Trump told European leaders that US ‘will never come to help you’
Donald Trump told the president of the European Commission in 2020 that the US would “never come help” if Europe was attacked and also said “Nato is dead”, a senior European commissioner said.
Multiple news outlets said the exchange between Trump and Ursula von der Leyen at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2020 was described in Brussels on Tuesday by Thierry Breton, a French European commissioner responsible for the internal market, with responsibilities including defence.
“You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you,” Trump said, according to Breton, who was speaking at the European parliament.
According to Breton, Trump also said: “By the way, Nato is dead, and we will leave, we will quit Nato.”
This is why NATO has begun ramping up defense purchases recently.
Trump has been polling higher recently, and that scares the fuck out of Europe, because they know Trump will at best allow Putin to steamroll the region and, at worst, actively use US resources to help dictatorships expand their sphere of influence, culminating in WWIII.
They’re not willing to wait until that happens.
Very happy to see this comment! But is that not a great thing? What's your take?
On one hand I understand how important it is to defend democracy in Europe. On the other hand, why is Europe depending on the US for their own defense?
WWII and the Cold War is long past, Europe long rebuilt and healthy. If my neighbor is a raging asshole that may come over and kick my ass, I'm armed. I'm getting my neighbors armed and making sure we're all trained and on the same page. And fuck the guy 2-miles away with his wavering support. He won't be in my front yard when the Brown (Orange) Shirts come knocking.
Weird hearing Americans decry military spending (because we're geographically safe), and also decry Trump for wanting out of NATO, or at least demanding they pay their share.
FFS, the most expensive thing on Earth is a second-rate military. Make a damned choice.
They’re not. That’s kind of a weird thing to say, if you have any understanding of the situation.
The point of NATO is to present a unified front against the ever-present authoritarian threat in the region that’s been ongoing since WWII, and the US as a founding member has spent more on their military by orders of magnitude, so has had an outsized voice in NATO.
If they pull out those resources, that would hurt the coalition because, again, with their military spending being more than ten times the next ten countries combined, they’re the silverback gorilla in the room, and losing that against countries willing to throw their entire population as human cannon fodder into conflicts because they don’t care about human costs would hurt a lot. What happens when Russia decides to reclaim the rest of the countries Putin thinks are rightly part of their federation, because Putin has delusions of becoming an historical tsar? What happens when Trump’s US backs Putin in that effort?
Your few guns will not fix any of this. Your few guns will not even help stave off anything in your own county. That’s never how this has worked. This will be ushered in while you get your groceries and watch Netflix, with no clear enemy to fight, after an authoritarian has been voted in as president, as everything else is just a Tuesday.
I appreciate that you think you can head off the next major fascist regime because you’re armed, but that’s not how this works. You will never have a target to shoot at. You will be just like average Germans in the 1930s, waiting for the moment it has gone too far, and then in the late 40s trying to figure out when that moment actually happened.
e: also, there are no ‘orange shirts’. Your terminology is tres bizarre. It’s Brownshirts or red caps. That’s an embarrassing mistake to make.
I mostly agree with your response, except for chastising OP about the color of the shirt. They start by mentioning brown, then parenthetically say "orange" as an unveiled reference to Trump.
This is because Trump is known to use a LOT of bronzer that turns his skin an unusual orange color. So what OP was trying to do was to relate the brownshirts to the presumed task force that Trump would create if he became a dictator.
It wasn’t about the colour of the shirt; that’s what you took from my comment?
lol okay, my point had nothing at all to do with colours.
Brownshirt == fascist paramilitary force
Redcap == fascist paramilitary force
Orange shirt == ?? Uh, maybe someone who should retake cosmetics finals?
e: Oohh, you’re ai right? That’s something to be proud of I guess. (I’m joking)
Bro agreed with you then pointed out that the other guy tried to make a joke about trump-variety brown shirts after you very specifically called it out as "inaccurate" and this is your response???
OP knows this deep down. People who cling to guns and control over their personal property do so because they feel out of control as to the big things, and if they are honest they can admit it.
Europe isn't depending on the US for their defense. The countries in Europe have their own militaries and two - three if you count Russia - are nuclear armed. They just don't have as high a percentage military spending as the US does. Many of them prioritise stuff like healthcare for their populations.
What an absolutely ignorant take. Pick up a high school history textbook, read it, then form an opinion.
block this guy. Troll of the highest order.
