Support NeoGAF

[ShironRedshift]

I know that there are already a lot of Trump threads, but this seems particularly important and is getting passed over in the existing ones when it really should be the center of the story if anything due to it revolving around Trump not being able to bring himself to fully endorse the core concept and purpose of NATO, despite assurances he would prior to today's meeting of NATO members:

BRUSSELS — President Trump on Thursday once again refused to explicitly endorse NATO’s mutual defense pledge, instead lecturing European leaders on what he called their “chronic underpayments” to the military alliance.

Speaking at the opening of a new NATO headquarters, Mr. Trump offered a vague promise to “never forsake the friends that stood by our side” in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks — a pledge that White House officials later said amounted to an affirmation of mutual defense.

But European allies are likely to see Mr. Trump’s words as falling far short of the robust endorsement of NATO’s Article 5 clause, the “one-for-all, all-for-one” principle that has been the foundation of NATO since it was established 68 years ago after World War II.

Mr. Trump’s repeated refusal to endorse that principle as a candidate, and now as president, has raised fears among allies in NATO about whether the United States would automatically come to their defense in the event of an attack.

In an interview with The New York Times just before officially claiming the Republican nomination last July, Mr. Trump said that if he was elected, the United States would come to the defense of the Baltic States against a Russian invasion only if those small countries spent more on their military and contributed more to the alliance.

“If they fulfill their obligations to us,” Mr. Trump said in the interview, “the answer is yes.”

Other top American officials have offered reassurances. Traveling on Air Force One this week, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson told reporters, “Of course we support Article 5.” But until those words are spoken by Mr. Trump, leaders of other NATO nations seem bound to remain concerned.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/world/europe/donald-trump-eu-nato.html

If there was any real drama over Mr. Trump’s visit, it concerned whether he would go off script on the question of Article 5. He had been expected to explicitly endorse the principle in a speech when he unveiled a Sept. 11 memorial — a piece of twisted metal from the World Trade Center — outside NATO’s new building.

But in his speech before the leaders, including Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, he did not do so.


The only time NATO has invoked Article 5 was to defend the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 1,000 non-American soldiers from NATO countries have died in Afghanistan in the name of Article 5.

The leaders had also wanted him to say something critical about Russia and its annexation of Crimea, but Mr. Trump has been pretty quiet on that topic, too.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/25/world/europe/trump-brussels-nato.html

All NATO needed was for trump to reaffirm USA commitment to article 5. We were told he would. He didn't. This is how arms races begin.

https://mobile.twitter.com/kurteich...0?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

President Donald Trump on Thursday delivered a speech at NATO headquarters in which he did not explicitly endorse Article 5, which outlines a policy of collective defense among all members of the alliance.

While this might seem like a small oversight to casual observers, Brookings Institute fellow and top foreign policy scholar Tom Wright said Trump’s refusal to endorse Article 5 has rendered his entire foreign policy trip a “failure.”

“The White House told the NYT yesterday Trump would finally endorse Article 5,” he wrote on Twitter. “The fact that he did not is astonishing and shows that someone in the White House or [Trump] himself took it out. This will come as a huge shock to NATO members.”

Wright went on to say that Trump’s trip can now be considered “close to a disaster” unless he explicitly fixes things by endorsing Article 5 later on Thursday. He also said that Russian President Vladimir Putin “will be thrilled at Trump’s refusal to endorse Article 5,” which he described as “unimaginable under any other president.”

Read the whole tweet storm below.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/05/clo...ns-massive-damage-done-by-trumps-nato-speech/

All Trump had to do was just say the words that he remains committed to Article 5 and the mutual defense pledge. That he couldn't make himself actually say those words despite assurances he would makes the future of NATO look quite shaky and Europe, and in particular the Baltic states, should quite quickly turn to looking to alternative arrangements since continuing to rely on the United States might prove to be quite the mistake at this point.

EDIT: There's already another thread focused around Trump criticizing the other NATO members for not meeting the 2% quota:
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1380090

Please keep discussion on that there and keep this one focused on Trump not committing to upholding Article 5. Really don't want this thread to get locked because it went off the rails and became redundant. Thank you!

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Vladimir Putin sends his regards

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

This sound pretty bad for the balkans future.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Vladimir Putin sends his regards

He better hustle then because I dunno how much longer Trump is going to last with teh 50 million scandals going down.

