A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
You didn’t say it. You said you wanted all troops out of Germany. Don’t change your hyperbole to fit the more reasonable approaches that we’ve all been saying.
My thoughts on our NATO friends.
- Thread starter Rockport Zebra
- Start date
Well done, Mr. President! That's a good start.
Trump Reaffirms Commitment to NATO After Strained Emergency Meeting
President says it is ‘unnecessary’ for the U.S. to withdraw after demanding that allies immediately meet military-spending goal
By Rebecca Ballhaus and
Laurence Norman
Updated July 12, 2018 8:43 a.m. ET
353 COMMENTS
BRUSSELS—President Donald Trump affirmed the U.S.’s “very strong” commitment to NATO after the summit descended into chaos Thursday as the secretary-general called an emergency session to address the president’s demands that allies immediately meet the 2% military-spending target set for 2024.
In an impromptu news conference, Mr. Trump declared that it was “unnecessary” for the U.S. to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, after telling allied leaders that morning that if they didn’t immediately meet the 2% goal, “I’ll do my own thing,” diplomats said. It was unclear to people in the room whether that was a threat to leave the alliance or to change the U.S. role in it.
Mr. Trump said “tremendous progress” had been made during the summit and described the alliance as “much stronger than it was two days ago” and “more put together right now and more coordinated…than perhaps they’ve ever had.”
The president said he told allies in a “firm manner” that he was “extremely unhappy with what was happening.” In response, he said NATO members had “substantially upped their commitment.” Officials for NATO countries said they hadn’t changed their military-spending plans but said they told the president they were open to discussions to increase spending in the future.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters following the emergency session that it had been a “very intense summit” with “very serious discussions.”
“The U.S. president demanded what has been discussed for months, that the burden sharing changes,” she said. “I made clear we are on this path and that this is in our interest and that it reinforces us mutually.”
French President Emmanuel Macron said allies reconfirmed what they had already pledged in recent years, to increase their defense spending to 2% by 2024. But he didn’t mention any country committing to fresh spending following the Thursday discussion.
Mr. Trump’s description of NATO as a “fine-tuned machine” came shortly after NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg ordered Georgia and Ukraine out of the room for a planned North Atlantic Council meeting and called an emergency session for world leaders to discuss burden sharing.
In a lengthy tirade, Mr. Trump launched into a personal attack on Belgium and Germany’s military spending, according to one of the people familiar with the discussion. “I’m not happy,” he said, according to the person. He told allies that he wanted them to immediately meet the spending goal, or at least commit to a date when they would do so.
“It was a little tough for a little while,” Mr. Trump said at his news conference later. “But you can ask anybody in that meeting, they’re really liking what happened over the last two days.”
Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel said he “didn’t feel offended” by Mr. Trump’s “straight talk” and said his country wasn’t the only one singled out. Belgium remains committed to NATO’s 2% goal, but he stressed that many Europeans have “budgetary constraints” and such increases can only come gradually. “It’s not realistic to believe that we will reach 2% next year,” he said.
Mr. Trump’s comments Thursday dramatically escalated what was already a tense summit, where he spent the first day pressuring allies to double the military spending target to 4% of GDP, accusing Germany of being “captive to Russia” over its support of a Russian gas project and criticizing European border policy as “BAD!”
In the news conference, Mr. Trump said he “ultimately” wanted the spending goal to reach 4% but said he would focus on bringing allies to 2% first.
Spending GoalsHow much more some NATO members would need to spend in order for their defense budgets to reach 2%of GDPSource: NATONotes: Based on constant 2010 prices and exchange rates
2018 Defense spendingAdditonal neededGermanyFranceItalyCanadaSpainTurkeyNetherlandsPolandBelgiumNorway$0 billion$20$40$60$80
The turmoil on display during the summit dismayed diplomats and some U.S. officials, who had been eager for a show of unity ahead of Mr. Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on Monday.
“Maybe we will get along with Russia,” Mr. Trump said at his news conference Thursday. “I think we probably will be able to.”
Much of the joint declaration NATO leaders issued Wednesday focuses on the alliance’s role as a defense against Russia, saying “aggressive actions” by the country had “reduced stability and security, increased unpredictability, and changed the security environment.”
