TRUMP: "I will Encourage Russia to Attack non-paying NATO Members"

[LadyTevar]

BBC NEWS

Trump says he would 'encourage' Russia to attack Nato allies who do not pay their bills

Donald Trump has said he would "encourage" Russia to attack any Nato member that fails to pay its bills as part of the Western military alliance.

At a rally on Saturday, he said he had once told a leader he would not protect a nation behind on its payments, and would "encourage" the aggressors to "do whatever the hell they want".
Members of Nato commit to defend any nation in the bloc that gets attacked.

The White House called the comments "appalling and unhinged".

Nato chief Jens Stoltenberg said any suggestion that "allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security", putting soldiers from Nato countries at risk.
Addressing crowds during the rally in South Carolina, Mr Trump said he had made his comments about Russia during a meeting of leaders of Nato countries.
He recalled that the leader of a "big country" had presented a hypothetical situation in which he was not meeting his financial obligations within Nato and had come under attack from Moscow.
Mr Trump said the leader had asked if the US would come to his country's aid in that scenario, which prompted him to issue a rebuke.
"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.'"

A White House spokesman said the former president was "encouraging invasions of our closest allies by murderous regimes" and labelled the comments "appalling and unhinged".
He added that the statement "endangers American national security, global stability and our economy at home".
In a statement responding to Mr Trump's comment on Sunday, Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said: "Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk.
"I expect that regardless of who wins the presidential election, the US will remain a strong and committed Nato ally."

Mr Trump, the favourite to run again as the Republican candidate in this year's US presidential election, has long been critical of Nato and what he sees as an excessive financial burden on the United States to guarantee the defence of 30 other nations.
Dr Patrick Bury, a defence and security expert and former Nato analyst, told the BBC that Mr Trump was reflecting anger in the US that some European Nato countries were not spending 2% of their budget on the military, as Nato wants.
"Playing hardball with Nato allies is correct, but it all depends on how far you go. These comments are too far, really," he said.
But he said such statements had an impact at a time when Russia had put its economy onto a war footing and its military spending was outstripping that of European countries.
"If Trump is in the White House and there was a split in Nato either over Ukraine... or about how it would respond to a small incursion that should in theory trigger article five. That's where the Nato alliance is worried are these what-ifs," he said.

Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, after Mr Trump left office. He has since bemoaned the amount of US money sent to Ukraine, which is not a Nato member.
The US has provided Ukraine with more financial support than any other country - totalling more than $44bn (£34bn) since the 2022 invasion, according to White House figures from December.
However, Republicans in Congress have since the turn of the year blocked all new funding - demanding tough measures to restrict migration into the US on its southern border, and then refusing the amended bill when it was presented earlier this week.
Mr Trump celebrated that rejection during Saturday's rally, saying the proposals made by President Biden had been "disastrous".
The two issues have now been successfully separated, meaning that senators are now able to debate the aid money separately.

COMING FROM TRUMP, Who everyone knows doesn't even pay his lawyers, THIS IS RICH.
It's also completely unhinged, and terrifying.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Trump, being Trump, would actually HELP Putin take over Ukraine.

[Broomstick]

Well, yeah - Trump is still pissed Zelenskyy didn't give him dirt on Biden so the orange jackass will take it out on an entire country.

[Batman]

Trump would burn down the ENTIRE WORLD if he doesn't get everything he wants-which includes everybody ignoring the facts that he is utterly ignorant about essentially everything, utterly incompetent at essentially everything, ugly, overweight and going senile.

[Gandalf]

Trump's foreign policy, especially in the 2024 run, is like bad forum posts. It's like people who respond to criticism of the US by attacking the country of the person who makes the criticism

There was a pundit on fivethirtyeight (I think) who posited that in 2016 Trump said what he wanted, and the crowds came. Now he's chasing what he thinks the crowds in front of him want.

[Batman]

You telling me I'm wrong on any of those?

[Gandalf]

You telling me I'm wrong on any of those?

My post wasn't referring to yours in any way.