 

[Xando]

This has been Russias biggest foreign policy goal of the last 60 years.


Today they finally got it.

 

[Tovarisc]

Saying he was "vague" is being generous. He straight out didn't pledge that USA stands by Article 5, just made cute dance around it while shaking down NATO leaders for dough.

Putin is having great day today because of Trump's speech to NATO leaders.

 

[TheExecutive]

I may not agree on almost anything trump says or doesn't say and I do agree he still should have backed article 5 in the speech but the US has the right to be pissed about countries not keeping up their end of the bargain on defense spending. It's a cornerstone of NATO to ensure that NATO doesn't become a defense "welfare" treaty.

 

[Armaros]

I may not agree on almost anything trump says or doesn't say and I do agree he still should have backed article 5 in the speech but the US has the right to be pissed about countries not keeping up their end of the bargain on defense spending. It's a cornerstone of NATO to ensure that NATO doesn't become a defense "welfare" treaty.

NATO has been the primary way the US has expanded its military influence since after WW2.

 

[smokeandmirrors]

NATO has been the primary way the US has expanded its military influence since after WW2.

Not just militarily. It's the basis of our hegemonic influence and strategy

 

[TheExecutive]

NATO has been the primary way the US has expanded its military influence since after WW2.

I don't disagree and I am not saying that NATO should be abandoned as there are obvious other benefits. Still doesn't change the fact that the US has the right to request the defense spending required in the treaty.

 

[Xando]

I don't disagree and I am not saying that NATO should be abandoned as there are obvious other benefits. Still doesn't change the fact that the US has the right to request the defense spending required in the treaty.

It's not actually required tho.

It's a non binding guideline

 

[Armaros]

I don't disagree and I am not saying that NATO should be abandoned as there are obvious other benefits. Still doesn't change the fact that the US has the right to request the defense spending required in the treaty.

The entire point of the 'quota' is to get NATO nations to buy US weapons.

Its also not legally binding and/or an actual requirement.

 

[daxy]

I may not agree on almost anything trump says or doesn't say and I do agree he still should have backed article 5 in the speech but the US has the right to be pissed about countries not keeping up their end of the bargain on defense spending. It's a cornerstone of NATO to ensure that NATO doesn't become a defense "welfare" treaty.

People with the strongest opinions have zero understanding of this contrived issue, as usual. It's a target that is to be reached by 2024, not today, not tomorrow, not next year. 2024.

 

[Aureon]

I may not agree on almost anything trump says or doesn't say and I do agree he still should have backed article 5 in the speech but the US has the right to be pissed about countries not keeping up their end of the bargain on defense spending. It's a cornerstone of NATO to ensure that NATO doesn't become a defense "welfare" treaty.

NATO is primarily the USA's club.
See, for example, the list of the Supreme Allied Commanders:

 

[PdotMichael]

I don't disagree and I am not saying that NATO should be abandoned as there are obvious other benefits. Still doesn't change the fact that the US has the right to request the defense spending required in the treaty.

Sometimes a country gets the president it deserves.

 

[Quixzlizx]

Even if Trump ends up being gone by the end of the year, Europe now knows that the American public was stupid enough to vote in a Russian shill, and could do so again.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

In an interview with The New York Times just before officially claiming the Republican nomination last July, Mr. Trump said that if he was elected, the United States would come to the defense of the Baltic States against a Russian invasion only if those small countries spent more on their military and contributed more to the alliance.

“If they fulfill their obligations to us,” Mr. Trump said in the interview, “the answer is yes.”

Sounds like mobsters shaking down local businesses for "protection money".

 

[ShironRedshift]

I edited this into the OP, but to make it clear, there's already another thread focused around Trump criticizing the other NATO members for not meeting the 2% quota:
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1380090

Please keep discussion on that there and keep this one focused on Trump not committing to upholding Article 5. Both are important statements from Trump, and both deserve their respective places of being discussed without becoming clones of each other. I realize some degree of overlap is nonetheless inevitable and that's alright to a certain degree but I really don't want this thread to get locked because it went off the rails and became redundant, so just do your best to keep that in mind. Thank you!

 

[Shadybiz]

People with the strongest opinions have zero understanding of this contrived issue, as usual. It's a target that is to be reached by 2024, not today, not tomorrow, not next year. 2024.

