Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia

[Marvin the Martian]

I do not think that higher cost of doing business just applies to us. I would be willing to bet that our allies offer bigger pay incentives and quality of life than most/all of our opponents.

And again, if current levels are what they are and the Russians are not a threat, why NATO? Or at least, why NATO at it's current commitment level? Because they are a threat.

Russia is a threat to eastern Europe. Early on in this thread I mentioned the Baltic States, Poland, and Ukraine (and Georgia works as well). But their economy is smaller than Italy's, how much of a threat are they to NATO as a whole? Not a steroid infused NATO but NATO as it is today.

That list didn't include all of NATO (nor South Korea which might be scared of Chinese incursions). Even if we halve all their contributions like I did the US, I suspect combined we are more than double China and Russia combined.

Our problem with Russia is Putin is unstable. Our problem with China is far more systemic. China will keep growing and will present more problems. They have a longer view. They are far larger. Russia is the poodle that always barks and snarls, I don't want bit by it as it hurts but it isn't going to kill me. China is the Rottweiler that just stares over the fence. I may well be taken to the hospital from its bite.

 

[iuwclurker]

I also find it hilarious that on the one hand you want to argue that Russia is only a threat to Europe (Georgia, Ukraine) and then on the other want to argue that they tampered with our election, installed someone to upset the world order, and bring down the U.S. You want to talk about bullshit, I think you just start taking different positions to argue.

We're talking about NATO and I need to qualify every statement with military threat? Okay. Russia is a military threat to Europe. Tampering with elections is of course another threat to all nations but that's not explicitly a military threat. GOt it?

 

[IUCrazy2]

Russia is a threat to eastern Europe. Early on in this thread I mentioned the Baltic States, Poland, and Ukraine (and Georgia works as well). But their economy is smaller than Italy's, how much of a threat are they to NATO as a whole? Not a steroid infused NATO but NATO as it is today.

That list didn't include all of NATO (nor South Korea which might be scared of Chinese incursions). Even if we halve all their contributions like I did the US, I suspect combined we are more than double China and Russia combined.

Our problem with Russia is Putin is unstable. Our problem with China is far more systemic. China will keep growing and will present more problems. They have a longer view. They are far larger. Russia is the poodle that always barks and snarls, I don't want bit by it as it hurts but it isn't going to kill me. China is the Rottweiler that just stares over the fence. I may well be taken to the hospital from its bite.

I think we can beat either one of them either way. I think there is more pain involved (obviously) with the bigger load we take on.
My point is that if you are dealing with the poodle and the rottweiler decides to get off the chain, the two of them have a greater impact against you then you would have against each of them individually.

To stick with your analogy, if the Rottweiler or the Poodle goes after one of your kids, do you prefer they have a stick to wield the dogs off while you are trying to help them, or do you want them fighting with boxing gloves? The gloves may be effective in holding the dog off but a stick of the right size might completely deter the attacking dog all by itself.

I think the Russians and Chinese would both suffer from supply issues in any invasion, however, each is more than capable of putting the hurt on the myriad of countries in their viewed zone of influence that we have agreed to protect. I see nothing wrong with wanting those allies to bulk up their defenses. Particularly those allies who are facing down the poodle as opposed to the Rottweiler.

 

[wiede]

I think we can beat either one of them either way. I think there is more pain involved (obviously) with the bigger load we take on.
My point is that if you are dealing with the poodle and the rottweiler decides to get off the chain, the two of them have a greater impact against you then you would have against each of them individually.

To stick with your analogy, if the Rottweiler or the Poodle goes after one of your kids, do you prefer they have a stick to wield the dogs off while you are trying to help them, or do you want them fighting with boxing gloves? The gloves may be effective in holding the dog off but a stick of the right size might completely deter the attacking dog all by itself.

I think the Russians and Chinese would both suffer from supply issues in any invasion, however, each is more than capable of putting the hurt on the myriad of countries in their viewed zone of influence that we have agreed to protect. I see nothing wrong with wanting those allies to bulk up their defenses. Particularly those allies who are facing down the poodle as opposed to the Rottweiler.

Russia has completely crossed the line, IMO. They’ve become really good at interfering in foreign elections, just see 2016 here and Brexit. They very well may have tipped the elections to their preferred choices in both. And they’re only going to get better at it, until they are forced to back off.

And the most effective way to get them to back off is to present a united front, which consists of a lot of things. Sanctions being the most effective mechanism- we’ve hurt their economy before with those.

In short, we’re stronger together, United, than we are split apart. Which is exactly what Putin wants- he knows that Russia can’t be elevated to our status, but he’s hopeful he can tear us down and bring us closer to Russia’s status.

Re: China

We blew our bet opportunity to right some wrongs with them by pulling out of TPP. That move was incredibly self-destructive on many levels. Instead of the short sighted trade war that we’re engaged with them in now, the TPP would’ve been a much more effective way to deal with the trade issues.

JMHO.