Mr. Trump and other world leaders’ schedules were upended Thursday. The U.S. president was expected to meet individually with the leaders of Azerbaijan, Romania, Ukraine and Georgia, but arrived 30 minutes late to the summit and missed his first two scheduled meetings. It was unclear if those meetings would be rescheduled, or if the others would take place.
He is set to leave in the early afternoon for the U.K., where he will attend a gala dinner hosted by U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May in the evening and hold meetings on Friday with Mrs. May and Queen Elizabeth II. Mass protests are expected in London during his visit, and the U.S. embassy there has advised Americans to “keep a low profile.”
MORE ON NATO
Later that day, the leaders—including Mr. Trump—issued a joint declaration agreeing to setting the 2% target for military spending by 2024.
“It takes time, you can’t move from 2% to 4% just like that. And I don’t even know if that would be good,” Mr. Macron said after Mr. Trump’s press conference, pointing out that any such budgetary move has to be justified with an increased security risk.
“Presidents have been trying unsuccessfully for years to get Germany and other rich NATO Nations to pay more toward their protection from Russia. They pay only a fraction of their cost,” Mr. Trump tweeted Thursday. “The U.S. pays tens of Billions of Dollars too much to subsidize Europe, and loses Big on Trade!” He also continued to bash Germany over its support of a Baltic Sea pipeline project that has sparked discord within Europe and is splitting the alliance.
On Wednesday evening, at a working dinner for NATO leaders that was closed to reporters, Mr. Trump struck a more conciliatory tone, according to a European diplomat with direct knowledge of the conversations.
“It was much more consensual. He was not rocking the boat,” the diplomat said.
—Robert Wall, Valentina Pop, Emre Peker and Paul Vieira contributed to this article.
Write to Rebecca Ballhaus at Rebecca.Ballhaus@wsj.com and Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com
Trump Reaffirms Commitment to NATO After Strained Emergency Meeting
President says it is ‘unnecessary’ for the U.S. to withdraw after demanding that allies immediately meet military-spending goal
By Rebecca Ballhaus and
Laurence Norman
Updated July 12, 2018 8:43 a.m. ET
353 COMMENTS
BRUSSELS—President Donald Trump affirmed the U.S.’s “very strong” commitment to NATO after the summit descended into chaos Thursday as the secretary-general called an emergency session to address the president’s demands that allies immediately meet the 2% military-spending target set for 2024.
In an impromptu news conference, Mr. Trump declared that it was “unnecessary” for the U.S. to withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, after telling allied leaders that morning that if they didn’t immediately meet the 2% goal, “I’ll do my own thing,” diplomats said. It was unclear to people in the room whether that was a threat to leave the alliance or to change the U.S. role in it.
Mr. Trump said “tremendous progress” had been made during the summit and described the alliance as “much stronger than it was two days ago” and “more put together right now and more coordinated…than perhaps they’ve ever had.”
The president said he told allies in a “firm manner” that he was “extremely unhappy with what was happening.” In response, he said NATO members had “substantially upped their commitment.” Officials for NATO countries said they hadn’t changed their military-spending plans but said they told the president they were open to discussions to increase spending in the future.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters following the emergency session that it had been a “very intense summit” with “very serious discussions.”
“The U.S. president demanded what has been discussed for months, that the burden sharing changes,” she said. “I made clear we are on this path and that this is in our interest and that it reinforces us mutually.”
French President Emmanuel Macron said allies reconfirmed what they had already pledged in recent years, to increase their defense spending to 2% by 2024. But he didn’t mention any country committing to fresh spending following the Thursday discussion.
Mr. Trump’s description of NATO as a “fine-tuned machine” came shortly after NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg ordered Georgia and Ukraine out of the room for a planned North Atlantic Council meeting and called an emergency session for world leaders to discuss burden sharing.
In a lengthy tirade, Mr. Trump launched into a personal attack on Belgium and Germany’s military spending, according to one of the people familiar with the discussion. “I’m not happy,” he said, according to the person. He told allies that he wanted them to immediately meet the spending goal, or at least commit to a date when they would do so.
“It was a little tough for a little while,” Mr. Trump said at his news conference later. “But you can ask anybody in that meeting, they’re really liking what happened over the last two days.”
Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel said he “didn’t feel offended” by Mr. Trump’s “straight talk” and said his country wasn’t the only one singled out. Belgium remains committed to NATO’s 2% goal, but he stressed that many Europeans have “budgetary constraints” and such increases can only come gradually. “It’s not realistic to believe that we will reach 2% next year,” he said.
Mr. Trump’s comments Thursday dramatically escalated what was already a tense summit, where he spent the first day pressuring allies to double the military spending target to 4% of GDP, accusing Germany of being “captive to Russia” over its support of a Russian gas project and criticizing European border policy as “BAD!”
In the news conference, Mr. Trump said he “ultimately” wanted the spending goal to reach 4% but said he would focus on bringing allies to 2% first.
Spending GoalsHow much more some NATO members would need to spend in order for their defense budgets to reach 2%of GDPSource: NATONotes: Based on constant 2010 prices and exchange rates
2018 Defense spendingAdditonal neededGermanyFranceItalyCanadaSpainTurkeyNetherlandsPolandBelgiumNorway$0 billion$20$40$60$80
The turmoil on display during the summit dismayed diplomats and some U.S. officials, who had been eager for a show of unity ahead of Mr. Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on Monday.
“Maybe we will get along with Russia,” Mr. Trump said at his news conference Thursday. “I think we probably will be able to.”
Much of the joint declaration NATO leaders issued Wednesday focuses on the alliance’s role as a defense against Russia, saying “aggressive actions” by the country had “reduced stability and security, increased unpredictability, and changed the security environment.”
Mr. Trump and other world leaders’ schedules were upended Thursday. The U.S. president was expected to meet individually with the leaders of Azerbaijan, Romania, Ukraine and Georgia, but arrived 30 minutes late to the summit and missed his first two scheduled meetings. It was unclear if those meetings would be rescheduled, or if the others would take place.
He is set to leave in the early afternoon for the U.K., where he will attend a gala dinner hosted by U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May in the evening and hold meetings on Friday with Mrs. May and Queen Elizabeth II. Mass protests are expected in London during his visit, and the U.S. embassy there has advised Americans to “keep a low profile.”
MORE ON NATO
- NATO Members Defend Military Contributions Amid Trump’s Demands
- Trump Roils NATO Allies With Calls to Double Military Spending
- Trump Slams Germany Over Gas Imports From Russia
- NATO Ramping Up Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan
- What Trump, Other Leaders Said at the NATO Summit
Later that day, the leaders—including Mr. Trump—issued a joint declaration agreeing to setting the 2% target for military spending by 2024.
“It takes time, you can’t move from 2% to 4% just like that. And I don’t even know if that would be good,” Mr. Macron said after Mr. Trump’s press conference, pointing out that any such budgetary move has to be justified with an increased security risk.
“Presidents have been trying unsuccessfully for years to get Germany and other rich NATO Nations to pay more toward their protection from Russia. They pay only a fraction of their cost,” Mr. Trump tweeted Thursday. “The U.S. pays tens of Billions of Dollars too much to subsidize Europe, and loses Big on Trade!” He also continued to bash Germany over its support of a Baltic Sea pipeline project that has sparked discord within Europe and is splitting the alliance.
On Wednesday evening, at a working dinner for NATO leaders that was closed to reporters, Mr. Trump struck a more conciliatory tone, according to a European diplomat with direct knowledge of the conversations.
“It was much more consensual. He was not rocking the boat,” the diplomat said.
—Robert Wall, Valentina Pop, Emre Peker and Paul Vieira contributed to this article.
Write to Rebecca Ballhaus at Rebecca.Ballhaus@wsj.com and Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com
Not going to argue with all of that because most of it is juvenile, however, this issue was not created out of thin air. This is at least the third administration that has had an issue with our allies lack of military spending and preparedness. Additionally, it is the second administration to complain about the Russian gas line that bypasses Eastern Europe.
