• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Trump understand how NATO works?

Y

Yes_Minister

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
7,489
Reaction score
2,745
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Does Trump understand how NATO works? It seems like Trump and many of his supporters treat NATO like its an office pool, where everyone puts in money to a larger pool. But that's not how NATO works:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../24/trump-may-really-not-know-how-nato-works/

No country owes the US money from NATO. If the US wanted to save money from NATO it can ask other countries to pay more for their own defense and then the US could reduce its defense budget, but Trump wants to spend more on the military, so the US will not save any money from having the other countries pay more for their defense, if that is the case. Other NATO countries will want a bigger say, if they increase their defense spending.

The US is the only country to enact Article 5 and I don't think anyone would think it okay if Canada or the UK spent the US a bill for their commitment in Afghanistan, so why does Trump get a pass when he claims the other members of NATO owe the US money?

One can question the relevancy of NATO after 1991, but Trump's attitude towards NATO allies will make them want to set a different path from Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/world/canada/canada-military-spending-trump-freeland.html?_r=0

So Trump could succeed in convincing the other members of NATO to spend more on defense, but they may want to chart a more independent path from the US in return. It might tricky to get these countries to agree to give material support to another US military campaign.
 
Last edited:
The presumption that others spending more means we spend less is false. Others play a supporting role to US/Western power projection.

Sure it's best if Euros pitch in for the tip (have their own lead units at least), but foreign expense (allied or enemy) does not meaningfully impact the cost of US power projection.
 
He does not understand the particulars most likely, but he both gets and is willing to be honest about the big picture when almost no one else will, so I'm fine.

tyvm.
 
Yes_Minister said:
Does Trump understand how NATO works? It seems like Trump and many of his supporters treat NATO like its an office pool, where everyone puts in money to a larger pool. But that's not how NATO works:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../24/trump-may-really-not-know-how-nato-works/

No country owes the US money from NATO. If the US wanted to save money from NATO it can ask other countries to pay more for their own defense and then the US could reduce its defense budget, but Trump wants to spend more on the military, so the US will not save any money from having the other countries pay more for their defense, if that is the case. Other NATO countries will want a bigger say, if they increase their defense spending.

The US is the only country to enact Article 5 and I don't think anyone would think it okay if Canada or the UK spent the US a bill for their commitment in Afghanistan, so why does Trump get a pass when he claims the other members of NATO owe the US money?

One can question the relevancy of NATO after 1991, but Trump's attitude towards NATO allies will make them want to set a different path from Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/world/canada/canada-military-spending-trump-freeland.html?_r=0

So Trump could succeed in convincing the other members of NATO to spend more on defense, but they may want to chart a more independent path from the US in return. It might tricky to get these countries to agree to give material support to another US military campaign.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. What do you want to say?
 
joG said:
I'm not sure. What do you want to say?
Click to expand...

I am merely wondering if Trump is making faulty conclusions about NATO due to misunderstanding its nature and purpose and then basing his policy towards NATO on faulty information.

I hope that's not the case, but I do think my doubts have some merits.
 
Yes_Minister said:
I am merely wondering if Trump is making faulty conclusions about NATO due to misunderstanding its nature and purpose and then basing his policy towards NATO on faulty information.

I hope that's not the case, but I do think my doubts have some merits.
Click to expand...

I am sure that he was not well informed before the election. By the time he got to Europe he would have been rather well briefed. That is why Merkel is so angry. She knows he understands and she does not want to pay for defense and thinks she might be able to avoid it by threatening the US with an EU and wider global alliance against the US that she is madly trying to stick together right now.
 
joG said:
I am sure that he was not well informed before the election. By the time he got to Europe he would have been rather well briefed. That is why Merkel is so angry. She knows he understands and she does not want to pay for defense and thinks she might be able to avoid it by threatening the US with an EU and wider global alliance against the US that she is madly trying to stick together right now.
Click to expand...

I think Trump has a habit of not listening to his advisors.

And again, NATO is not some giant office pool. NATO allies spending more on defense will only save the US money, if the US in turn reduces defense spending, which is not what Trump is doing.

NATO allies paying for their own defense may make NATO more potent and its not a bad idea for these countries to be more active in their own defense, but that in of itself will not save the US money and these countries will want to have a bigger say on the world stage and will be less likely to follow the US' lead.