Yes this.

 

[TheExecutive]

People with the strongest opinions have zero understanding of this contrived issue, as usual. It's a target that is to be reached by 2024, not today, not tomorrow, not next year. 2024.

I will admit I did not know it wasn't binding in any way but I did know that it was over a decade. However, If you aren't spending 2% of your GDP on defense you pretty much aren't taking defense seriously. The US learned this lesson early in the 20th century. My point being that countries within the treaty should take national defense seriously or their status within the treaty should be questioned. I am guessing this is the reason the "agreement" was proposed in the first place.

Sometimes a country gets the president it deserves.

Yeah, ok pal.

 

[TheExecutive]

I edited this into the OP, but to make it clear, there's already another thread focused around Trump criticizing the other NATO members for not meeting the 2% quota:
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1380090

Please keep discussion on that there and keep this one focused on Trump not committing to upholding Article 5. Both are important statements from Trump, and both deserve their respective places of being discussed without becoming clones of each other. I realize some degree of overlap is nonetheless inevitable and that's alright to a certain degree but I really don't want this thread to get locked because it went off the rails and became redundant, so just do your best to keep that in mind. Thank you!

Understood. Apologize.

 

[gutter_trash]

you helped us on 9/11 under Article 5....

but now Fuck You Got Mine

 

[Ac30]

you helped us on 9/11 under Article 5....

but now Fuck You Got Mine

Mutual defence only when it's convenient

 

[Mael]

This is a great day for anyone in the EU that was pushing for a joint military force under the EU leadership.

 

[Sephzilla]

jesus christ, it's going to take at least a decade for the US to repair all of the damage Trump has already done

 

[Shadow Puppetry]

He had been expected to explicitly endorse the principle in a speech when he unveiled a Sept. 11 memorial — a piece of twisted metal from the World Trade Center — outside NATO’s new building.

God bless that man and America. He was going to be President for that moment.

 

[ShironRedshift]

Saying he was "vague" is being generous. He straight out didn't pledge that USA stands by Article 5, just made cute dance around it while shaking down NATO leaders for dough.

Putin is having great day today because of Trump's speech to NATO leaders.

This is definitely true--just borrowed the headline from NYT which were being generous because of a remark he made that vaguely hint on the sentiment. But yeah, that he wasn't able to actually pledge to stand by it is definitely quite the concerning sign, I agree.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Even if we get a normal US President in 4 years again, can we count on this not happening again... Time for Germany to start getting a nuclear program already to scare off Russia if US leaders aren't willing anymore?

I may not agree on almost anything trump says or doesn't say and I do agree he still should have backed article 5 in the speech but the US has the right to be pissed about countries not keeping up their end of the bargain on defense spending. It's a cornerstone of NATO to ensure that NATO doesn't become a defense "welfare" treaty.

Agreed that the EU needs to spent more. But also keep in mind that the US military spending is not all NATO. How much of it is spent in the Pacific and in the Middle-east? NATO is not meant for those things, it is for the defense part. So the US should look at what it is spending for NATO purposes and defense and then see if their share is still so much above the guidelines.

 

[jelly]

This is a great day for anyone in the EU that was pushing for a joint military force under the EU leadership.

I bet the US would be fuming at that funnily enough. Don't see it happening, there isn't a lot of thirst an EU army and Trump will be kicked to curb sooner or later.

 

[charsace]

So obvious that he's an agent for Russia. Can't wait for the day he is on trial.

 

[Pandora012]

Even if he did say it, would people even believe him?

Even if we get a normal US President in 4 years again, can we count on this not happening again... Time for Germany to start getting a nuclear program already to scare off Russia if US leaders aren't willing anymore?

Can't really guarantee that since it seems like our system is like a pendulum at the moment. Just going to extremes or what people view as extreme *cough* Obama *cough*

 

[Engell]

nice work Trump

 

[ShironRedshift]

Even if he did say it, would people even believe him?

Definitely a valid point: even if he did say it, it probably would have either been a lie or even if he did somehow have his mind changed, it would only be a matter of time before he changes it again and winds up back where he started, as he seems apt to do. Still, the fact that he couldn't even bother to lie or say anything at all about the subject when it would have been a throwaway line is itself telling.