This issue was not created out of thin air. Everyone from Europe to the U.S. is basically agreeing that his complaint is valid and his facts are mostly correct (he flubbed saying Germany is getting 70% of its energy from Russia, with the pipeline it would be 50-70% of their natural gas from Russia). The main complaint here seems to be the public nature and verbiage behind his admonishment. My response to our European friends would be that we have been privately asking you to rectify this situation for the better part of 2 decades. That has not worked, perhaps a little public shaming was in order.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
See? You’re still too extreme. Germany is a far more important ally to us than is Poland and it’s hard to see that ever changing.We don't need troops in Germany anymore. We need troops in Poland now.
You furthermore have made statements that we should focus on allying with the Baltics, Greece, and Poland and the others can “fend for themselves.” Your credibility is gone and until you completely restate your position on NATO and what is and isn’t important about it, I’ll just be pointing and laughing.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
So the “so much winning” in this case is that the allies reconfirmed they’ll reach 2% by 2024 as was originally promised?
I’ve got some old kids toys I’d like to sell you. They can be used for alchemy.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
The British and French still have troops stationed in Germany. Did you know that?
So, to review, you made an outlandish proposal that receives an outlandish response and then you bring out your experience as NATO commander and challenge others about their credentials. I stand by my characterization of events.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Here is the problem for me. Public shaming of NATO allies while publicly praising Putin and Russia is both out of line and incoherent. It is out of line because Trump's buffoonery seems more intended to create political instability in Europe making it more, rather than less difficult for members to increase their spending. It is incoherent because the primary reason we would need to spend more on NATO, move troops to Poland, discourage Russian natural gas lines, is because of a resurgent Russian threat. If Russia is not a threat but, instead, a friendly "competitor" we don't need to be increasing NATO expenditures dramatically.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I don’t think he intends to create instability in Europe. That’s giving him too much credit and I think he’s far dumber than that.
At this point it’s clear to me that his goal of his presidency is to attack all of the “bogeymen” of the #NewGOP so he can endear himself to these people for life. Attacking NATO ally spending (with no consequential understanding of the effects of his shaming), cutting corporate taxes and giving individual tax breaks (without cutting spend and thus further increasing the deficits), pardoning #NewGOP martyrs, etc. He’s the Breitbart president and I think that’s all he cares to be.
Let me flesh out my thought a bit in a way that builds upon your point. I agree that Trump's goal is principally to build domestic political support by attacking the bogeymen of the #NewGop. But Merkel, Macron and the other European leaders are bogeymen because of their support for immigration and their liberal social policies more generally. Bannon and the #NewGOP would like those governments to fall and be replaced with governments that share their xenophobia and social conservatism and hostility to international institutions.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I’m 95% of the way there with you. As a conservative, I’m giving real conservatives (not the #NewGOP) the benefits of the doubt on tighter immigration that they are not xenophobic but rather they do not trust the immigration process inane ways and especially when certain countries are involved. But yes, I think the amateurs involved in Trump’s administration have zero respect for international institutions because they have no experience with them, facts don’t matter, and they’re nationalists/isolationists which just doesn’t work in today’s global economy.
To quote Walter Sobchak:
Well, then that begs a few questions. If Germany (and most of Europe) feels that the barely above 1% they spend on defense is enough to deter a Russian invasion, who are we to argue. We should tailor our commitment to the defense of Europe to the threat level our allies believe exists. Again, if a resurgent Russia is problematic, you would think that entering into energy agreements with them worth billions of dollars would be problematic.
No, our allies want to have their cake and eat it too. They get Russian gas and build a beast that we overwhelmingly defend them from. And many push forth the argument that Russia would not be capable of overrunning Europe anyway, so why have troops there at all (other than force projection)?
Either the Russians are an existential threat or they are not. Our "allies" like Ms. Merkel talk shit about the U.S. on one hand and then sign economic agreements with Putin and then freak the **** out when Trump says that he would not mind having a better relationship with Russia. Trump's behavior mirrors the German and French relationship with Russia. We make loud noises about how terrible they are but then try and work with them.
The Europeans are a former abused girlfriend who tells you how bad her ex boyfriend was. She asks you to defend her whenever both you and he are around. She has you buy security cameras, new locks, a pistol, etc. all on your dime. Then she goes and sleeps with him behind your back. And her biggest fear is that the two of you get together to talk so that you find out just how bad she is screwing you over.
