What is clear, however, is that Trump — who ostensibly spent four years as president of the United States — has little clue about what NATO is or what NATO does. And when he spoke on the subject at a rally in South Carolina over the weekend, what he said was less a cogent discussion of foreign policy than it was gibberish — the kind of outrageous nonsense that flows without interruption from an empty and unreflective mind.

“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well, sir, if we don’t pay, and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’” Trump said, recalling an implausible conversation with an unnamed, presumably European head of state. “‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’” Trump recounted responding. “‘No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’”

The former president’s message was clear: If NATO members do not pay up, then he will leave them to the mercy of a continental aggressor who has already plunged one European country into death, destruction and devastation.

Except NATO isn’t a mafia protection racket. NATO, in case anyone needs to be reminded, is a mutual defense organization, formed by treaty in 1949 as tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union hardened into conflict. “The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,” states Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

Non-paywall link

  • teft
    link
    fedilink
    157
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’”

    Boy, that’s rich coming from Il Douche.

  • RubberDuck
    link
    fedilink
    1049 months ago

    The only time the mutual defence treaty was triggered is because the US was attacked and all countries in NATO stepped up to the plate.

    • admiralteal
      link
      fedilink
      899 months ago

      Not just stepped up to the plate, but went pretty much all-in on a COMPLETELY pointless invasion against what was almost certainly the wrong country.

      That’s how committed they were to NATO.

      • @dariusj18@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        319 months ago

        I am assuming you mean the Iraq war, but that was not a NATO operation, it just happened to have many NATO allies providing support, not all of them.

        • @noride@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          249 months ago

          To your point, it was called the “Coalition of the willing”. Article 5 was not invoked.

              • @saltesc@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                13
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Kind of, but not really. NATO did operations to ensure US’s immediate security against further terrost attacks. Once the US affirmed it had it’s shit together, NATO pulled out. Any countries that stuck around for the counter-attack wars (like Afghanistan and Iraq) did so under different banners. NATO does not encroach or encourage war, it exists to prevent it and will do what’s necessary up to the point a nation is deemed safe again.

                It circles the injured sheep and fights off the wolf. Once this is done, it doesn’t then hunt down the fleeing wolf. This works very well because other animals aren’t scared of NATO controlling the lands, but the wolves are also scared of trying to attack that herd.

                Similarly, if everything went wrong for the US in Afghanistan, NATO wouldn’t help. If the US retreated and started getting attacked in its homeland, NATO would.

      • cooljacob204
        link
        fedilink
        -24
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        At the time it was correct and very much not pointless. Where we fucked up was staying around and trying to nation build. Moment we destroyed al qaeda we should have left.

        Edit: Afghanistan was in response to 9/11 not Iraq…

        • admiralteal
          link
          fedilink
          6
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          My implication is that if we really wanted to get Bin Laden / Al-Qaeda, the more sensible targets were Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Which of course we didn’t go after. We had a goal of spilling some Arab blood, but wanted a target that would be a cooperative punching bag.

          And even then, we still fucking failed. Al-Qaeda still exists. Or it was consumed by/transformed into/always secretly was just a branch of Daesh who are still going strong. Or maybe they weren’t really a coherent organization in the first place and were always more grassroots/franchised. Not to mention the Taliban are right back in power and doing their same shit. We accomplished nothing more than running the best possible recruitment campaign for the next generation of west-hating religious extremist warriors.

          • cooljacob204
            link
            fedilink
            19 months ago

            I wouldn’t call it completely pointless. But I also wouldn’t call it a success. Taliban are in power but they don’t have interest in terrorizing the west (for now at least…) which at least is some sort of win. Other organizations with aspiration to attack the west were severely degraded in the war like al qaeda.

          • cooljacob204
            link
            fedilink
            19 months ago

            There is a very long and informative wiki page about that and the Afghanistan war invite you to read. They were obliterated very early in the war.

            As for a less smart ass response. They won’t ever be “truly” gone. Same as ISIS. But we effectively beheaded the organization and prevented it from mounting any sort of serious attacks on the US and allies for the foreseeable future.

            Modern day al qaeda is completely different from the organization of 2001 and a shell of its former self.

    • @jantin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      79 months ago

      And the attack was done by rogue non-state actors. Europe agreed to go burn a whole district because a thug who lived roughly there punched USA in the face. Now Europe faces an entire mafia from another town and Trump says “should’ve bought better gear, bye suckers”.

  • @ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    889 months ago

    The guy currently on trial for racketeering is asking people for protection money or something bad will happen to them? Who would have thought!

    • @CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      20
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Also “you have to pay your bills, unlike me who literally NEVER pays ANY bills.” I mean, if there is one consistent element in Trump’s character for the decades he’s doing business is that he’s constantly stiffing people.

      • Bakkoda
        link
        fedilink
        89 months ago

        Worked with a batshit crazy old lady in the quality department for about a year. She was stuck there (both job and location) while she cared for her very elderly mother. Before that she had something to do with finance, fashion and F1 racing (like a client liaison or something) but any way. She recalled a tale from late 80s early 90s of being in a very specific bank (Royal back of Scotland?) and watching Mr Trump storm out after being denied a loan. The utter bliss she experienced in telling that story every ting i asked to hear it again… Brought happiness to my heart.

        I miss you Marylin you batshit crazy old lady.

      • @Patches@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        79 months ago

        The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, And Hells Angels lied to me. I thought mob bosses were intelligent, charismatic, and capable of playing 4d chess. Meanwhile…

      • @ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        79 months ago

        What is insane is that people are still taking the fall for him. When it’s pretty clear Donnie cares only for himself. Everyone has convinced themself that they’re special. No, they’re not. Everyone is a stooge to Donnie.

  • @CynicRaven@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    599 months ago

    "One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, 'Well, sir,

    Imma stop it right there. It’s always possible that someone, out of a general professional attitude or decorum, used that ‘sir’ wording, but I’ll be damned if I’ve heard Trump use that word in a context that doesn’t sound like he’s just making some bullshit up.

    I mean, he pretty much always sounds like he’s making some shit up, but my point stands!

    • @jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      419 months ago

      I like how John Bolton (who is a massive douche nozzle by the way but gotta give credit where credit is due) called Trump out by saying that any time Trump tells a story where someone calls him “sir” then you know it’s absolute bullshit.

      • @jkrtn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        39 months ago

        “Sir” is a bit of a red herring when all of Donald’s stories are absolute bullshit.

    • @Ghyste@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      189 months ago

      “Sir” is one of Donnie’s tells. If he tells a story that includes someone calling him sir, it’s completely made up/never happened.

      I mean, that’s aside from him lying if his lips are moving.

    • @blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      179 months ago

      This is some LinkedIn “then everyone clapped and it turned out the wolf I saved was the hiring manager all along and they made me CEO” type shit

    • Hominine
      link
      fedilink
      English
      69 months ago

      Sorry, we were looking for “big country.”

    • @mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      429 months ago

      He doesn’t understand OUR military, how is he going to comprehend the utility of a trans-national mutual defense accord?

      I’m frankly amazed he doesn’t choke on his food, he’s so fucking stupid.

    • @Igloojoe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      199 months ago

      If Putin doesn’t like it, then Trump doesn’t like it. He probably doesn’t even know why.

    • BoofStroke
      link
      fedilink
      English
      129 months ago

      He thinks NATO is his slum tenants and fancies himself a mob boss getting paid protection money.

      • @TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        69 months ago

        My suspicion is that he got NATO and NAFTA confused years ago and never admitted it. Now he believes it’s about trade and defense.

  • @thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    519 months ago

    You gotta pay your bills.

    This fucking guy… LOL oh man that is something isn’t it? The guy famous for never paying his bills says this about a REAL life and death situation… FUCK TRUMP

  • @ikidd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    429 months ago

    How do people not see this as being directed by Putin? Russia is literally the only beneficiary of this “stupidity”.

    • @Pan_Ziemniak@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      239 months ago

      For the GOP voters? 50+ yrs of highly concentrated, and pointed propaganda.

      For the nonvoters? Bc their favorite social media sites (this one included) are full of russian bad faith actors working to make Status Quo Joe seem somehow worse, or, at the very least, more ineffectual, than ronald mcdump.

      • @jkrtn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        139 months ago

        Just saw a fella here the other day absolutely screeching and livid that Joe “hasn’t done anything for Flint.” I mean, neither did Donald and also Donald hamstrung the EPA as best he could to make things worse all over the nation.

        The dishonesty is so overt. That guy didn’t respond to anything, either, so no updates if he is concerned for the EPA or not.

    • @ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      119 months ago

      The funny thing is, Russia would never actually strike NATO. I don’t know what the fuck State or JCS are letting him get away with while DOJ jacks off with reports about the incumbent’s mental health, but Trump needs to be gagged and thrown into solitary yesterday.

    • @cygon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      7
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It certainly has the exact structure of all the other Russian agitation material, designed to breed resentment.

      I can imagine the typical low-information voter: “What? They think we’re required to fight for them? And they refuse to do their share at the same time? Oh the entitlement!” - bam - anger against EU, happy about Trump supposedly calling them out, may even support leaving NATO.

      • @KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        29 months ago

        True, but EU countries not contributing to mutual defense also helps Putin. Both are bad. Some EU countries are finally adding some defense spending now there’s a literal war on their continent.

        The lack of defense spending in Europe is pushed by European political parties partially supported by Russia. So basically, Putin has created the problem that he told Trump to yell about.

    • @dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      -49 months ago

      It’s a NYTimes article. As much stupid shit as Trump has said, he was right about the NYT. And that’s why they have all these very shareable articles exploring every nook and cranny of his psyche. This article would have been exhausting to read in 2017.

  • z3rOR0ne
    link
    fedilink
    359 months ago

    Trump supporters are more pathetic than the man himself. This is exemplified simply because this demonstration of his ineptitude as well as his various acts of indecency and immorality cannot and will not sway their opinion of the man.

    The only way to change their opinion of him is for Trump himself to “go woke” so hard they no longer recognize him as their Cheeto covered Jesus.

  • @TheDoozer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    319 months ago

    Remember in 2016 when Republican types were adamant that Hillary wouldn’t be tough enough on Putin, and that Liberals were Communists? And that the Liberals would let Russia do whatever it wanted?

    And now those same Republicans are outspoken against helping Ukraine, and want to let Russia just have it. Their preferred candidate wants to dismantle the organization of countries that stands as the United front against Russian expansion. Working deliberately and blatantly toward Putin’s interests isn’t a problem to them at all.

    Back then, I thought that if there was a single (decent) principle they actually stand for, that would have been it. Apparently I was wrong.

      • @assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        199 months ago

        Emails that WikiLeaks apparently has but said “nah we’re not going to release them because there’s totes nothing in there trust us”.

        They could’ve been neutral and trustworthy. Instead they had an axe to grind against Hillary, and prioritized that over being known for objective truth.

      • @Zipitydew@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        89 months ago

        At this point I suspect the main damage is done. But the dirt was found out a different way.

        The big secret to hide was campaign funding and coordination. But Trump won anyway. Then didn’t even get in trouble for it.

        And later the Russia>>NRA dark money link was found and reported on. Without the media then going ape shit that the funnel was really Russia>>NRA>>GOP. And without any of the Biden administration cracking down on what happened.

        So I suspect it’s why they’re all even more brazen now. Some of the dirt was found. It didn’t amount to any punishment. So why bother trying to hide now?

  • @Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    24
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Both sides though, right? I mean… we have one guy wanting to plunge America into absolute chaos by dismantling hundreds of years of progress and ending democracy as we know it just so he can protect his sad little crumbling empire of corruption….

    And the other guy is old.

    Totally comparable!

  • @saltesc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    229 months ago

    Based on discourse online post the invasion of Ukraine, it seems there’s a few Americans that don’t know what NATO is/does, nor how it differentiates from how the US conducts its military. For starters, it’s anti-militant—kind of the point—unless it has no other viable resort, and it’s the threat of that last resort that bolsters the passive-security within NATO. It is safety in numbers and it fails if the herd scatters.

    As a result, Article 5 has only needed to be acted upon once and the irony is that it was the US that raised the call for help and the other nations responded.

    If Trump has his way, WW3 will kick off, everyone will suffer, and it’ll end with the US saying, “Fucking hell. Wow. Let’s not let that happen again. We need some sort of agreement to make sure of that.”

    • Queen HawlSera
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29 months ago

      “Fucking hell. Wow. Let’s not let that happen again. We need some sort of agreement to make sure of that.”

      I don’t think humans have that much self-awarneess anymore, I think Trump can literally kill 12 million people with his bare hands and most people will say “Aww shucks” aside from a vocal minority, with the media calling such actions “Divisive” at worst

    • @ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      19 months ago

      Anti-militant is a terrible mischaracterization. NATO is existentially militant, it’s a super federation of militarized powers. What they are is a defensive pact. They don’t conquer territory, western powers have been out of that business since before the formation of the alliance.

      Putin’s gambit that the herd might scatter is a really big bet for an empire that’s already over-extended trying to protect force onto territory that isn’t rightfully theirs. How long does he think he can keep paying off enough westerners to prevent a non-nato fraternal response?

    • RickRussell_CA
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -8
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      For starters, it’s anti-militant—kind of the point—unless it has no other viable resort

      Umm. Well. Are we including NATO-sponsored invasions err… peacekeeping conflict-resolution interventions?

      NATO doesn’t only operate in defense, there have been a long list of NATO-sponsored interventions outside NATO membership: Kuwait/Iraq, the Balkans, Libya. One can argue whether NATO operations were justified in those cases, but I don’t think any of them could be described as anti-militant, or that there were no other viable options. Doing nothing was an option, for example.

      • @saltesc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        With Article 4, they will respond to threats with enough recourse to prevent it or provide aid and assistance for operations focused toward peace. The “threat” being one the collective nations of NATO agree that a member of NATO will not be able to handle alone, thus its security will be compromised, and that would lead to Article 5 being invoked when it could’ve been avoided earlier.

        • RickRussell_CA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          09 months ago

          I’m not even saying that I disagree with the decision to intervene in Kuwait, but it was certainly militant, and NATO nations certainly had other “resorts” to insure their own security. I’m having trouble coming up with any argument that Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, for example, threatened the security of a NATO member.

  • @YurkshireLad@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    159 months ago

    Whether he knows what it is, is totally irrelevant. All he cares, is that he has something else he can hate on, something which his followers don’t understand, so he can show them he’s the man who stands up to people. Whether he is standing up to someone or not.