Posted on 02/16/2024 11:45:11 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Speculation on what former President Donald Trump may do with NATO should he be reelected this November is running rampant as he appears poised to become the Republican nominee, and as President Joe Biden’s poll numbers hit record lows.
A recent report from Bloomberg News cited anonymous sources who claimed Trump is considering a two-tiered NATO system where members would only come to the defense of members who met the goal of spending at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. However, Breitbart News was told Friday the report was inaccurate and based on speculation.
The idea was first floated on Tuesday by Army Lt. Gen. (Retired) Keith Kellogg, who served as the chief of staff of Trump’s National Security Council and then-Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser. Kellogg told Reuters in an interview that he would push for removing Article 5 protections for a NATO member if it did not meet that longstanding threshold. Article 5 holds that an attack against one member of NATO would be considered an attack against all members.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Yeah, I never believe anonymous sources. It is usually propaganda ridden.
Just disband the whole racket !
My election pledge?
Eliminate NATO (or EU can carry on with it if they want, but USA won’t be a part)
Agreed. Other than the UK, and to a lesser extent, Canada, Australia and NZ which the US can ally as the Five Eyes without the NATO apparatus, is there any war the US engaged since the formation of the NATO alliance where the contribution by continental European allies made a significant difference to the outcome? And yes, that question applies to Afghanistan, the only time Article five was invoked, with US special forces militarily winning within two months and then changing the mission and proceeding to lose over the next 20 years. Vietnam, Iraq 1 and 2, Libya, the Balkans (which was of territorial vital national security interest to continental Europe and little to the Five Eyes)? My point is that nominal continental European military contributions, although nice for the feelgood optics of multinationalism, have always been militarily insignificant and irrelevant to ultimate war outcome
Maybe a little tough love is in order requiring them to form their own joint standing army and alliance for their defense with a separate Five Eyes alliance, which does not face the same territorial threats as continental Europe, that operates independently and has no hard baked in mutual commitments to a continent with money and manpower reluctant to defend itself.
We hold all the cards.
Decades of decimating military spending in favor of five pensions at 50yo leaves Northern and Western Europe unable to defend themselves from a large swarm of gnats.
The avg Parisian, Londoner and Berliner et al enjoy the luxury of living to 80yo w/o being warred upon in one of the most historically violent places on earth thanks to NATO. It is an incredible accomplishment. One that they should eagerly be paying to maintain.
“is there any war the US engaged since the formation of the NATO alliance...”
The purpose of NATO was not to help the US to wage war, it was to provide deterrence against other countries attacking any of the NATO countries.
We don’t need NATO. Any country can engage to fight a war and form an alliance.....Didn’t start till 1949.
Actually it was organized after WW2 for the US to provide deterrence against the old global monolithic threat, the USSR. The USSR exited the scene in 1991 and The Russian kleptocracy succeeded it. Continental Europe has a population more than 3 times larger than their only remote regional threat, Russia, and a GDP 10 times greater That is when we should have taken the France route and exited Article 5 not committing ourselves to rote military action on their behalf and, as France did, merely subscribed to the joint diplomacy committee. Other than the other 4 Anglo nations, who have always pulled their weight in NATO actions and should be the only nations we have a mutual defense compact with, never has the contribution by continental nations been material to wars in the Middle East or even on their continent in the Balkans which they hounded us to get involved in. We can supply them intelligence and sell them our advanced weaponry but that should be the extent of our contribution to a continent reluctant to defend itself. That should light a fire under them to raise a joint continental standing army
The purpose of NATO was to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.
Recent articles state the EU is going to form a military force. There is no need for two European armed forces. So if the EU is serious, arrange for NATO to be re-organized as the nucleus of the EU military - sans the US. - simple!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.