It's funny how the US military is the most expensive military in the world then. You guys spend 10x more money than the next guy.
In fact the only reason your military is "better" at all is simply because of that fact. Maybe you should look up what countries are spending on their military before you make stupid comments like that.
I'm somewhat lost on this issue. I feel embarrassingly ignorant about stuff like wars and defense budgets and NATO, etc. Maybe it's bc I'm young and probably didn't pay enough attention to history class in high school, but all this to say, if anybody knows of any good learning materials I'd be really grateful! Especially anything ELI5-style, geared toward people like me who have a hard time wrapping our heads around it.
One thing I'm curious about is just, basically what shalafi asked above. Is it true that the US spends a whole lot more on their military than other NATO allies; and if so, why is that? I understand there might not be a simple answer to a question like that, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget
The USA spends a lot of money on military. Why, that's a very nuanced question with a lot of answers. Since it's the reasons are:
Fear mongering
Politicians Funneling money to give their constituents jobs.
Republicans perpetually want to spend more. Democrats can't cut the budget.
Maintaining global influence
The party of fiscal responsibility. But medicare is too expensive, guise!
I can see your point, but I'd hardly describe this as "a good thing".
The strangest thing about this, to me, is that it's obvious that another Trump presidency would be disaster for a lot of governments in Europe, but what are they actually doing about it?
All I see are the massively successful disinformation campaigns coming out of Russia.
Probably occupied staving off the same disinformation and right wing lunatics set to sweep their elections this year...
And failing hard to do so
Swede here, in the revolving door of maybe NATO membership. I'd prefer the EU to have our own military union that is affiliated with NATO but isn't devoted to American interests. Unfortunately it seems too late for such considerations with our right wing government signing treaties as fast as they can. Thanks, Putin.
Signing what treaties?
Treaties is maybe not the right word in English. NATO application for one, American military facilities in Sweden is another.
Europe can't do anything about it, that's interfering with another country's politics.
Yea the US has never done that, especially not to its “allies” so of course none of those “allies” are allowed to do it to the US.
I'm sure the country with probably the most coups of others wouldn't do such a thing as pick marionettes for others... Right??
Many European countries have massively increased military spending and are reviving disbanded military units. What more do you expect them to do?
I guess the parent comment is implying they should have their own misinformation agenda to steer trump?
European countries have actually been spending a lot more on military lately. Whether that has something to do with the threat of another Trump presidency or the threat from Russia, I don't know. Maybe both.
What's the difference? (see also: AFD, National Rally, Tories)
He is def not working for China and Russia
Regarding the nearly $8 million he received from foreign nations while in office he said he was "doing services for them" and "I don't get $8 million for doing nothing."
He freely admitted as much.
What a pathetic loser, selling out the country for $8 million. America’s rich sneeze $8 million, Trump is a poor broke boy.
By the way it is now US law that pulling out of NATO requires Senate approval. Weird how they had to pass that.
https://www.kaine.senate.gov/press-releases/kaine-and-rubio-applaud-senate-passage-of-their-bipartisan-bill-to-prevent-any-us-president-from-leaving-nato#:~:text=If%20any%20U.S.%20President%20attempts,being%20used%20to%20do%20so.
A treaty is not valid because a paper was signed. Trump does not need to leave NATO in order to make NATO invalid. A statement like the one in the article is enough. Ultimately, NATO is about trusting that the other members will come help you. Once that trust is gone, NATO is just a piece of paper(well technically more but still).
There are ways around that.
Judges
Commander in Chief
Dude 100% doesn't know what nato is.
- Nietzshit
It's amazing how many Americans think NATO will fall apart to pieces without the US.
The US is the backbone of NATO and Ukraine + Palestine/Iran/Yemen + China + whatever is popping off in Ecuador and Venezuela right now is definitely showing the limits of American military intervention.
The multitude of NATO members still functionally exist, but they aren't in any real position to support or defend one another. Just look at the current protests in Poland against Ukrainian trucks coming into the country. Or the way Turkey (NATO's second largest military behind the US) seems content to play both ends against the middle. The UK, at this point, is an absolute joke. I guess they've always got France.
Hell, look at how US insistence in backing Israel's genocide in Gaza is dissolving decades of diplomacy between the various Middle Eastern states. The cornerstone of the Mediterranean is collapsing into civil war at a moment when Europeans would really prefer a big chunk of the American Navy wasn't diverted south of the Suez.
