Trump’s 2018 warning to Europe and especially Germany
Trump made some prescient – although obvious – points back in 2018. He was speaking to the secretary of NATO:
TRUMP: We’re protecting Germany, we’re protecting France, we’re protecting everybody and yet we’re paying a lot of money to protect…
So we have to talk about the billions and billions that’s being paid to the country that we’re supposed to be protecting you against. Everybody’s talking about it all over the world. They’ll say wait a minute we’re supposed to be protecting you from Russia but why are you paying billions of dollars to Russia for energy? Why are countries in NATO, namely Germany having a large percentage of their energy needs paid to Russia and taken care of by Russia?
Now, if you look at it, Germany is a captive of Russia because they got rid of their coal plants, they got rid of their nuclear plants. They’re getting so much of the oil and gas from Russia. I think it’s something NATO has to look at.
I think it is very inappropriate. You and I agree it’s inappropriate. I don’t know what you can do about it now but it certainly doesn’t seem to make sense that they’ve paid billions of dollars to Russia and now we have to defend them against Russia…
…[H]ow can [NATO] be together when a country is getting its energy from the person you want protection against or from the group that you want protection?
STOLTENBERG: Because we understand that when we stand together, also in dealing with Russia, we are stronger. I think what we have seen is that —
TRUMP: No, you’re just making Russia richer. You’re not dealing with Russia. You’re making Russia richer.
STOLTENBERG: Well, I think that even during the Cold War, NATO Allies were trading with Russia, and then there have been disagreements about what kind of trade arrangements we should (inaudible).
TRUMP: I think trade is wonderful. I think energy is a whole different story. I think energy is a much different story than normal trade. And you have a country like Poland that won’t accept the gas. You take a look at some of the countries — they won’t accept it, because they don’t want to be captive to Russia. But Germany, as far as I’m concerned, is captive to Russia, because it’s getting so much of its energy from Russia. So we’re supposed to protect Germany, but they’re getting their energy from Russia. Explain that. And it can’t be explained — you know that.
Just another reason Russiagate was absurd on the face of it. And destructive.
Here’s the great French scientist Sadi Carnot, writing in 1824:
“To take away England’s steam engines to-day would amount to robbing her of her iron and coal, to drying up her sources of wealth, to ruining her means of prosperity and destroying her great power. The destruction of her shipping, commonly regarded as her source of strength, would perhaps be less disastrous for her.”
Applies to other forms of energy, as well. See my post Deliberate Disempowerment:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/67338.html
I see what security NATO gets out of US participation in it, but really not seeing what security the US gets out of it.
Europe is primarily threatened by Russia which has little capability (other than nuclear) to threaten the US homeland. Europe is more populous than and has a comparably-sized economy to the US, more than capable of defending themselves (especially seeing how Ukraine is going). And about the only reason the US would be in a position of being nuked by Russia would be if we joined Europe in a war against Russia. (Russia has yet to nuke anyone out of pure meanness.)
I don’t think American participation in military alliances is a good thing if they don’t materially improve our security. And I don’t think “but Hitler” is a valid argument. Not every dictator is a Hitler and not every war is WWII. Lot to say about how valid or not WWII is to our situation today (or ever) but too much for here.
While the world may or may not benefit from America trying to lead it and funding most of its security, I’m far from convinced America benefits in the sense of being more secure, more free, or richer. Maybe we benefit in some “national greatness” sense I don’t recognize.
I’ll be delighted to engage with constructive criticism that does not misstate my expressed views.
Don’t touch the tar baby. Markets, trade, … 🙂
NATO brought stability to Europe. Prior to 1950, major wars in Europe happened about every 2 generations and were becoming more common. European stability was important to the US, when the economy was “Western”. Now that the economy is more global, supposedly we can handle a Russo-Ukraine War, because we can just get goods elsewhere. And for the US, that’s mostly true, but not so much for NATO. So yeah, not sure if NATO is all that helpful for us. The argument during Trump was, “it can’t always be about us”. After Iraq and Afghanistan, I think that viewpoint has flipped across the political spectrum of left/right. I think Trump actually did the right thing, which was to point out Europe’s lack of commitment, demand better, but otherwise keep NATO together.
I promise this is relevant, but I told my now-ex-husband that the woman he was hanging out with one on one VERY frequently after work had a huge crush on him and was trying to break us up. She eventually admitted it to him…a year into their frequent hang outs. When I told him I had been right all along, his response was, “You were only right because you had a 50-5 chance of being right. She either liked me or she didn’t.”
I think this is how the left looks at things Trump was right about. “Well, he was only right because he had a 50-50 chance.”
I’d say the strongest argument for US commitment to NATO is the unpredictability of wars once they get started. The US had every intention of staying out of both world wars, and wound up heavily involved in both. A united and properly functioning NATO perhaps makes the outbreak of war less likely.
Mike Plaiss:
That is one of the points made by Cdr Salamander in his post yesterday about Finland and Sweden now considering joining NATO.
Great minds think alike? 🙂
Russiagate was in many respects a stupid ploy. It fell apart due to its own inconsistencies.
I actually think the swamp should have accepted Trump and got along with him for 4 or 8 years. They could have avoided exposing themselves. But their response made it obvious.
Om,
Because ‘Markets, trade’… have been so good for ordinary Americans.
NS,
Sounds like ‘good riddance’ to me.
And if not already, I hope there is a better man in your future!
