Trump wants the cash by the all the players and that is the sign of transparency for solidarity in world that is about global as it's fragmented by sphere of yes - as usual .... of influence. Yet with America's great leadership that has made Trump the man for capitalistic paradigm - so we judge internal NATO by is checks cashed and external by those that need the best in commerce of the most advance technologies that will go get batter, safer and indeed ubiquitous instruments of consumption to include the financial gamesmanship to keep afloat nations like Greece and as well the post Brexit regimes..... ( All with finality of Marx Engels Lenin Castor etc.
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
1
We know it. They ought to know it.
2
I wouldn't expect the Republicans to do anything rationale to counter the effects of the turmoil caused by Trump. It seems Trumps analysis of most things is zero sum, you're either Trump or Chump. The rest of the GOP, is totally cowed, and their calculus is that opposing Trump on these issues will end up costing them their seats due to primary challenges from the right. In fact there really isn't a GOP anymore. There's Trump, his surrogates and support groups in the media and the "traditional" party has faded into the background. Unless the Democrats put up candidates that can capture the imagination and stimulate the Democratic base in a way that Clinton didn't, then there will probably be 4 more years of this churn and he may break things permanently. From now on, if I was a European nation, I wouldn't trust Trump one iota and why would anyone trust the USA when we break our long standing trade agreements and military alliances with no vision for what come out of that. Look who benefits from that. The only person I can think of is Vladimir Putin and the oligarchs. So a meta-narrative under the story is whether Trump is a vassal of Putin or is his personality so easy to manipulate that he has become a dupe of Putin will. A lose-lose proposition.
9
NATO can be used as a bulwark against cyber attacks promoted by countries, dictators, or evil groups, that need or want to develop asymmetric warfare in order to undermine democracies, or affect individuals they consider their enemies. A recent column by Nicholas Kirstof, "To hackers we are Bambi in the woods" explains why we have to be concerned about that kind of threat. A movie produced about 67 years ago, shows what could happen now, if we don't pay attention: https://youtu.be/5dd67coPlz4
2
Am I mistaken or did our NATO allies come to our defense after 9/11?
7
The US spends its military budget on its own domestic arms industry. It's a form of economic stimulus. For a country with no arms industry, it's an economic drain.
Of course the US wants other countries to spend more on their military. The US has a never-ending supply of second hand military hardware to offload. Who's ripping off who here?
15
NATO was designed for two reasons. The first was to secure the peace.
The second was to pump Trillions into the US military-industrial complex, to keep profits up after WW2, and secure the power of the deep state.
During every war, the rich and powerful who control the corporations, get much richer and much more powerful. They use their power to shape the peace to benefit themselves.
The US was happy to fund NATO, and the Europeans were happy to let them do so.
The Europeans had no money after the war and their people were devastated. So the governments focused on social programs and stability.
Whereas the US government, run by large corporations ("What's good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa." - Charles Wilson, GM's President & CEO, who later became Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense) saw an opportunity for profit.
The reason the US wanted to fund NATO was simply because all those Trillions went to the US defense industries. Note that the US defense industries were not paying out money - they were getting all the money.
The American People paid all those Trillions as taxes, and the government funneled those Trillions into the massive US military-industrial complex - which is our Deep State. (Yes, it's real)
Trump and the Republicans recently jumped the 2018 Defense budget by 18% ($200 Billion) to $700 Billion - the latest windfall for the Deep State.
So much for Trump's talk about dismantling the permanent power élite.
16
Why the need to bring 'deep state' into the argument? It is not necessary to the premise; mention of corporate profits would be sufficient. That's not the whole story either (not all the money invested in Europe went to defense industry, and there were very legitimate reasons to assist in European recovery aside from corporate greed - that was just a perk). There doesn't need to be any nefarious conspiracy involved - human nature does well enough on its own.
8
There is no argument (or discussion) worth having without mentioning the underlying so-called deep state, which is the military-industrial complex. It's easy to laugh at the "deep state" but it's no laughing matter when identified as the military-industrial complex.
It's not some permanent liberal elite conspiracy that the Trumpsters believe in but is in plain sight (on the stock exchanges). It works hand-in-hand with the CIA and uses our money for it's purposes.
And no, the mention of corporate profits would not be sufficient and nowhere did I say that NATO was not good and necessary.
But there is much more to NATO than people realize. NATO is about far more than just NATO in Europe and securing the peace - that's too shallow.
If Donald Trump were openly working for the Russians and against Western interests and values, he would be doing nothing different.
19
We sometimes complain that not enough of our best and brightest run for office. And now we're being goverened by the worst and dimmest.
19
In both his business and political career, Trump only knows how to do one thing: break stuff and say it is someone else’s fault. Well two things, if you count lying and cheating. The only thing which has improved in the last year and a half is his family’s bank accounts.
14
Putin: Donald, NATO has been a major pain for Russia for decades. I need you to pull the rug out from those allies and demonstrate your true allegiance to me.
Donald: Vlad, I just started a trade war with China like you told me. Now I can focus on NATO. I'm right on it now, boss.
13
Yes, the US pays the lion's share of NATO's costs. But Trump seems to be forgetting that he who pays the bills calls the tune. That's why the breadwinner is the head of the household. With that greater expenditure comes greater influence. He will not like it when he gets our allies to pay a greater share, and then they demand greater control. You can't have it both ways, Donnie.
15
do you think Obama had "great influence" in Europe? I think they thought he was an amiable milquetoast. His influence was zero even though everyone talked a great game. Trump on the other hand is having great influence over there although it upsets many who prefer the status quo.
2
I highly recommend Jonathan Chait's piece on Trump and Russia. He points out the obvious: as we wonder why Trump is acting as if he were a Russian agent, maybe we should pay a little more attention to the possibility that he is a Russian agent.
It really is the simplest explanation for what's going on.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusio...
8
Those supporting NATO seem to believe that without NATO a new version of the 30 Years War will break out in Europe. All this overlooks the fact that none of the NATO countries have a genuine military that could defend itself. They can't even defend their own borders.
It is silly and naive of the US to continue to support these supine Eurocrats and their shattering union. They are best left alone to figure things out on their own without US help. We need to get our military our of Europe and concentrate on China and the far East.
As for Russia, we really should ask the question of why we got mixed up with Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe. The Budapest Memorandum was a big mistake and showed the US taking advantage of Boris Yeltsin. No other Russian Ruled, would have let Ukraine steal part of Russia using the 1954 Politburo decree. We basically endorsed that POlitiburo's actions - we wonder why there is still arguments over the dishonesty of the US in signing that decree and taking advantage of a drunk.
7
Excuse me. The President claims we have an "open" border to the south. We have by far the most lethal military in the world, and can extend our power anywhere in the world. You claim NATO countries have no "genuine" military forces and thus cannot control their borders. You clearly know little. NATO includes two nuclear powers, both of which have armies which our army respects. Germany has an efficient army and air force. Border control in the EU is not a military matter. Learn a bit about the world before sounding off.
5
Your statement is ridiculously incorrect: "none of the NATO countries have a genuine military that could defend itself. They can't even defend their own borders." Great Britain and France are nuclear powers with substantial militaries.
Similarly, you present zero evidence for your claim that that "Ukraine [is] the most corrupt country in Europe". Russia, controlled and sacked by its criminal oligarchy and murdering political opposition right and left, is easily more corrupt. Read Ukrainian history to see its citizens long fight against corruption instituted by the Soviet Union and later subsidized by Putin.
As for the Budapest Memorandum, the NATO signatories, including the US, have not lived up to our commitment - to preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for it giving up its nuclear weapons.
If you want to discuss who should actually govern Crimea, try asking the Tatars - the real owners.
5
"these supine Eurocrats and their shattering union"
Spoken as a true ally. I wonder how would you react if Europeans spoke of the American Republic as an entity to attack, break and disband. And even more so if they did so based on a wishfully ignorant and completely uninformed understanding of how the US Government and Constitution work. Let's say, on asserting that the members of Congress are not elected, but bureaucrats appointed by some authority; which is basically the level of ignorance equivalent to that displayed by the Brexit and MAGA crowds on EU governing and institutions. You are also wrong in your assertion about Ukraine. The most corrupt country in Europe, by far, and the greatest threat to freedom and democracy in the world is Russia. No contest.
8
It's time to divert money from military security and pursue civil progress and improvement, as in the best interests of everybody's defense.
8
Who, exactly, voted for destruction of the Western Alliance and a Russian embed at the top of our own government?
13
Weakening or breaking up with NATO is a treasonous act. Period.
13
It looks like the European NATO members who don't pay the 2% are treasonous because they don't seem to want to pay for NATO
3
Donald Trump creates nothing; rather, he is the "Great Un-doer". Since he has no positive ideas, his default position on virtually everything seems to me to be, "If my predecessors liked it, it must be bad, and I will undo it." He has done this with environmental regulations, Obamacare, the very government structure itself through failure to fill thousands of positions, and now NATO.
We'll be dealing with the wreckage of Trump's time in office for decades. I fully expect Trump to eventually wind up in jail, and hope to see Trump Tower turned into public housing.
19
Amen to that!
1
I can see why NATO would matter, greatly, to the members other than the US. For the last 80 years it has been the vehicle by which the US has provided them security and peace they did not have to provide themselves for pennies on the dollar. Can the other members tell the US and their taxpayers benefit from this arrangement?
6
Can the US and its taxpayers acknowledge that they benefited, in the ONE time that NATO members rallied ?
That was at the time of 9/11, when the US was attacked. Fellow NATO member nations assisted, and worked on punishing the perpetrators. In addition, Canada sheltered and fed passengers of hundreds of planes landed for some time in Newfoundland and Labrador, until it was safe to fly. Most of the lodging, food, etc. was provided by local residents of a area not particularly wealthy.
Canada does have military forces. In the light of Trump's insults, threats and tariffs, we Canadians realize that we need to strengthen our resources and partner strongly with friendlier NATO nations. The US may pull out of NATO, if Trump doesn't shake members down in his thinly-disguised protection racket.
In any case, the US administration and those who support it do not deserve our trust.
It would be a terrible situation, if the US exits NATO and then , Kim Jong Un attacks the US (not a far-fetched idea, these days). Canada to the rescue, again?????
So, Carlos, a deeper perspective is needed here.
9
Hey Carlos, I spent time in Afghanistan and I have friends who died there because Canada came to America's defense after 9/11. Did you read the article? Do you understand that it is in America's best interest to have everyone on the same team, even if their economies are not as large and even if they sometimes do not devote enough money to their militaries (which I am not defending). Maybe no one will answer the call next time America needs allies, and then you and the rest of the Trumpists can cry "unfair!"
9
You are absolutely right: “the only thing Mr. Trump prizes” is money. But you are being only partly right when you say that he “has shown no understanding of the power of partnership.”
He understand it, but the power of only those partnerships that further boosts his already oversize ego and bring him more money and physical pleasures. True, the partnerships I am talking about is different. I am talking about the numerous business and personal partnerships he entered into with vulnerable human beings and dissolved the moment they ceased to satisfy his needs.
The partnership you have referred to has noble goals, which Donald Trump’s mind is incapable of fathoming. There is no denying that those goals cannot be achieved without money. And there is no harm in reminding those of their failure to meet their monetary commitments. But while doing it, Mr. Trump should bear in mind that he is dealing with leaders of sovereign nations, not with his underlings in business.
He shouldn't forget, either, that even those monetary defaulters have honored their mutual defense commitment under Article 5 of NATO. They rallied to the defense of the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks. They are among the 39 countries whose troops “are serving, and sometimes dying, with American troops in Afghanistan.”
Aren't these fact enough to convince Mr. Trump that the U.S. needs NATO as much as its other members? Aren't they reason enough for him to treat them as sovereign equals when he meets them this week?
11
Trump is simply not intelligent enough to understand the importance of NATO. That, and he puts a price tag on everything. Also, if he understood the history of the Korean peninsula, he wouldn't cozy up to Kim Jung Un and expect anything positive out of him.
12
International strategy has absolutely nothing to do with anything Trump ever says or does. He insults and demeans anything that he has not personally created, or is otherwise able to somehow claim credit for. This fundamental operating behavior fully enables his narcissistic pattern of self aggrandizement. Trump creates chaos in order to blame others for it. He then tries to make himself into a hero for claiming to resolve it. If things fall apart, Trump attempts to shield himself from blame within the same cloud of chaos. It’s an age old game of con-man 101. The world will likely suffer severe damage for a generation, simply because so many easily and repeatedly fall for it.
19
Possibly stupid questions, but I'm trying to understand this.
Does the NATO treaty require a particular %GDP expenditure on defense from the US? Or is there a total number and if everyone else doesn't reach it then the US has to make up the shortfall?
Because if neither of those is the case, this whole claim that 'we're paying more than our fair share' seems a bit rich to me. If it's neither required officially nor required to keep the NATO books balanced, then if the US doesn't like spending 3.5%GDP on defense, why not simply spend less?
If nothing else, that might stir some particularly vulnerable allies to reconsider their own numbers...
6
especially if the major goal of NATO is to keep at bay Russia and other heirs of our Cold War enemies. but what are the goals of NATO and US foreign policy?
1
The ones that are vulnerable are spending peanuts, even though it might be more than 2% of their GDP. 2% of Latvia's GDP is nothing. 1% of Germany's 130x higher GDP is one heck of a lot of money. Despite the best efforts of the MIC, world spending on military expenses has dropped from 6% in 1960 to about 2% now. Poor countries tend to spend a higher percentage of GDP, and Europe is mostly not poor.
2
Agreed, that a simple solution would be for the US to spend only the percentage recommended for all NATO member nations.
Of course, less military expenditure would cramp the military-industrial system , and make it less easy for the US to engage in "regime change" (hello, Venezuela) and operations in foreign countries.
So, not so simple!
2
Europeans have in essence traded away their own security for social welfare entitlements that they couldn’t have afforded to pay for except that the US government funded and guaranteed European “Nanny State” security from Russian aggression.
US citizens did not ask the European NATO “Socialist Nanny States” to reimburse the USA for the costs in US blood and US treasure that US citizens paid for the European People’s freedom from German Rule (or German Slavery).
If these “Socialist Nanny State” nations had reimbursed the USA with the costs of their freedom from Germany and their military defense during the Cold war, then the USA would have had had more money to spend on social benefits for US citizens, and the European “Nanny States” would not afforded to provide government paid for free medical care and other government jobs and benefits for their citizens.
6
and of course the US didn't derive any advantage from their complete domination of Europe and Asia after 1945?... The UN and NATO were acts of philanthropy in your book? The real issue now is how to pull back intelligently from military overexposure but what I read about the military budget indicates that our elites or our populist government have no such plan.
7
trumpy wanted out of Syria and afganistan because of the cost
For years we have been told that Republicans are more trustworthy on security and national defense.
That is no longer the case. The GOP has willingly given up that mantle. Instead of being a "conservative" party characterized by caution and thoughtful deliberation, Republicans have become the party of knee-jerk reaction and far-right extremism.
Republicans will try to scare the public into support for them by portraying the Democrats as "radical." However, the Republicans are now clearly the far more radical and extreme of the two political parties.
14
As a European I would really appreciate if the repeated claim of European countries not investing enough on defense was accompanied by actual figures, rather than just by the arbitrary and rather misleading 2% figure.
The current defense budget of the current 28 EU members adds to roughly four times that of Russia; and close to double that of China. With also a key technological and infrastructure edge on top of it. Do we really need to invest six, seven or eight times more in defense than our strategic threats? The reality is that Europe does not depend on the US for its conventional capabilities, but for nuclear deterrence; derived from the US historic goal of non-proliferation.
In sum, can you start at least considering the possibility of the gap between US and EU budgets spanning from the US grossly overspending in defense, rather than from the EU not covering its real needs?
A second key element omitted in the usual calculations is the portion of European defense budgets spent on American weapon systems. It is very relevant for the conversation that the US has systematically undermined efforts for the integration of European defense systems and the development of common defense equipment and technologies. In other words, the call to increase European defense budgets has been insofar basically just a call to buy more equipment from American companies.
25
Excellent Post. It expresses all my thoughts better than I could have. Especially the focus on US arms sales. The US needs\wants more.
6
If NATO matters, the rest of it's members ought to be paying their fair share of the expenses.
4
Maybe it's just fine at 1% of GDP or 0.5% of GDP. GDP keeps going up and military costs should be dropping. Why keep an expensive conventional military around when nukes are available? If world average military spending keeps dropping as it has historically, by 2070 it will be only 0.6% of GDP. This is not a crisis, this is something to rejoice about.
8
There are two key elements of the Trump foreign policy that I think are cogent. The first is that China has, for far too long, taken advantage of their most favored nation status with the US. The second is that EU nations, and those aligned in the NATO pact must contribute more (2% of GDP) to the military alliance.
In essence these opinions have significant bipartisan support, and were pillars of policy by the past two administrations.
Unfortunately, bomb-throwing tactics, trade wars, and tyrannical threats to the press about your allies is not likely to solve these vexing and serious issues the US does face.
If the current President cared about the alliance, I would suggest he press Germany and perhaps France to anti-up the money in order not to starve the European South and in turn drive more nutcases into governance in Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. It might get Brussels and Berlin to rethink their ridiculous policies.
Taking the Chinese in front of the WTO and making an international case against them is another strong tactic.
On both accounts the work for Trump would require leadership, intellectual thought, diplomacy, and tacit negotiating skills with other nations, that at present, the US government sorely lacks.
What is likely to happen is the EU countries won't pay their fair share, and China will hurt US farmers. The Donald will claim victory nonetheless. After all he has no financial skin in these 'games'.
5
In government, business and his private life, relationships are but disposable inconveniences to Donald J. Trump. He is a completely self-contained individual who’s entire world only exists deep within the recesses of his own mind. Given this reality, long-term thinking for Trump only extends as far as the next applause line at one of his sycophantic rallies.
11
"NATO can withstand four years under Trump. I don’t think we’ll withstand eight."
This statement summarizes the situation nicely. The world can endure Trump and Trumpism but not indefinitely. There is a threshold for tolerance that will eventually be exceeded. The question of course is when will we meet that threshold. I think Europeans are surprisingly optimistic by suggesting four years. If the 2018 elections don't check Trump's agenda, I'm not sure the Western world order will survive that long.
10
Like everything with trump it is not the issues, it is the trump behaviour that is the problem. The behaviour of successful negotiators, people who successfully make deals, successful diplomacy is opposite of trump behaviour. It never works and has never worked for trump. the trump development business did not have return customers because he cheated investors and used unethical lawyers to prevail in courts. The trump behavior is about issues which skilled negotiators could make successful deals, but the behaviour of trump is to ensure that he fails and then blame others for the failure. Meanwhile trump uses tariffs to increase his control over trade, there is no, and will be no, formal USA trade policy, only go through trump via “bi-lateral personal friendship” deals. You do trump a favor he will let you trade, you do not support trump he will use tariffs to raise your cost of living.
5
With Trump behaving as an exuberant follower of Putin, I wonder what would happen if Russia started to invade one of its' former satellite countries? Would the USA come to the defence of Nato? I'm concerned!
8
Exactly. This is the major point of the matter that I think many people miss.
NATO has become detrimental to the U.S. for a reason the Times Editorial Board touches upon but does not elaborate on.
The premise of NATO is that "an attack on one is an attack on all." Originally - and strategically - this involved the primary European "great powers" plus Great Britain.
As is pointed out - NATO now consists of 29 member countries. And this is most emphatically the problem.
The United States would certainly go to task to protect the interests of France, Germany, Italy or Great Britain. However - will the United States, France, Germany Italy or Great Britain and others go to task for Croatia? Montenegro? Slovenia?
For reasons of blood-and-treasure - the answer is probably "No." And because "No" is the most likely answer - it calls into question the entire credibility of the NATO pact. Which means Trump is barking up the wrong tree (again) when he concerns himself only with member-nation expenditure.
5
By now there is no doubt that our president is a Russian asset. The only question is whether Trump realizes this. There are valid arguments on both sides. But he became president and a nation gets the government it deserves.
2
NATO was created at a time that the US elected intelligent Presidents - including Truman and Eisenhower. Perhaps it is time to reinvent NATO - given the current quality of American political leadership under the Republican party
I have a strange feeling Mr. Trump will report everything discussed in the NATO meeting back to Putin.
8
This editorial reads like an AD paid for by the military industrial complex and subsidized by the European Union. Try writing an editorial from the view of what is good for Americans.
7
Undermine, sabotage, subvert, weaken, diminish, impair, spoil, injure, cripple, enfeeble western institutions, and interests. These are the personal goals, and personal qualities, of our dear leader, the Destroyer-in-Chief. Hurry up, November. Take him down.
10
Trump is doing what he does best. Cause chaos. And chaos is just what Putin wants. Anything that weakens the EU and the US is a win for Russia. We have someone who doesn't realize how dumb he is or how big a sucker he is.
11
NATO should have been disbanded along with the Warsaw Pact.
8
“We’re the schmucks that are paying for the whole thing,” the president said. “I’ll see NATO and I’ll tell NATO, ‘You’ve got to start paying your bills.’”
Rather hypocritical coming from ... Donald Trump, 6 time bankrupt, scammer of many of his lenders, suppliers, workers and customers (Trump U, anybody?), and client of lawyers that he has been known to stiff on their bills.
Trump is the last guy in the world to be making such assertions.
The way you face this bully down is by throwing all of those demonstrable failures in his face, in public.
Hillary did not do that. She let him skate on his business record, which is pathetic. Had she done that, he would have "lost it" before the world. Whoever runs against him in 2020 (if he survives Mueller's investigation that long) should keep this in mind.
You cut him down to size by talking about all of his failures. He cannot handle that kind of ridicule.
12
Given Trump's outward admiration for the world's most disgusting autocrats, including Vladimir Putin, and his disconnect from our most enduring, and endearing allies, there is probably more than meets the eye.
With Trump's upcoming Helsinki meeting with Putin, one would be hardpressed to assume they won't be talking about video and audio recordings of Trump's callousness and sexual escapades during his visits to Moscow.
And with Trump's lack of understanding why NATO exists in the first place — to keep Europe and Scandinavia safe from Russian invasion — it appears Putin is telling Trump to let go of NATO and leave the Europeans and Scandinavians to fend for themselves against a massive Russian military force, or at least to allow Putin to start "revolutions" on the eastern borders of those countries.
This, I believe, is the covenent between Trump and Putin.
7
Trump is a bull in a china shop, which could be seen as unkind to bulls. That said, I can't understand liberals' unfailing willingness to rationalize and make excuses for either individuals, groups or entire countries who fail to act responsibly, live up to their obligations and/or who take advantage because they can. As uncouth as some find discussing it, sometimes money does matter. In this case, Europe's reliance on Article 5, and, therefore, our military might, has enabled the rise of their socialist states at our taxpayers' expense. And some of our friends' trade practices do add insult to injury. Maybe the time for infinite patience and benevolence must come to an end. Because of their unpredictability, dictators and despots have wielded outsized influence for decades. I'm not saying Trump is a dictator or a despot but he does seem to understand the value of unpredictability in a negotiation. He's not even asking for a proportional contribution, just that member countries live up to their agreements. I find it hard to argue with.
1
The NATO members have been increasing their share for a while, though Trump's recent pressure might have amped that up. In any case, I don't believe the sincerity of Trump's complaints -- they're more like useful excuses to help break up NATO.
Trump has said and done things suggesting he would like to break up NATO and help Putin.
3
In the Editorial Board's defense of NATO, they make inaccurate claims regarding its relevancy.
In the article, it is mentioned that NATO was created in order stop Soviet expansion and to prevent German aggression. They also claim that NATO was and still is a crucial factor in preventing WW3 from ever happening. Although these seem like valid reasons on the surface, they are both obviously invalid if you a bit dig deeper.
First of all, NATO is obsolete and irrelevant because its original objectives, the USSR and Germany, are neutralized threats. Germany is now a US ally and has a stable democracy, so there's no need to keep them down. As for the USSR, it doesn't exist anymore. There's no need for a containment effort of a much smaller and weaker modern day Russia, at least with US involvement. Their claim that NATO prevents WW3 from happening is also wrong. The deterring effect of nuclear weapons plays a much larger role in prevention. Another factor supporting the irrelevance of NATO is it is largely one sided. The US spends more of its GDP on defense than any of the other members of NATO. Why should the US fund the defense of other nations on its own?
This issue is most relevant now because it's clear that NATO no longer has any purpose and should either be dissolved or the US should withdraw. All it does is drain the US of its resources. An alliance that was meant to defend a weakened post WW2 Europe from threats that no longer exist has no place in the modern world.
6
The US pays 22% of NATO's operating budget of about $1.5Bn (i.e., $330 Mn), hardly a resource "drain" for a defense department budgeted at $686Bn.
This is the fourth comment I've seen noting that since the USSR no longer exists, there's no more need for NATO. None of these comments have mentioned the other missions that NATO has participated in since 1989, including missions, like Operation Enduring Freedom, for which the US requested NATO assistance. Over 1,100 allied troops died in combat in Afghanistan supporting our military mission there. It's nothing short of shameful to now claim that NATO should have been dissolved in 1989.
The anti-NATO comments have also noted how Russia is no longer a threat. (I wonder how the Ukrainians of the Crimea and eastern Ukraine feel about that assertion.) It is remarkable the extent to which this conforms with Trump's position on Russia. And Russia's.
3
trump doesn't want us educated folk to ask questions, so I will ask one: what is a country's "fair share?" How about another: where is this money held? I don't believe a word the guy says, but I have a feeling his supporters might be going forward alone, as he wants complete isolation from the rest of the world. Again, when the guy and his party embrace NK and Russia and take swipes at Canada? You guys are in trouble, but what we have in our back pocket is more people voted for Hillary.
6
I think a point that bears repeating is that Trump did not come out of the blue. The GOP has nurtured white identity politics for decades, using it for political gain, even as it has undermined the American social contract. Trump was the logical outcome of these kind of policies - an open xenophobe and racist who is loved by Republican supporters because he says openly what they have always believed. Blaming foreigners for problems caused by and created in the US is an easy strategy for nationalists; under such conditions, Trump and his supporters have nothing but suspicion and hatred towards anyone who is not like "them." This includes, of course, most "foreigners", who are the core of American alliances.
RE: NATO in particular: it is ironic that it was the expansion of NATO - in defiance of promises made by the West to Russia - that helped convince Putin that he had to strike back against Western domination. It has also been the West's propensity to use NATO to enact violence against other states that has inspired pushback. NATO remains essential to Western security, but it has also been the spear pointed at the heart of other countries. At the least, it needs reform and better control.
3
Of course NATO matters. It has in effect continued the cold war with the ever existing possibility of a hot war.
4
Let me put this another way: NATO matters if you know what NATO is and does, but I doubt many Trump supporters do--or even Trump himself, who appears to have a much greater affinity and respect for the world authoritarians and dictators (e.g., Putin) than for our longstanding democratic allies.
Of course, Trumpsters and the far right have no respect for settled law either, or ethics, civility, diplomacy, compassion, thoughtfulness, consideration of others, or even family bonds. They simply enjoy running around and breaking things.
We got it from the far left in the 1960s with the Weathermen and "burn baby burn," and we have been getting it from the far right from the 1980s on, most especially from Trump and the tea party GOP.
3
NATO is a dinosaur. It needs to be brought up to date. The United States should not be paying the lion's share of upkeep nor should our military personnel be first on tap should there be an incident. WWII was a long time ago. Germany should be encouraged to rebuild an army and an air force. The Germans are too parsimonious. They need to open the pocket book more and pay for their own defense.
4
Many of us grew up during the Cold War. Things have changed since. There is no longer a Soviet Union. The "great Russian threat" is a paper tiger, as Russia has an economy the size of Italy, composed mainly of selling natural resources and weapons.
You remember "what if they had a war and no one came?" Russia does not want a war; they simply don't want to be surrounded. Nato should have been disbanded with the Warsaw Pact. That is was not is testimony to the natural trend of bureaucracies to extent their useless lives.
12
Not indeed. Russia just wants to annex or occupy neighboring countries or parts thereoff.
5
As noted in the editorial, NATO has participated in other combined missions besides against the Soviet Union, e.g., NATO interceded in the Balkan genocides in the 1990s and in Operation Enduring Freedom--- the 2001 US-initiated invasion of Afghanistan to destroy Al Queda.
Our NATO allies contributed troops, materiel, logistical support, and bases from which to mount our war.
"What if they had a war and no one came?" is a lovely thought, but not very realistic in a world with some not so very lovely countries. As you claim, Russia does not want a war, but so long as it gets territory like the Crimea and eastern Ukraine from other nations without a war; otherwise, they're happy to hire paramilitary forces and support them with their own resources.
Could anything be more shortsighted than degrading our military alliances while playing nuclear chicken with North Korea, Iran, and other nations every night on the news. I know, I know: the nuclear threat from NK is over. Right?
2
People are "wondering whether the American president is intent on wrecking [NATO]?
Wondering?
Everything Trump says and has done related to NATO involves his contempt for this wonderful organization.
Trump is unencumbered by historical memory. He recognizes no moral, political or strategic commitments. He feels free to pursue objectives without regard to the effect on allies or, for that matter, the world. He has no sense of responsibility to anything beyond himself.
The world according to Trump in relation to NATO follows several nutshell themes:
-Allied nations are weak and deserve to be mistreated;
-Dictators are strong and deserve to be admired. -Immigrants and people of color are worthless hoods.
-Rich people are leaders and should be respected;
-Poor people are losers and should not be respected nor dealt with honestly.
-The future does not exist, and therefore actions should be based on the here and now;
-Trump’s finger is to the wind, always. If prevailing winds of at least 2/3 of the majority of the U.S. feel strongly about something, that alone is sufficient to change Trump’s position on any topic.
-If you bow down to Trump, you will be part of the Trump team.
-Anything Barack Obama did should be undone.
Why anyone admires Trump is anyone's guess.
7
Sometime during US involvement in World War I, a peace activist threw up his hand in the air and commented, “War is the health of the State”.
Reading the opinion piece and the comments that follows, it is time to rewrite as, “A fearsome enemy provides a healthy nation”.
The Pentagon budget is $800 billion and climbing. Recently, without any debate, $80 billion increment was made. This amount would have, for people in an alternate planet, provided free college education for public universities.
Today, by historical circumstance, Republicans are a working class party. It is them, not us - NYT readers, who are most hurt by war and government waste on F-35. Trump would prefer to sit down with adversaries and work out a peace plan and obtain a peace dividend. [Obama did that with Iran]
You left out a very interesting detail. In 1954, USSR applied to the membership of NATO. It wanted to end the cold war then and there. But it was denied.
Peace in Europe is based on Unity against a Fearsome Enemy. Trump and his working class supporters do not understand that!
3
I'm sure that in his wildest dreams Vladimir Putin could not have imagined an American president acting as a puppet for him and his anti-American, anti-democracy agenda. Well, he doesn't have to dream about it now because it's actually happening. The question is why.
Trump has a history of extremely profitable business dealings with Putin's stooge oligarchs which he has shrouded in secrecy and repeatedly and publicly lied about. Those oligarchs have supplied him with hundreds of millions in bailouts, much of that in cash or through Deutsche Bank which was laundering BILLIONS of dirty Russian money.
You do not have to be a conspiracy crank to see the very obvious connection between Putin's money and Trump's blatant and slavish subservience to him.
This is the elephant in the room that far too many Democrats and far too many members of the media are not addressing. They need to start doing so before it is too late because there are probably no bounds to Trump's corruption and sell-out of his country.
6
Trump isn't destroying NATO for Putin the "no pay" countries like Germany are doing it for Putin https://www.dw.com/en/german-military-short-on-tanks-for-nato-mission/a-...
Maybe the germans should spent some of their time at least repairing their military instead of exporting their BWM's and Audi's to the US? Hey they might even find a diesel motor that doesn't require cheating to pass clean air tests.
4
Suddenly the Times and it’s liberal readers are huge advocates for the Militarily-Industrial Complex. Even more, they want to borrow and spend even more billions projecting American military into bases in foreign sovereign countries.
Talk about irony. We conservatives want to save money and cut the deficit by reducing our military footprint in sovereign countries we’ll able to pay for their own defense.
But the liberal left’s hatred of Trump won’t join in what is obviously their previous agenda, and instead wants increased military spending and American interference in foreign lands.
Cognitive dissonance lives.
4
The problem is most NATO countries getting a free ride by hiding behind the US as world policeman.
If the US doesn't even address the problem of underfunding how is it to be solved?
BTW I suppose Trump haters will spin this as something Russia wants US to do.
Pathetic
4
"... Mr. Trump would do well to make that commitment, and honor the friends we have." Why on earth would he do this as he doesn't care, comprehend or honor the collaborative relationships that America has long nurtured and cherished as cornerstones of a world order which respects and fosters trust, civility, cooperation and integrity. Trump has a world vision where he makes nice with the likes of murderous thugs and despots - in his eyes these are the apparent allies and international partners he would form alliances with. Not surprising given his own personal dynamics and his flagrant praise for the world's dictators. Sad and appalling to watch this buffoon in action where the world can observe his boorish, arrogant and ignorant antics.
1
This just dawned on me. Could Trump's relationship (?) with Putin and his desire to suppress news of collusion with Putin, et. al, be his motivation to dissolve NATO, in favor of a US/Russian axis?
I never envisioned the scenario of the US being part of a cabal of bad hombres.
1
Most of those same European socialist “Nanny States” also ordered their “Nanny State” policemen to arrest and deliver their Jewish populations to the Germans to be exported in cattle cars to the German extermination and labor camps.
The French government even ordered their policemen to arrest and deliver some of their young male French citizens to the Germans to be exported to National Socialist Germany as conscript (slave) laborers in the German munitions factories during WWII according to the History Channel.
NATO was intended to be “one-for-all, all-for-one” but it actually is the "USA for the defense of all Europeans, and a small amount of support from the Europeans to support European Defense (from Russia), and nothing from the Europeans to support the defense of the USA?"
