NY Times reports Trump pushed NATO withdrawal to staff

[UKHistory]

Have a hard time linking from iPad, New York Times reports Trump repeatedly in 2018 has raised the idea of leaving NATO.

The article notes Trumps behavior towards the 70 year old alliance and its leaders.

My turning point against Trump stemmed for his words and towards NATO while praising Putin.

Any president who wants to upend such a long standing alliance should be questioned. In light of this president’s public praise of Putin, the anti Ukraine stance in the 2106 Republican platform, we should all be up in arms.

Pro defense has long been a perceived republican/conservative position. Trumps view of America first is America alone. This balances the field for Russia to be more competitive and have a greater chance of achieving its ends.

The article indicates Mattis and others representing the US worked around Trump to unruffled feathers and alleviate the allies’ concern about Trump.

[Doc]

Anything that starts with "NY Times Reports" and is anti-Trump, I immediately take with a questioning eye. Not saying it is inaccurate but I'm not taking it at face value.

I do know this....we are still in NATO, NATO still exists, the NATO nations are helping to fit the bill more then before. Said discussion of a withdraw could very well have been a ploy to get the members to kick in to cover their costs, as they agreed to do but never did.

[suncat05]

I think this is Trump's way of getting some of our gold-bricking European allies to start paying their fair share of the NATO load.
The U.S. has been protecting these freeloaders on our dime for far too long. It is way past time for these cheese eaters to take responsibility for their own protection.

[dan_bgblue]

I agree with both Doc and suncat.

He is a hard ball northeastern negotiator and much of what he says can not be taken at face value. In my opinion he likely openly voiced those opinions to the staff when he was making public comments about the NATO countries needing to pony up and pay their fair share and get better control of their borders. If you do not trust your staff 100% you would not want to make public statements which take a hard line, then tell the staff you were just kidding because you figure at least one of them would run to their EU buddies and tell them it was all a joke and to not get their panties in a wad.

[UKHistory]

Anything that starts with "NY Times Reports" and is anti-Trump, I immediately take with a questioning eye. Not saying it is inaccurate but I'm not taking it at face value.

I do know this....we are still in NATO, NATO still exists, the NATO nations are helping to fit the bill more then before. Said discussion of a withdraw could very well have been a ploy to get the members to kick in to cover their costs, as they agreed to do but never did.

Doc,

Agreements were in place for NATO countries to increase military spending by a set date.

I get the questioning of sources. That is your right. And we should all consider context, motive etc. But I tell you folks won't criticize Trump until they see the pee tape or he gets his way and we pull out of NATO, South Korea etc and see how the bad world is because of it.

[CitizenBBN]

Trump no doubt has some neo-isolationist tendencies and beliefs. I knew that when he was running for the office, and he made it pretty obvious.

Two thoughts on that fact:

1) it's not treasonous. Rand Paul, the junior Kentucky Senator, is one of the more prominent members of that group. It's extreme within the confines of DC and the halls of power, where these days it's just a question not of whether we invade but how many people we invade, but it's not all that extreme in historical context of America's role in the world. Which leads to....

2) Many Americans are tired of being the world's policeman. While leaving NATO is obviously an extreme position, the idea Trump would pull us away from the days of sending troops and money for every cause isn't all that unpopular among the American people. Endless constant war, which is what we've seen basically since the end of WWII with only a few brief stoppages, has gotten old.

I wouldn't support leaving NATO, but I do support busting their chops HARD for 50 years of us carrying far too much of the water. I have no problem rattling them. Being nice sure hasn't worked.

FWIW, one school of thought that isn't mentioned often is that we liked filling that role b/c then you have EUrope and Japan basically not becoming a military threat either. If they build up their military they may become a problem again. Some logic to that, but we're spending trillions to buy that threat off, more than we can really afford.

Trump's likely vision of the US, and certainly Rand Paul's, is a pre WWII America, where we have enough military to defend ourselves, but we focus on trade and economics and not on projection of our power across the globe. We had enough to control places like the Phillipines and other Pacific countries, and put a stomp on any Western nation that got uppity, and did repeatedly, but otherwise we left Europe and Pan-Asia to itself.

It's a radical thought for a nation that has grown up entirely now in the Cold War era of US power projection, with a military-industrial complex that used to not even exist, but it's not treason. It's just a different ideology of American foreign policy.

[UKHistory]

It aint treasonous...until you couple a stance that arguably benefits Russia in the context of the Russians playing around with our elections to benefit Trump.

It aint treasonous until you couple that with Trump's efforts to establish stealth back door communication with the Russians. Jared Kushner asked to use equipment from the Russian embassy.

It aint treasonous until you see that Manafort gave polling data or that Trump publicly asked the Russians to help gather info on the Democrats

If it was truly a different ideology where Trump stood up to all the world the same, I might disagree (as I did with Obama on much) with him but could accept it. I would even call it dangerous and fool hearty.

But when I see his position so greatly benefits Russian foreign policy and Trump praises Putin more than any foreign leader, I see the commander in chief as a threat to national security

[CitizenBBN]

It ain't treasonous even with all that, most of which is complete supposition, and most of which isn't even unusual for better or worse in our current system.

I'm still waiting to see what "greatly benefits Russia" so far in this administration versus the massive chasm we made for them in power under Obama.

The proof is in the pudding. Obama and even Hillary directly did more to help Putin, individually and nationally, than Trump has done, by far, yet every move Trump makes is proof of collusion, and Obama/Hillary were just making policy.

When Obama treated Putin/Russia as an ally, and outright mocked Romney for saying they were a threat, that was just policy. Even though His Sec of State got MILLIONS in money from them, that's all just policy. Including direct payments of cash. All OK. Nothing to see here.

