Trump is a proven Soviet agent. If only someone had told President Obama about this he would have stopped him. But McConnell ordered that President Obama be kept in the dark. Shame. Shame!
2
I'm always amazed at the degree to which people are questioning the motives of this "president" -- it's very clear that his only motives are personal in nature, and center around undoing or besting the actions of his predecessor(s), especially the most recent. stop deluding yourselves, there is no presidential demeanor or smart policy or back-channel intellectual strategy in the works. so far we've only had a disgusting freak show which seemingly will not end until that man is removed from the Oval Office.
1
Desperate hours lead to desperate claims. The NYT has taken the dubious tack to credit Obama for Trump's successes. Our booming economy is merely an extension of Obama's policies, and now NATO's grudging commitment to live up to their financial obligations, is similarly Obama's doing. Bizarre. But it is what, regrettably, what one has come to expect.
6
Whatever Obama wanted, the contribution from the other NATO members has fallen to under 2%. Some members pay less than 1%. Our contribution numbers don't even count the military and equipment we have stationed in Europe. Trump has also claimed that we should be paid for some of their cost. Don't hold your breath. They have gotten use to shirking their commitments and we have done nothing to prove to them we won't just keep footing the bill. Is NATO effective? A recent analysis showed, based on where Russia's military is stationed, they can run through Western Europe in 4 days and the first to be killed will be our military. To continue this disparity is absurd. In any case, the Russians aren't going to invade. They want customers not a bunch of dead people and huge cost to occupy. If NATO keep up their same old, same old path of reducing their contribution instead of paying their share, we should count the cost of our military over there in the percentage of our contribution and lower the total to match theirs.
3
Salesman. The same reason he talked of condos in North Korea. Whatever enters his rich boy head.
Your editorial board messed up on this one. Donniejohn got nothing. NATO is an alliance to work together for mutual defense. Together. That's the hard part and apparently not something understood or even in the vocabulary by a paid stooge of the Russians. President Obama asked for many things, mutual cooperation, respect, confidence that we are better together than a part...etc. NATO is cooperation so we don't let thugs like Hitler unleash their madness on the rest of us. Oops, I mean Putin.
1
That's really insulting and unprovoked. I'll have you know that termites are industrious and loyal to their colony; each would not hesitate to sacrifice themselves for the common good. Congress on the other hand...no so much. <Sigh>
Yeah and he got everything Obama ever asked for from North Korea and Iran. LOL.
2
This is another one of those painfully centrist editorials the NYT is becoming infamous for these days. Just as they published the extremely misleading headline stating that the FBI found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia just before the 2016 election, they seem to feel that to be a "credible" news source is to give a partial benefit-of-the-doubt to a pathological liar with no discernible foreign policy strategy at all, except to undermine U.S. credibility in the world.
Sorry, NYT, but if this centrist tripe is the best you can do, I'll be on my way out of here very soon.
1
Farewell
3
As anyone should know by now Trump has agreed to the Obama deal with NATO until he sits down with Putin, at which time he will justify lifting all sanctions against Russia because of the German pipeline agreement with Russia.
Already Trump has done considerable damage to our allies' trust in this country. Already he as shaken the coherence of NATO.
If Trump is reelected in 2020, by the end of his two terms, he will have destroyed NATO.
3
A promise to work toward 2% defense spending over 10 years is a typical politicians solution. Push the problem into the future when everyone will have forgotten about it. It is all about style rather than substance and Obama was fine with it. While there is much to dislike about Trump is is far more a man of action than real U.S. politicians. When things don't get done he calls people out. That is refreshing, especially since the US generally foots the bill for most international agreements.
7
HWe foot the bill because it is all for the interests of the US, not Europe. The Us decided to wage war across the world to protect american corporate goals.
The Europeans already spend far more than Russia in military expenditures. Just like the US, that money could be better spent on real problems.
Instead it is on glitzy military hardware that should never be used if we want a world to survive.
Any real war with Russia would be the height of foolishness on both sides. And Putin understands that, which is why he conducts cyberwarfare. And getting Trump to surrender to Russia everything Putin wants.
No, but he walked ahead of the Queen, a big no no in protocol.
1
Actually Trump's numbers are worse because he is coasting on what Obama did.
The tax cut is no more than a giveaway to the rich while increasing the debt. And the rich did what reasonable people expected them to do, buy shares, not invest in jobs and higher wages.
His job #s are lower than Obama. Wages are still not going up.
Except for the tax cut for the rich, he has been all talk and no substance.
Perhaps the biggest irony of this 2.0 version of "conservatism", which quite a few conservatives disavow, is that it is actually a potpourri of bad ideas that have been disproved over and over again and the discarding of ideas that actually worked, that is if one's goal is a contemporary democracy with a more equitable distribution of wealth, an increase in civil, worker and minority rights, a commitment to science and pragmatic solutions to serious problems and an emphasis on community both locally, in the country and in the world. In other words, what remains of the Enlightenment.
All of those things have been sacrificed to a government that thanks to the extreme conservatives on the Supreme Court and the GOP's social Darwinist aspirations is increasingly corrupted by money, hostile to real individual freedoms for the average citizen due to pretzel twisting ideology that ignores real life versus corporations given human status by the same elitists.
The faux populism that Trump sold during his sordid, unhinged campaign is actually the farthest extension of the same misanthropic, irresponsible, contrived and craven philosophy that is emblematic of GOP 2.0. That the authoritarian, survival of the fittest, economic charade emblematic of right wing animus has now been extended abroad to encourage the same pockets of racial animus, xenophobia and the delusions of half baked ideologues is appalling, but not surprising.
Yes, congress should act, as a baby step to sanity.
2
"they reaffirmed their “unwavering commitment”"
They didn't, in fact, make any new commitments, nor give our fake president anything that hadn't been previously agreed. You seem to make it sound as if the traitor accomplished something. He didn't. Not unless you think insulting, demeaning (and then lying about it!) our allies is some sort of accomplishment.
The traitor is doing pooty's bidding, that's more than obvious. He is NOT representing the citizens and taxpayers of this country. He needs to be removed from office.
2
The GOP has created this monster president by giving him a pass
on almost every item he wants. Where are they? Sen Orrin Hatch
squeaked something yesterday. Each one of them should be shouting, "You LIE" from the balcony. Why can't they stand up for their country? They are clueless about the threat that Russia presents, they are willingly, consciously, ignorantly aiding and abetting the undermining of our way of life and our Constitution. They act as though they own the country. The man at the top seems to say, "I am the King of the World". He respects no one.
We need to stop him. Wake up before it's too late, before the damage is irreparable.
3
The ultimate irony is that Trumps' horrendous behavior is putting our national security even more at risk.
What will that mean?
WE will now have to pay even more.
Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.
1
I would remind the Editorial Board that these days you don't have anything until you really have it. Is there any nation that could reasonably be expected to feel like keeping promises to a lying fraud like Trump?
3
An American embarrassment on the World stage. At least Trump didn't push anyone out of the way for photos this time.
2
Putin get from Trump all what he would never dreamed of getting from Obama. That's the reason why European states invest in defence, not because the "very consistent, stable genius" made once again a fool of himself - and of his country.
2
Obama did nothing and got nothing. Correction- he got accolades for doing nothing even before he tried. That does not make for a record that the NYT or anyone should admire. Yes- and he did nothing to stop takeover of Crimea. His efforts in Ukraine were pathetic. He encouraged US business cooperation with Russia (The same type of cooperation that Trump and many US businesses/multinationals pursued under his policies and are now are being criticized and hounded for). And in 2012? before the election, Obama put the icing on the cake when he thought he was off mike and told the Russian leader that after the election they could do business. What a cynical policy and sign of disrespect by Obama for all the citizens who voted him! Trump appears to have gotten some results from the Europeans. About time for a President to get anything useful from those sponges. While the Times criticizes Trump and lauds the Europeans, they continue to exercise increasingly totalitarian control over free speech and provide restrictions on the everyday lives of their citizens. But the NYT must not care very much about that because it editorially ignores the speech and freedom rights being destroyed on US campuses by the left and ignoring the riots in the streets by the left. The threat in Europe and in this country is not from the right as the NYT opinion writers bemoan, but from the radical left which the NYT and its commentators support.
7
Don’t count your eggs.
The title of your column is misleading. Trump has stepped in to an agreement that was already in play. Just like the economy. He has no idea or refuses to see the data of the increase in contribution from our NATO partners since 2014. Also there are a lot of members that our at the 2% increase. There will be smaller countries that will not be able to meet that threshold. What you can give Trump credit for...
- Global Trade War
- US Removal from TPP which would have put a check on China
- Iran Nuclear Deal - instead of making it better he took us out they have the cash and can continue enrichment
- Deregulation of everything that has to do with the climate
- Paris Climate Accords
- Removal of Military Exercises w/ South Korea, Japan, and Australia (why...)
- Separation of families at the southern border and losing track of the children
Donald Trump takes credit for eveything Barak Obama set in motion!
1
Yes, and Trump got from North Korea everything Obama ever wanted. Who wrote this editorial?
1
The corporate media speaks with a single, unified voice in distorting US security spending to such a ridiculous extent that it prevents any rational discussion of defense needs and priorities.
The US spends FAR more than ". . only 3.2 percent of G.D.P. this year." as the editorial states. That figure is Defense Department only, and even excludes what is actually spent on ongoing wars - not to mention nuclear weapons R & D, the CIA, NSA, a fair portion of national debt servicing, state and local security spending, and much else.
The real costs of US security spending amount to over a trillion dollars per year, around 7 percent of GDP.
This is the true "cross of iron" upon which we hang, and President Eisenhower warned.
2
A Senate blocking the liar-in-chief from pulling out of NATO unilaterally maybe a good idea but may not be effective. After all they failed in repealing the ACA, Obamacare, but could not prevent Trump from constantly and consistently undermining that law. Besides, with the current crop of GOP senators who seem more willing to at least let, if not actively enabling, Trump to tear down all institutions to suit Putin's desire, what is the chance that the Senate will pass such a thing? Even if it is a non binding resolution?
1
Trump has achieved absolutely nothing. The NATO allies are bound by treaty to increase military spending by 2021 to 2% of GDP. Whether they increase gradually, as some are doing, or in one leap, is a matter for each government. 'For obvious reasons that we can see' Russia annexed Crimea? Russia annexed Crimea because Putin, who has failed to make Russia an economy in accordance with what the Soviet Union was (Russia's economy is the size of Italy's), is trying to distract Russians with the grandeur of restoring the territory of the Soviet Union. Crimea was and wanted to be part of Ukraine, Putin took it.
1
As far as I know Trump got nothing. The NATO members are still on the same schedule for raising defense spending to 2%.
Trump seems to believe that money is coming to us but he doesn't seem to understand anything.
4
The Editorial Board is to be commended for recognizing the formidable one-two punch of Presidents Obama and Trump in dealing with our NATO allies. It is quite understandable that our allies have been slow in achieving their commitments to equitable contributions to our mutual defense. After all, the US emerged from WWII in a much stronger economic position than the rest of the world. However, our allies have been able to rebuild their economies and in some cases become significant global players. It is now time for them to turn some of their national resources toward defending themselves to a greater degree than they have in the recent past. Shouldering their responsibilities would send a clear message that they intend to honor their commitments to Article V of the NATO. Once again, kudos to Presidents Obama and Trump for leading our allies along the path to growth and prosperity.
3
NATO needs to more aggressively defend member countries against cyber attacks and election interference. They should have a research budget with grants to build the proper legal infrastructure for challenging divisive fake social media. They need to insure that the Russians cannot poison people for revenge and warning in the member countries. NATO needs to be updated to fight the right wars. Why should each individual country go it alone, when under the NATO umbrella, we still have the same common enemy campaigning against us.
4
Who benefits from more militarization, other than defense contractors? We already spend far more than the rest of the world combined. Do we really need a 12th nuclear aircraft carrier, when we already have 11, far more than any other country? Wouldn't the EU be better served by spending that money on their own people and helping Middle East immigrants to integrate into their countries?
3
Perhaps the NYT could have included discussion
of the fact that money provided by EU/NATO nations pays for arms made by and sold by the
world's largest arms contractors and purveyors, the United States of America. Suppose they start making their own arms, transport and planes as
a much higher rate? Would money spent on that
not be a boost to their GNP? Can the US have it both ways?
4
Which adds to the ever-mounting evidence (e.g. the economic recovery) that Trump has been vastly more effective over less than two years in office than Obama was during two full terms.
7
The US government and NATO should not obsess over what percentage of GDP is their defense spending. The US already has a bloated defense budget which equals that of the next 10 countries combined. It should divert some of that funding to focus on beefing up the state department and UN to try and resolve conflicts through diplomacy not war. It is totally egregious the stranglehold that the military industrial complex has on the US government which makes defense spending constantly go up while the government is cutting taxes, blowing up the deficit and want to shrink spending on social and welfare programs, the state department and the UN.
2
There's a huge disconnect between the NYTimes headline and the article.
Please tell us what evidence there is that Trump got anything from NATO that is above and beyond what Obama got. As I understand it, they simply agreed to continue moving toward their previous target of 2 percent GDP but without any commitment to accelerate the process.
Consider as well for a moment that, thanks to the international economic wrecking ball that is Donald Trump, GDP for many NATO members is likely to slow or even shrink in the near future.
But if NATO members do indeed up their spending, it will not be because Trump brow-beat them into it. Ironically, it will be because they recognize the Trump/Putin alliance as an existential threat to their national security.
Can you imagine the GOP conniption if Obama decided to meet Putin without witnesses in the middle of an investigation for criminal conspiracy and collusion to rig U.S. elections?
Trump says it will be a laid back affair. Mueller's indictment of 12 Russian army officers will at least give them something to talk about. 'More fake news' is the expected sound bite from two fake leaders who manufacture it better than anyone else.
4
They agreed to no more than they had agreed with Obama and they know Trump will be out in '20 or '24 at the latest. He got nothing but a lot of hatred towards him by half of the world.
3
I find your headline to the column misleading.
Trump has gotten anything from NATO yet, except their commitment to try to reach their goals, as they state year after year.
I'm proud that the U.S. is part of NATO.
I'm not proud that our president denigrates our friends and then acts like he didn't do it.
That's school yard bullying, that's all it is.
4
I find it somewhat ironic and a little gratifying that the clueless Trump probably doesn't realize that the groundwork for the 2% contributions by the NATO allies was negotiated by his predecessor, Barack Obama.
I think he missed the class on 'negotiation'.
Maybe beating Abe Lincoln in the polls has swelled his head a bit?
What a bully. Like most bullies he is also a coward. He doesn't belong on the world stage. He belongs in the circus.
I'm sure we'll hear wonderful stories of his tea with the Queen and how she praised him for being the best President to visit the palace.
So now that the allies see his game I wonder how they will respond in the next round.
Putin should have an easy time with this guy. Flattery buys you the farm.
1
How far-fetched is it that Trump's approach boils down to finding ways for Russia to return to the world trading community? It is reported that Putin has a significant personal stake in core Russian industries, and that the Magnitsky act (sponsored by John McCain) and sanctions have frozen the value of these assets colder than the Siberian tundra. "Trade, trade, trade" was his mantra following discussions with Theresa May.
And what would such apparent generosity be motivated by?
4
"Mr. Trump even signed on to a tough statement directed at Russia."
He didn't read it any more than he reads his own signing statements.
4
Don't hold your breath if you expect anything from Congress other than being shills for the rich and powerful.
4
Yes, NATO allies are not paying their fair share. Obama recognized that, and Trump's bluster will push our allies to do more.