2
For the love of God, please give me proof that Trump is not the Manchurian candidate. If he is not then he must be a malevolent version of "Chauncey Gardiner" i the movie "Being There". Either way can the Republicans do something to constrain this Twitter addicted troll who believes all of the tripe spewed by Fox "News".
1
For the love of God, please give me proof that Trump is not the Manchurian candidate. If he is not then he must be a malevolent version of "Chauncey Gardiner" in the movie "Being There". Either way can the Republicans do something to constrain this Twitter addicted troll who believes all of the tripe spewed by Fox "News".
4
In light of Trump having been elected to the Presidency over a year ago, I don't think that any rational person in the world thinks NATO doesn't matter anymore. NATO is an anti-fascism organization, really, and Trump is seen everywhere as a dictator in the making. Obviously he wants to dismantle NATO! Decades ago, the pro-democracy elements within NATO probably unconsciously grated on his innate sensibilities, hence the birth of the imbecilic Trumpian theory of country club dues not being paid in full. Or whatever. Now even he knows it's all a load of garbage as he spouts it to his base, because his all-consuming aim is to work with Putin to tear down the West; Trump's position, and that of his family, are about to become very tenuous as their traitorous crimes are revealed one by one. All he cares to do is save his fortune and keep himself and his people out of prison. What an inspirational agenda with which to advance American society into the future.
2
Trump is Russia's loose cannon to destroy the Western alliance that has served Europe and the world well since 1946. His behavior is totally predictable: always do the WRONG thing.
The French remember the Nazi occupation. That's why French voters knew what they were seeing when Marine Le Pen went to Moscow to thank Putin for his influx of money to the Front National just before the presidential election.
The British were not occupied, and they're seeing this used against them through the entire Brexit movement. The truth about who funded Brexit is now coming out, although anybody could see that it would not benefit Britain while weakening a united Europe.
The sleazy underbelly of Trumpism...and its sponsors in Moscow...will be display in London during Trump's visit through Islamophobic ridicule of its mayor, Saddiq Khan.
Hate and fear are the currency of Putin and Company...and their new best friends, the American Republican Party. Don't let them win.
3
NATO does matter, to all those who want a free and safe world, without menace or threat from Russia or the U.S.
Times have changed since 1949. Trump denigrates NATO's founding principles: a mutual defense pledge, democratic governance, the rule of law, civil and human rights, and an open international economy. Trump loves Russia and hates Europe.
Trump should not be allowed to participate in the upcoming meeting --he's a conduit to Putin.
Russia's doing military drills in the Baltic and Black Seas, has a firm alliance with Turkey, a warming one with Bulgaria, and has made clear they will aggressively pursue getting their former lands back, and more.
Trump, threatening to "re-arrange" NATO vessels, could use them for non-NATO purposes--guarding Russian oil tankers and military ops, and blocking trade by "perceived" enemy nations. No one in the U.S. government has the will to stop him.
He'd block Iran, but what about Ecuador? Just yesterday he threatened tariffs on their trade at the World Health Organization for voting that mother's breast milk was best for infants.
He doesn't care about babies, just about American baby formula makers' revenue stream.
The U.S receives a lot for being a NATO member...worldwide strategic placement and over $1 trillion dollars in trade, for starters. (link:https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/16/world/trump-military-role...
Europe and Canada must strengthen their armies--now.
2
I can't stand Trump, he is an evil being.
That said, he's right about NATO spending. Germany, Canada and Italy each spend roughly one percent of GDP on their military. This is half of what's agreed to. They've been doing it for years and they need to pay up!
The Allies were unable to defend against Nazi aggression in WWII because their military was woefully underfunded.
We've wasted a trillion dollars on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to stay out of stupid, pointless wars, while at the same time having a strong defense.
1
Nobody is saying NATO doesn’t matter. What some of us are saying is that our finger-wagging friends in Europe who can afford to lecture us about their moral superiority and social evolution need to reckon with the fact that we are the ones paying for and guaranteeing their freedom to engage in their little social experiments.
So it’s time to pay your club dues, European friends. You smugly complain we are imperialist pigs and then cry for our help when it becomes apparent we are leaving you to fend for yourselves unless you live up to the treaties you signed. Oh the humanity of having to follow through on your word—the true nightmare of any cowards.
2
Donald will ask if his BFF Putin can be added to NATO because he's to stupid to understand that Russia is one of the reasons that NATO exists.
Yes it would be nice if all the members paid their fair share but better that NATO exist's then it didn't.
More then ever NATO needs to increase their cyber division to counter Russia no matter what Trump says.
2
Trump is the last person who should be negotiating American interests in NATO. If he is a Russian shill, and there are good reasons to believe he is, and he turns his foul and abusive non-mind to NATO's destruction, the world will be badly hurt.
America is not only fighting the ineptitude of Trump but that of the Republican Party. Both are committing treason.
3
Mr. Trump - who seams to be intent on pulling the US out of any and every intl agreement and/or alliance the country signed and joined prior to his administration - one must assume is intellectually incapable or unwilling to grasp the importance and value of historic bonds and world order established post WWII. By setting his preference with Mr. Putin (hoping to profit personally from this relationship) over Europe and NATO, he is being detrimental not only to the security of the alliance but also that of his own country.
3
Our system allowed an ignorant self absorbed buffoon to be elected president. All his actions now play to his equally ignorant base who cheerfully buy into his lies. Those Republican leaders who fully understand the damage he is doing are cowards who either withdraw by not running or quiver in fear of an ignorant president and his ignorant base. Democrats have a real opportunity to save the country in the midterms but I fear they are moving too far left and will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
4
Putin wants NATO gone and trump gets his orders from Putin. lock him up!!
6
Dear Times' Editorialists: another error here -- there's not one reference to the dollars involved. None. Zero.
Thanks to the "deep state," the USA taxpayer debt is the worst since WWII, with Asia rising.
Pray tell, friends -- where's the money for all your ideas, going to come from?
Seriously -- y'all and Bernie Sanders ought to get out some calculators and do some numbers.
Or are y'all afraid, after doing them, y'all will quit the Democrats and become Republicans? LOL
2
Maybe the Republicans should not have just voted for a huge tax break for two groups that least need it, the rich and corporations. Doesn't sound like they care at all about the debt.
2
If we look at the country debt, by rough estimate every American owns $65,000. Let's spend more! Let's buy more security!
Wonderful, the GOP in power turns out to mean they are spineless jellyfish when standing up to the Russian-controlled president and his irrational, racist base. They don't care about us or our country. Apparently all they care about are accomplishing whatever harms the country the most and retaining their own seats. Cowards, not leaders, leeches as they rely only on the largess of government paychecks and all the insider knowledge that enables them to retain and make more wealth. We need real leaders, leaders with courage and conviction, and with the spines to stand up to our traitorous Russian-controlled prez--real leaders like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Vote in November for real leaders, oust Trump's lap dogs.
3
Sure NATO matters but that's not the problem here. Trump has made it clear he doesn't want to work with European allies on anything. Period. It's purely personal. He hates being in a room with people who think he is a moron whom he cannot belittle for thinking that. At home he makes sure he is always surrounded by sycophants who, if they think he is stupid, would never dare let it show.
3
So as I've commented before, the 29 countries who constitute NATO are homes to many, if not most of our forebears. These are people to whom we owe our lives, our principles and character, and our hopes, aspirations and fulfillments. If not for their tenacity in seeking asylum from persecution, hardship from famine or pestilence or a myriad of impossible conditions, our country would be indistinguishable from any other. Nothing unique about the last hotel and restaurant on the edge of what used to be civilization.
But the world is not so, largely because we are not a solitary species, but rather thrive in our communities. NATO countries have been the recipients of many of our gifts of loans and aid but this has not been charity. Rather it is the repayment of centuries of our coming of age on this planet Earth, possibly the only refuge for intelligent life in the Universe.
Now, in the last few months we have seen almost everything we have valued been kicked to the curb as if stale and worthless. The things of little value are the paltry language which pejoratively regards most of us…at least 67%…in terms larcenous of our self-esteem, religious autonomy and individual emancipation, which is essential to the strength of us as a Nation.
Who are these monsters, who seek only to destroy so they can suck their poison from the rotting corpses of their victims lives?
We know who they are.
3
I sincerely hope the allies are forming a plan to replace the U.S. in their defense planning. They will need conviction. Putin's Russia will not stand idle while Trump putters our allied strength away. He will be looking for any opening he can to further divide and conquer this greatest of alliances. It is a shame we have elected such a blind and stupid leader.
4
I wonder if all these war hawks petrified of Russia invading Europe and taking over the world have gotten out in the last decade or so.
It’s embarrassing, really.
Imagine Trump having to talk to Putin with half of our country believing Trump is Hitler and Putin is the anti-Christ.
The Russia hysteria is what Europeans are really snickering about and wondering how so many can be so hysterical at the same time.
2
Actually not so -- I was just in Europe and the people I talked to felt Trump probably did collaborate with Putin, and had no regard for either one of them.
2
During the Cold War decades the NYTimes published reams of text opposing the very existence of NATO. Perhaps because it was anti-Soviet. What changed, on the ground? Today's NATO is clearly, although clumsily, anti-Russia. Today's Russia is no one's idea of an ideal state, but only fools could deny that it is a far better one than the USSR. The NYT's lack of judgment is staggering.
3
Let the liberal mandarins not play hypocrisy here: NATO was created over 60 years ago to contain a country and a threat that simply do not exist (and have not for decades) - that of the USSR invasion into Europe and beyond. Why is my money being continually wasted on some hundreds of thousands of JI Joes' and their fams' 3-year long European vacations, while to roads in my own country are crumbling, the schools are under-equipped, and 45M poor are roaming w/out health care? What / who are we containing in Europe? You see, the Germans, Frenchies, and the like are smarter than us: they do NOT even contribute 2% of their GDP to their own defense. Why? - simple: they do not see a credible threat on the horizon. All that wrist wrangling about Putin's aggression breaks down against that simple fact: the Europeans themselves do not believe it, as they do not invest adequately into their military. Once again, they are free-loading on the American grandiosity and frankly stupidity.
5
C'm on, guys. NATO has been a joke for a while. Maybe it made sense to let them slide on paying their fair share after World War II, when Europe was recovering from the war's devastation. But these days, the NATO countries are prospering and there is no reason why they should stiff us when it comes to the cost of a common defense.
These days, NATO armies couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to facing real enemies like Russia, Iran and the Islamist menace. Indeed, much of Europe is meekly surrendering to a de facto invasion by the latter.
1
"Mr. Trump would do well to make that commitment, and honor the friends we have." The word honor does not belong to any sentence that includes the word t rump.
"The alliance was the core of an American-led liberal world order that extended to Asia" and t rump's very base base will shout out "We don't need no stinking 'liberal' anything..."
Military and civilian leader around the world wonder if this so called president has an idea that doesn't involve destruction of the world's existing order.
Our military leaders are wondering whether this so called president is ruining the morale of our military with his peevish expulsions of immigrants from its ranks.
Millions of Americans are wondering if there will be anything left of the tenuous threads that hold this Nation together when this petulant so called man child is done smashing up the china shop.
And the republican congress stands mute with their hands over their eyes, ears and mouths whispering "I see no evil, I hear no evil I speak no evil" I'm just letting this evil fester and spread because I am too cowardly to stand up to a pretender with a small minority of US at his back.
Democracies are sometimes given the chance to avoid a fascist state by using the ballot. History tells us after that it takes bullets and bombs.
This November is our last chance at the ballot box. We had better take it. Vote like your life and the lives of your children depend on it. Because they do.
2
NATO? Trump even oppose babies to be breast fed! We really would think he understands anything about NATO?
USA, this is a loose, loose cannon, out of control, no matter what he touches.
And to think he has the authority to power the judicial system for generations In our country on this day, too.
A sick country. A bad Monday. But has there been a good one since January 21, 2017?
2
I'm stunned! Is this the NYTimes Editorial Board, bastion of liberalism and the left as so many say? Yes, Nato definitely served as a counter to the Soviet Union, since then it has served as blank check support for US militarism in the places that you mention. Russia's has an economy the size of the Italy's and despite the war mongering of this newspaper, has no designs on the rest of Europe. It has a hard enough time holding together Russia itself. The promised peace dividend that would come with the collapse of the Soviet Union never materialized. Our sponsorship of criminal regimes and dictatorships which oppress and make a mockery of our supposed interest in democracy and human rights has not abated. We have not used our hegemony to work for peace, democracy, and human rights. Instead we have fostered instability and exported war - endless war - against the indefinable enemy "terrorism". The Nato alliance has made Europe complicit.
And why on earth would European nations need to spend 2% of their GDP on a military that has no equal adversary? France alone spends nearly as much as Russia on the military. If media outlets like the NYTimes woulld stop supporting unnecessary fear and militarism, we could reshape this world through the promotion of a tiered free trade system based upon democratic values, human rights, and environmental improvement. Sure, Trump is in no danger of doing this, but the status quo certainly hasn't worked.
3
Last month we visited Vilnius, Lithuania for the third time (where family is from and a few still reside) and St. Petersburg, Russia for the first time.
Between August 1941 and January 1944, Germany laid siege to Leningrad, killing over 600,000, mostly through starvation. The Soviet Union lost 25 million people. My mother's family became refugees because of WW 2 and lost everything, not unlike today's tens of millions of displaced.
In the weeks following Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union, Einsatzkommando, with the help of the Lithuanian Riflemen's Union rounded up and then slaughtered Lithuania's Jews, mentally ill, disabled, trade unionists and socialists. It was over in just a few months. Yet Holocaust denial is alive and well in Lithuania.
Lithuania now hosts NATO. In Kazlu Ruda, a small town where parts of my family originated, we'd receive text messages to stay off certain roads because of military exercises, which included German troops. There were tens of thousands of soldiers involved in the weeks of exercises.
US Secretary of State Jim Baker and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl assured the Russians that NATO would not expand even one inch to the east. The rest, as they say, is history.
There is but one superpower that seeks to maintain global hegemony. This so-called liberal world order extolled in this editorial now has SEVEN hot wars going on and has created tens of millions of displaced persons.
Wars-R-Us. People want peace. Abolish NATO.
3
The NATO has the worst kind of leadership.
Imagine if they were running an NBA team. They would decline to recruit LeBron James and Shaquille O’Neal because they were courting several lightweight players tall between 5’ and 5’-6”…
Instead of signing up Russia, the largest country in the world with the most significant energy and mineral resource reserves they put on the team roster countries like Poland, Hungary and Croatia that are now openly dismantling the independency of the judicial system, reviving the ancient chauvinistic worldviews, erecting the barbed wire fences to block the refugees running from the chaos and carnage in their native countries, openly celebrating the Nazi collaborators from the WWII era, or giving the city streets the names of the war criminals from the same period that were directly responsible for the deaths of dozens thousands innocent civilians…
Those members were instrumental in spoiling our relationship with Moscow over the last decade.
Any bad consequences of such foolish actions?
If the West was closed to Kremlin, it might be forced to turn eastward and rely upon alliance with China.
Wouldn’t it be extremely tough to compete with the opponent that assembled on their roster the most populous country in the world with the one that has the largest territory?
Shouldn’t the general managers be capable of the strategic thinking and planning?
1
Donald Trump is a rogue capitalist with absolutely no sense of allegiance to any country when it comes to investing his money.
Why should Trump's hostility towards NATO and the European Union come as any surprise at this point ? He has expressed his violent contempt of these entities on numerous occasions, whilst adopting a fawning attitude towards autocrats all over the world.
Connect the dots : Donald Trump and his cohorts are enemies of representative democracy and the state of Pax Americana which have graced the Western world since 1945.
He is obviously seeking personal financial gain facilitated by destroying entire swaths of the economy in countries which he feels do not pay 'their share sufficiently -- the wanton destructiveness of a vandal.
2
Everyone is pinning their hopes for the future on Robert Mueller, but the real heroes of this story include James Mattis. He is busy doing the hard work of keeping his head down and staying out of Trump's way, while maintaining force readiness and quietly shelving those orders which are downright harmful and passing fancies. I'm sure he is working behind the scenes and has his fingers in many dikes.
3
Where are Republicans to advise this president?
It is interesting how RT, and the Russian Trolls, are so focused on getting the US out of NATO.
Destroying NATO is a key piece of recapturing the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, forcing Ukraine into submission, and attacking Poland yet again (4 times in about 100 years?). Nonsense.
Russian birth rates are still declining, men drink themselves to death by the age of 54, on average. Extensive drug addiction among Russian armed forces that began in earnest in Afghanistan has accelerated.
Russians are drunk and drug addicted because they live in the post Soviet police state. Just let them drink and drug themselves to extinction.
The NATO summit is already a major success in Trump's mind because it's already all about him. Now, it doesn't matter (to him) what stupid, offensive things he does or says this week, and he'll do/say plenty.
3
"This president has shown no understanding of the power of partnership, and the reciprocal nature of its bonds, ..."
Exactly. This man has a long history of treating not only customers but business partners as suckers using tactics like overcharging massively for 'management fees' so that when he and his partners go bankrupt he still walks away with tens of millions.
He does not believe in win-win deals that benifit both sides, the essence of alliances and partnerships. He sees life as zero-sum, where either you win all or you are a loser. That is why he wants each negotiation unilateral, so that he can bully weaker countries one at a time without any others benefitting. In the end that is how he will fail.
As he has often done before he is bankrupting his business. He is bankrupting the American Presidency.
4
Look at what an international team is accomplishing in Thailand, rescuing those children from that cave.
Only a fool would insult and trash our allies or try to destroy a great alliance that has contributed so much to peace in the world.
That fool would be Donald Trump, carrying out the destructive wishes of Vladimir Putin.
5
Other NATO countries haven’t even come close to 2% for decades while we are the chumps that pay close to 4%. They use the trillions saved to provide their citizens free college and health care while we can’t even provide proper health care to our vets.
Yet the Times mocks Trump. Unbelievable.
3
Jay you sort of have a point, except for the fact that you must know that if they did pay their fair share, the party in power has no intention of improving peoples lives, and that is shown in their budget. So I could stand there and agree with you - but if you think that would translate into a better quality of life for US citizens or veterans specifically then you havent been paying attention. I truly wish you well and would stand with you as a Patriot if I thought that would happen.
1
Of all of Trump's follies, sticking his thumb in the eyes of our allies is one of the most egregious.
He is limiting American power and influence anew with every breath he takes and every tweet he makes.
Making America great again? What a joke.
2
Our next president will have to devote his/her 4 yr term to undoing all of the evil deeds Trump has done during this term. That a waste.
1
I love to pay higher taxes to subsidize European countries defense on their behalf. Like most Americans, I have way too much money and love to help the European governments divert their resources from self-defense to modernizing their infrastructure, providing benefits on behalf of employers, subsidizing their manufacturers, and otherwise enjoy competitive advantages against my country.
NATO - what an opportunity to bankrupt America to benefit other rich 1st World countries.
Have you any idea of just how many countries are currently paying 2% of their GDP to NATO, and which ones they are???
Start there.
Google it.
1
NATO has been an important force in the world since the ending of WWII. Trump and others may believe that NATO's time and relevance is over. They are wrong. Just because the generation that lived through, fought in, died during, and survived after WWII is now dying doesn't make NATO irrelevant. The immediacy of what WWII was has receded but not the need for organizations like NATO. If it does nothing else it reminds us that each country needs the others and it reinforces the importance of allies that are willing to help in a time of crisis.
I would not want to live in a world without NATO. But I am afraid that as the memories of what WWII did to countries, people, economies, etc., die, so too will NATO and the understanding of why world wars are a terrible thing to endure. No country is powerful enough to stand alone any longer.
3
Trump does not want to get rid of NATO he just wants the bum nations to pay up. If NATO is of value then pay for it.
Nato is a better joke since 1991. Since the fall of Eastern Europe's Communism there should have been a decision by all European governments involved to disband Nato. My guess is that the American military pressured Washington to keep Nato further on in existence. Then the European governments caved in too.
If you think of all the money being wasted since 1991 you get a flawed feeling in your stomach. Trump's intentions to prep up Nato now is only led by his pervert thinking he has to "Punish Europeans" with all means possible.
This is not policy, it is plain and dumb terror, for nothing good. Sorry, to tell you that.
2
These insult laden Trump Deranged hit editorials are:
1. insulting to the intelligence of any well read reader, including non-Trump fans &
2. lie-based cover propaganda for the military-industrial project run through the Neocon/Neoliberal machinery that gives us the lies about Russia being responsible for every problem of our corporate politics.
NATO is not all that. It is an endless cash now for defense contractors, and for grifter governments in places like Poland where you have buy loyalty from militarists. And although the fact that it has been counter-productive by constantly threatening a non-threatening Russia since the 1989 peaceful, exemplary collapse of the USSR, no mention of that is made here. This is more neoliberal corporate dreck. I suggest readers go look at some Jimmy Dore on Youtube.
3
NATO is an Imperialist organization and has greatly outlived it’s purpose. As far as I am concerned NATO should have came to an end when the Warsaw Pact came to an end.
2
The NATO cannot defend us from the worst and most dangerous threat. It cannot even recognize the real enemy – our own hubris, conceit and ego…
I have been following the editorials and reader’s comments full of self-assurance, absolute certainty and lack of any doubt - all of them ripe with “unquestionable ultimate wisdom and mastery of the world affairs”.
Then you remember that throughout the entire world history all the humans have failed to recognize their own weaknesses and stupidity that have saddled us with the endless wars…
The leaders that have pushed us into the worst quagmires are celebrated as the most important historic figures.
Those who settled the differences with negotiations and compromises are remembered as weak and irrelevant ones…
It’s not the gun manufacturers that kill the dozens millions people but the politicians, the academics, the historians, the clergy, the editors, the journalists, the teachers, the directors and the producers that create the wrongful social mantra….
2
The Allies are just going to have to stand by the American people in our time of trouble.
At this point, I feel we're occupied by an enemy— a domestic enemy whose twin goals are to destroy our government and obliterate the spirit of the people.
7
Trump has made quite a show about increasing US defense spending, and adding specifically to the US Navy. That's great, but who are we defending against?
Yeah.
Quit dissing NATO. The Russians will kill you if they get the chance. Don't give it to them.
2
The future is being handed to China who will not even need a military. Economic power, the debt they hold, cyberwarfare, sagacity and the chaos being created worldwide by Trump and company are all they need.
1
That Trump debases our country with nearly every utterance, does not mean that NATO does not need restructuring. It does.
Europe's GDP is ~ the same as the US GDP.
Europe's population is greater than that of the US.
Clearly European nations have the means to assume a greater share of their own defense obligations. They have chosen not to do so.
My guess is that most European nationals do not feel threatened enough to change their funding priorities from domestic social programs to emphasize defense spending. That probably is not true of the Baltics and former Soviet vassal states, but probably is more true of western and southern Europe.
Obviously, one can make analogies to the unpreparedness of most of Europe to defend themselves against Germany 70 odd yrs ago. While the UK's Battle of Britain secured the island from invasion, at best the UK would have been starved into surrender were it not for the US.
Just as obviously, Germany would not have been defeated had not the Russians stopped them. Yes, Russia, the signatory to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Once Hitler invaded Russia, Stalin's armies destroyed the best of Hitler's armies.
What's the point?
The point is that European nations have never been prepared to defend their borders since WWI. They depend on the intervention of others to stop aggression.
That does not make either Trump or US defense spending the correct path. But it certainly explains the frustration that many Americans have with NATO.
1
Typical threats by the ego maniac demagogue Trump, ie only I know how to run Nato and it will be run to make me look good and make me money with obscene military budgets with contracts me and my cronies will have with companies.
People can argue about what the future of Nato should be now that the USSR is gone.
It should be an org. that helps makes the USA safe and other like minded nations not a sounding board for the ego maniac demagogue Trump.
1
Trump is the Siberian candidate, quite literally Putin's Puppet. He is doing the bidding of Russia. There is absolutely no benefit to the USA in weakening NATO, or for that matter the trade alliances of NAFTA, European Union, China, and existing treaties like the Iran Nuclear Deal, acting contrary to international and US law. It is inconceivable that one inept, corrupt, illegitimately installed individual could so wantonly wreck global alliances and the economy, ironically using the strong economy that his predecessors (thanks Obama!) created as ammunition. Secret meeting with Putin, with no notetakers or advisers? Clearly he is making a deal that Putin will keep him in power (that is, manipulate the Midterms and 2020) in exchange for Trump ending those pesky sanctions.
2
When the other NATO members pull their weight financially, then maybe NATO will be and organization worth supporting.
1
"Mr. Trump has a singular view of NATO as a transactional relationship in which members pay for protection." Gangster diplomacy
1
Trump will brief Putin about the NATO summit meeting, China, real estate opportunity, and 2020 election.
2
Misinformed, Trump's animus towards NATO highlights his recklessness. Sealed off from truth, he's all blather--having called NATO obsolete, yet unaware it fights terrorism. Painfully ignorant of facts, his disdain for expertise will be his downfall. Perhaps ours as well.
We ceased being a respected world power the day he was elected. The elephant in the room is that he's doing the bidding of Vladimir Putin. And truly in keeping with his conspiratorial ideations, Trump will leave Europe in the cold.
A complicit GOP Congress & Senate remain on permanent vacation from evolving realities of a man threatening democracy. Has this president ever been burdened to prove or correct false statements? How could the most uniformed man in recent history continue this destructive path, GOP?
4
The people of Europe are no longer willing to support the endless American NATO wars of aggression that are flooding their nations with refugees as well as maiming and slaughtering so many thousands of innocent civilians.
1
A weak NATO, sabotaged from within on a bogus pretext of cost-sharing, suits Putin. He has carefully played his chess pieces over the last four years - through surrogates and cyber-warfare in Western Europe and massive interference in the 2016 election to help put Trump in the White House. Trump's attacks on NATO are plausibly part of the same agenda as imposing tariffs on western allies with a false excuse of national security. The NYT seems too ready to take Trump at face value as limited in his thinking to covering costs of a golf resort. What about treason as an explanation for his approach?
3
Trump treats the United States like we are a discount store on the verge of bankruptcy. It is a complete projection of his psyche. Only a fool would follow him. Vote every Republican out and restore sanity to this still great nation.
4
Don't you get it! Obama got the NATO to commit to 2% of GDP for defense. They essentially blew him off and continued to free load off the American tax payer. Trump is not against NATO, he simply wants them to own up to their commitment for their own defense.
To all those who say pay up or else, or else what? Do you want to see Russian tanks in Berlin again? Putin’s plan is being executed brilliantly by Trump.
1
If they don’t want to pay for their own defense, they better learn to like vodka.
It’s fine with me.
We’ve been to Berlin - twice that I recall. 600,000 dead soldiers and sailors is enough.
I don't recall any time in all the moronic things Trump has said tweeted or intimated during his campaign that would take us out of NATO. This is absurd and if his base doesn't get that then maybe the right to vote should denied those who can't identify a fact from a cartoon.
2
Past its expiration date, the 69er North Atlantic Treaty Organization waves well past the North Atlantic with wars of aggression from Afghanistan to Syria with rockets red glare and bombs bursting over Yemen. Organized in 1949, followed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1955, with a defense treaty, The Warsaw Pact, of counties under their sphere of influence that had been used for previous British, French and German invasions through their partner countries for invasion and occupation of Russia. As Germany became whole and Russian influence waned, the Warsaw pact dissolved in 1991. N.A.TO. should do the same, echoing General Douglas MacArthur's remembrance of a popular soldier song: "Old soldiers never die they just fade away."
2
NATO matters because Putin is a gangster eager to shake down former Soviet Republics. He also wants to expand his influence in Europe and the Middle East. Russia's economy is the size of Italy's and has very little to offer the world other than fossil fuels, vodka, caviar, and second rate military equipment. But why confine yourself to legitimate business when you can intimidate your neighbors.
No one wins if there's a full scale shooting war between well matched adversaries, so war is very unlikely. Economic sanctions are far more potent and hit the bottom line of Putin and his cronies. Weakening NATO and the western alliance serves Putin's goals and potentially enriches his gang of kleptocrats.
Unfortunately, Trump is the perfect tool to advance Putin's agenda. But one has to wonder if Trump is a co-conspirator or an unwitting fool.
4
We are headed for a hellscape dystopian future. Unlike the European fascists of world war 2, these won't even "make the trains run on time".
The time for civilized action is pretty much over. Massive voter suppression in GOP controlled states( some majority Dem), gerrymamdering (corrupting House ), the electoral college, voting machines sloppily secured , easily hackable with no papertrail , and owned by GOP friendly , firms and a Senate that oveewhwlmingly privieledges small, conservative areas over the vast majority of the population in larger population centers. This pretty much guarantees we be largely dictatated to by a small conservative and fact immune minority does not share the values of most of. Too much is riding blue wave which will only be able to do somuch.
Let’s see, the NATO matters more than ever. Got it. NATO matters as much if not more to its European members and the rest of the world. Got it.
But not all of this bunch — in fact, only a small proportion of them — ponies up.
Don’t got it.
Sorry, but it’s way past time to go after these deadbeats.
1
Bertrand Russel (Unpopular Essays) argued that democracy is the bi-product of free enterprise, and not the other way around. Free enterprise requires laws in countries and agreements between countries to ensure free flow of trade of goods, ideas, knowledge, etc., and to ensure it is free from undue state influnce. UN & NATO were created mainly with the US leadership and its western allies. Both organizations ensured stability and, with limits, world order. This helped give raise to the economies of the US and many other countries. The peace and stability allowed other countries, like China and India, to join in the success of the global economy. If the UN and NATO become weak and less effective, eventually the US economy would suffer. This would in turn impact the very idea of democracy and we would be going to the good old days of imperialism and winner/powerful takes all global order. It must be noted, the US and western allies have benefited the most out of these two alliances/organizations, US & NATO!
1
Trump is transactional. He doesn't understand the concept of cooperation. He wants instant gratification. If you can't give me what I want now, then don't count on me to help you when you need me.
He thinks America is invincible. She can go to war by herself without any help. Trump has a gangster mentality because he is a thug.
He would rather cooperate with other thugs, like Putin, than stand up to him on principle.
1
"Defending Muslims in the Balkans"?
Like at Srebrenica? NATO was a bit late on that one.
Wait, I thought liberals don’t believe in military spending or maintaining armies? We don’t trust Russia now?
1
The rebirth of the Soviet Union has begun.
1
I think this is going to backfire on Russia.They have little to position themselves with on the world stage. Nukes and the dying fossil fuel industry. They and Trump's US are passing the future to the China before whom they will all need to bow.
Pompeo's "the world is a gangster" statement summarizes our current administration's foreign (and domestic) outlook. Policy has devolved to expedient deal-making among corrupt mob bosses (Putin, Trump, Xi, Duerte, Kim, Netanyahu, ...). Organizations like NATO, WTO, and the UN are a nuisance to our depraved would-be dictator.
1
This article relies on history to justify the need for NATO. If we had a president who cared about such things the arguments presented here would be important and valuable. But Trump has sold his soul to Putin and has given our country over to him in the bargain.
NATO will need to kick the US out of the union to preserve itself. The US led by Trump has turned a traitor to its past friends and is nothing but a liability. Trump is a traitor to us all and a Putin puppet including strings and a wooden head.
2
"strings and a wooden head" and a Pinocchio nose
Maybe it will take the members of NATO to denounce Trump’s treason to America and the West? The GOP will not. Even the Democratic Party will not. Everyone involved in American government may be compromised to interests that would be jeopardized by the discovery that the POTUS and his Administration is subordinate to Putin and that an oligarchy like Putin’s is his plan. This would sound far fetched if Trump had criticized Putin, or acted to protect our democracy from Putin, or if Trump had not insulted everyone of our allies, and the started a trade war with all of them on the grounds of National Security, while ignoring or denigrating our National Security Agancies, and cozied up to KIm and announced his plan to save jobs in China”s ZTE (which the Pentagon identifies as a Security Risk). This would sound far fetched if Trump had not appointed criminals, and idiots to his cabinet.
Can the Editorial Board refuse to recognize that no one has done more to weaken America, our Security, our ideals, our laws, than Donald Trump? “James Whitcomb Riley (1849–1916) may have coined the phrase when he wrote: When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.“ Is Donald a Duck?
1
How I wish Angela Merkel would look Trump in the eye and say “Shut up and be quiet, you have nothing useful to offer”. She must be thinking it. He is a destructive person with a destructive personality and inspires like-minded people who, like himself, look first for what’s in it for themselves. Historical achievement, and facts mean nothing to him as he is incapable of rational thinking and analysis. Well, I’ll say it, shut up and be quiet Mr. President, you have nothing useful to offer neither America nor the world.
1
And to that, I'll say this for myself and not Angela Merkel: Danke Schön.
2
It is not all to do with NATO member countries not paying their expected dues. This story has been going on for some time now. Perhaps, there is a different motive here. Mr. Trump, as POTUS is looking at everything in a different perspective. He has a different view of the world. He is asking himself a question, with the WW1 & 11 gone, do we still need the NATO? There is not even a USSR. If NATO thinks and feels Russia is the enemy, Mr. Trump disputes that. We all know what NATO stands for and as an institution its significance to Europe, the US and to the rest of the world. Or is it that, NATO is another organization or alliance, soon to be on the list of irrelevancy, as we see what happened to TPP and the Iran Nuclear Deal. Questions still continue with the future of NAFTA and WTO. Another news column in today's NYT, speaks of a debate on the WHO (breast feeding and infant milk food.
Later in the week, we will all know where the US stands with the NATO.
Unlike most people commenting here, I lived in a Germany and a Europe surrounded and divided by a Wall and Soviet troops -- so I have no false illusions about the importance of having an organization like NATO.
And neither do all those who were forced to live under these conditions, yet who were willing to risk their lives in order to escape to freedom in 'the West'.
We all know the true value of this alliance, and it stretches way beyond Europe's borders.
Things aren't so different from back then, as so many here are willing to believe.
The Cold War never really ended.
And history has a way of repeating itself.
6
If it is of value to the EU then pay for the value
I'm not at all sure that the American people are willing to risk a nuclear war with Russia over Lithuania (or other NATO countries) under Article 5. And if I were a European NATO country, I would recognize that American reluctance.