Its a fair cry from dead, but this is the worst NATO has looked in my own living memory.
Well, I wasn't talking about the veracity of the statement. Just stating trump is too dumb to know what nato is, other than what he can gather that it does for him personally (which is nothing, hence why "it's dead" to him). That said, the comment was also made nearly 4 years ago now, so I doubt he had all that in mind when he made the claim.
He loves to exaggerate for attention and he knows the NATO coalition has been struggling for the last decade. Telling the individual members that they all need to fend for themselves (by purchasing into American-made weapons industries) because the organization is "dead" is more about being used-car-salesmen shady than foreign-policy-stupid.
There's a running joke - one that Obama alluded to as he was leaving office when he demanded a gold watch from Boeing for eight years of service - about how the primary role of the Presidency is to just selling America's shit abroad. "NATO is dead, now y'all have to pony up for our military surplus" is just Trump's version of this.
Nothing trump says ever means anything, except the most base, grossest gruntings about sex. Everything else - please ignore.
Unless he really does mean it and tries to play it off as a joke when the crowd turns on him
Speaking of crowds turning on Trump, I gotta say, it was kind of amusing to witness how desperately he wanted credit for the COVID vaccines but had to stop talking about it because his plague rat base boo’d him for promoting vaccination at one of his own klan rallies.
The only thing stopping it from being downright hilarious was that, well, ya know… It was a deadly serious public health crisis being exasperated by god damn morons.
1 million dead Americans under his watch. Including my mother. I will never forgive, never forget. And now plenty more are dying for lack of being vaccinated, and killing the rest of us for lack of a fucking mask.
Nitpick; Trump never plays his statements off as a joke. His sycophants do, but never the man himself.
Remember everyone being shocked by, ‘I don’t kid’: Trump says he wasn’t joking about slowing coronavirus testing?
He says what he means, and he's quite literal. Major reason his detractors get confused. Yes, he said that. Yes, he meant it literally.
Sane people: "Politicians can't talk that way!"
Trump supporters: "He speaks truth!"
I kinda get the nut cases on this one. I've always wanted a politician that "tells it like it is", with cojones. I just don't like Trumps "truth".
No way. His stupid ass tells you exactly what he’s going to do. When he says US won’t help, it won’t.
Even having Trump on the ballot is risking civil war or at least collapsing of the union. I imagine a fight over him lying that he won again will be enough of a spark in the powder room.
And remember, the problem has NEVER been Trump. He's just a stupid, fat, orange moron. The US is fucked bc Trump supporters exist and are tolerated.
The GOP gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the constitution and the country. They're not a legitimate party, or even citizens.
There's a very very very very small part of me that wants to see a civil war over Trump.
Then we'd have American civil war causes:
conservatives killing our fellow citizens over fucking slavery.
conservatives killing our fellow citizens over the worlds dumbest con man...
What a history book that would be...
I understand the emotional response of "time to Sherman the south again", but I NEVER want to see a civil war here. Plus complicating the matter is, a lot of people have nobody to fight for. Why would anyone lay their lives down for the Dems. My personal best GUESS is that it'd devolve into small regional struggles, along with a what the fuck happens to the military and all the bases, etc.
What I do know is that once we burn down the south again, we're NOT repeating one of the greatest mistakes ever of reconstruction, nor allowing the traitor states back in the union (if some form of union still exists in the aftermath). Fool us once...
LOL right on with the history book!
Oh 100% agreed, I don't want any of the violence or death, I don't want to Sherman the South or anything. The "very very very small part of me" just wanted it for the "joke" I made about the causes they fight for lol
I feel you. LOL
> GOP gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the constitution and the country
I don't think the protesters arrested at L and 12 on Jan 20, 2017 would agree, and they were more committed to stopping Trump's presidency than anyone I can think of.
Can we just call him “puppet-o-puttin” already?
I will mark in celebration the last day I ever hear of this despicable human. "Shut up, man."
Careful, Donny-boy. Daddy Putin isn't going to be happy if you give up the game with only a few months to go
The MIC says otherwise Mr Trump. Being a part of NATO seems to be quite profitable
Well silver linings, I guess, but I'm a lot more optimistic now about the Military safety of Europe than I was 2 years ago. 2 years ago I feared Putin was thinking about maybe even taking the entirety of Europe with Trump out of the way and now we know he barely managed to steal a few kilometers of land in the Ukraine and he's relatively easily kept at bay.