However, underlying all this is the fact that European democracies spent much more on social welfare programs than the US. Spending more on defense will increase the pressure on our allies to decrease their expenses on medical care, pensions, education, etc. So this is a double whammy: increase military expenses and reduce social welfare. Sound familiar? Trump is trying to force Europe into the same mold that he envisions for the US.
4
Stop with the lies. Trump got literally nothing from NATO. NATO was already doing these things. They are happy to have Trump take credit so he doens't break the alliance. But all he did was further alienate our allies with his nonsense.
7
Was there anyone at the NATO meetings that he didn't insult and offend?! Sewing such chaos and division among the Allies should help with his Annual Performance Review with his boss, Mr. Putin.
5
I think the value of American military spending is a false value as most of our dollars are spent outside of EUCOM. Do you have a value of what we spend in EUCOM? Also, disregard any American dollars to the NATO mission in Central Asia as these are really towards an American problem to which NATO has been assisting us in your real calculations of American spend towards the common defense within NATO.
If destabilizing NATO and the whole world order was his objective, he has clearly accomplished that.
What a shame that journalists no longer advocate for American democracy. It appears that even this publication would rather document our demise than offend our attacker.
1
In response to "Bethany": I beg to differ with your assessment that "this publication would rather document our demise than offend our attacker." If the "attacker" you're referring to is Mr. Trump, then I would suggest that you check out The New York Times' very succinct criticism of the president found in many articles published in these pages by the The New York Times' Editorial Board.
For instance, bout a month ago the Board wrote a scathing detailed list of 100 (emphasis here) transgressions documented and verified that have been made by Mr. Trump against the office of the president, and this country. Some of the offerings in that list pointed not only to lies perpetrated by the president, but also a few actions taken by him that are probably illegal.
I defend the excellent journalism concerning Mr. Trump that The New York Times carries out on a daily basis with unbridled integrity and deep concern.
56
This editorial and the media coverage in general miss a critical element. The 2% goal for NATO does not mean anything. The NATO allies know this. What is meaningful is the development of a SMART NATO defense system. They see the U.S. and the gross incompetence and corruption of the Military-Industrial complex.
The U.S. has hundreds of worthless weapons programs developed to feed greedy contractors. At the top of the list is Lockheed-Martin's F-35 fighter jet program costing 2-3 TRILLION dollars by the time Lockheed and the other contractors fleece the U.S. taxpayer for the last dollar. And the military has never even wanted the program. Trillions on a worthless project. The allies see the waste and incompetence and say: you want us to follow your leadership ?
5
"After a newly aggressive Russia invaded Ukraine." There was no "invasion," and the most obvious meddling in Ukraine in this period was actually done by the US with visits from CIA director Brennan and John McCain to collaborate with the post-coup government. It the NYT comment was referring to the annexation of Crimea, this was not an "invasion" either, it was by referendum (whether legitimate or not is another matter). The exaggeration of the Russian threat to Europe is a pretext to justify increased military spending. To put it into perspective, in 2017 Russia spent around $61 billion on defense (a decline from the previous year), while the combined total for the US and NATO countries was close to $957 billion (Brookings Institution, 2018).
1
The Europeans are playing the age old game immortalized by Wimpy as he scams Popeye.
To Democrats, it is enough that Obama got the Europeans to agree to raise defense spending. Whether they actually do or not seems immaterial.
Tuesday never comes.
4
ok, so let's say Trump is successful in persuading NATO members to increase their military spending.
cut to the chase: how much does Wilbur Ross expect that to mean for the export of US arms to these countries, and what kind of a play is he making in the markets to capitalize personally on it?
after all, this IS a Republican administration.
4
I’m going to sound pro-Trump again, but it’s unacceptable to read that France ran out bombs during the 2011 Libya operation. It’s France, for God’s sake, not Luxembourg or Iceland. What will France run out of during a major conflict? Obviously the U.S. has a valid point. European countries need to spend more on their own defense. American taxpayers can’t be expected to carry France, England, Spain and others on our backs forever.
5
It is obvious that, whether or not he knows it, Trump is trying to implement Putin's agenda. When will Republicans realize that Emperor Trump has no clothes?
6
European nations have little choice but to increase their military spending more rapidly, not because Trump's bluster is persuasive but because Trump is so manifestly hostile to NATO and democracies generally that the United States can no longer be relied upon as an ally. This is not a strengthening of NATO to better secure peace but the beginning of a perilous global militarization, concomitant with the global rise of strong men kleptocrats.
2
It is instructive that the Editorial Board clarified Obama's 2014 accomplishments in persuading NATO members to increase their defense spending. I was not aware that other NATO member countries had dramatically increased their defense spending in 2015, 2016 and 2017 following Obama's request. This highlight's the redundancy of Trump's request.
4
I like hearing the similarities between Trump’s and Obama’s policies. Please continue!!
4
Evidently you missed the essence of the Trump sales conference. He was only there to SELL them military hardware made "in America." No clear discourse on whether such equipment would be subject to tariffs.
Also, you continue to espouse your opinion that Trump embarrasses people. He can NOT embarrass anyone but himself, his base, and the power hungry Republican sycophants currently taking up office space in DC. It takes knowledge and moral high ground to cause embarrassment in others. Trump is in possession of neither. In fact, he overtly eschews knowledge, ethics and integrity. So, I suggest you lose sub-heads like, "alliance members leave Brussels bruised and confused." I am sure, privately, they left amused, wondering when the adults of America will come to their senses and remove this clown from the world stage.
1
Gee. Obama saw the invasion of Crimea as a bad thing and assembled a positive reaction from NATO alliances!
Trump's primitive dealing method on display. NATO countries agreed to 2.0% in 2014, to achieve by 2024. Then came Trump and demanded more and now. At the end he was dangling 4.0% figure in front of them.
They reaffirmed 2.0% by 2024. That's it. Exactly what Obama signed in 2014. Trump declared victory nevertheless.
Just like with Kim. Nothing new agreed to but Trump's self-described mastery had to be announced. His base doesn't have a clue it is all Trump's theater.
2
The Cold War is always portrayed, correctly, as a political, economic, philosophical and potential military conflict between the United States and the former USSR. Being the main support behind NATO was part of the price we paid to win that conflict and become, for awhile, the only global superpower. While I agree that our allies in Europe can and should pay more, and it looks as if Trump might have gotten them to move in that direction, his tactic of acting aggrieved makes the US look small, whiny and lacking pride. With China beginning to rival us as a superpower and Russia becoming aggressive once again, the proper stance is to suck it up act like a superpower. The US is purportedly the most prosperous nation in history, the home of the free and the brave. Whining about nickels and dimes and being "take advantage of" by non-powers like France and Germany is small-time. Trump confuses bluster and brag with confidence and pride, and he consequently makes himself and our nation look ridiculous.
2
"For these reasons, it’s imperative that Congress, which has abdicated to Mr. Trump on many crucial issues, pass immediately legislation prohibiting him from leaving NATO unilaterally. The Senate had to ratify the treaty when America created NATO, and it should block any move to destroy the alliance that has been an anchor of trans-Atlantic stability over seven decades."
What a surprise, that the N Y Times Editorial Board might - yet again - propose unconstitutional activity to further its agenda...
The Constitution vests the Executive Branch with treaty management, requiring the advice and consent of the Senate only before the adoption of treaties.
2
Reply to "Objectivist": If you check the history of the creation of NATO, you'll find that America's membership into the organization was signed into being by then-president Harry S Truman--congress had no role.
NATO is an alliance organization separate from any American treaty-making.
Europe and especially North Korea and China have figured out the secret of how to do Trump Deals- listen deferringly and friendly, agree to demands, let Trump boast winning, then do nothing except complain, and finally plead bankruptcy.
Trump believes by alternating insults and charm he can blackmail and extort anyone, especially the Elites, and his Base loves it. His enablers only want low taxes and low regulations and are willing ti sell the country and souls.
1
Lets not forget that the US 2.8% of GDP by 2024 is for all of its military adventurism all over the world. NATO and its countries are basically facing the need to defend itself against a single enemy with whom actual military conflict would mean a nuclear holocaust (with total destruction). It is absurd to suggest that NATO and its peaceful countries would need to spend 2% of GDP for its defense. They are already spending more than 4 times as much as their single enemy Russia. All this conventional military machinery serve only the purpose of feeding the US military industrial complex.
2
Trump bullied and extracted promises but if I was an European nato soldier I would resent protecting the US on any mission as it is obvious that the Republican Party is now fully in league with Russia.
3
Under article 5 of the NATO agreement, an attack on one nation is an attack on all.
Russia's attack on the 2016 elections resulted in the Trump presidency. Trump attacks NATO and our allies, and consistently praises Putin.
This may sound crazy, but shouldn't NATO nations rescue the U.S. from this Russia-controlled presidency?
1
Is he really the clueless buffoonis man-child he appears to be?
Or is he insidiously trying to destabilize what we commonly call ‘the West’ to throw more power Putin’s way?
The first is ‘sad’ to use his own favorite term. The second is sinister. Both are equally disturbing and dangerous.
5
To even speculate that Trump has something in mind for the things he does, and that anyone could find out what it is, is a waste of time. He is a consummate ignoramus and searching for meaning in the things he says and does is a fool’s errand.
He’s going to get us into a disastrous shooting war somewhere unless he is evicted from Office sooner rather than later.
2
What would happen if the alliance's leaders told Trump: "LIsten up, chump. We are all (contrary to you) elected by majorities as leaders of sovereign nations and have come together here in the belief that united we are stronger. We have now lived through a year of your bombast, self-aggrandizing boorish behaviour, your threats, your lack of grasp of compolex issues and disdain for facts and information, and your obvious bewilderment at the complexity of Global issues, which you confuse with your limited understanding of aggressively promoting national self-interest.
We have tried to treat you civilly and with respect, more for the American people and the values and principles we believe we share with a majority of them, but which you obviously neither understand or respect. We will continue to regard the American people as our allies and friends, but you obviously are not mature enough to participate in a constructive way in our meetings, so please leave the room".
What would happen? The Donald would obviously have a fit like the spoiled brat he is, foaming at the mouth and threatening everyone with fire and fury. But could he declare war on France, Germany and the U:K: and the other NATO countries? Maybe this is what it takes: that someone calls his bluff, enough to awaken the slumbering vestiges of decency in the Republican party to summon the courage to rid the U.S. and the World of this menace.
5
For several generations both houses of congress have ceded way too much power over to the executive. Like most partisans I didn't mind so much when that power was with Obama; but residing with W. or t rump is another matter.
And perhaps with the excesses of this so called administration it is very clear that some restraints need to be reinstalled towards imperial power in the presidency; war powers and the ability to void treaties would be a grand place to start.
We the People will begin the process this November with the removal of republicans from their majorities in the Congress.
1
Mr. Trump would like people to believe that we are saving money. That is not the case. These are funds that NATO members spend on their own national defense. Our expenditure is nearly twice what we rationally require.
So how much of all the increase in NATO spending would go to buying US arms? Profits from selling weapons would trump a more peaceful world.
between increased tarriffs and boosted military spending by allies, Trump and his henchfolk expect to offset the enormous cost of their giveaway tax cuts (eg, bribes) to the ultrarich and corporations, while regular Americans sink ever more deeply toward serfdom.
a Republican dream come true!
If anyone thinks Europe spending more on its own defense would result in a reduction of the US defense budget probably believes these other myths
- other countries paying more for drugs will reduce costs to US consumers
- giving corporations tax breaks will trickle down to the employees instead of the owners.
- the US spends more than the next 7 highest spending countries on defense out of the kindness of its heart and gets nothing out of the deal...
There is one born every minute.....
2
No sure if Trump is doing all these to help Defense contractors and weapons manufacturers or if he has any long term plan to suggest higher defense budget, while ignoring diplomacy and many serious domestic agendas.
Going by his tendency and past examples, it seems that the former possibility would be more valid than the later.
1
You are applauding a massive arms build up by trumpeting trump's pro military vision of the world. That is what Trump's language of 'paying up' and "paying equal' means -- arms sales to NATO countries. What a bully.
1
Trump controlled the scope and terms of the debate, the headlines, the terms of the meeting. He went into it with a false goal, talked tough, and now falsely claims that only he was able to attain the false goal.
There is no talk of all the other pressing issues facing NATO, just this.
This has always been the public Donald Trump. And, sadly, it works, and the media, including the NYT, fall into the trap every time.
2
For Trump, the NATO summit, like the G7 summit before it, has one purpose: theater for the benefit of his supporters. Fact checks and analyses do not move the needle for them one whit, after they've heard the "news" from the mouth (or Twitter acct) of their leader.
1
President Trump and his loyal Trumpublicans do not conserve. They destroy. Shouldn’t Trump and his enablers be properly referenced as "The Wrecking Crew"?
Trump increasingly directs his wrecking ball at international targets:
Wreck the G-7.
Wreck NATO.
Wreck Prime Minister May’s government.
We must not forget, however, the extent to which Trump and his wrecking crew have damaged America internally.
Wreck progressive taxation.
Wreck financial and environmental regulations.
Wreck what remains of the labor union movement.
Wreck Obamacare.
Wreck equality of opportunity for women, minorities, gays and the poor.
Wreck Planned Parenthood.
Wreck the Paris Accords and all efforts to combat global warming.
Wreck civil rights and voting rights.
Wreck Social Security.
Wreck Medicare and Medicaid.
Wreck fair housing opportunities.
Wreck the last vestiges of the New Deal.
Wreck the middle class.
Wreck the American Dream.
Under Trumpublican misrule, the American prospect affords:
For the super-rich: a kleptocratic pathway to ever greater wealth and power.
For the vast majority of U.S. citizens: a superhighway to serfdom.
5
Amid chants from his followers at rallies of "Nobel Prize", Trump assures them of qa big win in his "summit" with Kim..Afterwards, he assures the American people he has a "deal" and they don't have to worry about North Korea anymore..A few weeks later, North Korea calls out the U.S. for gangster tactics..Deal or no deal..Anyone's guess..but he did get far fewer promised than any of his predecessors...Then he attends NATO summit, acts with imperious anger at all those friends of the U.S. and announces the "deal" on NATO "contributions" arguing that the U.S. provides 90 % of NATO contributions when the number is 22%..and fails to mention that NATO total contributions are now FIVE TIMES LARGER THAN RUSSIA'S for its own and larger than China's..Proudly announces the "deal" discussed in this opt ed..but then two members of NATO announce that the "deal" he boasts of making is the same deal as that negotiated by Obama..The answer? The editorial board should be careful that they only write editorials that "are fit to print"..
1
President Trump advanced President Barack Obama’s initiative to keep the allies on track to shoulder a more equitable share of NATO’s costs...
...Mr. Obama persuaded NATO leaders to increase their military spending at a meeting in Wales in 2014, ... alliance members pledged to work toward raising spending levels to 2 percent of their gross domestic products by 2024...
___
Should we thank Obama or Trump [and all his bluster] for kicking the can down the road?
2
The Editorial Board failed to mention that the 2% spend level goes back to 2006. When progress to meet that was falling well short, the date was reset to 2014.
Germany is at about 1.3% with plane and ground equipment largely inoperative. Italy is at a similar level. By the way, Japan is 1.0%.
4
Don't try to analyze his thoughts or infer his goals...there are none other than enriching himself and making himself feel good aka strong. There is no grand plan, no knowledge, no acknowledgments of facts...it's just an ignorant dude babbling on. The rise of radical ignorance as another op-ed called it. These ignoramuses are getting even richer and gleefully destroy a world order that allowed for the most wide-spread prosperity and peace in human memory (and yes, I know it is far from perfect but then we have seen nothing yet. The good old days will make a come back alright and it won't be pretty for us small people).
