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

[danieldemol]

'The head of NATO has warned that Donald Trump is putting the lives of US troops and their allies at risk by saying Russia should do "whatever the hell they want" to members of the military alliance who don't spend enough on defence...

...Speaking at a rally in South Carolina on Saturday, Mr Trump recalled how he previously told an unidentified NATO member that he would "encourage" Russia to do as it wishes in cases of NATO allies who are "delinquent".

"'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'" Mr Trump recounted saying.

"'No I would not protect you. In fact I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills."

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates responded, calling Mr Trump's latest comments "unhinged".'
Source: NATO chief says Trump's comments 'put American and European soldiers at increased risk'

It looks to me as though Mr Trump is actually encouraging the invasion of less well off NATO allies.

This suggests to me that A) Trump hates the less well off. And B) He is actually encouraging war criminals.

Your thoughts?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trump always has been and always will be a bully. If anyone dares to stand up to him he will plot revenge if at all possible. But when it is someone far more powerful then him, like most bullies, he will kowtow to that person. It is rather pathetic.

 

[Heyo]

'The head of NATO has warned that Donald Trump is putting the lives of US troops and their allies at risk by saying Russia should do "whatever the hell they want" to members of the military alliance who don't spend enough on defence...

...Speaking at a rally in South Carolina on Saturday, Mr Trump recalled how he previously told an unidentified NATO member that he would "encourage" Russia to do as it wishes in cases of NATO allies who are "delinquent".

"'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'" Mr Trump recounted saying.

"'No I would not protect you. In fact I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills."

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates responded, calling Mr Trump's latest comments "unhinged".'
Source: NATO chief says Trump's comments 'put American and European soldiers at increased risk'

It looks to me as though Mr Trump is actually encouraging the invasion of less well off NATO allies.

This suggests to me that A) Trump hates the less well off. And B) He is actually encouraging war criminals.

Your thoughts?

So it is about Trump again? We had that thread already.
I suspected that this was about Stoltenberg fabricating a threat out of a dumb comment from a dumb civilian.
Trump is not President and even when he was or if he might be again, he was never Commander in Chief. The military doesn't listen to Trump (or most other Presidents), they have their own agenda. And Putin knows that.

 

[danieldemol]

So it is about Trump again? We had that thread already.
I suspected that this was about Stoltenberg fabricating a threat out of a dumb comment from a dumb civilian.
Trump is not President and even when he was or if he might be again, he was never Commander in Chief. The military doesn't listen to Trump (or most other Presidents), they have their own agenda. And Putin knows that.

Well when republicans stop nominating dumb civilians who make dumb comments encouraging and egging on war criminals all can breathe a sigh of relief and never have to hear about Trump again and all live happily ever after in my view, but until that day comes i believe we should have the stupidity of Trump on replay until Republicans wake up to the way they are heaping egg onto their own faces by making Trump their leader.

 

[Stevicus]

'The head of NATO has warned that Donald Trump is putting the lives of US troops and their allies at risk by saying Russia should do "whatever the hell they want" to members of the military alliance who don't spend enough on defence...

...Speaking at a rally in South Carolina on Saturday, Mr Trump recalled how he previously told an unidentified NATO member that he would "encourage" Russia to do as it wishes in cases of NATO allies who are "delinquent".

"'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'" Mr Trump recounted saying.

"'No I would not protect you. In fact I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills."

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates responded, calling Mr Trump's latest comments "unhinged".'
Source: NATO chief says Trump's comments 'put American and European soldiers at increased risk'

It looks to me as though Mr Trump is actually encouraging the invasion of less well off NATO allies.

This suggests to me that A) Trump hates the less well off. And B) He is actually encouraging war criminals.

Your thoughts?

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.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Very insightful. However, it is catastrophically irresponsible statesmanship for a US presidential candidate to telegraph publicly, to a very threatening enemy, that NATO may not function as advertised in the event of an attack on a member state.

As for the old "What's in it for us?" question, we all benefit from a world without wars. If Putin were to make a grab for the Baltic States or Poland, say, we would have WW3 on our hands. The economic lights would go dim across the whole of Europe as all the energy was diverted into the war effort. The USA would feel the effects of that pretty quickly and expensively, even if it declined to get directly involved itself.

It is a good thing that many member states who did not pull their weight financially are now doing so, notably Germany, but this sort of statement by Trump does immense damage to the deterrent value of NATO.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I suspected that this was about Stoltenberg fabricating a threat out of a dumb comment from a dumb civilian.

