Trump’s Loose NATO Talk Already Has Endangered Us

[EricMaundry]

Defense One:
We reached a new low this week when one of the two major presidential candidates called into question our U.S. treaty obligation to NATO. Donald Trump’s remarks in a New York Times interview that he would only defend the Baltic states against a Russian invasion if they “have fulfilled their obligations to us” leaves open the question of whether under a President Trump the United States would honor its Article V commitment to treat an attack against one NATO member as an attack against all. Our obligation, and that of the Baltic states, is to come to the assistance of any NATO ally, without conditions.

Trump told the Times he had a condition – that the United States would be “reimbursed.” This “obligation” he refers to is the relatively recent agreement among NATO members that they would each spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. The United States has long sought to persuade our allies to pick up more of the cost of modernizing, deploying, and fighting. But the 2 percent is a political target. Currently, only 5 of 28 NATO members meet the target and, indeed, the next president will have to work harder to convince European capitals to increase defense spending. Success, however, is more likely through diplomacy, and not bullying. And it is more likely to fail if the U.S. government questions the foundation of NATO: the Article V commitment of the 1949 Washington Treaty. Collective security works only when all countries believe everyone is committed to the common defense. And paying 2 percent of GDP to NATO is not a treaty obligation; defending each other is.

Trump’s statements run counter to international law and commitments, counter to the very status quo that helps America prosper and keeps us safe. It questions the foundation of our only operational collective security alliance, an institution that has served us well in many ways, starting from keeping the peace in the aftermath of World War II and through the Cold War. This was no small feat. We deterred the Soviet Union with conventional and nuclear NATO forces until under Gorbachev the USSR changed its approach to the West and ultimately ceased to exist.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/07/trumps-loose-nato-talk-has-already-endangered-us/130162/?oref=site-defenseone-flyin-sailthru

Defense One also published the following article recently.

How Putin Weaponized Wikileaks to Influence the Election of an American President

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/07/how-putin-weaponized-wikileaks-influence-election-american-president/130163/

[Press Virginia]

1. Is the USSR planning to invade somewhere? NATO has outlived its purpose

let the Europeans defend Europe. We can cut our bloated military budget and spend that money here, where it's actually needed.
The Warsaw Pact is no more. Ivan ain't going to invade Western Europe.

[eShirl]

2. There is no USSR.

That said, fuck Trump.

[tallahasseedem]

16. They know this...

But anything to disrupt HRC's road to the White House, you know? Check the posting history.

[Press Virginia]

20. I didn't realize it was the 1980's again

i moved on

[Press Virginia]

21. You think?

[auntpurl]

3. How Putin could invade the Baltic States in 6 easy steps.

1. The Brexit vote inspires other angry white nationalists to rise to power in other European countries. Let's use Marine Le Pen in France as an example. The EU is now critically fractured.

2. Trump wins in the US, weakening NATO.

3. Putin, ruling Russia through fear but facing economic hardship as he already is and needing a distraction from his own disastrous policies, funds extreme right anti-EU government factions in, for example, Latvia, which starts a civil war and allows Putin to send in "aid trucks" and "peacekeeping forces".

4. The rest of Europe is in a f*cking mess after the rise of far-right forces in Hungary, Poland, Slovakia etc who are now (in this scenario) pro-Russia since the EU is doing no significant pushback. So the EU ignores calls for sanctions or intervention.

5. NATO is slow to respond/makes no response because Trump doesn't want to be involved. Russia, with a free board in front of it (you've played Risk as a kid, right?) goes further into Latvia and then into Estonia and Lithuania.

6. The Baltic States declare war on Russia. I don't think I need to enumerate what happens next. Archduke Ferdinand was metaphorically shot way up in step 1. Half of Europe is for Russia, half against. But now we've got nukes on the board, something that wasn't an option for the European powers in 1939.

TA DA!!!!

(Much of this post cribbed from this Medium post by a historian, which really everyone should read)

[Ghost Dog]

4. The UK referendum that reverberated around the world...

But this analysis assumes that Putin is playing such an aggressive game of Risk, as well as (neocon) USA. I see Russia's motivations and moves as being defensive so far. The Russian Federation needs peace and freedom to (sustainably) develop its own vast territory and advanced, educated society. Which is not to say that a defensive posture cannot be pushed into becoming an aggressive one.

