Trump Is Losing It: It is unclear whether Donald Trump has forgotten the precise nature of NATO or whether he ever fully grasped it in the first place.

MicroWave@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 494 points – Opinion | Trump Is Losing It
nytimes.com

What is clear, however, is that Trump — who ostensibly spent four years as president of the United States — has little clue about what NATO is or what NATO does. And when he spoke on the subject at a rally in South Carolina over the weekend, what he said was less a cogent discussion of foreign policy than it was gibberish — the kind of outrageous nonsense that flows without interruption from an empty and unreflective mind.

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’” Trump said, recalling an implausible conversation with an unnamed, presumably European head of state. “‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’” Trump recounted responding. “‘No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’”

The former president’s message was clear: If NATO members do not pay up, then he will leave them to the mercy of a continental aggressor who has already plunged one European country into death, destruction and devastation.

Except NATO isn’t a mafia protection racket. NATO, in case anyone needs to be reminded, is a mutual defense organization, formed by treaty in 1949 as tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union hardened into conflict. “The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” states Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Non-paywall link

94

You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’”

Boy, that's rich coming from Il Douche.

From somebody being sued by their former attorney for not paying their bills

The only time the mutual defence treaty was triggered is because the US was attacked and all countries in NATO stepped up to the plate.

Not just stepped up to the plate, but went pretty much all-in on a COMPLETELY pointless invasion against what was almost certainly the wrong country.

That's how committed they were to NATO.

I am assuming you mean the Iraq war, but that was not a NATO operation, it just happened to have many NATO allies providing support, not all of them.

To your point, it was called the "Coalition of the willing". Article 5 was not invoked.

Article 5 was invoked in response to 9/11: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

That was Afghanistan.

Kind of, but not really. NATO did operations to ensure US's immediate security against further terrost attacks. Once the US affirmed it had it's shit together, NATO pulled out. Any countries that stuck around for the counter-attack wars (like Afghanistan and Iraq) did so under different banners. NATO does not encroach or encourage war, it exists to prevent it and will do what's necessary up to the point a nation is deemed safe again.

It circles the injured sheep and fights off the wolf. Once this is done, it doesn't then hunt down the fleeing wolf. This works very well because other animals aren't scared of NATO controlling the lands, but the wolves are also scared of trying to attack that herd.

Similarly, if everything went wrong for the US in Afghanistan, NATO wouldn't help. If the US retreated and started getting attacked in its homeland, NATO would.

At the time it was correct and very much not pointless. Where we fucked up was staying around and trying to nation build. Moment we destroyed al qaeda we should have left.

Edit: Afghanistan was in response to 9/11 not Iraq...

My implication is that if we really wanted to get Bin Laden / Al-Qaeda, the more sensible targets were Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Which of course we didn't go after. We had a goal of spilling some Arab blood, but wanted a target that would be a cooperative punching bag.

And even then, we still fucking failed. Al-Qaeda still exists. Or it was consumed by/transformed into/always secretly was just a branch of Daesh who are still going strong. Or maybe they weren't really a coherent organization in the first place and were always more grassroots/franchised. Not to mention the Taliban are right back in power and doing their same shit. We accomplished nothing more than running the best possible recruitment campaign for the next generation of west-hating religious extremist warriors.

And the attack was done by rogue non-state actors. Europe agreed to go burn a whole district because a thug who lived roughly there punched USA in the face. Now Europe faces an entire mafia from another town and Trump says "should've bought better gear, bye suckers".

Can't lose what you never had. Its laughable to pretend that Trump ever had a clue as to what NATO is or does.

He doesn't understand OUR military, how is he going to comprehend the utility of a trans-national mutual defense accord?

I'm frankly amazed he doesn't choke on his food, he's so fucking stupid.

2 more...

If Putin doesn't like it, then Trump doesn't like it. He probably doesn't even know why.

He thinks NATO is his slum tenants and fancies himself a mob boss getting paid protection money.

My suspicion is that he got NATO and NAFTA confused years ago and never admitted it. Now he believes it's about trade and defense.

2 more...

The guy currently on trial for racketeering is asking people for protection money or something bad will happen to them? Who would have thought!

Also "you have to pay your bills, unlike me who literally NEVER pays ANY bills." I mean, if there is one consistent element in Trump's character for the decades he's doing business is that he's constantly stiffing people.

Worked with a batshit crazy old lady in the quality department for about a year. She was stuck there (both job and location) while she cared for her very elderly mother. Before that she had something to do with finance, fashion and F1 racing (like a client liaison or something) but any way. She recalled a tale from late 80s early 90s of being in a very specific bank (Royal back of Scotland?) and watching Mr Trump storm out after being denied a loan. The utter bliss she experienced in telling that story every ting i asked to hear it again... Brought happiness to my heart.

I miss you Marylin you batshit crazy old lady.

Dude's a mob boss, everyone around him has taken the fall and he's still there. That's insane.

What is insane is that people are still taking the fall for him. When it's pretty clear Donnie cares only for himself. Everyone has convinced themself that they're special. No, they're not. Everyone is a stooge to Donnie.