Molly :Brown:
Because not having access to Europe or the ability to engage economically with Europe is a better thing? There was a thing called the Marshall Plan, and the Cold War? You do remember the history of the 20th century? Maybe not. There are books about it, or a thing called the interwebs, But everything stopped last year or 10 or 20 years ago?
Do tell.
In case anyone finds it useful:
The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them. The range is false because there may be other, unstated choices which would only serve to undermine the original argument.
I do think that in 1945 the US being in NATO made a lot of sense in terms of making America safer, freer and richer. I think it made a lot less sense in 1995, in terms of benefit to America. In 2022 it seems a liability. I see how lots of other countries are benefiting but I don’t pay taxes to them or otherwise owe them allegiance.
Right now is not the best time to get out, five years ago would have been better, and maybe five years from now will be better too. I think every European country that wants to stay free should join NATO, but I don’t think Americans derive any good from it and considerable risk and expense.
I think America should the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all, and the champion and vindicator only of her own.
There’s lots of ways to engage with the world that don’t involve the sinking of our blood and treasure in wars that don’t concern us.
Europe is primarily threatened by Russia which has little capability (other than nuclear) to threaten the US homeland. Europe is more populous than and has a comparably-sized economy to the US, more than capable of defending themselves (especially seeing how Ukraine is going). And about the only reason the US would be in a position of being nuked by Russia would be if we joined Europe in a war against Russia. (Russia has yet to nuke anyone out of pure meanness.)
Since the end of the Cold War the Russian threat was not considered to amount to much by Western Europe, hence why countries like Germany let their military shrink. Now Russia is clearly a threat, although one with a much less capable military then many assumed.
Why would we be in NATO? Well, if Russia did manage to take over Europe, the combined capabilities of the area under their control would be a threat to the US. Better to make sure they don’t attack NATO then to withdraw and wait until we are one of the last ones standing.
I do think that in 1945 the US being in NATO made a lot of sense in terms of making America safer, freer and richer. I think it made a lot less sense in 1995, in terms of benefit to America. In 2022 it seems a liability. I see how lots of other countries are benefiting but I don’t pay taxes to them or otherwise owe them allegiance.
Well in 2022 it is kinda like 1945. It is pretty much the same liability.
In 1995 NATO seemed rather unimportant, and perhaps that could have played out with good leadership in the West, but that’s not what happened.
Yeah those decisions not to fund NATO adequately from 1995 until 2008 and 2014 look pretty short sighted now. Especially since 2008 when Vlad got aggressive in Georgia. But Vlad calmed down after that, oh, he didn’t?
Yeah we should have left NATO in 2017 because Germany would have picked up the stick? That’s what is so fun about alternative history, you can spin the alternative past to support your current position.
@ Don > “I actually think the swamp should have accepted Trump and got along with him for 4 or 8 years. They could have avoided exposing themselves.”
I thought that through most of the early years (2016, 2017).
Their hostility to a man who had hitherto been largely on their side, and who didn’t have any vested hostility toward them personally until after the election, was not rational, to an outside observer.
Yes, if he tried to fulfill his campaign promises, he might impede their agenda briefly, but they managed to suborn prior GOP presidents without much trouble.
However, as time passed and we learned more about the depth and breadth of the corruption in DC,government agencies in general, and most politically-linked organizations (mostly Democrat, some Republican), it was inevitable that someday someone in Trump’s administration, who was not part of the insiders, would find out, or (if already cognizant) would blow the whistle.
Mike Rogers did the first, to a limited extent; Flynn had to axed because of the second being a high probability.
About those warnings back in 2018, when they might have done some good if acted on.
https://notthebee.com/article/opec-says-theres-no-way-it-can-make-up-for-the-loss-of-russian-oil-supplies-if-the-pipelines-close-up-
But all the experts told us that Trump was a clown that knew nuttin’.
@Don:Well, if Russia did manage to take over Europe
Bit like saying “if Mexico managed to take over North America”. Russia seems to be struggling pretty hard to take over a small part of Europe that they used to control, isn’t very strong or wealthy, some of whose citizens are fighting on the Russian side.
France and Germany alone have 150 M people and have an $8 trillion combined GDP. Compared to Russia’s 145 M and $4 trillion GDP. It’s very hard to see why Europe can’t be expected to handle Russia. Much less how Russia could possibly control Europe.
NATO was founded in 1949. 73 years ago I wasn’t around, but I’m pretty sure the decisions about whether it made sense to join and what it should be expected to do was based on the situation in 1949, not on the situation in 1876.
NATO minus the US is plenty strong enough to handle anything NATO was ever intended to handle. Right now the US is providing 75% of the military spending in exchange for what increased security? All we’re getting for the money is the chance to be either dragged into a war on another continent, or refuse to be dragged in and break faith with all that implies, or get nuked. Possibly more than one of these, because I don’t think right now anyone takes American willingness to back allies very seriously, and that could mean a war is more likely if we stay in NATO.
Like I said, I see what these other countries are getting out of it. Just don’t see what America is getting out of it. I don’t think it’s wrong for me as an American to take that perspective, that a collective security alliance we participate in should be something that we actually benefit from instead of being expected to provide the lion’s share of the money against an enemy who isn’t even able to fight us unless we actually go over and fight them.
If you can condense this, I’ll drop it on my liberal sisters during the Seder.
European freedom is primarily threatened by Brussels and the unelected people who have too much power in the EU. Much like freedom in the US is threated by the unelected people that have too much power in our government. Russia is a threat but short of nuclear weapons not a big one. It is more of a problem that the EU is cutting it’s own throat on fossil fuels and making themselves dependent on Russia primarily by actions of the EU Government.