ADVERTISEMENT

NATO

So it appears Trump didn’t destroy NATO. It was a love fest and everyone agreed to 5% except one. And he’s their “Daddy”.

So Trump haters tell me where all he screwed up in the NATO meeting.
Spain can be forgiven. They gave us The Spanish Moon.

There’s whiskey and bad cocaine
Poison get you just the same
And if that . . . That don’t. . . Kill you soon
The women will down at the Spanish Moon
 
And he’s their “Daddy”.
By the way, stoll, are you certain Trump wasn’t getting punked by Stephen Colbert?

2025-06-25t102550z-802335480-rc2m9fa3abc1-rtrmadp-3-nato-summit.JPG


eu-summit.JPG
 
Last edited:
So it appears Trump didn’t destroy NATO. It was a love fest and everyone agreed to 5% except one. And he’s their “Daddy”.

So Trump haters tell me where all he screwed up in the NATO meeting.
If you notice. European leaders have learned a lot on how to deal with Trump. He’s actually willing to concede quite a bit if you shower him with praise and tell him he’s the boss.

Macron and Starmer do this to perfection.
 
If you notice. European leaders have learned a lot on how to deal with Trump. He’s actually willing to concede quite a bit if you shower him with praise and tell him he’s the boss.

Macron and Starmer do this to perfection.
Play or not play they now contribute 5% to NATO up from 2%. That wouldn’t be the case without Trump.

All I am saying is love it or hate it, he does get something done and it’s not someone using an auto pen to do it.
 
In effect is actually a 3.5% target as 1.5% of that 5% can be allocated to "defence and security-related investments".

Ie civilian infrastructure that the military may or may not benefit from.

Playing a numbers game so Trump can take credit for the 5% while the NATO countries can count civilian spending in the total.
 
Okay, Trump accomplished nothing. Also he didn’t do a damn thing postive in Iran.
3.5% is still an aggressive target and getting an agreement in principle is a win.

If that stretch goal causes all NATO countries to land above 2% or 2.5% in core defense spending that’s great.

But the time horizon is too great to make necessary immediate impact on Europeans kicking into gear to fund most of Ukraine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
3.5% is still an aggressive target and getting an agreement in principle is a win.

If that stretch goal causes all NATO countries to land above 2% or 2.5% in core defense spending that’s great.

But the time horizon is too great to make necessary immediate impact on Europeans kicking into gear to fund most of Ukraine.
Is the goal of the increased spending to fund Ukraine?
 
Playing a numbers game so Trump can take credit for the 5% while the NATO countries can count civilian spending in the total.
The target year is 2035 if I’m not mistaken, long after the Trump Administration at the least is dead and buried.

Plus, evidently there’s vague language requiring allies to meet the 5%. That’s to give Spain an out but if Spain then also any other.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT