Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills

[transam]

McTrump is an embarrassment for the USA.........😟

[Cory1848]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Trump says something outrageous and the opposition has a tantrum.

 

He used to say "lock her up" and he didn't do that either.

 

IMO Trump is playing the anti Trumpers and the MSM for fools. He probably has a good laugh reading the rants that follow.

Following your narrative that Trump’s only reason for making these unhinged comments is to trigger the libtards, the fact that you seem to applaud such behavior from a former president who’s running for office again says a lot about you, doesn’t it. The national political arena is not a nursery school; it requires a minimum level of maturity, which neither Trump nor, it appears, many of his followers are able muster.

[illisdean]

People should focus on what Trump does as President NOT only just what he says.

 

And be sure Trump loves America and America loves Trump.

 

Remember when the loony dems try to castigate Trump as a racist. NOPE, blacks love Trump and the polls are showing his numbers and support form Blacks is increasing as Biden is hemorrhaging support from blacks and hispanics and likely getting worse since SC Hur's classified doc investigation reporting Biden is unfit for trial.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12 by illisdean

[brianthainess]

My god, people vote for this retard, what a load of nutters.  it must be quite embarrassing for Americans. The UK govt. is bad enough, but jeez not completely Mucking Fental as to vote in an obvious nutter.   

[impulse]

5 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Much ado over nothing. Trump will not be the President and Nato will continue to exist. 

 

And they'll still count on the US taxpayer to subsidize their refusal to pay the agreed 2% of GDP.  For defending their backyard, 3000 miles away from US shores.

 

[scorecard]

8 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

In a startling statement at a rally in South Carolina, former President Donald Trump declared that he would "encourage" Russia to attack any NATO member failing to meet its financial obligations within the alliance.

 

Recalling a hypothetical scenario presented by the leader of a "big country" during a NATO meeting, Trump recounted his response, indicating that if a nation was delinquent in its payments and came under attack from Moscow, he would not offer protection but instead urge the aggressors to act freely. This stance directly contravenes NATO's commitment to defend all member nations against external aggression.

 

The White House swiftly condemned Trump's remarks as "appalling and unhinged," emphasizing their potential to endanger American national security, global stability, and the domestic economy. Trump's tendency to criticize NATO's financial burden on the United States has long been known, with his skepticism towards the alliance dating back to his time in office.

 

While Russia's invasion of Ukraine occurred after Trump's presidency, he has continued to express dissatisfaction with the substantial financial aid provided by the US to Ukraine, a non-NATO member. Despite the significant assistance rendered to Ukraine, recent Republican opposition in Congress has stymied efforts to allocate new funding, with demands for stringent measures on immigration policy becoming a sticking point.

 

Trump's celebration of the rejection of President Biden's proposals regarding aid to Ukraine underscores the contentious nature of US foreign policy debates, particularly concerning the allocation of resources and priorities in international relations. As senators now navigate the issue of aid funding separately from immigration measures, the broader implications of Trump's rhetoric and its impact on US global standing remain subjects of concern and debate.

 

NATO Responds

 

Former President Donald Trump's recent remarks suggesting that the US would not protect NATO allies failing to meet defense spending targets have drawn sharp criticism from NATO's chief and President Joe Biden. Trump's comments, made during a rally in South Carolina, implied that he would encourage Russia to attack NATO members not meeting the alliance's spending goals.

 

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO's secretary-general, condemned Trump's remarks, stating that they undermine the security of all NATO members and put American and European soldiers at greater risk. President Biden described Trump's comments as "appalling and dangerous," suggesting they would give Russian President Vladimir Putin a "green light" for further aggression.

 

Trump's assertion comes amidst concerns about NATO members' defense spending, with many falling short of the alliance's target of 2% of GDP. However, Stoltenberg emphasized that NATO remains prepared to defend its members and will respond forcefully to any attack.

 

Trump's comments have sparked debate about the US commitment to NATO and its role in European security. Nikki Haley, Trump's Republican rival for the presidential nomination, warned against siding with Russia, describing Putin as a "thug who kills his opponents."

 

Trump's longstanding criticism of NATO and calls for burden-sharing reflect broader concerns in the US about the financial burden of guaranteeing the defense of other nations. However, experts warn that Trump's remarks risk damaging the unity of the NATO alliance, particularly at a time of heightened tensions with Russia.

 

The situation is further complicated by Russia's military aggression, including its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. While the US has provided significant financial support to Ukraine, recent Republican opposition to new funding has created additional challenges.

 

Overall, Trump's comments have reignited debates about US foreign policy, NATO's role in European security, and the implications of Russian aggression in the region. As the political landscape continues to evolve, the future of US engagement with NATO and its allies remains uncertain.