Also Trump treating these countries like they owe the US money will not make them more likely to follow the US' lead, because that's not how NATO works and it makes Trump look like he has a "what have you done for me lately" attitude.
 
Yes_Minister said:
I am merely wondering if Trump is making faulty conclusions about NATO due to misunderstanding its nature and purpose and then basing his policy towards NATO on faulty information.

I hope that's not the case, but I do think my doubts have some merits.
Click to expand...

You started out with false assumptions. That usually doesn't lead to correct conclusions. That the US expresses the desire that European members spend more on defense doesn't mean the US will spend less, as mentioned in post #2. In fact, Trump seems intent on increasing defense spending here with or without increases in defense spending on the part of our European NATO partners. His proposed budget reflects just that. Perhaps Trump views the contributions of European NATO members insufficient to make Article 5 meaningful should the US require their assistance in the event of a conflict directed at us, here. The possibility of war being waged simultaneously against western Europe and the US by multiple adversaries does exist.
 
Yes_Minister said:
I think Trump has a habit of not listening to his advisors.

And again, NATO is not some giant office pool. NATO allies spending more on defense will only save the US money, if the US in turn reduces defense spending, which is not what Trump is doing.

NATO allies paying for their own defense may make NATO more potent and its not a bad idea for these countries to be more active in their own defense, but that in of itself will not save the US money and these countries will want to have a bigger say on the world stage and will be less likely to follow the US' lead.

Also Trump treating these countries like they owe the US money will not make them more likely to follow the US' lead, because that's not how NATO works and it makes Trump look like he has a "what have you done for me lately" attitude.
Click to expand...

IN spite of your belief evidenced here, NATO is not a zero sum game.
 
humbolt said:
You started out with false assumptions. That usually doesn't lead to correct conclusions. That the US expresses the desire that European members spend more on defense doesn't mean the US will spend less, as mentioned in post #2. In fact, Trump seems intent on increasing defense spending here with or without increases in defense spending on the part of our European NATO partners. His proposed budget reflects just that. Perhaps Trump views the contributions of European NATO members insufficient to make Article 5 meaningful should the US require their assistance in the event of a conflict directed at us, here. The possibility of war being waged simultaneously against western Europe and the US by multiple adversaries does exist.
Click to expand...

But that's not Trump frames things, he talks about other NATO countries owing the US money and that's not how NATO works.

Would other countries spending more money
make NATO more potent? Yes. Will that save the US a ton of money on its own? Not really.

And again, if these countries pay more for their own defense, they will want a bigger say on the world stage and frankly Trump's attitude makes supporting US hegemony less appealing for these countries.

I think a lot of these countries would be unlikely to give the US material support in its next military campaign, unless the US is attacked and activates Article V.
 
humbolt said:
IN spite of your belief evidenced here, NATO is not a zero sum game.
Click to expand...

I am not saying it is, I am saying Trump treats it like its a zero sum game, just like he treats trade deals.
 
Yes_Minister said:
But that's not Trump frames things, he talks about other NATO countries owing the US money and that's not how NATO works.
Click to expand...

No, that's not how NATO works, and I think Trump is well aware of it.

Would other countries spending more money
make NATO more potent? Yes. Will that save the US a ton of money on its own? Not really.
Click to expand...

All NATO members would be wise to consider their defense as an individual effort. NATO is an insurance policy, not a cure all.

And again, if these countries pay more for their own defense, they will want a bigger say on the world stage and frankly Trump's attitude makes supporting US hegemony less appealing for these countries.
Click to expand...

US hegemony is not the goal of our defense.

I think a lot of these countries would be unlikely to give the US material support in its next military campaign, unless the US is attacked and activates Article V.
Click to expand...

Probably true, because there are some NATO members who lack the military resources to do so, and Article 5 would have little meaning in such instances in any case.
 
Yes_Minister said:
I am not saying it is, I am saying Trump treats it like its a zero sum game, just like he treats trade deals.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out, Trump seeking increases in defense spending belies your assertion.
 
humbolt said:
No, that's not how NATO works, and I think Trump is well aware of it.
Click to expand...

I don't think he does, based on statements about other NATO countries owing the US money.

Donald Trump says Germany owes US and Nato 'vast sums of money' for defence | The Independent

humbolt said:
All NATO members would be wise to consider their defense as an individual effort. NATO is an insurance policy, not a cure all.
Click to expand...