1
FYI. Lithuania happens to be one of the NATO countries that currently pays 2% of its GDP to the alliance.
2
Mr. Bullone, please wake up. An agreement is an agreement, they would step up for us and they did after 911.
The only American reluctance is a bully in orange hair. A nuclear war is not going to happen. It is all saber rattling. One nuclear blast and we are ALL dead.
1
I am not even sure that France would "step up" if Russia invaded Lithuania. And Italy? If Russia had not downed that airliner, I don't even think that the European NATO countries would have put sanctions on Russia after they took Crimea and invaded Ukraine. Go back and read the history. Maybe it is all saber rattling, but Russian could take the Baltics without nuclear weapons, probably in a few weeks or less. At any rate, the U.S. pays for 70% of NATO, the EU has an economy the size of ours. Time to pay the piper, especially Germany.
I thought progressives were about everyone paying their fair share? Percentage of gdp is definitely a fair way of doing it. Why should tax payers here in the USA be responsible for most of the burden?
If other countries don’t start paying, we should lower our percentage to equal theirs. Besides NATO doesn’t do their primary job anymore, it’s just a progressive echo chamber activivist group.
It appears as if the editorial board should go back and read their left wing comments about US military power they seem to have flipped their stance and now want a strong US military - rather hawkish I would say
"NATO has always depended on leadership from the United States, the world’s biggest economy and most lethal military power. Mr. Trump not only doesn’t want to lead the West,"
Is this what the left wants? I thought the left wanted the US to co-operate with it's allies and not lead them by the nose?
"Many allies can do more to reach the target level of spending 2 percent of their annual G.D.P. on defense by 2024. "
2024 the allies have get to avoid paying up for 6 more years?
I guess all the money they save goes to their public health care system which I guess we pay for?
The economy is based on one thing: growth. The only way to sustain growth is by tearing down existing structures and then rebuilding . So war is inevitable and necessary. Unfortunately I’m not sure this planet can take more destruction.
What is absolutely astounding about this editorial is the overestimate of Trump's "thinking" on the NATO issue. Based on three plus years of observation, it should be obvious at this time that Trump has no understanding or even interest on the topic. The Mueller investigation will reveal deep financial and personal (Stormy plus) ties to Putin and Russia. Putin wants to weaken NATO, Trump is his instrument. Before the election Trump saw "big and easy money" in Russian real-estate including a new Trump tower in Moscow. The NATO financial contribution aspect is just red meat for his base. Trump knows nothing about NATO's history, purpose, function or current programs and certainly could not discuss these issues intelligently in a one hour interview. NYT editorial board and the media need to learn about perspective, "backstory" and "reading between the lines" if they want to serve the reading public.
8
NATO should appeal to us for the forward basing of equipment, air defense early warning and first line of defense. Maybe someone can diagram this for better understanding from the whitehouse.
2
"It remains the most successful military alliance in history, the anchor of an American-led and American-financed peace that fostered Western prosperity and prevented new world wars."
It is impossible to prove a counterfactual. Did NATO prevent new world wars? That of course pre-supposes that the Soviet Union intended to invade western Europe after WW II. There is no evidence that Russian leaders ever entertained such foolish ambitions. I would also question whether we can attribute Western prosperity to "American-financed" peace. There are much better explanations for postwar prosperity--such as the EU, originally the "common market".
The only real beneficiary of NATO is the industrial-military complex. And let us not forget---as the editorial points out--- that the only country ever to benefit directly from this alliance was the United States, when the allies came to its defense of US after 9/11.
Neither France nor Britain needs the US for self-defense. It is time for Europe to develop its own common military. Few Europeans, I imagine, want to be led by a country that elects imbeciles like Trump or G.W. Bush
8
I think most Americans would love it if you Euros would pay for your own defense!
There is a bane in the ecosystem of liberal socialism - it is called the free-rider syndrome: when those who benefit from resources, public goods, or services do not pay for them, which results in an underprovision of those goods or services.
If allowed to continue it eventually undermines all joint endeavors - I would have assumed that the left-leaning editorial board - if no one else - would appreciate this idea.
And... just is passing... there is only one solution.
1
Trump doesn’t need to do anything. His lack of humanity is self-evident. So, telling him anything is a waste of breath. He is the first president to, with all intent to destroy America. It is as self-evident as his ability to separate parents from their children.
2
It is true that a GOP led Congress will not check Trump.
The GOP senators who took their 4th of July trip to Russia to bend the knee to a country who had hacked our election are worthy of nothing but our contempt. The voters ought to send these people home. They have no business serving as our representatives.
We get the government we deserve, and we deserve better than Trump and his spineless toadies in Congress.
4
Once again we have to point out that Trump is doing what he can to destroy the perceived enemies of Vladimir Putin.
What do you expect? Everything the man does is calculated to destroy the United States and its allies. Vladimir chose well when he installed the Donald, at the cost of some real estate loans run through shady banks. The Russians had all that cash sitting around anyway, since the sanctions against them let their piggy banks fill up.
I'm sure that something was "tweeted" about how Trump is the reason the Thai soccer team is being rescued. We have never seen such an inveterate liar, a sociopath propped up by his Republican cronies. The clock on them cannot tick fast enough . . . .
2
And the cowardly GOP Congress remains silent through all of his.
9
Contrary to the opinions reflected in many of today's posts, NATO is not the reason why your healthcare and other public services are poor in quality. These are down to political choices and a public that votes in GOP candidates.
Europe will not be used as a scapegoat for an evil, ignorant and unqualified man who lacks ingenuity and the ability to resolve complex issues, especially one who plays purely to his base.
Criticisms and the berating of organisations such as NATO, WHO, the UN, established institutions and the many treaties and alliances which predate Trump are mere excuses to increase his own power. The guy's a tyrant and an evil one at that. Giving him more oxygen by supporting and listening to his claptrap him is unwise, foolish and detrimental to all our futures.
Let's see how civil and well behaved he is this week. Either way protests await his European trip because we are not fooled by his incoherent rants and toddler tantrums. Clue - we despise him.
4
So now we have to "defend" NATO because a nitwit president wants to play with the world just because he CAN.
I hope his supporters learn Trump is playing a dangerous game, but why indulge in fantasy?
2
We have a president who is neither curious, nor well-informed but one who relies purely on his gut instinct and sense of self-importance, so we have a problem. He claimed he “alone could fix it” in reference to America’s myriad problems but has repeatedly proved to the world how inept he is.
Following his June 12 Singapore “summit” with North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un, Trump prematurely touted that we all could “sleep well at night.” Less than a month later, North Korea is accusing the Trump administration of pushing a “unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearization.” It won’t be long before the “dotard” and “Little Rocketman” resume their war of words, which will be scary enough to keep the whole world wide awake for the foreseeable future!
Now Trump thinks “Putin is fine” and has planned a July 16 “summit” with him following the NATO summit in Brussels. Knowing Trump, he will once again trash our NATO allies as a prelude to his meeting with Putin – which wouldn’t be as scary if it didn’t include a one-on-one that has our allies really worried because a “Crime-a” is about to be committed.
With no sense of history, Trump clearly does not fathom the significant role NATO has played in the post-WWII era. Don Trump “has a singular view of NATO as a transactional relationship” and if members aren’t willing to kiss the ring and pay their dues, it’s OK to cut them loose. It’s not personal, just business – one that is all about a New American Trump Organization!
5
I suppose we could hope that Interpol will go to Hellsinki and arrest both of them for crimes against humanity. Finland, being no great friend of Russia, might happily abide such a process.
We cling to straws.
Trump's mob believes Trump is God's own animated manikin.
Let’s just posit that DJT is on target to deliver to Putin, that which Putin wants.
Let’s say that a weak and struggling NATO is high on that list of wants.
Now let’s confirm that DJT’s son confessed years ago to being financed exclusively by Russia based funders.
Now let’s play 2 plus 2 equals... 4
Trump wants/needs another disbursement for real estate debt or purchases in the hundreds of millions of dollars with the next tranche of funding very soon.
This shoe fits.
Vote!
Vote!
Vote!
3
Of course , you can cut your losses and your money stays in your pocket. There is nothing new here. Trump wants us to cut all our losses. This is the presumptive reason.
Like you can cu your cable, internet, morning coffee etc, no body died doing so.
This is about choice, what choice you choose?
We can come out NATO, and become a one the ordinary country, or stay and play as leader.
Every indication points to Trump bashing NATO to their face and then rushing off for his 'private' meeting with Putin.
The NATO members are as ready as they can be for the Trump show and will wether the storm.
I and all Americans of good conscience should demand that Trump not be allowed to have his 'private' meeting with Putin. There is absolutely no reason for such a meeting with total secrecy.
The only 'reason' that I can come up with is that as with the Bill Shine appointment in the Oval Office, Trump is giving a huge finger to America and the media. He doesn't care about the bad optics and is proud and pushing his total disregard for #MeToo, women's rights and with Putin his disregard for democratic ideals in favor of Putin's authoritarian oligarchy.
In all things Trump, it's about him and money - his money. What's in it for him this time? Let's not forget the GOP Senators who just returned from their trip to Russia with Trumpian love for Russia.
Talking about 'revisiting' the sanctions is not just coincidental.
What is going here? Trump and the GOP? Do they want promises of more meddling so they will win in 2018/20 elections? Or is this about big oil contracts in the Arctic oil?
3
"Every indication points to Trump bashing NATO to their face and then rushing off for his 'private' meeting with Putin."
Only to those who are biased.
I myself am optimistic that something good will come out of Trump'a meeting with Trump. We need peace and we need to integrate Russia into Europe before Russia forms an alliance with China.
It is sad that so many readers of the NYT are sympathetic to our military lobby.
1
Sitting on the other side of the NATO fence, I understand that I'm a little biased, and risk being predictable. But please don't think I'm not trying my hardest to be objective.
NATO matters. For example it matters that Turkey is a NATO member when its armored columns enter UN members Syria and Iraq, despite Iraqi government protests, to attack US allies the Kurds whom it considers terrorists. Turkey knows it's safe and Iraq or even Kurds won't fight back as hard as they might. Because Turkey is a NATO member, and any retaliatory attack, even not triggering the Article 5 would still be an attack on a NATO member. So think on it, a sovereign state, US ally at that, invaded by foreign troops. And my argument is that Turkey only felt so safe doing it because it's a NATO member.
NATO is much praised for creating peace among its members. Somehow, the people seem sure that the minute US boots on the ground leave Germany, it'll be annexing Belgium or some such. At least that's the impression I get when I'm reading western commentary. Well, NATO creates war on its border (loud gasps, "Russian troll!" shouts in the distance). I know, I know, I shouldn't be putting it so bluntly, but imagine for a second not being the greatest military power in the world, but living next to it. Knowing its members attacked, without being directly threatened by them, numerous neighbors.
And this what NATO neighbors think of it
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-anniversary-.html
1
Trump sees NATO like a mob boss would do: you want protection? well it costs so much to "insure" yourself against "bad stuff" that could happen to you.
9
Of course, the mob doesn't steal from American taxpayers to provide their brand of protection. My copy of the Constitution permits the feds to protect Americans, not Poles and Germans and Turks and Montenegrans. Perhaps you can show me where your copy differs.
The presence of Putin's troops and paramilitaries in Crimea and the rest of Ukraine, and in Georgia's 'South Ossetia' are proof enough of NATO's necessity.
4
100% correct. If those countries had joined NATO they would not be in the position they are in now. And note how eager the three Baltic States were to join NATO.
2
Crimea is ethnically Russian, and was a part of the USSR. A recent poll shows Crimeans are happier being led by Moscow than they were under Kiev. Why do you let irrational hatred of Putin override the realities and attitudes of the people actually affected by the annexation?
1
Many commenters here object to the US paying a disproportionate amount of the mutual defense of NATO countries. Are they seriously suggesting that we will be able to cut back on our own military spending if we drop out of NATO, or if NATO nations step up? Do they seriously think Congress members and Senators will allow military installations in their home states to be closed to save money now that we aren't defending the world? Hah. We'll continue spending on weapons as long as Citizens United and the military industrial complex exist.
5
Goog grief. President Trump is not trying to "undermine a decades-old partnership." He's simply pointing out that it's long past time the rest of NATO stopped depending on the American taxpayer for their security. With only a handful of nations (Britain yes; France & Germany No) meeting the pathetically small 2% of GDP requirement for military spending, even more of the burden for Europe's defense falls on US. NATO is a good thing, but WWII ended over 70 years ago. It's long past time the Europeans started pulling their own weight.
3
Trump's primary criticism is also wrong. All countries in NATO pay for shared NATO operations each year. No one is in arrears. US pays 22%, all others 78%.
The benefit has been enormous in terms of security and shared prosperity. Pennies on the dollar.
I hope the ministers in attendance correct any mistatements by our "president" while the cameras are rolling. He's beyond being embarrassed by his numerous errors and failures but it's important for the rest of the world (and particularly his supporters in US) to hear the truth.
2
Your numbers might be correct, but we have been paying much longer. You might say we are the legacy payer. We are the ones with the military clout. And it is American taxpayers who payed or will pay in the future for our defense budget which is really what protects Europe. The only legitimate argument the non- legacy payers have is that they couldn't pay more when NATO was conceived. At that time the US was 50% of the global economy. Today we are 15%. If you think in terms of ability to pay, the Europeans have allot of catching up to do.
Of course, NATO matters...At least for the Europeans, and especially for the Latvians and the Estonians...
But NATO is suppose to be a partnership based on trust and cooperation as much as mutual interests...
Since 1941, European states have been dependent upon the military might of the United States for their safety and security. The United States has made a HUGE commitment over the years, starting with the Marshall Plan and continuing with the vast majority of the funding for NATO and its activities.
For the first two decades of NATO's existence, Europe needed to concentrate on restoring the economies of the regions and rebuilding the societies that were torn apart by WWII...
But since the late 60's Europe has been prosperous, and continue to be prosperous today, not the least of which is their willingness to continue on the good graces of the United States to provide...at little expense to themselves...for the necessary military defense. Certainly a part of their prosperity comes from their paltry fiscal cooperation in their mutual defense...
The United States is right to press them to meet their binding treaty agreements for a change, and right to press them hard to comply. The United States is also right to view its own best interests going forward, and if that means reducing its commitment to NATO, so be it...
The Europeans have a choice...Be partners in NATO or go it alone..
I don't particularly care which way they choose...It's their section of the world.
2
"I don't particularly care which way they choose...It's their section of the world."
Another valuable insight into the Trump mindset: If I can't see it from my Rose Garden window, it doesn't count.
So, yeah, let Europe fall. Who cares, really?
More wisdom from the Republican Top.
You do know that whatever happens in "their section of the world" effects what happens in ours, and vice versa -- don't you?
2
No. Not at all... And you should be aware and in tune with a view that all nations have the right to choose their own destiny...
If their destiny is to continue to be a member of NATO, the down side is that they have to pay their committed share.
If their destiny is to continue to live, relatively cost-fee under the US military umbrella, then they need to start working towards going it alone.
There is a price for their free choice...And on of the costs of being freeloaders is that they get cut off from the trough.
Their choice. I fine either way they want to go.
They'll grovel back when the Russians turn up the heat...Guaranteed.
President Trump is pushing NATO members to meet their spending commitment, enabling the addition of hundreds of new tanks, planes, helicopters, submarines, and ships as well as many thousands of additional soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
How on earth does this “undermine” NATO?
No, the answer is that every ally that doesn’t meet its commitment, notably Canada and Germany, is undermining NATO.
NATO should either be strengthened or dissolved. Thankfully, President Trump understands this.
2
Both Washington and Jefferson argued forcefully against "entangling alliances", both political and military. Unlike Mr. Trump, however, they favored free trade and diplomatic dialog. Thus they were non-interventionists rather than isolationists.
Our Constitution endorses the drafting of treaties, but not of forging military partnerships or offering defense for any country other than our own. Such alliances were what allowed World War I to escalate from a limited conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia into an all-consuming conflagration that even sucked in the American president Woodrow Wilson, whose re-election slogan had been "He kept us out of war".
The United Kingdom alone has a GDP that is TWICE the size of Russia's; Germany's is THREE times as large. The idea that Mr. Putin's feeble kleptocracy is a threat to Europe is preposterous; the idea that it is America's responsibility to counter that phantom threat is expensive and unconstitutional.
2
The Editorial Board is right about the importance of NATO but wrong about President Trump's attitude toward the organization. Though it is true that that NATO's contribution to the West is extremely important it is also true that, as Trump put it, “We’re the schmucks that are paying for the whole thing,”. What was true 50-60 years ago, all mentioned in the article, is no longer true today except for one thing, if Russia decides to attack Europe only the USA can stop it. Europe can and should pay the bill. Someone had to put this truth in their faces in The most obvious way.
1
“We’re the schmucks that are paying for the whole thing,” the president said. “I’ll see NATO and I’ll tell NATO, ‘You’ve got to start paying your bills.’”
That's rich, coming from a man who's been through bankruptcy six times and has a well documented history of breaking business contracts and stiffing contractors.
6
Trump got $200 billion more for the military last time around and wants MORE this time.
What doe he want to do with all of the fancy new macho weapons, store them in mothballs in Nevada?
The President wouldn't be capable of undermining America's welfare and security if he weren't being enabled by Congress.
Every telephone line should be ringing off the hook non-stop all day, every day, in the office of every Senator and Representative.
Even the quisling members acting willfully blind are forced to pay attention to re-election.
4
there are legitimate reasons to question the exact nature of NATO. Trump is not addressing them. he acting like a mafia boss against our allies. after the G7, europe knows that NATO as they have known it for 70 years is dead. they are on their own, as long as the US remains an existential threat and potential ally to russia. so yes, you will get an increased % of defense spending by nato allies. they will be terrified of war against russia without US support. we are not back to the cold war, we are back to pre ww2 fears. and this cannot be erased until europe KNOWS that the american populace can stop acting like madmen and elect people like trump
Hmmm, Trump is entirely beholden to Putin for installing him as president. I wonder whose side he is on?
If it matters so much then they need to start contributing more. Many European countries barely have a military. Germany has to scramble to find tanks. Everyone criticizes the American military but they always call us when needed. Then they take the public stage to criticize our actions. Time for America to stop being played. NATO and the United Nations are both jokes.
1
The USA defended Europe twice in the 20th century and helped liberate it from fascism. The USA led by Reagan and his installation of medium range ballistic missiles in eastern Europe, initiation of "Star Wars" and massive defense spending helped bring about the dissolution of the USSR. He was described and ridiculed as a war monger initiating nuclear war by leftists here and abroad.
Trump is right to assert forcefully that European nations pay their fair share of the cost of their defense, especially when a trade deficit exists between the US and Europe of $150billion. Why should the US bear 70% of the cost and endure trade imbalances to boot while Merkel cozies up to Vlad and makes oil and gas deals which fuel their economies.
Most if not all of the NATO member countries did not support the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel asserting our sovereignty. The EU is based upon open borders while the US under Trump asserts maintaining strong national borders.
The NATO/EU members seem to want to have it both ways, criticize the POTUS while expecting our defense without paying their fair share. Seventy years of a free ride for Europe is enough, n'est pas?
1
Here’s part of the problem.
The United States is buffered by two oceans. We have sent troops to fight in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other countries. All those troops crossed oceans. But we don’t have a collective, historical memory of being invaded HERE. We and our parents don’t remember watching foreign troops flood our cities and take over the streets. Or watching an alien force topple and then command our government.
So we don’t fully understand the horrors of modern warfare. The last time our cities were invaded and government threatened? During the Civil War, 1875.
We’re inclined to shoot ourselves, between ourselves, to buy lots of guns to prove our potency and masculinity. To imagine and play at warfare.
Now, a lot of Americans are reasonably tired of paying taxes for the defense of European counties that are living pretty high on the hog. It doesn’t make sense. That problem must be addressed.
Yes, of course, NATO is essential. Donald Trump is a simplistic charlatan and a fool.
But it is time for Europe to defend itself. Enough babysitting.
America has now proven that we are not a beacon of freedom or a tireless source of soldiers. Our country could very easily become a fascist power. Many of the voters are ready for that transformation.
That’s the lesson we’ve learned from Trump.
I suppose that with all the money the US will be saving by our European allies paying more for NATA defense, that savings will passed on to average US taxpayers in the form of lower taxes, better health care, and more modern infrastructure, right? Yea, didn't think so.
1
It is about time we hold our European allies feet to the fire about their freeloading on defense.
It is about time Republicans hold Trump's feet to the fire about his slavish pandering to dictators who are our sworn enemies.
Necessity will drive Europe to start to pay.
Massive political losses later this year will drive Republicans to regain their moral compass.
Dan Kravitz
1
This week should be a balancing act between partnership and fiscal responsibility. Good luck with that. In 1991, the same year our myopic Commander in Chief was apparently posing as his own publicist, the USSR fell and prompted Francis Fukuyama to declare the "end of history" and that liberal democracy had won. NATO played a significant role in that victory. NATO matters because liberal democracy is under siege and who knows when the West must unite again to confront Stalin's doppelganger.
NATO has turned into a handmaiden in the imperial mission of the united states. Russia is clever but in reality is threatening no one. it is past time to disband this war machine and let states like Poland increase their spending if they wish. These countries have no business in Afghanistan- they are there because the usg has coerced them into it.
I hate trump, but creating all this fuss just to increase American arms sales is a waste of time.
1
Crushing national debt, social security obligations that we see coming like a freight train with no way of paying 100% in sight, but "American-financed peace", well, we should do that because it isn't like a golf club??
Well, it has been 70 years since WWII. When does the bill come due? I pay my taxes and drive on broken roads. Why am I glad we have secured the EU from Russian with MY tax dollars!?
I don't like Trump, nor did I vote for him, but I do think our congenial political global liberalism has left us with the short end of the stick. Saying the voters that elected the rude guy with brass knuckle politics are undermining liberal righteousness is the same tone-deaf world view that lost the last election. Keep it up, and we will have 9 conservative justices in four year.
1
NATO could disappear tomorrow and Europe would be just fine. There is no Russian "threat." It's the ability of America to keep its boot heel firmly planted on European soil that's in danger. Nothing more.
2
Trump is gearing up to exit NATO - He's been polishing his lies and we all know he's going to drop all of the sanctions against Russia and align us with Putin's interests. I have one question? What are you going to do? I mean you the citizen. We cannot let Donald Trump become the last American President.
It isn't just Trump who sold America out to the Russians. It is the entire Republican Party.
8
NATO defines the idea of "the West." Common defense of both territory and the ideals of democracy, democratic governments. We undermine NATO at our own risk.
Trump tilts to authoritarian, and sees value in ideas that are not essentially Western or democratic. He is at the core, a kleptocrat. Is it any wonder he admires Russia?
In not funding NATO equally, European nations play into Trump's hand, into Putin's hand, giving the US cover to back away from the fundamental alliance of western nations. It s stupid on their part, and short sighted. America is not the only nation that cannot see past the end of its nose.
We should be trying to equalize funding, but more than that, our Congressmen and Senators should be howling about keeping NATO robust.
And if we want to keep Europe from eating our lunch, we should consider that it is our own short term thinking - selling off our plants and businesses, from Budweiser to supermarket chains, to plants and factories , to European companies - that is catapulting us backwards in strength of trade.
Here's a thing.
When was the last time the entire world expected an American president to go to a critical meeting with US allies - and blow things up?
We are in a very bad place now - and the people who could do something about it choose not to.
2
The real purpose of NATO, besides keeping Germany from starting another World War, was to checkmate Russia. To really understand the Genesis of why WW1 was such a disaster and how that lead to WW2, you have study not only history, but human nature itself. Good luck on Trump understanding either. Putin’s main goal from the beginning was to undermine NATO and during the Olympic interviews with the Western press, tried to convince anyone who would listen, that NATO was a bad thing. Of course he did for obvious reasons; NATO kept him in check. Now all of that is starting to come apart thanks to so many things, including Donald leading the band backed by an entourage of flag waving short sighted lunatics.
1
Trump and his constant tirade against anything that offends his nonsensical grasp of real world issues again demonstrates his barking is to one, find a new bauble to dangle in front of his supporters for them to hate, two, to demonstrate to his fellow leaders that he is the supreme world leader and what he says is the final say.
NATO is needed to keep, hopefully, his friend Putin from attempting to "influence" those former Soviet Bloc countries into his fold.
Perhaps the other member countries should quicken their pace in paying their fair share.
However, Trump needs to quit playing to his base, the cameras and his own self-aggrandizement and act like a responsible adult and he may be able to sway the other members to his thinking. Alas, the damage has already been done and may be beyond repair due to his tantrums. As the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey....
Totally agree with the President. NATO has outlived its usefulness at our expense. Same for the UN, a total joke.
Many American have express their ideas and some of them clearly saying that Why we pay the ticket. In the core it is a correct thought, But historically if you look back 1952 ticket price is never been the first issue.
American policy about NATO was making a strongly binding contract and control the western europe and other allies the cold war era during the cold war era.
Now Cold war ended but superpowers tit for tat apparently will never end ( Russia-China) . Europe is the most richest market in the world.
No body has no doubts USA has a upper hand trade priority with EU. Thsi is mostly based on Historical background and WWII and following Cold war era alliances.
If USA willing to relinguish its supremacy in NATO, thsi will have ripple effects on other areas. There is no way , economical interests wouldn't be shift , it is already happening, but remove NATO's effect, Europe should be thinking its own priorities with other superpowers.
Let's accepts Europe didn't dictate what we know today NATO, USA pushed down the throat of western europe, If you think what I meant by that , Read GLADIO , particularly in ITALY, how allies keep aligned behind the USA.
"NATO linked America and Europe not just in a mutual defense pledge but in advancing democratic governance, the rule of law, civil and human rights, and an increasingly open international economy."
All of which Trump vehemently opposes.
Why would anyone expect this meeting to turn out any different than the G7? The other NATO members would be better off canceling the meeting, or simply refusing to meet with Trump altogether. Nothing good can possibly come of it because, politically, Trump is pure toxin.
Like any unhinged megalomaniac, the best way to handle Trump, short of removing him, is to contain him. Complete global isolation is the best way to mitigate the disaster, until such time as we ourselves deal with it via impeachment, elections, or time itself. So far, all attempts at placation, in the hopes that this will all blow over, have failed miserably. Except, of course, for North Korea's brilliant use of Trump as an easily led propaganda tool.
In short, the man is a menace - pure and simple.
While I don't wish ill health on anyone, an aneurysm at this point could easily be considered providential. Which may sound harsh, but, the threat that Trump poses to international peace cannot be underestimated. It is not only very real, it's palpable.
Eight more years of President Donald J. Trump?
God help us!
Read about the Roman Empire. Which (to an astonishing degree) really DID depend--upon the voluntary cooperation of subject nations. People BOUGHT INTO the idea of being Romans. Roman citizens. Roman soldiers. Roman generals. Even-don't laugh!--Roman EMPERORS.
Barbarians? They too--wanted IN. Rome never quite solved that question. Eventually Rome fell.
I say all this because. . . .
. .there are no Goths and Vandals hammering at our doors. (Well--none we couldn't handle.) We're not being overrun (except in cyberspace). What accounts for this contemptuous indifference on Mr. Trump's part?
He doesn't care. I can't think what else to say. He really and truly doesn't care.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN?
Greatness is LEAKING from our country as from an open wound. Not since 1945--or long before 1945--has our stock as a country stood so low. Our moral authority. Our "soft power" as The Economist puts it.
Oh you Republicans! You Americans!
CHARACTER MATTERS!
Supremely! In the past two hundred years, when a crisis demanded leadership. . . .
. . a kindly Providence ordained that stalwart and capable leaders come forward.
Has our "luck" run out?
Eight years of Donald J. Trump?
Maybe it has.
3
NATO matters a lot. Our allies matter. As Trump demoralizes all allies with his narcissistic reactive mad ego we suffer. The right wing momentum in Poland,Hungary’s and countries has a lot to do with Russian meddling. They turned our country over like a pancake along with Facebook, Cambridge analytica and Trump campaign and Russian operative They tested in the Ukraine talking the land and the port before it could become a NATO base. They killed another former spy in London as before to show their reach. Yes kids 100 % them identified by the markers, dna of the poison. Russian.
Russia has Trump figured out and so does North Korea. Trump needs to go. We are in a crisis and the GOP roles along aiding and abetting him.
WHY won't our elected representatives see Trump's actions as treasonous ?? We elect them to safeguard us -- but this is one fox that give free access to the hen house.
The hands in the accompanying image, pulling apart the NATO compass, are way too big.
1
Everything Trump does helps Putin and undermines the West. Only question is why? Trash-talking NATO is bad enough. But there's a more concrete example: Trump's burgeoning trade war with China has deprived American farmers of their largest export market for pork, soy beans and corn. Who steps up to sell soy beans to China? Why Russia of course. In effect, Trump has helped Putin circumvent U.S. sanctions by allowing China to replenish his hard currency coffers.
2
In related news, Spiegel reports that Germany has only 10 aircraft that are flightworthy. Further, past exercises with German solders have been cancelled due to lack of personnel.
I read SPIEGEL (in German), so it might be possible that you missed the part about Germany's plan to lease several Israeli-built Heron TP drones that can also be used in military operations if need be.
And in addition to that, Chancellor Merkel has called for increased military spending.
You can Google this.
1
Clearly, NATO needs America’s enthusiastic support to be effective. Without it, Europe and the world become even more dangerous at an unthinkable cost to all of us. For years, our government has suggested that the only way NATO gets its full support is by having its member nations bear a greater share of the financial burden. I agree, but there is an asterisk. At a minimum, NATO’s wealthy nations, such as Britain, France and Germany, should pay more of the cost. This would demonstrate their faith in the alliance and signify to the world that they are full-throated and fully developed democracies which are truly independent of an American superpower. To my mind, the strongest NATO is one with many wealthy, developed democracies which can stand on their own feet. However, I am amazed that our government would risk sowing the seeds of World War III by allowing the renaissance of fascism across Europe via its stubborn withholding of enthusiastic support from NATO until fellow-members agreed to contribute more cash. This strategy seems more than a bit primitive.
Nobody has even contested NATO's importance, which is huge -- for the USA.
We can safely state that NATO is the USA's "Crown Jewel" in the 21st Century, for two main reasons:
1) it keeps the European Peninsula defanged and thus under American vassalage (i.e. it stifles European integration and rise to superpower status)
2) it gives the USA a military bridgehead in Eurasia, thus allowing it to put a lot of pressure on Russia.
1
Lord Ismay’s statement as NATO’s first secretary general, that the trans-Atlantic alliance was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in and the Germans down” highlights key reasons for NATO. Trump talks and acts as if Germans are no longer “down”. He talks and acts as if Germany and its economy is a threat to the US. He provocatively refrained from shaking Merkel’s hands in the Oval Office during one of the first foreign heads of state to visit him after assuming office. Such diplomatic visits traditionally imply a high degree of respect to the visited head of state. Trump acts instead like an aggrieved bully. He massively misinterprets Europe and especially Germany. If Germany has difficulty improving its military, which dramatically needs improvement, the ultimate reason is Germany’s continuing feeling that it needs to live down the atrocities of the Nazi past. But not only that: After WW II Germany inaugurated a dramatic social-cultural-political experiment to be a good "western" nation. It is under attack from thee far right. It continues to be a fragile experiment. It is under attack now from Trump's America. Trump’s blatant disregard of that problem in Germany’s national identity is exactly in line with Germany’s far right and its allies in Austria, France and elsewhere. Trump once again betrays that American provincialism and naivete that is and has been so often on display in world affairs. Trump's threatens all Western values. He must be stopped!
There is a little irony in Trump telling NATO members that American taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for Europeans' share of defense he and so many uber rich Americans aren't paying their share of taxes.
9
Trump, Making America NATO-less and part of a new axis of evil.
Even though America spends too much on military (via exponential debt), "Denmark is among the countries that contribute the most per capita to the fight against Daesh both in military and civilian terms."-Min. for Foreign Affairs, Mr K. Jensen, MP. This applies to other NATO adventures instigated by America in Iraq and elsewhere.
Trump and his base don't appreciate the value of European lives and battlefield destruction on European soil rather than on American lives and US soil. Shame on trump trading his friends and allies for a murderous thug in Russia.
Trump's rallies look frightfully similar to those of Adolf's rallies - complete with convenient vulnerable scapegoats to debase and destroy...to cheers of rabid fanatics.
"...one might expect that Republican congressional leaders would speak up." They did speak up, during the republican-only visit to Russia to hand over our surrender to Putin before his meeting with trump. They know Russia keeps them in power. The GOP will do anything, including sacrifice our nation and its democracy to appoint yet a partisan SCOTUS justice, kill another regulation or eliminate all taxes all together for their patrons.
"Mr. Trump would do well to make that commitment, and honor the friends we have." Fat chance!
NATO should spend on European weaponry to get to 2% GDP goals - they shouldn't procure from America as they pose a national security risk as long as trump is POTUS.
3
When it comes to Russia, North Korea, Turkey, etc. maybe Trump is simply following Don Corleone's advice: keep your friends close and enemies closer.
"Mr. Trump has a singular view of NATO as a transactional relationship in which members pay for protection."
Guess N. Korea is right! The president is turning us into a "gangster-like" organization.
2
Great question! Why NATO matters? It was created to defend Europe from the alleged Russian threat. Who wasn’t in NATO in 1948? A small country called Yugoslavia that said NO to Stallin and stepped out of the communist block. Miraculously Tito managed to repel the threat from fearsome Red Army on his own. We all know that Yugoslavia in the early 90’s disintegrated into several small countries through the bloody internal wars. But if even such a country managed to resist Moscow by own forces, what is the real objective of NATO? Is there any country in there worId that America could not defeat with own forces? Whom should NATO defend us from?
1
This article makes no mention about NATO's role in the destruction of Yugoslavia. NATO needs to die before it kills another country.
1
I have no expertise in military foreign policy. NYT Opinion editors outlined the history and purpose of NATO, much of which I already knew. I do have trepidations about 45 attending the NATO meeting. They are the same trepidations about selling our most advanced jet fighters and bombers to Turkey who are also buying Russian radar systems. 45's attendance at NATO, at best will bring confusion, and at worst possible compromise of NATO's integrity. My worst fears arise from where 45 goes after Brussels, the Helsinki meeting with Putin. Is Putin 45's handler? Why would that thought even come to mind? I never had that thought about any other POTUS! Fear and trepidation, not hope.
