Update
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Trump Throws NATO Under The Putin Bus

Trump says he'd 'encourage' Russia to attack NATO allies who don't pay their bills
FEBRUARY 11, 20242:12 AM ET
By
The Associated Press

NEW YORK — Republican front-runner Donald Trump said Saturday that, as president, he warned NATO allies that he "would encourage" Russia "to do whatever the hell they want" to countries that are "delinquent" as he ramped up his attacks on foreign aid and longstanding international alliances.

Speaking at a rally in Conway, South Carolina, Trump recounted a story he has told before about an unidentified NATO member who confronted him over his threat not to defend members who fail to meet the trans-Atlantic alliance's defense spending targets.

But this time, Trump went further, saying had told the member that he would, in fact, "encourage" Russia to do as it wishes in that case.

'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'" Trump recounted saying. "'No I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.'"

NATO allies agreed in 2014, after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, to halt the spending cuts they had made after the Cold War and move toward spending 2% of their GDPs on defense by 2024.

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates responded, saying that: "Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged – and it endangers American national security, global stability, and our economy at home."

Trump's comments come as Ukraine remains mired in its efforts to stave off Russia's 2022 invasion and as Republicans in Congress have become increasingly skeptical of providing additional aid money to the country as it struggles with stalled counteroffensives and weapons shortfalls.

They also come as Trump and his team are increasingly confident he will lock up the nomination in the coming weeks following commanding victories in the first votes of the 2024 Republican nominating calendar.

During his 2016 campaign, Trump alarmed Western allies by warning that the United States, under his leadership, might abandon its NATO treaty commitments and only come to the defense of countries that meet the alliance's guidelines by committing 2 percent of their gross domestic products to military spending.

Trump, as president, eventually endorsed NATO's Article 5 mutual defense clause, which states that an armed attack against one or more of its members shall be considered an attack against all members. But he often depicted NATO allies as leeches on the U.S. military and openly questioned the value of the military alliance that has defined American foreign policy for decades.

As of 2022, NATO reported that seven of what are now 31 NATO member countries were meeting that obligation — up from three in 2014. Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine has spurred additional military spending by some NATO members.

Trump has often tried to take credit for that increase, and bragged again Saturday that, as a results of his threats, "hundreds of billions of dollars came into NATO"— even though countries do not pay NATO directly.

Note: Article above edited...you can easily read the entire piece at the AP, Guardian, NPR, and many other sources.

Never forget: Trump stood before us and the world in Helsinki, and sided with war criminal Putin, over our allies and intel agencies. He touted Putin as a genius for invading Ukraine.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DallasCowboysFan · 61-69, M
I AGREE WITH HIM. Members of NATO are obligated to pay 2% of their GDP towards defense and of the 27 nations , only 5 pay it. It's like an insurance policy, if you don't, pay your dues, you don't get the benefit in an emergency.





----


Here's a breakdown of each country's contribution, based on 2016 figures provided by NATO:

United States, 3.61%.

Greece, 2.38%.

Britain, 2.21%.

Estonia, 2.16%.

Poland, 2%.

France, 1.78%.

Turkey, 1.56%.

Norway, 1.54%.

Lithuania, 1.49%.

Romania, 1.48%.

Latvia, 1.45%.

Portugal, 1.38%.

Bulgaria, 1.35%.

Croatia, 1.23%.

Albania, 1.21%.

Germany, 1.19%.

Denmark, 1.17%.

Netherlands, 1.17%.

Slovakia, 1.16%.

Italy, 1.11%.

Czech Republic, 1.04%.

Hungary, 1.01%.

Canada, 0.99%.

Slovenia, 0.94%.

Spain, 0.91%.

Belgium, 0.85%.

Luxembourg, 0.44%.


https://www.businessinsider.com/nato-share-breakdown-country-2017-2?op=1
@DallasCowboysFan And that's why Russia should attack NATO. 🙄
DallasCowboysFan · 61-69, M
@BohemianBoo No, but that is why we should consider leaving. The ones that have the most to lose are contributing the least to keep their country free. Russia won't invade anyone, and if they did, they could not control anyone; Poland, Germany, those days are long gone. They can't even handle Ukraine. Defeating a first world European nation only exists in their imagination.

Why should American men and women make sacrifices to protect nations when their own people are not willing to do the same?

Our national debt has risen to 34TN. Maybe we should spend more time trying to reduce our debt than spending it on nations that don't respect us.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@DallasCowboysFan As always, King Donald has made vague and simplistic allusions around a complex process (which tells us what he thinks of his serfs).

