Trump/Putin disaster summit. And also overseas visit w/ NATO & UK.

[ProudModerate2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ProudModerate2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ProudModerate2]

[Reaganfan Democrat]

No points for guessing that his meeting with Putin will be more cordial than his meetings with NATO and the UK.

[ProudModerate2]

No points for guessing that his meeting with Putin will be more cordial than his meetings with NATO and the UK.

Yes, trump has already made that clear:
President Donald Trump said his easiest meeting on his foreign trip to Europe during the next week may be his sit down with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics/trump-putin-meeting/index.html

Besides trump must behave-around, and "worship" Putin ... since he is meeting with his boss.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Seems like a security risk.

It would be too easy to confuse with the real thing.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

No points for guessing that his meeting with Putin will be more cordial than his meetings with NATO and the UK.

Yes, trump has already made that clear:
President Donald Trump said his easiest meeting on his foreign trip to Europe during the next week may be his sit down with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics/trump-putin-meeting/index.html

Besides trump must behave-around, and "worship" Putin ... since he is meeting with his boss.

This is Trump's annual employee review.

[QAnonKelly]

No points for guessing that his meeting with Putin will be more cordial than his meetings with NATO and the UK.

Yes, trump has already made that clear:
President Donald Trump said his easiest meeting on his foreign trip to Europe during the next week may be his sit down with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/10/politics/trump-putin-meeting/index.html

Besides trump must behave-around, and "worship" Putin ... since he is meeting with his boss.

This is Trump's annual employee review.

Did Putin bring a copy of the pee tape to remind Trump of his past performance?

[ProudModerate2]

I wonder how long it will take before we begin to see the stupid Tweets from the Orange Clown.
The ones where he attacks our allies (Germany, France, UK, entire NATO, etc) but then praise our enemies and the dictators running them (Russia/Putin, NK/Jung-Un, etc).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wonder how long it will take before we begin to see the stupid Tweets from the Orange Clown.
The ones where he attacks our allies (Germany, France, UK, entire NATO, etc) but then praise our enemies and the dictators running them (Russia/Putin, NK/Jung-Un, etc).

He actually did it in person:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44780489

But it also provides insight into why Trump has launched a trade war. Trade makes a country weak because it comes to depend upon it.

[BudgieForce]

All this talk about NATO being in trouble are premature. Give a Democrat a year and it'll be like Trump never happened.

[Helsinkian]

Trump is right about Nordstream. Merkel pretends to be anti-Putin and pro-Ukraine, while she's making money from a gas pipeline project that allows Russia to bypass Ukraine and assert great economic pressure on Kiev.

[KingSweden]

Trump is right about Nordstream. Merkel pretends to be anti-Putin and pro-Ukraine, while she's making money from a gas pipeline project that allows Russia to bypass Ukraine and assert great economic pressure on Kiev.

I actually agree - there is a lot of hypocrisy amongst European leaders on Russia, *especially* on Nordstream. Trump is right to point that out, as would any US administration.

That doesn’t excuse his childish antics and bizarre affinity for Putin at the expense of our allies, though.

[The Dowager Mod]

https://twitter.com/davidjoachim/status/1017030377326641152

[Middle-aged Europe]

A somewhat modified and expanded rebuttal to Trump's accusations I posted at ADD:

- A few European NATO members are already fulfilling the "2% of the GDP" obligation as I type this sentence. Others have at least started a process to increase their military budgets as it was agreed upon at past NATO summits. Those increases probably don't happen as fast as Trump would like to see them. Then again, since his disdain for his allies from democratic countries doesn't seem to be based on much rational thinking I doubt that there could be a speed that would possibly satisfy him.

- While Trump blasts European countries for their military budgets, no European government has ever demanded from the United States to keep it defense budget at ist current level nor was the United States ever criticized when it happen to cut its defense budget.

- The U.S. defense budget, which encompasses roughly half of all military expenditures worldwide, is an inheritance from the Cold War. One of the main reasons why it was only marginally cut after the Cold War is that it would have cost too many American jobs in the defense industry in the process. So, Europe tends to profit as much from the overbloated U.S. defense budget as the U.S. economy does, perhaps even less so.

