 
     |
| NATO goes all-in on Ukraine, Canada gets a slap on the wrist (Page 2/2) |
|
blackrams
|
JUL 12, 04:58 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
The FACTS are that Trump was able to get these countries to increase spending due to pressure from Trump. The fact that spending has increased under Biden (which this article mentions) is because his feckless leadership gave way to Putin believing he could invade Ukraine... and, well... he was correct. I'm not really sure what the intent was in quoting those specific lines... because it's not like this is some solidarity pledge they recently came up with. The "Attack on one is an attack on all" is literally codified in Article 5 of the NATO charter. This is how Bush Jr. was able to get the coalition partners to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. |
|
Truth!
------------------
Rams
Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . 
You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
|
|
|
NewDustin
|
JUL 12, 05:45 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
If I get the gist of what you're saying, you are saying that Trump "weakened" the stability of the NATO treaty because he asked for the partner members to spend more?
If that's what you're saying, I couldn't disagree more with this. It's in my opinion, really, really stretching reality. The NATO alliance has been quite strong, and I think only a handful of countries have even talked about it, with only a couple actually leaving... like France, and they eventually came back. Every single time it was because of radical-left / Communist influence (likely pressured by Russia to begin with).
For that matter, the NATO members get back more from NATO than they give. Primarily, it serves as a cash-cow for them of US cash. We pay for almost all of the bases that NATO use, we pay for everything from the crypto they use for communications to shoes they often wear. It's like, ridiculous. And we staff hundreds of thousands of troops at NATO bases around the world, and staff NATO people are our bases around the world (on our dime).
|
|
That's not what I'm saying about it costing the US more.
The threat of NATO force provides significant benefit in regional stabilization beyond the actual use of force. Knowing for an unassailable fact that any action against a NATO ally will lead to a responding action by all NATO allies is the treaty's primary source of power. Trump threatened regularly to withdraw from the treaty and to abandon NATO allies in need. Those actions, specifically, weaken the stabilizing effect NATO has for it's member countries and it emboldens and empowers potential aggressive actors.
The US provides the vast majority of defense expenditures for NATO. Even if all nations met obligations to fund as a percentage of their GDP, it would make a relatively small difference to that fact. A destabilized region near a NATO country taxes resources from all NATO allies, which means mostly the US. If Trump's language destabilized any region near a NATO country, it would require predominantly US resources (even if other countries all "pay their fair share") to address. Given how much larger our contributions would still be, those resources very likely could outweigh the contributions of the other countries to defense.
You will end up costing yourself more to force your allies to pay more too.
| quote |
Not trying to be mean, but you're regurgitating propaganda.
|
|
No offense taken. These non-sequitur zings are part of your charm 
| quote |
So... this interview... the reporter kept wanting to talk about Trump, and the General absolutely refused to trash-talk Trump.
The FACTS are that Trump was able to get these countries to increase spending due to pressure from Trump. The fact that spending has increased under Biden (which this article mentions) is because his feckless leadership gave way to Putin believing he could invade Ukraine... and, well... he was correct. I'm not really sure what the intent was in quoting those specific lines... because it's not like this is some solidarity pledge they recently came up with. The "Attack on one is an attack on all" is literally codified in Article 5 of the NATO charter. This is how Bush Jr. was able to get the coalition partners to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. |
|
I agree the reporter was looking for more than they got, but I would be stunned if a NATO Secretary General would openly spar with the President of it's most power member Nation. That would fly in the face of exactly what the quote is saying: That kind of division and show of weakness takes away from the treaty it is expressly his job to maintain.
I'm also not saying that asking the members to pay more is an issue: I expressly said:
| quote | Me, right up above there:
Even if the other nations cover their share -which I agree wholeheartedly that they should do, btw-
|
|
Here is the entirety of what I'm saying broken into premises followed by my conclusion:
Trump has made considerable threats not to uphold NATO's provisions (Article 5, specifically. Thanks for the citation!).
Even threatening not to uphold the treaty weakens NATO and puts its member states at risk.
Addressing instability for at-risk member nations is likely to cost more than increased contributions from member states will offset.
Weakening the US' primary alliance weakens the US
Threatening not to uphold NATO's provisions in order to secure more funding from NATO allies is likely to lead to more expenditure for security without sufficient corresponding increase in member contribution to offset it, and comes with a secondary cost of weakening NATO.
|
|
|
|
NewDustin
|
JUL 12, 06:00 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
The "Attack on one is an attack on all" is literally codified in Article 5 of the NATO charter. This is how Bush Jr. was able to get the coalition partners to support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. |
|
This is incorrect. NATO was just as split as an organization as the UN was, and did not support nor oppose OIF. They did play a role in Turkey, but that was an invocation of Article 4, not Article 5, and not in support of the US. NATO member states were among the coalition members, but not all were represented and not all coalition members were NATO allies.[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 07-12-2024).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JUL 12, 06:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by NewDustin:
This is incorrect. NATO was just as split as an organization as the UN was, and did not support nor oppose OIF. They did play a role in Turkey, but that was an invocation of Article 4, not Article 5, and not in support of the US. NATO member states were among the coalition members, but not all were represented and not all coalition members were NATO allies. |
|
I'm not saying specifically that Bush used "Article 5" in order to get them to support. I should know, because I literally have a "Non-Article 5" medal from NATO for Operation Resolute Support. I'm saying that he used that premise to convince and get support from the "Coalition of the Willing" or whatever he called it at the time.
I still disagree that Trump threatening to leave NATO was a bad call... it did exactly what we wanted it to do... it worked. The United States is tired of footing the bill. As I said, you're regurgitating propaganda... because the Democrats love trying to scare people (especially Americans) into thinking that Trump would leave NATO... most of whom have absolutely no idea what NATO even is.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JUL 12, 06:39 PM
|
|
Trump strengthened NATO by threatening them.
Did any of the members get attacked in the aftermath of the threat? NO
Did the members start to pony up their commitment? YES
A threat does not weaken the organization, they were in 'breach of contract' and the lienholder just' threatened to forclose'.
It should have been done long ago.
NATO was weakened by Obama and Biden by depleting our military during their tenure.
|
|
|
|
NewDustin
|
JUL 12, 06:59 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
Trump strengthened NATO by threatening them.
Did any of the members get attacked in the aftermath of the threat? NO
Did the members start to pony up their commitment? YES
A threat does not weaken the organization, they were in 'breach of contract' and the lienholder just' threatened to forclose'.
It should have been done long ago.
NATO was weakened by Obama and Biden by depleting our military during their tenure. |
|
How this made me feel:
|
|
|
|