1
That the Times Editorial Board would have to submit an essay such as this tells us just how far off the rails this country has gone.
Trump has trashed this nation's international standing in one year's time. In just a few months he's destroyed alliances it has taken decades to develop. Of course our nation has made its share of errors. But our membership in NATO has been the one constant, since WWII. It is among the most enduring defense treaties the world has seen, and it served to bind Western democracies with a shared, mutual purpose.
But no more. And as much as we would castigate Trump, we must place blame where it really lies - his voters. Last week thousands of them cheered him on as he went on his anti-NATO tirade.
And I'm through giving them a pass. They know who and what they voted for, and after the horrific damage Trump has done to this country in eighteen months, they're still in lockstep with him. Without them, he couldn't have taken any of the abhorrent actions he's taken. Half of our citizens cheer on a man who has single-handedly made our nation a laughing stock at best, and an international pariah at worst. And they will propel him into a second term, just for one reason - race.
Trump voters are entirely ignorant about international relations and good governance. But what they do care about is race. They want to return to an America run by whites, even if it means turning our nation into a blighted, ignorant backwater of a country to do so.
5
Trump will continue his silly peevishness with our allies. He will represent the conflicts as their resentment with being called to pay up their dues instead of free riding on the U.S. tax payers. It will play well with his base and the right wingers. Republicans who always supported NATO are terrified of Trump’s popularity with Republican voters. They will not challenge his behavior, even when he acts like a worshiper with Putin. It’s nonsense. He may not know it but he’s a baby boomer who remembers enough history to know a lot more of what NATO has meant to the U.S. The Republicans are more concerned about Democrats than Putin because their constituents do as well.
Trump is undoing all the trust and hard work of two hundred and forty years previously in just four to eight. Sad to say, his bad work may be the only legacy of our republic. The question to be asked is whether Trump will be the Caesar Augustus who replaces our republic with an imperial system or will that be Pence. It’s hard to tell. Both seem to think that our liberal democracy is due to fade away.
1
The NATO has failed America once when it invoked its Article 5 mutual defense commitment: to rally to the defense of the United States after the attacks of 9/11.
The friends don’t let each other drive drunk. The friends don’t let each other make impulsive decisions that saddle them with the never-ending wars while in state of shock and confusion as we were after the 9/11 attacks.
We were attacked on that day by twenty Sunni Arab Wahhabi terrorists that were coming from our allied states Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, under the ideological leadership of Osama bin Laden (a Saudi citizen) and Al- Zawahiri (an Egyptian citizen), financed by the wealthy Arabs from the Gulf states, after getting a fatwa from a Saudi clergy member authorizing such terrorist attacks…
Why would anybody invade Afghanistan (a non-Arab country) in retaliation thus ending in the endless war with the Afghan people?
Why would anybody invade Iraq, Syria and Libya, the only three regional socialist countries that were a natural dam against the spread or radical theological ideology?
No wonder that after turning those countries into the lawless territories the Al Qaeda and the ISIS spread like the fire in the regions where those terrorist organizations before didn’t even exist.
If no single NATO general could have created this simple analysis ever since and publically accept personal responsibility for catastrophic failures, then all of them should be instantly fired as useless…
1
Dollars to doughnuts Trump torpedoes NATO, just as Putin wants. And then the fake summit where Trump reports to the man who made him president.
1
The European peoples are no longer willing to support the endless American NATO wars of aggression that are, besides slaughtering and maiming many thousands of innocent civilians, flooding their nations with refugees.
3
By the way, I am not pro-Russian.
Actually, I might be the only one here among all the editors and other commentators that Russia tried to kill.
It was exactly the Kremlin that openly politically, diplomatically and militarily supported Beograd in three-year-long siege of Sarajevo in the nineties during which on average several hundred grenades randomly targeted the civilians every single day while depriving them of food, water, electric power, gas, personal safety or good night sleep.
The fact that somebody tried to kill you is not a reason big enough to start hating them.
By doing it you would bring yourself down to their level.
You have to stay calm, analyze why they hated you for no reason and work hard to prove their foolishness and misconceptions so they could finally open their hearts and eyes…
You do your best to make them your friend.
Why?
It’s in your best interest.
It is better off for both sides to cooperate and coexist than be engaged into the bloody conflicts.
Those who can control their emotions are capable of managing and living their lives in the best possible way…
1
Previous reporting on NATO has distinguished between countries providing assessed levies for the alliance itself, which all evidently do, and expenditures for defense beyond those direct expenses. It would be helpful to continue doing that, and also to review European arguments that some foreign aid expenses are in effect pre-emptive defense expenditures. By simplifying the reporting, you are letting Trump set the terms of argument, always a bad idea.
Why isn’t the betrayal of our allies being called treason?
1
Trump’s issues with NATO are not about money. He claims tariffs on Canada are needed due to national security. Canada has fought all wars as our ally.
His issue is most likely his fear of Putin. I cannot say what but my money is on Putin having something damaging that Trump fears he may release. At least he seems to act that way.
We are the only ones that invoked the need for all ally members to protect us after 9/11.
4
Trump insists that other NATO members should increase their defence spending. I have no economic studies to support this, but it is my guess that the US military industrial complex receives the lion's share of all defence spending by NATO countries.
Therefore, the more NATO countries spend on defence, the more American business gains--but only if the US remains as a NATO member.
If the US withdraws from NATO, other NATO nations' military industrial complexes will see a perfect opportunity to develop their own manufacturing capabilities, as they will no longer legally need to have armaments compatible with US armaments.
3
And that would be fine with me. Europe SHOULD work much harder to be self sufficient.
What you are ignoring is that to do so, they will have to divert monies that support their "social safety nets" and or increase their taxes to pay for it...And those are going to be heavy political lifts for any politicians leading European countries.
Their problem will that there is not enough money to do both, and the 2% of GDP to be a member of NATO is the cheapest alternative.
Time for Europe to wake up and understand that they MUST have a fair hand in their own defense, whatever the cost.
All NATO members, excl. USA are paying over 200 billions on defense, increasing. That is more than China for just a third of people. I don't know why US people think this is not enough. We can defend ourself, but Europe will definitely accelerate expenditures and nuclear deterrence in case US drops NATO.
Instead of constantly claiming Europe is not paying enough for the sake of welfare, you should ask yourselves why you are willing to pay too much?
And to be sure: Nothing would change on your end if we will go to 2%. You will still pay too much for defense, you will still have no welfare in the US.
As long as we meet our treaty obligation, Marvin, to spend 2% or more on defense spending, it is none of your business how our resources are allocated.
When you in Germany meet your target, we can open another conversation...
Until then, you remain deadbeats when it comes to meeting your treaty obligations...If you don't like the price, how about just going it alone...
I doubt if you'd be willing to do that with a Russian bear sitting on your borders...
The problem is, as usual, the European Union. The EU is an economic rival of the United States. Why should the United States fight battles for a rival like the EU? Why should America fight Russia so that the EU can have Ukraine? Both Russia and America are smaller than the EU. Logically, they should probably join forces (along with the rest of the Anglosphere) to take on the EU, just like they did in world war II.
And what is the EU? The EU is a vehicle for Germany and France (mostly Germany) to dominate Europe and keep foreign influence out of "their" Europe. How does that serve America's interests? Trump was elected and the German and French leaders immediately talked of creating a European defense force that would be completely independent of American influence. Trump hadn't even done anything yet! It showed the true colors of France and Germany. They are not really our friends.
NATO should remain, it ties the Western world together, and - and this is especially important - the smaller European countries to the United States. Without NATO the Germans really would succeed in their long dream to conquer Europe.
1
Nonsense. The Germans have no "long dream to conquer Europe" -- especially now when they can hardly form a coalition government to keep the right-wingers at bay.
1
Oh but the Germans do continue to dream of conquering Europe.
Read up on the way the Germans handled the Greek austerity crisis. Germany wants markets for her corporations and profits for her banks. It's no different than what Germany was after in 1913.
@Purity
First of all. I'm German, and in a far better position of judging what's going on there that you are.
And I suggest that you read up on what Trump is doing to this country to benefit himself and the military, while doing his best to provoke another war.
If he keeps this up, this country will be no better off than Germany was after 1913.
Of course NATO matters. But why doesn't it matter enough to the Europeans? Why won't they fund to the agreed % of GDP? At what point does shared responsibility become inequitable? I can tell you that- now. Europe needs to meet their financial obligations. The U.S. should not shoulder the financial burden with a heightened level of inequity.
2
Keith
The EU made a plan, and signed an agreement, to work toward expanded funding goals.
They are doing exactly what they said they would do, exactly on the schedule we agreed to.
What's you problem with that?
Or do you just feel like you gotta hate on sombeody?
Oh...I see the problem. Here's yet another time when Obama beat Trump to the punch with a plan that's working and good for all sides. You guys just hate that...
Since 1941 the United States has been supporting the military capabilities of the European nations. Some of these nations have been willing to support the NATO alliance (which emerged from the carnage of the Second WW) on an equitable financial basis, but many do not. I favor the continued strength of the alliance, but it is time for all countries to contribute their fair share of the costs both financially and in terms of troops and equipment.
3
And it seems Trump's only issue with it is that the other countries haven't been contributing their fair share. If they started, all this talk of leaving would stop. He just doesn't like all the deals we've made that take advantage of American citizens.
2
I believe that NATO should be dissolved and in its place the member nations should create: 1. A pan-European military force, more highly integrated than the current NATO force; 2. A set of treaties between the United States and the Western European nations (whether current NATO members, EU member countries, or some other configuration) to provide a nuclear umbrella over Europe against any enemy which would use nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.
If Western Europe wants to remain an economic powerhouse on the order of the U.S. and China, it must come closer to full integration and interdependence.
Furthermore, Europe and the U.S. have different strategic goals. European nations are no longer interested in exerting their military influence outside of their home territory. The U.S. under this and prior administrations has demonstrated a constant desire to exert both influence and hegemony over other nations around the glove. It is time for a rewrite of the NATO treaties.
5
"Furthermore, Europe and the U.S. have different strategic goals. European nations are no longer interested in exerting their military influence outside of their home territory."
This is completely false. See France in Africa. See Syria. See Libya.
Also, if the Europeans are no longer expected to rely on America to fight their battles then it will be the Europeans who will have to fight for the oil in the Middle-East. America has plenty of oil, Europe does not. Europe will also have no choice but to fight with China over resources in Africa. I hate to break it to the Western Europeans, but they have no chance of beating China on their own.
Other NATO nations should spend and modernize there military or the alliance will be useless regardless if Trump is president or not. Trump is the first president to put pressure on these countries to live up to there own promises. This is one issue where I agree with the President, Europe needs to hold up there end of the bargain.
1
Just for the record. Donald Trump is NOT th first president to pressure NATO countries to support their end of the bargain-- both President Bush and Obama addressed that issue before him.
However Trump is the first president to do so in such a bullying and belligerent fashion.
1
Exactly with zero results in the past.....So while I don't care for the President it would seem a different strategy is needed. Since asking nicely hasn't worked.
No strategy, no coherent plan, and lack of Diplomacy won't result in anything worthwhile.
North Korea has realized this -- sooner or later this president will too.
But probably later.
The contribution of NATO alliances for growing the dominance of liberal western society in the world is unquestionable - almost 70 countries, more than billion people and more than 50% of global GDP is controlled by this alliance in addition to its formidable military power. But in twenty first century world, the challenges are different for western liberal society - rise of China as anti- liberal society, 50% of global GDP will be controlled by Asian countries like China, Japan, India, South Korea, Malayasia,... In a decade, war fare moved from hardware based conflict to cyberspace and thousands cuts by the terrorists and Islamists, and climate change forcing mass population to migrate to liberal western countries. The question is what will be the role of NATO to face this new reality of the world. The old defense industries and thought leaders like to maintain the status quo for self preservation - can they clearly articulate the strategy of the liberal West for this new world without changing the NATO? Time has come to transform NATO from anti communist North Atlantic alliance to an alliance of rule based countries global alliance where Japan, South Korea, India can be member and change the anti Russia posture. In twenty first century world, Russia is not the threat to gkobL peace and prosperity - anti- liberal China has to adopt the rule based liberal society model. To achieve that, the single party dictatorship of China has to go. This should be the focus of new NATO.
1
One of Trump's chief complaints about NATO is that the United States pays too much, and he bases this on what other members pay. What he really needs to look at is the cost of World War I and World War II, and then ask, "Do we really pay too much for NATO?"
See: RevolutionOfReason.com
4
Very well said.
All true...but an argument wasted on a "president" who doesn't read, can't think straight and doesn't care about consequence. Unless and until the Republican led Congress acts to limit the damage this man is doing to the United States, economically, internationally and politically it will only get worse. We are no longer the serious "major player" on the world scene today thanks to Trump and his acolytes.
6
The "damage" he is doing (I'm no fan, but he gets a few things right) is to insist that Europe pay its own share of defense, which the US has picked up since the end of WWII. Not to mention the Marshall Plan, which helped Europe get back on its feet. The US has bled money to Europe far too long.
1
Yes, some should pay more but there is more to this than just defense spending. Keeping Europe safe during the cold war and even today pays dividends in open markets for American goods (despite Trump's complaints about tariffs), provides a "buffer zone" for the U.S., promotes (or at least, did, until recently) democracy, serves to constrain Russia (once upon a time) and ensures reliable allies when needed (also once upon a time, thanks to Trump).
Guys, Trump is right. Why do 325 million Americans have to go broke defending 500 million Europeans from 140 million Russians? Yes, there are common interests. There should also be common burden-sharing. Any other view is simply American hubris which is no longer affordable.
3
The editorial provides cogent and persuasive reasons for not re-electing Trump. It does not convince why NATO should be preserved, or preserved as it is.
WWIII never happened because of nuclear weapons, not because of the existence of NATO or, for that matter, of the Warsaw Pact. NATO is a Cold War relic, it served well its original purpose of creating a nuclear umbrella that allowed Western Europe to reconstruct and prosper, for example, by creating what has grown into the EU.
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been an instrument of American triumphalism, as it has incorporated former Warsaw Pact countries and now borders Russia. Hate Putin all you will, but what would be the US reaction if Mexico or Canada had joined the Warsaw Pact? Don't laugh: the "Zimmerman Telegram," inviting Mexico to join Germany and recover the American Southwest, was a major factor leading to the US declaration of war in 1917.
Many NATO members, as the editorial indicates, do not support the liberal principles that allegedly underlie the organization, yet these countries will call for American blood to defend them. Is that what the US wants?
Chancellor Merkel says it is up to Europe to defend itself, but Germany can barely fly one squadron of fighters. Only the UK and France are defense assets for the US; the rest are liabilities. The economic and geopolitical future of the US is in Asia. American resources should be allocated accordingly.
2
Thinking outside the box, the EU should negotiate with Russia to form a new alliance. The US has been nothing but trouble for Europe igniting a Middle East inferno with no end in sight.
The US most be isolated for its own benefit, like a timeout for an ill tempered toddler. The whole world would benefit. Our militaristic hegemony must be addressed.
No doubt many in the dastardly EU would like to negotiate an alliance with Russia. So much for all their crocodile tears for Ukraine!
Hence, the Trump-Putin summit. If that's the way the EU is hoping to go we should beat them to it.
If our European allies are not arming up and bringing their citizens out to the rifle range--maybe the Russian bear is not as dangerous as some say. Maybe the rest of NATO should look for the same deal with Vladimir Putin that Donald trump seems to have.
President Trump's understanding of NATO, as well as his views on world trade and other complex issues, reveal the mind of a simpleton.
The dangers posed by that fact are amplified by the likelihood of his ulterior and greedy motives that Trump is desperate to suppress evidence of and his cult refuse to see.
The comment from the former NATO ambassador is astute. America might also survive four years under Trump, but, maybe not eight. The world watches and wonders: Will America regain its senses?
2
Mr. Trump proves himself the avowed enemy of everything listed in the NATO pledge "advancing democratic governance, the rule of law, civil and human rights, and an increasingly open international economy." Witness his removing the USA from the UN Human rights Council, his trade wars/tariffs even to the detriment of his own base, and the 7 Republican quislings visiting Russia to kowtow to Putin on our 4th of July holiday, just to show contempt for America as fully as possible.
If it matters so much, then ALL member nations should be happy to meet their defense spending requirements, correct?
3
"Mr. Trump would do well to make that commitment, and honor the friends we have."
trump is in thrall to Putin. He will try to pull out of NATO to save himself.
If Trump really revs up his efforts to ensure a real good trade war, especially with your "allies", then our GDPs will drop and presto, our 2% of GDP commitment will be met well before the agreed year of 2024. And just when we were all getting out of the financial hole your last "republican" government dug for us.
Why does the entire US defence budget get credited as a contribution to NATO, when too much of your war spending is on US "adventures" having zero to do with NATO? Perhaps Russia would be willing to house US military bases and hospitals if Germany tells you to leave and your injured, dying are still pouring out of the Middle East, Afghanistan and Africa.
Threatening and undermining NATO makes Putin happy and makes US arms manufactures rub their hands with glee.
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-looks-loosen-restrictions-arms-sales-boost...
4
Russia and China were both our allies during WWII and both suffered severe losses fighting against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The composition of NATO reflects the unresolved incompatibilities between the Allies that complicated the end of hostilities in that war.
This is a prolonged stalemate that has led to additional wars, most openly in Korea and Vietnam. It is now being tested by an ongoing global war triggered by the attacks of 9/11, which doesn't appear to operate along the usual "Cold War" dynamics.
The global impact of this current war thankfully has not yet spiralled out of control the way the last one did, but it could still result in some big realignments.
Our biggest concern should be bringing about a peaceful and just end to the current war. Maintaining the old order is a secondary priority.
1
NATO was a good idea 50 years ago but what is it doing attacking Libya, Afghanistan and generally supporting the imperialistic campaigns of the US?. Widely accepted that the US assured Gorbachev that NATO will not expand to its borders with Secretary Madeleine Albright saying Russia should be broken up into several countries. Who was to blame for the Ukraine rebellion when the US ambassador was handing out food to the rebels?. Yeah Russia has accurate grievances and hopefully the US has learned that but doubt it.
2
I'm no Trump fan, to say the least, but your recitation of the benefits of NATO actually makes me wonder whether the bad -- particularly in the last 10-20 years -- outweighs the good.
3
I am disgusted and disheartened but not surprised by the pro-Trump anti-Nato comments here. There is little doubt that Trump will further erode our relationship with our Nato allies on this trip and do God-knows-what in secret to our relationship with Putin and Russia. It is amazing and frightening how pro-Russia Trump's supporters and the GOP in general have become in the last two years. Too many posters here are looking at saving money by abandoning our NATO allies. That is the short-term picture. How many of us are willing to look at the long-term and realize what the death of this Treaty will really mean for the world? Very few.
3
"Many allies can do more to reach the target level of spending 2 percent of their annual G.D.P. on defense by 2024."
Your biases are showing. That is a pretty anemic way of pointing out that defense spending of 2% was agreed to by NATO members and few are living up to their commitments. And that despite the fact that NATO provides more protection to its European members than it does to the US. Furthermore, Trump's goading, boorish as it is, has produced a higher level of responsibility in some of them.
You don't have to like Trump, but as a news organization you should be awarding credit (and blame) where it is due.
2
It is simply senseless and mindless to undermine NATO. If one fails to see what benefits US gets from having NATO what else can be said?
For any Alliance to remain strong, it must be seen by each member to be benefitted by the Alliance. During the Cold War, the US saw NATO & its European Allies as the first line of defence against the Warsaw Pact & Nuclear Superpower Soviet Union.
Those days are history. Europe too needs to examine the need for US Military Forces in Europe. Surely UK & France have enough Nuclear Deterrence against Russia ? If puny North Korea can feel confident of its Nuclear arsenal vis-a-vis USA, why not UK & France ?
It is not just Donald Trump but a large section of the American people who see no benefit from giving expensive Security to Europe.
Maybe Donald Trump is the catalyst to junk NATO & create an European Security Alliance to Guarantee Peace in the 21st century.
1
I believe in NATO! But, I want free college tuition for my kids like most NATO nations have. Let them spend more on military and lesson the burden on the USA!
3
Hi Mickey,
as a european citizen, I can share our secret of our european welfare.
Step 1: Taxes, Taxes, Taxes. Europeans have mastered to pay tax for everything (e.g. Germans pay up to 45% tax on income + 9% pension + 9% health insurance + 1.5% unemployment insurance ; additionally 19% VAT, 40% on fuel, etc etc)
Step 2: Take those taxes and establish welfare and let your kids go to university for free.
Bonus step: Consider a defense budget that is focussed on defense and not on wars across the globe. Consider trade of goods to be better than trade of blood.
12
Marvin: sorry about your WC loss. But please remember that here in the USA, we pay more taxes than you and get substantially less. If you add up all the taxes we pay vs you in Germany, it becomes clear just how much less we get as citizens. Sorry but your comment is without merit as we pay much much more in taxes and get less. If would help if Germany picked up the tab a little more for its own defense. We saved you guys twice, how about helping us for a change.
Re WC: No sorry needed, we deserved to being kicked out it.
Re Taxation: This might interest you: http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/oecd-tax-rates-on-labour-income-continued-d...
Germany is has the second highest taxation rate, while you seem a bit less avg. But in San Fran you may have locally higher taxation. Even if, it would be interesting to know why it's not possible to offer welfare in the USA, but I'm 100% sure it has nothing to do with Europe not spending enough. A country with just two borders that spends >50% of global defense budget on its own has definitely a fetish for weapons and not security concerns.
Cut your budgets half and let our budget as it is and NATO is still able to nuke the world multiple times to ashes.
"NATO can withstand four years under Trump. I don't think we'll withstand eight."
Some fine melodrama from a former NATO ambassador.
Maybe it can endure six years of Trump and then just take a long vacation until a new president is elected. Just bury its head in the sand, which is something NATO has plenty of experience in, and wait it out.
4
And we'll just see how long it takes Poland to call on NATO's help if Russian troops cross its borders...again.
Over 10,000 Ukrainians have died trying to stop an authoritarian Russian regime's drive to cement its own legitimacy, by destroying efforts to establish a democratic way of life on its borders.
You can argue the Russian position any way you want to, but the bottom line is that a democratic and stable Ukraine is in the interests of Europe and the whole free world. To argue otherwise is to attack Western interests and it's way of life. Only dictators, and would be dictators can profit from this!
5
WW2 ended 73 years ago, the Warsaw Pact evaporated what? 28 years ago? Why is there still a NATO? The US no longer has any need to station forces in Europe. It’s only purpose today seems to be to stir up trouble in foreign nations we have no business in. Time to close the book on NATO and save a lot of money.
2
Starting with WWI for over a century it's been a one way flow of lives and money from the US to Europe. If anyone is undermining NATO is it our allies (e.g. DEPENDENTS) who won't even meet their very meager spending targets. Does the NYT really think that Trump is the bad guy to request that Europe does its part? Does the NYT expect that the US taxpayers should subsidize Europe indefinitely?
4
This editorial is totally gross. NATO has faced opposition from more than Russia, “communists” and the far right over the years. In Europe this weekend, groups including Friends of the Earth, Amnesty International, Britain’s CND, and the European Left Party (comprised of socialist and Bernie Sanders style national parties) all protested against NATO. Why? For the same reason that many European peace activists have been against the alliance since its foundation. Many citizens are scared of the possibility of nuclear war and oppose US military interventions in places like Iraq, Libya and Syria. A completely positive editorial on the alliance neglects and erases all of these voices.
4
Born in 1943, I grew up in an America which did not have to have the New York Times explain why we needed NATO. Thank you for an informative editorial, but it is shocking that we actually need it. Mr Trump is about as old as I am. If he doesn't get it, it's because he doesn't want to get it.
4
Trumps trashing of NATO ( and the EU) is not putting America first - it is putting Russia first.
As a European by birth, when I think back at all the great and far sighted endeavors that America has promoted within and with Europe since World War II, from the Marshall plan onwards, I am truly saddened by a large segment of this country that is enabling Trump to get away with trashing everything we have stood and fought for in the last 75 years.
America - please wake up and stop this nightmare before it is too late!
4
The fact people need reminders of “Why NATO Matters” should serve as a warning following the path of President Trump will change the security, freedoms, and rights we take for granted. Such change cannot be justified as good for anyone because there is only one alternative - there is nothing new or good about oppression, suppression, suffering, the necessary brutality of forcing people to act in dictated ways, the inhumanity of expendable populations, the loss of rights, freedoms, and ability to make simple choices we now make every day. The age-old lust for power, control, and wealth may be alluring to most, but it never, ever trickles down as expected to those who put greed and corruption into power. Mr. Trump has no intention of serving the public or this country. He desires people and government to serve him. Do not look to Republicans in Congress to check the abuses of powers by this president and administration. They have every intention of achieving the selfish, delusional demands of their hateful base: elimination of rights and freedoms of those deemed unworthy, which is the very opposite of democracy. This is a simple choice for Americans - continued world order, peace, prosperity, inclusive democracy or the loss of it all.
2
The "dread" among our allies, of course, is that after wasting many billions of dollars on failed experiments in socialism and many millions of refugees who have not assimilated and are now wreaking havoc on the European social fabric, the current and back rent is overdue and they have stop free loading on the American taxpayer's largess. Dreadful indeed.
4
Something you should think about before you start denigrating our allies. After 9/11, the only time NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty that enshrined the principle of an attack against one being an attack against all, 50 member nations of NATO sent up to 130,000 troops to assist U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Of these "freeloaders," 1,138 were killed in a war not of their own making.
2
The first NATO supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said in February 1951 of the alliance: “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.”
Remember George W. Bush declaring that any Russian move against Latvia or Estonia meant war with the United States? John McCain wanted to extend U.S. war guarantees to Georgia and Ukraine. “We are all Georgians!” thundered McCain. World War III over South Ossetia? Really?
Trump is challenging the mindset of a foreign policy elite, neocon Republicans, and now, incredibly, The New York Times, whose thinking is frozen in a world that disappeared around 1991.
Trump is suggesting a new foreign policy where the United States is committed to war only when are attacked or U.S. vital interests are imperiled. And when we agree to defend other nations, they will bear a full share of the cost of their own defense. The era of the free ride is over.
3
Trump should withdraw his troops from Europe, we as Europeans find it insulting that the US continues occupying European territory more than six decades after the end of wwii and three after the fall of the Berlin. The military occupation should stop, the us is no longer welcome, especially now that it is headed by an authoritarian regime.
You can feel any way you want about Trump, but we do not have an authoritarian regime. Your country was overrun in both world wars by an authoritarian regime so you should know the difference.
Judging by the comments, many Americans seem to have a rather feeble memory of recent history. 9/11 was an attack on the United States, and the invasion of Afghanistan was an American war. Our NATO allies came to our aid, but now many of the comments are spinning it as though we were doing them favor. It's a pretty dishonest distortion of the facts. In fact, when it comes to actual war, NATO has come to America's aid but America has not had to come to other NATO countries' aid. No wonder so much of the world thinks of Americans as arrogant and ungrateful.
5
Trump will consolidate his control of the Supreme Court and put Congress in its place before heading to the NATO meeting then to Russia. At the peak of his power, he will treat NATO as he has dealt with American institutions; with disdain, insults and threats. He will try to use his upcoming meeting with Putin and Europe’s right-wing revolution as a club to beat Europe into submission, the way he has subjugated the Republican Party using his supporters. Do the Europeans fear the Russians like the Republicans fear Trump’s base? If so, he will get his way. Who would have believed this real estate con artist would control the democracies of the world?
1
It’s now as obvious as day that the “president” of the United States seeks to destroy all our alliances. His words and actions couldn’t be more clear: he’s utterly compromised by Russia and undermines our values. Many in his party is paralyzed by fear in ruling up Trump’s base of alt right white nationalists, and let him get away with pursuing Russian, and not American, interests. Others in the GOP, such as the 7 senators who recently dutifully went to Russia to prepare U.S. unilateral appeasement to Putin, are “all in” this shameful abdication of our former leadership.
The only solution is to vote Democratic in November. We need a Congress looking out for America, not Trump and Russia.
2
One really wonders when said that Turkey does not fulfill the requirements of democracy. While on the other the closest allies of U.S. are such dictatorial and ruthless regimes like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Double standards?
2
The 2% metric is wrong for the times. Broaden it to a % of GDP for a combination of 'defence' spending, and investment in multi-lateral institutions and foreign aid. The better defence is stability and opportunity in foreign lands; not Berlin nor Mexican walls.
2
pay for protection, this is called racket. The usa currently have two problems: an imperialism that is more and more unbearable when it is proven that it relies only on biased, truncated or false information (remembering weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and is only an example) It is clear that all this is only the will to make pay the abyssal deficit of usa by the others ... The second problem is simply Trump, like many of its fellow citizens: violent, uneducated, arrogant. Curiously, I see a hope. If the dollar loses its role of world currency, I will have to write when, America will have to learn not to spend other people's money, it will be hard, presumably you will trigger wars of aggression, but you can not win as well. Have you realized that the new agreement between India, China, Japan is a first response to Trump? a first step. The EU is a bigger market than the USA, except to vitrify our continent, you will not be able to defeat us. Time is playing for us. And a majority you probably can not imagine is ready to accept Putin or Xi more easily than Trump. The defense of the weak to the strong, did you win in Vietnam? And this post is written by a guy who had respect and admiration for Americans! You are preparing for big disappointments, if not you, your children. It's sad.
2
Francois! Imagine Europe when the US forces them to bear the burden of their own defense. Why, you might not be able to afford your beloved social democracy then.
This president only wants to honor the friend he thinks he has but doesn’t have, and that’s Russia. He wants to get Russia in NATO with America and keep everyone else down, or out. He has burned bridges with allies while groveling before Vladimir Putin.
America has always led by example and may pay more than its fair share than member nations but the goal is unity and a commitment to global peace. The president has picked at every foreign and domestic policy since his election. Nothing pleases him unless it has something to do with Russia.
He simply cannot envision the greater good of NATO because he has no understanding of history, diplomacy or international relations. As he gets deeper into his first (and hopefully only) term, his ignorance, indifference and lack of preparation for his office becomes more glaring.
1
According to NATO, “Today, the volume of the US defense expenditure effectively represents some 67 per cent of the defense spending of the Alliance as a whole in real terms. This does not mean that the United States covers 67 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organization, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defense; and airborne electronic warfare.”
NATO countries agreed in 2014 to spend two percent of GDP or more on defense, but in 2017 only four of the 29 NATO countries—the United States, United Kingdom, Greece and Estonia—met the guideline. In 2018 only eight of the 29 are expected to meet or exceed this target.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm
1
So far the "great" deal maker had only demonstrated an ability to back out of deals without replacing anything: Paris climate accord, TPP, Ira n nuclear and continues to challenge WTO, NATO, G7 and NAFTA.
Without any of these accords in place, the U.S. and the world are in a worse place.
In the mean time, Putin laughs and plots, Xi and China expand their global influence, Kim and NK continue their nuclear program and Iran restarts theirs...
2
Trump has shown an unusual and sinister attachment to dictators with whom he never disagrees but he is prone to attack leaders of democracies. He has been marinated in gutting the public's well being, a habit shown in his sticky fingers business transactions where ripping people off makes him feel good. His financial empire was kept afloat with Russian money and is all that he knows or cares to know about foreign policy. There is nothing N.A.T.O. can do to catch this man's attention to issues of substance. Putin wants N.A.T.O. weakened so he can manipulate without fear of repraisal. America used to be a buffer for Europe, but Trump wants to move out of Russia's way. This is clear from day one.
1
NATO has advanced right up to the border of the Russian Federation. Surely that's much too aggressive.
We should pull back and spend much less on weapons and wars.
4
There’s another factor here, which bears mentioning. Trump wants to take all the credit. He couldn’t take credit for NAFTA, TPP, ACA, the Iran deal, DACA, NATO, CPFB etc. - so he ripped them up, shredded them (or is in the process of doing so, in the case of NATO). His destroying these agreements has little to do with the actual terms, in some cases he is seeking remarkably similar deals of his own. It has to do with Trump hating to share the spotlight, to let anyone else get credit. That’s why he hates Obama, Trump’s jealousy of Obama is palpable, so he has made undoing Obama a central goal of his presidency. This explains his put-downs of the Bushes, with whom he’s constantly comparing himself. Stop looking for policy or ideology in Trump’s actions, there is none. It’s all about upstaging anyone who came before him, in his massively insecure quest for praise and adulation.
2
Nato has outlived its usefulness. It is time we ended it. SUre after WW2 it was right that we help defend Europe while they build up their economy. But is gone on too long, and while Europe has a great social safety now because they have no defense responsibilities, our social safety net has too many holes because we spend too much on the military.
It is time the EU faced the facts and started to pay for their own defense. We should turn NATO over to the EU and let them use to build their own defense.
Militarily it is China that is the danger and the are we should concentrate on.
2
Trump knows something about getting something for nothing. He stiffed his contractors and filed bankruptcy rather than pay his bills. Did he also stiff the government on taxes? Probably, but we don't know since he still refuses to release his tax returns.
2
I just sit here amazed watching the potential destruction of my country, or at least what it stands for. Up until now, it's been gradual, with the manipulators and speculators gaining more and more influence while the creators and builders struggle. We strike out at our friends and allies in NATO, Canada and Mexico, while getting cozy with Russia and picking what looks like a poorly planned trade fight with China.
Is this really happening? Is this how countries change beyond recognition?
Nothing short of a landslide in November can reverse this state of affairs, and let the world know first, that most of us are not on board with this madness, and second, that it won't last past 2020. Then the Democrats can implement whatever plan they have to reverse the economic decline and the wealth disparity.
If Trump keeps stumbling enough, the danger should make it clear to enough people to swing 2018 and put us on the path to recovery. However, I've written him off before, and look how that turned out.
