Trump and Stoltenberg get into tense exchange at NATO summit

>Remember that Trump also had a term before Biden where he undermined cross-atlantic relations. Sure, tell me about Trump's first term where he made statements about Europe's relationship with Russia that look incredibly prescient with the benefit of hindsight: ▶ this video >Before Obama you had Bush Jr's wars, with especially the Iraq war being very controversial. Yes, I'm an isolationist. I say the US should end all defense commitments and warmongering. Starting with Europe. US should withdraw from NATO, because Europe complains about US foreign policy the most. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

>until they elect a president that throws allies under the bus (I.e. NATO, NAFTA, etc) Based on recent news, Trump has done more for NATO rearmament than any US president in history. Gee, maybe sometimes drastic steps are needed when 20 years of three other presidents doing everything but stand on their heads while begging other NATO members to spend more on their own defense failed. Trump was lambasted by the usual bien-pensant suspects when he told NATO this in 2018 < ▶ this video >. He was right when at the UN he warned against Western European dependence on Russian energy, for which the German foreign minister and others laughed at him < link >. And remember, Trump isn't even in office now; he's already done more for Western collective defense than a) the putative current president and b) an actual land war in Europe! >and gives state secrets to enemies Repeat this often enough and maybe it'll come true one day!

If opposing "dictators and warmongers" is so important, why were European NATO members so unprepared for the 2022 war? Poland, the Baltics, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries by and large did their best to wean themselves off the Russian oil and gas teat they fed from during the Cold War, even while Germany and other far wealthier countries did their best to suckle ever more from the same teat. Since energy is fungible, the far higher prices they are now having to pay affect them and the rest of the world, even those like the US and UK that never relied on Russian energy themselves, but at least Poland and the Baltics tried their best. It's also entirely possible that greater European investment in defense might have dissuaded Russia from the February invasion. Or, at the least, be able to contribute now more than the relatively paltry sums and supplies they have so far sent. Again, the ex-Communist countries by and large both met the 2% GDP spending guideline that their far wealthier NATO fellow members have mostly ignored, and are sending as much gear as they can without endangering their own defense. Sweden and Finland's militaries were and are far better prepared than the average NATO member despite (or, perhaps, because of) not being part of the alliance. Consider two moments five years ago: 1) Trump and NATO secretary-general and former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg argue on camera (video < ▶ this video >, article < link >) about dependence on Russia. Who turned out to be

This is exactly the problem with fake news. It sticks around, and you've been caught by it. It seems likely that this fake news has influenced your ability to make rational decisions about how you vote, etc. This is a huge problem for democracy. No he did not withhold military aid from Ukraine. In fact in the initial offensive, the javelin missiles that they were effectively using against Russian tanks came from the Trump administration. And in fact Trump was highly critical of the previous administration for "only sending blankets", which was something he was called a hawk for. AND NOT ONLY THAT but one of the major points of Trump's presidency was criticizing European/NATO nations for not spending enough on their defense; specifically warning that Russia was going to use their dependence on Russian natgas, and lack of military spending, to Russia's advantage. Here: ▶ this video

>He was saying the USA should leave NATO. Ah yes, the other line that people pull when questioned on this topic. First, Trump did not say that the US should leave NATO. He publicly insisted/cajoled/prodded with that signature Trump charm and style that Germany and other NATO members who don't meet the 2% of GDP spending requirement—and showed zero inclination of actually meeting the 2026 deadline (itself pushed back repeatedly after first being set in 2006)—needed to do so. >In our day and age you should be arrested as traitor for saying that. Beyond the strange notion that an American should be "arrested as a traitor" for his words, a "traitor" to whom? Who benefits more from NATO membership, the US or Germany? Who benefits more, the US or Belgium? The US or Norway? The US or Italy? Would a Russian conquest of all of Ukraine endanger US security? Not really. It is Poland that would have Russian troops on hundreds more miles of its borders. It is Poland and the Baltic states that now face the risk being cut off from the rest of NATO at the Suwalki Gap. The funny thing is that Poland and the Baltics do meet the 2% spending requirement, and have so for years. It is the likes of the far wealthier Germany, Belgium, Norway, Italy that do not. When you say that a US president should have been "arrested as a traitor" for questioning the value ("obsolete", I believe he said) of a military alliance in which the US funded 69% of total military spending while the wealthiest other member