A large factor in this is Russia being a defacto dictatorship requiring lots of obscurity so that he can rob the people blind, but that obscurity means that the army too has been robbed blind. It means their economy never grew to the full potential it had and right now is about the size of Italy.
Russia won't be a threat for many decades to come and even then will be little more thab a nuisance.
China is a problem but now it's becoming clean that it too had similar issues like Russia for similar reasons. You take a small group of privileged people that take all they want in a dictatorship and corruption goess wild. I honestly don't think the Chinese military will be able to do much against European armies either, especially with the distance.
Europe: “I thought you said the US was powerless?”
Trump: “Powerless to help you, not punish you."
Option B: NATO member states decide not to come to Lithuania and Poland's aid. Russia connects Kaliningrad with Belarus. The Baltics are now cut off from Poland. Europe is permanently weakened. In a few years time, Russia takes another gamble, each time the chance of conflict with European NATO increases and option A arises.
Alternative:
Repeat Steps 1-5.
6. Our leaders all turn out to be incredibly competent and rational, things stay under control, and mistakes are solved diplomatically.
7. What remains of European NATO is forced to ramp up military spending significantly. Without the US nuclear umbrella, these European states decide they also need their only nuclear capability. This significantly increases the likelihood of nuclear war and a pre-emptive strike.
8. Russian allied or go it alone populist run countries, side with China/Russia for economic reasons or due to increased interference from Russia/China. Their countries remain relatively prosperous, as they don't need to increase defense spending. They share advanced tech with Russia/China.
9. US allies in South East Asia notice that the US is increasingly alone, and that the Russian/Chinese sphere of influence is increasing. Some choose China's side, because they have come to the conclusion that the era of US dominance is ending.
10. The chance of nuclear proliferation increases. Increasingly alone, Japan breaks a long taboo, and acquires nuclear weapons, an option they have been discussing in the last few years in part due to Trump threatening not to come to their aid and due to Russian threats. South Korea acquires nuclear weapons, an option they have been discussing in recent years, in part due to Trump. Etc. etc.
11. An emboldened China/Russia decides to engage in increased provocations to test US resolve; Taiwan, Korea, the Kurils.
12. Whether deliberate or by mistake, a skirmish erupts, ...
You're vastly overestimating Russia's capability and underestimating Europe Nato's capability. Russia can't even invade Ukraine, one of the poorest countries. There's no way they can take on Europe Nato in an actual war. And UK's and France's nuclear umbrella is plenty.
The only good part of your statements is number 4 where Russia acts as a terrorist state. There's no good way out of a nuclear power acting as a terrorist.
The Institute for the Study of War:
Provocations increase, a mistake is made, skirmishes break out, Russian make surprisingly quick (short term) advances, ...
They're likely to make significant gains in the Suwalki gap, especially if the US has defacto left NATO and the EU is divided (Wilders, Orban, etc.). Wikipedia:
...
In a scenario where the US has left NATO, and the EU is divided (Orban, Wilders, Le Pen, ...), would the UK or France risk starting a nuclear war over a small sparsely populated area in the Baltics? Russia might gamble that NATO would not be willing to risk nuclear armageddon, after they abandoned Ukraine.
TLDR: high risk. Important to dissuade Russian stupidity by increasing defense spending. Important that the US stays in NATO.
"is by no means impossible". Like really that says it all. They don’t say it will happen. They don’t say it’s likely. All they do is rule out that it’s impossible.
Except they lost all their highly skilled troops. And their tanks. The aircraft they used before grounding them. And their BMPs. And most of their other equipment. And spent all their shells, they're getting shells from North Korea FFS. Having a higher troop number doesn’t mean all that much. Industrial base? Sure they can remake that but it will take at least a decade, if not two.
Ah yes like the sanctions on Iran have eroded... This can go on a long time if the west wants. And we really have no reason to want to trade with Russia. Russia’s gas and oil is slowly being cut off, both because of war and climate change. They have very little to offer. China may pick up the slack but what happens when you only have 1 buyer? The buyer has price control.
What’s more likely is that the technological, industrial, and economic difference between Russia and the west / EU will continue to widen.
