I’m not sure what a two year old article about a now long-gone Trump crony, or for that matter any article from GQ, can tell us about geopolitical strategy.
But what I do suspect is that most American voters worry about the Crimea and Ukraine about as much as they worry about being nibbled to death by dormice, or struck on the head by a falling zeppelin. I also suspect that Trump, and Clinton, and Sanders, and all the rest, are quite aware of this.
And if anyone else other than Trump, from either party, had won in 2016, there might be more hand wringing and pearl clutching from the White House about Russian expansionism, but Putin would have no less of a free hand in foreign affairs than he does right now.
One can still see bombed out buildings and shell holes in homes there. It wouldn’t take much to remind people of what NATO is capable of in the eyes of Putin.
So should we continue to fund a disproportionate share of NATO costs, or should we stop?
The problem that results when the voters think we should maybe stop paying for the defense of equally prosperous First World countries, but no “respectable” politician will recognize that fact, is that the issue becomes the sole property of a loose cannon like Trump.
It’s not as if the post WW2 neoliberal/neoconservative consensus was delivered straight from God on stone tablets, after all.
No. It was delivered straight from Washington and backed up with armies of occupation.
The US already disproportionately funds its military compared to everyone else. Most other people would rather fund healthcare thanks. Should they be forced to give up healthcare to keep US imperial military spending happy? Should they fuck.
Out of curiosity, what WOULD it take to convince you that there really is something to this “Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia against American interests” thing? Because we’re already past the point where Trump is concealing the content of his private meetings with Putin from his own cabinet out of fear that US intelligence agencies might learn what he said.
IIRC it was the agreed upon number by the members of NATO (feel free to cite otherwise). NATO when it was formed was largely for Europe’s benefit. If there was as war in the 50s or 60s with the Soviets, it would be on European soil, not America’s. It’s why everyone’s camo was a type of woodland up until the late 90s/early 2000s, the assumption being fighting in forests.
So the question is - is NATO valuable to the other member nations? If not, then maybe we don’t need NATO. Maybe Trump is right.
But if NATO IS valuable, then what reasoning does one have for defending not funding it for the agreed amount - which is a percentage of GDP - not a set amount.
Exactly. An attack on one is not an attack on all if the one isn’t yet part of the all.
The withdrawal of the petition in 2010 was the work of Ukraine’s then-President Yanukovych, Putin’s sock puppet.
That’s a count-down that starts again and again in history, especially when Russia decides to poke its nose into the endless Hatfields-vs-McCoys mess that is the Balkans.
Nothing, because Ukraine was and is not a NATO member.
(Sadly, neither is Finland, but at least we’re in the EU.) The Baltics, Poland, etc. of course ran for both EU and NATO the moment they could, because they understandably never want to be Russian vassal states again.
The lasting influence of someone whispering “destroy it all…” – I keep wondering about this when I see the President’s otherwise inexplicably self destructive actions and statements.
I’m no politico. Just sharing this recurring pondering thought…
True, but it would be a rather firm security guarantee. I guess I’m a little paranoid about Finland’s historical poor success at going at it alone, although of course the EU membership is a huge help. (Personally I think we should have jumped for NATO back in the '90s when Russia was at its weakest, and then spend the time afterwards showing we’re still good neighbors, but that can’t be helped now.)