But Trump, a guy with investments in dozens of countries, must be a Russian agent b/c he wanted a single hotel in Moscow or something. Uh huh.

yeah, that makes sense.

We know for sure money was passed from Putin's groups to the Clinton's directly, despite almost zero actual legal investigation on the matter, and after nearly 4 years of investigating Trump we have almost nothing despite teams of very motivated high powered investigators and unlimited budgets. Yet he's still the traitor and those calling him one, who actually DID help Russia for years, are the good guys we're supposed to believe.

Uh huh. Yeah.

[Catonahottinroof]

I see it much the same way. It’s flabbergasting that the left can’t see the facts on this during the Obama administration and what truly transpired. The Russians may have preferred Trump, simply because I think it’s a pretty good assumption he may have laundered some oligarch’s funds in the past a good bit before he even contemplated running for president. I’m surprised it never came up in the primary, but I bet it does in the next election.
No amount of wishing will show that the Russians hacked the election, fixed the election or caused voters en masses to vote for Trump in that election cycle. Maybe the Dems won’t let their nominee be the one who buys out the process next time....

It ain't treasonous even with all that, most of which is complete supposition, and most of which isn't even unusual for better or worse in our current system.

I'm still waiting to see what "greatly benefits Russia" so far in this administration versus the massive chasm we made for them in power under Obama.

The proof is in the pudding. Obama and even Hillary directly did more to help Putin, individually and nationally, than Trump has done, by far, yet every move Trump makes is proof of collusion, and Obama/Hillary were just making policy.

When Obama treated Putin/Russia as an ally, and outright mocked Romney for saying they were a threat, that was just policy. Even though His Sec of State got MILLIONS in money from them, that's all just policy. Including direct payments of cash. All OK. Nothing to see here.

But Trump, a guy with investments in dozens of countries, must be a Russian agent b/c he wanted a single hotel in Moscow or something. Uh huh.

yeah, that makes sense.

We know for sure money was passed from Putin's groups to the Clinton's directly, despite almost zero actual legal investigation on the matter, and after nearly 4 years of investigating Trump we have almost nothing despite teams of very motivated high powered investigators and unlimited budgets. Yet he's still the traitor and those calling him one, who actually DID help Russia for years, are the good guys we're supposed to believe.

Uh huh. Yeah.

[UKHistory]

I ain’t saying Clinton was a good guy by any means. I have no doubt I would be speaking highly critical of her for the foundation and many of her behaviors.

Bill taking money from a Russian Corp also would have in my mind disqualifies his wife for holding office.

But trumps behavior towards the Russians stand out to me. And since he is residing at 1600 Penn NW. hat is where my focus is

I can’t think of anything more serious or more egregious than Benedict Arnold in the White House. It might have been same effect as an inexperienced senator who doesn’t appreciate America individualism.

[CitizenBBN]

I ain’t saying Clinton was a good guy by any means. I have no doubt I would be speaking highly critical of her for the foundation and many of her behaviors.

Bill taking money from a Russian Corp also would have in my mind disqualifies his wife for holding office.

But trumps behavior towards the Russians stand out to me. And since he is residing at 1600 Penn NW. hat is where my focus is

I can’t think of anything more serious or more egregious than Benedict Arnold in the White House. It might have been same effect as an inexperienced senator who doesn’t appreciate America individualism.

And that's the part I don't get. His "behavior towards Russia" has, in actual deed, been VASTLY less friendly than was that of the last Administration. Yet every little thing he does, most of it just statements and not deeds, is seen as proof positive he's a secret double knot spy for Russia, and yet when Obama and Clinton actually DID far worse there was never any call of any wrongdoing.

I'm not saying you were OK with their actions, but my point is that nothing Trump has done has been even close to "friendly" to Russia compared with the friendly nature of Obama/Clinton, yet he's somehow a Russian plant.

It's a matter of perspective. Calling out NATO or making nice to Putin isn't proof of anything treasonous. Obama was far more friendly, and even his words were pretty dang friendly, it's just no one was running around accusing him of being a Russian spy so no one reacted to it.

There's just nothing in Trump's actions to date, and even his words, that in any way constitutes any evidence whatsoever, b/c nothing he's done is even close to out of the normal bounds of policy behavior or statements for a US President. It just isn't, and there's a mountain of empirical proof to that effect.

If Trump is really a Russian agent, Putin is getting almost nothing out of it, less than he got with the last administration. He should probably release the proof and sue for contractual nonperformance. lol.

[Doc]

Doc,

Agreements were in place for NATO countries to increase military spending by a set date.

I get the questioning of sources. That is your right. And we should all consider context, motive etc. But I tell you folks won't criticize Trump until they see the pee tape or he gets his way and we pull out of NATO, South Korea etc and see how the bad world is because of it.

I have criticized Trump numerous times for things he has done that I don't like. I've no issue with criticizing him. Next time I do I'll highlight it with firecrackers, sparklers and pinwheels just for added emphasis. Expect that to be very soon. What I won't do is criticize him based on a media report of some nonaction that they feel he should be criticized over. He is a business man/negotiator, not a politician. He does not function like a politician which is why stuff gets done. Example: I'm all for NOT opening the gov't until progress is made. Too often the GOP caves and the left does not hold up to the "promises" they made. Time and time again it has happened. Open the gov't and we will negotiate. No they won't. How about negotiate, come to a deal and then open the gov't? As for NATO, if the countries we are paying to defend want us to stay, perhaps they will stop taking advantage of our generosity and quit shitting on us every chance they get.

[suncat05]

I concur with Doc 100%!

[KeithKSR]

If Trump was in bed with the Russians he wouldn’t be pushing LNG sales to Europeans, the same market targeted by Putin.