Sure and that's not a bad thing. But the trade off is these countries will be less likely to follow the US' lead and will want a bigger say on the world stage.

humbolt said:
US hegemony is not the goal of our defense.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but that has least being a side benefit for the US since WW2. I think Trump's attitude towards NATO fits into a larger belligerent attitude towards the US' traditional allies and that encourages countries to go from allies to more neutral countries. I think Trump could have made this argument in a way that wouldn't make allied countries doubt the validity of US leadership. There is nothing wrong with saying more countries should do more to make NATO more potent, but treating them like debtors whom Trump can insult at his leisure, is a good way for the US to lose friends and influence.

humbolt said:
Probably true, because there are some NATO members who lack the military resources to do so, and Article 5 would have little meaning in such instances in any case.
Click to expand...

Were the contributions NATO allies like say Canada and the UK made in Afghanistan immaterial?
 
humbolt said:
As I pointed out, Trump seeking increases in defense spending belies your assertion.
Click to expand...

Except that article I just posted about Trump saying Germany owes the US a lot of money from NATO does point to Trump thinking NATO is a zero sum game. Trump thinks the US is somehow "losing" at NATO and other countries are winning, which is how he treats everything.

He does with everything, he suggests NAFTA is rigged so Canada and Mexico always win and the US always loses, despite that not being true.
 
Yes_Minister said:
I think Trump has a habit of not listening to his advisors.

And again, NATO is not some giant office pool. NATO allies spending more on defense will only save the US money, if the US in turn reduces defense spending, which is not what Trump is doing.

NATO allies paying for their own defense may make NATO more potent and its not a bad idea for these countries to be more active in their own defense, but that in of itself will not save the US money and these countries will want to have a bigger say on the world stage and will be less likely to follow the US' lead.

Also Trump treating these countries like they owe the US money will not make them more likely to follow the US' lead, because that's not how NATO works and it makes Trump look like he has a "what have you done for me lately" attitude.
Click to expand...

If the Nato members act liķe jerks, you will be right. If they act smartly, you will be wrong. They are Europeans, of course. And they have been telling their populations for decades that the EU had guaranteed the peace in Europe. And I know politicians there tha also actually believe this. So we are dealing with rather loose marbles.
 
joG said:
If the Nato members act liķe jerks, you will be right. If they act smartly, you will be wrong. They are Europeans, of course. And they have been telling their populations for decades that the EU had guaranteed the peace in Europe. And I know politicians there tha also actually believe this. So we are dealing with rather loose marbles.
Click to expand...

Trump's acting like a jerk to them, that doesn't foster a good attitude of cooperation. I think Trump's attitude may result in the EU becoming more integrated and having a more separate defense policy from the US. Trump's insistence on treating these countries like parasites and debtors, may mean they go from allies to rivals and seek ways to further their own interests outside of a US dominated frame work.

Now maybe some of this was inevitable, but I think Trump has hurried it along.
 
Yes_Minister said:
I don't think he does, based on statements about other NATO countries owing the US money.

Donald Trump says Germany owes US and Nato 'vast sums of money' for defence | The Independent
Click to expand...

In effect, it's true that European's have benefitted by not spending sufficiently to provide for their own defense. However, the point Trump makes is only demonstrative of the amounts such countries have used for other things than defense. Trump has no expectation such debts will be repaid. The point is made merely to place focus on the amounts such countries have saved by our effort in the hope they'll increase current and future spending.

Sure and that's not a bad thing. But the trade off is these countries will be less likely to follow the US' lead and will want a bigger say on the world stage.
Click to expand...

And exactly how is that a bad thing?



Fair enough, but that has least being a side benefit for the US since WW2. I think Trump's attitude towards NATO fits into a larger belligerent attitude towards the US' traditional allies and that encourages countries to go from allies to more neutral countries. I think Trump could have made this argument in a way that wouldn't make allied countries doubt the validity of US leadership. There is nothing wrong with saying more countries should do more to make NATO more potent, but treating them like debtors whom Trump can insult at his leisure, is a good way for the US to lose friends and influence.
Click to expand...

Trump hasn't submitted a bill to them. In all honesty, I don't care how European NATO members feel about the situation. Russia is threatening NATO's northeastern and southeastern flanks. China seeks hegemony in the South China Sea, and North Korea is threaten everybody in that area. That's reality, and feeling don't enter into that truth.



