Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that do

Hyperbole much?! Remind us again why the world is on fire today again versus while Trump was in office? NATO still has a policy of "you attack one, you attack us all" so saying that our nemesis are now planning an attack due to Trump rhetoric is nothing more than gas lighting.

 

The agreement was made in 2014, which is when members started spending more, so Trump didn't have diddly-squat to do with it.

As for encouraging our enemies to attack the allies, - that comment is very recent.

Um..........ok

We don't. You don't understand how it works.

 

Trump didn't make any difference. Spending was already increasing year on year, from 2014, further to the 2014 agreement to do so. And it continues to do so.

Neither the US nor any other member pays for anyone else. Each country spends on itself.

 

I posted his quotes. There's no duping but for those defending his desire to end NATO so Russia can take more control of the world.
We need Americans running the country. Not Russian bots.

 

Yes comrade.

 

Oh I think we understand

 

Why should Americans get nuked because a country with an alligator mouth and puppy dog ass is in NATO? Here's looking at you Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, etc.

NATO is a Cold War relic that needs to be dissolved. Once NATO admitted former USSR countries, anyone should have been able to figure out the farce. It's a MIC grift. A big fat MIC grift.

 

Just wow, They can't even get control of a small bordering county and your media convinced you they can take control of the world?
Not much on historical facts, huh lol

You mean Americans like Biden who abandons Americans to terrorist, leaves behind billions in military gear, just because the Taliban gave him an ultimatum? Or were you talking about your party paying terrorist billions of dollars?

 

Says the poster who thought Trump was speaking about the future. lol

 

The other poster made comments which prove he does not understand.

 

It was never about total monies.
It was about everyone paying their obligations.
Which Trump was able to get 11 members to meet their obligations.
Nice try though.

 

We understand you falsified your post, and when you got caught, then tried to blame others for defending Trump.
Your post speak for themselves

 

I falsified my own post. LOL

 

The "total monies" increased as a result of individual countries increasing their expenditures, including the 11 countries now at 2% or more.

The increase by individual countries began in 2014, and continued thereafter - before Trump ever expounded on the issue.

The graph shows the cumulative impact of these individual increases, year on year, illustrating how they began before Trump.

If you prefer, you can compare each individual country in 2014 to 2024.

 

Nope, never claimed anything like that. And my post correcting yours isn't defending Trump. Its just correcting your claims.

Trump was able to get members who were behind on their obligations to pay up.

 

Stats, facts and charts show otherwise, but whatever makes you happy, - or whatever makes your political leader look good.

 

He's just trying to leverage/scare them into paying their fair share of the common defense. If private meetings and consultations haven't worked to that end, then what remains but to publicly threaten them.

 

Factually wrong as you are only looking at one of three metrics which I mentioned earlier. Yes the first two metrics are individual (2% of GDP & 20% of military spending being spent on new equipment acquisitions) but the third metric, cash paid directly to NATO to fund the joint command system as well as strategic infrastructure needed for logistics) is indeed cash paid directly to NATO.

Please get basics right before you try to "educate" others.

 

A threat of betrayal to fix an issue which has already been fixed. Sounds like classic Trump.

 

It should be as simple that if you do not meet that basic thresholds for membership, you have X amount of time to get in compliance. If not in compliance, membership is revoked. You can reapply at any time, but you will need to be at NATO minimum thresholds to be accepted back in.

 

When a post refers to eleven countries achieving 2%, the metric under discussion is clearly achieving the 2% (of which, as you correctly say, 20% must be new acquisitions). It was not regarding the direct expense, which like the 2%, countries pay themselves.

 

duplicate

 

All you graph shows is 19 of the 30 still don't pay their fair share and increases from 2014 to 2023.
Its just another failed attempt to provide something out of context just to dig at Trump.

And indeed, even many European observers and NATO officials will admit that, despite its conceptual shortcomings, the 2 percent metric works as a political tool. It is now widely (and correctly) perceived not as a very meaningful driver toward more military capability but as an indicator of political will.

Those who make an effort to get to 2 percent, or near it, are seen as investors in transatlantic security, regardless of what that money actually buys them. The rest are seen as reluctant or disengaged, no matter how active and involved they might otherwise be.

As a percentage of GDP, defense spending by European allies fell from an average of 2 percent in 1995–1999 to 1.5 percent in 2014, while that of the United States went up from 3.1 percent to 3.4 percent in the same period. In 1995, U.S. defense expenditure accounted for 59 percent of overall NATO defense spending; in 2015, the rate was above 70 percent.

Trump told NATO members they either need to get on the program or defend themselves. And he is right. The US doesn't need NATO. NATO needs the US. Always has.

Since Trump proposed the US may leave NATO, 11 members have made good on the 2014 pledge.

 

What does that have to do with trump saying he'd encourage Russia to attack NATO countries?

 

It has to do with your exaggerations. Which is why you tried the deflection