Jump to content


Politics: Trump calls NATO obsolete in interview with European news


Recommended Posts

President-elect Trump gave an interview to two European newspapers in which he said that NATO was an obsolete relic of the Cold War and that America should take a lighter stance toward Russia.

Trump Slams NATO, Floats Russia Nuke Deal in European Interview

Donald Trump called NATO obsolete, predicted that other European Union members would follow the U.K. in leaving the bloc, and threatened BMW with import duties over a planned plant in Mexico, according to two European newspapers which conducted a joint interview with the president-elect.

Trump, in an hourlong discussion with Germany’s Bild and the Times of London published on Sunday, signaled a major shift in trans-Atlantic relations, including an interest in lifting U.S. sanctions on Russia as part of a nuclear weapons reduction deal.

Quoted in German by Bild from a conversation held in English, Trump predicted that Britain’s exit from the EU will be a success and portrayed the EU as an instrument of German domination designed with the purpose of beating the U.S. in international trade. For that reason, Trump said, he’s fairly indifferent to whether the EU stays together, according to Bild.

The Times quoted Trump as saying he was interested in making “good deals with Russia,” floating the idea of lifting sanctions that were imposed as the U.S. has sought to punish the Kremlin for its annexation of Crimea in 2014 and military support of the Syrian government.


Funny, that. Because these same sentiments were floated by another president-elect four years ago. No, not Obama...

President-elect Vladimir Putin on Wednesday called NATO a relic of the Cold War but said he supported letting the alliance use a Russian airport as a supply hub in support of its mission in Afghanistan.

Moscow is studying a request from NATO for use of facilities at an airport in the Volga River city of Ulyanovsk as a transit point for shipments of non-lethal supplies to and from Afghanistan by air, rail and road.

Russia has allowed Afghan-bound NATO transport through its territory since 2009 as an alternative to convoys through Pakistan, which have been subject to militant attacks, but no permanent facility was involved.

"I consider NATO ... a throwback to the Cold War era. It was created at a time when there was a bipolar system of international relations," said Putin, who has frequently criticized the alliance and its eastward expansion.

 

 

  • Fire 2
Link to comment


IMO NATO is nothing more than a welfare program for Europe at the expense of the American tax payer...which allows for European politicians to dramatically expand their own welfare state to their citizens without having to spend a dime on their own national security. Trump is absolutely correct, the Europeans need to pay their fair share of their own defense.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I didn't say cut Europe loose.

 

NATO is effectively now a protectorate system except we don't get tribute. That's not sustainable. We should continue NATO as long as the leaders of these nations bring us chests of Gold, lets go full Roman here--10 thousand thousand Drachma, and you shall have the protection of Rome.

 

Link to comment

IMO NATO is nothing more than a welfare program for Europe at the expense of the American tax payer...which allows for European politicians to dramatically expand their own welfare state to their citizens without having to spend a dime on their own national security. Trump is absolutely correct, the Europeans need to pay their fair share of their own defense.

Do you really think Estonia should just stand on its own when/if Russia invades? You think Belarus has the resources to pay its "fare share?" You seem unaware of how hard the former Soviet regions have worked to improve their plights since the collapse. They are still recovering. And when Ukraine decided it wanted to ally more with Europe, so they could improve their economy more, they were attacked and lost terrtory. That's going to happen more if NATO is weakened or destroyed, and it's going to be worse than losing a portion of territory.

Link to comment

In addition, the U.S. government has access to the numerous military facilities and resources that member nations make available to NATO. A good example is Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, now being used against ISIS in what is not a formal NATO operation. As importantly, working through NATO usually makes it relatively routine for host governments to agree to U.S. requests to use facilities within their territory for military-related purposes. Without NATO, in order to fulfill its security responsibilities, the U.S. government would need to develop and maintain a complex network of bilateral and multilateral security agreements and arrangements that would seek to maintain the kind of connectivity and flexibility that NATO already provides. Further, the U.S. government would need not only agreements to access such military facilities but also would likely need to obtain specific approval from the host nation for each use and perhaps even in some cases legislative approval. In general, it is much simpler, faster, and easier politically and otherwise for nations to grant the United States the use of their facilities within a NATO framework than it would be to have to grant permission to the United States on their own.

 

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/01/15/we-still-need-nato/

  • Fire 3
Link to comment

 

IMO NATO is nothing more than a welfare program for Europe at the expense of the American tax payer...which allows for European politicians to dramatically expand their own welfare state to their citizens without having to spend a dime on their own national security. Trump is absolutely correct, the Europeans need to pay their fair share of their own defense.

Do you really think Estonia should just stand on its own when/if Russia invades? You think Belarus has the resources to pay its "fare share?" You seem unaware of how hard the former Soviet regions have worked to improve their plights since the collapse. They are still recovering. And when Ukraine decided it wanted to ally more with Europe, so they could improve their economy more, they were attacked and lost terrtory. That's going to happen more if NATO is weakened or destroyed, and it's going to be worse than losing a portion of territory.

 

You do realize that Belarus and Ukraine are not members of NATO and would not be relevant to what I was talking about.

 

Estonia currently meets the 2% defense spending goal established in 2014.

 

I think the US 'could' manage relations via treaties/agreements 'if' NATO was to fold. The US would never just bail on Europe...though I suppose some of our fear mongering populace would disagree. But, I have never stated that NATO should fold, just that Nations contribute what they are supposed to.

Link to comment

 

 

 

IMO NATO is nothing more than a welfare program for Europe at the expense of the American tax payer...which allows for European politicians to dramatically expand their own welfare state to their citizens without having to spend a dime on their own national security. Trump is absolutely correct, the Europeans need to pay their fair share of their own defense.

Do you really think Estonia should just stand on its own when/if Russia invades? You think Belarus has the resources to pay its "fare share?" You seem unaware of how hard the former Soviet regions have worked to improve their plights since the collapse. They are still recovering. And when Ukraine decided it wanted to ally more with Europe, so they could improve their economy more, they were attacked and lost terrtory. That's going to happen more if NATO is weakened or destroyed, and it's going to be worse than losing a portion of territory.

You do realize that Belarus and Ukraine are not members of NATO and would not be relevant to what I was talking about.

 

Estonia currently meets the 2% defense spending goal established in 2014.

 

I think the US 'could' manage relations via treaties/agreements 'if' NATO was to fold. The US would never just bail on Europe...though I suppose some of our fear mongering populace would disagree. But, I have never stated that NATO should fold, just that Nations contribute what they are supposed to.

Any country bordering Russia is relevant, IMO. Ukraine isn't paying anything which makes them very relevant and NATO should (and did) still help them, for instance by keeping sanctions in place by all member countries.

 

Fear-mongering? Russia has killed more European civilians since 2014 than ISIS. Not even gonna get into their invasion of Georgia. This is stuff that already happened.

Link to comment

I worry that with Donalds' "we are the US, we're the best and we need to worry about only ourselves" motto we would use every excuse as an opportunity to bail.

 

I'm not educated enough on the topic to have a real opinion yet - but it scares the crap out of me to have such drastic changes thrown out negligently by such a proven fool.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...