Were the contributions NATO allies like say Canada and the UK made in Afghanistan immaterial?
Click to expand...

Nope. Never said they were.
Click to expand...
 
Yes_Minister said:
Except that article I just posted about Trump saying Germany owes the US a lot of money from NATO does point to Trump thinking NATO is a zero sum game. Trump thinks the US is somehow "losing" at NATO and other countries are winning, which is how he treats everything.
Click to expand...

Trump is staking out negotiation positions in which he always asks for more than he expects to receive. It's how he works. It might be unsettling and make for splashy headlines, but I, at least, don't get overly alarmed that Trump tries to achieve agreements on that basis. That doesn't mean I agree with him in all such things.

He does with everything, he suggests NAFTA is rigged so Canada and Mexico always win and the US always loses, despite that not being true.
Click to expand...

Indeed. See above.
 
humbolt said:
In effect, it's true that European's have benefitted by not spending sufficiently to provide for their own defense. However, the point Trump makes is only demonstrative of the amounts such countries have used for other things than defense. Trump has no expectation such debts will be repaid. The point is made merely to place focus on the amounts such countries have saved by our effort in the hope they'll increase current and future spending.
Click to expand...

How you say something is just as important as what you say. Trump's belligerent attitude will make allies less likely to do the US favors any time soon. I doubt Trump would tolerate any other leader acting in a similar manner.

And Trump constantly makes a money argument here, which doesn't work because he treats NATO like an office pool. So if Trump is making this money argument about other countries means he is ignorant or simply lying and frankly both of those things undermine trust in the US' leadership role in organizations like NATO.

humbolt said:
And exactly how is that a bad thing?
Click to expand...

I said "that would not be a bad thing".

The Canadian military is actually training troops in various Eastern European countries, to try to ward off Russian incursions.

Canadian soldiers headed to Latvia to lead NATO battle group | CTV News


humbolt said:
Trump hasn't submitted a bill to them. In all honesty, I don't care how European NATO members feel about the situation. Russia is threatening NATO's northeastern and southeastern flanks. China seeks hegemony in the South China Sea, and North Korea is threaten everybody in that area. That's reality, and feeling don't enter into that truth.
Click to expand...

Careful what you wish for, I think Trump could push too far and we could see post WW2 international institutions will lose their relevancy and we return to the hold multi pole world that existed before WW2.

Now that's an extreme case, but not impossible one.

Maybe more countries will step up and do more on the international stage, without things returning to the "everyone for themselves" pre WW2 world order.

I think Trump is playing with fire though.


humbolt said:
Nope. Never said they were.
Click to expand...

I never said you did, but this fits into my larger point, if Trump disrespects other NATO countries, they can feel he is making light of their sacrifices in NATO missions. Other countries have national pride too and they do not like it when it seems like someone takes their sacrifices lightly. Americans wouldn't like that.

Trump is also trying to badger NATO allies into going back to Afghanistan.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...pressure-to-return-to-afghanistan-walkom.html

I think other countries would wary of returning to Afghanistan, if Trump presents an attitude of not respecting other NATO countries.
Click to expand...
 
humbolt said:
Trump is staking out negotiation positions in which he always asks for more than he expects to receive. It's how he works. It might be unsettling and make for splashy headlines, but I, at least, don't get overly alarmed that Trump tries to achieve agreements on that basis. That doesn't mean I agree with him in all such things.
.
Click to expand...

I think allied countries hate that, because it treats allies like adversaries and Trump saying the US should be more "unpredictable" promotes instability on the world stage and just creates distrust towards the US, because most countries value predictability.

I think lots of countries don't trust Trump's word and that does undermine alliances like NATO that are built on trust.
 
Yes_Minister said:
humbolt said:
How you say something is just as important as what you say. Trump's belligerent attitude will make allies less likely to do the US favors any time soon. I doubt Trump would tolerate any other leader acting in a similar manner.

And Trump constantly makes a money argument here, which doesn't work because he treats NATO like an office pool. So if Trump is making this money argument about other countries means he is ignorant or simply lying and frankly both of those things undermine trust in the US' leadership role in organizations like NATO.



I said "that would not be a bad thing".

The Canadian military is actually training troops in various Eastern European countries, to try to ward off Russian incursions.

