The NATO alliance is facing a critical juncture on its 75th birthday, with discussions centered around the threats posed by Russia and the potential challenges from a future Trump administration. With NATO having welcomed new members and experiencing a renewed sense of mission following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the alliance is also considering strategies to navigate potential disruptions caused by Trump's return to the White House.

 

At the gathering of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, one proposal under consideration is to place a U.S.-led organization overseeing military aid to Ukraine under NATO control, ensuring continuity in support regardless of the outcome of future U.S. elections. Additionally, there are ongoing discussions within the alliance about enhancing European military capabilities to compensate for any potential reduction in U.S. involvement.

 

 

Trump's past rhetoric has raised concerns about his commitment to NATO, with his history of questioning the alliance's value and demanding increased defense spending from other member states. While NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has touted progress in defense spending among member states, concerns remain about Trump's potential impact on the alliance.

 

The upcoming leadership transition within NATO, with Stoltenberg set to step down and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte considered a likely successor, adds further complexity. Rutte, who has expressed support for Trump's stance on defense spending, is seen as capable of navigating the challenges posed by a potential return of the former president.

 

As NATO reflects on its 75-year history and its evolution since its founding, there is a recognition of the need to strengthen the European pillar within the alliance and prepare for scenarios where U.S. engagement may be less certain. While Stoltenberg emphasized the importance of U.S. commitment to NATO, there is acknowledgment of the need to address potential scenarios where the U.S. may reconsider its involvement in the alliance.

 

05.04.24

Source

 

Wow.  Here's a simple way for NATO to survive under Trump 2.0.

 

Pay your share, what you agreed to pay.

 

Perhaps NATO is the problem. Can't see the forest for the trees.

Those who have slurped down the Jonestown donny Kool-Aid always bark about “paying your fair share”, though they have absolutely no clue what it means in reality. As has been shown since little vladdy invaded Ukraine, NATO members across the board have stepped up and offered monetary and material assistance to the victims of russia’s heinous aggression. NATO works.

 

trump, the trust fund guy with 6 bankruptcies and dozens of failed businesses, who didn’t even understand the term ‘nuclear triad’ that is crucial to the US and NATO’s defense, just tosses out a phrase to his goobers and they accept it as gospel. It’s a joke to think that the daddy boy who has spent a life stiffing banks, bondholders and subcontractors knows anything about paying fair share.

 

The vast majority of NATO members are fully capable of contributing to the defense of fellow members and meeting the sort of aggression NATO was founded to meet. Some nations are simply more efficient in their use of resources, while the US defense budget is a massive rat’s nest of cost overruns and useless equipment built for the last war, not anything that might arise at present or in the future. NATO nations could build useless redundancies and up their % of GDP spent on military matters, but that would not make them any more powerful nor capable of meeting their commitments to fellow member defense.

 

Trumpian goobers seem to think there is some giant pot into which NATO members toss money, that subsequently funds NATO activities. Nope.

 

The common aid given to Ukraine has shown clearly how equally prepared NATO members are to meet its challenges and commitments. Trump’s slogans and tag lines have been laid bare for the idiocy they are.

 

The US has been a major beneficiary of what NATO members have achieved. The Cold War was won. Europe has been at peace, in stark contrast to centuries of internecine aggression and war. International trade has brought tens of millions of jobs to America, as well as funding for US budget deficits (NATO members own USTs). NATO has played a major part in US and European prosperity over the last 75 years.

 

NATO has kept aggressor nations like Russia in check, something that clearly disturbs putin. It is hardly any surprise that trump---while claiming to love the US---is really intent on doing putin’s bidding and destroying what was a core part of peace and prosperity.

 

The Europeans are prudent to plan ahead if we here in the states and the world have to suffer another trump disaster ……

The overwhelming favorite to replace him, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, has been striking Trump-friendly notes lately. He's said the former president was right to pressure Europe on defense spending, and told the Munich Security Conference: "Stop moaning and whining and nagging about Trump.
 

I like his thinking , He sounds practical and doesn’t have TDS .

Times are changing . Russia aint going nowhere ! Trump can make peace with the former soviet govt. Trump is the no wars , type.

Novel idea!

Edited April 5, 20242 yr by riclag

47 minutes ago, Tug said:

The Europeans are prudent to plan ahead if we here in the states and the world have to suffer another trump disaster ……

 

Where was the first Trump disaster? 

 

There were no wars in Europe or Israel, the border under control, low inflation, relatively cheap gas and a full SPR. 

 

Of course, there were mean tweets, melted snowflakes, and that Covid thing.  I'll concede those, but I'd prefer mean tweets to WW3, which is a real risk for the first time since the '80s and a higher risk than at any time since 1962.

 

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Where was the first Trump disaster? 

 

There were no wars in Europe or Israel, the border under control, low inflation, relatively cheap gas and a full SPR. 

 

Of course, there were mean tweets, melted snowflakes, and that Covid thing.  I'll concede those, but I'd prefer mean tweets to WW3, which is a real risk for the first time since the '80s and a higher risk than at any time since 1962.

 

Wasn't McTrump lucky then, but he was in Putin's pocket, eh........🤗

3 minutes ago, transam said:

Wasn't McTrump lucky then, but he was in Putin's pocket, eh........

 

If I were to lament that Biden is sitting across the negotiating table from foreign entities that probably have 8x10 glossies and bank records that could land his kid in jail for life, I'd have to provide a link...

 

But never for a similar claim about the bad orange man.  Outrageous claims are perfectly acceptable from that side.

 

Why's that?

 

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

If I were to lament that Biden is sitting across the negotiating table from foreign entities that probably have 8x10 glossies and bank records that could land his kid in jail for life, I'd have to provide a link...

 

But never for a similar claim about the bad orange man.  Outrageous claims are perfectly acceptable from that side.

 

Why's that?

 

Can you simplify that please........😝

1 minute ago, transam said:

Can you simplify that please........

 

No thanks.  It's already at about a 5th grade reading level.

 

20 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

No thanks.  It's already at about a 5th grade reading level.

 

That's OK, totally understand......😉

NATO will be less important once Biden and his warmongering ways are out of the white house In November.

 

Trump tends to have more of a "you mind your business and we will mind ours" mindset, whereas Biden seems to want to get involved in (and fund) pretty much every conflict he is aware of around the world.

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

Where was the first Trump disaster? 

 

There were no wars in Europe or Israel, the border under control, low inflation, relatively cheap gas and a full SPR. 

 

Of course, there were mean tweets, melted snowflakes, and that Covid thing.  I'll concede those, but I'd prefer mean tweets to WW3, which is a real risk for the first time since the '80s and a higher risk than at any time since 1962.

 

 

Exactly.

 

Biden is like one of those Sunday morning Rugby players who sees a fight in a match on the pitch adjacent to his and runs over to get stuck in.

 

 

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

NATO will be less important once Biden and his warmongering ways are out of the white house In November.

 

Trump tends to have more of a "you mind your business and we will mind ours" mindset, whereas Biden seems to want to get involved in (and fund) pretty much every conflict he is aware of around the world.

What wars has Biden started?