Then president told European commissioners in 2020 that ‘Nato is dead’ and the US would never defend Europe if it were attacked
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.”
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.
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.
On the other hand, why is Europe depending on the US for their own defense?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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).
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.
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.
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.
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...
> 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.
Yeah, I came across a Russian troll disguising as faux-centrist-progressive advocating for American isolationism, stating that Trump is for the better than Biden. American foreign policy has obviously been detrimental except when it's a just war and in support of a country attacked unprovoked, like Ukraine. Said commenter says Ukraine is a corrupt country anyhow and losing so it's a lost cause (the Russo-Ukraine war is in a stalemate objectively speaking). He also argued Joe Biden is worse than Trump for supporting Israel's genocidal war on Gaza so Trump is better foreign policy wise, even though Trump is way friendlier to Israel by setting up the US embassy in Eastern Jerusalem.
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.
Trump gets elected. Populists with ties to Russia win elections across Europe. Due to a lack of US support, and delays in what has been promised, Ukraine loses the war against Russia.
Although on paper the US stays in NATO, Trump sows enough doubt about coming to European allies' defense, that US led NATO is effectively dead. Russia has just won a significant victory in Ukraine. Their economy is on a war footing, their troops are battle hardened, they have significant reserves. Europe is divided and alone.
An emboldened Russia makes good on their public and repeated promise to 'cause trouble' for Finland and the Baltics.
Russia tests European NATO. In the past they've engaged in the occasional poisoning, the use of a nerve agent, sent bombers which stop just short of the border, engaged in military exercises, etc. Now they increase the frequency of these provocations, safe in the knowledge the US will not get involved.
Whether deliberate or by accident a mistake is made or a skirmish erupts.
The Suwalki Gap, which connects Belarus with the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, is very hard to defend. Unlike Russia, which is now on a war footing and ramping up production, Europe is not fully prepared due to decades of underinvestment, division, and complacency.
Russia makes significant gains. Commanders on the ground seize the initiative. Russia takes a gamble that NATO without the US won't respond, and commits to a full invasion of the Suwalki gap. European NATO troops are quickly overrun, as has long been predicted.
European NATO, including the UK and France, have to choose if they will come to Poland and Lithuania's defense. Russia gambles that they will not.
Option A: While some NATO (Russian allied) member states decide not to come to Lithuania and Poland's aid, at least some do. They are afraid to escalate to a nuclear strike, so they respond with conventional means. To defend NATO territory, European NATO must capture Kaliningrad, although it is home to Russian nuclear weapons. OR France and the UK realise that capturing Kaliningrad is likely to precipitate a Russian nuclear strike, so come to the conclusion they must pre-emptively launch.
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.
Provocations increase, a mistake is made, skirmishes break out, Russian make surprisingly quick (short term) advances, ...
There’s no way they can take on Europe Nato in an actual war
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.