• Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    As a member of a NATO military that doesn’t meet the targets for spending, I agree this doesn’t undermine NATO, it’s just the truth that we need to start pulling more weight monetarily.

    You dont think Nato members not ever meeting spending targets undermines NATO? Europe would be able to protect themselves if they met the targets and the US would be a bonus to NATO not a requirement.

    BUT that’s not the point and you missed key details about what he said that absolutely DOES undermine NATO, such as: “I said: ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’… ‘No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.’”

    I think that comment does far less damage to NATO than the members who do not meet minimum requirements. The US has been trying to get Nato to contribute to their own security for a long time. Trumps plan to get this done has been to threaten Nato members with removal of US security. This seems to have worked better than other methods tried. Trump is not saying this to encourage russia to attack Nato, trump is saying this to force Nato members to meet their obligations.

    I do not understand how you can look a nation asking the US to defend them for free and the US saying no and think that the US is one putting them at risk. They put themself at risk because they choose to spend no money on defense obligations.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Trump is not saying this to encourage russia to attack Nato

      Literally in the Trump quote:

      in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want.

      • jas0n@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        You see, Trump never means what he says. It’s all 5d chess and you don’t know how to interpret all that vagueness.

      • Fizz@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        To understand why it is not a call for russia to attack nato you must know the context. In the clip Trump mentions Nato being broken before he “fixed” it. In 2016 only 5 countries met the minimum nato obligations (US, UK, Greece, estonia, Poland).

        Trump recalls a conversation he had with a Nato leader. He says the leader asked him “if we dont pay are you still going to protect us” trump replied “absolutely not”. This is a huge shock to the nato leaders as America has always asked them to pay but never forced their hand like this. They ask again “if we dont pay and we are attacked by Russia will you still protect us?” then you get the harsher response from trump.

        No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay. full quote since you left out the important part.

        Europe is vulnerable to an attack from Russia they know this. They MUST meet their alliance obligations to ensure their security its that simple. Trump is telling the European leader this to scare them into meeting their obligations. Russia didnt hear about this until trump mentioned it at his rally a few days ago. After all this happened years ago the Nato contribution increased and states meeting their obligation goes from 5 to 11.

        Please explain to me how that is trump inviting war? Trump isnt asking Nato to freeload. He is asking them to meet their obligations and remain in the alliance with the US.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Please explain to me how that is trump inviting war?

          Sure, when Trump says:

          I would encourage them to do whatever they want

          “Them” is Russia, and “whatever they want” is to invade. So Trump is saying “I would encourage {Russia] to [Invade].”

          I’m not going along with your “he doesn’t mean what he says” BS. He is running for government office, if he doesn’t mean what he’s saying then he shouldn’t say it. I’m not going to play “guess what the politician really means when they say something. Maybe they mean the opposite. who knows?”