- The U.S. share of the commonly funded "principal budgets" for NATO is currently at 22%, while 35% of NATO's total population lives in the United States.

- The U.S. profits in other ways from NATO than high European military budgets. Considerable American military infrastructure exists in strategically valuable, but politically stable places like Germany. Most of the U.S. drone warfare is directed from Ramstein Air Base. Wounded soldiers from wars in the Middle East are being treated at the Landstuhl, the largest U.S. military Hospital existing abroad. Who pays for the maintenance of these military installations in considerable quantities? The German taxpayer does.

- As far as the Nordstream pipeline is concerned, this project is not entirely uncontroversial even in Germany, partly for the reasons stated by Trump himself. On the other hand, the share of renewable energies (36.3%) in Germany's total energy output has overtaken the share of coal (35.1%) for the first time ever in the first half of 2018, making it the main source of energy. Gas is at 12.3% right now. That's something Trump isn't really a pioneer in, isn't he?

[QAnonKelly]

Senate voted 97-2 on a motion to affirm our support for NATO. Paul and Lee voted against it.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Trump is 100% right on the fact that all NATO countries must pay 2% of gdp on defense.

[TheSaint250]

Trump is 100% right on the fact that all NATO countries must pay 2% of gdp on defense.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Trump is 100% right on the fact that all NATO countries must pay 2% of gdp on defense.

2% was a ten-year target agreed to in 2014.


Maybe NATO members should conspire with Russia against American interests? Then Trump would be all in favor of paying their defense costs.

[Izzyeviel]

Trump is 100% right on the fact that all NATO countries must pay 2% of gdp on defense.

Nope. it's a meaningless figure that doesn't take anything into account. It's a figure plucked from thin air because it sounds good.

[Reaganfan Democrat]

Trump is 100% right on the fact that all NATO countries must pay 2% of gdp on defense.

2% was a ten-year target agreed to in 2014.


Maybe NATO members should conspire with Russia against American interests? Then Trump would be all in favor of paying their defense costs.

It was a recommendation set in 2002, not 2014, in response to deep cuts in defense spending by European countries in the 90s after the Cold War. (not that some cutting wasn't justified, but the depth of the cuts led to legitimate concerns that NATO could not continue as a serious military alliance if some members basically abandoned their defense capabilities)

[GeorgiaModerate]

Trump is 100% right on the fact that all NATO countries must pay 2% of gdp on defense.

2% was a ten-year target agreed to in 2014.


Maybe NATO members should conspire with Russia against American interests? Then Trump would be all in favor of paying their defense costs.

It was a recommendation set in 2002, not 2014, in response to deep cuts in defense spending by European countries in the 90s after the Cold War. (not that some cutting wasn't justified, but the depth of the cuts led to legitimate concerns that NATO could not continue as a serious military alliance if some members basically abandoned their defense capabilities)

The recommendation may stem from 2002, but the 10-year pledge to work toward it was made at the NATO summit at Newport, Wales, in September 2014.

[OSR stands with Israel]

At this point I consider many EU countries to be acting like freeloaders .

[Reaganfan Democrat]

The recommendation may stem from 2002, but the 10-year pledge to work toward it was made at the NATO summit at Newport, Wales, in September 2014.

That only happened because European countries dragged their feet after the "recommendation" (let's be serious, a "recommendation" when it comes to defense is not really optional - you either have to do it or openly decline and face the consequences) and many countries actually lowered defense spending since 2002.

[GeorgiaModerate]

The recommendation may stem from 2002, but the 10-year pledge to work toward it was made at the NATO summit at Newport, Wales, in September 2014.

That only happened because European countries dragged their feet after the "recommendation" (let's be serious, a "recommendation" when it comes to defense is not really optional - you either have to do it or openly decline and face the consequences) and many countries actually lowered defense spending since 2002.

"Recommendation" was your wording in the post I quoted.  I don't have a problem with all NATO countries spending 2% of their GDP on defense (although this may be difficult to implement and/or an inefficient use of resources; see for example http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/59173).  But given that there was a pledge in 2014 to work toward it over 10 years, calling for it to happen immediately is moving the goalposts.