 

 

12.01.24

Source

Source update

 

 

Trump has an appalling track record of not paying many contractors and hotel employees etc., and for not pay dozens of lawyers but has no hesitation to make statements re NATO countries. 

 

He's an Idiot. 

[illisdean]

6 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

Trump has an appalling track record of not paying many contractors and hotel employees etc., and for not pay dozens of lawyers but has no hesitation to make statements re NATO countries. 

 

He's an Idiot. 

So, don't vote for him, vote for the other idiot, the one mentally unfit to stand trial for willfully retaining classified documents and sharing them. LOL

[scorecard]

12 minutes ago, illisdean said:

So, don't vote for him, vote for the other idiot, the one mentally unfit to stand trial for willfully retaining classified documents and sharing them. LOL

Yawn...

[candide]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Trump says something outrageous and the opposition has a tantrum.

 

He used to say "lock her up" and he didn't do that either.

 

IMO Trump is playing the anti Trumpers and the MSM for fools. He probably has a good laugh reading the rants that follow.

The one who surely has a good laugh is Putin.

[Red Forever]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Trump says something outrageous and the opposition has a tantrum.

 

He used to say "lock her up" and he didn't do that either.

 

IMO Trump is playing the anti Trumpers and the MSM for fools. He probably has a good laugh reading the rants that follow.

Seems like Trump's sucked you in. 

Remember, he gave the game away when he bellowed "I love the poorly educated".

[Chomper Higgot]

55 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

And they'll still count on the US taxpayer to subsidize their refusal to pay the agreed 2% of GDP.  For defending their backyard, 3000 miles away from US shores.

 

That’s not how defense spending ding in NATO works.

 

Trumps financial backers in the U.S. arms industry want other NATO nations to spend more on U.S. made arms.
 

Until Trump got behind Putin, Russia was a diminished threat, he’s now encouraging Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want'.

 

Trump is playing with fire in somebody else’s house.

 

[rice555]

6 hours ago, Tug said:

The word of the office of the presidency carry’s weight unlike yours that is just an opinion .trump has a possibility of becoming president that that’s very very serious trump just said (in a manner of speaking) he would let Europe go up in flames that sir is serious very serious you laugh it off I take it seriously as should any lucid human being 

Ya, lookup the current prez's 3 law degrees speech and the retraction by the main news

chan's at the time, not like now, only mockingbirds now.

[Skeptic7]

Trump "The Train Wreck" that just keeps on derailing❗Complete and total moron. 🦇 💩 crazy is putting it mildly. 

[Skeptic7]

6 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

You think trump is just playing people for fools? 
 

Sorry but you need to look in the mirror and you may recognise a clown. You really are in an alternative reality. That is what happens when the only opinion you listen to is your own.

 

I again remind you of you own post about you mental state!

Yep...this guy is "out there". Like Pluto "out there"❗Was tortured for years in that thread above by his inanity and insanity. His contradictions were shocking...but of course reasoning with him was impossible, despite even quoting his very own words to prove his inconsistencies. 

[xylophone]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

And they'll still count on the US taxpayer to subsidize their refusal to pay the agreed 2% of GDP.  For defending their backyard, 3000 miles away from US shores.

 

 

Once more, just for you and trump's other "poorly educated" followers.................

 

"The scorn for Nato that Trump expresses is based on a false premise that he has repeated for years even after being corrected, a sign that he is either incapable of processing information that conflicts with an idée fixe in his head or willing to distort facts to suit his preferred narrative.

 

As he has many times, Trump castigated Nato partners that he called “delinquent” in paying for US protection. “You’ve got to pay,” he said. “You got to pay your bills.”

 

In fact, Nato partners do not pay the United States, as Trump implied. Nato members contribute to a common budget for civilian and military costs according to a formula based on national income and historically have met those obligations".

[scottiejohn]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Trump says something outrageous and the opposition has a tantrum.

Quite rightly.

You admit that his comment is outrageous!

Only in the USA could a so called "Politician" as Trump remain as a serious contender in a political race without resigning of his own accord after such an outrageous and potentially destabilising speech!

 

 

 

Edited February 12 by scottiejohn

[Wrwest]

7 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Much ado over nothing. Trump will not be the President and Nato will continue to exist. 

I take Trump as a serious threat to my very flawed country. Far too many in the working middle class are emotionally willing (seemingly) to follow anyone who gives voice to their justified frustration/anger. This is driven by sheer emotion not thought as to consequences.