Canadian soldiers headed to Latvia to lead NATO battle group | CTV News




Careful what you wish for, I think Trump could push too far and we could see post WW2 international institutions will lose their relevancy and we return to the hold multi pole world that existed before WW2.

Now that's an extreme case, but not impossible one.

Maybe more countries will step up and do more on the international stage, without things returning to the "everyone for themselves" pre WW2 world order.

I think Trump is playing with fire though.




I never said you did, but this fits into my larger point, if Trump disrespects other NATO countries, they can feel he is making light of their sacrifices in NATO missions. Other countries have national pride too and they do not like it when it seems like someone takes their sacrifices lightly. Americans wouldn't like that.

Trump is also trying to badger NATO allies into going back to Afghanistan.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...pressure-to-return-to-afghanistan-walkom.html

I think other countries would wary of returning to Afghanistan, if Trump presents an attitude of not respecting other NATO countries.
Click to expand...

Sure his rudeness is unpleasant. That is no excuse for Americans to assist our enemies by ignoring that the contents are quite right and instead of explaining this to the world to stab the initiatives in tje back.
Click to expand...
 
Yes_Minister said:
Trump's acting like a jerk to them, that doesn't foster a good attitude of cooperation. I think Trump's attitude may result in the EU becoming more integrated and having a more separate defense policy from the US. Trump's insistence on treating these countries like parasites and debtors, may mean they go from allies to rivals and seek ways to further their own interests outside of a US dominated frame work.

Now maybe some of this was inevitable, but I think Trump has hurried it along.
Click to expand...

Actually the eu elite was planing an initiative and waiting for a crisis to use. Trump was built up as just that crisis and is being used as you say. But that does not mean that they have not been free riders and quite unethical in trade. Trump got that right and the Europeans know it. But their media and politicians have the American liberals and msm to support their propagandist use of fear of external threat.
 
Yes_Minister said:
Does Trump understand how NATO works? It seems like Trump and many of his supporters treat NATO like its an office pool, where everyone puts in money to a larger pool. But that's not how NATO works:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../24/trump-may-really-not-know-how-nato-works/

No country owes the US money from NATO. If the US wanted to save money from NATO it can ask other countries to pay more for their own defense and then the US could reduce its defense budget, but Trump wants to spend more on the military, so the US will not save any money from having the other countries pay more for their defense, if that is the case. Other NATO countries will want a bigger say, if they increase their defense spending.

The US is the only country to enact Article 5 and I don't think anyone would think it okay if Canada or the UK spent the US a bill for their commitment in Afghanistan, so why does Trump get a pass when he claims the other members of NATO owe the US money?

One can question the relevancy of NATO after 1991, but Trump's attitude towards NATO allies will make them want to set a different path from Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/world/canada/canada-military-spending-trump-freeland.html?_r=0

So Trump could succeed in convincing the other members of NATO to spend more on defense, but they may want to chart a more independent path from the US in return. It might tricky to get these countries to agree to give material support to another US military campaign.
Click to expand...

As the nation with the Big Stick...we set the rules.
 
Yes_Minister said:
Does Trump understand how NATO works? It seems like Trump and many of his supporters treat NATO like its an office pool, where everyone puts in money to a larger pool. But that's not how NATO works:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../24/trump-may-really-not-know-how-nato-works/

No country owes the US money from NATO. If the US wanted to save money from NATO it can ask other countries to pay more for their own defense and then the US could reduce its defense budget, but Trump wants to spend more on the military, so the US will not save any money from having the other countries pay more for their defense, if that is the case. Other NATO countries will want a bigger say, if they increase their defense spending.

The US is the only country to enact Article 5 and I don't think anyone would think it okay if Canada or the UK spent the US a bill for their commitment in Afghanistan, so why does Trump get a pass when he claims the other members of NATO owe the US money?

One can question the relevancy of NATO after 1991, but Trump's attitude towards NATO allies will make them want to set a different path from Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/06/world/canada/canada-military-spending-trump-freeland.html?_r=0

So Trump could succeed in convincing the other members of NATO to spend more on defense, but they may want to chart a more independent path from the US in return. It might tricky to get these countries to agree to give material support to another US military campaign.
Click to expand...


I figure the value of NATO was explained to him some time ago but he still has a need to slop the hogs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom