ADVERTISEMENT

Wrecking NATO

OKSTATE1

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
44,598
55,378
113
Edmond, Oklahoma
July 11, 2018
Wrecking NATO
By Shoshana Bryen

The Washington Post headline blared, "Trump is bent on wrecking NATO. Prepare for catastrophe." The Post fears that President Trump's diplomacy will benefit Vladimir Putin to the detriment of American and European interests. European Council president Donald Tusk sniped, "Dear America, appreciate your allies. After all, you don't have that many."

The NATO countries are, indeed, among America's closest allies, but some of them appear more interested in oil, natural gas, and trade with Iran than in the Fulda Gap. Some of our "closest allies" have been working overtime to undermine America. If Mr. Trump is irritated with them, there is a reason.

Iran is preparing to take $300 million in cash out of German banks to get ahead of impending U.S. banking sanctions. While American intelligence officials are concerned that the money will finance terrorism, the German government says it has "no evidence" to that effect. According to the German newspaper Bild, "Iran ... says that they need the money 'to pass it on to Iranian individuals who, when travelling abroad, are dependent on euros in cash due to their lack of access to accepted credit cards.'" The German government appears to think that one million Iranian tourists might need $300 each – or perhaps 300 tourists might need $1 million each.

The plan to send dollars to Tehran is in line with European negotiations, led by Germany and France, to help Iran mitigate the economic fallout of the American withdrawal from the JCPOA – the Iran deal. The E.U. has also begun to update its "blocking statute," the rule that will prevent European companies from complying with impending Iran sanctions.

Germany is willing to run a multi-billion-euro trade deficit with Iran to keep the doors open, even as a 2018 German intelligence report confirms that Iran is currently seeking nuclear technology in there.

It is unclear why America's "closest allies" want to help the regime that sponsors Hamas and Hezb'allah, created a mercenary army of tens of thousands of Shiites to uproot the mostly Sunni population of Syria, sentences a women who doffed her head scarf to 20 years in prison (she will serve at least two years, likely more), bans homosexuality and hangs gay people from cranes in public – and is, in fact, behind only China in the number of executions it conducts annually – and imprisons foreign nationals. And that's before mentioning that Iran cheated on the JCPOA by hiding the military nature of its program and violated U.N. Security Council resolutions on ballistic missile development and the import and export of weapons.

As a practical matter, it may be irrelevant. Iranian president Hassan Rouhani went back to Iran in a snit because, he said, "The package from Europe does not meet all our demands." Iran makes "demands" on America's "closest allies," and the allies consider them?

Since NATO was designed to defend Europe from Russia, perhaps our interests are more closely aligned on the subject of an increasingly bellicose and aggressive Vladimir Putin.

Earlier this year, The Washington Post ran a story in which Germany's parliamentary commissioner for the armed forces "reached the conclusion that the German military is virtually 'not deployable for collective defense.'" The commissioner "also indicated in an interview that Germany was unprepared for the possibility of a larger conflict even though smaller operations abroad may still be possible."

Then perhaps Germany is preparing to spend the NATO-required 2 percent of GDP on defense to make it up. No, it is not. Germany's defense minister, on a visit to the Pentagon earlier this year, said Germany may get to 1.5 percent of GDP in 2026.

In the meantime, The Post reported that Germany has not one operational submarine, only half of its Leopard 2 tanks were operational in November 2017, and so many helicopters require repair that Bundeswehr pilots were using private helicopters for practice.

While Germany declines to spend 2 percent on defense, it appears to have enough money to build another natural gas pipeline from Russia to Germany and beyond – this will be the third. Germany already imports about half of its oil and natural gas from Russia; the new pipeline will increase that to 60% and beyond. The pipelines also serve France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, among our "closest allies."

Remember how upset our European allies were by Russian meddling in Ukraine and the conquest and annexation of Crimea? They tossed Russia from the G-7 and imposed sanctions on Russian oligarchs and companies – though not on Putin himself.