1
Not quite! Obama was liked and respected; Trump is despised and totally distrusted. This is when "everything" vanishes into "nothing." NATO members now realize that they can no longer count on Donald Trump and will have to increase spending to prepare to go it alone and protect one another. This is truly "where you can't win for losing;" and Trump is "America's biggest loser."
5
The NATO business of increasing member defense spending has been in the works for year. The impetus is and was Russia's re-emergence as a territorial predator state. NATO's allowing credit to go to Trump in this Summit is an attempt at flattery intended to cool-down a bellicose narcissistic personality, and belligerant Russophile. Trump continues to behave more like an asset of Russian intelligence and security as opposed to a U.S. President.
1
The Economist magazine reports that some two-thirds of Belgium's "defense budget" goes to pensions. If European countries are held ONLY to an arbitrary level of 2%, and reach it only through accounting tricks, do you think the Kremlin won't notice?
3
But couldn't get. Say what you want about his style...but The Donald gets results.
3
Wouldn't that be great: the US leaves NATO. Finally peace on earth. The end of human aggressiveness. Us leading the way to real prosperity. Is this a new bet in the gambling sites? I would put all my money against it, unfortunately.
2
Republicans do't do things in the interest of humanity or our planet. If you saw their hearing with Peter Strzok you could see their cynical contempt for truth. Maybe they'll try to save our alliances. I doubt it.
3
As he did with North Korea, Trump got nothing from NATO but a continuation of the status quo already established by Obama and previous presidents. NATO, like the rest of the world, is content to let Trump — and his followers — think he’s the boss while they go about their daily business as they always have.
Like the big inflatable Trump baby in London, everyone sees he has no clothes. Even Republicans in Congress see that They just use him for their agenda. Of course, Russia has known that for a while. The real question is why don’t the Americans who still support him not see that.
2
Never thought I’d see The NY Times editorial board believe anything that Donald Trump said without it being supported by facts.
1
"So would the president then push for cuts in the Pentagon budget, which now stands at roughly $700 billion, more than the next eight countries in the world spend together, and use it for, say, badly needed infrastructure?"
As long as Republicans are in control the defense budget will likely only increase. If it were decreased it would only result in more 1% tax cuts. America first is actually the wealthy first.
2
NATO is certainly in our continued interest. However, various members, probably we also, have and are playing a dangerous game with Russia over the Ukraine. Geography is most every thing when it comes to war in most cases. Any reasonable analysis of the Ukraine-Russia relationship would show clearly
that NATO had no business encouraging Ukraine to join NATO. Just imagine the Black Sea Russian Navy that occupies part of the Crimea being in NATO territory. Putin saw this as a grave possibility to Russia and acted just as we would act if Castro had attempted to take control of Guantanamo.
3
The US is the dominant military force in the world, no doubt. But it is also a fact that the US has LIKED being the world policeman because of the benefits. What "The President" fails to mention is all those countries that allow a US military presence on their soil, simply for the US to exert its influence in various corners of the world. No value there? And yes, because of the US desire to police affairs, other countries have not spent like drunken sailors on military, preferring to invest in things like universal healthcare and education. If the US had not become the biggest player, Europe would have united against the USSR anyway, in a different version of an alliance. And maybe that would have been better. As a lesser military power, perhaps the US would not have gotten involved in unnecessary conflicts the way it has. "Let's invade Venezuela" says Trump. Yikes.
3
Not sure what the editorial board thinks is better because of Trump other than a few more Euros will be wasted faster buying guns rather than butter.
Meanwhile the whole world now understands the US to be an unreliable partner for mutual defense, joining trade as a concern about the US. Well done, Donald Trump?! Atta boy?! He shamed himself and the USA on the global stage. There is no congratulations deserved.
2
trump got from NATO? Really? Same way trump got from North Korea? Which is nothing yet except a "nice" letter.
4
In a world seeing an unfortunate recent uprise in bullies, you, sadly, have a point regarding military strength and coherence (while underestimating Europe's political and economic success in overcoming nationalist squabbles in other areas).
Your suggestion, however, implies that the next established international agreement to be torn to shreds should be the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Is that in the US best interest?
1
Wow! Am I reading it right? Are you praising Trump for actually doing what Obama merely wanted to to but never did?
5
Notice how no one from troubled areas wants to emigrant to Russia
2
NYT, there is a certain confusion in your editorial policy. You call him out and at the same time treat him as if he were potentially an actual President with policy goals and concerns. He isn't. Don't engage him on the editorial page as if he is for real, even when, as sometimes happens (e.g. Chinese theft of intellectual property, German military readiness), there is some grain of truth or sense in them if they are considered out of the context of his game. To fantasize about constructive things he could do, as if he wanted to do something meaningful, is to give credence to his Presidency as having some residue of legitimate policy intention. Everything he says and does is for show for the base, for his blackmailer and loan shark Putin, for his own power, his own ego gratification, and for his apparent sick need to be the bad boy, and the more resulting damage and distress the better. You should report his statements and actions, of course, since they are news. But when you engage him in the editorial page as if he is for real, you are playing his game in a space where you are under no journalistic obligation to do so. If and when he gets enough power - and you know this - he will start to put heavy pressure on your staff and ultimately will close down the NYT and other critical media. We are in a fascist revolution led by a sociopath. In the editorial page, you should act accordingly.
2
Yep, that Obama, moving the world forward. But the US still plays an out-sized role to any other nation when it comes to not only its own security, but to that of others. It patrols international sea lanes, maintains a welcome troop presence in dozens of countries.
And the US provides other benefits outside of NATO. For Canada, the US sits conveniently between it and Mexico. Canada's Mr. Trudeau declares the US isn't going to push Canada around, berates the US (and Trump) for its mean immigration policies. The US spends an estimated $100Billion a year just on illegal immigration issues.
You're welcome, Canada. Now, could you cut the US a little slack on trade?
Germany maintains a wonderful trade advantage to the tune of $Billions. It benefits from US largess in security. Trump was right to chastise Merkel for the Russia gas pipeline deal, which clearly conflicts with the NATO security paradigm.
China is the consummate trade cheater, but uh-oh, calling them on it might make them mad.
Trump's rhetorical brashness aside, he puts the major questions and issues right on the table for everyone to see. He's shaking things up, and if NATO members finally really begin to pony up security $$$ commensurate with their security needs and fears, then thank Trump.
3
I absolutely agree...the demands Trump won were from Obama...and BUSH...you forgot to mention President Bush. I'm not surprised...had he been a democrat you would not have made this mistake. Then, just like you did with Reagan and his successes ending the Cold War...you question if Trump has a clue what he is doing. How stupid do you think we are...we see fire and fury with democrats, yet you tell us things are wonderful...we see dictators retreat and America respected by her enemies when a republican is president...yet you tell us all is bad. Your folly of a global world order, pushed by elites, is ending. Deal with that! Oh, and recall...Crimea and Ukraine...and the plane being shot down...and intervention in Syria...all of this while Obama was president...because Putin knew Obama would do nothing. When Putin tried to sow seeds of discord in Georgia...it was President Bush that sent in US troops...to stand up to Putin. It's now Trump who talks of missile defense in parts of Europe...places that anger Russia. Obama was going to pull out...Trump is not. Who is colluding with Russia?
1
Thank you, President Trump! His brilliant and endless stream of victories is proving the advantage of finally having a real American in the White House!
3
Let me guess, as an outsider and certainly not the kind of in-the-loop sophisticate who populates the Editorial Board, that Obama wished to have the US perceived as run by thoughtful confident strategic thinkers rather than by a blundering untutored paint-caked boor whose presence is barely tolerated and whose commands are met with Botox-level fixedness, only to be ignored as soon as he parades from the room. So there's one Obama goal that wasn't met!
As for the other, perhaps the Board is too weary from all the shouting to remember that the Triumph in Singapore also crescendoed into something as vacuous as reaffirming an "unwavering commitment." On to Helsinki!
3
I don't understand this editorial. Our NATO allies already made a commitment to increase defense spending in 2014. They have taken steps to meet their international commitments, something Trump is thoroughly incapable of doing. Trump tried to harangue them into spending more than they had already committed to spending, but as best I can tell not a single NATO member has any plans to do so. Macron publicly said as much. So, what, exactly, did Trump "get from NATO" other than bafflement, frustration, and more distrust of the U.S. as an ally?
As for the notion that Trump is going to unilaterally withdraw from NATO, I think this is clearly a case where simply ignoring him will be beneficial for all parties involved. If Trump actually tried to take steps to withdraw from NATO, he would meet extraordinary resistance from the military. Even the craven Republicans in Congress would oppose him, and "treason" would suddenly become the word of the day in America. We are not leaving NATO.
1
God bless our President.
Making the freeloading Europeans pay more to defend themselves is exactly why we voted for Trump.
Liberals love freeloaders, even military freeloaders apparently.
If Europeans don’t want to defend themselves, perhaps they can learn to speak Russian and eat borsch.
1
Not about Obama. This is about cowardess. Trump is a coward. He never really confronts anyone directly. Accomplishes nothing. Claims great accomplishments. Runs away rather than negotiate in good faith. Declares victory when alone on a podium or on Twitter. An accomplished bully with threats and no spine. Float little baby, float.
4
No NATO member changed their military funding targets as a result of Trump - Trump only said he got what he wanted. Just another lie which you are repeating . Shame on you.
Nice spin with Obama cultural Marxist propaganda. He was, also, responsible for the far-right getting a grip on German politics.
Need to bring the troops home now. 2024--2%--is a fraud and a farce--please.
But the real question, what is your affection and undying love for Obama--useless in helping Hillary get elected?
2
Withdraw from NATO with the following advice to the Europeans: Sauve qui peut.
Taking NY Times words (which I never do when it comes to Politics and it's gargantuan bias in favor of Lefty Liberals); it is Donald Trump who got every thing from our European allies that Obama asked for. Obviously, desultory Obama did NOT get it. But, still NY TImes had to spin it. Donlad is abrasive, we all know that but he is doing great things for our country. Thank You, Mr. President - Donald Trump.
1
No he didn’t. He got nothing. NATO is not that stupid as the first line of defense against Putin and his thugs.
2
Why do you have to always make a political statement and push your bias and agenda?
Congress should do this, Congress should do that.
You are a few people out of hundreds of millions of people in our country and out.
You just have a pulpit. Your not fair, balanced or unbiased.
01:27
Friday, 13 July 2018 (GMT-4)
Time in New York, NY, USA
1
I'll agree to support browbeating NATO into increasing spending to 2% of GDP on military defense when the US agrees to decreasing to 2% of GDP on military defense.
3
For me, Trump's outburts about European allies raising their contributions to NATO to 2%, even 4%, of their respective PIB or else... are no more than mere bullying of which he is an expert in the matter. Raising European contributions to collective defense has been a goal of American presidents for quite a long time and certainly Europeans should raise their defense expending to more important levels. But even 2% to the PIB is an almost impossible thing for many European countries, even if more efforts are necessary. However, no European country has been reluctant in the past few years to participate in NATO operations.
Therefore, the reality is that Europeans allies will certainly abide to a progressive increase of their financial contributions to NATO but not at the pace Trump would like. The alternative of the USA leaving NATO because of excessive financial burden simply lacks credibility, even with a president so impredictible as Trump. If that would happen, Europe would probably fall over time into Russian sphere of influence with incalculable consequences for the world and for America in particular. Liberal democracy, already challenged by authoritarianism and populism, would be mortally beaten. The West will be best protected by remaining united and NATO is its essential element.
Our NATO partners have given lip service to the 2% GDP spending target to President Obama and his predecessors but have never come close to meeting those objectives. At the same time, we maintain a significant troop presence in the EU more than 70 years since the end of WW2 and nearly 30 years since the fall of the USSR. At the same time, the pipeline deal (providing Germany with 35% of their natural gas needs) provides the cash infusion Russia needs to modernize its military. Trumps rhetoric is undiplomatic, rude and needlessly antagonistic but the point is well taken. If the resurgence of Russia is to be taken seriously, all our partners need to participate for Nato to provide a credible counterweight to Russian expansionism.
3
- and I think the major problem with your headline is - that Obama never asked in the way of Von Clownstick?
1
" by spending more to solve the migration crisis"
Solve the migration crisis? How do you do that? What a useless bromide.
2
His means may be crude and rude. His rationale is not. Russia is not USSR. And Europe is not recovering under Marshall plan. The wound has healed but they still want the bandaid because it feels great. Time to rip it off.
1
The only thing more embarrassing than Trump is the Republican congress.
3
This editorial seems to be making a basic category mistake, in that it presupposes that there is some kind of method, policy, goal or reason for Mr. Trump's words and behavior with NATO or anything else.
Get real. The only analysis applicable to this fake President is psychological. There is NOTHING TO HIM except his narcissism, neediness, and bluster. And, of course, his thralldom to Vladimir Putin.
1
Bud0 - Riddle me this, Trump defenders:
1. If it’s really about spending, then why, in picking his fight with NATO, did Trump specifically threaten not to come to the aid of Estonia and Latvia if they were attacked? They are among the highest military spenders in Europe, already meeting their NATO GDP commitment. So why did he pick on them and not low-spending Germany? Is it coincidence that he picked on the two countries that are next on Putin’s hit list?
2. If it’s really about NATO spending, then why is Trump also busily attacking Putin’s other great nemesis, the EU? Why did he try to persuade Macron at the G7 to quit o the EU? Why did he support Brexit, a campaign which was revealed yesterday to have been coordinated by Russian officials?
Revealed: Leave.EU campaign met Russian officials as many as 11 timeshttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/08/revealed-leaveeu-campaig...
3. And finally, Trumpers, explain to me why Trump demands that no Americans be present for the first hour of his meeting with Putin.
Oh sorry, did they forget to report that fact on FOX News?
Why did Trump demand that? Why no American aides or staff allowed?
Can’t wait to hear the explanations of the Trumpers/Putinbots for that one.
2
Wow, you do know that “bringing the troops home” will not save money. Germany subsidies about 30% of the cost. It also helps have our troops and equipment deployed in “forward areas”, much easier to move from Germany or Bahrain to Iraq or Afghanistan or some place in Africa than to ship everything from US.
I also look at Europes’(esp. Germanys’) taking in refugees as something akin to Gen. Mattis statement about if we don’t invest in the State Dept (peaceful means) then he would gave to buy more bullets for DOD.
This Canadian wants my country to start building a nuclear deterrent for itself. Less worried about Russia and more worried about a facist-leaning US armed to the teeth.
Canada has a lot of resources (Fresh Water)that the US may want to 'liberate'.
Canada needs just enough of a nuclear deterrent to make calculations for invasion unpalatable.
I am puzzled by the article's title, which implies that Trump actually got from Europe something Obama asked for but presumably didn't receive. If this is really what the title meant to convey, its not clear from the article what it was. "Mr. Obama persuaded NATO leaders to increase their military spending at a meeting in Wales in 2014, after a newly aggressive Russia invaded Ukraine. Back then, alliance members pledged to work toward raising spending levels to 2 percent of their gross domestic products by 2024." How is that any different from the outcome of the most recent meeting? The article doesn't say. That leaves me to wonder whether the title was intended to be sarcastic, or if there was something Trump got that Obama didn't and the author(s) simply failed to spell it out. I really don't know.
2
Though it takes Congress to ratify a treaty, a President could revoke it all on his lonesome?
Did not know that. That's very scary.
“If President Bush is allowed to terminate the ABM treaty, what is to stop future presidents from unilaterally taking America out of NATO or the United Nations?”
Treaties Don't Belong To Presidents Alone
By BRUCE ACKERMANAUG. 29, 2001
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/29/opinion/treaties-don-t-belong-to-pres...
is there any doubt at this point that he's working for the russians? or at the very least, willfully furthering their agenda? i wonder what's in it for him... because that has always been trump's single-minded m.o.