Last edited:
But maybe somebody absolutely DOES want to create instability in Europe. And maybe those that do want to create instability have a far easier time of doing so when the decider is particularly dumb and easily manipulated for any number of reasons.
I probably sound like a Cassandra or a conspiracy theorist, but if you wanted to achieve instability, isn't this pretty much how it would look like and how you might best achieve it?
Either Russia is a resurgent threat or it isn't. If it is then the NATO alliance should be doing more to contain it. More spending, more sanctions, less trade etc. If Russia is just another friendly competitor and not a resurgent threat then we should be doing the opposite. The view of the last several administrations combined with Russia's extremely hostile behavior during our election is more than enough evidence that Russia and the authoritarian nationalism he is promoting are resurgent threats and much more effort should be taken to contain them. More targeted defense spending, more coordination with allies, more economic sanctions, more pressure on governments backsliding away from democracy and the rule of law who are ostensible allies. If our allies are not persuaded of the growing threat then we should do more to persuade them. Publicly demonizing our allies while praising Putin is the opposite of what we should be doing. Combining a strong position anti-Putin and anti-authoritarianism with strong calls to strengthen NATO and international institutions is the way to go.
Where we seem to be talking past our each other is on the concept of soft power. It has been my experience in military history forums that conservatives exceedingly value hard power. If Vlad the Impaler's goal is to have a victory parade in Paris like Hitler, than that is certainly the way of going about it.
The issue I have is I don't think that's his goal.Having a France or Germany separate from American influence is much more easily obtained at a much less cost (in coin and bodies) and a much lower risk. Hitler and Napoleon found out starting wars one cannot win has a real cost. Starting a soft power war one does not win doesn't carry that cost.
In my mind, Putin wants NATO to have us vs them fights. It is very difficult to keep an alliance together. It was very difficult in both world wars where the pressure of battle should have made it easy to see the need to stay allied. It is even harder without that solidifying pressure. Attacking Europe over Paris Climate accords, over Iran, over trade, and over NATO spending, and now of German gas purchases is putting a lot of internal stress into the system.
But Trump is "attack first and reconnoiter second kind of guy. That plays real well with some Americans.
What does Russia gain and what do we lose if there are disagreements to be hashed out with our allies? Is the U.S. economy suddenly going to not be one of the world's largest? Will there no longer be a benefit of trading with us? Will our disagreements allow Putin to snatch back land that the Soviet Union had under it's control? (That occurred before the new paradigm introduced by Trump).
If there is not an existential military threat, the necessity for the alliance is reduced to nil. If Russia never intends on a military invasion, then our need to constantly be in lockstep with the Europeans is greatly reduced. One could argue that NATO now makes Russia more belligerent. We invited them to the world party but continued to move our military alliance closer to their borders.
I agree that with Europe, our soft power is much stronger than our military right now. Our global strength is probably increased if we reduce military spending while forcing them to increase theirs.
Just some thoughts. I am no fan of Putin or Russia but I have no problem with questioning some aspects of the military alliance. Our role in the alliance may need some reexamination.
The threat is to specific areas. If NATO did not exist, all the former USSR countries would be at risk. Eventually some of the old Warsaw Pact countries. It isn't going to spread by a lightning strike. Putin was taken aback at the post-Crimea sanctions. Doesn't it make sense that he doesn't like the west having that unified power? If we wants to spread his wings, he doesn't want the west being capable of punishing him for it.
We honestly don't stop to think how much our defense spending is. The amount Trump increased it by in the last budget is more than Russia's total budget. That's just the amount of the increase, not touching the base spending level. We didn't do that because Germany was in peril. Germany had nothing to do with it. We have a warped view of how large our military-industrial complex needs to be.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I hope you’re wrong but it is undeniable that Putin wants an internally-conflicted NATO. How much he’s actually manipulating our president is a point of dispute that I hope gets a whole lot clearer quickly. Hopefully the answer is zero.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Another risk is that internal strife in NATO allies can open the door for Russian economic growth by forging economic alliances and deals within NATO. Russia can largely be kept at bay because their economy is severely affected by the sanctions. Securing long term business with the West and/or getting some sanctions lifted are interventions.
