A White House spokesperson put it the best, I think:
The White House spokesperson Andrew Bates, when asked about Trump’s comments, said: “Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged – and it endangers American national security, global stability and our economy at home.”
What’s so insane about all this is that Trump saying something like that out loud means it’s now practically gospel to the vast majority of GOP voters, and might as well be official party policy.
The bot missed what Stoltenberg said:
"The Nato chief, Jens Stoltenberg, has said any attack on the western military alliance would be met with a “united and forceful response”, after Donald Trump invited Russia to attack member countries that he perceived as not meeting their financial obligations.
Stoltenberg said in a statement: “Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk. I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election, the US will remain a strong and committed Nato ally.”
I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election, the US will remain a strong and committed Nato ally.
Well, he obviously shouldn’t.
He has to say that, though. Saying “if Trump wins, Nato is hosed” wouldn’t sound as, well… resolute
If there was ever any remaining doubt that Trump is a Russian operative.
Trump already killed hundreds of thousands of Americans during COVID.
So if you think he gives a fuck about Europeans…
This isn’t what not giving a fuck looks like. He clearly gives enough of a fuck to lie about this stuff publicly
Europe would do well to become military self-sufficient. Of course once they are, there’s not much reason to keep US forces in their territory either, so I’m not sure how much the US really wants that.
The idea that Europe isn’t militarily self-sufficient is, frankly, horseshit. The US just has such an incredibly outsized military that anything will look “insufficient”
We can’t supply Ukraine with enough weapons… or even munitions, as the self-pledged 1mill 155mm shells will be only halfway met (hopefully). The few self-designed combat aircrafts we have are painfully mediocre (Eurofighter, Gripen, Rafale…).
Definitely don’t think we would fare any way decently in an actual war without US backing nowadays.
Being able to supply another country with weapons and ammunition while keeping enough stock for your own military is not the definition of a self-sufficient military, though?
If we were able to succesfully do so, I would agree with that. We aren’t succeeding in supplying enough to keep Ukraine in the game right now, though.
The point is that having any ammo left over for Ukraine at all – let alone “enough” – is literally the definition of more than self-sufficient.
If you use 0 bullets in a hot-war of your own, but can’t provide a wartime amount to another country with the help of allies that means you cannot provide enough for yourself during a true homeland crisis.
Euroland focused too much on social services and allowed their military production capabilities to rust because big daddy USA would always be there with the largest MIC on the planet.
Well, somebody just went to the gas station for cigarettes. Good luck.
Redditor comment
Gripen mediocre?
Do you have facts to back that up?
🤓☝️ source? It doesn’t take much reasoning to see that a new 5th generation aircraft first produced in 1987 is quite mediocre compared to the american wizardry that is the f-35. The gripen is a fine 4th generation aircraft, but it is not a 5th gen. Don’t get me started about eu engine production as well. We are behind, and we need military funding.
You are both comparing two systems and calling the one that cost 5-7 time less per flight hour mediocre in a discussion where the enemy discussed are recycling hardware from the 50’s on the battlefield.
Dudes, Gripen might not be a 5th generation fighter but it clearly outperforms the enemy it was designed to wrestle.
So “mediocre” it’s not what I would call Gripen even though I agree that we (Sweden) should spend more on developing a new 5th generation system among other defence systems.
The finnish and swiss did not agree, both concluded that the f-35 would be economally better over the entire lifespan of the planes. Buying a new plane requires you to look further than one month of flying
Ahem, do you know how much fuckery goes on in military arms deals?
If this is what makes you conclude the F-35 being a better system, you clearly have idea of what you’re talking about. (NOT.)
Arms deals of that magnitude are based more on what politicians see as a chance of getting reelected than what the engineers conclude.
Furthermore, just looking at the specifications and conclude that A is better than B is something people without insight would do.
I recommend this Swedish blog post on the subject that was written 10 years ago: Gripen E vs JSF
It’s advertised as a cheap lightweight fighter, it’s standout feature being that a minimal amount of crew can operate it in adverse conditions. Which is most useful if you want a peacetime or “guerilla” fighter. There’s exactly two countries in Europe - beyond Sweden - that use Gripen, and I do know that in one of them (Hungary) they beat the F16 by basically buying off Orban and his cronies. …who, ironically enough, are now blocking Sweden’s entry into NATO.
I’d think that at least in Europe you’d see more adoption of the plane if it weren’t mediocre.
When I asked about you backing your claim I didn’t mean you making more claims. We’re on the internet, just link to the analysis you are referring to.
Reminds my of when Trump threatened to withdraw troops from Germany to punish them and a high-ranking military officer had to correct him and explain that the American troops are not in Germany to protect Germany but for the benefit of the US in order to support its strategic interests in the region.
Trump seems clueless on these things.
I’m not sure how much the US really wants that
Or anyone else for that matter. Armed Europe has a somewhat violent history.
Yeah, as opposed to any other country with arms which have a totally nonviolent history.
Where is of course the United States has a great history.
You know there’s only like 20 years out of America’s entire history where it wasn’t at war?
Um technically I don’t think we have been at war since WW2
The power of special operations, guess Putin loves America after all
All the boys are using the same playbook, some just have better propaganda.
I don’t think this is a good place for technicalities but who am I? Some idiot on the internet.
Trump just says stuff, brain farts really, that his MAGA sycophants just lap up and suddenly approve. On day soon they will be cheering as he jerks off in public.
Trump remarks may put US and EU lives at risk
…yeah that’s kinda his hobby.
ffs, he’s a russian agent.
I mean you’re talking about the guy who allowed a million Americans to die unnecessarily through his mishandling of covid so I don’t think a few deaths are going to bother him.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Trump told a campaign rally in South Carolina on Saturday night that he would “encourage” Russia to attack any of the US’s Nato allies that he felt were not paying their fair share.
At the political rally, Trump – who is in the lead to be the Republican nominee in this year’s US presidential election – claimed that the president of “a big country” had asked him: “Well, sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia – will you protect us?”
In London, Peter Ricketts, a member of the House of Lords who previously served as the permanent representative to Nato in Brussels, wrote on X: “Not very plausible that the president of a ‘big’ European country would ask him that (or call him sir!).
Jan Lipavský, the Czech Republic’s minister for foreign affairs, said: “Nato is currently in the strongest position it has ever been, both because of the strong transatlantic link and because of the domestic deterrence and defence tasks that European allies are performing.
The White House spokesperson Andrew Bates, when asked about Trump’s comments, said: “Encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes is appalling and unhinged – and it endangers American national security, global stability and our economy at home.”
In campaign speeches, Trump has remained sceptical of organisations such as Nato, often lamenting the billions that the US spends on the military alliance whose support has been critical to Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion.
The original article contains 914 words, the summary contains 243 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
he’s good at putting other people at risk with his words and actions
My first thought was “which one?”
NATO their could be talking about any of Trumps comments since the first time that he announced running for president.
Thank you, Orange hitler, for taking the issue of Biden’s age back off of the table. And just in time for the Super Bowl. Swiftforce one is on schedule. Pelosi’s troublemakers are favored
Are you having a stroke or am I?
NATO comments now sucking air out of room instead of Biden age/cognitive capacity (not necessarily true, thx media); Taylor Swift Derangement Syndrome continues to bother chuds
Not really related to one another but I get it I guess
Must be you. I feel fine.
If only somebody could put Trump’s life at risk instead of him doing it to everyone else.
😀 🍿
Anything to distract the US and EU away from the Middle East and North Africa.