Then, when Russia tried abruptly to cancel its gas transit contracts with Ukraine and Poland, Ukraine won its case to retain the shipping rights – and the associated fees – in the international arbitration court in Sweden. So, of course, Germany, et al. sided with Ukraine, which needs the fees in part to continue to resist Russian-inspired aggression. Right? No. Germany sided with Russia against Ukraine – offering to "mediate" between the invader and the invaded.

How much political influence will Russia have in Germany and other European countries when the thermometer dips next winter? How will our "closest allies" respond to Russian pressure?

A flashback from 2012 might be instructive:

Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved, but it's important for him [Putin] to give me space.

Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you...

Obama: This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.

Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

Our European allies offered not a word of criticism. Now, six years later, who is actually "wrecking NATO"? Who is actually "colluding" with Russia? Who is actually weakening the Atlantic Alliance? Who is actually supporting Iran today – which threatens the United States (and Israel) directly and Europe by extension?

Hint: It is not Mr. Trump.
 
NATO is obsolete now. No way the world is going to go to war over an invasion of Croatia or Slovakia. We are defending countries who don’t even want to spend the needed money to defend themselves (German soldiers with brooms as simulated weapons) which is ludicrous! For Clinton or Bush or the ex-rodent in chief yea they may have given it lip service just to check it off their presidential bucket list, but they never pressed the issue. All three wanted to be hugged and loved by the Europeans and not make them mad at us.

To me it’s easy, spend the money or don’t count on the US to bail your asses out if you get invaded.
 
NATO is obsolete now. No way the world is going to go to war over an invasion of Croatia or Slovakia. We are defending countries who don’t even want to spend the needed money to defend themselves (German soldiers with brooms as simulated weapons) which is ludicrous! For Clinton or Bush or the ex-rodent in chief yea they may have given it lip service just to check it off their presidential bucket list, but they never pressed the issue. All three wanted to be hugged and loved by the Europeans and not make them mad at us.

To me it’s easy, spend the money or don’t count on the US to bail your asses out if you get invaded.

Yet we’re spending more on defense lol. Talk is cheap.
 
If we really wanted to show our NATO allies we’re serious, we’d decrease our spending for NATO. Talk is cheap
Or we show that we're holding up our end of the deal and point out those that aren't. I think I'll stick with that as logical at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imprimis
Trump is building up the US military to protect the US. Never once have I heard him say we are building up US forces to protect the rest of the world and NATO.

America first, not a hard concept to understand.

He wants to strengthen NATO so NATO is stronger and perhaps the US would not have to carry so much of the load and perhaps lower the tax burden on American citizens. Pretty simple thought process. CSCOTT would get more take home pay.

This is about wealth redistribution as much as anything, why should Americans live less wealthy to protect foreigners and allow them to live more wealthy at our expense? Complete BS.
 
BTW - We use to have a sub in Germany and are closing it. My experiences with the Germans has mostly been bad. They think they are intellectually superior and some will stab you in the back in a heart beat, can not trust them. One of my favorite business experiences was calling out a German very professionally to his complete and utter surprise to his BS to his face and watching him turn in to a melted flower and stand there and bleed. My hope is my initial impressions over the last 6 years is wrong but it is what it is.

The Europeans I have been most impressed working with is the Belgiums, hard working and much more trust worthy IMO.

The British I have worked with are very practical.

The Italians are fun to work with but they have too much “black money” as they call it and do stuff under the table in cash to avoid VAT, that is how they do things but it makes me nervous.

My experience is that most Europeans still resent the Germans, and it all goes back to WW2 IMO, and the Germans IMO do not help themselves with their superiority complex.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OSUIvan
When we invoked the 5th article after 9/11 every one of those countries followed us into the mid east and had people die for us.

Putin really wants NATO to go away and for Trump is doing everything he can to help him. No NATO and he marches into Latvia and Estonia. It also tears Europe apart and severely weakens it.
 
When we invoked the 5th article after 9/11 every one of those countries followed us into the mid east and had people die for us.

Putin really wants NATO to go away and for Trump is doing everything he can to help him. No NATO and he marches into Latvia and Estonia. It also tears Europe apart and severely weakens it.