The alliance was unified and we had a President that you guys and the Euros thought was competent and was more collegial and that did nothing to stop Putin from taking Crimea and poisoning dissidents abroad. Why? Because nobody was sending their boys to die for the Ukraine. How many boys do you think Germany is willing to spare for Latvia? How many boys is France prepared to send to death for Estonia? How many boys are you willing to expend for Hungary?
This alliance is already broken. And say that Russia annexed the Baltic states tomorrow. Who would be poised to help them? The Germans are practicing with broomsticks. No, our spending is not completely because of Germany, it is because we have these agreements all over the world. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Phillipines, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. Our military spending is so high because of Pax Americana. A peace that we are still paying a hefty price for and a peace that our most able allies seem loathe to truly kick in and pay for. Yes, we definitely benefit from stability and open trade routes, but so does all of Europe. It is not too much to ask that they shoulder more of the load. And it should not take another 6 years to do it. The threat is supposedly present right now. If the Russians do roll through Eastern Europe, there is not a damn thing anybody in NATO short of the U.S. can do about it. Those are not allies, they are protectorates.
They are already doing that though. The sanctions are mostly targeted at Putin's pals. They have not stopped Merkel from penning that natural gas pipeline deal.
That is what is so irritating about all this. Trump is catching all the blame because, "Oh my Lord, the Russians are a clear and present danger!" Then why in the hell are so many of you eager to deal with him Angela.
Our spending is what it is because people believe we must be able to fight China, Russia, and the EU at the same time. And our foreign policy is designed to make damn sure that happens.
Russia went into Crimea in 2014. Sanctions were imposed. Below is Russia's GDP. I think sanctions had an impact. NATO agrees.
As I point out elsewhere, we want to blame Germany for the pipeline. And I largely agree it would be great to get that stopped. That said, look up the impact of Iranian sanctions on Russian oil production. With Venezuela offline, we are pretty much forcing the world to buy Russian oil as fast as it can be pumped. That certainly has to help Russia as well.
Sure, we don't want Americans to die for Crimea. But at the same point, -3.3, -2.6, -2.7 is a fairly hefty price to pay. It certainly would cause more pause than doing nothing.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
As someone who doesn’t business in Russia, I can tell you that Putin’s pals run the economy. That list that our government put out of oligarchs to avoid virtually makes doing business with any big companies in russia theoretically impossible. Every large corporation belongs to some holding company that belongs to one of the oligarchs.
But your point is valid. Despite Trump’s usual abortion of the facts, meaning Germany relies on Gasprom for very little ignorance their energy, it’s still a bullshit deal that the Germans should be ashamed of. If I recall, Biden gave them a ton of crap over it back in the day.
If more deals like this appear, NATO is screwed.
He can't even walk. Hey, let's send in more troops to help hold him up.LOL Jean Claude Juncker showed up to the NATO Summit hammered
Viva la Fraud!
God rivals sucks so bad
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Thank you for serving our country with such honor, integrity, and respect. Our men and women in uniform were clearly in good hands, for 28 years, given the candor, intelligence, and decorum that you have shown and continue to show with each and every post.
Unfortunately your detractors evidently can't read a map and must be refusing to read all your linked articles...
I'm with you on moving our forward NATO positions to Poland, etc...
Ukraine was not and is not a NATO member.
Trumpbots parrot Trump's absurd claim that it's Obama's fault -- and not Putin's -- that Russia is eating Ukraine. But when the rubes can't hear, Trump tells NATO leaders that Russia should have Ukraine because everyone speaks Russian there. It takes really determined stupidity to make a coherent foreign policy out of Trump's totally not colluded efforts to serve Putin's ends.
I am aware of that. They were and are one of the countries that is and was attempting to gain membership. They were at the meetings this week for instance.
I am saying that I have very little faith that, push come to shove, the Western Europeans are going to be willing to start a real shooting war with Russia over the Eastern members. Furthermore, our "United Front" when Obama was President, along with sanctions, did absolutely nothing to dissuade Putin from seizing the Crimea. Additionally, our ally Germany has been cozying up to Russia before and since then.
I question the reliability and/or fighting ability of 90% of our NATO partners.
If you're being sincere with this, you are part of the problem, Crazy. There are always problems in relationships as complex as NATO, but our NATO allies have been remarkably reliable over many decades.
Similar threads