2 more...
2 more...

How do people not see this as being directed by Putin? Russia is literally the only beneficiary of this "stupidity".

For the GOP voters? 50+ yrs of highly concentrated, and pointed propaganda.

For the nonvoters? Bc their favorite social media sites (this one included) are full of russian bad faith actors working to make Status Quo Joe seem somehow worse, or, at the very least, more ineffectual, than ronald mcdump.

Just saw a fella here the other day absolutely screeching and livid that Joe "hasn't done anything for Flint." I mean, neither did Donald and also Donald hamstrung the EPA as best he could to make things worse all over the nation.

The dishonesty is so overt. That guy didn't respond to anything, either, so no updates if he is concerned for the EPA or not.

Its all performative. Theres no shortage of 20something yr old leftist idealists that are ripe for the brainwashing. Just discovered The Dunk Tank, which i guess is more of the same.

24 year old leftist redneck the fuck is the dunk tank, is that some tankie shit im too Non Credible Defense pilled to understand.

It’s hexbear so yes, tankie shit. They screen grab themselves “dunking” on “liberals”!

The funny thing is, Russia would never actually strike NATO. I don't know what the fuck State or JCS are letting him get away with while DOJ jacks off with reports about the incumbent's mental health, but Trump needs to be gagged and thrown into solitary yesterday.

It certainly has the exact structure of all the other Russian agitation material, designed to breed resentment.

I can imagine the typical low-information voter: "What? They think we're required to fight for them? And they refuse to do their share at the same time? Oh the entitlement!" - bam - anger against EU, happy about Trump supposedly calling them out, may even support leaving NATO.

True, but EU countries not contributing to mutual defense also helps Putin. Both are bad. Some EU countries are finally adding some defense spending now there's a literal war on their continent.

The lack of defense spending in Europe is pushed by European political parties partially supported by Russia. So basically, Putin has created the problem that he told Trump to yell about.

And then he invaded Ukraine and most of those countries found their wallets quick!

It's a NYTimes article. As much stupid shit as Trump has said, he was right about the NYT. And that's why they have all these very shareable articles exploring every nook and cranny of his psyche. This article would have been exhausting to read in 2017.

"One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, 'Well, sir,

Imma stop it right there. It's always possible that someone, out of a general professional attitude or decorum, used that 'sir' wording, but I'll be damned if I've heard Trump use that word in a context that doesn't sound like he's just making some bullshit up.

I mean, he pretty much always sounds like he's making some shit up, but my point stands!

I like how John Bolton (who is a massive douche nozzle by the way but gotta give credit where credit is due) called Trump out by saying that any time Trump tells a story where someone calls him "sir" then you know it's absolute bullshit.

"Sir" is a bit of a red herring when all of Donald's stories are absolute bullshit.

"Sir" is one of Donnie's tells. If he tells a story that includes someone calling him sir, it's completely made up/never happened.

I mean, that's aside from him lying if his lips are moving.

This is some LinkedIn "then everyone clapped and it turned out the wolf I saved was the hiring manager all along and they made me CEO" type shit

If you get called "sir" in Europe, you are most likely getting scammed by a taxi driver.

You gotta pay your bills.

This fucking guy... LOL oh man that is something isn't it? The guy famous for never paying his bills says this about a REAL life and death situation... FUCK TRUMP

Never forget... Every accusation is a confession with these people

Trump supporters are more pathetic than the man himself. This is exemplified simply because this demonstration of his ineptitude as well as his various acts of indecency and immorality cannot and will not sway their opinion of the man.

The only way to change their opinion of him is for Trump himself to "go woke" so hard they no longer recognize him as their Cheeto covered Jesus.

Remember in 2016 when Republican types were adamant that Hillary wouldn't be tough enough on Putin, and that Liberals were Communists? And that the Liberals would let Russia do whatever it wanted?

And now those same Republicans are outspoken against helping Ukraine, and want to let Russia just have it. Their preferred candidate wants to dismantle the organization of countries that stands as the United front against Russian expansion. Working deliberately and blatantly toward Putin's interests isn't a problem to them at all.

Back then, I thought that if there was a single (decent) principle they actually stand for, that would have been it. Apparently I was wrong.

Kompromat in the form of the RNC's emails that have not been leaked.

Emails that WikiLeaks apparently has but said "nah we're not going to release them because there's totes nothing in there trust us".

They could've been neutral and trustworthy. Instead they had an axe to grind against Hillary, and prioritized that over being known for objective truth.

At this point what could possibly be in those emails that their voters wouldn't just dismiss?

At this point I suspect the main damage is done. But the dirt was found out a different way.

The big secret to hide was campaign funding and coordination. But Trump won anyway. Then didn't even get in trouble for it.

And later the Russia>>NRA dark money link was found and reported on. Without the media then going ape shit that the funnel was really Russia>>NRA>>GOP. And without any of the Biden administration cracking down on what happened.

So I suspect it's why they're all even more brazen now. Some of the dirt was found. It didn't amount to any punishment. So why bother trying to hide now?