Written before Russia showed they are barely more than a farce. And before the recent war showed how things can be brought to a crawl with guided missiles and drones. What else, and how Russia’s military is now degraded. And how Sweden and Finland will soon become part of Nato. I guarantee you Nato is rewriting their plans to hold the gap and Baltics.
..........Are you serious? No they will not start a nuclear war. They will start a conventional war. You sure jump the gun to nukes.
The whole point of Nato is going to war for allies. We all saw how appeasement and letting Hitler take one country at a time worked in WW2. This is literally the whole impetus and whole reason for Nato. Everyone saw how WW2 played out. Europe knows better than we ever will.
Abandoned Ukraine? Are you serious? It was not part of Nato.
Increase spending? Sounds good. But Russia couldn’t even deal with Ukraine’s budget plus old cold war era surplus from the west. They certainly can’t deal with Europe’s modern military or budget/economy.
Important to keep the US in? Sure. If the US leaves, will everyone give up, let it crumble into pieces, and let Russia take them over? Lol no.
I think I'm done here. Cheers.
The experts cited largely disagree with your assessment, which is why they are so worried about Trump withdrawing from NATO, why leaders are ramping up military spending, and why countries like Japan and South Korea are having serious discussions about acquiring their own nuclear deterrent for the first time in decades. They wouldn't do this, if they weren't genuinely worried.
I get the idea that you're angry about what these experts write.
Given this is an emotional reaction, perhaps you should ask yourself if you're not suffering from a cognitive bias.
It is possible that the reason you are annoyed is because you don't want the experts to be right about how dangerous the current situation is. It is very scary stuff. Fear can cloud our judgement on stuff like this.
You're knowingly citing things from before this war when everything they thought about Russia was thrown out. In addition to the new information about the effectiveness of guided missiles and drones.
And yes people are worried about the US pulling out of Nato. That does not mean that nato will fall into pieces and let russia take them over if the US leaves. Different things. And that does not mean they will not increase their own budget to deal with an
emergentterrorist russia. Different things.You're conflating and confusing a ton of things, in both this response and the previous ones.
Ah the strawman. I really think that wraps things up. Cheers.
The Institute for the Study of War published the first article I cited on December the 14th 2023.
I'll quote another relevant bit:
They don't have to conquer the entirety of Europe. Just a small territory like the Suwalki Gap, something NATO without the US might not want to risk a nuclear war over. Present NATO with a fait accompli at a time when it's weaker than it's ever been, due to a US withdrawal. Severely undermine NATO credibility and trust in the alliance.
Once again, I understand you don't agree and that you're getting angry, but I am simply repeating what plenty of experts say on the matter.
As you say, agree to disagree.
Seems like you don't understand the role of NATO.
Once one nation is attacked, all band together to fight the invader. They aren't going to just sit by and wait. It is explicitly stated that they won't. Even if Europe feels divided.
Because every single one of those nations knows that if NATO breaks, they will be the next target in Putins campaign of terror. And they will not be able to defend themselves alone. Even the right-wing politicians know this.
So if you think France or the UK will just sit by when a sparsely populated NATO area is invaded, then think again. Because if they don't then no country will help them when Putin arrives.
NATO is a pact of egoistic altruism. Help others to help yourself. Right-wingers are all about helping themselves.
No kidding huh. He has no idea why NATO was formed and exists.
Populists are surging across Europe and the western world.
We are commenting on an article about a right wing populist with ties to Russia called Trump. He likes to help himself. He's on record as saying NATO is dead and that the US wouldn't help NATO allies.
You will find similar articles about Wilders(the Netherlands), Le Pen(France), Orban(Hungary), Fico(Slovakia), Kneissl(Austria), Schroeder(Germany), Wilders(Belgium), Farage(UK), Salvini(Italy), AFD(Germany) and many many others who have (suspected) ties to Russia and/or China.
IRC Kneissl, the former Austrian foreign minister, now lives in St. Petersburg. Salvini's embarassed himself. Other populists have replaced them. Former German chancellor and mainstream politician Schroeder receives a million a year from Russian energy companies and continues to criticise the West, not Russia. He is also quite good at helping himself.
It's very scary, but all it takes for a mistake to happen, is for Russia to think that Europe and NATO is less united than it is, especially after a Trump win, populist gains, and Ukraine losing the war due to Western support drying up.