Trump got Nothing! from NATO save some lip-service just to shut him up...
4
Is this Editorial Board that naive? I would like to ask them how many times any of them said "yes" to anyone and then went about "business as usual."
Hopefully, Trump will also be able to advance Obama's agenda re Putin. That is, Trump will tell Putin, as Obama did, that Trump will have more "flexibility" after the election. But, for some reason, I don't think that the NY Times will editorialize in favor of Trump's flexibility.
3
the NYT Editors are applying a lot of pretzel logic. Its a "target" when applied to European nations....but an "obligation" when applied to the USA??? I'll give that masterpiece of fancy footwork the confused puppy dog look. The Editors simply refuse, flat refuse, to adjust their world view away from 1968 and move into the present day. Germany is moving into a closer alliance with Russia.....this is geopolitically inevitable, and a move away from NATO. France, of course, never was part of NATO in the first place.....and is increasingly important to the USA.......England(Britain) for its own survival MUST detach from the EU and focus on its own defense. NATO has outlived its practical use. Europe will mature into perhaps three large, inter-related spheres of influence......a Germanic Sphere, a Latin Sphere(France, Italy, Spain)....and a Turkic-Balkan Sphere. Britain will stand alone, not completely "european"...but an important neighbor to Europe.
3
Obama was an empty-suit gasbag nobody took seriously and was seen as weak by friend and foe alike. Trump, on the other hand, does not draw red lines and then erase them. Obama was a boy among men, Trump is all man and means what he says.
3
“All man” is a boorish phrase from the last century that fits our blustery, bellicose boor-in-chief. He’s an immature and dangerous embarrassment.
As a paper of record, doesn't the NYT keep list of treaties the Senate has failed to ratify? Why pick on the NATO one specifically? List them all! Democracy stumbles when parts of the democratic machine fail to do their part (in this case ratify or reject).
1
Once again, the brilliant President Trump succeeds where Obama failed!
4
Trump Got From NATO Everything Obama Ever Asked For ... but was too polite -- or too timid -- to actually insist on.
3
Or, President Obama as quarterback moved the ball down the field for a touchdown, and the current president as kicker got the extra point.
I'm surprised that the NYT editorial board was duped by Trump. paraphrasing PM Trudeau, Canada plans on military spending after the meeting are the same as the were before the meeting. Trump got nothing.
3
You expect Congress to save the US from Trump? Really?
1
I dont get it?
So Obama gets the credit for everything Trump accomplishes, because Obama made the attempt?
Sorry,but thats the difference between a community organizer, who never ran, lead, or accomplished anything before becoming President, and an accomplished wildly successful builder, who proves his accomplishments by building skyscrapers all over the world, including the 4th tallest here in the USA.
3
Are you serious? Can you imagine a Senate majority of Trump sycophants blocking Trump on anything?
2
Perhaps we all should cut military spending; now wouldn't that be a worthy Editorial- and Headline?
Warmongers and grifters.
You could bring your troops home if you wanted to but you are addicted, your corporate trans national corporations would not have an army then. To bully and economically devastate.
Yes other nations can be unscrupulous and criminal. You enable and now provide succor to Trump.
There is a reason I cancelled my subscription.
"Trump Got From NATO Everything Obama Ever Asked For"
I don't recall Obama asking for the disgusting, insulting behaviour that Trump foisted on NATO.
1
It will be a mistake to call Trump "a bull in a china shop." He is more like "a stampede in a china shop." After all the damage to the china, he narrates a new reality of how well he has taken care of them, dusted and cleaned them, organized them very neatly on the shelves. And, all his followers believe him, including the Republican members of the Congress.
How is it possible either not to see the damage he is causing or finding the damage acceptable?
2
Your headline is misleading. What exactly has Trump acomplished? If they were already increasing their contributions with a target date of 2024, they just agreed to keep doing what they're doing. Trump was just being Trump and using the old bargaining method of "ask high."
His whole modus operandi is to appear strong. Well, he has a lot of big money and the America-firsters behind him. And now Israel and the Saudis et al are his friends because of their common target Iran. But what about the looming elephant in the room--China. They have big money and big plans, and they don't beat their chest and act the clown.
America will be better off when we see the back of this disrupter, as we work to repair alliances with humanitarians the world over.
2
Europe would be wise to heed tRUMPF's advice - they may need more military to defend against an American-Russian axis. As for tRUMPF - he needs more military to defend himself against the revolution.
I think that Trump is teeing up for a Russian invasion of another European country and the US will not help because that nation wasn't spending 4% on defense. A thank you to Putin for his election.
Your headline "Trump got from NATO everythiing Obama asked for.." begs the conclusion "....but never got" Did anyone ever expect that a collection of states would or could automatically jump to meet Obama's request? are you implying that only a bully can get results? Nice going! And what about the serious risk that Trump will break up NATO after he pockets the credit for increasing spending? What of the long term damage to the United States of a resurgent Russia?
I think Trump is trying to have things "both ways," which explains the actual, not just seeming, inconsistency of this "stable genius" and his remarks, e.g., claiming our relations with the U.K. are strong but slamming Theresa May's "soft Brexit" and extolling the virtues of Boris "Hard Brexit," May's chief opponent. One way is publically to criticize the E.U. and NATO and thereby bolster Putin's attempts to dismantle NATO and the E.U. (and possibly keep blackmailer Putin from releasing the "dirt" Putin has on Trump). The other way is quietly/privately to schmooze the E.U. and NATO leaders. However, stable governance cannot tolerate such inconsistency for long before bucking. Hence, we see the U.S. Senate reinforcing our NATO support and the European leaders flatly stating they cannot trust what Trump says. In the world of real estate, double-speak is a mark of the effective (i.e., untruthful) real estate salesperson. And perhaps that is what Trump is really doing: selling the U.S. and its institutions out from under us to Putin and his oligarchs.
1
So now Trump is taking credit for all the NATO pledges Obama won, without of course winning the respect and admiration of our European allies. When will Congress do its job and impeach this insane old goofball, or at least keep him on the golf course and away from misconduct of foreign policy. Don't Republicans realize that Trump's version of America First will leave us friendless and alone -- at the mercy of Putin, Xi, Kim, ISIS and God knows how many other enemies he creates.
1
There's an expression that fits Donald Trump's obsession with bullying NATO countries regarding their monitary contributions to the alliance- "penny wise and pound foolish."
For a time, due to past bonds of friendship, shared values, joint endeavors to protect and defend democracy and stability, Mr. Trump's bullying tactics will work.
But only for so long. Soon enough, Mr. Trump will achieve his goal of unbinding America to its past obligations under international treaties and membership in alliances, because even our staunchest allies will tire of being abused in service to his zero-sum game.
Only it isn't a game. Mr. Trump is acting in service to real goals, based on real assumptions, philosophies and values - goals, philosophies and values inimical to those which are the foundations of western democracy and its system of alliances and institutions.
I await Mr. Mueller's findings, but I wonder if they will show that Donald Trump is acting in parallel to Russia, not in collusion with it (unlike, perhaps, some of his associates.) His "my way or the highway" approach to policy is home-grown, right out of America's extreme libertarian streak, in lockstep with the agenda of the right wing movement that has been gaining power in America for over 30 years.
Those who wish to defend our democracies against it had better stop acting like deer in the headlights, mesmerized in shock and awe by Donald Trump's antics into futile inaction.
It's time to mount a comeback, folks.
1
Please know, that most Americans know and appreciate your support of our common goals. Remember that Trump was elected by a minority of voters that can win our archaic system of voting.
Canada is a good neighbor! We hope to return to being one soon!
How pathetic. Trump finally puts his foot down on the NATO deadbeats and the NYT decides it was really Obama in 2014 that made this happen. 4 years ago! Wow. Delusion. And to boot, Trump was mean to the Europeans!
4
Did you not read the story? Or any other reportage on this issue?
NATO members agreed in 2014 to raise defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2024. This is 2018, so they’ve got six more years to meet their goal. Some are doing better than others
The pledge was made in response to President Obama’s call for them to increase their defense spending.
Trump has really nothing to do with this except to take credit for something that was happening anyway...as usual.
4
The healthy separation of the three branches of government has gotten quite 'sick' since Trump assaulted the presidency (with Putin's help), as the party in control (republican all the way) has abdicated it's obligation to temper the runaway 'bull' in the Oval Office; this, to the detriment of an already suffering democracy, subject to the whims of Donald J. Trump, with the loss of all credibility. His temper tantrums against all common sense and reason has our allies all shaken. And for what, exactly? A gift for his idol Putin perhaps?
This headline is grossly misleading because it implies that despite asking, Obama was not successful in getting more spending from NATO while Trump was. This is not accurate.
Since Trump did NOT persuade NATO to increase spending more or sooner than what Obama already persuaded them to do in 2014, a more accurate headline be,
"Trump Gets Nothing More From NATO Than Obama Already Got,"
or,
"Trump Tries To Take Credit for What Obama Already Got From NATO."
11
American voters can take more concrete action in a few short months by voting trump's enablers out of office enmasse. Our current Congress will do nothing to reign in trump's impulsive behavior. They no longer grasp the concept of "checks and balances" nor have the leadership to do it.
2
"[A]llies could better advance their own security, and NATO’s, by" kicking America out and aligning themselves with Russia.
Radical? Yes, but Trump has proven America is no reliable ally. He undermines the mission of NATO, offers that it might be obsolete. He has done what he can to sow doubt in whether America would defend a NATO ally. Likely, he would find an excuse not to act if Russia invaded Canada.
If America is not an ally, but a bully, NATO countries should explore a more secure peace alliance with Putin. They would not have to accept despotism like Russia, just become partners in trade and mutual defense treaty against the tyranny and chaos of an unpredictable, unreliable, liar who clearly does not value allies.
"...and then Trump himself out of office."
Yes indeed. Rally for Blue Wave '18...
...although, more delicious, imho, than Trump losing a bid for reelection would be for the Republicans to rally, out vote Trumplicans, and eliminate Trump in the primary.
President Trump may be the nation’s chief diplomat, but he cannot cancel treaties with foreign nations on his own authority. To do so would be to overreach his presidential power is an way that would tarnish the office for years. George Washington himself made the choice to uphold the law congress set out by cracking down on the whiskey rebellion. It is not the president who can make laws, only enforce them. As a result, it would be unconstitutional for President Trump to force the United States to drop out of NATO on his own authority.
3
In response to Wahleed Khalid, that may be true but many of the commenters here would be glad of this since they would only see that ACTION is what it's all about without a thought about whether it is unconstitutional.
Since we are the largest weapons dealer in the world, is that the president's motivation for browbeating the NATO countries into increasing to an unrealistic 4 % of their GNP? However it is good. to know he supports the commitment Obama had NATO countries sign in 2014 to raise to 2% by 2024.
2
Typical Trump bombast claiming credit for something already put in place by GW Bush and Obama.
6
I suspect when Putin is feeling down, he looks at a post-War map of the former Soviet Union including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and East Germany and dreamily has thoughts of "Making Russia Great Again" by adding satellite states. The map version that cheers him up most is the one that leapfrogs western Europe and shows the USA as Russia's newest satellite state whose titular head is a former real estate developer who prides himself on negotiating the "best deals", surrounding himself with the "best people" and being an "off-the-charts" genius.
At the moment, there is a banner over Putin's USA map that reads "stretch goal": fix the 2018 elections.
3
US policy has been, better to fight in East Europe rather than Palm Beach and Virginia Beach and Rockaway Beach. Would be real dumb to abandon that.
4
Angela Merkel and Macron both said that the percent GDP target and the speed of getting there have not changed.
Why this inaccurate title?
17
Congress will act only when there is a change of congress. Vote these fools out in November.
7
A book was written some some ago--can't think of author or title. Sorry about that!
The gist was: great empires, great powers crumble from within. They raise their armies--they man their forts--they patrol their borders. . . . .
. . .and meanwhile, at home, there is ever increasing poverty. Shortages. Even hunger.
Something like this happened to the Roman Empire.
Is it happening to us?
I was struck by your allusion to "flashy military hardware." Yes. We do have plenty of that, don't we.
Made me think of May Day in the old Soviet Union. All the latest missiles proudly paraded down the boulevard. Ageing, stony-faced autocrats waving from atop the Kremlin. Such power! Such might!
No. Not really. The country's economy was crumbling. Eventually there WAS virtually no economy.
Are we going that same route?
Everyone agrees: the USA as a physical entity is falling to pieces. We all remember (years back) the bridge that fell into the Mississippi River. The roads are crumbling. No one does anything at all.
That (I expect) would entail a tax increase. The Koch brothers would be--gravely displeased. The one percent of one percent would be--distinctly unhappy. These worthy citizens MUST not be vexed. Or irritated.
Or taxed.
A word to the wise:
If you plan to cross the Mississippi River anytime soon .. . .
. ..take a boat. Or better yet. . ..
. . ..swim.
7
"out of region or out of business", NATO saying.
2
Trump didn't pay his contractors, he is cheating the government with his emoulmens, God knows how much money he owes Russia but yet he bullies our allies to pay more. This is just incredible. All he cares about is money.
10
There are many, many intelligent, educated Republican voters in America who can see the con their president is always pulling, who don't need to wait for the fact-checkers to call his lies and exaggerations, and who no doubt chuckle at his hyperbolic self-congratulations. What remains to be seen is when they have had enough embarrassment. Pretty soon, the word "Republican" will just mean "ignorant and boorish."
14
How many US tanks, aircraft carriers, or soldiers paychecks does European "respect and goodwill" pay for?
4
How much is it worth having free bases in Europe from which strike the Middle East? What's the worth of the NATO soldiers who died in the Middle East? What's the worth of shouldering the cost of the migrant crisis due to American-caused instability?
3
Germany has agreed to spends tens of billions of dollars a year on natural gas provided by Russia through a new pipeline then asks the United States to provide the military to defend them from Russia - Of course Trump should call them out
7
Did I miss something? Did Trump ask for and get anything new? Wasn't he simply claiming Obama's wins as his own?
16
Whatever Obama wanted, the contribution from the other NATO members has fallen to under 2%. Some members pay less than 1%. Our contribution numbers don't even count the military and equipment we have stationed in Europe. Trump has also claimed that we should be paid for some of their cost. Don't hold your breath. They have gotten use to shirking their commitments and we have done nothing to prove to them we won't just keep footing the bill. Is NATO effective? A recent analysis showed, based on where Russia's military is stationed, they can run through Western Europe in 4 days and the first to be killed will be our military. To continue this disparity is absurd. In any case, The Russians aren't going to invade. They want customers not a bunch of dead people and huge cost to occupy. If they keep up their same old, same old path of reducing their contribution instead of paying their share, we should count the cost of our military over there in the percentage of our contribution.
3
Why the misleading headline? Have you not just given to trump an editorial page he can wave around touting an "achievement" not actually achieved. When is the NYTimes going to stop this nonsense? I never thought the NYTimes would be part of the problem instead of a beacon of truth is troubled times. Shameful really.
Obama never got what he asked for because he wasn’t effective.
Pretty words do not a leader make. They all knew he didn’t mean what he said.
4
Once again, President Trump fixes a mess he inherited from Obama. Once again, President Trump proves himself far more effective, successful, popular, smarter, and a better leader than Obama. Thank you, President Trump!
8
The United States is guarding itself on two fronts. The eastern borders Russian and the western borders China. Americans want the EU to guard its eastern front so it can redirect its resources towards its western front which will be the larger threat in the future.
3
It may be worth pointing out explicitly that NATO countries spending more 'on defense' is a boon to any business to do with weapons and armaments.
Does that explain the inexplicable rise of the stock market?