God bless the United States of America. We could use a bit of your help right now.
3
NATO has outlived the purpose it was created to provide: a strategic counter to the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. That enemy is gone, having been vanquished to the dustbin of history. NATO has no strategic purpose any longer other than having the US provide defense for a prosperous Europe, many governments of which refuse to pay their treaty obligations.
The US needs to shift its priority away from Europe, and let them provide their own defense and instead, focus on the emerging threat posed by China. I think it is time to tell our erstwhile NATO allies to fend for themselves and we can begin the process of shifting our assets and priorities elsewhere.
3
Agree on Europe, but do not see the threat to the US posed by China, other than our own failure to mandate a balanced foreign trade policy with the rest of the world, of which our unbalanced trade with China is just a symptom.
The problem is sourced in the outdated policy of having the world use the US dollar as the international unit of exchange. That ended when the dollar ceased to be backed by gold at a pegged $34 an ounce.Gold backing became and remains impossible for any national currency. We need instead some international unit, backed by a "basket of currencies" against which all national currencies will be revalued when their trade balance moves too far out of line up or down. Under such a system our dollar would be revalued downward unti our exports increases and imports decreased sufficiently to bring things back in line. We resist that change in vain. It must and will happen. Why not admit that and get on with it. As for China wanting our fleet out of the South China sea, how would we react if they had a large fleet claiming dominance in the Gulf of Mexico?
So you don't think Russia is a threat? They invaded a sovereign nation and annexed Crimea, a part of Ukraine.
They sabotaged our election process and those of other Western countries and pose a threat to former satellites of the former Soviet Union.
So what happens if we walk away? NATO has served the world well. It has kept Putin and his predecessors
in check while letting Europe rebuild after the mass destruction of WW2.
An old saying should be remembered. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
1
Asking for more money defense spending from our allies within NATO is fine.
Destroying NATO, on the other hand, is not.
If NATO dissolves, war in Europe becomes significantly more likely. Whether it is internal (ie, Germany vs. Turkey) or external (with Russia or China), it will happen. Humans inevitably seek to grab their neighbor's greener grass. And unlike America, the European countries do not have a giant ocean buffering them from their greatest threats. We often forget the defense benefits accorded to us by the Pacific and the Atlantic... Grass is a lot easier to grab if you can simply walk into the other yard.
NATO has prevented that instinctual human desire, to great effect.
So ask for more money. Demand it even. But I for one do not want World War 3.
Think of how much money that would cost?
5
NATO matters, not because it manages an alliance against Russia. Much of Russian threat outside of the border defined by the former Soviet Union is overrated and overestimated. Russians definitely want to subvert everything they can in the west, but it is a stretch to suggest they aim to militarily invade western Europe.
NATO matters because it tames an otherwise savage Western Europe. If left alone, the key western democracies in Europe will first off wage war on each other, and if not, export their warfare to the third world (not that they have not done the latter since the end of WWII). Very few would have a problem with importing cheap labor from former colonies, and concentrating them to maintain their lifestyles, were it not for US involvement in all things that matter in Western Europe (or have you never seen the projects outside of Paris).
The commitment to democracy is in UK alone; the rest prefer authoritarianism of one kind or another (label them as you wish). But all will proceed to exploit and spoil that which remains under-developed on the planet. Despite NATO, western European prospered from apartheid, and strife in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia.
I have read up thoughtful tomes about NATO, and I am sure they are wise and correct. But the entire third world is happy that western Europe is controlled, at least militarily, by a US-led NATO. That is why it matters to about 4 billion people outside of the US and Western Europe.
2
Europe should develop plans to expel the US military from all bases, Mediterranean ports, hospitals and other facilities in Europe. The Atlantic Fleet could be put in mothballs. Rename it the Chesapeake Bay fleet. EU money is better spent on their own more reliable defensive needs, and transitioning to French and British military hardware and weapons.
The US will lose defense contracts, the ability to meddle in the Middle East, to start wars or "protect" Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Pentagon would lose scores and hundreds of high level promotion billets, commands and could reduce the active duty forces and associated equipment.
7
NATO members should treat Trump the way that Americans should: as a direct threat to the alliance and a danger to world order. Believing that Russia is his friend and that Europe is a poor distant and obscure relative, Trump has deliberately played into Putin’s hands. As such, he believes in authoritarian powers that can aggressively invade nations, flies in the face of the rule of law and a free press, and ultimately shows contempt for Western democracies.
Trump is a disgrace to his own country’s founding values enshrined in our Constitution. He should be censored from representing the US at the NATO and the European Union meetings.
9
Russia doesn’t have the military that the former USSR had. Any “invasion” of Europe will only be because the Europeans decided to submit rather than fight. Time for Europe, 73 years after WW2, to pay for their own defense.
Nothing in the US Constitution obligates is to assist Europe or NATO. As for your cherished founding values, those are for the establishment of our country and it’s defense and not an obligation to foot the bill for other countries. I suggest you pull up a copy and read it along with a copy of the Federalist Papers.
"Across seven decades NATO has invoked its Article 5 mutual defense commitment only once: to rally to the defense of the United States after the attacks of 9/11."
Was that even necessary? It was a symbolic propaganda gesture by a dim George Bush who knew next to nothing about terrorism. The USA wasn't threatened by hoards of nuclear armed terrorists. The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were all dead. Some people even thought the 9/11 attacks should have been investigated by the FBI as a criminal act, not an act of war by a nebulous ill defined enemy.
NATO is still a nuclear military alliance. Austria isn't a member because they don't want nuclear weapons on their territory, a requirement for NATO membership.
6
I would say the act, was to show unification against terrorist nations that would do us harm.
Hindsight is great, isn't it?
Hindsight? I knew it the afternoon of 9/11 when I was taking photos of the still burning Pentagon. Even my Polish speaking neighbor said it was folly to "go to war against terrorism" before Bush's plans were put into operation.
May as well throw NATO on the scrap heap along with the Paris Accord, the Iran deal, TPP, the ACA (still a work in progress) and then we can listen to the President's oldie but goodie........it may be a good thing. It may be a bad thing. We'll just have to wait and see.
1
Don't like Trump's NATO policy? Just wait 5 minutes.
3
Vladimir Putin would like nothing more than for Trump to keep battering NATO and thus allow him to continue Russian expansion and his goal to recreate the former Soviet empire. NATO matters! Putin knows it and perhaps his puppet is a "willing idiot" or an active collaborator. Either way, all we know is that Trump's continued fealty to Putin and his agenda are both dangerous and potentially traitorous, as well. NATO has been a bulwark against Soviet and now Russian expansion. Further weakening NATO by Trump could encourage Putin to attempt to reclaim the Baltic states and lead to another war in Europe. Trump's dangerous foolishness in weakening NATO will have real consequences costing human lives. The secretive summit meeting between Trump and Putin is therefore quite troubling and holds very real consequences for continued peace in Europe.
2
Russia historically has felt landlocked in the west. They will attempt to re-dominate the Baltic states and any pathway that they feel that they need to have access to Sevastopol on the Black Sea. Trying to prevent that is not worth one American life, because those battlefields would be in Russia's backyard, and they will win any war that attempts to frustrate that ambition. This is not an issue that can be dealt with using Sunday School logic. Consider former US poiicy and why we now have incorporated Florida, Louisiana, Texas, California, Hawaii and Alaska. They were not part of the original 13 colonies. We wanted their ports!
I despise Trump and the GOP. However, for decades it has been clear to me that the northwestern Europeans and the Japanese have been getting a free ride from us (the USA). No wonder they have such great social services since they don't have to bother to defend themselves. Duh. The free ride can't go on forever.
4
Europeans have such great social services because they pay for them in high taxes. Americans don’t, because they don’t want Medicare and Medicaid to negotiate drug prices, don’t want to implement true universal health insurance - so we pay through the nose for health insurance premiums to cover the uninsured who use the ER, and give tax freebies to the wealthy, who sit on the money instead of using it for job creation. The tax freebies to the wealthy alone could give Americans a European style social safety net...
2
Trump has poked you. You should never the less, not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Has the US become the most erratically threatening country on the planet simply to sell more weapons?
6
It’s with good reason that the Baltic states, Finland, Norway and yes, even Sweden are rapidly increasing their defensive military preparedness.
They are afraid. Very afraid.
The Russian bear smells blood.
5
If Trump & Co. force NATO countries to tax their wealthy to foot more of their bill as he laid out to a few screwballs in MT., would that not be a good enough distraction away from the US doing the same?
I never thought that I would ever see America become a vassal state to Russia. All of America's much-vaunted military might has had no effect, and not a shot has been fired. It's just a private deal between two men.
Because of this vassalage, there is now no need for NATO. All that is left is for the United States to acknowledge its status.
2
We may need to admit that we do not and cannot rule Europe, Asia and Africa. To remain a sovereign nation we need only dominate militarily that quadrant of the globe in which our nation is centered. With only 5% of the global population exercising military control over 25% of its surface may be sufficient.
Trump only cares about Trump and his core supporters. He has no concern for the overhaul good of the country. International relations and the importance of the connectedness between the US and our allies is beyond Trumps intellectual scope. My hope is that our allies see the folly in Trump and they hang in there together with the knowledge that one day Trump will be gone. Once Trump is out, his replacement can once again nurture this relationship and Trump will be viewed as an aberration as an error made by the American voters.
3
NATO is an obsolete waste of US taxpayers money that should have ended, not expanded, after the end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the restoration of capitalism and resurgence of Christianity (and Judaism) in post-Soviet, post-Communist Russia.
5
America wake up!
What we are paying for in NATO is the defense and enhancement of America, her trading partners and protection of its markets. To think that there are no longer threats out there to be contained in a coordinated way with western allies is NAIVE IN THE EXTREME. NATO deters war because of its size and capabilities. There will be more conflict as the world population and demand for resources grows. There be more war and migration caused by climate change. This is not the time to dissolve our alliances.
If we break from our our democratic allies, who do we ally with? Are we now aligning with autocratic and fascistic countries? Are we giving up 78 years of mutual aid so Trump can put hotels in Moscow and North Korea? The little money saved, if any at all from breaking with NATO will not make the lives of the average American better. More likely an America that goes it alone will be paying more to protect her interests. Wake up.
6
As a German, I would welcome an amicable divorce with the United States, and their role replaced with a common European security arrangement, strong enough to repel potential aggressors.
It will cost us time, effort, and lots of money. It will be a pain, there will be setbacks, there will be heated arguments.
But I believe there is a certain dignity in not being the doormat of another country on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. In no longer tolerating foreign troops on our soil which openly tell us that they will use their capacities to spy on our government, our companies, and our private lives. In no longer serving as a logistical hub for military power games, destructions of foreign states, drone attacks, and other US military activities which we abhor. In no longer having to sheepishly ask what sort of wars of aggression (wrongly called "fighting terrorists" in this article) America will try to drag us into next. In never again hearing our elected politicians pronouncing such nonsense as "our freedom is defended in Afghanistan". In no longer having to pretend that we do not despise the death penalty, the intentionally dehumanising prisons, the cruelty towards the poor.
Let us pay the price for our dignity, thank the US troops for the good they have done, and ask them to leave. Let us do the American taxpayer this favor. We have the level of economic and techonlogical development to do this, we only need the will.
8
I am sorry that you feel used in such a way by America. Most of the people I know here love Germany and her people. Of course there will be frictions in any relationship. I would hope that America, Germany and the rest of the EU nations could find a way to smooth over their differences to make continued cooperation acceptable to all nations. The US is now having to deal with some of the same strains that Germany had to contend with so long ago. I would hope that a continued alliance with Germany in NATO will help the US navigate her way to safer shores. Good luck.
2
As a former draftee NATO soldier from the US, I accept your thanks, and heartily agree with your conclusions as to what should guarantee the future sovereignty of the
European nations. Next, I wish that you would militate for an international currency unit to replace the US dollar in that role. We, as well as you (perhaps more so,) would benefit from such forward change. The world of 1948 is now 70 years in that past, and what made sense back then no longer makes sense in 2018.
Yes, you are right that there is a certain dignity in not being the doormat. You might have let it rest there but you had to get your dig into the Americans by listing your interpretation of US actions that you despise.
So let's have an amicable divorce. We don't need you just as much as you don't need us. Strengthen your commercial and energy ties with Russia. For that matter, sign another Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Make it public this time.
Just remember that your country above or beneath all others invented the debasement of other human beings long before Trump, as despicable as he is.
The words commitment, honor and friends can't be used in the same sentence as Trump.
We are not a country in Trump's mind. We as a people are not considered in Trump's mind. The only thing he considers is how to get his, omni- present need for attention. Disruption, is the means by which he accomplishes that goal. We are in trouble, as his adoring fans watch the most recent version of the Jerry Springer show, without a solution to the disruption.
5
There are two real issues. First is about paying their fair share now that they most certainly can, and now that their quality of life exceeds that of the US in many ways. If it's worth it to have, it's worth it to pay fairly for it, not duck out and milk and steal it. This is Trump's way, legitimately (I am NOT a Trump supporter) of testing whether the Europeans want and value Nato. If they do, they will pony up their rightful, fair share. If they do not, certainly they have far more to risk than we do, and far sooner, in a return to the previous dangerous, deadly, miserable history of Europe that existed before Nato. Part of being a grownup is that you are responsible for what it takes to provide what you consume.
Second is that where each country's choices, and the EU's "choices" as a whole, exceed or differ what US would mirror, should not be the responsibility of the US to support, but again, those who value, commit to and create them.
2
Putin has reason to spoil the upcoming NATO summit, as it seeks “to approve significant new steps to contain Russia.” European Leaders will discuss measures to expand “cyberwarfare and counterterrorism efforts and approving a new plan to speed the reinforcement of troops and equipment to Poland and the Baltic States to deter Russian aggression.”
They also worry that Trump could bargain away their security in the name of better relations with the Kremlin. Putin knows Trump inside out, that money is his raison d’être. It is easy to convince Trump that NATO allies were a bunch of “freeloaders” – given his focus on costs and benefits. Putin can rely on Trump to divide the West. Apart from receiving loans from Russian oligarchs to keep his business aflat, Trump might even get shares in Russian oil, gold and diamond sectors in reward.
Angela Merkel’s predecessor, Gerhard Schröder benefits from his friendship with Putin and always got the front-row spot at his friend’s inaugurations in Moscow. He was invited to join the board of North European Gas Pipeline, Gazprom's new consortium, in 2005, after he was unseated in the general election. Since last year he is chairman of Rosneft, the state-run gas company.
2
There are so many benefits the USA gets from NATO that many people don't realise. The constant use of airforce bases all over Europe from which to conduct it's foreign policy. I don't see any European countries with bases in the USA. That is just one example of the many benefits. It's not all just about money. You would be very naive to think it is. Is this latest posture from the President what your parents or grandparents fought for?
4
“I'm going to tell NATO — you got to start paying your bills. The United States is not going to take care of everything,” Trump told a rowdy rally in Montana last week. “We are the schmucks that are paying for the whole thing.”
In this regard American taxpayers shouldn’t foot Trump’s security bills for his golf trips. He must be laughing at “the schmucks” who say nothing while he milks the presidential office for personal gains.
9
NATO is one of the hallmark achievements of the post-World War II era, for the purpose of countering Soviet expansion. And like the United Nations, Trump wants to weaken it. Why?
Questions like this are the reason the Special Counsel investigation seems to be taking so long.
4
When the US was richer and more powerful than Europe, it make sense why we provided for their defense.
Today, Europe is rich.
In 2018, why should US blood and treasure be the first line in the defense of Europe?
Let's stay allies but they need to ante up.
4
They are. The agreement was 2 percent by 2024. It's 2018; they are making progress.
We get far more from the alliance than what we pay into it, number one. Number two, as a superpower, we have responsibilities that such a distinction bestows, namely supporting such alliances as NATO. Third, we have made the choice to spend exorbitant amounts on our military at the expense of infrastructure and social programs. We could cut our military budget by half and still spend more than most nations (such as China and Russia) combined.
13
Tim--Well, that's okay, as long as the blood, and the treasure actually belongs to the poor, and lower middle class, not the 1%, eh?
3
Who in the world thinks that the US would cut its defense spending regardless of what NATO or any other alliance does. This is not at all a financial consideration it is just Trump finding ways to beat others down so he can look important. The long term damage may be very consequential.
Why is asking the other nations to pay their fair share undermining NATO? If that's all it takes its not a very strong alliance to begin with.
3
Trump makes that argument the end all be all, and it is not. Trump makes that an excuse to disrupt the alliance. It's his MO, disrupt with no counter plan, as the article points out, no matter the consequences. His egotism disallows him from seeing the complete picture of any situation. He is not qualified for the position of President.
8
It's not just the money. Trump belittles the NATO alliance by verbally mistreating our friends. As we all can clearly see, he is in the pocket of a dictator who has invaded a European country and who is assisting another dictator in Syria with the help of Iran. And Putin is waging war in this country by trying to divide us... but United We Will Stand. Now as much as ever, we need a strong alliance to protect democracies from Russian aggression.
1
Richest nation in the world, once one of the best economies in history, being thrown away by Trump because Republicans won't help their own rural states. What do they think will happen after the tariffs grow and alliances fade and the trade agreements are ripped up? Without immigration growth, we'll somehow manage economic growth? Without trade we'll somehow grow? Creating record deficits to help the rich, the rest of us will have better lives?
20
If NATO really mattered, its members would be funding it, instead of simply using their militaries as jobs programs, and leaving their defense to the United States. This is one of the few areas where I am solidly with the President. Our allies are not even making an effort, except to be outrage at the U.S. insistence that they pull their weight. The Germans, especially, have no military left.
7
When NATO was formed, it comprised about a dozen nations, and its charter required unanimity on all decisions -- a feasibility with such a small group, but far more difficulty in a conglomerate of 29 nations, as at present. Its expansion has been more glut than growth, and adding nations like Poland, Slovakia, etc. has posed new risks for the U.S., and no real benefits.
3
Our NATO allies are on target to pay their fair share. Many already are paying and others are given time.
Trump prey's on emotion, by making people think they are being taken advantage of.
No matter the original goal, founding principles, or current situation, there's always someone to defend the continued existence of an institution, agency, department, division, or program.
NATO is fine. No NATO would also be fine. One way to get people to meet their defense expenditure obligation would be to dis-enroll remiss members from exercise participation, leadership positions, and collective defense until they pay up. Simple. They'll pay or they'll be non-participating members.
When you have to pen a "Why X Matters" column about an organization as large and old as NATO, you wonder does it really? What's next "Why the UN Matters?"
3
The only reason for such a column is that Trump is bashing something he doesn’t understand, as usual.
15
When huge swaths of your population have no ability to think critically and blindly follow a proudly clueless reality TV star, sometimes a very obvious case needs to be laid out as bluntly as "why x matters".
If it ain't broke, break it.
The timing of the upcoming NATO conference couldn't be more auspicious, especailly since it's taking place just ahead of Donald Trump's scheduled meeting with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki.
The future of NATO involves a lot more than who's paying what.
Above all, it is also a question about national security, even though Mr. Trump still fails to recognize Russia for the antagonistic power it really is -- and Mr. Putin, with his training as an ex-KGB Intelligence Officer has no doubt already sized up Donald Trump, and will flatter him to no end to get his own way.
Therein lies the danger.
The U.S. has already ceded a great amount of its world influence to other countries who are wasting no time establishing their place.
And Russia is one of them.
That is also why Mr. Putin would like nothing more than to see NATO fall apart.
One can only hope this president recognizes that's the only way to protect 'America first'.
8
For Trump, it's all about money. And Putin has been willing to pay off Trump's debts and finance his projects. It's amazing how successful Putin is with Trump. But then, Putin plays on Trump's weakness.. GREED.
Yes,and mostly by Mr. Obama!
Yes NATO matters and US ambassador to NATO, Ms Kay Bailey Hutchison underscored this in her interview with Ms Dana Perino.
President Trump has shaken NATO just like the presidents preceding him would have liked to have done, but had no guts to do it.
Trump has made NATO more sustainable by insisting that member nations, some that are economically very rich like Germany and France, spend more on their own defense and pick up funding needed for NATO missions.
Antagonizing Russia was never the NATO mission. In fact there was USSR for most of the time that NATO was formed.
Russia is only there since the end of the 20th century. Having some working relations with Russia and lines of communications open to resolve differences peacefully should be the goal.
NATO should always be the peace through strength wing of the UN and if it has to continue to matter then it has to adapt and reconfigure for the current times with a different mission and that would be to maintain a state of the art defense force, ready at all times to confront challenges such as terrorism, fascism and expansionism.
A Putincentric NATO that fails to wind up NATO's longest war in Afghanistan or the conflicts in the ME that threaten the life and limb of NATO forces and the oil supply to countries dependent on oil will undermine its credibility.
Trump has not undermined the credibility of NATO in any way. He has done everything possible in his 500+ days in office to make NATO more accountable to USA.
4
The US spends massively on weapons and aggression a) because it is in the thrall of the military industrial complex and b) because Bush/Cheney chose to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.
The destabilization of the middle east kick-started a vicious cycle that continues today with conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen and Africa. Millions of people are displaced.
Massive military spending and aggressive policies are out of place in our interconnected, interdependent world.
The world will be better off when there is less militarism, less spending by the US and by NATO. Demanding more and more expenditures for war machines is exactly the wrong policy.
19
The 2% spending commitment was agreed a few years ago and NATO members have until 2024 to reach that goal. Many of the members have increased spending and are on their way to reach target.
17
NATO is old now. Mature maybe is the right word. And it seems reasonable that we need a NATO Version 2.0. Not surprisingly, given the size and location of the various nations involved, there are some relative imbalances in the members' participation and apparent commitment to the current NATO agreements. As only one example, Canada is far removed from the EU theater, and is diminutive in population although with a healthy economy. Canada's Navy includes mostly very old ships that are incapable of serious defense or combat missions, and they have been without aircraft carriers in the fleet since the demise of the Bonaventure. Their jet fighters and interceptors are older and need serious updating or replacement. Canada has brave and committed military men, women and families, to be sure. But the question is whether NATO nations are capable of and sufficiently motivated to be engaged in the upkeep of a modern military force. Maybe it truly is time to redefine NATO's objectives on a very functional level and establish newer models of commitment and participation that can actually be met.
2
Didn't Poland just spend several billion on an upgraded missile defense?
The real test is what things look like without NATO. Would Russia begin to invade smaller countries? The answer is yes he has already shown he will do that. Does invasion of smaller countries make us less secure. I believe yes, because an emboldened Russia is dangerous. They already interfere openly in democratic elections, if Putin does not have expansive intent, why does he interfere, for the fun of it. I think not. A strong democratic Europe is good for US.
10
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO totally ignored very legitimate Russian security concerns and threw its weight about as if only their actions mattered. Arrogance is too mild a word to describe NATO policies.
It was never going to be a stable situation and a military reaction was inevitable. NATO "encouraged" Ukraine to overthrow its legitimate Government simply because it was friendly to Russia. It was an attempt to deny use of the Russian naval bases in the Black Sea.
The situation in Syria is more complex, but an important component was again an attempt to deny Russia the use of the only naval base they have in the Mediterranean. Again what happened should have been expected, had the NATO officials not been so arrogant.
There is only one reason for the existence of NATO today: to solve the problems that its own existence creates.
1
I agree, but my question is where was NATO when Russia invaded Crimea? How effective was the organizational and tactical powers of this institution to thwart Russia’s hegemony?
Since Ukraine was not a member of NATO, it had no real options. The EU, however, has responded with strong sanctions, and economic and security aid to Ukraine. Nor are they recognizing the annexation of Crimea. It's not completely satisfying, I agree, but it's realistically about all that can be done for now.
It does not appear that Trump would have understood the need to enter WWII on the side of the Allies.
12
It would also appear as if Trump has not understood that the Allies would never support "our" side if he invaded Venezuela.
He would have understood the declarations of war by both Germany and Japan on the USA. How could he not?
In 2016, President Obama declared that our NATO allies were "freeriders" for failing to fulfill their 2% budget pledge. Did the NYT Editorial Board describe his statement as "undermining a decades-old partnership"?
The fact is, the U.S. call for our allies to meet their budgetary pledge is bi-partisan;it transcends political party, and the NYT should recognize this, no matter how much the Editorial Board dislikes Trump.
6
So NATO has been great for Europe.
But what has it done for the US?
We don't need NATO. And we should not care if Turkey (for example) and Russia trade blows. Committing the US to fight for Turkey if they squabble with Russia is total insanity.
War in Europe has never been bad for the US. Quite the contrary. We exited WWII as the richest nation the world had ever seen with nearly 50% of global GDP.
1
If NATO is important and necessary, then it can survive on its own.
2
NATO is still very much a part of America's strategic military assets especially in light of Russian aggression in Europe. It is also the staging area for the attempts to bring peace to the Middle East. Perhaps Trump thinks that Europe should fight its own battles with Russia and Israel should take care of its own problems with its neighbors and we can fight our own battles against terrorism. If so, he will continue to abandon America's power, leadership and influence in preventing more dictatorships, more conflict, more danger worldwide. And if you think Trump would abandon NATO so that the American money that would have gone to our participatory funding would be spent on health, education, welfare and infrastructure in the USA , I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you!
3
Good Grief! Are we still living in 1954? Can we stop the Soviet Empire fear mongering militarism ever?
NATO should have gone the way of the Warsaw Pact a long time ago. NATO is an anachronism set in a vision to defend Western Europe from a massive Soviet lead land based invasion. The tanks and armies are not coming. The tanks and armies are never coming.
Are we really safer with NATO today? Regardless of cost I really wonder if being in NATO is such a good idea. Do we want NATO, a military organization to be the beacon for human rights, civil liberties, democracy and international diplomacy? This article smacks of the Neocon world view that militarism should be used as a force for good, proactively even, and that the United Nations is good for nothing. Well, does not NATO’s existence undermine the importance and mission of the United Nations?
Perhaps we should now revisit the wisdom of our founding fathers regarding the risks of foreign entanglements, and the need to avoid such treaties. We should at least stop thinking that we are living in 1954.
5
It would be nice, if unlikely, for NATO to invoke Article 5 and use it to take Trump into custody as an agent of the Soviet Union.
For all intents and purposes he is. Trump was installed with Russian help; the Senate Intelligence Committee's first report has said as much. His actions to date have destabilized the world, damaged relations with our allies, and encouraged despots everywhere.
While Meuller grinds away here, who knows what our allies have on Trump? It would be interesting to know what they say behind closed doors.
13
Most of the criticism of NATO can be directed at those member countries not meeting their 2% commitments. Today's German Bundeswehr is a bit of a joke. If the Russian wanted to walk into the Baltic States there is nothing really to stop them. God forbid that the Turks try to seize our hundreds of nuclear weapons we have based in their country.
1
NATO is important as the United Nations is important as the Congress of the United States is important. They are all connected, especially since the United States is the global super power still standing, and the leader in all three of the above.
NATO does indeed contain Russia, but can do nothing when Russia decides to take territory, that is not under its umbrella.
The United Nations issues proclamations when Russia takes territory, but then is toothless, when the the United States does nothing and other countries within the collective, block actions on the security council or otherwise.
The United States does nothing when it lets Russia take territories, or allows the President to declare war by himself (against explicit consent in the Constitution ) or send troops everywhere. Things further erode when a President (backed by the same party in Congress) decides that Russia is its friend and is actively undermining all of the above, by demanding payment from allies and more.
Everything is falling apart right before our eyes and that is exactly what some of the global players want, Time to upgrade and enhance the alliances, while making new ones.
The world is no longer a safe place.
7
No, Trump is not undermining NATO. He is reasonably demanding fair terms for members to pay what they are obligated to pay. Can you try to be objective and report the facts?
4
Trump is proving to be very bit as dangerous and destablizing as the long list of generals and national security professionals from both parties warned us before the election. Every bit. He clearly is deliberately acting in service to Putin. Also, it's just so rich for a guy with the longest trail of unpaid debts to chastize others to "pay up."
12
If our “allies” truly valued our decades of sacrifice for them they would see and understand that if they fix the trade imbalances President Trump would be easier to work with. If (and we are the greatest power) the US is the strongest the natural power dynamic would mean we would get the best out of every deal. The citing of invocation of Article 5 is disingenuous because virtually every other country severally limit what their soldiers do. They are token forces. They do not back us on Iran. They complain about the Russians while dealing with them (I.e Germany and gas).
1
NATO is important as the United Nations is important as the Congress of the United States is important. They are all connected, especially since the United States is the global super power still standing, and the leader in all three of the above.
NATO does indeed contain Russia, but can do nothing when Russia decides to take territory, that is not under its umbrella.
The United Nations issues proclamations when Russia takes territory, but then is toothless, when the the United States does nothing and other countries within the collective, block actions on the security council or otherwise.
The United States does nothing when it lets Russia take territories, or allows the President to declare war by himself (against explicit consent in the Constitution ) or send troops everywhere.
Things further erode when a President (backed by the same party in Congress) decides that Russia is its friend and is actively undermining all of the above, by demanding payment from allies and more.
Everything is falling apart right before our eyes and that is exactly what some of the global players want, Time to upgrade and enhance the alliances, while making new ones.
The world is no longer a safe place.
2
I'm shocked at some of the comments here that claim NATO is redundant. Does no one understand that NATO is the reason so many Western countries have supported US foreign policies for decades. It's not just about the former Soviet Union. There are many benefits other than money that Europe affords the USA. We've supported nearly every US foreign venture since WW2. Even after 9/11 most European countries fell in line with US policy, sacrificing the lives of their own because of this NATO bond. The only reason Europe supported that absurd Iraq war was because of the NATO bond. If NATO was destroyed in the way Trump suggests, why on earth would any European country rush to support the USA in another 9/11 style attack? This President thumbs his nose at the US's NATO allies. It's a slap in the face for all the sacrifices Europe has made in support of many US follies and some noble causes. Those who think the Russian threat to Europe has nothing to do with US interests are very naive. It is disturbing that the current US government turns a blind eye to this. I live in the UK. I'm furious about Russia's increasing belligerence. The recent novochok poisoning of people on UK soil is not the first time. If Russia were to conquer Europe, and it's not an absurd proposition, it would become extremely powerful and a threat to the USA. Denigrating NATO is a very dangerous path. America without it's allies is not as strong as it thinks it is. Be careful what you wish for.
8
"Yet NATO is being weakened from within..." not so much by failure to pay "enough" but to pay a fair share...
it was after all the USA (think citizens, not entities) that financed the rehabilitation of europe and the liberation of the soviet bloc countries after ww2...letting the USA take a disproportionate share of the responsibility for NATO while persisting in trade practices that cost us even more cannot go on forever...american citizens (not the entity) cannot afford the cost without continued erosion of their own quality of life which should, btw, be visible even through the fog of hype surrounding what promises to become a terminal case of economic inequality, characterized rather by a lack of equal opportunity than its consequent wage gap.
just what is it we hope to gain by taking on the burdens without complaint? loyalty? respect? allegiance?...how has that gone over the past 20 years?
no trump voter here but, willing to give
a president trying to right level the deck of a listing ship a fair chance.
after all, with reagan we went from "evil empire" to "let's talk."
2
Your commentary (and many similar others) misses the point: it is not about 'proportionate share of responsibility.' It is impossible to argue that Europe couldn't contribute more to their own defense, but the question of what is 'disproportionate' is another matter, because what really matters to the U.S., from a purely selfish perspective, are the risks associated with not accepting the 'disproportionate' burden of responsibility. Think of it as an insurance policy: it is hard to deny that insurance is a 'rip-off' if one never needs to call upon it, but it has proven wise over the long run to pay for insurance anyway, should you find yourself needing it.
I find it pointless to couch the debate in terms of 'fairness' to the U.S., because that is not the truly important issue, which is acceptable risk. How willing are you to live life without auto, home, health, and life insurance? Many, especially those with little to loose, will gladly accept the risks associated with not doing so. A more prudent approach would be to continue making those insurance payments, to protect against disaster. Those who aren't paying will decry those who do as suckers, and those who do will say that those without insurance are being reckless, likely to cost everyone else more in the end when they need help and cannot afford it. I side with the latter group; the short-term advantages of abandoning insurance are undeniable, but the long-term risks are unacceptable.
NATO is our insurance.
How can you write an opinion piece on NATO and not mention the threat emanating from The Islamic Republic of Iran once. You obviously think that keeping together the club that NATO has become is more important than addressing why most of the NATO countries appear so weak when confronting the evil that is Iran while gladly continuing to take American financial aid to prop up their Organization. Good that President Trump is calling them out!
2
Trump doesn't recognize or want to be part of ANY organization, not even a government by the people. His ego denies that he accede to anyone's advise, counsel or recommendations. He envisions himself a supreme mind, judge and leader with exceptional intelligence and instinct. Most of us know that this doesn't work unless you are the only person in the bubble. I can understand why he feels this way, as he was raised and has survived within that bubble with godly powers and no one contesting him. So I don't really blame him, but rather the nefarious and self-serving GOP Congress who have used him as a foil as they enrich themselves and shore up their power and re-election goals. Trump uses up all the air in daily and sometimes hourly self-created crises, and we are distracted from the seemingly lesser activities that are building destructive tunnels through the subterranean levels of our democracy. Please, America...Use your voices, resist the unthinkable, donate time and money, and above all, vote wisely!
4
The Editorial Board’s NATO goals of containing Russia, dealing with Turkey’s move toward authoritarianism, and growth of cyberwarfare could be better accomplished through other means. Trump’s simplistic nationalist fixation and monomania skew his politics. Nonetheless, are his policies good for Americans? NATO was established to counter the long defunct Soviet bloc. Russia is a secondary economic power, aspiring at most to hold onto its regional influence in the Ukraine, Caucasus, and Syria. China is the rising power, but a long way from being a military threat to the U.S. Trump wants bilateral trade and military agreements, where the U.S. can dominate. He distrusts democracies and multilateral alliances, hates to pay for the defense of other countries, trusts dictators whom he feels he can deal with personally, favoring right-wing dictatorships like Putin and Duterte. He campaigned as an isolationist, but his fetish for Pentagon generals and hit below the belt business negotiating strategy has led him to confront Iran and North Korea. I want peace. While I detest Trump’s racism, authoritarianism, and manipulation of his base on all his domestic policies, and I’m concerned about the rise of the radical right in Europe, I prefer his foreign policy to that of any past President since World War II.