Even if we get a normal US President in 4 years again, can we count on this not happening again... Time for Germany to start getting a nuclear program already to scare off Russia if US leaders aren't willing anymore?

That's definitely my thought process. Like, even if the United States does indeed get rid of Trump in 2020 and has like the best President in the history of ever, I'm just increasingly convinced the politics really is simply a pendulum here and it's only a matter of time before someone like Trump slips through the cracks again. If we elected someone like Trump once, we'll probably make that mistake at least a few more times in the future. Relying on the United States to actually learn from its mistakes and not just vote some other celebrity in power like Zuckerberg or the Rock or Kanye West seems like it would be a terribly naive mistake at the moment until preparing otherwise.

I'm definitely not exactly happy at the idea, but I nonetheless certainly hope Merkel and the current German government is indeed considering ways to lower dependency on the US for military might, as otherwise I'm definitely very uncertain of what the consequences of continued reliance could be. Of course, it certainly is possible that Trump is indeed a one-off and we never mess up quite this badly again, but I'm just not certain how much I'd want to actually bet on that, particularly if I'm Merkel/Germany atm.

 

[mAcOdIn]

I may not agree on almost anything trump says or doesn't say and I do agree he still should have backed article 5 in the speech but the US has the right to be pissed about countries not keeping up their end of the bargain on defense spending. It's a cornerstone of NATO to ensure that NATO doesn't become a defense "welfare" treaty.

I dunno, seems to me it was always a defense "welfare" treaty, if these singular countries themselves had the might to stand up to the USSR alone to begin with the whole thing would have been unnecessary. And while I don't mind the agreed upon goal I wouldn't make such a ruckus about it because, really, we've benefited so much in foreign policy and arms sales that I'd be rather shocked if we still didn't come out as the winner in terms of benefits despite putting in more AND there's still almost a decade to go to even hit the "goal." And I also really find some of this, especially in regards to Germany, as outright idiotic because we knew what Germany was allowed to have because we had a fucking hand in it and now we're mad that they're not the number 2 military in the world?

And with Trump as CiC and his Russian appeasement what's even the fucking point of us pushing this? Who would he be even willing to go to war with that'd require a beefier NATO, it ain't Russia, China, doubt it, maybe Iran or North Korea I guess. I mean, to me this just seems like another talking point now, it'd make sense if we had a strong leader trying to set up the West as a bulwark against Russian or Chinese expansion but he's not doing that he just wants more money spent on the military to what, drop million dollar ordinances on fuckers in caves or a pair of snipers held up in a building? Ok. Really if we were to follow his actions and words you'd think he'd be pushing for a defense spending decrease lol.

 

[SolarPowered]

Even if Trump ends up being gone by the end of the year, Europe now knows that the American public was stupid enough to vote in a Russian shill, and could do so again.

Every rational European of voting age should never ever forget this fact. Europe answered the call after 9/11, but Trump will leave Eastern Europe to the Russian wolves. We really can't be depended on.

 

[m3k]

Vladimir Putin sends his regards

.

edit: thanks for the thread, as a non american, this shit makes me angry... i know it shouldnt but this guy is the worst

 

[Angelus Errare]

Even if we get a normal US President in 4 years again, can we count on this not happening again... Time for Germany to start getting a nuclear program already to scare off Russia if US leaders aren't willing anymore?

Nope, it'll definitely happen again. Whitelash is a powerful thing.

 

[EGM1966]

Another inept performance really.

He tries his tough business man act with the 2% angle then fumbles through the only compromising element that could give weight to his demands.

Not only is he a weak deal negotiator he's also a weak politician and inept in geopolitical behaviour.

In short he's not qualified for this job and sooner or latter US voters are going to have to acknowledge this (this that voted for him I mean).

His apparent political alignment is irrelevant: he sucks at the job. If your going to vote Republican at least go for someone with basic competencies.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Another inept performance really.

He tries his tough business man act with the 2% angle then fumbles through the only compromising element that could give weight to his demands.

Not only is he a weak deal negotiator he's also a weak politician and inept in geopolitical behaviour.

In short he's not qualified for this job and sooner or latter US voters are going to have to acknowledge this (this that voted for him I mean).

His apparent political alignment is irrelevant: he sucks at the job. If your going to vote Republican at least go for someone with basic competencies.