Am I coming late to this realization and everyone else is taking this so much for granted that it does not need to be spelled out, not even in the business section?
Will this 'defense' spending help the UK in Brexit? Will it help Germany?
Will Russia stay in the game, increase its 'defense' spending in response? Engage US companies to buy the aircraft, the bombs, the guns and cannons?
Is this what Putin and Trump will be talking about?
Is this the kind of economics we are to look forward to? Is this the kind of prosperity we want? Lots of jobs in the 'defense' business...
5
Misleading headline. But what else is new? He has no "strategy" except to do Putin's bidding. You can come to your own conclusions as to why that might be.
12
Left unsaid is the simple fact that setting defense spending as some arbitrary percentage of GDP, by any nation, is an idiotic approach. As our economies grow, is it intelligent to spend more on weaponry so as to destroy the planet, what, quicker, more thoroughly? Dead is dead. But, in these tragic times, budgeting for "defense" based on a strategic assessment of risks in light of existing capability is a bridge too far. The truth is that weaponry is one of this nation's most profitable (to the plutocrats) industries. As Eisenhower warned decades ago, beware the military-industrial complex. We didn't listen then, and we are not listening now. For that reason, US defense spending will not decrease a single penny, no matter what amount European nations spend. This is all merely a part of The Big Show. When aliens find the relics of this planet they will be astounded to discover that we placed power and control in the hands of the dullest and most self-serving among us. And that's on us.
8
This exposes the tight connection Obama's version of American exceptionalism and Trump's.
NATO should have been disbanded along with the Warsaw Pact, NATO's eastward march is the cause of the New Cold War and the idea that Russia can or would invade western Europe is a fatuous but profitable delusion.
The main difference is approach -- Trump is acting like the bandit who shoots at bar patrons' feet to make them dance.
And the subjects dance.
2
The cause of the new Cold War, if indeed there is such a things, is Russian revanchism. Nothing in NATO expansion made Russia invade Crimea and start a war in Ukraine.
2
Trump should absolutely threaten to leave NATO if they don’t pay up within a year.
We pay close to 4% of our GDP for our military. Germany for example pays only 1.2%. Frankly, they should have paid up for decades - they haven’t, which is why their military is decrepit and totally useless to the alliance.
So we spend money to defend Germany. It’s a “mutual” defense treaty in name only because Germany doesn’t have any military capacity that we don’t have 50x more of already.
It’s simple. They need us. We don’t need them. The least they can do is pay.
So Germany cheaps out and use the trillions saved to provide all their citizens with free health care and free college tuition.
Russia is supposed to be their enemy. And Russia invaded Europe, not America. Yet Germany plans to build a pipeline where they would willingly be hostage to Russia for their gas and energy needs.
7
It pains me to say that you are absolutely correct with this analysis. I have promoted the same reasoning for years, unfortunately nobody has paid any attention to it.
Trump seems to be the only one who has read it.
2
What a complete misunderstanding of NATO. If anything, the US should spend less, and start investing in real assets like infrastructure.
7
But our 4% is deployed all over the world. What % is really set aside to defend Europe? Not 4%.....probably closer to the 1.2 - 1.8 that most of those countries are setting aside. I don’t know the answer. Just asking the question.
2
Anyone who honestly thinks that an increase in defense spending by the EU will lead to cutting defense spending in the US should be drug tested immediately, with extreme prejudice.
The pundits are in the grip of a palpable desperation to find a "grand strategy," or ANY kind of strategy in Trump's spasmodic, proudly ignorant, tantrum-based approach to policy. Good luck with that.
8
Trump fans are thrilled by Trump's lies and incompetent bumbling abroad. Anyone who has any respect at all for the United States is horrified. You cannot argue with Trump fans. They are like little children with their fingers in their ears shouting "No! No!" when you try to reason with them. The rest of us can get out the vote to throw Trump's enablers and then Trump himself out of office. It is the only way to end our national disgrace taking place around the globe because of Trump, the face of the Republican Party.
17
Get out the vote. Vote every election, every official, every time. The only way to bring in a new Congress that will get things done properly is to vote a new Congress in. Vote. Vote. Vote!
1
Everyone 2% ridiculous. Some can afford more some less. Maybe they won't spend it on anything useful or are they giving the money to us.
In any event we all spend much too much on the military and since we lose all wars we start it's a fools errand.
5
Try telling that to the trumptards.
There's no pattern to Trump's actions, so insofar as he "gets" what he "wants" it seems backwards: he gets what he gets and claims that was the want all along. What he does to go from A to B is all we can really predict: smash, grab, slash, burn, and preen for Fox. He sows fear, confusion, angst and offense. That's what he wants, and it's what we get.
14
What did he get? After two days of making a fool of himself he came out in front of the cameras and lied about what was accomplished. Macron corrected him shortly thereafter.
What was clear is that he demands that the europeans join the Republicans in throwing money down the insatiable maw of the US war profiteers. He wasn't even subtle. He expects European countries sto shift their spending priorities from helping their citizens to enriching Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman and all the rest. It is obscene.
Rather than demanding an increase is waste on war even above the current absurd level the Americans spend, we should all be talking about radical reductions. Putin and Xi are laughing, Trump is pulling a reverse Reagan. Remember, he ran up the war budget to the point that it bankrupted the Russians. Putin and Xi are content to let Trump and the Republicans run up the war budget to the point that it bankrupts the US and the west.
10
You ask: "What strategic objective, what threats to the alliance, is Mr. Trump worried about?"
Seriously? It's the Donald Trump Show! And the world is his stage. He thinks he is the producer, writer, director and obviously the star.
But he hasn't read the book this play is based on. He doesn't know his facts - so he adlibs his lines revealing his shocking ignorance.
If Trump has a strategic thought, it is fleeting and focused on the performance of the day. He is looking for applause from his base who is so disgruntled and so angry that they eat up his stirring of the pot - any pot - regardless of the unintended consequences.
There is no long game here from the US. China and Russia will benefit from Trumps irratic behavior. Putin and Xi know he will be gone and a new president will approach all these negotiations differently. He is temporary amusement.
Trump sees every summit or meeting as if they were tennis matches or football games. If he creates controversy and appears to be tough, he calls it a victory for America. But it's really just a process of chipping away at our national legacy of positive and cooperative leadership promoting democracy and human rights.
18
Well, if Louie Gohmert's conduct today is any example, I wouldn't count on the Congress. Then there's Mister Mitch I control the universe McConnell. It hasn't just abdicated it's responsibilities, it is most certainly enabling Trump's destructive behavior, and gleefully so. He's clearly Putin's wrecking ball. So what does that mean, exactly? Exactly.
20
The United States involment in forming NATO was self serving - and rightfully so - to protect ourselves and our interests in Europe.
After the 9/11 attacks on our country the NATO members responded exactly as Article 5 stipulates.
Member countries make direct and indirect “contributions” to NATO. I think that has been lost in the debate regarding funding.
It would do Mr. Trump well to focus on the benefits afforded to the US by being a member of NATO and refrain from his silly posturing.
Our contributions have not been charitable.
6
"He then raised the ante, demanding that they meet the 2 percent target — it’s a target, not some specific legal obligation — by January and then go on to raise spending to 4 percent of G.D.P. Why that much? What strategic objective, what threats to the alliance, is Mr. Trump worried about? He didn't say."
Trump DID say.
In April this year, Trump announced his administration's goal of increasing US weapons sales to our allies, and included a list of incentives - saying that it would be wonderful for our economy. Three months later, the only notable sale made, over congressional objection: Trump allowed delivery of top military technology in the form of F-35's to dictator Erdogan (without even getting any human rights concessions in return).
What's a sputtering Trump to do? Lie and say that 2024 targets were meant to be met right now, and try to bully our allies into buying weapons from US manufacturers right away. And now, it's even more urgent: the CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce predicts that 2.6 million jobs will be lost because of Trump's ridiculous tariff war. Trump is desperate for the jobs that would be created by new weapons orders from allies before job loss announcements hit his party hard in November.
This week, the cost of goods sold just rose astronomically - Trump is threatening our allies in order to sell weapons. It's not hard at all to see how he went bankrupt six times, is it?
15
Everything is only ever a photo-op in Trump world, an opportunity to grab attention and this was no different. All he achieved was more press coverage for himself. Obama had already got the 2%.
Trump was disrespectful, self-serving and childish (throwing a tantrum and turning up 30 minutes late, bullying and berating!). He wasted everyone's valuable time and the opportunity for important discussions for NATO and for the US. This was supposed to be about security and safety - but he just had to make it about him and money. He just does not understand anything beyond his tiny bubble world that reflects only himself and dollar signs. Normalizing his behavior is dangerous - please stop doing it.
41
Long-winded editorials are not very effective, except to enable the writers to vent.
This editorial has an important message, buried in its flabby middle: " allies could better advance their own security, and NATO’s, by spending more to solve the migration crisis and other problems that have fanned nationalism and authoritarianism, and weakened democratic institutions." (This then requires some examples)
In addition, rather than talk about abstractions like "percentage of gdp", provide some numbers and spending options. For example, the EU (not NATO exactly, but this gives an idea) has a gdp of over $17 trillion. Increasing spending of even 1/10 % of its gdp would be an increase of 17 billion. What should they spend this on, how long would it take to spend this, what is the purpose for this spending, and how much have they already been increasing their spending the last few years?
Would this increase of spending lead to reductions in US military spending, leading to a net wash -- no greater threat to Russia, or would it improve NATO's readiness? If the latter, what does this mean -- more tanks, ships, soldiers, nuclear weapons, where, how many, etc.?
In other words, without specifics this is all peeing in the wind. Trump supporters will then fill the blanks with fantasy and wishful and vague thinking.
6
Nice effort in attempting to give Obama partial credit for President Trump's advances with NATO. Not surprising you failed to highlight the difference between them. That is, Obama was all talk where our President actually gets things done.
3
Sorry for the stridency of this remark.
It is highly delusional to even fantasize America will reduce its military spending. Both political parties create the illusion of being at odds, but when it comes time to vote on bills to increase spending on the military and the intelligence agencies--lo and behold--they act as if they are one.
I take it back. This remark is not as nearly as strident as it should be.
4
Once again, like the PRK, lots of agreement about the future, but nothing immediate. Trump cemented absolutely nothing.
1
Why in the world would NATO countries rush to increase their military spending to 2% of GDP? The US has spent decades throwing untold billions into their military, at the expense of other domestic priorities and in defiance of all common sense, just so they can strut around on the world stage as the biggest and the strongest.
If my neighbour insists on buying a tank and installing anti-aircraft missiles, and has promised to protect me if I'm ever attacked, do I really need to buy a gun?
7
How ironic that Trump's claim of success is merely a restatement of Obama's thinking.
12
Based on precedent, a President can withdraw from a treaty, but Congress can pass a law prohibiting it. And as long as the Republican Senate is a virtual cult of Trump, they will blindly follow their leader, and refuse to pass it over his veto.
At some point the public, even reaching down to the lowest depths of his followers will realize we are being led by a an egomaniac, who will take our country and the world-as-a-community down with him.
The Presidency of the United States has challenges that often do not have easy answers, and many with no answers at all. Trump can't resolve the challenge of nuclear proliferation or the impossibility of accepting the flood of "wretched refuse" who were only a trickle when that poem of the Statue of Liberty was written.
We do not revile him for his failing to solve such problems, but his blind willful ignorance that negates even addressing the monumental challenges of our times.
3
Perfect. The editorial board shrugs off Trump's role in the communique by reminding us it's simply a target, not a legal obligation. And yet his abandonment of the Kyoto Agreement, which is exactly the same thing, was positioned as End of Days. No hypocrisy here.
7
Yes, that struck me, as well, as I read the editorial. Eliminate that sentence, however, and the rest of the editorial makes many good points.
NATO’s budget is the sum total of all alliance member spending.
I think you point to something substantial here, but have a different way of looking at it. Trump changes his mind so many times and justifies dramatic shifts in positions with a shrug. One can only take such communiques as a momentary fancy of Trump's. Why should even his "promises" be believed?
1
Trump's behavior at NATO, after his G7 stunt, does more than add insult to injury. Other national leaders first assumed Trump's bombast was intended for his "base", the ugly American. Next time, they believed, would be better. It's worse.
Now he's a genuine threat, not just "destabilizer." He creates a vacuum for tyrants to fill. Trade wars cause conflict that increases risk of real war; alliance busting leads to accidental disorders that spiral into war; the willingness of business to overlook leaders who exploit ethnic hatreds leads to dictatorship.
Nancy Pelosi is right: nothing explains Trump's behavior better than Russian influence. It may be financial, ideological, or personal, but something's up. Just imagine if he was Democrat. Republicans wouldn't just impeach; there'd be calls for a coup. The Times would disagree, but understand.
Americans don't have time to burn. They'd better put the House and Senate in Democrat hands. Otherwise history will condemn them.
9
It puzzles me that we keep hearing talk about the good things Trump can do. Some of them might happen, but it won't be because he is thinking in the best interests of America. Anyone with a functioning mind already knows that. It will be because Trump feels that he, personally, can get something out of it.
As has been said countless times, all roads wind back to Russia. They own him. And only by pretending he is Putin's equal or friend or even master can Trump reconcile this with his innate sense of superiority.
9
Next Friday's Breaking News:
President Trump will announce that his tough negotiations with the marvelous Vladimir Putin have resulted in a triumph for America. Russia has applied to become the 51st state of the U.S.A., and Mr. Trump is sure that the Senate will approve.
Based on its population and on our one-man-one-vote principle, Russia will add 197 new men to the number of Republican members in the U.S. House of Representatives. And, the U.S. will withdraw from NATO, saving each average American family $5.77, bigly growing the American economy and the number of American jobs even faster than at present.
16
Trump’s strategy is to please his benefactor Putin. To undermine the EU and NATO pleases Putin, even if it’s empty headed rhetoric from Trump. Without Putin’s and other Russian oligarchs intervention to prop up Trump’s failing businesses back in the early 1990’s and beyond, Trump owes them a great deal for his comeback.
Putin will congratulate Trump on Monday just like an old KGB officer would praise one of his assets.
20
''Obama was the good cop. Trump is the bad cop''.
Baby's are not allowed to play ''cop''.
6
Cops also enforce laws. Obama ignored laws he didn’t agree with. See federal immigration laws for an example.
2
If the US defense budget is 3.2% (or3.6% or even 4%) of GDP, how much of that is spent on NATO? The US has global military presence and it would be enlightening to learn how much is spent on NATO vs the rest of the budget. I've got to believe it will be less than 2%.
4
NATO budget is actually very small, the 2% to 4% numbers refer to a countries military budget, and does NOT go to NATO. They could spend a lot like the USA on unnecessary wars, and easily meet their targets, but not sure how it works out for world's citizens.
But at least Trump got from the UK the Diaper - Obama didn't ask for?
Legislation here proposed to prevent Trump from leaving NATO is pointless: as Commander in Chief he merely needs to order US troops to stand down when Putin's troops re-occupy the Baltics (and other parts of the old Soviet Empire). The other NATO countries need to bolster their defenses for their own sake, not to placate Trump (who can never be placated). As they prepare their defense plans they'd better keep the U.S. in the dark, otherwise Trump will divulge their plans to his pal Putin.
7
Funny, I thought leaders of France and Germany said something to the effect that they would continue working towards the 2% goal at the same pace.
5
Obama was the good cop. Trump is the bad cop.
Both are needed.
Obama did indeed get the 2% target, first established in 2006, firmed up in 2014. He even gently rebuked allies as "free riders".
Unfortunately, his very polished, polite, and cooperative good cop efforts failed. Large allies such as Germany and Canada developed their defense budgets through 2024, and they never, ever hit the 2% target.