There are no 'obligations'.
Furthermore, nobody presents each country with a 'bill' as if it were some sort of dinner payment.

This sort of puerile characterisation of NATO funding probably reflects King Donald's incomprehension of such matters. Incidentally, Poland heads the list of funding as a percentage of GDP... using data from 2023 - not data that are [i]8 years old![/i]

National (or indirect) contributions are the largest component of NATO funding and are borne by individual member countries. These include the forces and capabilities held by each member country, which can be provided to NATO for deterrence and defence activities and military operations.

Direct contributions finance NATO's budgets, programmes and capabilities in support of objectives, priorities and activities that serve the interests of the Alliance as a whole – and cannot reasonably be borne by any single member – such as Alliance operations and missions or NATO-wide air defence or command and control systems.

All Allies contribute to funding NATO using an agreed cost share formula derived from the Gross National Income of member countries. This is the principle of common funding and it demonstrates burden-sharing in action.

NATO has three principal common-funded budgets: the civil budget (funding NATO Headquarters), the military budget (funding the NATO Command Structure) and the NATO Security Investment Programme (funding military infrastructure and capabilities).
22Michelle · 61-69, T
@newjaninev2 Simple solutions to complex problems only appeal to simpletons, see also Brexit.
@DallasCowboysFan WRONGGGG!!!

Two percent is the NATO GUIDELINE, dude, [b][i]GUIDELINE.[/i][/b]
And your lovely graph is from Nov 2016, representing data from 2015, dude. Whatsamatta? Current 2022 & 2023 data doesn't fit your slant?? [b]SAD!![/b]

Another point to be made: it's illogical to include US defense spending that goes into the Pacific sphere of influence or the South American sphere of influence. How do bases in Hawaii or Okinawa or Guam benefit NATO? How do bases in Gitmo or El Salvador or Vietnam or Neuquen Argentina benefit NATO?

C'mon dude, be real.
@DallasCowboysFan Exactly right. Our "allies" are more than happy to let the American tax payers foot their defense bill.
Strictgram · 70-79, C
@DallasCowboysFan Plentiful changes in 8 years.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@BizSuitStacy I agree that European countries have been running behind on their NATO bills. I think that pointing that out, is one of the few things Trump did well during his presidency.

But the US should also stop navel staring when it comes to costs of defense bills. If you take the war in Afghanistan (2001), NATO and the UN both were in agreement that there was a legit reason for militairy intervention. However, the US, as coordinator had no long term strategy. Same goes for the war in Iraq (2004) that wasn't even condoned by NATO or the UN, and the US with a coalition of the willing gave the international allies and international community the middle finger and did what they wanted to do anyway.

The costs payed by NATO allies as a consequence of the increasing instability in the region created by US shortsighted engagements are never mentioned by people like you. The people displaced and the security threads of a conflict that is practically in our backyard are just forgotten by naval staring nationalists that happened to have popped out a vagina in a region that is geographically disconnected from a large part of the world.
@Kwek00
Behind on your bills 🤣

[quote]The costs payed by NATO allies as a consequence of the increasing instability in the region created by US shortsighted engagements are never mentioned by people like you.[/quote]

Bullshit. "People like me" continue to call out the central banks and military industrial complex on a daily basis. You'd recognize the real issue if you weren't so caught up in your anti-US echo chamber. Instead, you're playing right into the hands of the globalists by repeating the narrative. Well done.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@BizSuitStacy Where are all the posts devoted to US-allies feeling the consequences of US-actions that were taken against the will of US-allies Stacy? I'm not talking about globalists, the world bank or any other of your conspiratorial narratives, I'm talking about self reflection. Something that is apperently not possible without labeling it "anti-US echo chamber"-narratives, and pointing to scapegoats.
@Kwek00 I see a certain biz-suited one, who blocks me, has entered the conversation. It was just over two years ago that this "stacy" assured me that us vaccinated folk would be facing an unprecedented disaster and dying like flies. "Just wait six months" they said!
[b]https://similarworlds.com/disease-illness/covid-19/4192870-Vaccine-injury-and-deaths-caused-by-the-vaccines?sort=1 [/b]
And look! I've already quadrupled my anti-vaxxer predicted life expectancy!!! I really wanted to report my good news to the biz-suited one but alas they blocked me😂🤣😂🤣
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@BizSuitStacy Okay, you just keep trippin' on the conspiracies then.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@ElwoodBlues In a way, I think you are the lucky one.