[scottiejohn]

3 minutes ago, Wrwest said:

I take Trump as a serious threat to my very flawed country. Far too many in the working middle class are emotionally willing (seemingly) to follow anyone who gives voice to their justified frustration/anger. This is driven by sheer emotion not thought as to consequences.

Unfortunately You may be closer to the truth than many, like myself, would like to see!

I just wish it was not Biden he was against!

 

 

 

Edited February 12 by scottiejohn

[xylophone]

Veering off course just a little, but still related to the NATO subject, Russia/Putin threaten the West with their rhetoric, blaming NATO for "pushing their boundaries towards Russia", or words to that effect.

 

However article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty sets out how countries can join the Alliance; it states that membership is open to any "European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to security of the North Atlantic area"

 

Indeed Sweden and Finland applied to join in May 2022 following Russia's invasion of Ukraine as the two countries feared for their security.

 

In short, it is the threat of Russia and Putin which has driven countries to seek membership of NATO, not NATO's decision to expand per se, but that concept is too difficult for a simpleton like trump to understand.

[candide]

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

And they'll still count on the US taxpayer to subsidize their refusal to pay the agreed 2% of GDP.  For defending their backyard, 3000 miles away from US shores.

 

As usual Trump is lying in order to mislead people like you. European countries pay their share of the NATO organisation's own budget and the U.S. is not paying their bills.

 

What European countries don't do is spend enough money for their own army. They don't spend enough but that's another matter.

The fact, for example, that a country may buy only 300 tanks when it ideally should buy 400 tanks, absolutely doesn't mean that the U.S. taxpayer is paying the missing tanks. 

[candide]

Anyone noticed that the same guys who are supporting Putin's argument that he's being threatened by NATO, are also complaining that NATO countries don't spend enough on defense? 😀

[IAMHERE]

Of course Trump has it wrong. America should continue to fund the EU's defense. 

[impulse]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

As usual Trump is lying in order to mislead people like you. European countries pay their share of the NATO organisation's own budget and the U.S. is not paying their bills.

 

What European countries don't do is spend enough money for their own army. They don't spend enough but that's another matter.

The fact, for example, that a country may buy only 300 tanks when it ideally should buy 400 tanks, absolutely doesn't mean that the U.S. taxpayer is paying the missing tanks. 

 

It's not a direct payment, but when (for example) Canada doesn't pay their share and only buys 300 tanks when they need 400, US taxpayers have to buy the extra 100 tanks, to use your example.  They don't go to Canada, but they're on call to defend Canada.  Same with ammo, missiles and all the other goodies.

 

NATO members agreed to spend 2% of their GDP on defense.  Someone's got to cover the shortfall if they welch on their obligation.  US taxpayers are tired of being that slush fund.  So was Trump.  Would he actually fail to defend a NATO member?  Doubtful, but they seemed to pony up when he threatened not to.  Being unpredictable is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/584088/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/

 

 

 

[candide]

47 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

It's not a direct payment, but when (for example) Canada doesn't pay their share and only buys 300 tanks when they need 400, US taxpayers have to buy the extra 100 tanks, to use your example.  They don't go to Canada, but they're on call to defend Canada.  Same with ammo, missiles and all the other goodies.

 

NATO members agreed to spend 2% of their GDP on defense.  Someone's got to cover the shortfall if they welch on their obligation.  US taxpayers are tired of being that slush fund.  So was Trump.  Would he actually fail to defend a NATO member?  Doubtful, but they seemed to pony up when he threatened not to.  Being unpredictable is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/584088/defense-expenditures-of-nato-countries/

 

 

 

It has to be demonstrated that it's the case, which you don't.

 

Canada is obviously benefiting from the importance of the U.S. army. Would the U.S. army budget be lower if Canada spent more on it's army?

 

It is a bit more clear in Europe. While % of defense budget in European countries has decreased since the end of the Soviet Union, the U.S. army presence in Europe has even much more decreased.

 

Having said that it's obvious that European countries should spending more on defense. Actually, it's probably not so much about spending more than to spend better ( in a more coordinated way). Let's take the same example: if ten countries buy each 400 tanks when only 3000 are needed to defend the Eastern borders, it means money is wasted. On the other hand, if not enough money is invested in logistics to carry these tanks and the related troops, that's a problem. Or if not enough money is spent on detection or anti-missiles near the Eastern borders, etc.. That's the key problem. Each countries spends money for its own local defense, and too few for improving capabilities at the regional level.

 

Edited February 12 by candide

[Cory1848]

1 hour ago, candide said:

As usual Trump is lying in order to mislead people like you. European countries pay their share of the NATO organisation's own budget and the U.S. is not paying their bills.

 

What European countries don't do is spend enough money for their own army. They don't spend enough but that's another matter.