Meanwhile, Germany's military is so depleted that they cannot put a single submarine in the water, have only 90 workable tanks, and four fighter planes that are airworthy and capable of carrying weapons. This is not only a slap in the face to the NATO allies who are counting on Germany for support, but also to U.S. taxpayers who are borrowing money to help support NATO.
Enter the bad cop.
Trump is loudly, directly, and sometimes awkwardly pointing out our allies' unwillingness to meet their commitments. He is suggesting (appropriately) that the U.S. commitment to NATO is contingent on Europeans and Canada meeting their targets. He is asking for 4% in the hope of at least getting 2%.
Even if unintentionally, Obama and Trump make a good tag team, just like in WWE or a classic police drama. Let's hope that their complementary efforts will finally shake our European and Canadian allies out of a two-decade long slumber.
8
A very insightful take on the issue. Good take on the good cop bad cop as well. And, mention of the possibility of 4% frames the 2% as reasonable and achievable and it was most likely aimed as you so astutely point out at the laggards,
4
You are right about the serviceability of much German equipment but only 4 fighters airworthy? - a 2018 survey found the number was closer to 50 and at least 100 Leopard tanks were deemed ready for action.
A small point but it is better to be accurate rather than sensational!
notmegain:
There are about 50 airworthy planes, but I've read recently that there is an issue with their ability to carry weapons that limits them to 4 planes. (Though this article is unclear whether it is 10 or 4.)
Similarly, I read that there are only 90 tanks, though this article says 105. The numbers appear to vary slightly from source to source.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/germanys-typhoon-problem-onl...
But, if we find ourselves debating whether a country like Germany has 90 available tanks or 105 available tanks, and 10 or 4 fighter planes, I think the deficiency is both obvious and sensational.
Berlin, we have a problem.
In this instance, the Editorial board is absolutely wrong. Trump’s style might upset liberals but it is effective. NATO countries have not been increasing their military spending and capabilities nearly as far or as fast as their rhetoric would make you believe. Do I need to remind the Editors that President Macron of France cut defence spending when he first got into power, leading to the head of the French armed forces to resign? Do not pretend that European countries were doing anything to make the 2% promises.
Trump is demonstrating how to make power work. Maybe if European nations did what the “nice and rational” Mr Obama asked for then a Trump would never have come along. Politics abhors a vacuum...
11
You seem to be claiming that Trump has somehow gotten the other NATO countries to increase contributions/contribute more sooner than Obama did. In fact, he has achieved nothing. Nothing.
RE: Europe can do more to help itself. The allies rely too heavily on the Americans to transport troops and equipment,
Well knock me over with a feather. The NYT actually points out the crux of the issue: the Europeans are dependents rather than allies.
For over a century since WWI it's been a one way flow of lives and money from the US to Europe to bail them out.
9
The manner in which P45 conducts himself may excite the political and chattering classes but for most Brits its shock value diminishes with each new occurance. Trump 'lashing out' is as predictable and tedious as the stage-managed trash talk of a boxer trying to call out an opponent. Hype the aggression, whip up emotion, ramp up the PPV audience. For the rest of us the response is weary distaste.
Forgive my ignorance, but where in Europe are Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan?
Here's an idea: since we seem so keen on the military, we pay most of the NATO bill, and since the Europeans seem to know how to deliver health care and social services to their people, we get them to do it for the Americans. Good ole division of labor. God knows we can't run a health care system.
38
Yes, but these countries should be contributing a greater percentage of their overall spending. We're defending THEIR homes and children. Also the Japanese and Koreans both pay a much larger piece of the deployment costs than our NATO allies.
4
The NATO "commitment" that Trump claims he got, is like the Iran Agreement in the USA. It doesn't have the force of law nor treaty. We will see what these head of state manage to get through their parliaments when they see that they will have to cut back on their health programs, nursing homes and infrastructure investment to buy American weapons, when there is little perceived threat. With his gratuitous insult to Theresa May, it is most likely that any increase in defense budgets will be directed to making Europe independent of America.
I think rtump is right demanding the 4% defense budgets. In particular Germany should heavily invest in nuclear weaponry, now.
So there is that.
4
Obama not just "asked" for increases, he called his European allies "Free Riders"
A term that most Brits took as an insult. The Guardian the UK left of center newspaper, defended Obama thus. quote :
The US president has had harsh words for his Nato allies. With luck they will galvanise Britain, France and Germany into action
So to the settling of scores. One year from leaving office Barack Obama has, in an epochal interview with the Atlantic, spelt out what he thinks of his European allies. The terms are not generous
The president describes his European allies as powers unable or unwilling to match fine words with resources; prone to asking the US to act but incapable of committing themselves to the efforts required for a sustainable outcome"
These are not polite words. But Obama was too timid to enforce what he thought.
Trump is different.
7
During the 2012 presidential campaign candidate George Romney asserted that Russia was a serious existential threat. We, including the then sitting president, all scoffed and laughed. Apparently Mr Romney was quite prescient. How did the rest of us, especially our political and intelligence leaders at the time, miss this so completely?
4
And we also should really to object to ''What Obama ever wanted''
Perhaps Obama wanted -(like Merkel) to reduce spending for ''Attack''? -(and NATO)
And it's kind of ''sad'' that you guys didn't notice how Trump in his PK promoted weapon sales. Like: WE produce the best (war) machinery on this planet!! - and to force - of all nations Germany - to buy more of it - only a ''German Baron von Clownstick'' might come up with!
And this is NO joke - as Trump in the same PK told US all how proud he is about his German heritage.
2
Trump is also negotiating with the EU on trade simultaneously so he wants to keep the heat on to give the US greater negotiating leverage vs. the EU. Why not hold on to the NATO card for a bit longer?
6
One has the impression that Trump wants to blow up NATO. He must imagine that in a weakened state, individual nations would be easier to push around and exploit. Given Trump's past history as a businessman, such a set of circumstances would be very appealing to him. After all, he struggles with the concept of multi-lateral negotiations and relishes the notion of uni-lateral agreements, no doubt because he finds strength in numbers daunting.
Eventually, the other NATO members will tire of Trump's antics just like the American people will, their resolve against him will harden, and they'll find alternatives to American leadership. I had been curious about the causes for Trump's struggles in his business career prior to entering office. Seeing him in action as a candidate and as president has been illuminating. The clumsiness and poor work product are noticeable. The dishonesty is painful to watch. If Trump is in office long enough, those qualities will be the drivers for the pending changes.
12
Is it wrong to ask NATO allies to be in compliance with the spending agreement?
President Trump represents USA and he is protecting our (tax payers’) rights.
5
Very funny - as he has gotten - yet - what DeNiro said.
But don't worry - even most of the Nato members are close - as they already think it - but just don't say it yet!
2
The US could easily cut defense spending in half to start with. The Pentagon doesn't even have systems to properly track and record spending, 20% could be lopped off in wasteful spending to start. Another 25-30% could be chopped by focusing on core capabilities and ditching some exorbitant hi-tech systems. Why does the US military need to have the best weapons in every single area? Now then, why do European nations need to spend 2%+ on the military? The European institutions Trump is doing his best to wreck have helped keep a period of deep peace and cooperation since 1945.
11
A part of Trump's unspoken agenda at NATO is to drive US arm sales, coming off a globe-leading record 2017 that booked $76 billion in sales, under the Arms Export Control Act that governs sales and subsidies from the US.A part of Trump unspoken agenda at NATO is to drive US arm sales, coming off a globe-leading record 2017 which booked $76 billion in sales. Sales take place under the Arms Export Control Act that governs sales and subsidies from the US, and many of the contracts are subsidized by US taxpayers up to 95%. The US is the global leader in arms sales and Trump's Defense Department is expanding that market.
Overall, Trump's balance sheet approach is a still life. It ignores the flow of trade in the global supply chain and economies of scale that make markets efficient and reliable, it stifles innovation.
14
Walter - a good reminder and a good contribution to the discussion. Thanks.
However, the 2% commitment was made at the request of Obama and I believe the best message NATO could send to Putin right now would be for ALL NATO members (especially laggard Germany) to show their great willingness to meet that commitment.
It would also help if Germany would stop obstructing discussions about sanctions on Russia that include energy imports. But the German economy will feel it if it loses access to cheap Russian energy and Merkel fears that the economic impact would weaken her political support. So, for personal political gain, she is blocking one of the most effective tools for sanctioning Russia in response to its killing of journalists and political opposition, and invading its neighbors. This has been going on since long before Trump came into office.
2
Where did you get that information from that there was an actual change of minds by the rest of Nato? The only thing i heard were Leaders who contradicted Trumps blunt lies he made in the press conference.
Why don't you just say out what you really mean? That Europe should rather depend on very unpractical LNG from the US instead of and decade long, very well working supply via a very costly build infrastructure already in place. And that all because due to fracking the US want to became "Energy dominant" ?
All the action of the US become painfully obvious to see for the world under this President. The only thing that counts is the bottom-line for American business.
Trump’s methods of impelling action are not my methods; but, then, I’m not a multi-billionaire and I wasn’t elected president of the United States, either. Presumably, neither are or were the editors.
And whatever he got from NATO’s Euro leaders, he got something.
But the suggestion that he merely pursued a concerted effort by Obama to achieve the same thing is vastly entertaining. Obama politely told our partners that they needed to increase their defense spending, then dropped the issue. Because of the heft of the U.S., many of them promised to target increases, climbing to 2% of GDP over years, and a few even have made efforts to do so. But it remains that years after they made those promises, they’re still not there – target due-date or not; and some are backsliding or haven’t moved off the dime at all. What Trump did was wade in on an issue with serious personal commitment that he’s been talking about for years and for all of his presidency so far. He’ll likely get enhanced cooperation as a result. If he does, it will be his unpleasant methods that did it.
Eventually, if indeed Euros can find a way to redirect funding from butter to guns in the promised amounts, then that would justify drawing down our military expenditures, perhaps even sharply. However, Trump is hardly going to draw them down based on promises – he still needs to telegraph to adversaries an unanswerable U.S. preparedness to defend our interests with military force. And, in part, that’s his job.
17
We already outspend any six other nations in the world when it comes to military preparedness. It would be nice if our NATO allies met their promises to Boss Baby (i.e., the same ones they made to his predecessor) but if they don't what difference does it make? I'm far more worried that Trump will pull out of NATO (with or without the consent of Congress) and forge an alliance with the Kremlin (!) than I am about any lack of preparedness on our part. If we do end up in a shooting war I'm hoping it won't be with Germany or Canada.
11
stu, exactly right. Do we even know if Trump's a "multi-billionaire"? He's good at adding up assets, but what about the liabilities? He might be under water.
It's the same with his "diplomacy" and trade "negotiations". Where are the easy bilateral deals? Unintended consequences pop up such as the soft Brexit which means he can't impose his zero-sum version of a US-UK bilateral trade deal on a weakened UK.
It's the same with NAFTA, NATO, WTO,etc. It's easy to tear things apart, but what replaces them? How many of Trump's real estate deals fell apart before he moved on to the next one?
Can we afford to have the same results in global geopolitics?
@
''he still needs to telegraph to adversaries an unanswerable U.S. preparedness to defend our interests with military force. And, in part, that’s his job''.
Oh - absolutely Herr von Lüttgen!
You and Baron von Clownstick.
5
He can't unilaterally withdraw. It is a treaty of signatory nations. He is not a nation.
45
no but he's as big as one
"Yet whether Mr. Trump himself is clear about the strategy he’s pursuing, or whether he in fact has one, remains as mysterious as ever."
Just following his boss Putin's orders?
25
That tired meme is way past the sell-by date.
In case you haven’t noticed, the appalling DJT has increased US defense spending and is trying to get our NATO allies to increase theirs, as well, specifically to oppose potential Russian aggression in Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East. Our forces in Syria also annihilated a large force of Russian mercenaries attacking US forces this past February. And we and some of our other allies are pumping as much oil as we can to keep the price low and defund Putin’s oligarchy.
But let’s not let the actual facts on the ground get in the way of good boilerplate opinion, shall we...
12
You seem to have forgotten that Trump has conceded that Russia's land grab in Crimea is acceptable, a position that no other leader of a developed country has taken. Trump is also alone in his belief that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election, in total contradiction to every intelligent report from every US intelligence agency. As far as increasing the NATO share, that was started by Obama. And if Trump is working with our allies to keep the price of oil down, he's doing a pretty bad job, oil prices are higher than they have been in years. But please don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion that your "great negotiator" has got Russia on the run.
3
He didn't increase spending (except in his imagination) it's been 2% target since 2014 as negotiated by Obama. And it was Trump who allowed for Russian meddling in Syria. As for other allies pumping oil, I assume you mean Saudi Arabia, but that's not to defund Putin it's to destabilize yet another ME country – Iran. Trump increased US defense spending to serve his desire to be lauded and applauded as a strongman around the world.
There is no reason why NATO should pay for Trump's personal goals.
"But let’s not let the actual facts on the ground get in the way."
1
What the United States is doing in Europe is projecting power. The bases and troops we have there are part of that projection of power and reinforces the political and diplomatic heft that the United States possesses.
We deploy our troops in Asia, our fleets of aircraft carriers and other naval ships to do the same in Asia.
When we have a sane, intelligent and forward thinking president who understands what strategic planning involves, it might be time for the US to re-evaluate how much of a superpower we wish to continue to be.
We have an enormous level of alliances and treaty obligations that commit us to certain levels of military readiness in order to deliver on the protection and defense of our allies.
With China ascendant as an economic and military power we need to evaluate how much we wish to challenge their expansion of power and influence.
In Europe, The EU has a larger population than the US and has approximately the equivalent GDP.
With this latest flap. Europe may finally realize that over dependence on the good graces of the US for defense may no longer be the wisest course of action. Of course, to commit to the vast expenditures required to equal the contribution of the US would require great cooperation and political will.
There is a scenario where the US could spend less and Europe more, in a re-balancing of world power.
The US might want to gracefully cede its superpower status and reap the consequent benefits. Time will tell if that is a wise choice.
2
If the power to make treaties is held by Congress, then isn't the power to quit treaties also reserved to them?
Were the President to try to usurp that role, wouldn't the Supreme Court essentially be able to stop it with a summary injunction?
16
This isn't about 2% or 1.8% or 1.993%. Focusing on that is a convenient distraction from how trump is treating an alliance that has been a bedrock of peace for 70 years. He thinks of it, as he thinks of everything, as a real estate deal where .2% might mean he makes another five mil, or even five dollars. But if all Nato countries hit the 2% goal, or 2.5% or whatever, it will be totally ineffective without unity of purpose and mutual respect. To trump it's a simple-minded numbers game. The Europeans have a much more pragmatic and strategic view.
Now let's talk about Israel. Time to do your part to protect yourself or the US is outta here. As if.
69
What do you mean.
We should talk about Israel.
There are no American military bases in Israel.
I have been there many times.
I haven't seen any military personal there.
Israel does protect itself.
Not even one American has died to defend Israel in any of the wars that they were forced to fight.
Yes, giving credit where credit is due, I applaud Trump for finally getting Europe to seriously put their money where their mouth is, by actually putting in the promised percentage of their GDP into their defense. I don't mind America helping others with their defense, we're all allies after all, but if the others aren't even putting in their fair share, then I've got a problem with that. So although it was Obama who got the ball rolling, it was Trump who finally made them keep that ball rolling - I applaud both for their efforts and their work.
That being said, the one dampener on this whole affair was the way Trump did it. I would like to have had Trump achieve it without making us look like a bully or insulting our allies, plus threatening to withdraw from NATO was completely unnecessary, but sometimes we have to put our foot down and say "the buck stops here".
