Trump ponders if the US were attacked, would NATO respond?

[Belk]

Media bias fact check ain't a neutral website.

Neither are you.

 

[Vambram]

The writer's analysis doesn't appear to be the topic of the thread. What are your own thoughts on Trump's statement about NATO and Article 5?

I've already given my thoughts on that topic. And the opinions of the writer of the OP article are most definitely part of the topic of this thread.

 

[Vambram]

Of course he didn't say he has no idea. He demonstrated he has no idea.

LOL

 

[Vambram]

Neither are you.

I never claimed to be.

 

[trophy33]

If they don't buy F-35s, then I wish them good luck in finding a modern fighter that can do everything an F-35 can do.

An F-35 with a switched-off access to the US information network or without a needed SW update is just an expensive piece of metal. And plenty of other fighter jets would be better in such case.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If they don't buy F-35s, then I wish them good luck in finding a modern fighter that can do everything an F-35 can do.

There are already a couple of alternatives deep into development that should be flying in the next year or two, with a service entry date around 10-15 years out. And, as far as countering Russia goes, I think the current versions of the Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen are plenty capable, especially when combined with the existing European F-35 fleet.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I've already given my thoughts on that topic.

That you think it's a negotiating tactic? I'm not sure how that works. He's just idly speculating that Europe wouldn't help us if we asked - based on nothing and completely ignoring the fact that they did help us the only time we've ever asked. How is that supposed to convince anything to do anything?

 

[inhiminen]

LOL

Trump is a clearly a very damaged person. Like a father like a son.

 

[Larniavc]

President Trump is also using, once again, this negotiating tactic to try to get more favorable trading agreements for the USA.

Is that what we are calling lying these days?

 

[Larniavc]

aying that the Commander in Chief of the US military would actually side with Putin against NATO or the EU is hyperbolic exaggeration in my opinion and my experience.

That's what he is doing. He's lifting sanctions against Russia, stopping intelligence and munitions (on and off) to Ukraine. Trump says he trusts Russia more than the America intelligence apparatus.

No one trusts Putin and no one trusts Trump.

 

[Vambram]

Is that what we are calling lying these days?

He isn't lying about tariffs and the necessity of our allies to increase defense spending.

 

[Belk]

I never claimed to be.

Then I'll take your claims it leans left with a big grain of salt.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Military.com is a left leaning website. I have been receiving and reading email newsletters from that website for many years. I read the article of the OP & saw the globalist spin in it. What the author of the article failed to do in his analysis is recognize that President Trump is, once again, using a strong negotiating technique in order to persuade more NATO nations to pay more of their own national economy into military defense spending. President Trump is also using, once again, this negotiating tactic to try to get more favorable trading agreements for the USA.

There has been much discussion about the negotiation tactics President Trump is using for tariffs, achieving his objectives, and urging NATO members to increase their budgets. However, negotiation tactics are most effective when the other side is unaware that they are being used. If it is openly stated that these are negotiation tactics and a willingness to settle for less is evident, then the effectiveness of these tactics diminishes.

 

[Vambram]

There has been much discussion about the negotiation tactics President Trump is using for tariffs, achieving his objectives, and urging NATO members to increase their budgets. However, negotiation tactics are most effective when the other side is unaware that they are being used. If it is openly stated that these are negotiation tactics and a willingness to settle for less is evident, then the effectiveness of these tactics diminishes.

Then, it's good to also understand that the details of the negotiations are kept secret between leaders of nations until we the people actually need to know those deep dive details.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

If they don't buy F-35s, then I wish them good luck in finding a modern fighter that can do everything an F-35 can do.

Here are the facts: On average, NATO members spend $125 billion per year on purchasing U.S.-made military equipment. It is true that they will not find similar technology elsewhere, and they will continue to buy U.S.-made military hardware. However, if we continue to exert undue pressure on them, they may eventually develop their own military industries. Europe did not build a military-industrial complex like the United States did after World War II, but if pushed, they have the capability to do so. Historical evidence shows that when Europe decides to develop a military industry, they are quite adept at it.

There is no benefit in antagonizing NATO members. There are only disadvantages for the US in doing so.

Repeatedly, I have posed this question to others: Can anyone explain the benefit of the United States leaving NATO? No one has been able to provide a satisfactory answer. The common argument is that "we are defending Europe, and we could use that money in America." However, no one has provided any statistics to demonstrate how much money the United States would save if it were to leave NATO.

We will not save any money; instead, we will lose $120 to $140 billion in weapon sales to NATO members after 3 or 4 years.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Then, it's good to also understand that the details of the negotiations are kept secret between leaders of nations until we the people actually need to know those deep dive details.

Agree.

That's why I withhold criticism until I see the details.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

“You know the biggest problem I have with NATO? I really, I mean, I know the guys very well. They’re friends of mine. But if the United States was in trouble, and we called them, we said, ‘We got a problem, France. We got a problem, couple of others I won’t mention. Do you think they’re going to come and protect us?’ They’re supposed to. I’m not so sure.” --Trump (Military.com)​

Never mind the only time Article 5 was invoked one day later when the US was attacked on 9/11.
I am also sure "couple of others I won't mention" is because he couldn't name the rest. Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV.
Kind of like it's the foreign countries that pay the tariffs, Donald Trump is by far the most ill informed president in American history.

I would expect them to do the same thing they did after Article 5 was declared after 911. They will give a lot of lip service and provide whatever minimally is necessary to say they did something while they argue amongst themselves about who was going to do what.

 

[Richard T]

“You know the biggest problem I have with NATO? I really, I mean, I know the guys very well. They’re friends of mine. But if the United States was in trouble, and we called them, we said, ‘We got a problem, France. We got a problem, couple of others I won’t mention. Do you think they’re going to come and protect us?’ They’re supposed to. I’m not so sure.” --Trump (Military.com)​

Never mind the only time Article 5 was invoked one day later when the US was attacked on 9/11.
I am also sure "couple of others I won't mention" is because he couldn't name the rest. Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV.
Kind of like it's the foreign countries that pay the tariffs, Donald Trump is by far the most ill informed president in American history.

It is sad that France is too often called out for being cowardly or rolling over. Trump appears no exception in doing this. France is indeed a USA military friend having helped the USA several times, even without any NATO arrangement. Since this mainly occurs when there is a situation in Francophone Africa, or in other countries nearby, it is the French that often are the ones called upon to help US citizens because our forces are generally far more lacking in that region. This occurred with an American woman in Burkino Faso in 2019 when Trump was President. It was French troops on the ground that rescued her and several other Europeans. Trump should still be thanking the two French soldiers that gave their lives to insure this successful rescue of an American citizen.

Earlier than that, I found Shaba I and Shaba II, which were conflicts in the Shaba province of Zaire. Interestingly, here is a lesson in how Belgian, French and the USA handled the security of foreign workers and their families in Zaire's mining and infrastructure (electric lines) in 1978. While the US and Belgium had several times more investment in Zaire's mines than France, it was France that took the action. Never mind the security of the nation, Western allies could not even insure the safety and evacuation of many of their own citizens. Over two thousand were taken hostage and dozens were killed. The US construction firm was fortunate that they had their own resources to help evacuate many of the 80 Americans employed there. Just more than a dozen were left, including at least one missionary to the area. Here is an excerpt from the Masters thesis of U.S. Major Odom. "Foreign paratroops might have been going to intervene, but by midday it was clear that they were not going to be American troops. At 0718 Morris-Knudsen (The U.S. Construction firm) had begun its evacuation of the base camp northwest of Kolwezi. Using helicopters and trucks, the company moved seventy-seven of its people to Musonie. From there, DC3s flew them to Kananga and safety. By 1512, the evacuation was over. Of the 233 Americans in Shaba, all but thirteen were out of danger. As for the unfortunates in Kolwezi, they could only hope that foreign troops were on the way. 109 The morning of the 17th, Andr6 Ross, the French ambassador, sat in his office holding another cable from the Belgian Consul in Lubumbashi. Intended for Brussels, the cable begged for an intervention within twenty four hours Otherwise, warned the Belgian, there would be massacres in Kolwezi. Ross transmitted the cable to Paris, praying it would force the Belgian government to act thus freeing the French authorities from their self-imposed inaction. I 10 67 But the period of French restraint was ending. At 0700, Colonel Gras received the authority for his Mirage instructor pilots to fly strike missions against the rebels. Heartened by the message, Gras called in his planning team to go over the results of their efforts." So the Americans passed, even though 13 US citizens were in danger. The Belgians stalled in this instance though they too had successfully intervened in the 60s in Zaire.

Next, is what happens after an intervention to protect miners. "Despite Belgium's business interests in Zaire and a desire to secure those investments, the government remembered the bitter lesson of the 1964 operation. More expatriates were killed after that intervention than before." (Odom, page 73). In spite of 13 Americans still needing help: "All in all, the crisis so far had worked to the Carter Administration's benefit by allowing it to conduct a relatively cheap display of determination." (page 74). The 82nd Airborne was readied but never committed. America provided logistical support, but no boots on the ground.

Admittedly, the USA provided much of Zaire's foreign aid, merely in the tens of millions back then. The rebels (Congolese National Liberation Front) were advised by Cubans and some thought that Cuban troops were involved. Here is the full thesis but fascinating history of US military history that on the surface certainly does show a "cheap display of determination," as well as cast serious doubt on how secure Ukraine would be with American's profiting off their minerals. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA211808.pdf

The main point though is there is no call to disparage the French military. These and other examples exist where France was a willing partner to put boots on the ground, which included assisting the safety and well-being of USA citizens. Missionaries to Africa are generally wise to know that often France is the nation that God may use to rescue them.

This occurred in Niger in 2023. "The first of three French planes sent to evacuate European nationals arrived back in Paris Tuesday night carrying more than 250 people, and an Italian plane, carrying Europeans along with 21 U.S. citizens, mainly from a Texas Christian group, landed in Rome early Wednesday morning." Source: Americans flee Niger with European evacuees a week after leader detained in what U.S. hasn't called a coup
France also led getting people out here, though the US did take out some embassy staff on their own.

 

[Vambram]

An F-35 with a switched-off access to the US information network or without a needed SW update is just an expensive piece of metal. And plenty of other fighter jets would be better in such case.

The F-35 is much more sophisticated and more powerful than you have described.

 

[Pommer]

The F-35 is much more sophisticated and more powerful than you have described.

When it ain’t broke. Yes.