Both sides though, right? I mean… we have one guy wanting to plunge America into absolute chaos by dismantling hundreds of years of progress and ending democracy as we know it just so he can protect his sad little crumbling empire of corruption….

And the other guy is old.

Totally comparable!

Based on discourse online post the invasion of Ukraine, it seems there's a few Americans that don't know what NATO is/does, nor how it differentiates from how the US conducts its military. For starters, it's anti-militant—kind of the point—unless it has no other viable resort, and it's the threat of that last resort that bolsters the passive-security within NATO. It is safety in numbers and it fails if the herd scatters.

As a result, Article 5 has only needed to be acted upon once and the irony is that it was the US that raised the call for help and the other nations responded.

If Trump has his way, WW3 will kick off, everyone will suffer, and it'll end with the US saying, "Fucking hell. Wow. Let's not let that happen again. We need some sort of agreement to make sure of that."

“Fucking hell. Wow. Let’s not let that happen again. We need some sort of agreement to make sure of that.”

I don't think humans have that much self-awarneess anymore, I think Trump can literally kill 12 million people with his bare hands and most people will say "Aww shucks" aside from a vocal minority, with the media calling such actions "Divisive" at worst

Anti-militant is a terrible mischaracterization. NATO is existentially militant, it's a super federation of militarized powers. What they are is a defensive pact. They don't conquer territory, western powers have been out of that business since before the formation of the alliance.

Putin's gambit that the herd might scatter is a really big bet for an empire that's already over-extended trying to protect force onto territory that isn't rightfully theirs. How long does he think he can keep paying off enough westerners to prevent a non-nato fraternal response?

For starters, it’s anti-militant—kind of the point—unless it has no other viable resort

Umm. Well. Are we including NATO-sponsored invasions err... peacekeeping conflict-resolution interventions?

NATO doesn't only operate in defense, there have been a long list of NATO-sponsored interventions outside NATO membership: Kuwait/Iraq, the Balkans, Libya. One can argue whether NATO operations were justified in those cases, but I don't think any of them could be described as anti-militant, or that there were no other viable options. Doing nothing was an option, for example.

With Article 4, they will respond to threats with enough recourse to prevent it or provide aid and assistance for operations focused toward peace. The "threat" being one the collective nations of NATO agree that a member of NATO will not be able to handle alone, thus its security will be compromised, and that would lead to Article 5 being invoked when it could've been avoided earlier.

I'm not even saying that I disagree with the decision to intervene in Kuwait, but it was certainly militant, and NATO nations certainly had other "resorts" to insure their own security. I'm having trouble coming up with any argument that Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, for example, threatened the security of a NATO member.

He doesn't care, he's doing what Putin tells him. Destabilise the western alliance

Whether he knows what it is, is totally irrelevant. All he cares, is that he has something else he can hate on, something which his followers don't understand, so he can show them he's the man who stands up to people. Whether he is standing up to someone or not.

Well, really what it comes down to is that Putin wants Nato dissolved, and Trump is Putin's lil bitch.

I can guarantee you that if it isn't a woman's ass we're talking about, there's no chance he's grasped it.

He has this bizarre idea in his head that NATO is like one of his golf clubs with membership fees and not GDP pledges.

Ostensibly? I'm pretty sure he was president for four years. Does anybody protest that?

He was president for 4 years and treated it like retirement. Even if it was explained to him exactly what NATO was several times, I doubt he paid attention or cared enough to retain the information.
Putin doesn't like NATO and that's all he needs to know about it.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

And when he spoke on the subject at a rally in South Carolina over the weekend, what he said was less a cogent discussion of foreign policy than it was gibberish — the kind of outrageous nonsense that flows without interruption from an empty and unreflective mind.

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’” Trump said, recalling an implausible conversation with an unnamed, presumably European head of state.

The former president’s message was clear: If NATO members do not pay up, then he will leave them to the mercy of a continental aggressor who has already plunged one European country into death, destruction and devastation.

NATO, in case anyone needs to be reminded, is a mutual defense organization, formed by treaty in 1949 as tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union hardened into conflict.

Or consider the time, last November, when Trump confused China and North Korea, telling an audience of supporters in Florida that “Kim Jong Un leads 1.4 billion people, and there is no doubt about who the boss is.

And because no one now expects him to be a responsible political figure with a coherent vision for the country, it’s as if no one blinks an eye when he rants and raves on the campaign trail.

The original article contains 1,108 words, the summary contains 231 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

It's a bit weird hearing people make a huge fuss over Trump not taking the Russian threat seriously while they themselves are refusing to spend even just the minimum they've already agreed to spend on defence. Especially if we're looking at the potential of the US being an unreliable partner, shouldn't we be putting a lot more effort into shoring things up here at home? (Canadian)

Yes, we definitely should, but you won't find a party on any side of the spectrum that will run on that.

Which is among the reasons that people are losing faith in government, and why Trump is capable of capitalizing on the issue.

That this point I think he thinks that NATO is what you call TiVo, and that TiVo is still a thing.