5
I suspect that if Trump were made aware that his military spending standards matched President Obama's in any way, he'd change course in a New York minute. Anything with President Obama's name on it is OUT. The White House is no place for adolescent grudges, but that's where we are.
60
"Yet whether Mr. Trump himself is clear about the strategy he’s pursuing, or whether he in fact has one, remains as mysterious as ever."
About as mysterious as whether a monkey randomly banging on the keys of a typewriter is in reality writing great literature.
16
This reminds me of a scene from the recent movie about Winston Churchill. Churchill is on the phone with FDR, pleading for delivery of new fighter planes. "We paid for those planes...with the money we borrowed from you."
9
All this money spent on defense and the worst attack on our homeland (Russian interference in our election) goes unremarked upon and ignored by the Trump administration. $700 billion spent and the greatest threat to our Democracy is internal. A steady erosion of confidence in our institutions, our laws, our free press and our morals provided, almost single handedly, by the madman at the head of our government and his cowardly enablers in Congress. We would be better off to cut a check to Trump for $700 billion and ask if that would be enough to leave America alone. This much winning could bring down the whole American experiment.
174
Trump walked away from the NATO summit with a pledge for increased spending - and another record of boorishness.
President Obama departed from his NATO summits with the respect and goodwill of the international community, which are worth their weight in gold.
279
"Trump walked away from the NATO summit with a pledge for increased spending"
Says Trump, but no one else.
4
"Trump walked away from the NATO summit with a pledge for increased spending"
Actually, no, he didn't.
1
Actually NATO members had previously set a 2024 deadline to up spending and that’s not changed.
2
"Yet whether Mr. Trump himself is clear about the strategy he’s pursuing, or whether he in fact has one, remains as mysterious as ever."
Trump obviously does have a strategy and it is as clear as day. His strategy is to support the interests of Russia in any way he can, in pursuit of which he is doing everything in his power to destroy our relationships with our allies and re-align the loyalties of the United States towards the people who he himself is most comfortable with, chief among the Vladimir Putin.
There is a strong chance that the Trump presidency will simply be one of many shameful moments in our history, on a similar footing to historical footnotes such as the Dred Scott decision or the internment of Japanese Americans - he will become something that once he is eliminated we can shake our heads and boast about how our society once again triumphed over evil. However long his presidency lasts, hopefully only one term or less, the damage he is doing is real and will last for a much longer time.
If Republicans sill care about their country, the senate should immediately pass legislation limiting what Trump can do with respect to Nato and all other treaties we have entered into. Trump may have betrayed us to the Russians, but we need to make the statement that the United States government will never be a Russian puppet.
56
"Trump Got From NATO Everything Obama Ever Asked For"
This is a pretty misleading clickbait headline. It suggests that Trump was able to get what Obama wasn't, which is not correct even by the contents of the editorial. But whether Obama or Trump, I'm not seeing hard commitments on higher defense spending.
80
You are absolutely correct. The headline is misleading.
I find myself feeling disgusted by the NATO members in Europe. We supply 72% of the money that makes NATO work, some 650 billion dollars. 650 BILLION DOLLARS!! to keep the euros safe. Meanwhile, those European countries provide often time free healthcare, excellent pensions and numerous social services for their citizens. On this side of the pond, our safety net is often non existent and people are NOT keeping up. We are becoming a wasteland of culture, increasingly violent and disconnected from one another. For once, I agree with Trump, they need to pay up. We need a cap on our contributions well under 2% GDP. Plus, the GOP needs to stop gutting social services.
14
Trump has never suggested that the U.S. reduce its overall military budget regardless of NATO.
6
I agree with you that the U.S. should spend less and other countries more, but protecting free trade and democracy around the world is in the U.S.'s interest.
2
It seems unlikely that the US 'supplies' 650Bn to NATO, given that NATO's direct military budget for 2018 is EUR 1.325Bn. Additionally, given that the US is only obligated to contribute 22% of that EUR 1.325Bn, I'm not sure why it'd pay more. (https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_67655.htm)
The number you're citing is the entire 2018 US defence budget, which is not just to keep us 'euros' safe. It also includes American homeland defence and force projection into Africa, Asia, etc. The American government has decided that nuclear aircraft carriers with railguns and laser beams (oh, and a $1.5Tn tax cut for wealthy people and multi-national corporations) are more important that your healthcare or a functioning rail network; frankly, that's not Europe's problem.
That said, I do agree that we, the 'euros', should be paying more into our own defence and be less dependent on US support. But please can we ditch the pretence that NATO and Europe is to blame for the US's third-world infrastructure and healthcare? If America'd wanted good healthcare, bridges that don't spontaneously collapse, and global peace, it shouldn't've voted in the GOP.
17
Once again, editorial board, you’re leaning heavily upon Congress to ride to America’s rescue to save Donald Trump from severing the U. S. from NATO.
This iteration of Capitol Hill relinquished its legislative oversight of this executive—as it did not under President Obama—because cutting taxes on America’s wealthiest citizens are why they’re in office to begin with. If there were any cause for caution, prudence and wisdom, the Republicans in the House and Senate took fright when the president sent out the threat that crossing him—for any reason or for any legislative initiative—would mean electoral death by public Twitter shaming. The ridicule, the office-holders feared, would be too much to accept. So they’re in his pocket or under his thumb.
Trump doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. He’s after a television ratings sweeps in which he dwarfs the competition with numbers that don’t dazzle as much as they confuse. The tepid push-back from Angela Merkel, in particular, had to embolden him to pursue avenues that no president would venture down, at least for the past 70 years.
Vladimir Putin, like a submerged crocodile, patiently awaits a visit from the unwary American president. He has silently approved of his proxy’s tantrums and his astonishing lack of not only good manners but also of politesse. Donald Trump will be meeting Putin in a city chosen by the Russian president. Helsinki is wired six ways to Sunday for Putin’s men against boys show.
Let the undressing begin.
47
I THINK that there was a complement of Trump somewhere in this piece - but you did a great job of disguising it. I particularly liked how you strongly implied that any good/benefits that came out of the NATO meetings Trump might have achieved by accident, or luck, or simple cluelessness--not by design. Great writing craftsmanship!
10
Trump is selling arms. Like the protection racket we pulled on Japan. He inflamed Korea so we can sell arms to Japan who live next door. Now he wants to increase arms sales to Europe by forcing them to increase military budgets. It's not personal Sonny. It's strictly business.
38
If NATO is a treaty as you suggest, then Trump cannot walk away on his own. Treaties, upon ratifaction, become the law of the land. Laws, as opposed to executive actions, cannot be undone by presidents.
13
Commitment to NATO - NATO's very existence - is predicated on the assumption that Russia is an enemy of the West. Or at least a very serious threat under certain circumstances. The reason the US is in Western Europe is to project *their own* power as close to Russia as possible. In the event of war, quick reaction is everything. Yes, the US is protecting its once and future allies, but it is also using Europe as a staging ground for its own military and hegemonic purposes.
Is trump trying to divide or deligitimise NATO because he doesn't buy the strategic assessment that Russia is an enemy? That seems likely, considering every one of his words and actions. He's taking a huge gamble. He needs to ask himself just one question: Do I feel lucky?
9
Obama and Trump were both right. The 2% has been an issue since at least 2006, and yet 12 years later many NATO countries are nowhere near the target. Now, it’s 2024 for the 2%. NATO is a critically important alliance, and the Europeans need to start paying more now not 6 years from now. It is an issue like this that brings on isolationist tendencies, which America has adored in the past, which today would be unfortunate.
19
We should cut our military spending to 2%, prioritize defending US interests (primarily US territory) and let other countries pick up the slack if they feel they need to for their own defense.
34
I understand from your post that you don't consider trade with Europe to be in the interests of the United States. I'm glad to hear you know more about what's in our interests than our top generals and thinkers in the government. You should really tell them.
1
Best comment so far! Bravo!
1
4%? I doubt Germany's neighbours would be happy with German military spending of 140 million euros per year, given historical experience.
25
The election of Trump is the best example of why NATO should spend more on asymmetric threats from Russia, while also improving conventional military readiness.
The potential for a conventional military invasion of eastern European countries by Russia is relatively low and the NATO response would be costly for Russia.
But attacks by Russia on democratic institutions, multilateral partnerships and critical infrastructure throughout the NATO countries is a certainty, because they are already doing it.
Six European countries monitoring Russian intelligence were the first to spot suspicious communications between Trump campaign officials and Russian intelligence agents back in 2015 and reported it to the FBI, which quietly began the Russia-Trump investigation. The American people would not learn of any of this until after the 2016 election.
Russia has since aggressively supported Brexit and Trump campaigns, attempted to elect Marine Le Pen in France and sowed much discord elsewhere. The denials of Trump in the face of what the public already knows is damning enough, but we hardly know the story yet.
A CIA contractor has been put in prison for leaking the report of Russian interference with more than 20 state election systems.
Democracies are proving especially vulnerable to asymmetric threats when they hide the evidence of active threats. And they can counter those threats only by exposing them, as France did just before their election.
101
Yes, and demand a paper ballot.
1
The issue is not which President should or should not get the credit for the over-due up-tick in military spending by various NATO countries. Two elements should emerge:
1) A complete and full apology from the members of NATO to the taxpaying citizens of the USA, for all of the past mooching, extending over decades and 2) a thank-you note from each leader within NATO, expressing gratitude for those decades of generosity by American taxpayers.
23
Oh come on! You must know better. US spends 22 percent of their GDP on NATO. The rest of their big military budget? Spent on their wars they decide to wage anywhere in the world. And NATO members end up cleaning up their messes - like Iraq. And the result of their illegal wars usually means refugees flooding into Europe - which those countries have to pay to address.
And the only time, the ONLY time, that the main point of NATO, Article 5, was invoked? After 911 - when all the NATO members came to the aid of the United States. You have it totally backwards. We're owed the apology. Not the USA.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/
146
1) The USA spends nowhere near 22% of their GDP on NATO. 2) The refugees are seeking to get INTO the USA and other Western countries to escape dictatorial rule and corruption in their home countries that have preceded any wars. 3) The Marshall Plan and other initiatives by the USA (including disproportionate contributions to the UN) over the decades have poured billions and trillions into the economies of other countries - the military spending by the USA is a small fraction of what the US taxpayers have expended. The thank-you notes are still "in the mail".
And a strong rebuke by NATO members for the US destabilizing the ME leading to a refugee situation that pushed 1 Million alone into Germany.
14
There are other ways nations can contribute to peace and stability. Germany took in about one million refugees. How about they send us half of them in exchange for another 0.5% increase in defense spending?
Germany also has a very aggressive renewable energy program which reduces global demand for Arab oil. Oh gosh, scratch that. Trump wants everyone to burn more oil.
Anyway, there are lots of way nations can contribute to peace and stability that don't line the pockets of Trump's political donors. Oops! There I go again confusing the issue. Next thing we will hear is that Trump is against breast milk because that reduces the sales of formulae manufacturers. Sorry, old news. We already heard that.
359
Bruce - Germany has the largest GDP of all the EU nations. Despite that it is not going to reach the 2% target at the current growth rate.
Merkel's unilateral choice to open Germany (and the rest of the EU) to an immigrant wave does not appear to be adding to Europe's stability in the least. It has created a backlash that is emboldening nationalist parties all across Europe.
A finer point -
"Germany took in about one million refugees."
That is not correct. They took in about one million immigrants, not "refugees". There is an important difference. "Refugee" is a specific legal term. Estimates vary as to how many of the 1M immigrants are actually refugees. They range from 30-40% of the total.
Very well said KC, MO. Trump actually has much to learn and we're learning that he's not very quick.
Yeah, that peace plan is working out really well for Merkel.
" Mr. Trump has relentlessly pushed for a bigger military, seemingly mesmerized by the flashy hardware and the show of hard power that it projects."
The editors answered their own question about how we will get to 4% of GDP military spending.
It will be in Trump's budget in his third term.
15
Notwithstanding all the crazy talk by Trump at the NATO summit it is a fact that several NATO member nations are unable to come up to the 2% of GDP for military spending. Canada is one of those nations. We are small in population and have a big country to run. We are large in land and resources and have punched well above our weight during 4 wars in the last 100 years. No, we are not at the magic level of 2% on defence spending and likely will not get there in the next couple of years. But, Canada is always ready to mobilize in support of its allies and has in the past, and will again in the future. Our peacekeeping (if you can label it that) mission in Mali, contribution to the Brigade Group in Latvia and now the mission to Iraq, all put Canada front-and-center in the defence of freedom and liberty in the world and solidify our continuing role as a founding member of NATO.
While President Obama was correct in his effort to get other NATO members to step up in the defence of Europe and North America, it saddens me to think that it could have all been undone by the careless Tweeting of a man that does not understand defence policy nor has the inclination to listen to his advisors who do undertand.
Please think carefully before you vote in November this year and in 2020. Your security and safety depends on making good choices.
434
Our oil resources are held hostage by the Saudis and the artificial world price of oil. The price of my gas that I burn in my car is determined by the New York Harbour Spot price - I'm not sure that anyone outside of the tiny cabal that set prices even understands what the heck that is. Canada is increasing military spending and dramatically increased spending during our 11 year deployment to Afghanistan. During that time we also bought a lot of equipment from the US, including a number C-17 transport jets - they are not cheap. Also Canada has a number on national priorities for our tax dollars that the US does not worry about to the same degree - health care being one. Our universal health care is not cheap, as you might imagine and is a program that reflects our Canadian values and concern for human rights. So, we are spending everything we can on defence, including NORAD, which helps defend the US at home.
26
And our safety and security has also always depended on a good neighbor to the north. Thank you Canada!
103
I love Canada and Canadians and they're good neighbors but their safety and security depends on the US by the good fortune of geography to share a border with us. Because of that they don't need to spend 2% and no hard feelings. But no the tail does not wag the dog.
"he said he would defend the Baltic states against a Russian invasion only if he deems that those countries have “fulfilled their obligations to us.”
NYTimes-June, 2016
Those were Trumps comments about NATO over two years ago. He hasn't changed. The best we could hope for as the editorial states is, Congressional Republicans to pass legislation preventing the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO.
But that's just wishful thinking I'm afraid. Best we get out there in November and vote.
187
"only if he deems that those countries have “fulfilled their obligations "
It's called a protection racket – figures, given who he is and what he embodies.
8
A question: Has anyone calculated how much of the NATO budget for goods and services goes to US companies?
A possible answer: a very substantial portion, because NATO requires its weaponry to be interchangeable between nations.
A possible MAGA reason for Trump's demand for more defence spending: if NATO increases spending, US industry and services will see greater demand, thus increasing production and jobs in the USA.
82
My first thought is that Trump is somehow trying, obliquely & surreptitiously, to pump up the income of American defense equipment manufacturers as a way to tout his ability to create jobs (as if more of that in the bloated defense industry were needed.)
And yet so much of that matériel is dependent on international free trade –using globally-sourced steel & aluminum to get built– so Trump's left hand is thwarting precisely what he demands with his right.
The president can't think three moves ahead of his mouth, unengaged from whatever stray bit of logic might chance to waft through his coif.
6
You are assuming knowledge and planning on Trump's part which simply don't exist.
3
That 2/3 are going to meet the 2% deadline doesn’t mean much when Germany the largest Western European nation by far with the worlds 4tb largest economy is trying to get to 1 1/2 percent by 2025. The story in 2014 of German soldiers having to use brooms for a NATO excerise for lack of guns is telling. And why America should be committed to defending a continent which can’t seriously commit to their own defense despite increased Russian pressure is the question Trump is asking.
20
If Trump wants to ask questions about Russian pressure maybe he should talk to Jared. But Trump isn't interested in questions or answers, only in polishing the Trump brand. He's a two-bit huckster now playing with house money - our house, and our money. The sooner he is thrown in jail like the common criminal he is the better off America and the world will be.