Died for us? More victimhood here?
 
If China sank a US ship tomorrow over the Chinese south seas debate or attacked Taiwan, how many of the 28 NATO nations would invoke article 5? Poland. maybe Great Britain? This alliance is a lie.

And Russia has no territorial ambitions beyond where it's nationals live. NATO is an alliance which has outlived it's usefulness. Why should we continue to pay for 35K soldiers in Germany?
 
This is just Afghanistan alone, a list of current and former coalition forces:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_Operation_Enduring_Freedom

No country should commit troops to a war it does not believe in or believes it does not protect their interests. I never asked those troops to die for me nor would I, but to die for protecting their families first and believing what they did made the world a safer place, and for their families first. If they died for a better world as well which I think many did I appreciate their sacrifice. I feel we need to have a US military so strong we can go it alone if needed, and our NATO allies need to have the same attitude IMO. I think that is just wise.

If American troops go to war and die on European soil, it better be because by doing so it protects families here in the US and makes us safer. Hopefully that goal aligns with global interests as well.

It is great to have a common cause, but I do not want US troops dieing to protect non-US interests and I would not ask that of Europeans.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: windriverrange
And Russia has no territorial ambitions beyond where it's nationals live.

You meant to say “ethnic Russians”.

Which is nice and all, but considering the way the Soviet Union tended to install ethnic Russians in the other republics....you’re potentially talking about everywhere east of the Iron Curtain.

Putin wants a buffer for Russia against NATO expansion into the “Russian sphere” while NATO seeks expansion into the “Russian sphere” to serve as a buffer against Russia. It’s dumbness in our times.
 
When we invoked the 5th article after 9/11 every one of those countries followed us into the mid east and had people die for us.

Putin really wants NATO to go away and for Trump is doing everything he can to help him. No NATO and he marches into Latvia and Estonia. It also tears Europe apart and severely weakens it.

This is absurd. Trump took a giant shit on Russia’s multi billion $ enrgy deal. If you think this is what Putin wants you are not thinking critically.
 
This is nothing more than Biff carrying water for Putin. NATO has been a check against Russian aggression for a long time, and Trump's support and praising and ass kissing of Putin while he rips and insults our democratic allies speaks louder than thunder.

Biff will sell this country down the river in a NY second if it puts money in his own pocket. All the Russian laundering Manafort did, and Biff's real estate revival was with Russian money... never, ever, take your eye off Biff's serial corruption, it'll be an issue with Russia before this is over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
Riiiiight. You'll stick to whatever BIff wants, period.
So it's better to let our European NATO allies return to their post WW1 military ineptness? How did that work out in the 1930s? I mean, holy shit, the Germans don't have functioning military hardware and are using spray painted broomsticks as weapons. Are they going to defend themselves by throwing rocks at tanks? Maybe get the antifa dorks as mercenaries to screech at the enemy?

I thought Putin was finally seen as a threat by you lefties. Lemme guess, we can just send 0bama over to bow and kiss their ass and then they'll be our friends? I know that idea really tickles your noodle, but this is real life and not some leftist jerkoff fantasy on thinkprogress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imprimis
This is nothing more than Biff carrying water for Putin. NATO has been a check against Russian aggression for a long time, and Trump's support and praising and ass kissing of Putin while he rips and insults our democratic allies speaks louder than thunder.
You're all up on the narrative like stink on a Hillary turd. You don't possess a single idependent thought. Overthrowing Saddam was bad. Overthrowing Gadaffi was good. Meeting with North Korea to discuss peace is bad. Giving Iran tons of cash to fund terrorism and their military is good. Russia is bad. Radical Islamic governments are good. Insisting our European allies contribute a minimum amount to their defense is bad. Germany having broomsticks as weapons to defend themselves is good.

You're definitely the poster child for uninformed and compliant just like the Democratic party expects.
 
You're all up on the narrative like stink on a Hillary turd. You don't possess a single idependent thought. Overthrowing Saddam was bad. Overthrowing Gadaffi was good. Meeting with North Korea to discuss peace is bad. Giving Iran tons of cash to fund terrorism and their military is good. Russia is bad. Radical Islamic governments are good. Insisting our European allies contribute a minimum amount to their defense is bad. Germany having broomsticks as weapons to defend themselves is good.

