Trump on NATO

[mindlight]

Trump has suggested that NATO Article 5 obligations to come to the aid of allies that are attacked would not apply in the case of allies that were not making their contribution. So since for example Germany spends less than the 2% recommended minimum it would not qualify for American support in the event of a Russian invasion for example.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/obama-trump-nato-foreign-policy-president

The effect of what Trump said could be the end of the NATO alliance and would completely destabilise the stability of the current world order.

While i understand that America global self image may be larger than it believes it can afford right now. The real solution to this is to eliminate the deficit and get Americas economy back in order not to just abruptly end Americas support for an alliance that has kept the peace for 70 years. I also accept that Germany should probably double its defence budget over the next 10 years due to a weaker America and new security threats but these things do not happen overnight and The process of convincing ordinary Germans about the necessity of this is only just starting.

I do not like Clinton but from an international perspective I must say she is starting to look like a safe pair of hands.

Were Trumps words deeply irresponsible?
Were they indicative of a new American isolationism?
Is Trump aware of how the value of the dollar is linked to international security arrangements?
Would he also default on Americas external debts as well as the external treaties he is so contemptuous of?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If a country isn't meeting the requirement then why should it expect support?

NATO has become largely obsolete since the fall of the Soviet Union, perhaps it's time for a good kick up the backside.

 

[mindlight]

If a country isn't meeting the requirement then why should it expect support?

Because it is a treaty obligation and because the defence strategy of these countries has been based on the concept of common security for many years. Even if many of these countries have been taking advantage the destruction of trust, the loss of bases and consequently of power projection in key areas would be damaging to Americas national self interest.

NATO has become largely obsolete since the fall of the Soviet Union, perhaps it's time for a good kick up the backside.

NATO won the Cold war and now Russia is richer than the old Soviet Union and has started to build up its military and to question the borders that resulted from the end of the Cold war. Sometimes fairly as in the case of the Crimea and sometimes in a deeply irresponsible way as in the case of the Eastern Ukraine. NATO is needed to manage the transition to stable and secure borders. Also the rise of Islamic extremism is indicative of the impossibility of a policy of isolationism and that the problems in domestic terrorism etc are linked to extreme regimes in the Middle East. This does require a military readiness and ability to project power deficient in most European countries right now. NATO has provided a context in which such connections between internal and external security threats could be managed.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Because it is a treaty obligation and because the defence strategy of these countries has been based on the concept of common security for many years. Even if many of these countries have been taking advantage the destruction of trust, the loss of bases and consequently of power projection in key areas would be damaging to Americas national self interest.

Either damaging to America's national self interest... Or perhaps in favour of national interest; saving a lot of money, focussing on home defence, and money can be used for other things... like reducing the deficit, etc.

NATO won the Cold war and now Russia is richer than the old Soviet Union and has started to build up its military and to question the borders that resulted from the end of the Cold war. Sometimes fairly as in the case of the Crimea and sometimes in a deeply irresponsible way as in the case of the Eastern Ukraine. NATO is needed to manage the transition to stable and secure borders. Also the rise of Islamic extremism is indicative of the impossibility of a policy of isolationism and that the problems in domestic terrorism etc are linked to extreme regimes in the Middle East. This does require a military readiness and ability to project power deficient in most European countries right now. NATO has provided a context in which such connections between internal and external security threats could be managed.

How is NATO 'managing' this by building missile systems on the Russian border and antagonising and cornering them? If Russia built a missile system in Mexico, would the USA sit around and not care?

 

[cow451]

I dunno.... maybe it's just me.... but having US military bases in NATO countries allows the US to carry out lots of operations. Seems to me that would be worth some consideration. But hey, I never named a piece of beef or a Russian alcoholic beverage after myself so what would I know.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is it any mystery why Putin endorses Trump?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Is it any mystery why Putin endorses Trump?

Because he wants actual constructive US-Russia relations, less tensions and those icky sanctions taken away?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because he wants actual constructive US-Russia relations, less tensions and those icky sanctions taken away?

That... and Europe on a silver platter.

 

[aieyiamfu]

Because it is a treaty obligation and because the defence strategy of these countries has been based on the concept of common security for many years. Even if many of these countries have been taking advantage the destruction of trust, the loss of bases and consequently of power projection in key areas would be damaging to Americas national self interest.



NATO won the Cold war and now Russia is richer than the old Soviet Union and has started to build up its military and to question the borders that resulted from the end of the Cold war. Sometimes fairly as in the case of the Crimea and sometimes in a deeply irresponsible way as in the case of the Eastern Ukraine. NATO is needed to manage the transition to stable and secure borders. Also the rise of Islamic extremism is indicative of the impossibility of a policy of isolationism and that the problems in domestic terrorism etc are linked to extreme regimes in the Middle East. This does require a military readiness and ability to project power deficient in most European countries right now. NATO has provided a context in which such connections between internal and external security threats could be managed.

NATO is pointless, contribution or no going to war because some other country got in a war is just plain dumb.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

That... and Europe on a silver platter.