>now suffering from the Russian invasion of Ukraine As mantas said, the energy/economic issues Europe faces from the Ukraine War is 100% self-inflicted. First, Poland, the Baltics, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries have by and large done their best to wean themselves off the Russian oil and gas teat they fed from during the Cold War, even while Germany and other far wealthier countries did their best to suckle ever more from the same teat. Since energy is fungible, the far higher prices they are now having to pay affect the rest of the world, even those like the US and UK that never relied on Russian energy themselves. Second, it's entirely possible that greater European investment in defense might have dissuaded Russia from the February invasion. Or, at the least, be able to contribute now more than the relatively paltry sums and supplies they have so far sent. Again, the ex-Communist countries by and large both met the 2% GDP spending guideline that their far wealthier NATO fellow members have mostly ignored, and are sending as much gear as they can without endangering their own defense. Consider two moments four years ago: 1) Trump and NATO secretary-general and former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg argue on camera (video < ▶ this video >, article < link >) about dependence on Russia. Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to be completely, totally, 100% wrong? 2) Trump at the UN warns that Germany is endangering itself by increasing dependence on Russia. German envoys la

>And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about russian assets.. Speaking of Russian assets, there are still people that say that Merkel was always against German dependence on Russian gas but could not do anything about it. For 16 years! There is more "evidence" that Merkel is a long-term Russian intelligence asset, recruited from her youth in East Germany,[1] than that of Trump being the same. One guess on which claim is incessantly repeated by the bien-pensants of the chattering classes. Bonus: Trump and Stoltenberg argue on camera (< ▶ this video >). Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong? [1] Something else never talked about is how her parents moved from West to East Germany when she was a baby

>I remember that on TV Trump was telling German chancellor that they should seek energy sources outside of Russia, and the media was mocking him for being populist or for being anti globalization (or for being paranoid as Russian would need buyers? I can't remember exactly). Is the orange man so bad that whatever he touches is a taboo? Is there any truth in what he does, and the executive branch can be less political but focus more on execution? Trump and Jens Stoltenberg of NATO argue on camera (< ▶ this video >). Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong?

>> Pushing NATO members to meet their defense spending obligations ended up being damn-near prescient >This was not “pushing” so much as “ineffective trash talking”. Trump and Stoltenberg argue on camera (< ▶ this video >). Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong? If Trump was so bad for NATO and Ukraine's defense, why didn't the current war didn't begin in 2017-2020? Let me guess: You think that the current state of the Ukrainian military (in terms of training and weaponry) that enabled it to survive the initial Russian invasion in February when few believed it could, somehow magically began in January 2021. It is a fact that the Trump administration continued and accelerated the training and arming of Ukrainian military by the US that his predecessor began. Let me also guess: You are one of those gullible who say that Merkel was always against German dependence on Russian gas but could not do anything about it. For 16 years! There is more "evidence" that Merkel is a long-term Russian intelligence asset, recruited from her youth in East Germany,^1 than that of Trump being the same. One guess on which claim is incessantly repeated by the bien-pensants of the chattering classes. ^1 Something else never talked about is how her parents moved from West to East Germany when she was a baby

>If by diplomacy you mean kowtowing to everything Russia does, I'm not sure that's much better. Trump and Stoltenberg argue on camera (< ▶ this video >). Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong?

Trump proven right yet again. Another example: Trump and Stoltenberg argue on camera (< ▶ this video >). Who turned out to be right about NATO and Russia? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong?

Don't forget Merkel. There are still people that say that Merkel was always against German dependence on Russian gas but could not do anything about it. For 16 years! There is more "evidence" that Merkel is a long-term Russian intelligence asset, recruited from her youth in East Germany,[1] than that of Trump being the same. One guess on which claim is incessantly repeated by the bien-pensants of the chattering classes. Bonus: Trump and Stoltenberg argue on camera (< ▶ this video >). Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong? [1] Something else never talked about is how her parents moved from West to East Germany when she was a baby