Trump threatens not to help NATO allies over the war with Iran

Did he ask us NATO allies before going to war? If we agreed to help and let him down, fair point. As far as I'm aware, though, he just decided to bomb Iran, without consultation, and then expects us to support a war which many of us believe was the wrong action to take.

NATO is an alliance that's outlived it's usefulness and has become more of a liability than an asset. Let the thing dissolve and be done with it.

"NATO’s essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members. It does this through political and military means, ensuring the collective defense of all Allies, against all threats, from all directions."


How has that purpose been outlived?

Akita Suggagaki said:

"NATO’s essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members. It does this through political and military means, ensuring the collective defense of all Allies, against all threats, from all directions."

NATO’s purpose

NATO strives to secure a lasting peace in Europe and North America, based on its member countries’ common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These shared values unite a diverse group of Allies on both sides of the Atlantic. NATO embodies the transatlantic...

www.nato.int

How has that purpose been outlived?

Click to expand...

By becoming a liability. Prior to WWI, Europe was intermeshed with agreements that were thought to prevent war by the threat of making small ones into big ones. The end result was that an incident in Sarajevo triggered the "War to End All Wars" and probably didn't help the situation that led to the Russian Revolution. Now we have an alliance that's two years shy of 80 years old, made at a time when East and West were close to war, one that created an agreement that did something similar to those intermeshing agreements that Europe thought would ensure peace but didn't. There's always been the understanding that if Russian armor poured through the Fulday Gap, nuclear war wouldn't be far behind.

Now NATO is an alliance of countries increasingly at odds, with domestic goings on not that far removed from life under the Soviets, to the point that a UK vet of WWII questioned, on live TV, whether their sacrifice was worth it. As far back as the late 1970s or early 1980s. the Senate had concerns, usually voiced by Senator Sam Nunn, about NATO members upholding their fair share and today., Poland, former member of the Warsaw Pact, seems to be the only one to take that seriously. About the most that NATO does now is provide a hair trigger for nuclear war.

Times have change. Where NATO once was a good idea, it's increasingly a bad one. Europe may find itself back in the cycle of small wars, but maybe a cycle of small wars is better than one that triggers a worldwide nuclear war.

Tuur said:

NATO is an alliance that's outlived it's usefulness and has become more of a liability than an asset. Let the thing dissolve and be done with it.

Click to expand...

What is the liability for the USA being in NATO? "The United States directly contributes approximately $800 million to $860 million (€740 million to €790 million) annually to NATO's core operating budget, but it spends an estimated $30 billion to $40 billion per year on its broader military footprint dedicated specifically to European defense." google ai
Even if the USA were to pull troops out of the EU are we going to see reductions in numbers, less equipment etc? Perhaps a few billion saved if even that because we will just send those troops somewhere else. Besides, those troops can now be pulled if a conflict tightens up somewhere else. NATO is a good insurance policy. We share the risks and benefits with the Euro nations and if we need them they will be there. It is defensive and if the USA is in trouble, NATO will be there. If Trump wanted to attack Iran with their help he should have discussed and planned that with them. But they are not obligated. Instead, Trump is panicking knowing that his decisions on the Iran war are likely going make him a lame duck President.
I'll take the insurance policy of NATO any day.
Look at President Kennedy when he spoke in Berlin saying Ich bein ein Berliner. (I am a Berliner) What a great act of faith, keeping the allies together to fight the USSR from taking all of W. Berlin. That is a much better attitude than what we see today.