Based on what? What evidence is there that Putin is interested in Europe? I can understand the claim that he may be interested in some Baltic states or former Russian territory. What makes you think he'd be interested in Europe as a whole?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Based on what? What evidence is there that Putin is interested in Europe? I can understand the claim that he may be interested in some Baltic states or former Russian territory. What makes you think he'd be interested in Europe as a whole?

Some of those Baltic states and former Soviet territories are NATO members (and part of Europe).

The Baltic states are particularly nervous about Russian intentions, and Mr Obama sought to reassure them with his speech in Tallinn earlier this month.

"If you ever ask again 'Who will come to help?' you'll know the answer: the Nato alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America," he said. "We'll be here for Estonia. We will be here for Latvia. We will be here for Lithuania."

Instead of Obama's strong stance, the Trump doctrine is weak.

 

[crjmurray]

The Russian bear wakes from his long winter hibernation and as it emerges from its cave, shaking off a layer of frost, his honed predator vision focuses on a sight in the distance. One half of his longtime natural competitors, slice themselves up for easy consumption. While the other half stokes a cook fire. The Russian bear no longer has to hunt. He waits.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

I dunno.... maybe it's just me.... but having US military bases in NATO countries allows the US to carry out lots of operations.

Look at Iraq and Syria today to see the typical results of those operations...

 

[wing2000]

Because he wants actual constructive US-Russia relations, less tensions and those icky sanctions taken away?

Right...

Putin would eat Trump for lunch.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'd like to see a complete Slavic / Germanic revival. An East / West relationship. Orthodox / Catholic unity. Greek / Roman friendship.

All of Europe as one in friendship. No using leverage or taking advantage of... That would be something.

 

[Colada]

The United States has a clear obligation to honor the agreements it makes. If Donald Trump wants to propose we leave NATO, then he should do so. But that wasn't what he said. He made an offhand comment about us just not honoring our agreements. For a man like Donald Trump, who doesn't have many scruples, I'm not particularly surprised he would say something like that. Unfortunately, I actually suspect the reality is quite a bit worse. Donald Trump wasn't casually suggesting we fail to honor a pledge of military support to our allies. He was making this comment without any understanding of the political or military implications. He likes to present the image that he has the perfect business mind (an image original developed by PR people at NBC, but that the Trump ego has actually bought into). He heard that countries aren't paying their share, and he said we shouldn't help them, without any other knowledge of the situation, simply because he thought it would make him sound like a great businessman. Politicians aren't known for acting like real people, but at least they aren't products. Donald Trump is the first brand running for President. Even if you believe that the US should not fulfill NATO obligations, that idea should be terrifying.

 

[TerranceL]

That... and Europe on a silver platter.

Europeans have whined for decades about how much the US spends on our military, if their lack of spending means they get to face off with the Russians then that's what happens.

You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[TerranceL]

Some of those Baltic states and former Soviet territories are NATO members (and part of Europe).

The Baltic states are particularly nervous about Russian intentions, and Mr Obama sought to reassure them with his speech in Tallinn earlier this month.

"If you ever ask again 'Who will come to help?' you'll know the answer: the Nato alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America," he said. "We'll be here for Estonia. We will be here for Latvia. We will be here for Lithuania."

Instead of Obama's strong stance, the Trump doctrine is weak.

Ah yes, once again the idea of sending Americans off to die in other peoples wars is called "strong".

 

[Gene2memE]

NATO is pointless, contribution or no going to war because some other country got in a war is just plain dumb.

Mutual defence agreements are a fundamental underpinning of international diplomacy, and have been for better than 150 years. What they offer is strength through numbers, with combined self interest. A small state can do very little if its much larger neighbours want to bully it. A collection of smaller states, or a collection of smaller states with some even larger allies, will cause that bully to have second thoughts, at a bare minimum.

It completely changes the math on military escapades - a la Ukraine 2014/2015, for example.

NATO is not pointless - not for the US and not for any of the other states involved.

The only time NATO has acted collectively was in support of the US - after the September 11 attacks, the organisation decided to invoke Article 5 of the treaty, which meant that the attack on the US was treated by NATO as an act of war and an attack on all of them.

All 19 NATO states contributed to the Afghan war - at the moment 45% of the troop strength in Afghanistan is non-US personnel. Of total deaths in the Afghan war, fully one third were from NATO allies.

Put another way, NATO probably saved the lives of at least 1000 US service men and women between 2003 and 2011.

 

[TerranceL]

NATO is not pointless - not for the US and not for any of the other states involved.

What good is a defense pact when one state contributes more than the others?

It's past time for the other nations to put up a fair portion in their own defense or the US should leave NATO.

All 19 NATO states contributed to the Afghan war - at the moment 45% of the troop strength in Afghanistan is non-US personnel. Of total deaths in the Afghan war, fully one third were from NATO allies.

That's not an argument for NATO.

It's still the United States putting forth more forces than anyone else.

If these countries can't do the least to participate, why should they be part of NATO?