With respect to the last sentence in the Editorial, does any reasonable person, excluding by definition all Trump supporters, (and with all the evidence to the contrary that has accumulated since January 20, 2017), believe that Trump will " . . . make that commitment and honor the friends we have"? Nah! I didn't think so.
4
NATO is older than most Americans. Many don’t know why Charles De Gaulle took France out of NATO for a time (rejection of US dominance of French foreign policy) or why Ireland never joined (rejection of the right of the UK navy to use Irish ports once more, after a hard economic war fought on that point.) Knowing so little of the past, many are just ignorant of the conditions that created the present or which of those conditions persist today. The threat of Russia remains real. Europe needs assistance while it adjusts to modern challenges, such adjustment having been delayed largely at the behest of the US. (I lived through these arguments in Ireland).
Trump either knows all that or he doesn't. If he doesn't, he needs to be locked away from decision making like an unruly child. If he does know all that, then he is essentially a Russian agent, and needs to be treated as such. Impeachment is too little too late. A drum-head court martial?
8
Maybe these so called "allies" should have lived up to their own NATO defense spending commitments instead of building up their extravagant social welfare states on the backs of American taxpayers. As it is now, major NATO countries such as Germany can't literally field a fighting force at land, air, or sea worthy of the name. Allies such as these America surely doesn't need.
2
Extravagant? Some nations believe investing in the health and education of its citizens is important.
"World War 2 ended 73 years ago. The economies of Western Europe are healthy, they can afford to pay for social programs we only dream about, they work less hard than we do, and in many cases, enjoy an overall standard of living higher than ours."
Our taxes are several times lower than Europe's and rather than hesitate to tax the rich .. Germany for example has a very high maximum tax rate. Rather than shrink the IRS, they have tax collectors audit the books of small businesses constantly. Their social benefits are therefore paid by .. well, their society, including the very rich who pay very little taxes in the US.
Also, in case you haven't actually been to Europe, their standard of living is simply different than ours. People have small cars and rely on excellent public transportation most of the time and since they don't live in housing developments far from retail .. they walk, which is free. They live in really small houses or apartments. Good lifelong health care can actually improve your health and lower health costs for society too.
We asked Germany to not spend money on the military because frankly they had started two world wars and lost both at tremendous cost to all of Europe and significant cost to the US in dead and injured soldiers.
Asking for increased spending is one thing, but with all the vitriol, it seems like the incentive for EU countries to spend $ on NATO is ... low. US on its own or as part of the free world .. that is the question.
7
True, some countries do not pay their fair share to the Alliance, but often what equipment they do purchase is bought from American defense contractors. Countries, such as Romania, contribute to the alliance in other ways, through large deployments to Afghanistan where their soldiers clear IEDs and help to train the Afghan forces. The only person, or country, which stands to benefit from Trump's wrecking ball approach to the Alliance, is Vladimir Putin. As a talented former KGB Counterintelligence officer, Putin has overseen the most successful Russian agent in history, President Donald J. Trump. I used to think Trump's ego made him an unwitting agent, but now I believe he is a fully witting agent of the Russian kleptocratic empire. Time to act spineless Congress!
7
The most significant backdrop for NATO meet is North Korea. The critical aspects of its resolution shall come when Russia shows its true color on 16th. NATO meet basically raises the stakes for Russia, but it is unlikely to influence the outcome.
The meet only prepares for the long haul ahead, if Russia chooses to remain adversarial, as is most likely. NATO demonstrating unity is thus even more important, for it shall reinforce Indo-Pacific quad in a manner that shall be convincing to democracies there.
If the instinct of President Trump is right, Russia may come true and opt for a pan-European destiny. But it seems public opinion there, if a news report on an opinion poll there is to be trusted, has already moved away from EU and leans towards China. It will not be easy for President Putin to make the big reverse, and if there is real intent, surely worth bending over to make this eventuality happen.
A true liberal is one who has an open mind, and this faculty to rethink and go by gut feel may be tested sooner than later.
The facts are indicating that NATO is a strategic threat to America. How come? Well, NATO is instrumental in destroying the relationship with Moscow and Russia, thus pushing that enormous country with the colossal mineral resources into China orbit and her sphere of influence. The combination of the most populous country in the world with the largest country in the world might be capable of overpowering America in the long run. The NATO is pushing Russia in that direction, thus the NATO is the strategic threat to America...
NATO does not matter.
World War I and World War II both began in Europe with America standing on the sidelines for the first few years.
NATO along with the European Union and the Euro Zone was meant to bind Germany by diplomatic, military, political and socioeconomics means to Europe. While acting as a deterrent to the former Soviet Union on all of those fronts.
But the Soviet Union no longer exists. And Russia is an aging and shrinking nation of 145 million. While the American annual nominal GDP is 15x Russia's. And America annually spends 9x Russia on it's military, Russian hacking and meddling in the 2016 Presidential campaign and election was an acceptance of 2nd class military power vis a vis America and NATO,
China is rising with 20% of the human race being ethnic Han. While China has the #2 nominal annual GDP, on a per capita basis it ranks 79th behind the Dominican Republic. NATO has no relevance to China.
6
Is there really any doubt that Trump is working in Russia's interest?
What I want to know is what if? What if the worst allegations are proven? If Trump was involved in a criminal conspiracy with a hostile foreign nation to defraud the US election what do we do? Impeachment seems like the beginning of the process, not the end. If the victory was at least in part the result of a commission of a crime, those results would seem invalid.
Everyone is being very careful not to even discuss it, but it's time we actually start talking about it.
1
America pays while our so-called allies criticize us freely at the first opportunity. Despite what this editorial says, it is difficult to recall much support for our struggles in the Middle East (aside from an initial expression of sympathy immediately following 9/11). France was quick to condemn us at many points during the Iraq conflict and continues to do so to this day. The US support for Israel is subject to scathing criticism repeatedly from the top countries in Europe. There was also much negative talk about the US involvement in Southeast Asia and Latin America. Frankly, it is a relief to hear President Trump delivering some tough talk. Pay up and support us. There are many Americans sick and tired of being maligned, yet still expected to foot the bill.
4
So we have a President who fails to understand or accept the strategic value of a North Atlantic defense alliance - put together decades ago by people with a firmer grasp of geo-political reality than he does - or possibly ever will. The US undermining NATO could only be great and welcome news for Moscow who are itching to regain Russian hegemony over the Baltic states and dominate the territory once known the Ottoman Empire. Putin's annexation of Crimea being the smoking gun. Trump seems to think there are rules in a knife fight (Source: Butch Cassidy) well, is he ever in for a surprise...because it's doubtful he knows he's actually in one.
3
Germany indeed could pick up the remaining NATO- bill, but as Lord Ismay pointed out, one of the alliance's goals was to prevent this country becoming to 'machismo'.
Germany could easily outspent Russia on it's own: gross national product BRD in 2017 3.684.816 to poor Russia's GNP of 1.527.463.
A much better idea would be to transform NATO in to a global peace-keeping organization, accepting only rule of law countries as members such as Japan, India, Australia and Brazil, to take the burden of the free world somewhat off America's shoulders.
2
If NATO mattered the members would pay the correct amount needed to stay current with their obligations and stop thinking they can cheap out on their own defense and expect US to cover them for them.
3
"...American-led and American-financed peace that fostered Western prosperity and prevented new world wars. "
Above is the basic error of NATO supporters. After WW II there was zero risk of another serious war in Europe or a World War. As de Gaulle pointed out, NATO was a form of military intrusion into the independence of other countries. It was a Trojan horse for America to gain influence and control. It was also an incredible cash machine for bureaucrats, the military, and the corrupt of member countries, but the Americans above all.
It was finally converted into the American war machine under the Bush administrations. It has become the source of massive corruption.
The myth that we had a large list of real allies in Afghanistan and since is belied by every actual statistic available. Only the lap dog English were really with our desire to protect the poppy production. The others were bullied into modest contributions.
Now that we have set the world afire since 2001 against the best interests and counsel of the major NATO members, we want others to pick up more of our tab. It's like inviting someone to dinner and then asking the to go Dutch when the bill arrives. And it's been a bad dinner, at that.
2
Trump is wrong about most things but he is right about the need for European countries to start pulling their weight in NATO. They need to do it for the organization itself but, perhaps more importantly, they need to do it for themselves.
There is no guarantee that the US remains in Europe at its current force level if Trump wins a second term. What is a near guarantee is that the threat from Russia will remain for the some time to come. Someone is going to have to defend that very long and porous border.
3
Look back at history. Both Nixon and Reagan called on NATO countries to honor their obligations and that was decades ago. France left NATO largely because they refused to pay. They later rejoined and still refused to pay. It was the US (with Italian help) that bore the brunt of Bosnia and Kosovo and Clinton accepted that. And that was on European soil. Forget about Obama’s timid suggestion to NATO countries about living up to their promises. Your editorial makes little sense in light of this history. The only question is do we go forward knowing their promises are empty or do we tell them and the world we demand and need their help NOW.
7
Many of us baby boomers had Dad's who fought in WW II. Growing up we had an historical connection to Europe and also an understanding of the dangers of fascistic regimes. Trump's only "historical" connection is his life is the real estate business---that's it. When I go to Europe, I visit places my Dad fought in. When Trump goes to Europe, he visit his golf courses and hotels.
11
I trust you also remember the amount of love and affection Europeans have felt and expressed towards Americans so much so, that many were putting Canadian flags on their backpacks, suitcases et al not to be spat on.
Perhaps the most convincing argument for NATO is that Putin wants to destroy it. That fact coupled with the desire on the part of other nations to join the 29 already committed to NATO is justification enough for its continued existence.
Trump's emphasis on the 2% of GDP goal is misguided. He should regard NATO as a high return investment. Every dollar NATO countries spend on defense is a dollar the US won't have to expend to keep the Russian Bear in check.
Additionally as the Editorial points out, Trump has no vision with which he would supplant NATO or any of the other Western alliance structures he wants to destroy.
The Europeans are on the front lines. They are directly facing an increasingly belligerent Putin. They deserve our continued support.
26
Take a look at https://www.dw.com/en/german-military-spending-gets-political/a-40016299. Deutsches Welle gives the political background for the 2 percent solution. Briefly, the left is against it and the right is for it. How it will come down depends upon Germen politics. They are no more monolithic than we are; in fact less. Also noted in the DW article, some NATO members are exceeding this number already. It's not simple so it beyond the grasp of DT and most of his ardent followers (or leaders).
1
Flip your statement ("perhaps the most convincing argument for NATO is that Putin wants to destroy it") and what you will get is "Russia abhors NATO's expansionism and relentless pushing Eastward".
All coins have 2 sides.
2
Let me reflip your flip: Isn't Russia's move into the Crimea/Ukraine "expansionism"? NATO has been and remains a response to Russian provocation and aggression.
The Times claims:"Faced with the Russian threat and Mr. Trump’s pressure, they are making real progress toward this goal". According to Bloomberg on March 18th, 2018 this isn't really true. The largest members of NATO (France, Germany, Italy) are not increasing their spending in any material way.
Germany is, in fact, according the Financial Times on April 27th REDUCING the amount they pay to NATO. The IMF, cited in that article, estimates that Germany will be paying little more than 1% of GDP in 2024.
I rely on the New York Times for accuracy: this editorial is NOT accurate in its description of defense spending trends in Europe.
6
"Germany is, in fact, according the Financial Times on April 27th REDUCING the amount they pay to NATO. The IMF, cited in that article, estimates that Germany will be paying little more than 1% of GDP in 2024."
One more instance of falling for Trump's propaganda of "NATO members not paying their dues". 2% of GDP is not a membership due, it is a target of defense spending by individual members. Let us please keep this in mind, no matter how much propaganda pressure we are receiving.
2
Unfortunately for us, the NYT editors are similar to the WSJ editors in their selective use of data and citations. Additionally, they don't think that readers check up on their references.
It would be nice if other countries thought that NATO mattered as much as the US does. Of course that would require that they spend more on their own defense and less on their welfare states. The US taxpayer has been subsidizing the welfare states of Europe for 7 decades. It's long past time for Europe to step up.
5
Nonsense. Europeans pay much higher taxes than Americans and they generally have a mure frugal lifestyle: small homes, one or no car per family, home cooked food, etc., They subsidize their own social safety net. Plus they pay much more in % of GDP in development aid which also is a stabilizing factor against war and mass emigrations. America makes choices and European countries make choices, but don’t pretend Americans pay for Europeans’ social safety net. Americans pay wellfare to the wealthy who do not need it instead. With the Republican tax cuts for the rich going to the people instead, Americans could have a luxury social safety net!
Back in 1992-93, after the fall of the Wall and the disassembly of the Soviet Union, I attended several debates at Oxford whose topic was "Why do we still need NATO?" Then, as now, there were those who thought that Russia still remained an expansionist threat, as against those who thought Russia was only trying to protect its sphere of influence--as do China and the US.
I remember no one mentioning that NATO somehow advanced the cause of democracy or civil and human rights--after all, it is a military alliance, not a political alliance.
I well remember one prescient debater claiming that Russia was no longer Europe's biggest threat--that threat was mass migration from Africa and the Middle East.
Some 25 years later, that threat has risen to crisis level. The EU can deal with Russia, NATO or no NATO, but it will tear itself apart over migration.
7
Actually, NATO is a political alliance but has been limited to being mostly a military alliance due to some of its members' preferences. If you read the Washington Treaty, you'll see that there is even mention of its potential role as an economic alliance.
3
'disassembly of the Soviet Union'? Maybe dissolution or collapse would be a better term. As for a 'continuing Russian expansionist threat' - that's a bogus argument; always has been. NATO's sole purpose of existence (ostensibly under US dominance) is to PREVENT Russia to become a large power again, capable of standing up to the US hegemony. What the geniuses who came up with this policy forgot to take into account is the rise of China. And India. And the EU.
NATO will have little sway over keeping other countries from “eroding the fabric of democratic principles” as long as Republicans in Congress fail to keep that from occurring in our own country. One cannot lead any type of democratic alliance when these principles are abandoned by the very country which helped form them. The future of NATO may well depend on the American voter’s ability to repudiate Republican/Trump forays toward authoritarianism in the coming mid-terms. Perhaps no election in recent memory will be as important as the one in November. VOTE!
9
Absolutely. And vote wisely: in this topi and others, Republicans seem to be far more concerned with the average Joe’s wellfare (not a lot of us, average Joes and Janes, read this paper, admittedly), while the democrat party continues to push globalization (read: a free-load at the expense of us - the silent majority).
1
President Obama chided NATO members to meet their treaty obligations and increase defense spending. Those NATO members hugged President Obama, praised him as a great leader and ignored him utterly. We are talking about extremely wealthy countries, no one is making a hardship claim. The EU economy is bigger than China and second only to the US. Adding the non EU member NATO states in, the economies of the rest of NATO are nearly as big as ours.
7
NATO is an anachronism to a Cold War world that no longer exits. The Soviet Union collapsed 25 years ago while NATO has expanded and the question is why?
Despite claims of Russian expansionism, evidence is lacking. Russia is a major trading partner with most of Eastern Europe and a source of oil and gas for Eastern and Western Europe.
While Russia has recently modernized its military, it spends less than 1/12th of what the US does and even less when the other NATO countries are counted.
So why do we insist on continuing a military alliance when none of the NATO member countries are under any real threat?
ISIS is not a nation and does not require a vast military alliance to be contained.
The US was attacked on 9/11 by Saudi nationals and led by a disgruntled Saudi former Mujahadeen whom we had trained and funded in Afghanistan.
NATO today simply serves as a major source of funding for the arms industry. NATO rules require all NATO forces to have interchangeable equipment, which means mostly American made.
And at times NATO has been a cover for US aggression, as it did during the illegal bombing of Libya or Bush's "coalition of the willing" in the Iraq invasion.
NATO's financial ties to the US arms industry is a poor way of pursuing the global economy. But old habits and billions of dollars continue to weigh down our ability to envision a different future for Europe.
Maybe Trump's demands will prompt the Europeans to recognize there's no need for NATO.
9
well said. NATO has become, just like any big institution created by the Govt, a thing into itself, serving as a vehicle for colonels to get their BG stars, for soldier's families enjoy a 3-year long all-paid European vacation, and for the politicians to score easy points with their American exceptionalism constituencies of both parties, while our roads, bridges, and schools back home are crumbling. I truly root for Trump to reign all this waste in finally, and to dismantle NATO once and for all.
Perhaps you should ask the people of the Ukraine, Georgia, and Crimea, if evidence of Russian expansionism is lacking.
1
The EU brings Europe together without the US.
NATO brings Europe together with the US inside.
The US needed to stay inside the problem of Europe when the USSR threatened. Stalin really would have grabbed it all, if it lay before him available to be grabbed. He grabbed everything else he could.
Now? On balance, it is better for the US to remain in.
Why? Until the US did this, Europe tore apart itself and the world in repeated wars, for century after century.
We've found something that works to end that. Don't walk away from success.
17
while homeland is starving for Govt investment into infrastructure, we spend money on NATO that its other members who actiually LIVE in Europe do not spend on themselves. think of it. enough slogans about togetherness, what does the average Joe / Jane get out of it?
"The NATO meeting is expected to approve significant new steps to contain Russia, which most of the allies, and most of Mr. Trump’s senior advisers, recognize as a threat, even if the president does not."
It is increasingly evident that for Mr Trump--and for far too many Republicans, as witness the recent Senatorial 4th-of-July junket to Moscow (Putin certainly appreciated the irony even if the US media failed to notice) and the attitudes of the Trumpist rank-and-file--Putin's repressive, autocratic oligarchy is not the adversary.
It's the ideal.
11
Having 29 countries increase military spending means increased sales by American arms manufacturers as much of the spending would be on American made arms. More sales mean more jobs that DJT can take credit for and boast about.
10
The very first thing that was pointed out to Trump by NATO members at their first summit was, no matter how high Europe expands its defends spending, it would NOT in hence US arms sales. We have quite sizeable, and world leading, arms industries of our own, and order our weapons there, no matter what, thank you very much.
6
Sorry Arne, NATO's continuing expansion is very much tied to US arms industries. While all NATO countries produce small arms, very few produce modern military aircraft and sophisticated electronics and missiles. This is especially true of the new members from Eastern Europe.
During the first depression, we had a federal job corps. Today we prop up the employment numbers by being the merchants of death.
The greatest advantage that the United States owns is that the dollar is the reserve currency - and US leadership in NATO and other such multinational organizations is a reason why.
Yes, our European allies have become a trifle complacent on defense spending - preferring to spend on the well-being of their people. Imagine that!
Yes, we might need to nudge them in the right direction from time-to-time - assuming that they wish this alliance to remain strong, if only so we can spend more on our people.
But let's remember where this harsh criticism of NATO is coming from - the ultimate deadbeat, bankruptcy queen, draft dodger, and Russian stooge.
If the Europeans became sufficiently disenchanted with American economic and security leadership, and agreed to perhaps cooperate with a Chinese plan to make the Renminbi the reserve currency, given the extraordinary debt that we currently carry, our national goose would be cooked.
Our debt is today manageable, if massive, specifically because we can borrow pretty much unlimited amounts in our currency, the reserve currency.
Donald Trump's instincts about anything except the exploitation of a slowly devolving FOX-and-friends audience are as reliable as a Soviet-era automobile.
Donald Trump can only do for America what he did for his Atlantic City casino businesses.
He should plan on ending his days in a NYS penitentiary - because the moment that he is no longer President is the moment that final justice become possible.
72
Yes, NATO has a purpose and it has served that purpose well. However, it is a shared purpose. It is not an organization that can be or should be financed by the US. Even though our country may have the largest GDP, there is nothing wrong with the other countries that benefit from NATO putting in their share of the money it takes to run it. The US puts in about 3.5% GDP and Germany, a sound economy, puts in 1.2%.
Trump sees the benefits of the organization, but, as we all know, he is an 'in your face' bargainer. Let the rest of the countries involved finally carry their weight.
9
People are shocked that the U.S. is against the U.N. breastfeeding resolution. There is nothing shocking about it. Trump & co would object to anything good and wholesome. If there is social relevance, they would double down. So, sure, NATO would be a target.
This is not to say NATO doesn't have legitimate problems. Big bureaucracy tends to have many. But you reform an org that has served you well through good and bad times. Putin's meddling has really hit pay dirt. America is isolating herself without any Russian efforts in the era of Trump.
22
SO, now the liberals r calling NATO - a major govt waste if there was ever one - "good and wholesome". Indeed, nothing is new under the sun, and human hypocrisy has no bounds...
1
It is, indeed, a difficult time. Mr. Trump's understanding of leadership is the king-of-the-hill model in which he dictates (or throws a tantrum) and everyone else falls in line. "Partnerships" have always been about money to him, never about mutual support or working together for other common goals.
Unfortunately, many in his base take a dim view of any organization in which outsiders have a leadership role (UN, NATO particularly) as they tend to see conspiracy plots to form "one world government" or drives by outside forces to take over the United States. The base also seems to like the idea that the US should lead on the world stage through "might," which they understand as bullying, making demands, and treating all other leaders/governments as subservient to the "great" United States. All of that means that Trump has little to lose politically when he bullies and threatens our allies while also making love to Putin or other despots.
26
Trump's use of the 2% of GDP figure to justify destroying our NATO partnership is sheer snake oil salesmanship, by the master snake oil salesman.
The US did not raise its own military spending to 3.5% of GDP to address a NATO funding gap. The amount of funding available to NATO hasn't been part of the defense funding debate for over a generation.
When the US Congress repeatedly approves spending 3.5% of GDP on the military, it is expressing a value that it wants the strongest military in the world (and the most profitable military contractors). It has done this for years using deficit spending, forcing the debt onto future generations. Donald Trump just worked with Congress to pass another increase in military spending.
Trump and the Republicans who control the budget have never even hinted that if NATO members all increase their military budgets to 2% of GDP that the US will then spend less on its defense budget. And we can be certain that this is not their goal. This one is not about money.
31
NATO has always been a tool for the US to impose its foreign policy on other countries. That made sense when the main goal of the US was to contain the Soviet Union.
However, since then US foreign policy has become more and more erratic - not to mention that this confusion is often worsened by the distortions needed to sell them to the "allies".
The article mentions Afghanistan as an example. I see it rather as an example of how harmful NATO can be. Coordination between all these countries is low. If only the US was involved it would have a better overview and might make better informed decisions. But then - of course - it is doubtful whether the US really expected the allies to contribute anything substantial. One gets the impression that the the really goal of the participation of the allies is to strengthen them in their role as subservient US allies.
6
“a world shaken by the rise of an increasingly assertive China, the expansion of competing power centers from India to Saudi Arabia, the surge of migration from the Middle East and Africa and the dislocations caused by globalization.”
Thanks to the editorial board for this list.
We need to be reminded of what the world out there looks like, and what the future may hold.
6
Soddy Arbia now is our main (one of the) competitor?Puh-leese. We shoudl be REALLY worried about one main threat: China. They ARE coming, if not already came, and it will NOT be pretty.
Right now, as President Donald Trump prepares to attend the NATO conference, we should be sharing the anxiety of people living in the European countries comprising NATO.
They don’t trust Donald Trump to do the right thing, and neither should we Americans.
Two thoughts expressed in this timely editorial say it all.
“Mr. Trump is … doing the bidding of Mr. Putin in his quest to divide the West.”
“[O]ne might expect that Republican congressional leaders would speak up. But, cowering before Mr. Trump, they have been virtually silent as he has undermined America’s alliances.”
The only person who should be smiling at this travesty is Vladimir Putin.
39
He’s been smiling a lot lately.
1
You bet he's smiling.
World War 2 ended 73 years ago. The economies of Western Europe are healthy, they can afford to pay for social programs we only dream about, they work less hard than we do, and in many cases, enjoy an overall standard of living higher than ours.
And yet time find it offense to be called out for not paying their full share?
No wonder Trump has his supporters who think it's high time someone stands up for economic fairness for the USA.
8
RM,
The US has the financial capability to pay for the social programs we want. Unfortunately, the taxes we pay that could go to the greater good or used to enhance our military industrial complex.
9
If my neighbor's house is on fire, I'll help put it out - even if he hasn't paid his fire tax and I have - or my house will catch fire next. That's the lesson of our 1930's isolationism - we stood by until almost too late to save our own skins. If Japan hadn't made the colossal mistake in 1941 of forcing us in, Hitler would have gobbled Europe (and us next). Or, if Stalin had prevailed over Hitler and gobbled Europe, we'd have been in the same perilous situation.
All Europeans must do to resolve these differences is pay their bill. Literally for decades, US presidents have been chiding European leaders to meet their treaty commitments--only a couple have. Finally a US president makes it clear that the bill is due and payable...or else. Good for him.
8
I am rather astounded by the numerous comments here agreeing with Trump's position on NATO, and I can't help wondering whether they truly believe US defense spending would decrease by a single penny if NATO disbands and European nations increase their own. Surely they cannot be that naïve. If so, it explains a lot. And it tells me we're in even deeper trouble than I thought. Let me say it straight - Trump is a Putin wannabe, backed by his own set of oligarchs. That's the whole thing in a nutshell.
140
I am too distressed by many of the pro-Trumpian comments; its a tendency I noted in several recent columns. I think Russia is ratcheting up its game ahead of the mid-term elections. Too many paint Russia is the injured party and the possibly wonderful friend. This is frightening. NATO is what stands between Putin and Easter and Western Europe. The Baltic nations know it, the Poles seem to have forgotten it...these are scary times.
Agreed.
European nations are our allies. Russia is a threat at their borders, in N Africa and Asia, as Putin easily manipulates Trump, because Trump's goal is a photo op while Putin's is the enhancement of Russia and his personal power.
Why give up a strategic European association, locations, supply lines, communication channels and defense protocols? Why seek to have no union while Russia rises?
How can one believe this will diminish US defense costs or enhance its safety? It is a gift to Putin. As is the US withdrawal from the Paris Accord and the Iran Treaty facilitating the diminution of trust and the creation of distance between Europe and the US. The "Great Negotiator" excoriated China and then withdrew from the TPP. One would think an organization of Asian countries and China's target markets could pressure and challenge China. It would have set standards for protection of intellectual property, fair trade and foster a regional association to resist China's geographic aggression.
This man is ignorant. Republican party members are craven in protecting their self interest at the expense of country and the entire world.
1
Ironically this is one of the few instances where Obama largely agreed with Trump.
In March of 2016 Obama called many NATO members "free riders", and noted France and the UK had not lived up to their commitments in Libya. He would later call the European "complacent" in the defense spending. The reaction in the European press was basically identical to the reaction to Trump.
There is an understandable reaction to anything Trump does, since he is such a liar. But on NATO there is more continuity in policy on this than your comment suggests.
Hopefully NATO leaders are smart enough to understand American politics. They need to know that the GOP can’t impeach Trump because of support from gerrymandered districts at home. If NATO leaders wait a few elections Trump and his party should lose power and the US will decide to play on the right team again.
6
Does everyone think Russia has aims to conquer all of Europe or at the very least, regain the east European countries it controlled prior to 1990?
Really?
How could it do so? Why would it do so?
It wouldn't.
And anybody citing the annexation of Crimea as reason for Russian aims to eventually dominate Europe are kidding themselves.
The fact is Russia feels insecure and at odds with the actions and objectives that the U.S believes it can take and make and does, without consideration to any others including Russia.
NATO expansion to Russia's borders and the threat to security it gives them, American undertakings and manipulations in Ukraine and once again threatening Russia's borders with a new threat to it's perceived security...
And China as well...hemmed in by the U.S with personnel in Japan, Korea and bases globally fencing in it's own needs and ability to trade and influence others...
A few fortified islands in the Spratly's are China's reactions to being squeezed...as Russia also feels by the HUGE military presence, involvement and interference by the U.S in whatever part of the World it wants and believes is it's sphere of influence.
It's a fact that China's fortifying of those Islands is it's attempt to ensure that the International shipping Lanes it depends on are maintained and kept safe...does the U.S truly think it's activities on these Islands represents a threat??
TO WHAT?
America sees enemies everywhere and also makes many of them by being everywhere.
5
"Does everyone think Russia has aims to conquer all of Europe or at the very least, regain the east European countries it controlled prior to 1990?"
Maybe not the eat European countries. But some years ago the Kremlin thought aloud about the Baltic States and Finnland (which shares a rather large border with Russia). And by Trump's reasoning they rightfully could, since there still are very many Russian-speaking people in the Baltic states.
5
And so goes the nonsense that justifies NATO and billions. Could you give a quote on where you heard that and the context?
Russia went in to Crimea for perfectly logical reasons: we, yes the US of A set up the regime change in the Ukraine to put our missiles at their back door. We had already done that with our neo-fascist friends in Poland and in the Baltic states.
The majority of the Crimean population considers the former USSR country as Russian and they voted to rejoin Russia.
Finally, our coup threatened overtly to dislodge Russia's naval base there which the corrupt puppet government we installed intended to do and would have done were they not so busy filling their pockets with our cash.
You seem very confident that China will respect Australia. Maybe yes, maybe not.
Just maybe China will respect Australia the same way that Japan respected Australia in 1942.
If history repeats itself, what will Australia expect of the United States to protect Australia from China? Will you enlist?
NATO is the USA. Without the USA NATO doesn't exist. It was created to confront the Soviet Union which doesn't exist anymore. I don't like to admit it, but I think Trump is right. If you wan't to be protected Europe, you need to at least pay for it. Europe is a wealthy continent and they can certainly afford it. In 1946 the USA was 50% of the global economy. Today we are 15 %. But we still have the most advanced military by far. So Europe, if you want to continue to be protected at least pay for it. If you don't think you need protection from the USA anymore so be it.
7
Go there and see for yourself. NATO is vital. Trump is being paid to think differently.
1. For sure some NATO countries - including Germany - should do (i.e. pay) more for the mutual defense, as they did in the past. However, they are NOT the reason for Americas inflated defense budget.
2. If NATO folds, Germany, and others will have to pursue their own nukes. Germany could hold out for some years, under French nuclear protection, but not forever. South Korea, and Japan (not technically part of NATO, but close allies, depending on US security guarantees) could not. Thus, in the short to medium term, the non-proliferation treaty would fall apart, and we would have a world with quite a few more nuclear powers. Not a nice outlook, and definitely something beyond Trump's grasp.
3. The advancement of democracy as a NATO goal is for sure laudable, and should be enhanced. However, it was not on the forefront throughout NATO's history e.g. it had no problem to work with Greece, or Turkey under military rule, or to cooperate with fascist Spain. Anticommunism was all that really mattered.
16
Let us hope that this sensible editorial is the first in a series, to be followed by:
--Why America matters.
--Why human life matters.
--Why manners matter.
--Why survival matters.
--Why hope matters.
11
We are we allowing this man to do all this damage? It is not as though he won a mandate be some large majority...quite the opposite actually.
13
I couldn't agree more. It expands daily and nothing is done to stop him, I don't get it. All the talk about we the people...it's becoming a lie.
Sadly, when President Obama was in office, a significant portion of the world treated him like an oddity or worse, inferior, rarely an equal. Now that they have the alternative, a President who has no reservation about reminding allies of his concept of the value of an alliance with America. President Trump does have an ego problem, but he has no reservation when giving his own back to countries that have gone soft and taken advantage of the value of an American alliance, a softness that could possibly cause the end of NATO; as we know it, at least.
Sadder still is the reality that foreign countries still haven't learned the lessons that were wrought in two World Wars; autocrats/plutocrats/oligarchs have ONLY have an appealing message on the surface. Being drawn to that siren song is indeed a perilous action.
3
A significant portion of the world admired and respected President Obama and the USA-check polls taken during his terms of office. The polls taken since trump assumed office have dropped precipitously in almost every country. We do seem to have two nation who are still fans: Israel and, of course, Russia. Not a surprise.
2
Seems to me it's the USA that needs to learn the lesson about autocrats, plutocrats and oligarchs - how else would you describe Mr Trump?
Was hoping that was implied, but current issues in Europe, Brexit and the rash of populism, looks suspiciously like the cycles prior to both World Wars. The US isn't the only place with those problems; 2018 seems to be the "Year of the Dictator-to-be.
Given the threat that Russia poses to certain countries that were once part of the Soviet Union, most notably the Baltic states, there still needs to be some credible military challenge to Russia and at the moment there is none other than NATO. If only the EU member states could forge their own military alliance, we could also deal with Russia without any need for the U.S and hence no need for NATO. Trump has made off-the-cuff remarks about even requiring NATO member states to spend 3 or 4% of their BNP, rather than just 2%. He is a man who likes to up the ante just to create some turmoil. No matter what, it seems that Europe and the U.S are slowly but surely drifting apart -- and perhaps we're all the better for it.
8
Following metamorphic changes in the global geopolitical situation and the virtual breakup of the transatlantic alliance, it's time the Europe takes full charge of its defense and restructure NATO mainly as the European defence pact viewing Trump and Putin as the common threat warranting equal caution. Otherwise, NATO with its present form and goals has already lost its raison de’tre if viewed against the contemptuous outbursts of Trump against the NATO leaders and undermining the alliance by encouraging the Russian strongman to intimidate and divide the Europe.
6
The Editorial Board is constructing a straw man here. Completely disingenuous. Trump has never proposed breaking up NATO, or withdrawing from it--or as asserted here, attempted to "undermine" it.
Trump rightly points out, it has become ineffectual, bureaucratic, and that member nations are not funding it at levels they have agreed. We need NATO less than any other country--because we maintain a strong military--capable of defending our nation without our allies. NATO membership is not critical to our survival--yet we are its main funding source. It some regards, NATO has become a ward of the U.S. taxpayer--an example of an international welfare program--similar to the troops we maintain in Germany, Japan, and Korea.