Speaking of dumb, fabricating an image of Trump as little more than "a dumb civilian" borders on idiotic.

..., it is catastrophically irresponsible statesmanship for a US presidential candidate to telegraph publicly, to a very threatening enemy, that NATO may not function as advertised in the event of an attack on a member state.

^ This.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well when republicans stop nominating dumb civilians who make dumb comments encouraging and egging on war criminals all can breathe a sigh of relief and never have to hear about Trump again and all live happily ever after in my view, but until that day comes i believe we should have the stupidity of Trump on replay until Republicans wake up to the way they are heaping egg onto their own faces by making Trump their leader.

I wholeheartedly agree. Until he's defeated, make sure everybody sees every gaffe and lunatic action.

 

[exchemist]

So it is about Trump again? We had that thread already.
I suspected that this was about Stoltenberg fabricating a threat out of a dumb comment from a dumb civilian.
Trump is not President and even when he was or if he might be again, he was never Commander in Chief. The military doesn't listen to Trump (or most other Presidents), they have their own agenda. And Putin knows that.

This is tantamount to saying the president is unable to determine the military posture of the US., because the real power resides in the military. That might be true in Pakistan but it is not true of the USA. Sure, he would be advised against tearing up the NATO pact, but even leaving it in place the president can have a huge (yuge?) influence on how the US reacts to an attack on a NATO member, both in terms of speed of response and in degree. He or she also controls what messaging is sent to an adversary, which has a large effect on how that adversary calculates risk.

 

[JIMMY12345]

'The head of NATO has warned that Donald Trump is putting the lives of US troops and their allies at risk by saying Russia should do "whatever the hell they want" to members of the military alliance who don't spend enough on defence...

...Speaking at a rally in South Carolina on Saturday, Mr Trump recalled how he previously told an unidentified NATO member that he would "encourage" Russia to do as it wishes in cases of NATO allies who are "delinquent".

"'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'" Mr Trump recounted saying.

"'No I would not protect you. In fact I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills."

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates responded, calling Mr Trump's latest comments "unhinged".'
Source: NATO chief says Trump's comments 'put American and European soldiers at increased risk'

It looks to me as though Mr Trump is actually encouraging the invasion of less well off NATO allies.

This suggests to me that A) Trump hates the less well off. And B) He is actually encouraging war criminals.

Your thoughts?

Trump has a reputation for not declaring tax returns and not paying bills.In Europe and worldwide he is seen as Putin's poodle.He is the only guy with ready cash.So Republicans blindly follow him.Money buys a certain type of royalty.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, Trump's putting them at risk, not the fact that they're over there in the first place and not home like they should be. Nato needs to go. Europe can fight its own wars.

 

[Heyo]

This is tantamount to saying the president is unable to determine the military posture of the US., because the real power resides in the military. That might be true in Pakistan but it is not true of the USA. Sure, he would be advised against tearing up the NATO pact, but even leaving it in place the president can have a huge (yuge?) influence on how the US reacts to an attack on a NATO member, both in terms of speed of response and in degree. He or she also controls what messaging is sent to an adversary, which has a large effect on how that adversary calculates risk.

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.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Are you really telling me the invasion of Afghanistan after 911 and of Iraq was nothing to do with the president?

 

[Heyo]

Are you really telling me the invasion of Afghanistan after 911 and of Iraq was nothing to do with the president?

Nope.
I'm telling you that orders that don't fit into the doctrine, wouldn't always be followed.
And I'm telling you that Trump especially hasn't much clout with the military. He dodged the draft, and he has insulted soldiers in general and high-ranking militaries personally.

 

[Stevicus]

Very insightful. However, it is catastrophically irresponsible statesmanship for a US presidential candidate to telegraph publicly, to a very threatening enemy, that NATO may not function as advertised in the event of an attack on a member state.

Very true, although this isn't the first time such an idea has been mentioned. Such messages are generally directed at the American people, not the outside world.

As for the old "What's in it for us?" question, we all benefit from a world without wars. If Putin were to make a grab for the Baltic States or Poland, say, we would have WW3 on our hands. The economic lights would go dim across the whole of Europe as all the energy was diverted into the war effort. The USA would feel the effects of that pretty quickly and expensively, even if it declined to get directly involved itself.

Much of this is based on a "what if." We don't really know what Putin is going to do. For 40 years, NATO forces stood eye-to-eye with Warsaw Pact forces, with American leaders constantly crowing about a perceived Soviet threat which never materialized.

