analysis of President Trump’s position toward NATO, Peter Layton suggests the 2 percent of GDP measure is the wrong approach.

Where allies fit into American grand strategy cannot be determined using an arbitrary GDP budget figure. The 2 percent figure is a red herring and avoids the key issues. The allies could spend more on their defense as Mattis requests and the president demands but not necessarily enhance U.S. national security. This debate needs a much greater level of sophistication.

The 2 Percent NATO Benchmark Is a Red Herring (The National Interest; February 2017)

 

[Kulindahr]

But that's fighting terrorism in their own individual countries. Trump wants them to join him and go to war against it, and that isn't what NATO is for.

Since terrorism isn't a country, true. NATO could have defined ISIL as a country and acted against them, but without that definition there could be no action under the treaty terms. They offered to go to war against Afghanistan back at the start, because it was run by the same group that mounted the 9/11 attacks, but without a nation as a target NATO doesn't act.

BTW, Putin understands this distinction quite clearly, which is why he employs the Russian mob to do dirty work: if Russia itself acted against a NATO country, the alliance could go into full-bore action, but so long as it's just criminal organizations NATO is as a treaty organization powerless. That shows that Putin understands NATO better than Trump!

It also brings things around to fighting terrorism: if there was a country to go to war against, NATO could act, but terrorists not sponsored by any state are just criminal organizations. Trump would do better to ask Interpol.

 

[bankside]

Thank you opinterph and kulindahr for your NATO observations. I'm aware that diplomats sometimes content themselves with squishy language. It appears to be part of the deal. However if you have a bunch of free countries declare time and time again that a certain level of defence spending is necessary, it is reasonable to actually hold all countries in that partnership to it. I doubt that 2% is either necessary or desirable, but if countries like my own freely governed one keep agreeing to it then I expect them to deliver.

 

[Kulindahr]

And a more recent discussion, including analysis of President Trump’s position toward NATO, Peter Layton suggests the 2 percent of GDP measure is the wrong approach.

That's a very nice analysis. I was thinking of a comparison with a batch of college students who agree to spend 2% of their budget for going out together; whether the spending by any given student will benefit the rest would depend heavily on how that student chose to spend his 2%, and what he considered to count toward "going out together".