The fact, for example, that a country may buy only 300 tanks when it ideally should buy 400 tanks, absolutely doesn't mean that the U.S. taxpayer is paying the missing tanks. 

Quite right. Six NATO countries in Europe, however, are paying at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, and four of them are frontline countries, seen as most vulnerable to Russian aggression (the three Baltic states and Poland). (The other two are Greece and the UK.) Finland apparently falls just short of 2 percent, and they’ve increased their defense spending rapidly the past two years so are also likely to exceed 2 percent in 2024.

 

So if, say, the Russians were to attack the Suwalki corridor between Poland and Lithuania (as is often speculated), Trump’s “but they don’t pay their bills” argument wouldn’t work. But, of course, Trump doesn’t know any of this. How would he? He’s a total moron.

[Tug]

10 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

If Mr Trump decides to pull out of NATO then it leaves the other Treaty members with some significant decisions. They will have to decide whether to disband the alliance or to continue without America.

 

Militarily the alliance will of course be weaker without the USA, but still a potent force for the defence of it's European members, more so now it includes Finland and Sweden. Defence of the European democracies is it's core purpose.

 

It will however be freed from various (American attempts) to include the Alliance in it's various expeditionary wars, which were not the intention of forming the alliance.

 

It should also be born in mind that if the USA cuts NATO loose then it is also possible, probable, that NATO will cut the USA loose. The US has massive armed forces, geared to a large extent to an ability to project power worldwide, for it's own geo-political interests. That requires a great deal of "forward basing", for it's Navy and Air Force. Many of those bases are in NATO countries. Without them that ability to project power would be limited.

 

For sure, if you look at, for example, the Mediterranean. A nuclear powered carrier can cruise around the unlimited by fuel constraints, but it still requires fuel for its aircraft, food for its crews, places with facilities to go for maintenance and repairs, and a whole fleet of support shipping to keep it going. Take away the bases in Spain, Gibraltar , Italy and Greece, and the airbases in Italy, then that task becomes much more difficult.

 

 

Excellent post and I totally agree but as far as trump thinking something through before he yaps come on we all know trump isent intellectual enough to think more that a sound bite ahead he’s a moron just ask Rex Tillerson there’s a self made man who rose through hard work and ability.trump is a New York City trust fund baby with a big stupid mouth.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, illisdean said:

So, don't vote for him, vote for the other idiot, the one mentally unfit to stand trial for willfully retaining classified documents and sharing them. LOL

Was it you calling others out for false statements which you identified as lies?

[illisdean]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Was it you calling others out for false statements which you identified as lies?

Wasn't it you trolling like a lost and desperate soul because your beloved Biden is senile and his own DOJ confirms he's unfit to prosecute for "willfully" retaining and sharing classified material which equates to espionage.....

 

all because you got NOTHING..... That must be you again.  LOL

[Cory1848]

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

Veering off course just a little, but still related to the NATO subject, Russia/Putin threaten the West with their rhetoric, blaming NATO for "pushing their boundaries towards Russia", or words to that effect.

 

However article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty sets out how countries can join the Alliance; it states that membership is open to any "European state in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to security of the North Atlantic area"

 

Indeed Sweden and Finland applied to join in May 2022 following Russia's invasion of Ukraine as the two countries feared for their security.

 

In short, it is the threat of Russia and Putin which has driven countries to seek membership of NATO, not NATO's decision to expand per se, but that concept is too difficult for a simpleton like trump to understand.

Exactly. And what you lay out is the argument most often used by Putin apologists looking for some way to blame the West for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. As if all those tens of millions of people who live in eastern and Baltic Europe are incapable of deciding for themselves which way they want to go.

[thaipo7]

Tug - Talk about perverted, most of your comments are perverted.  I don't think I have agreed with you on anything.  You said, "Trump continues to be an asset to our enemies."   Has he given our enemies billions of dollars so they can get a nuclear weapon?  NO, but Biden has.  Has Trump sent pallets of money to Iran.  NO but Obama did with Biden at his side.  Did Trump open our borders so thousands of young men from countries that hate us can come in and set up terror cells?  NO but Biden has.  Has trump been on the wrong side of history for 50 years?  NO but Biden has.  Has Trump taken money from China?  NO but Biden has.  Has Trump committed Impeachable offenses against the US.  NO but Biden has.  I mean REAL offenses, not the made up kind by a crooked Justice System that he happens to protect Biden and others in the Protected Class.  Would Trump stand by and let Iran through their proxies hit our forces over 160 times with out striking them where it would do real damage?  Biden has.  What has Biden done the last 3 years that you wanted to see continued?