When we think of it, what exactly is NATO doing for Ukraine--a nation who wants to join NATO, and has suffered greatly from Russian aggression? If NATO was truly an effective and responsive organization, we would welcome Ukraine and pledge military support--as a sign to Russia that its aggression will not be tolerated.
Trump pledged to put America first. Getting our allies to keep their pledges only strengthens the security mission of NATO--which helps protect all member nations--including our own. Trump's push to make NATO stronger--by getting fellow members to pay their fair share, should not be characterized as an attempt to tear it down--in fact, just the opposite. We protect some nations--and they repay us by beating our heads in with trade.
4
Your comments about being beaten in trade reflect an erroneous view of EU tariffs which by and large are very low and no worse than ours. Trump has trumped up an ill-advised trade war by inflating, lying about, and cherry-picking data about tariffs. Every American has to do their own homework at this point to combat the disinformation coming from the White House and FOX news. And I say that as a now former Republican who values truth, decency and our national security.
18
He will propose it this week. Or more likely, after he has left the summit and he doesn't have to face his allies directly, he will announce US withdrawal via Twitter. Given the experience of the past two years, this is by far the most likely outcome. Any analysis projecting some alternate, logical explanation is just wishful thinking.
1
US depends on NATO economically because it sells all or most of the equipment, and all the money quickly returns to US economy, as we all know miliary stuff is one of Americas biggest exports. It also relies on NATOs bases in Europe as back office for all the US interventions in the Middle East that Europe does not want. It is more US self interest in NATO, than European.
2 percent of each EU country budget for NATO is too much for these peoecful countries which also have to allocate 1 or 2 percent on their own military, with all the direct and indirect expenses, such as pensions and healthcare.
5
So, what happens if the US withdraws from NATO? I don't know what will happen in Europe. But, does anyone think the US military budget is going to decrease? Right.
What about all the strategic facilities that the US uses in Europe? Naval, air, medical and technology installations for Syria, Afghanistan, Korea, Iraq etc?
As seems to be normal, there doesn't seem to be any thought to what happens next.
29
Born in Connecticut in 1950, I lived in Europe from age 10 to 25 and have had to visit many, many times. The governments are fairly sensible, overall, but I believe most people in Western Europe feel closer to Russia than the United States. There has at least since the late 1970s been a visceral hatred of the U.S. and the American people among the majority of the western European population. So be it. Let the governments follow the will of their people.
1
I don't where you lived in Europe but I have lived in Ireland, the UK and Germany and have never cone across a 'visceral hatred' of the USA. Of course there are a minority who are anti american, but equally there are within Europe people who are anti British, anti French etc, but most people admire the USA. I do agree that Europeans need to do more regarding funding defence. I would like to see, at least some, evidence to justify your statement.
11
Also born in 1950 but on the other side of Atlantic. After having experienced the cold war, I can say that the majority of Europeans are closer to the United States than to Russia. The fact that many Europeans were and still are sceptical and critical on US military adventures in the Middle East, it should not be misinterpreted. Europeans are also very sceptical and loath the Russian Government for it's callous and brutal war in Syria.
The fact that Russian Government will be able to establish a permanent Navy base in the Mediterranian Sea should worry the US military strategists. It will mean that the US will have to refocus it's strategic focus again back to the Atlantantic Ocean. The USA without Nato will not have to means to defend both Atlantic and Pacific. Ignorant Mr. Trump with short term senseless policies will handover existing strategic advantage on a plate to both the Russians and Chinese.
I doubt this to be in the interest of the people of United States and Europe and the free world.
Despite all the scepticism Europeans prefer to be under the shield of Nato rather than under the boots of both China or Russia.
It goes without saying, that Europeans have to pay their fair share of the security costs. A good night sleep and security have a price. Everybody understands that logic.
1
I was born in Ct in 1950 and lived in Germany for ~1.5 yrs (1970 - 1971) and have visited France, UK, Germany, Italy, Greece many times since then. I never detected any vestige of "visceral hatred" of the US or the American people. Disappointment in some of the foreign policy decisions yes. Hatred of the American people? Absolutely not.
When I brought my father back to Normandy in 1994 to retrace his path from the beaches to where he was wounded in St Lo, the outpouring of thanks along the way was one of the seminal moments of our lives.
I cannot imagine what your experience was that led you to your conclusion, but you certainly speak for nobody but yourself.
As a European I fully understand why American tax payers are miffed. I would be too. Looking at the London Times article today there is an excellent graphic showing the differences in contributions made to NATO and they are staggering. For example, poor Greece, suffering paupership at the hands of the EU and the IMF pays her way, and yet Germany does not. There is a proposal that Germany improves his (Fatherland still?) infrastructure to facilitate manoeuvres, but I don't think that will cut the mustard. Trump is right - the issue needs to be addressed, but dismantling NATO is not the answer. It should also be mentioned many over this side of the ocean believe it is as much about tax dollars as boosting the defence industry in the US as trying to redress the BoP deficit in the US. (Dare I suggest that the reason the German car industry does so well internationally is that notwithstanding cheating in pollution tests, the cars are generally well designed and reliable?)
3
On this matter of the Western European countries being quite capable now of providing for their own defense -- I tend to agree. My reasoning is not based on love or hate of Trump, certainly not the former. It is based on certain undeniable truths, unrelated to current, emotionally-based US political polemics. The Western Europeans have a military-aged population greater than that of Russia, an industrial plant and scientific know-how greater than Russia, and two of them already are nuclear powers. They need time to adjust to any US withdrawal from the old system, which argues for a phased US withdrawal. Ditto South Korea vs. North Korea. The South Koreans are more than capable of matching anything that North Korea has managed to do. Is is time for them to do it. They need some urging to do it. Announced, phased withdrawal.
3
Of course your editorial about NATO has a lot of valid points but to refer as the new purpose of NATO as "defending Muslims in the Balkans, and after 9/11, helping the United States fight terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa and elsewhere" is a little far fetched. Rather, it is more of a use of NATO by the 2 most influential powers in it (the USA and Germany) to give justification for quick military action without too much thought. And although in both cases the cause was valid, look after so many years what it has solved. Not a lot of things. And if NATO is going to be a police force, then there are really other places in the planet that need its military might.
Of course, NATO's original purpose is coming out of the cold once more, since there is new antagonism between Russia and the USA, Germany, the UK, and various other states, but also in trying to influence various regions of the planet like the Balkans or the former Soviet states
So NATO, an expensive bureaucratic military alliance is back, and the USA can complain all it wants for all the money it spends on it, but lets not forget it is the nation that really uses NATO for various purposes and causes.
4
..To say nothing (if today's Trumpian, zero-sum USA wishes to ascribe a commercial motive for keeping NATO whole) of the enormous benefit to the US defence-industrial complex of so-called weapons commonality - massively to US companies' advantage. Yes, there are European would-be equivalents to US systems, but realistically the balance is well in the US' favour.
Also, as well as trying to count "after so many years what it has solved", maybe we should take a stab at guessing what NATO's mere existence has prevented?
6
Very good and clear comment. Thank you.
Yes, USA does nothing for nothing!
To me, the most successful military alliance was the Roman Empire, which brought Pax Romana for centuries to a large part of Europe, enabling it to develop commercially and culturally.
Yes, its emperors still launched punitive invasions of neighbors from time to time, but the core was safe.
Its downfall, on the other hand, brought a time of instability, invasions and destructions. Not that everything was all black in the Dark Ages, but it sure was setback.
Is history repeating itself? I hope not.
3
NATO is obsolete and expensive. It was created as a counter balance against the USSR Warsaw Pact, which dissapeared in 1990. The US uses the bases in Europe as a back office for interventions in the Middle East that no Europeans want. Trump was right to want to abolish NATO.
6
Wrong way round. The Warsaw Pact was set up in 1955 as a counter to NATO, established in 1949.
1
Yes, Putin will surely instruct his obedient puppet to diss NATO. This is 2018, not 1990 anymore, and Putin is no Gorbachov.
Our country is in the process of systematically breaking our military alliances. It is an open invitation for the totalitarian forces in the world to come after the USA.
12
I believe our so called allies have become dependent on NATO to keep them safe but have not contributed the needed resources to keep it afloat.
The USA doesn't need NATO as much as the Europeans do.
There was a time when their economies were not strong enough to pay their share.
That isn't true now.
The USA is now in a trade war with some of these countries.
Trump should definitely use this issue as a way to win that war.
We should leave NATO if they do not remove the tariffs they put on American goods.
If NATO can no longer exist it is not because of Trump.
The ball is now in their court.
5
NATO is an Alliance that consists of 29 independent member countries. "NATO" does not have "tariffs", countries may but certainly not 29 nations at once.
2
Hmmm, the Trump view! NATO is not a one way street and maintains America's interests abroad. We call it meddling, but go ahead with the delusion that it's for our own benefit to have your bases, spy centres at al across Europe. Oh and whilst you are at it, try bombing Iraq and Syria from US soil and see how far your planes get.
The US spent 100 trillion in Vietnam and killed 2 million Vietnamese in the process, for whose benefit? 10 trillion in Iraq and 200 000 died, for whose benefit? All the conflicts in between, for whose benefit? The US was engaged in a life or death struggle with the Soviet Union for world hegemony and the preservation of it's industrial dominance. In the meanwhile the Europeans used the money collected through equitable tax policies to build their societies for the benefit of their citizens.
41
Hames- your history is wrong about who rebuilt Europe after WW II. Google “Marshall Plan.”
1
Anybody familiar with World History understands the importance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
But sadly, this president does not; which is why he is doing his best to undermine it while alienating this country's allies and isolating this country even further.
Things may have changed since NATO over half a century ago, however the significance of having this intergovernmental military organization has not.
The threat that once overshadowed Europe and the world still exists, only it has taken another and equally dangerous form.
Those who only view NATO as an extention of American imperialism, or only in terms of dollars and cents, miss out on the real significance of its being.
And nothing exemplifies this more than just after the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, when our NATO allies
rushed to our aid and defense in the face of unimaginable devastation.
The president may not remember this, but all New Yorkers who were there do.
And we will never forget.
44
Commenters are blaming US contributions to NATO for why Americans don’t enjoy the benefits that Europeans enjoy—free health care, college education.
But US for profit health care is 4 times as expensive as health care in Europe.
Our bloated defense budget does not need to be greater than the next 12 nations combined.
Also doesn’t the lose of European (and Canadian) lives lost fighting US led wars count for anything?
142
NATO is important, but it cannot continue to operate as an "American-financed" operation. When America was so much more economically successful than Europe, when Americans did not look as much to the government for retirement security, medical assistance and other social programs, America spending vastly more money than the Europeans for the Europeans' own defense was okay with most Americans.
Those days are gone or nearly gone. Europeans used America's largesse to spend money on a generous welfare state while spending a fraction of what America spends on defense (and then act morally superior about it). The 2 percent target for Europe, if it ever reaches it, is still anemic. Europe's defense forces are pretty much pitiful. Americans are going to wonder more and more why we have to spend so much on defending those who do not wish to spend enough to defend themselves, when Europe as a group has a higher GDP than the U.S.
Obama groused about this unequal state of affairs but did not take big action. The arrival of someone like Trump was inevitable. The American people are going to demand a much more equal division of defense spending.
15
What a plan.
American workers/taxpayers are used to subsidize European countries so those countries don’t have to defend themselves.
Then those European countries used the money saved to pay for national healthcare for their citizens and subsidize their I.T. and manufacturing.
Since European countries pay for national healthcare and their subsidized I.T. and manufacturing so they have huge advantages competing against American workers/taxpayers.
Yep - a great plan.
8
We subsidize our military industrial complex. We could cut back immensely and still participate in NATO. We could close bases where we are not wanted and are only protecting corporate interests. We could turn away from oil and develop renewal energy sources. We could have good healthcare for all. We can prosper and still have our allies.
25
You are blaming the wrong parties....look into your own greedy elites, corporations and special interests.
Do you really think America would look after it's own people and give them all the things Europeans have if Europeans paid their share?
If so, then why are the American people allowing their tax dollars to pay for some europeans free health care?Why are you allowing it? Why are your leaders doing it?
You must stop it!
Good Luck with that....its not your call and never was. But don't blame Europe...face your own masters .
Europe's idea of partnership is to agree to accept membership in any organization that serves its interests but which Americans taxpayers pay for. NATO is something of an anachronism. The Soviet Union is dead. America carried the lion's share of NATO expenses harking back to a time when Europe was a lot less rich than it is today. American does not need partners in name only, It needs partners in deed and partners in coin. The time has long since come to either change the vocabulary or change the rules of the game. Europe is not a partner in NATO until it pays its fair share. And America is not a partner, merely its sugar daddy..
11
Tell that to American leaders, Corporate interests and the Military.
American taxpayers have no say in what America pays for "Defence"
Don't blame any others except Americans for what the taxpayer pays for...it is not Europe's or any body else's fault for what America chooses to do.
NATO members did contribute money—and blood. You forget Americans are not the only ones who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To be more precise: Your joke to Presided need fcoins sfter six bankrupcies. So far it seems he got then by laundering Russian money but that can't continue ad infinitum. The problem will be solved when he is put behind bars, I guess.
NATO was set up and heavily funded by the U.S. because it moved U.S. front lines in any war with the Soviets to the Western Europe-Warsaw Pact borders. A prime goal was to save American lives. The Soviets knew American military might would immediately slam into an attacking Soviet Union.
Before a sniper killed Pulitzer Prize winning war correspondent Ernie Pyle, he wrote a draft of what he’d say to American readers upon victory in Europe. Following is an excerpt. The entirety can be found at http://mediaschool.indiana.edu/erniepyle/1945/04/18/on-victory-in-europe/
“But there are so many of the living who have had burned into their brains forever the unnatural sight of cold dead men scattered over the hillsides and in the ditches along the high rows of hedge throughout the world.
Dead men- by mass production in one country after another - month after month and year after year. Dead men in winter and dead men in summer.
Dead men in such familiar promiscuity that they become monotonous.
Dead men in such monstrous infinity that you come almost to hate them.
Those are the things that you at home need not even try to understand. To you at home they are columns of figures, or he is a near on who went way and just didn’t come back. You didn’t see him lying so grotesque and pasty beside the gravel road in France.
We saw him, saw him by the multiple thousands. That’s the difference.”
NATO’s mission has been to save the U.S. and allies from that. The Russia is still a threat.
93
Thank you for reminding us of these words.
Sadly, we do not have a real president of our country. Not an individual who is serious about his responsibilities or about serving the people of the USA or its allies. I think it would be best of NATO simply cancelled the meeting, until America can provide someone who is mature, fair-minded, and a responsible leader that is actually looking out for our country and who values and respects our military allies.
22
The Europeans figured it out: they are happy to have the American tax payer carry their defense load. They are like welfare recipients who have gotten lazy, use to the regular payments and are satisfied.
The Europeans, the Editorial Board and the American forign policy elite think the same thing: that is is the American tax payer who is requred to shoulder the cost of defence of Europe. The American public thinks that is no longer the case.
Eisenhower was right to say that if we were still in Europe in 50 years then NATO would have been a mistake. It is time for America to let Europe stand on its own two feet.
If Europe believes it can defend its interests on .2% or 1.2% then why is America supplementing that? Europe is a wealthy area and should assume its own defense costs.
Europe: sink or swim. It's your choice. Leave us out.
13
And let when US seeks a “coalition “ European nations do not need to send cannon fodder.
Good editorial and good points in the comments. Mr. Trump is correct when he points out problems with NATO, trade and outsourcing. The problem is that he approaches the solutions to these problems by making them much, much worse.
So, yes NATO has an important role to play if it stands for the defense of democracy and human rights, and it is against imposing democracy in other countries by the use of arms. And, of course, Europeans have to contribute its fare part (money and people) to sustain the alliance.
But, does Mr. Trump supports the alliance if the money problem is solved? I really don't dare to guess.
3
The Editorial Board and most of the American forign policy elite are living in the past. Most of the rest of us recognize that.
In my first job out of college I was on a small plane with a college- age Canadian student. He said: Why should Canada increase spending on defense when we know the Americans will defend us? That irked me and it still does.
When NATO was formed America represented over 50% of the worlds GDP. Today, America's share of world GDP is barely 22%. Money is not as availble as it was back then.
Today Americans are struggling: Working 2 and 3 jobs. Why? Partly to defend weatlthy Europeans who are not interested in their own defence and have an American paid tax payer defence shield.
Americans don't have access to generous health benefits, 7 week vacations, free education, pothole free roads and the rest of the social benefits that Europeans have. Why don't we? We are putting taxpayer money into defense (4% of GDP) as opposed to Europe's 1%. As a consequence of our defense cost we are not investing where we need to be investing at home.
The Editorial Board and the Forign Policy elite have lost the American taxpayer. And without them the American forign policy elite's 70 year old dogma is dead. Wake up. Change.
23
If what you say is true, then why are taxes in Europe so much higher than in the USA? Why is income inequality in the USA so much worse than in Europe? Those are the reasons so many Americans are struggling, not a relatively small disparity in NATO contributions, which is probably more than offset by the trade advantage in US made military machinery and weaponry with Europe. Also, in terms of GDP, Europe spends a lot more on development aid, which also contributes to peace and the formation of fruitful alliances. You really need to see the big picture and how things are balanced, before yanking out a crucial cornerstone, because you think it’s unfair that stone has to carry more load than the roof tiles. Unless you want the building you’re a part of come crashing down...
11
Do you suppose that disbanding NATO will compel Trump to redirect defense dollars to schools, roads and the general social fabric?
6
Tom: you live in a country where the citizens have more firepower than many other countries armed forces. Your military has more firepower than the next nineteen most heavily armed countries combined, including both China and Russia. Just maybe instead of asking everyone else to eschew social norms like universal health, free education, social security, and civil infrastructure, you could step back a pace and question America's role in the world and why y'all constantly seem to have your back against the wall, guns blazing
Maybe, just maybe if you treated other countries with those Christian values your countrymen are always spouting on about, other folks might not have a need or desire to attack you.
I really do not feel inclined to throw billions of dollars and thousands of lives searching for mythological weapons of mass destruction. Whenever your government does abjectly stupid things like that it ends up costing all of your allies.
If you think that school shootings happen because there are not enough people with big enough guns, then I can see that making all your neighbors, even the sketchy ones, buy bigger guns, seems like a rational idea. I call that American Exceptionalism.
Exceptionally poor policy.
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
2
More than 20 years ago, war in the Balkans threatened to tear Europe apart. It was NATO that brought a peaceful settlement and integrated the old Yugoslavia into the EU. The US lead the effort. NATO did not hesitate to assist us after 9-11. We should given careful thought before dismantling this vital alliance.
75
After 9/11 the French sent fighter planes to help guard our eastern seaboard.
Just sayin'.
NATO members need to spend more on defense, that is certainly true. We should absolutely continue to put strong pressure on the other NATO countries to pick up their slack.
But we shouldn't leave NATO even if they don't. As long as America, Canada, and Britain are in NATO we will be able to keep Germany (or Franco-German pact) from dominating Europe by tying the defense policy of Europe to something larger than just purely European interests. If China launches a surprise attack on American bases in the Pacific the NATO countries will be treaty-bound to declare war on China. Rest assured, if America and Europe were not in alliance the Europeans would almost certainly choose to sit out a major war between the United States and China. Even if America's cause were noble, like defending Japan or South Korea, Europe would still choose to sit on the sidelines.
The flipside is that America is unfortunately bound to go along with Germany's schemes to gobble up more territory in Eastern Europe at Russia's expense, where the Germans hope to get America to keep Russia at bay while the EU gets to have Ukraine and its resources. Unfortunately, given that China is a far greater long-term threat an enraged Russia is something that we will probably have to live with for now. Like pre-1914 Europe we are entangled in an alliance but have no better option than to go along with it.
There will be a third world war within the next 20 years. America and Europe are stuck with each other.
4
The Germans are not interested in”gobbling up more territory in Eastern Europe”. Over 40 years ago, Chancellor Willy Brandt formally accepted the Oder-Neisse line as Germany’s Eastern frontier.
Right. Brandt made that proclamation 40 years ago. In the meantime Germany's cartel (the EU) has started a war with Russia over who will get Ukraine. Will it be Russia or will it be Germany?
Germany took the lion's share, in part because it could count on the support of the United States and the Obama administration. Had Putin really wanted to he could have rolled over Ukraine in two weeks, but he couldn't rule out a war with America if he'd done so. Russia may not fear the EU, but it does fear America's might.
Russia and the EU both want Ukraine. Russia wants it so it can finally complete the construction of the Eurasian Union. The EU wants it to keep Russia from completing the construction of the Eurasian Union.
Hypocritically, though, the Europeans want to get America to do their fighting for them, in no small part because they depend on Russian gas to heat their countries in winter.
It's not unreasonable for America to ask "what's in it for us?" in such a scenario.
This is just Trump touting the arms industry, trying to force them to buy more of this stuff. As in everything else, representing big business no matter what the cost.
10
NATO, like any other multi-parties international agreement, should be revised from time to time. The problem is that such a revision should not be conducted by Trump; that's it!
11
Trump would insure his mentor Putin would benefit greatly if Trump was conducting the best negotiations ever.
I suggest PM Trudeau lead the charge. At least he is an adult.
1
Since Nov 2016, for the first time in post-Cold War history, the mutual trust cooperation and measures of a wholly cohesive NATO alliance have been lost. There can be no doubt about the intentions of Trump: while pandering to Russia and Putin, he is simultaneously attempting to undermine Western political cohesion, and create strategic uncertainty within NATO.
It’s not too far-fetched to imagine a formal suspension of certain levels of cooperation between NATO and the US while Trump is still in office, where liberal democratic allies continue to strategize and prepare for a strong post-Trump future while containing the rise of radical right-wing populism. Fortunately, both of these things can be achieved concurrently.
20
Many allies can do more to reach the target level of spending 2 percent of their annual G.D.P. on defense by 2024. "
All they need to do is spend more on defense.
6
Somehow this beginning to smell like the Brexit vote. What does it benefit the US to break up it's international alliances. The USA pays 22% of the costs of NATO. This means that the other member states are paying 78% of the costs. Much of our defense expenditure went to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anyways I think our politicians would find a way to spend the same amount even if we were not in NATO.
37
Why is 2% such a magic number. If the us wants to fund their military industrial complex that is their affair. Eu countries have more pressing matters. Faced with huge budget deficits, EU citizens would appreciate their governments cutting back military spending to 0.2%.
17
Sure they would, because they believe they're entitled to the American taxpayer paying for their defense.
When NATO first formed its first military leader General Eisenhower said, "If we're still here 50 years from now we will know this was a mistake". At that time democratic Europe was war ravaged and the US was the major and untouched by war, leader of the world economically.
So why are we still paying the major part of Europe's defense when they are united and economically as strong as we are?
Trump is exactly right. They should be paying and leading for their own defense. Once again the vaunted Times Editorial Board has combined an international subject with its national political distaste for the President and come out with the wrong answer.
Rather than beat on our Allies to pay at least 2% of their own defense we should tell them that in 2 years we will no longer function as the leading member of their non-nuclear defense but will focus our NATO role on reinforcement. Let them defend themselves upfront, which only makes sense as they live in Europe, we don't.
12
You have misunderstood the numbers. The other nations are each being asked to spend 2% of their budget on defense.
9
By all means!
Bet you anything America would never leave.It's in Europe and part of NATO because it suits America.
Same applies for American forces stationed in Korea, in Japan and in the other 900+ bases it has across the Globe.
But there is a reason America has a defence Budget greater than even during the Cold War against the Soviet Union despite there now being only a single super power and no single country capable of being any threat.
That's why the terrorist problem remains and will continue to remain the greatest threat and reason for American defence and actions in the Middle East and elsewhere...FOREVER.
That is how it has been managed and created to ensure it continues...by ensuring that there will never be a lack of people wanting to take revenge against America for the people it kills to sustain the rage and give reason for the revenge wanting to be taken in the first place.
We’re in NATO because we can’t trust those Europeans...Do we want to revive the German war machine? Or the French? No, let them stay theme parks...If Trump wants to squeeze ‘em a bit, fine...But NATO has worked...I can’t imagine what Trump envisions for the long run
NATO is long outdated. It was created to counter a Soviet Union which no longer exists. Yes there is still Russia but it is not the super power it once was as the Soviet Union with all its satellite states and influence. If Germany is concerned about Russia then let Germany create its own military defense. While there are still people in poverty in America, we don’t have the money to waste on an alliance formed to counter a threat that no longer exists.
21
Really? Do you really think the US contribution would be diverted to helping US citizens living in poverty? I don't think so. The American poor are an afterthought which is why the richest country in the world delights in its tax cuts and refuses to fund universal healthcare.
Russia is a superpower enough to have meddled in our 2016 elections. Or hadn’t you heard?
Like this administration gives a hoot about people in this county living in poverty.
The Times Editorial Board is doing true Yeoman Work on the latest tests placed before us by the Trump catastrophe. All manner of Country First has shown to be thin as ice in July. We need NATO today more than ever in the last 60 years. The challenges have never been greater; from both inside and out. Even the former chief of the vaunted US Marines, John Kelley has shown that he shirks the country first call. The EU can't stand alone if the US is on the wrong side so Democracy will fall.
Michael Bloomberg gave the specter of Trump gaining if he, Bloomberg, entered the Presidential Election, he added an ironical statement of the outcome was a Trump victory, the famous "Heaven help us." That truly is the state of things today, "Heaven help us, one and all."
13
NATO has become an anachronism and an absurdity. Fifty years ago I was an officer in the Strategic Air Command hydrogen bomb force facing off against the mighty Warsaw Pact.
Early in 1991 all of Russia's allies withdrew from the Pact. Later in the same year the Soviet Union itself came apart. Since then there have been many desperate attempts by the United States foreign and military policy establishments to justify an organization whose objective has completely dissolved. The remnants of the Russian army could not push into Ukraine, yet those Americans whose lives and power stem from a renewal of the Cold War still long for those good old days.
Yes, Russia has used cyber war against us. No, it is no longer a military threat.
21
Russia seized Crimea and used it’s military to separate East Ukraine. Putin will not invade France or Germany, but it will use military power to intimidate each of the former countries of the U.S.S.R. to provide exclusive trade agreements with Russia. Putin hates the western alliance and the world order created by the U.S. because it cannot manage to trade the products which would give it a stable economy. It cannot because it has too few products anyone else wants. Having hegemony over those little countries would provide the markets it needs.
22
You have stated the other side of this issue perfectly. Thank you.
The bottom line seems to be that European defense is very important and is the financial and moral obligation of the US to provide. Strangely, this reasoning doesn't apply to the Europeans themselves. Maybe in 10 or 20 years, they might pay a fraction of their own defense? What a bizarre editorial.
19
Europeans are happy to pay our 'fraction'. Here are a few examples; 15%, 10%, 10%, 9% to the U.S. 22%.
You see we like the word fraction but we are OK if Trump wants to pull out as it let's us off the hook in supporting US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya.
Some thoughts on this. Much earlier this year Mrs. Merkel said something like - "Europe has to start looking out for itself".
If this week all NATO members not currently paying 2% of GDP committed to do that within the next 2 years provided that all of their contributions will be spent in Europe & none in the US military industrial complex - would that make Trump happy or furious?
BTW - in the still recent 'attack' on Syria the US used US planes & missiles while the British & French used their own (or Euro?) planes & missiles, but it was still a coordinated allied effort.
7
We want NATO members to devote their full 2% of GDP to military purposes--especially, weapons, munitions, and technology purchases from the USA. Better to lower the amount to 1%, then beef up diplomacy and social programs.
4
NATO has outlived its usefulness and needs to be dissolved. It was created at the hight of the Cold War to withstand the Soviet Block when much of Western Europe was in ruins and could not defend itself from the military threat from USSR. USSR does not exist for over 25 years already. Nor there are any communist countries in Europe posing a military threat to it. Trying to present Russia as such a threat is just false and dangerous propaganda, nothing more. Moreover, European countries are rich and economically advanced. They have even joined together into a political and economic powerhouse - European Union. They do not need US military to defend themselves from any existing threats, and they are rich enough to pay for that modest required defence themselves. NATO is an anachronism. It is time for it to go and to lift that hefty and unnecessary burden off the US.
22
Since Putin came to power he has occupied and annexed parts of Georgia, the Eastern part of Ukraine, and Crimea.
Currently he's trying to influence the large Russian speaking populations of the three NATO/EU Baltic states toward a more pro-Russian outlook. With some success, in one of those countries.
There is nothing benign about Russia's intentions toward the countries on its Western border.
9
"It (= NATO) remains the most successful military alliance in history"
A sentence likes this reflects the exaggerations (and deflections) that abound in the editorial.
The most successful military alliance in history? I would think that the Allies who fought in World War II against Germany, Italy and Japan might have more of a claim on successful alliances, but even they might not merit the title "in history" .
If NATO is so successful and important then why do so many of its members fail to spend what they are required to on defense?
"Many allies can do more to reach the target level of spending 2 percent of their annual G.D.P. on defense by 2024."
Why not now? What will be the excuse in 2024?
" by the rise of nationalism and authoritarianism, especially in Turkey, Hungary and Poland"
And what has NATO done about this until now?
Honor and commitment works in two directions. Demand of Europe what you demand of Mr. Trump.
16
The bulk of this editorial deals with NATO's US-led hand holding accomplishments in postwar Europe while claiming it still has a purpose in the 21st century. That's a stretch.
NATO-lite in Afghanistan was a formality that lent credibility to a dubious mission of nation-building and containing ISIS is something that would have been done by the US and European nations due to both of their interests in containing radical Islam.
Getting rid of NATO won't mean eliminating cooperation although if it does, it's the Europeans who will suffer most absent some sort of brand new Europe-wide defense force (good luck organizing that).
It will mean inviting Europeans to take their defense/borders/foreign policy into their own hands and perhaps to even put some funds back into the military instead of so many generous social policies.
7
So you're going to point to Bush/Cheney's ill-conceived mission into Afghanistan as a reason for why NATO is either obsolete or irrelevant or whatever? I hope you see the weakness in that argument.
The more cooperation we have amongst the nations of the world, the better off we will be. Your way is the Trump way.
Bah!
"It will mean inviting Europeans to take their defense/borders/foreign policy into their own hands and perhaps to even put some funds back into the military instead of so many generous social policies."
I seem to remember Europe having vigorous, well funded national militaries from their beginnings through the middle of the last century.
It was such a peaceful, bucolic part of the world then..............
They won't need much of a military if they ally with Russia. Successful negotiation is quite possible.
Perhaps NATO has served its purpose and, like NAFTA, needs to be dramatically reworked or abandoned. How does NATO benefit the US when we have to station 38,000 of our own soldiers in Germany, a country which won’t spend 2% of its GDP on its own defense? If India attacked Turkey, do you really think the American people would want to defend Turkey with the lives of our soldiers?
Trump is right. It’s time the US evaluates and revises or terminates many of our international commitments in a manner that benefits US taxpayers and allows countries with massive trade surpluses to begin shouldering their fair share of the financial and military burden.
25
Do you really think America wants to withdraw from ANYWHERE it wants to stay?
Do you really think America will ever REDUCE it's defence spending in order to save money to help fund more money being spent to help, benefit and make its own people more prosperous?
Whatever Trump says or threatens ...no savings will be made and no extra benefits will be devoted to improving Americans who could use more help or a nation that sorely needs new and better infrastructure.
I would talk to your Elites and Corporations about Fair Share before expecting other Nations to do more for America than they already do...
3
I can't believe it's been so easy to delude people by being economic with the truth. Trump accomplishes this easily.
NATO is not about purely protecting Germany because why would there be peace missions in Africa and Mali, or indeed the only time NATO forces were mobilised after 9/11 in support of guess WHO? The US.
1
But european soldiers dying in Afghanistan is ok. Where is the difference?
The Times has spent decades on these pages arguing against the military-industrial complex, but the moment that Mr. Trump even tacitly agrees, it is all hedged. NATO was created to protect Europe, not the United States. Protecting Europe is important . As an American and as a German--and I am indeed both--I know full well that NATO must be strong. The people it is there to protect need to pay for their protection. It really is great that Europeans get affordable opera tickets and universities that cost less per year than the price of a quality handbag. But even Donald Trump can be right about something; can we finally agree on that? A strong NATO means that Europe pays and the US helps out, not the other way around.
56
As the article does say:
"Many allies can do more to reach the target level of spending 2 percent of their annual G.D.P. on defense by 2024. Faced with the Russian threat and Mr. Trump’s pressure, they are making real progress toward this goal, for which the president can take some credit."
Back when Europe had very little available for defense amid the ruins of WW2, it paid quite a lot in comparison to its means. The German Army for example was many times the size it is now.
As their means increased, their proportionate effort decreased.
Actually, some peace dividend was appropriate, and the US failed to take that when it should have. But that trend has gone too far.
Trump's psychotic bull in a China shop approach is not the way to do this, but it does need doing, and those who've known that have not done it the right way, for year after year.
2
In reply to Alan in N.Y.C.
The NATO alliance was created to be sure the United States doesn't have to return to fight in Europe a third time. So NATO was not really created to protect Europe but to protect democratic governments so we could have a sustained peace on the continent. There are more subtle ways to compel NATO nations to pay their fair share of the security costs and we should be considering a larger presence in Europe, not a smaller one given Russia's aggression. And we surely shouldn't be intimidating NATO members and acting like this is a pay for protection operation. Donald Trump could be right about a lot of things but a reckless and incoherent approach to correcting the problems identified is certainly not the way to move forward. This is already demonstrated by his immigration policy at the border, his tax policy, healthcare, trade, civil rights and every other area of governance he has thus far destroyed since he slithered his way into the Oval Office. Dividing the nation even further and then dividing our security alliances is more like a Putin plan than an American one. I'd suggest reading some history before you draw any further conclusions in the matter.
2
This may force the EU to create a joint European Military. Which may bring about an even more United Europe. A European Federation so to speak. Which North America might wish to join. Japan, India and Russia too. South east Asia, Australia and the rest of the Pacific nations will want to be part of it. Who knows what can happen from there? A world government?
All this hinging on the EU taking charge or at least paying their share of their own defence. 740 million people can come up a suitable military can't they. Some day they might even defend us.