I hope you're right about that but the only way I see large scale abandonment of Trump is if his republican peers turn on him in force or there really is a peepee tape and it goes viral. Criticism from other countries and democrats is easy to dismiss, "it's just trump derangement syndrome!"

 

[Ishan]

As an international this is my opinion of anything trump says or does . We don't care he's a baby to us . Not stupidness like bush but a true baby . No one cares he flip flops constantly . When congress fucks up we'll pay attention till then it's okay . Once his cabinet members make moves we'll pay more attention etc . Hardly any of us take his words seriously

 

[Zeus Molecules]

If someone gives Trump a license to build a casino in Montenegro he'll say he supports whatever the heck they want

 

[Diancecht]

NATO is primarily the USA's club.
See, for example, the list of the Supreme Allied Commanders:

SACEUR was always an American. U.S. has the strongest army in the NATO.

"Even since 1950, when the post of SACEUR becomes vacant, the North Atlantic Council asks the President of the United States to nominate an American officer to fill the post. Unlike 1950, however, no specific individual is recommended. Thus while the decision on which nation should fill the post of SACEUR lies with the North Atlantic Council and thus could be changed by the Council, the tradition of having this post filled by a U.S"

"To balance the leading role played by Americans in the command structure, other key NATO positions have been reserved for non-Americans. Thus the Secretary-General by tradition is always a European and the Chairman of the Military Committee (with the exception of the first one in 1949, when the role of this post was very different) is always either a European or a Canadian."

https://www.shape.nato.int/page214845858

 

[Xando]

I hope you're right about that but the only way I see large scale abandonment of Trump is if his republican peers turn on him in force or there really is a peepee tape and it goes viral. Criticism from other countries and democrats is easy to dismiss, "it's just trump derangement syndrome!"

This is true.

The american society is already being corrupted by Trump and he's already being normalized.
You just have to look at Montana yesterday. A candidate that has has physically assaulted a reporter the day before has won thr election and doesn't face any repercussions by the GOP or voters.

It's scary what is happening in the US at the moment and i think we (as in germany) have to bite the bullet and start rearmament with a possible nuclear program.

 

[dragonelite]

Maybe it's time for the EU to slowly pivot away from the US.

 

[YoungFa]

Should hand him the bill for Afghanistan then.

 

[Imperfected]

Listen, guys, this is the US talking: you need to start spending more on defense.

Not because of Trump shaking you down for pocket change, but because we're going to need you guys to saddle up and come liberate America from our fascist government before too terribly much longer, okay?

 

[Orniletter]

Even if we get a normal US President in 4 years again, can we count on this not happening again... Time for Germany to start getting a nuclear program already to scare off Russia if US leaders aren't willing anymore?

We don't even need our own, France is more than willing to share their nuclear arsenal with us.
Obligatory fuck Trump post. I genuinely want him to rot in prison.

I bet the US would be fuming at that funnily enough. Don't see it happening, there isn't a lot of thirst an EU army and Trump will be kicked to curb sooner or later.

I wouldn't be so sure, the interest is absolutely there. The groundwork is already being laid to integrate the French, German and Benelux armies.

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Listen, guys, this is the US talking: you need to start spending more on defense.

Not because of Trump shaking you down for pocket change, but because we're going to need you guys to saddle up and come liberate America from our fascist government before too terribly much longer, okay?

This should be next year's CoD campaign.

"The Greatest Nation on Earth, is now it's greatest threat..."

*cue the Linkin Park*

 

[dragonelite]

I wouldn't be so sure, the interest is absolutely there. The groundwork is already being laid to integrate the French, German and Benelux armies.

In this case Brexit and Trump might actually be a good thing in seeing a more unified Europe.

 

[Mivey]

I will admit I did not know it wasn't binding in any way but I did know that it was over a decade. However, If you aren't spending 2% of your GDP on defense you pretty much aren't taking defense seriously. The US learned this lesson early in the 20th century. My point being that countries within the treaty should take national defense seriously or their status within the treaty should be questioned. I am guessing this is the reason the "agreement" was proposed in the first place.

Maybe you should take the interest of these countries seriously? Not every country has the same military ambitions and needs. The 2% thing is basically a promise. Also it's kind of two-faced from the US to talk about "fair share", when they will be the ones profiting the most from any defence spending.