8
Let me get this straight. The senate votes 97 - 2 in favour of NATO, but Trump feels that he has the power to unilaterally withdraw from NATO. The framers of the constitution saw three equal and counterbalancing sources of power - the executive, the houses and the judiciary. What in heaven's name would give the president the power to UNILATERALLY withdraw from an alliance which has been a pillar of US defence for the past 70 years? What am I missing here?
517
Trump fancies himself as the ultimate leader, a leader without boundaries or limited by law.
Trump also gaslights and dog whistles for his adoring masses.
Trump lights fires he cannot extinguish.
It would be interesting to see the reaction, or lack of action, from the Republicans if Trump took unilateral action concerning withdrawing from NATO.
32
What's missing is the gray matter under the orange thatch.
2
He simply does not know or understand. One would require a basic understanding of history and the Constitution in order to know what can and can not be done unilaterally by the POTUS, and we know for certain that our very stable genius leader does not possess that knowledge.
4
"Greater spending by American allies might mean the United States could lower its own spending and bring thousands of troops home."
And increase the military might of Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey,
Not all of which are stable, rational, rule of law corruption free countries. Can they all be trusted not to misuse their newfound military powers--not to devolve into a fascist regimes. Would they develop nuclear capabilities?
Pay the piper call the tune. Trumpie dealing is to cheat those trying to cooperate with him--his suppliers. He would cheat EU cooperators and cheat the US out of peace and stability.
It benefits Putin--maybe Putin will tip him.
34
Nobody took Obama seriously. His specialty was empty oratory.Trump is the complete opposite.He's a man who says what he means and means what he says.
25
OBAMA'S specialty was empty oratory? As opposed to The Donald, who can't create a coherent sentence out a noun and a verb and a proclamation of "no collusion." As for his saying what he means and meaning what he says, how exactly does he do that by reversing his positions from one tweet to the next? When he said he was in favor of great health care for everybody at low premiums, was he saying what he meant? If so, why has he never submitted a proposal to that effect? An infrastructure bill? What became of that? Bringing jobs back from abroad? Why is he still having his own branded geegaws manufactured in China, Mexico and Bangladesh? Most important question: what are you smoking (I want some)?
This phrase "says what he means and means what he says" is supposed to imply that a person has integrity than what they say or do reflects what they believe, think, or feel. A true American value but Trumps words and actions show him to be a misogynist, elitist, a chicken hawk (bone spurs (?) as a way to avoid serving in Vietnam), and someone who will tell a lie to support whatever story he is trying to sell about him. Not a man or leader to admire as a person of integrity.
except most of the time he either doesn't know what he is saying, or can't remember. The interview in Britain is a perfect example. Now he is saying that he didn't insult anyone!
My grandfather commanded Guam Naval Air Station during WWII and was a turn of the century aviator. I still have his pilot's license signed by the Commissioner of Aviation, Orville Wright.
My father worked as a chemical engineer in a Navy ordinance lab during the War, developing explosives to blow up European fascists and destroy their cities.
My father-in-law landed at Sword Beach on the third day of the invasion and spent the next year outside shooting fascists and getting shot at. He walked from Normandy to Tuscany.
My uncle flew combat missions over North Korea in an F-100, was shot down trying to rescue his dying wingman and spent three years as a POW. He never talked about it until he was dying.
Their service and their memories are dishonored by this administration efforts to destroy NATO, empower Russia, and coddle North Korea.
Shame.
Treason.
198
Is there even a single legislator on either side of the aisle who supports this president's hostility towards NATO or his warm feelings towards Russia in general and Putin in particular? It's one thing to want to make peace with your enemies, another thing entirely to lionize them without in any way seeing a change of heart or behavior. Does Putin have something on our feckless leader or is Trump simply displaying a kneejerk appreciation of unrestrained power for its own sake? Either way, this doesn't bode well for the world's greatest democracy.
174
"Republican lawmakers come to Moscow, raising hopes there of U.S.-Russia thaw"...Some asked the Russians: "Oh, please don't interfere in our elections." Make America proud!
* Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.)
* Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.)
* Sen. Ron Johnson (WI)
* Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
* Sen. Jerry Moran (KS)
* Sen. Steve Daines (MT)
* Rep. Kay Granger (TX)
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610774/heres-how-hackers-could-cause-...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/06/inside-russias-attempt-to-hack-2...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/republican-lawmakers-come-to...
The $650B is what the U.S. spends globally and includes the money it invests in NATO. (And I agree, the DoD budget is bloated and wasteful.)
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jul/12/donald-tr...
A subject worth of an NY Times investigative piece.
1
Obama got respect, admiration and loyalty. Trump did not.
93
So did Neville Chamberlain.
3
"Obama got respect, admiration and loyalty..."
Yes, and he won the Nobel Prize.
But Obama didn't get the job done. He let US be taken advantage of.
Trump got the job done. And that is the difference between the two Presidents.
"Obama got respect, admiration and loyalty.", but Trump got the job done.
Now, which is the better President?
1
Let's take a deep breath and reenter the real world. Obama was a windbag that nobody took seriously.His specialty was oratory which, when the air cleared, changed nothing. Trump is a man who says what he means and means what he says. A man who backs his words with action as opposed to Obama who was inaction personified.
19
That's rich. I needed a good laugh today.
The man is a pathological liar, which is a far cry from a person that communicates clearly and effectively.
Everything he says is a means of focusing attention on himself, since his narcissism requires ever greater attention.
Obama actually signed a nuclear deal that had verifiable results and ensured that a regime would not obtain nuclear weapons. Trump has been laughed at and abused since Kim requested they meet; Kim played him like a master fiddler, with Trump none the wiser given his need for meaningless photo-ops.
Where's our better, cheaper health care? Where are new trade deals that will increase growth, create jobs, protect intellectual property, and extend American interests? Where is a tax system that is simpler and equitable? Where is an immigration policy that resolves actual immigration issues, not fabricated border crossings? Where are environmental policies that will ensure clean air and water, reduce harmful chemicals, and conserve resources? Where is a needed 21st century energy policy? Finally, where is an election system that will prevent Russian interference---or does the president just not care?
Trump is a "fake" president.
124
I think you have this in reverse, it seems as if Trump is the windbag and Obama got things done. Trump is benefitting from many of Obama's policies, i.e., the economy.
1
Our president means what he says and says what he means? How do you know? Why then do his staff have to interpret and translate his “meaningful” pronouncements for we citizens and the rest of the world? His fourth grade vocabulary and temperament are wholly inadequate for these complex times.
I miss the ethics, intellect and class of The Best President Ever.
Don’t over analyze. As an elementary teacher I’ve seen it a hundred times.
The biggest angriest kid in the class picks on the smaller kids and you watch him bully and extort lunch money until the year some of those other kids get bigger or stronger or wiser (and they always do). You can’t help but smile when you see that bloody nose and the other kids laughing together at a lunch table.
That kid can order anything he wants for lunch except for someone to have lunch with.
Anyone who thinks that other kid is happy sitting alone voted for Trump.
138
Wow. I know this is beside the point, but: you saw all of that, and did nothing but smile.....are you a member of Congress? Just trying to continue with the analogy.
You aren't missing anything. Trump is a megalomaniac.
At the moment. you are also that kid. Because even if you didn’t vote for him - even if you didn’t vote - Trump embodies you as your representation.
Other nations sit across from Trump pondering the fact that Trump is who the American people (not just the Republican Americans, but the nation) selected to represent them.
Trump realizes that. He embarrasses you knowing all the while that it makes you cringe. That’s because he is not the President of the United States; he is the president of Donald Trump.
1
Europe got bullied because Europe is incredibly weak.
Europe is weak because the countries of Europe have never been able to settle their endless nationalist squabbles.
Europe's greatest existential threat is Russia. Europe uses the US's nuclear umbrella as a shield. If they want autonomy they need a joint nuclear force of their own. Lacking such, Europe is little more than the World Cup football with a US v Russian match.
11
Trump didn’t “get” anything. They are playing him the way NK did. Say the right stuff to shut him up, and go and do what you want. It is the way to deal with a toddler who is not you own child: shut him up nicely by telling him something, and he will go away.
66
Currently I am listening to this president trying to skirt his statements in the British newspapers. Lies come so quickly to him, there is not even a thought. Trump stated that Britain has lost its culture because it isn't completely white anymore. For a clown who didn't serve in the Viet Nam war, there is nothing that he states can be believed by thinking people
.
We are the richest country in the world and we make a great deal of money off of NATO by our trading with these countries. However Trump is no President Obama so I am surprised that the clown just continues to lie and now everyone is believing it. Sleep well because the North Korea are not going to be a threat anymore, well that is a lie. North Korea leadership is picking potatoes when the Americans come to meet, to busy for you I have received what I wanted I am on the world stage America created NATO and we can not let a clown destroy our country and the world.
If Trump is so worried about money why doesn't Trump pay for the deficient himself. He is making money hand over fist from being president. His daughter has made money from her clothing line and she could pay some money to NATO funds also. If we allow this craziness by the president then anything is possible.
Listening to Trump lie should be a course on all colleges, the next generation can learn a great deal.
48
I too just listened to dtRumps press conference. I wonder how fox FAKE news will cover it as he refuted the Sun's interview. They have the tape, which has been played. So, now, what are they to do. How will Hannity spin this one.
The editorial itself says that "Since he came into office, Mr. Trump’s urging has gotten some allies to accelerate spending increases". Trumps wants all allies to accelerate their spending. Trump appears to have achieved that. If the allies increase the spending, the US can reduce it to a level closer to 2% from the current level. Also, if Trump is able to establish friendship with Putin and Russia, it is good for us and our allies, and he may achieve that also. Obama was desperate to have good relationship with Russia, but failed miserably. During his time, for obvious reasons that we can see, Russia annexed Crimea, tried to undermine Ukraine, undermined American interest in Syria, Middle East and all over the world, and allegedly "undermined American democracy" by intervening in 2016 election. Now, the New York Times' editors are telling Trump to be like Obama and follow his policies! Ha ha ha!
21
Many nations had already started increasing spending as per Obama's requests/agreements for increased spending, but you stay in your alternate reality of the idea that bluster always wins. Let's wait for results before declaring victory, since France has said nothing has changed, and we've seen what a disaster NK negotiations are.
trump de-nuclearized the Korean peninsula in the same way that he has upped Europe's NATO spending. He didn't. he does a sound bite, which, given how much he lies about their not being collusion or the trade balance shifted, is an obvious bald faced lie. like all of his statements....obvious lies for simpletons.
Actually reading an article before commenting is always a good idea. Trump is building on Obama's initiative. Obama "failed miserably" befriending a hostile Russia? And that's Obama's fault. Okay. Clearly Trump will have no problem with Russia since, at minimum, Russia did their best to get him elected.
1
The Europeans are always planning to us their contribution but never do. Obama called them freeloaders and that’s what they are. It is disgraceful that a powerhouse like Germany gives so little. Trump is right in this. The US should dramatically cut its contribution
21
If you voted for Trump, you voted for higher defense spending by the US regardless of what happens with NATO.
Trump gets short term gains by being a bully. The cost is to the reputation of the US Government and its reliability. The real estate brass knuckle approach is not appropriate in a complex international environment. Given that he seems to use the Office of the Presidency to further his businesses it is the American tax payers who will foot the bill in the end. Look at his track record. There will also be unanticipated consequences as more and more countries look away from the USA. The winners: Russia and China!
47
What the American people, and others, are learning is that the "brass knuckle" approach definitely works in the short term. Whoever deploys it, read "Trump," knows that he doesn't have to worry about the long term. In his business days, he just relied on filing bankruptcy as things didn't work out. In the office of the President, he know that at worst it's only a 4 year gig, but he thinks it will be 8 years and more if he manipulate Congress, as he is doing now thanks to both the Republicans, complicit, and the Democrats, cowards.
Yeah Pierre, all of us Trump voters just cant enough of all this WINNING!! Get OVER Hillary already and enjoy the boom in our economy!! Our daughter is finally able to build a house now. Times are good.
2
If Russia is they threat the Europeans claim it is, then they should not have any qualms about paying more for their own defense. Not to mention that Libya showed just how hollow many of the NATOs members'' militaries really are.
16
Hmmm...they don't have qualms, I believe. That was the point of the article. After Libya (2011) they all committed to increasing their spending (2014) and the plan. Shouting that they need to increase the spending right away (in 2018) is puzzling since there has not been a reason to alter the % agreed to (2%).
Is Russia a threat now or can it wait until 2024 and beyond? If the threat is here in the present then they should spend the money now.
Can't we just frankly admit that Trump's whole ploy on NATO defense spending has nothing to do with actual defense, because if Trump is true to his word, he will eliminate the threat from Russia by making "great deals" with Vladimir Putin. If Trump manages to remove Russia from our enemies list, NATO should actually be able to decrease its military spending. But, no this is simply an effort to increase spending on military hardware and related goods to help prop up an economic system continual on the verge of collapse. Increased spending on military items will be a boost to our economy, as much, if not more, than for the Europeans' since we are the world's primary exporter of military goods. Trump is the super salesman, pushing American goods wherever he goes, by whatever means - bluster, threats and intimidation. Apparently, the North Koreans got it right when they referred to the actions of this administration as "gangster-like."
38
“If we want an ignorant loudmouth we’ll call you” said J.K. Rowland in England yesterday, referring to Trimp’ visit. I wish we, in America, had the same option.
Everything that man does and says turns into a disaster. The same goes for the Republican Congress and the Republican Party— we have evidence.
85
eliza, I wish I could agree with you but I would put money on Trump getting re-elected. Democrats are useless and bumbling in countering Trump's lies and bluster. Both parties need to collapse and Americans need to hope a new approach to democracy actually springs up. But look around: odds are against you.
2
Mark - are you having us on? You wrote: "He's a man who says what he means and means what he says." Most of the time he's talking such gibberish it's clear he doesn't know what he's talking about. You could find a dozen examples in today's NYT alone. If his lies make sense to you then you should run for Congress - unless you are already elected!
JK Rowling is a novelist who lives in a fantasy world of her own creation - why would her opinion matter more than anyone else's? And we do have that option in America - its called a votring booth; use it.
2
Perhaps Congress should begin to deal with Trump with ultimatums rather than negotiations. After all, he is ultimate deal maker and paramount negotiator. Why even try that arena? After his destructive performance so far over the last few days, he is now off to talk with Putin. And one wonders if indeed this last salvo to Theresa May's leadership is not simply part of a set up for his Russia talks this Monday. "Come home Mr. President", should be the cry of the Congress. Come home now, Mr. Trump, or we will greet you after your meeting with Adversary Putin with legislation that will limit your powers to not only withdraw from NATO, but to engage in ridiculous trade wars, and to withdraw from the WTO. Come Home Mr. President and discuss these ultimatums. Then you can go back to Vlad, look into his eyes, and discuss your next hotel in Moscow. Come Home Mr. President before you ruin everything.
34
Has been clear for decades that a cowardly congress has abdicated responsibility in favor of granting increasing authority to the executive. Past presidents, regardless of your opinion of their politics, have been honorable men who respect the office. Now we have elected a self absorbed incompetent interested only in photo ops and ego building attention. Congressional inaction chickens are coming home to roost.
You end "...it’s imperative that Congress, which has abdicated to Mr. Trump on many crucial issues, pass immediately legislation prohibiting him from leaving NATO unilaterally." You might as well expect a colony of termites to grow back bones.
48
Trump does not have the authority to leave NATO.
The NATO treaty was confirmed by the Senate. It will require an act of Congress to withdraw our country.
3
Nice one, Peter. May I borrow the "back bones" for my repertoire?