You're definitely the poster child for uninformed and compliant just like the Democratic party expects.

LOL more strawmen and rage.

Did you win?

 
  • Like
Reactions: my_2cents
If China sank a US ship tomorrow over the Chinese south seas debate or attacked Taiwan, how many of the 28 NATO nations would invoke article 5? Poland. maybe Great Britain? This alliance is a lie.

And Russia has no territorial ambitions beyond where it's nationals live. NATO is an alliance which has outlived it's usefulness. Why should we continue to pay for 35K soldiers in Germany?
I can tell you right now that if China sunk a US ship in an act of war, Article 5 would be invoked immediately.......Article 5 is the cornerstone of NATO and every NATO country and both sides of the US House and Senate agree that NATO is the most important alliance in the world.....NATO was not formed as a favor to our European Allies, it was formed to protect the security of the US and to curtail Soviet expansion. The men and women we have stationed in NATO countries and other allied countries are there for our National Security, and security interests........BTW...Taiwan is not a member of NATO
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
This is nothing more than Biff carrying water for Putin. NATO has been a check against Russian aggression for a long time, and Trump's support and praising and ass kissing of Putin while he rips and insults our democratic allies speaks louder than thunder.

Biff will sell this country down the river in a NY second if it puts money in his own pocket. All the Russian laundering Manafort did, and Biff's real estate revival was with Russian money... never, ever, take your eye off Biff's serial corruption, it'll be an issue with Russia before this is over.

My God you couldn't be more of a puppet. You were told to think this, and you did without question.
 
Russia is bad. Really, they are.
Were they bad when Obama said the 80s called and wanted its foreign policy back? Were they bad when Hillary presented the reset button? Were they bad when the Uranium One deal occurred? Were they bad when Obama told Trump to quit whining because US elections couldn't be rigged? Were they bad when Obama told them that he'd have more flexibility on topics such as missile defense after his election?

The left's very recent recognition of Russia being bad for political purposes is pretty entertaining.
 
Were they bad when Obama said the 80s called and wanted its foreign policy back? Were they bad when Hillary presented the reset button? Were they bad when the Uranium One deal occurred? Were they bad when Obama told Trump to quit whining because US elections couldn't be rigged? Were they bad when Obama told them that he'd have more flexibility on topics such as missile defense after his election?

The left's very recent recognition of Russia being bad for political purposes is pretty entertaining.

Drop the mic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
Where do you guys get all your independent thoughts? What primordial ooze do you guys get your opinions from? I don't see very many arguments or debates between the regular, non-lib posters. You always seem to be in agreement with each other.

For a while it was a nazi occultist that wrote books about Anciente Majicke. I'm not making that up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidallen
For a while it was a nazi occultist that wrote books about Anciente Majicke. I'm not making that up.

giphy.gif
 
Were they bad when Obama said the 80s called and wanted its foreign policy back? Were they bad when Hillary presented the reset button? Were they bad when the Uranium One deal occurred? Were they bad when Obama told Trump to quit whining because US elections couldn't be rigged? Were they bad when Obama told them that he'd have more flexibility on topics such as missile defense after his election?

The left's very recent recognition of Russia being bad for political purposes is pretty entertaining.
Ever since Putin has been in charge they have been bad and evil.
 
I don't think there is any doubt that President Obama handled Russia wrong, especially when they invaded the Crimea and then Eastern Ukraine..........but.....that makes it even more important that President Trump tries to solidify NATO not weaken it, and be even tougher on Putin and Russia
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_xl72qcu5isp39
Could it be possible that Obama and his cabinet were incompetent AND there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? Why is it always either/or? What if they are ALL guilty?
Of course that's possible. I don't see that offered as a narrative though. I see lots of Putin being evil and Trump/Putin but nothing in regards to what was happening prior to Trump. It's like Russia suddenly became an issue and it's all Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TD_4OSU
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT