591
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
591 points (97.3% liked)
World News
39112 readers
2290 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Really? Trump mentioning that most nato members do not meet the required defense spending undermines nato.
Yeah I'm sure that was what undermined nato and not the fact that America is the only threatening part of nato and the rest of the members haven't been contributing shit. I don't like trump but it's clear that nato needs a kick up the ass.
You know how this isn’t 2015 right? People are no longer fooled by you guys creating accounts to concern troll.
It's gotten real damn bad in the last week
lol. Yeah I’m surprised he didn’t lead with “I used to be a Democrat…”
"Everyone who pushes back is troll". Ok since this is such obvious trolling you should be able to give a good reason as to why comments from a presidential candidate undermines a 31 country military alliance more than 27 countries in (2017) and 21 countries in (2023) not meeting the minimum contribution requirements.
Please keep in mind that the nato member in this article who made the comments about trump does believe that the us will remain a committed nato ally regardless of election outcome.
That’s not just complaining about not spending enough, it’s literally inviting an invasion.
And you’re saying that doesn’t undermine their security‽
Or, by association, the security of all members.
I'm saying that the comment undermines nato security less than the majority of nato not contributing to nato security.
If these nations cared so much about their security and cared about the nato alliance they would simply contribute the agreed 2% gdp.
Also trump said similar statements about exclusion from us protection when he was president. It didn't happen then and it's even less likely now that he is not president.
They are inviting an invasion by neglecting their security. Can't blame America for not offering free protection forever.
Trump's inviting the invasion. Let's not get things twisted. The US has plenty of ways to pressure other member states to contribute more spending to the alliance than threatening publicly to break the treaty and winking towards Russia.
The US demonstrates themselves as an unreliable partner. That's not in the interest of the US as they lose power globally, when countries rethink their dependence on them.
The US has been pressuring nato for close to a decade. Trump has threatened nato by withdrawing troops and threatened the exclusion of us protection when he was actually the president. The result of this has been an increase in the amount of nato members meetings their minimum obligations. However the amount of members meeting the minimum requirements has only gone from 4/31 in 2017 to 10/31 in 2023. There are still many large countries in Europe not meeting their obligations.
Trump is using this as an issue to run on. He is not seriously inviting Russia to invade. It's funny to me that you suggest the us being unreliable while they contribute 71% of the spending and only ask that the other countries do the bare minimum. Countries SHOULD rethink their dependence on the us especially Nato countries. Nato countries should consider that they are entirely dependent on the us and consider contributing to their security alliance.
It's one thing to say that a country not spending even 2% of the GDP should not be able to call Article 5. It's another thing to say you would "encourage [Russia] to do whatever they wanted to do" with said country.
Nevertheless it's signaling unreliability, because it would violate the treaty the US has signed. Plenty of NATO countries have helped out the US when they called article 5 on bullshit arguments and lies when invading Afghanistan.
But you're right. It's good European countries rethink their dependence. Too bad it comes with rethinking their alliances as well, with a belligerent USA.
Donald Trump: "I'm inviting Russia to attack other nations if they don't do XYZ"
Other people: "Trump is inviting Russia to attack other nations"
You: "No, other nations are inviting the attack themselves by doing XYZ"
Do you not see how ridiculous this sounds?
Obviously it would be best if trump didn't say something so unhinged but no one thinks trump is inviting Russia to invade.
Nato is undermining itself by doing nothing and putting their entire security burden on one country in a completely different continent. Trump is threatening nato. He is saying you better carry your weight or we may not save you.
I would argue that trumps threat should strengthen nato because if he is elected then his stance puts pressure on nato members to meet their obligations. Nato members meeting their obligations makes nato stronger. If nato members are worried about getting invaded and having no support from the us there is a simple solution contribute 2% gdp to military spending. If nato members are so worried about an invasion then they should probably participate in their military alliance.
I 100% think that Trump is inviting Russia to invade. He's literally stated multiple times that if he were president, he'd try to end the Russian invasion by making Ukraine surrender. That's literally his stated goal. How is that not inviting Russia to invade?
And he also wants to pull the US out of NATO, which would weaken it and make it far easier for individual members to be attacked. Again, that's his stated goal. How does this not make Russian invasions much easier?
The quote is talking about an invasion of a nato state not Ukraine.
He only wants to pull the us out of nato because nato is carried by the us and provide nothing. If nato members actually met their obligations he would have no issue remaining. To me that's a reasonable stance.
Edit: actually its not fair to say trump wants to pull the US out of Nato. Its clear to Nato that the US does not want to leave nato but they(trumps admin) are playing hardball to force Nato members to meet their obligations.
You are absolutely brainwashed.
"Oh yeah, he is inviting a Russian invasion of that one country, but surely not any others!"
"Yeah, he keeps saying he wants to pull out of NATO, but he doesn't really plan to"
And what will you say when he actually follows through on both accounts? "It's the countries fault, they didn't follow his demands, they made him do it"
If trump pulls out of nato I wouldn't blame the us. The blame would clearly be on the nato members who have repeatedly failed to uphold their security agreements.
See? "The countries are to blame for the US pulling out of NATO and for getting invaded by Russia after Trump invited them to". Like clockwork.
If you are given an option. Pay and be protected or don't pay and don't be protected and you choose the 2nd option then you are you to blame when you have no protection. These countries signed agreements stating that they would all pay this minimum amount.
"Look what you made me do to you"
No.
That's not what he said though
If you have to misrepresent what was said in order to feel ok about it, maybe you shouldn't feel ok about it.
Found the person living in an alternate reality.
Wake me up if you actually wanted to have a good faith discussion otherwise take your ignorance of geopolitics elsewhere.
While I highly doubt you have anything interesting or realistic to say on this issue my comments are in good faith if you want to discuss where we disagree. I've replied to a few other comments if you want to read over them for more explanation of my reasoning.
No, it's the other part, with the meaning, he would throw them to russia. Leaving that part out would have been better.
You are taking the the quote out of context. Yes he said exactly what was in the quote but the seriousness portrayed by this article was not there.
Do you honestly think the US and nato would let Russia invade a nato country? Because even the head of Nato doesn't think that would happen and the article mentions that. The only person saying that would happen is Biden and he is only saying it because it's great for his election run.
The article mentions the clear "hardball" approach that trump is taking to try and force nato members to pull their weight. Everyone in this comment section seems to be ignoring that and ignoring the comments from the head of Nato and taking trumps words as a binding contract. It's already clear from trumps existence that he says unhinged shit, I don't think we have any disagreements there. The disagreement I have with this article is the hypocrisy of saying Nato is undermined by trumps comments when majority of the members are freeloading with no intentions of meeting the requirements. The majority of nato members being useless has become such an issue that presidential candidates are running on the issue.
So you basically admit "if at any part a country hasn't reached the obligated 2% they shouldn't be defended by nato"?
It wouldn't be a problem if it were a few countries but it's almost all of them.
Not what I asked. You agree with Trump, which means you agree with what I asked you. Any nuanced opinion saying "countries might need to contribute more" aren't what he said.
Yes I agree that countries that don't meet the 2% shouldn't be in nato. People could let it slide if it were a few countries but it's majority of nato and the countries can clearly afford it.
Tell me why the us should continue to meet its nato obligations when none of the other members do?
Yeah, so you are just plain wrong and don't know what you are talking about.
Let me guess: you “used to be a Democrat but…”
LOL.
I hate this sentiment of "you don't agree with us on every issue.. you must be on the other side"
This is a discussion forum.
Your opinion is so out of the realm of reality that many are questioning your intentions here, including myself. Maybe start with a comment that has some geopolitical accuracy.
Many people including yourself are uninformed and swayed by headlines.
lmao. Read the room bra. No one here is buying your delusional bullshit. I’m not swayed by “headlines” I’m actually, you know, listening to the words that come out of the orange shitstain’s mouth. Please continue to waste your time responding though. It’s not like you have the self awareness to believe no one here agrees with you.
Everyone here can disagree with me and be wrong. That's fine. I'm sure Russia was waiting for the green light from a non president trump to invade nato countries and now they have it according to you. It's over for nato I guess.
Obviously you’re looking for an echo chamber, which you will not find here. You should go back to Fox News, OANN or whatever other shitty propaganda source that feeds your biases.
Yes I'm on a very leftwing forum looking for a rightwing echo chamber. What a great observation.
If you want to read comment sections where everyone agrees with the headline and never pushes back on anything you are welcome to block me.
As a member of a NATO military that doesn't meet the targets for spending, I agree this doesn't undermine NATO, it's just the truth that we need to start pulling more weight monetarily.
BUT that's not the point and you missed key details about what he said that absolutely DOES undermine NATO, such as:
"I said: 'You didn't pay? You're delinquent?'... 'No I would not protect you, in fact I would encourage them to do whatever they want. You gotta pay.'"
So you're showing that you either didn't read the article, didn't understand the article or are being willfully ignorant of the article.
You dont think Nato members not ever meeting spending targets undermines NATO? Europe would be able to protect themselves if they met the targets and the US would be a bonus to NATO not a requirement.
I think that comment does far less damage to NATO than the members who do not meet minimum requirements. The US has been trying to get Nato to contribute to their own security for a long time. Trumps plan to get this done has been to threaten Nato members with removal of US security. This seems to have worked better than other methods tried. Trump is not saying this to encourage russia to attack Nato, trump is saying this to force Nato members to meet their obligations.
I do not understand how you can look a nation asking the US to defend them for free and the US saying no and think that the US is one putting them at risk. They put themself at risk because they choose to spend no money on defense obligations.
Literally in the Trump quote:
You see, Trump never means what he says. It's all 5d chess and you don't know how to interpret all that vagueness.
To understand why it is not a call for russia to attack nato you must know the context. In the clip Trump mentions Nato being broken before he "fixed" it. In 2016 only 5 countries met the minimum nato obligations (US, UK, Greece, estonia, Poland).
Trump recalls a conversation he had with a Nato leader. He says the leader asked him "if we dont pay are you still going to protect us" trump replied "absolutely not". This is a huge shock to the nato leaders as America has always asked them to pay but never forced their hand like this. They ask again "if we dont pay and we are attacked by Russia will you still protect us?" then you get the harsher response from trump.
Europe is vulnerable to an attack from Russia they know this. They MUST meet their alliance obligations to ensure their security its that simple. Trump is telling the European leader this to scare them into meeting their obligations. Russia didnt hear about this until trump mentioned it at his rally a few days ago. After all this happened years ago the Nato contribution increased and states meeting their obligation goes from 5 to 11.
Please explain to me how that is trump inviting war? Trump isnt asking Nato to freeload. He is asking them to meet their obligations and remain in the alliance with the US.
Sure, when Trump says:
"Them" is Russia, and "whatever they want" is to invade. So Trump is saying "I would encourage {Russia] to [Invade]."
I'm not going along with your "he doesn't mean what he says" BS. He is running for government office, if he doesn't mean what he's saying then he shouldn't say it. I'm not going to play "guess what the politician really means when they say something. Maybe they mean the opposite. who knows?"
NATO empowered nazis in western europe. If our politics were not manipulated by the United States I am not sure we'd be allies.
Trump is for peace in Ukraine! Democrats are warheads and genocide helpers. Nobody needs.