Burden-Sharing and Burden-Shifting – The days of the United States propping up the entire world order like Atlas are over. We count among our many allies and partners dozens of wealthy, sophisticated nations that must assume primary responsibility for their regions and contribute far more to our collective defense. President Trump has set a new global standard with the Hague Commitment, which pledges NATO countries to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense and which our NATO allies have endorsed and must now meet. Continuing President Trump’s approach of asking allies to assume primary responsibility for their regions, the United States will organize a burden-sharing network, with our government as convener and supporter. This approach ensures that burdens are shared and that all such efforts benefit from broader legitimacy. The model will be targeted partnerships that use economic tools to align incentives, share burdens with like-minded allies, and insist on reforms that anchor long-term stability. This strategic clarity will allow the United States to counter hostile and subversive influences efficiently while avoiding the overextension and diffuse focus that undermined past efforts. The United States will stand ready to help— potentially through more favorable treatment on commercial matters, technology sharing, and defense procurement—those counties that willingly take more responsibility for security in their neighborhoods and align their export controls with ours.

Good post. I would note that the 5% target is phased in until it is met in 2035. It also has a review process in 2029. Trump will be gone, so it is a good bet the only way all of NATO will reach that 5% goal (3.5% on military, 1.5% on cyber security). is if the threat level is still heightened.

Richard T said:

Good post. I would note that the 5% target is phased in until it is met in 2035. It also has a review process in 2029. Trump will be gone, so it is a good bet the only way all of NATO will reach that 5% goal (3.5% on military, 1.5% on cyber security). is if the threat level is still heightened.

Click to expand...

After Iran, I think Trump will focus on defending against China and moving troops according to need. The media really loves to create controversy, and sadly, we believe it. I personally wanted a NATO realignment, but it doesn't seem like that's happening.

Sadly, if the EU wanted peace, it could have it in Ukraine, and they could use the promised money for their own countries. Debt is still an issue globally.

Laodicean60 said:

After Iran, I think Trump will focus on defending against China and moving troops according to need. The media really loves to create controversy, and sadly, we believe it. I personally wanted a NATO realignment, but it doesn't seem like that's happening.

Sadly, if the EU wanted peace, it could have it in Ukraine, and they could use the promised money for their own countries. Debt is still an issue globally.

Click to expand...

I sure hope there is time to reposition in SE Asia, as the noose is tightening on Taiwan, and the Philippines even this week.

Richard T said:

I sure hope there is time to reposition in SE Asia, as the noose is tightening on Taiwan, and the Philippines even this week.

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/6395862

Philippines accuses China of using water cannon on its vessels for a second day - BusinessWorld Online

MANILA/BEIJING — The Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) on Friday accused its Chinese counterpart of firing water cannon at government vessels near a disputed shoal for a second day, in the third confrontation between the two countries in the South China Sea this week. It said a Chinese vessel at the...

bworldonline.com

Click to expand...

I don't understand how the Philippines allow themselves to be bullied. This has been going on for years; it's time to punch China in the face. Because ships have been damaged and Filipino's have been injured.

Laodicean60 said:

I don't understand how the Philippines allow themselves to be bullied. This has been going on for years; it's time to punch China in the face. Because ships have been damaged and Filipino's have been injured.

Click to expand...

The Philippines would be no match against China militarily, and the Philippines relies too much on China for electronics, manufacturing, and everyday products. China also has a significant investment in the country's infrastructure. A major conflict between the two countries would be devastating to the Philippines.

JosephZ said:

The Philippines would be no match against China militarily, and the Philippines relies too much on China for electronics, manufacturing, and everyday products. China also has a significant investment in the country's infrastructure. A major conflict between the two countries would be devastating to the Philippines.

Click to expand...

Then they can keep whining about it on the news; they deserve it. Doing business with China seems to be harmful to Filipinos. Filipinos should start following Trump's lead and reduce dependence on China.

Even if the Philippines retaliated against the water cannons, I don't think China would be quick to attack the Philippines with us backing them.

It

Laodicean60 said:

I don't understand how the Philippines allow themselves to be bullied. This has been going on for years; it's time to punch China in the face. Because ships have been damaged and Filipino's have been injured.

Click to expand...

China is far more powerful so they are trying to accommodate. If this goes over the edge though another hotspot, that Trump will have to deal with.