5
Replacing NATO with a "European Military" is VERY dangerous. It invites a country, or (as happened with Ukraine, not a member of NATO) part of a country, being eaten by Russia.
With the USA in the alliance Russia can be deterred from eating its members. Is this why Trump attacks NATO?
1
No they can’t. Notice how much of Europe disagrees with Mermelsten and Macron. The only way the US needs Europe to protect us if we let the progressives and Democratic Socialists gain control. If that happens America will no longer exist.
This Editorial says Trump's actions threaten NATO. That is a judgment call.
This Editorial also says that is Trump's purpose, "continues his campaign to undermine a decades-old partnership." That is just false. Such over reach weakens an otherwise valid expression of concern.
Trump's express and apparent motive is to keep NATO, but on terms he deems better for the US. Some of those terms have been agreed in the US for many years, through many administrations, but have never gotten action from our friends in NATO.
Others are new trade concerns. However, reconsideration of our terms of trade has been long overdue. That is not to say Trump has the right vision, but the subject itself does need to be revisited. Things have changed since we set up what we've got now, and the changes have not been in our favor.
The things Trump is doing might harm NATO. There might be better things to accomplish his goals. His trade goals themselves may be the wrong ones. However, these are matters that need discussion and thought, not condemnation as a plot to destroy NATO.
16
I suppose Trump plotting to destroy NATO would require more long-term planning than he is interested in. But I don't see you putting forth any evidence that Trump is interested in maintaining NATO, either. Trump's NATO bashing seems to mostly be a play to base, perpetuating the fiction that a much of greedy foreigners are taking advantage of the United States...but hey, good thing Trump is here to stop them.
1
I never thought I would see this day.
You actually said something that supported Trump.
Trump is Putin's spokesman. He is trying to dismember NATO.
And that's ok.
We really should rename NATO the “Western Alliance”, then open it generally to far more countries who are or who wish to be our allies in preserving the liberal order – and who are willing to pay the freight for whatever inducements and actual advantages we can concoct jointly. Yes, NATO matters, but the idea could be far more compelling with some imagination. There exist too many poorly-conceived, overlapping and inadequately coordinated “alliances” that we seek to maintain. Among other things, such an idea made real could induce South America and Africa, and even some Asian states, to align institutions to better qualify for memberships.
This said, we should be realistic about the barriers that prevent our European allies from becoming FULL partners in a new “Western alliance” – or even in NATO. The biggest is proportional contribution in military funding for our common defense against the strongmen, buccaneers and terrorists of the world.
President Trump, and the rest of us, must understand that the more sizable European nations are teetering on the maintainability of their vast social safety networks, and that redirecting funding to guns from butter could be the most difficult challenge facing them since they recovered from the physical and economic ravages of WWII – and that includes Germany’s reunification regime. Seeking such redirection too quickly could precipitate social destabilization as many millions of people accustomed to a floor of basic …
5
… subsistence services see that floor drop materially. This wouldn’t be the odd protest here and there, this would be the kinds of violent, popular uprisings we’ve seen regularly in Greece as their population accommodates the needs of remaining within the European Community and the euro.
President Trump has now opened that conversation with our allies: good for him. It was necessary that he open it, in order to eventually see action. But as negotiations begin, we must keep in mind that any remedial efforts will take time – certainly years and perhaps decades – to fully implement.
NATO is important, and the burden of funding for a strategically sustainable Western Alliance must be proportional; but it must also be realistically introduced.
5
Richard,
The NYT Editorial Board is again “clutching their pearls and gasping” because all the President cares about is “Money”!
Well, a “military alliance” is about being able to defend each other! That costs money and resolve! That said this alliance has mostly been about the U.S. defending Europe so Europe didn’t need to bother (Resolve and Money!) to defend itself.
The Editorial Board again “clutches its pearls” about making “the allies” pay for our protection of them and their interests! If that’s what the President is doing than good for him! It’s well past time that the “Better Red than Dead” crowd faced up to their lousy track record of defending themselves these last 50 or so years.
Of the NATO members only 8 even do or say they will spend even 2% of their G.D.P. on their own military. Germany spends less and pays nothing for the Americans stationed there. Plus, the Germans generally disrespect and look down on the Americans as “inferior” to themselves!
The “solution” to the “Europe Problem” is not just “money”! That said, “money” is a place to start and the President has said publicly what all those before him have said in private!
NATO only matters if it can fight! Libya proved it can’t do much without the U.S. doing all “the heavy lifting”!
The Europeans should “dread” the consequences of their inactions!
3
My Esteemed Other Brother Richard:
All true. Our allies need to pay more and make the money count on joint defense matters. We really need to re-architect the Alliance into something at once more effective AND strategically viable.
The point of my comment is that doing this is a delicate balancing-act. Reality is what it is, and if somehow we forced them to redirect funding too precipitately, I can see the same kind of bloody riots in Berlin, Paris and London, and certainly in Madrid and Rome, that we see regularly in Athens. That's not in ANYONE'S interests.
Trump would do well to remember that seventy-years ago these past two weeks NATO--a year before its founding--in effect got underway as the U.S. and the U.K met the Soviet Blockade of Berlin by supplying the 2.5 million person city from the air. We did not present the City of Berlin with an invoice. We are better together.
110
Response to JR in Bronxville- Maybe we should invoice the German government now since it is so flush with cash from its trade surplus with the US.
1
Right on!
With Trump it's about money and fairness.
NATO has been living off American largess for too long with the advantage of money not spent on arms is money for fiscal social policy at America's expense. Equally important, citizens not drafted for duty with Americans serving in effect as mercenaries has bred contempt for the citizen's responsibly for the nation's defense.
After nearly three-quarters of a century, time for Americans to come home.
16
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet Union. NATO was the first peacetime military alliance the United States entered into outside of the Western Hemisphere.
Without NATO, the US would have a difficult time getting co-operation from the current NATO countries in defensing aggressors threatening Europe. There would be no common ground without the NATO agreement.
81
@ Denote Mordant: There is no Soviet Union. There is a Russia that is smaller than the countries of Western Europe in military-aged population and industrial capacity. Two of those Western European nations have nuclear weapons of their own. Why can they, or will they not provide their own defense? Why must infrastructure-needy and national health insurance deprived Americans foot so much, indeed any, of the bill?
3
NATO was created by the USA to protect Western Europe because it was obvious they couldn't do it for themselves. History is not a discrete set of facts. WWII bled into the Cold War against the Soviet Union. We waited until the summer of 1944 to invade the continent, mostly because Churchill wanted to let the Soviet Union do the heavy lifting to defeat Germany before he thought it was a good idea to invade the continent. Churchill was a brilliant strategist, much smarter than Roosevelt. But he was more than willing to let the Soviet Union defeat Germany before he put British troops into France and he certainly waited until the USA had built up a force that could devastate Germany on the Western front. Good old Winston actually created the Cold War.
Not true. And there is no Soviet Union.
1
I’m not exaggerating when I say I’m not so certain the world can survive 3 more years of Trump’s presidency.
362
It will Brad, but a lot of damage will be done especially re the USA.
We will become a has been country with Russia, China and other western countries ruling the economic world while we will have a military budge larger than the rest of the world's countries combined that will be useless.
2
Three years? If the democrats don't get their act together fast it is going to be six and a half more years.
But there is
SCOTUS
The world can sit on its hands for a few years until an adult is elected here. This is not without cost, but it beats the alternative.
The Germans cheat on emissions tests, ditch their nuclear plants to create more greenhouse gases and free-ride on their own defense. I expect it is politically costly for most European countries to increase defense spending, and the political position of many centrist governments is increasingly precarious - losing these governments to populists is too high a price for a modest increase in a small defense budget. There is no question some of our allies can do better, but throwing tantrums and earning a reputation for hastily going to war will not improve cooperation and may lead to NATO supporters getting voted out.
Patience is a virtue.
16
No it's not. Patience is no virtue at all when the world is going down the drain in a hand basket.
1
G7 members and NATO are dispensable to Trump when he finds it politically expedient to use them as foils, to complain about supposed financial unfairness, and to grandstand about his autonomy.
Meanwhile, Trump would have you believe that Putin and Kim Jong Un are trustworthy individuals and alliances we should all be rooting for.
Evidently, Trump considers relationships to be about himself and his immediate needs only, not about the nation and certainly not about mutual reliability.
175
If NATO is so important to the other members, they should simply pay their fair share. Nothing very complicated about that. Oh, and maybe one more thing, they should send to US taxpayers a heart-felt thank you note for the past subsidization of their security needs. Not too wordy - but simply grateful.
45
This is an absurd line of reasoning. You assume that the U.S. has derived no benefit from its participation in--or, in your words, "subsidization" of--NATO. In fact, NATO has served quite effectively as a tool of U.S. empire. U.S. domination of NATO has facilitated our hegemonic and imperial aspirations.
This is akin to the equally nonsensical argument that the United States, the richest and most powerful country on the planet, which has for over a century benefited immeasurably from the spread of global capitalism and its concomitant extraction of wealth from the global south, is somehow being "taken advantage of" within the capitalist order whose institutions we have been running for decades and indeed devised for our own benefit and advantage.
5
Have you any idea how much we are talking about here? The American largesse of 22%? Sure you can have a thank you letter when you take all your bases off our lands.
1
We could spend 5% of our GDP on defence (but aren't that stupid), not change spending on NATO and continue to fully meet our NATO obligations.
Suspect Americans include their overspending on defence contractors (ie subsidies to Boeing et all) and obnoxious (and useless) overspending on health care for vets in their calculations. But, again, % GDP on "defence" and spending on NATO are unrelated.
The stated purpose of NATO, was to establish an alliance to "contain" the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, NATO was no longer needed. Yet it remained.
I agree with the decision to disband NATO.
28
NATO is just servicing the military industrial complex. It should be dismantled. It is the US that's the greatest threat to world peace.
Think about it. Just look at our insatiable war like behavior. We are the most violent country in the world today.
Just because the former Soviet Union collapsed it doesn't mean that the threat has collapsed with it. I hope you'll read some of the comments which provide serious analysis and historical context about why the NATO alliance is important and essential to security ours, and other member countries.
5
The Soviet Union may have collapsed, but its been replaced by something even worse. At least the Soviets had free education and many services. The current version of Putin's Russia is a gangster economy, and one of the biggest and most corrupt regimes on the planet. He dreams of world dominance and a restoration of the old Czarist era's grandeur, with him as modern czar. Putin not only has a nuclear arsenal, but more dangerously, has been busy trying to undermine democracy all over the world and most recently, the United States. What part of terrifying doesn't connect with you regarding this menace? What they did and plan to do in the future with our electoral system should already scare you. These are international communications systems that are being used to employ their dirty tricks. NATO includes a vast and expanding segment of digital experts and cyber warriors, who need global cooperation to catch and limit Russia's activities.
6
"Many allies can do more to reach the target level of spending 2 percent of their annual G.D.P. on defense by 2024."
European countries have been making this empty promise for decades. It won't be happening by 2024, or 2054 or 3024.
No need to give them until 2024 to get their act together. The US should demand the increases be implemented into their next national budgets. Either Germany and the like are serious about NATO or they aren't. And if they aren't the US should pull out of NATO and stop wasting manpower and taxpayer money defending them.
33
Don't you think NATO countries are already paying--for U.S. military adventures in the Middle East that have destabilized several countries and sent millions of refugees flooding into Europe? Trump has threatened NATO allies with tariffs, called on them to pull out of the Iran agreement, and to stop buying Iran's oil. NATO countries are paying more--by far--we need to look at the bigger pictures.
6
But your timing? It’s all to Putins advantage.
Now is not the time to appease the Russian bear.
Any weakening of NATO will just tempt fate.
5
Not to mention the terrorist attacks European nations have suffered as a result of the fact that the U.S. decided to invade Iraq over non-existent 'weapons of mass destruction'.
This is a very good editorial. I would just like to add that I don't think that Trump is pushing our NATO allies to pay their fair share because he supports the organization. Rather, he thinks the problem is just one example of how he believes they are all ripping-off the US in general.
75
Trump attitude to all international agreements with the USA as a party smells...I read a lot about Russia interfering in elections and referendums in USA, France, UK and EU.The laws protecting the democratic process are not sufficient to fight "Big Data" and the "Cambridge Analytica" of the world.The concept of an Act of Qar against a country should be rethink to included the interventions of outsiders of the countries to did what have been done during Trump and France elections and the Brexit Campaing. Don't make any move who may be in favour of Russia and give all democratic governments the time to understand better the threat from those enemies.Thanks
1
Let's accept that Trump cannot cooperate. He insists on being dominant in everything. The simple lessons of kindergarten were never part of his experience.
1
There will likely be a day during Trumps presidency that an event will occur requiring military aid from our NATO Allies. It may be an action in the Mideast, Balkans, or somewhere else. Then what, will they respond?
Yes, NATO will respond and support the United States no matter what this President does to disrupt the Alliance. Unfortunately our President cannot grasp the value and importance of our European partners.
As the editorial states, it's just another business transaction, pay up or else. A very sad time we're in.
256
@cherrylog754: Why is it the responsibility or right of the US, or even in our best interest, to assume oversight of how the people of the Balkans, the Middle East, indeed of anywhere on other continents choose to govern themselves?
5
We - if we are good people - should care whether governments abroad are imprisoning, beating, killing their citizens. Citizens in those countries AREN'T "(choosing) to govern themselves".
On a more practical note, with democracy comes stability and markets that participate in trade with democracies like ours.
Human nature seems to have an unfortunate bent to ignore the importance of solutions to problems other people worked very hard to solve. Many years ago, I saw an unattributed quote which has stuck with me through the decades: “the trouble with doing it right the first time, is that no one realizes how hard it was.” Indeed, we have now entered 70+ years of relative peace and prosperity, following the great conflagration which was the second World War – no one today seems to recognize just how hard it was to accomplish that feat. I would add an unfortunate truth which the past 20 years or so have revealed: the trouble with no one realizing how hard it was to do it right the first time, is that taking success for granted, they will likely fail miserably when trying it themselves.
The relevance of NATO is but the tip of the iceberg. We see it now in many ill-fated ways, from questioning the importance of vaccinations, doubting the need for consumer protections, suggesting regulations put in place after disasters might interfere with the gig economy, and yes, Trump et al claiming NATO has outlived its usefulness. “What’s in it for me?” is the question which arises, when people no longer remember the reasoning behind collective measures to avert catastrophe. In what proved a rather miraculous recovery after nearly destroying the world in the 1930s/40s, we have mutually forgotten how hard it was to do it right the first time; I fear the next time we will be less fortunate.
454
We have forgotten NATO's importance, but I am sure that the Russians have not.
286
For sure the Russians know how important NATO is. But that really isn't the question. The question is how important is it to the Europeans.
We needed NATO back then. Now it can be categorized as an anachronism. We have ceased being a loyal true friend to Europe and to Canada for that matter.
Donald Trump has already let NATO know that he treasures Russians and is willing to look the other way as Vladimir Putin slowly swallows up his neighbors.
It would be easy to suggest that this is because Putin has kompromat on Trump. While that may be, Trump's behavior--past and present--is incontrovertible proof that the engine that drives him is his proud ignorance.
He probably sees Putin in the mirror as he gazes into it. He took away a single, "valuable" trinket from his vaudeville show in Singapore: "He (Kim )speaks and his people sit up in attention." Trump wants unending adulation and praise. Those who challenge him are subjected to a public Twitter lashing.
Abetting the coming (probable?) abdication of America from NATO this week is the cowardice of the Republican Party. For half a century, the GOP has beat its chest as the guardian and sentinel of American security and the necessity of honoring commitments with allies (and foes who wish to renounce their authoritarian ways). Richard Nixon won unanimous praise from his party when he journeyed to both Peking and Moscow in 1972, neither a NATO nation.
Fresh off his tarring and feathering of G7 countries in Canada last month, Trump will arrive in Brussels, glaring at "deadbeats" and "layabouts" who are willing to allow America to be responsible for the organization.
It is a great measure of his ignorance of history that the concept of "leadership"--a virtue prized by all his predecessors--has no purchase with him.
60
I grew up knowing that NATO is the bedrock of the well being of America and the great western democracies. This is basic knowledge and should already be known by the majority of high school graduates. To mess with it’s charter or members without a broad consensus, on both sides of the isles of congress, is to invite catastrophe and war. Mr. Trump’s monumental ignorance on this subject is breathtaking. That his cabinet and the republican majorities are not reigning him in is just as frightening and speaks to their broad lack of understanding of the world and America’s place within it.
232
Unfortunately, I doubt very much that the facts about NATO are taught anymore. Perhaps they are in a college level economics class, but not in high schools by and large anymore. I watched and fought against the dumbing down of the curriculum when I was still teaching. I am now glad to be retired and out of the fray.
2
You grew up during the Cold War. Things have changed. There is no longer a Soviet Union. The "great Russian threat" is a paper tiger, as Russia has an economy the size of Italy, composed mainly of selling natural resources and weapons.
What if they had a war and no one came?
NATO, just like the UN, historically has received most of it's funding from the USA. By a significant amount. It's well known that NATO member States are supposed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on their own military infrastructure. That has not been the case in the last couple of decades.
What is often reported is the USA spends, in recent years, just over 20% of the "budget". But that is misleading. That spending refers to what one might call G&A. When it comes to operational expenditures, known as indirect, the US contributes much more. Regularly well in excess of 50% of the NATO total.
That is what President Trump is complaining about. Yes, because of 9/11, the USA has lost far more citizens than other members. Other member countries can number their losses in the 100's if that much. So in a certain sense one can see why the USA has deployed so much more in terms of resources. But a major driving force behind this is the legacy of WWII. After all the USA became known as the Arsenal of Democracy for a reason.
This challenge/complaint has been around for many years. When it was the the USSR vs the West one can find a justification for this lopsided contribution. But the Evil Empire disappeared almost 30 years ago and not much has changed on that funding process.
15
So why hasn't the U.S reduced it's funding?
Why is it increasing its defence funding to greatest ever levels when there is no rival Super power threat anymore?
Don't blame others for America's desired Militarism and global Dominance that is neither justified nor valid.
If Trump wants to save money, why increase the defense Budget further as he has?
America should leave NATO as well as Korea and Japan...but that will NEVER happen...whether anyone else likes it or not.
But Europe is not going to subsidise America's increasing Militarism, the price it pays and others pay is too high as it is.
3
Since September 11, 2001 there have been very few terrorist attacks in the U.S. but lots in Europe. If one thinks that this is because they have spent too little, think again. They are next door to the places where the wars have been fought and have not assimilated foreigners as well as the U.S. Trump’s understanding of world affairs is exactly what someone who relies upon a superficial awareness of them would think.
4
"Yes, because of 9/11, the USA has lost far more citizens than other members. Other member countries can number their losses in the 100's if that much."
First, this is misleading. If you consider the difference in population sizes of the various NATO countries, losses of UK and Canada are quite close to the US. Canada may even have a higher casualty per capita.
Second, this is a pretty glib way of forgetting that the US was the target of the 9/11 attack. Afghanistan was America's war and our NATO allies to came to our aid. You are now spinning it like we were doing them a favor.
1
"Mr. Trump not only doesn’t want to lead the West, he has denigrated the alliance, bullied its leaders and accused NATO and the European Union of exploiting American largess."
I wish more people would be bold and stop pussyfooting around the obvious: Donald Trump is acting more and more like a Russian agent, or at the very least, someone taking directives from
Vladimir Putin, all of which aren't even questioned by the cowardly GOP.
Trump even orchestrated a unilateral delegation of Senate Republicans to be invited to a Russian love fest prior to the meeting between Trump and Putin. It's calling getting your ducks in row.
If you study the actions of Donald Trump, virtually everything he does seems to be on direct order of Russia, from the cancellation of South Korean-US war exercises (Putin wants it for the 16-mile stretch of border it shares with North Korea) to the removal of that Ukranian clause from the Russian platform, to the attacks on NATO, to the constant coddling of thugs and dicatators the world over.
Even the new American isolationism seems direct from the Putin wish list.
I'm tired of hearing people say, "it's really weird that Trump never has anything bad to say about Russia."
No it's not--his behavior, particularly towards NATO which Putin abhors, is indicative of some debt Trump feels he must repay to Russia.
306
Freudian slip: "removal of that Ukranian clause from the Russian platform"should read, "Republican platform."
20
Yep — pretty clear Trump is a Russian agent and some Republican have decided there’s more gain in them also being collaborators. This is an unbelievable situation and made more so by the lack of Congressiknal Democratic outcry.
1
Most peace loving Europeans want the us OUT of Europe. Trump and the continued occupation are two main reasons why the US is hated in Europe.
NATO and our partnerships with our Allies are crucial to our country's long-term well being. As this editorial opinion states there are many reasons for this long and valued partnership. Our Allies and the Europeans have supported our diplomatic and military objectives in Europe. The president's disparaging comments towards countries in NATO who have not yet met the 2% pledge of support (they have until 2024) are shortsighted, full of misinformation, and show a real lack of respect.
Because the president is not a student of history, does not read documents longer than one page or even books, he is very limited in his way of evaluating things so he often profoundly misses the whole picture. In the president's insulting of our long time allies and NATO and his need to always please Putin he is betraying our country and our long-term interests.
43
"NATO linked America and Europe not just in a mutual defense pledge but in advancing democratic governance, the rule of law, civil and human rights, and an increasingly open international economy."
All of which Trump vehemently opposes.
Why would anyone expect this meeting to turn out any different than the G7? The other NATO members would be better off canceling the meeting, or simply refusing to meet with Trump altogether. Nothing good can possibly come of it because, politically, Trump is pure toxin.
Like any unhinged megalomaniac, the best way to handle Trump, short of removing him, is to contain him. Complete global isolation is the best way to mitigate the disaster, until such time as we ourselves deal with it via impeachment, elections, or time itself. So far, all attempts at placation, in the hopes that this will all blow over, have failed miserably. Except, of course, for North Korea's use of Trump as an unwitting pawn in their brilliantly choreographed propaganda campaign.
It would be a grave error for anyone to underestimating the threat that Trump poses to international peace. A threat is not only very real, it's palpable. You could make a very strong argument that he is currently the most dangerous man on the planet, because he's the most powerful and the most unstable.
95
Let me understand your reasoning here. Trump is a threat because he wants our “allies” to pay their NATO obligations, which are clearly spelled out in the charter, yet most haven’t. Yet Europe is in financially great shape and could certainly do so. The Soviet threat is gone, along with the Warsaw Pact. Russia has barely the military it once had and only invaded Crimea because the Crimeans wanted them to. So if the US pulls out an alliance that serves no other purpose than us paying the bill to protect Europe then that’s going to start a war? That clearly shows that NATO should be scraped and the European governments be forced to pay their own way.
Your tirade against Trump is not only unsupported but nothing more than Democratic talking points. For the first time since the Korean War, we have had serious negotiations with NK. We have a chance at reducing the threat of war in that region and yet you label Trump a “threat”. Curious.
@Mike
Let's take them one by one - Part 1:
"The Soviet threat is gone"? Tell that to the Ukrainian's, the Syrian's, and the Afghani's. The facts do not bear you out. Russia hasn't been this much of a global provocateur since the end of the cold war.
"Russia... only invaded Crimea because the Crimeans wanted them to"? Also, incorrect. And indicative of someone who is buying into Russian propaganda, rather than the facts on the ground.
"Europe is in financially great shape"? Tell that to Spain and Greece. Once again, the facts do not bear you out.
"Your tirade against Trump is not only unsupported but nothing more than Democratic talking points"? Like Trump, you're projecting. It's actually your contentions that don't comport with the facts. And it is you, not me, that is regurgitating political propaganda talking points as if they expressed the truth, which, in reality, they don't.
To be continued...
@Mike
Let's take them one by one - Part 2:
"For the first time since the Korean War, we have had serious negotiations with NK"? You are conveniently forgetting the dozens of serious attempts at diplomacy the U.S. has engaged in with North Korea over the course of decades. Perhaps by, "serious negotiations", you're referring to Trump's recent declaration, after an hour long meeting with Kim Jong-un, that North Korea, "is no longer a nuclear threat"? Which, of course, is just another big, fat, self-serving Trumpian lie. Or, perhaps you were referring to the recent "serious negotiations" with Pompeo, who declared the meetings as "productive conversations", while the North Koreans called them a complete failure, and typical of a "gangster-like" approach?
BTW: It was recently discovered that North Korea is actually expanding it's current weapons program and has tried to keep it a secret from the international community. Does this count as more "progress" in the "serious negotiations" in your eyes?
In short, everything you posit or suggest is either a lie, propaganda talking points, or both - Yet, in typical GOP fashion, the reality and truth of the situation is somehow "curious" because it doesn't jibe with your false and irreconcilable "opinion" of reality. The same way so many Republican found Benghazi to be, "a thousand times worse" than the Iraq War.
Now, that's the kind of surreal disconnect from the truth that I do find, not only "curious", but, extremely dangerous.
No American who has actually gone over to Europe; lived there, and has actually seen what NATO does should take Trump seriously. Those people went through two world wars. To Americans, that is a distant concept. But for those who had to deal with it, the consequences were very real, and are still being felt today.
Most Americans do not understand that 14 million civilians were slaughtered there. And that does not include the millions of soldiers who died in the wars. It would be the equivalent of killing every man, woman, and child in Ohio, and parts of Pennsylvania. After that, they had to fight a 40 year war against the Soviets.
We also do not understand that Europe is just now becoming integrated. Prior to WWII, Europe was a collection of empires, all of whom were lost at the cost of winning the war. America facilitated the creation of the modern nation state concept, but it was the Europeans who decided to integrate into a political union; the EU.
In America, we understand our country to be a united collection of states. Europeans are just now beginning to understand what it is to be a collective political unit. We take our history as one country for granted. The Europeans still mentally think of themselves as Britain's or Germans. That transition will take time.
We should support that transition, not only because they are our friends/trading partners, but because it is in our national security interest to do so. Europe is a great American investment.
109
"Still mentally think of themselves as Britain's (sic) or Germans."?
This might be because they are Britons and Germans. The fact that you compare the national allegiances to individual US states belies your lack of understanding of Europe. These are distinct cultures with distinct languages that go back centuries. There will never be a "United States of Europe", ever. The current political state of the EU is on life support as is, and any further attempts at federalization will kill it, plain and simple. I speak from well over a decade living in multiple European countries.
By undermining NATO, Trump serves Putin and the Russians and not the United States and its true historic allies. These allies in Western Europe and Canada have fought and died for the US but Trump displays his blatant ignorance of history and economics with every passing day. Trump is who he is and always has been - an ignorant narcissist and now apparently a Russian agent bent on destroying decades of critically important alliances under Putin's orders.
We know that huge amounts of laundered Russian money passing through the Bank of Cyprus and elsewhere were used to bail Trump out of bankruptcy when no legitimate banks would lend him a nickel. Putin not only owns Trump, Trump fawns over Putin's leadership abilities and power and wants to convert the US presidency into a Putin-style dictatorship.
However, the greatest threat to our nation is that the Republican leadership remains silent and compliant on behalf of their ultra-right wing billionaire owners. They know full well that Trump is easily manipulated by Putin, and that he is disgracing the United States before the entire world and undermining US security in violation of his Constitutional oath. Despite Trump's self-evident servitude to Putin, Republicans in Congress refuse to protect the American people as is their sworn duty as well.
The only hope for the future of the United States is getting out the vote in order to throw Trump and his Republican enablers out of power in every election going forward.
108
The argument about America’s financial contribution to NATO being the way for European democracies to finance their welfare states is typical of the misinformation/lies at the core of Trump’s explanation of the world.
NATO was created in 1949. The first European welfare state was Germany. Bismarck adopted welfare policies after 1870 to undercut Socialist opposition. The British welfare state was the result of the Labour victory in 1945, but welfare policies had been introduced from 1909, as in other European countries. The war, and the rise of communism afterwards, energized the move towards more equal, fairer societies. Military expenditure, the welfare state, and membership of NATO are connected issues, as everything in politics is, but it is a crass simplification to turn them into a zero-sum game, so dear to Trumpism.
Politics is choice. Since 1980 America has chosen to multiply its socio-economic differences and neglect most forms of social expenditure, in pursuit of a model in which the richer get much richer, and the rest will benefit from trickle-down. It has not worked, and Trump profited from social discontent. Since he and his party can’t address its real cause, excuses are necessary; blaming others is the oldest in the book. ‘Our competitors play unfairly’, ‘our people suffer because we have to spend so much defending our allies.’ Of course. Poor America, so easily taken advantage of. Give yourself a tax cut for the rich to make things better.
155
Well said!
It makes one wonder what it will ever take to convince all Americans that their circumstances have been brought about by it's own leadership, elites and interest groups...operating to and for their own benefits at the expense and to the cost of the majority of Americans best interests and needs.
Just as so many believe that all other countries enjoy cheaper prescription drug prices by forcing the Pharma Company's to make up their losses by charging Americans more!
3
Agreed. I also object to the statement in the article that NATO also pursued an aim of helping us to develop pluralistic societies. Some of us already had one, thanks. And as one of the other commenters said, the main aim was to counteract the Soviet communist bloc, not democracy per se.
2
Absolutely. By muddying the waters, Trump is finding yet another enemy to distract attention from his 1) power grab and 2) incompetence. The US does not have social programmes because it chooses not to. NOT having universal health care COSTS more money than what you have now. You just don't want it because people you deem to be unworthy would get something you judge they shouldn't have. Same goes for pensions, sick leave, holidays, etc.
You can't say you are the richest country in the world then cry that you can't afford social programmes that even developing countries have. At some point you have to accept you value Darwinism and you simply can't countenance paying tax, especially the rich.
1
More than 500 days ago I watched helpless, like the majority of Americans, the destruction of the US from the inside out. The will of one man has reduce the US role in the world to a banana republic. NATO is protecting us and uniting us and is one of the most powerful alliance on the planet. I'm afraid, Trump is going to destroy it by its remarkable ignorance and a no less remarkable propension to only care about his own personal interest. I'm sad. I predict it is going to be ugly during the next NATO summit. It looks like Trump is redefining who's an Ally and who's not. From now on, in the Trump world, Russia, North Korea and Saudi Arabia are the closest Allies to the US. Is this what Trump base wants?
71
NATO is not one of the most powerful alliances on the planet, it is far and away the most powerful alliance on the planet. Any alliance that has the USA as a member will not be challenged militarily. The Europeans will always be our allies, just like Russia will always be an antagonist. Although it looks like Trump is shaking the ground under our feet. To date its mostly rhetoric for domestic consumption.
1
Yes, the dismemberment of NATO is exactly what Trump wants for one, maybe two, reasons:
1) Kompromat. Trump has dealt with Russia for quite a long time, his demurs about "no Russian deals" notwithstanding. There is something so bad there that 45 would imperil the entire western world to prevent whatever from surfacing.
and/or,
2) Narcissism. Trump sees everything that he, alone, does as having significance. If we are wedded to others through an alliance (G6, NATO, NAFTA, the Paris Climate Accord, etc.), then he cannot shine as the only sun in our world. He wants everything as cash transactions and binary in construction--hence his tariffs. It is always, and only, about him.
He is as irresponsible as anyone can be; I think he borders on being committable and I dream of him being carted off to an asylum for people with personality disorders. I hope they take his phone from him.
NATO has always had a free rider problem, as does every alliance, its baked into the cake.
The early NATO doctrines called for massive retaliation for any attack by the USSR with the US Nuclear Deterrent. Since this deterrent was essentially a club good, it allowed others to scrimp on their defense budgets.
When NATO doctrine switched to proportional response that would include more conventional forces, more countries now had skin in the game and upped their military spending. Free ridership declined as a result during this period
The President, like every other American President before him, has harangued NATO allies to meet their spending targets of 2% of GDP on defense that they all committed to at the Wales Summit of 2014.
The difference with President Trump is that he is far more coarse than any previous American President. While I, and others, would prefer and hope for a more diplomatic nudging for NATO allies to meet their spending targets, his base point is not without merit.
9
That 'Russian attack' NATO was supposed to thwart and prevent was never in the cards. Yalta conceded Central and Eastern Europe to Stalin and communism never spread through wars; always from within, using elections first to gain, then come to power and eliminate democratic institutions once victorious.
NATO's entire raison d'etre to exist since its creation was fake.
It is remarkable how Trump and Putin's interests are so aligned. A world with NATO would make things much easier for Putin. Trump doesn't show he cares much either way, even though he's acting so aggrieved. 3.5% of GDP (US military budget) is higher than 2.2% of GDP (France's military budget) so we must be getting ripped off.
What people who want to dissolve NATO seem to forget, though, is the enormous costs of European wars in the past. One way or the other, the US has been drawn into those wars, through impressment in the 18th and 19th centuries to the 20th century bloodbaths across France and Germany. Until very recently all US wars were actually European wars. Even the Cold War, Korea, and Vietnam were a reaction to events in Europe. (And the current wars mostly spring from issues around European colonialism.)
Merely looking at NATO's balance sheet to determine whether the US pays too much is simplistic and stupid. Tens of thousands of American children did not die on the plains of Europe after WWII because of the alliance that presented a cohesive front against the Russians. Can we really not calculate the value in that?
58
European wars gave us the Louisiana Purchase though. The raw acreage alone is estimated to value $1.2 trillion today. We paid $15 million. Sounds like France got the raw deal even if you account for WWII and the Marshall Plan. The US still cam out ahead thanks to Napoleon Bonaparte. Let's not forget the French fleet at Yorktown either. Small but important details.
I'm amazed the obvious reason for NATO's existence and US participation is never really acknowledged. NATO is the biggest marketplace for US made defense products and services. It's a giant sales vehicle, enabling US manufacturers to sell into European countries as NATO as a military alliance relies on its militaries to have joint capabilities and compatible logistics (communication & electronics standards, ammunition etc.). After the first eastern European countries became NATO members, the first thing they did is modernize their militaries with US made defense products. F16s anyone? Poland has them. C-130s? Poland has them. Gulfstream G550s? Poland has them. You get the picture.
Where do you think European militaries will go shopping when NATO becomes obsolete?
24