[auntpurl]

6. Yes, this scenario is worst case.

But it's not out of the question. It's not even out of character for the involved parties. It's not hyperbole to say that a Trump/Putin alliance (which is becoming increasingly obvious) could start WWIII. Historians will be shaking their heads in wonder when they look back and see we were arguing about emails and allowed a demagogue as dangerous as Trump to take power.

[Ghost Dog]

7. But how many could be persuaded that such an alliance

could prevent WWIII?

[auntpurl]

8. I think enough people are still concerned about Russia to prevent that argument.

But who the f knows, really? They did elect Trump as the Republican nominee for president. The idiocy is staggering.

[cynzke]

13. PROBLEM IS....

Trump is capable of going from ZERO TO WORST CASE in sixty seconds or less.

[glennward]

11. First two steps: Georgia, Ukraine.

I hope folks realize that lots of nukes are out there in the Balkans.

[Press Virginia]

12. All the more reason to vacate the alliance

let Europe defend Europe

[auntpurl]

18. Wow, ok, that is nuts.

That kind of dangerous isolationism is what Trump is pushing.

[Press Virginia]

19. So you like our bloated defense budget

And being Europe's Military

[tallahasseedem]

17. +1

[PJMcK]

5. Your opinion is not policy

NATO is a Treaty, it says so in its name. There are processes to amend, change or end Treaties.

Loose talk by an unhinged presidential candidate is irresponsible and Mr. Trump has once again displayed his ignorance of the world and how government works.

By the way, Press Virginia, there is no longer a country called the USSR but the Russian Federation has demonstrated that they are a threat to the collective security of Europe.

Respectfully, I'm puzzled by your expression of agreement with Donald Trump's policy pronouncement.

[pipoman]

15. You must keep up...

Forget all you thought you knew about being a liberal/progressive/Democrat the new definitions of these things are being written....

[avebury]

9. If Trump, God forbid, became President

I don't see how our allies could find it safe to maintain close ties to the US. I don't think that you can trust Trump one bit. They would be fools to share intelligence data with a Trump WH. I can't think they would feel safe having US bases on their soil because if Trump formed an alliance with Putin our bases could become a clear and present danger to the host coutries. A Trump presidency could well push our allies over to the side of China.

It kind of makes you wonder if the US Military would stand up to Trump. Could we have our version of an Arab Spring during a Trump presidency?

[turbinetree]

10. He really is dangerous, everything about this hypocrite is based on money, everything, and his

worthless narcissistic brand.

I now fully believe that he is an agent to and for another country that is being run by a former KGB narcissistic despot.

And to top it all off a draft dodging one at that

And he will now be given intelligence briefings, the Manchurian candidate will now have information---------------this is also really f***king scary

[pipoman]

14. My issue with NATO, UN, and some other world organizations

Is the inequal sharing of cost.

[pampango]

22. Politifact: For 2016, NATO’s total military budget is about $2 billion. The US pays 22%, Germany 15%

Politifact:

For 2016, NATO’s total military budget is about $2 billion. (... we’ll ignore the civilian costs, which are about $200 million.)

Each member contributes an agreed upon percentage of the shared budget. The United States leads the pack, paying 22 percent, as Samp said. This year, that comes to about $460 million. (Germany comes in second, paying about 15 percent.)

The alliance sums up the total defense budgets of its members and counts that as its resources. By that measure, the United States represents about 72 percent of NATO. But that hardly captures America’s role because its defense budget is shaped by factors outside of Europe.

On the other hand, NATO has common military expenses on the order of $2 billion a year. The U.S. share of that is about 22 percent. But those dollars exclude the vast spending it takes to sustain American forces, equipment and bases across Europe. And in a final twist, even those expenditures aren’t solely for the benefit of Europe.

If you add up all NATO countries defense budgets, ours is 72% of the total. Obviously, all of our bloated military spending is not dedicated to NATO by any means.

If Trump eliminates the ~$440 million we spend annually on NATO's common military expenses that will reduce defense spending by less than 1/10 of 1%. And he has pledged to raise defense spending at any rate to 'restore' our military. If he is not an isolationist, I am not sure why he cares so much about 0.08% of the defense budget which he wants to grow anyway.