Would the Soviets have invaded Western Europe if we weren't there? A lot of people think they probably would have, but that's just idle speculation now.

Would Putin try to invade Poland or the Baltic States, even if NATO was somehow not a factor? Even without the U.S., I would think that the combined forces of Germany, France, and the UK could handle anything the Russians send - and Poland isn't exactly weak, either. Strictly speaking, Europe doesn't really need the U.S. for defense against Russia.

It is a good thing that many member states who did not pull their weight financially are now doing so, notably Germany, but this sort of statement by Trump does immense damage to the deterrent value of NATO.

I think NATO is durable enough as to be able to withstand an ignorant comment from a blowhard like Trump. However, it would be a severe blow if he's ever elected President again and has a chance to carry out some of these cockamamie ideas of his.

But my main point up above was that, I think it's way past time for the U.S. leadership to give frank, open, and transparent appraisals of the world situation to the American people, rather than so much propaganda about "freedom" and "democracy." I think a lot of people are getting tired of the BS and want to hear the straight story from our leaders. The best way to stop Trump and other conspiracy theorists would be for our government to actually tell the truth and give the public hard data about what's going on in the world. If they can't bring themselves to do at least that, then they're just asking for more trouble.

 

[Ponder This]

'The head of NATO has warned that Donald Trump is putting the lives of US troops and their allies at risk by saying Russia should do "whatever the hell they want" to members of the military alliance who don't spend enough on defence...

...Speaking at a rally in South Carolina on Saturday, Mr Trump recalled how he previously told an unidentified NATO member that he would "encourage" Russia to do as it wishes in cases of NATO allies who are "delinquent".

"'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'" Mr Trump recounted saying.

"'No I would not protect you. In fact I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills."

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates responded, calling Mr Trump's latest comments "unhinged".'
Source: NATO chief says Trump's comments 'put American and European soldiers at increased risk'

It looks to me as though Mr Trump is actually encouraging the invasion of less well off NATO allies.

This suggests to me that A) Trump hates the less well off. And B) He is actually encouraging war criminals.

Your thoughts?

Wait... are people seriously arguing that when a NATO ally other than the U.S. decides not to contribute to the defense of NATO, then it is the U.S. that is putting NATO at risk? #unhinged

 

[danieldemol]

Wait... are people seriously arguing that when a NATO ally other than the U.S. decides not to contribute to the defense of NATO, then it is the U.S. that is putting NATO at risk? #unhinged

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.

 

[Father Heathen]

Wait... are people seriously arguing that when a NATO ally other than the U.S. decides not to contribute to the defense of NATO, then it is the U.S. that is putting NATO at risk? #unhinged

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.

 

[exchemist]

Nope.
I'm telling you that orders that don't fit into the doctrine, wouldn't always be followed.
And I'm telling you that Trump especially hasn't much clout with the military. He dodged the draft, and he has insulted soldiers in general and high-ranking militaries personally.

OK on that I agree with you. And also, I've no doubt Putin will not take Trump's wild statement at face value. He will be well aware that US government is a collective business. The US president can't act like a medieval absolute monarch. Nevertheless it indicates a clear direction of travel of US polticy under a future Trump presidency. Trump can get his own placemen into the top jobs in government . Indeed there is something called "Project 2025": Project 2025 - Wikipedia laying how exactly that is to be done. With that accomplished, Trump can determine defence posture over the heads of the military. Indeed we can expect the top military will be among those to be purged. We've already seen him accuse Mark Milley, who declined to help Trump with the insurrection, of treason and suggest he should be hanged.

 

[exchemist]

Wait... are people seriously arguing that when a NATO ally other than the U.S. decides not to contribute to the defense of NATO, then it is the U.S. that is putting NATO at risk? #unhinged

There are no such members.

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

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

The founding principle of NATO is that an attack on any member will be treated as attack on all. Thus for example an attack on Poland or the Baltic States or Finland would be an attack on the UK, Germany, the US, France etc as well and thus a state of war would automatically exist between all these countries and the attacker.

If the US telegraphs that it might now choose whether or not to come to the aid of an attacked member state, that obviously wrecks the deterrent value of the alliance and would mean in effect that the US had resigned from NATO.

For a US presidential candidate to suggest it may do that now, at a time when Russia is actually in the act of attempting military conquest in Europe, is extraordinarily damaging to NATO's credibility and perversely helpful to Russia.