[Batman]

Then I apologize and shall be on my way.

[wautd]

It's bad enough for Trump and his MAGA cult to throw the security of the USA and its allies under to bus, but to encourage Putin to start more conflicts against America's allies in something else entirely

[bilateralrope]

Is he trying to be the first president executed for treason ?

[Ralin]

Is he trying to be the first president executed for treason ?

How?

There's no law against having a shitty or controversial opinion on what US foreign policy should be. In fact that's very much the sort of thing a president/presidential candidate is expected to weigh in on.

I remind you that the United States is not and never has been at war with the Russian Federation. And that is one of the constitutional requirements for something to qualify as treason.

[bilateralrope]

Is he trying to be the first president executed for treason ?

How?

There's no law against having a shitty or controversial opinion on what US foreign policy should be. In fact that's very much the sort of thing a president/presidential candidate is expected to weigh in on.

I remind you that the United States is not and never has been at war with the Russian Federation. And that is one of the constitutional requirements for something to qualify as treason.

If Russia attacks a NATO member, doesn't that pull the US into war with Russia ?

At which point, all Trump would need to do is refuse to authorize US forces to aid NATO.

[Ralin]

If Russia attacks a NATO member, doesn't that pull the US into war with Russia ?

Legally the US isn't at war unless Congress votes to declare war.

A lot of the time that's thrown up as stupid verbal hairsplitting in a "The US never declared war on North Vietnam, therefore it wasn't a war and we didn't lose!" way. But it is relevant when talking about the prospect of charging someone with treason, a constitutionally defined crime.

[bilateralrope]

If Russia attacks a NATO member, doesn't that pull the US into war with Russia ?

Legally the US isn't at war unless Congress votes to declare war.

A lot of the time that's thrown up as stupid verbal hairsplitting in a "The US never declared war on North Vietnam, therefore it wasn't a war and we didn't lose!" way. But it is relevant when talking about the prospect of charging someone with treason, a constitutionally defined crime.

So it's Congress who gets to make the decision, not Trump. That could get interesting.

[Tribble]

If Russia attacks a NATO member, doesn't that pull the US into war with Russia ?

Legally the US isn't at war unless Congress votes to declare war.

A lot of the time that's thrown up as stupid verbal hairsplitting in a "The US never declared war on North Vietnam, therefore it wasn't a war and we didn't lose!" way. But it is relevant when talking about the prospect of charging someone with treason, a constitutionally defined crime.

So it's Congress who gets to make the decision, not Trump. That could get interesting.

I don’t think Donald “I will be a dictator for one day” Trump cares all that much about the constitution. He’s made it clear that once in office he’ll try to do whatever he wants, including jailing and/or killing his enemies in “retribution “. Project 2025 would certainly come into play to try and ensure that happens.

And constitutionality may be a moot point if Congress goes majority Republican Nazi after the next election.

[Ralin]

And it's not like there's much precedent for Congress dictating how the Commander-in-Chief has to handle a war they've declared (which they haven't done since World War II).

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Hopefully the Democrat party have enough of a clue to to use things like this against Trump.

[LadyTevar]

Hopefully the Democrat party have enough of a clue to to use things like this against Trump.

I don't think anyone's really sure what to do with something like this. It's just too WhatTHEUnholyFUCK.

[Gandalf]

If Russia attacks a NATO member, doesn't that pull the US into war with Russia ?

No. The chain of events is that after an attack on a NATO member in NATOland, the members come together to determine if they should invoke Article 5. If they deem it so, then the individual countries declare war.

At which point, all Trump would need to do is refuse to authorize US forces to aid NATO.

That sort of tracks, since the president commands the armed forces. But if the legislature has declared war, not deploying the armed forces may be I'll advised.

[Ralin]

This is on the "not planned for because it would be incredibly stupid" list. And also the legal basis for the president's authority over how to use the military evolved in an ad hoc way over time.

Moot point because Congress isn't likely to declare war on Russia anytime soon.

[Zaune]

All this rests on the assumption that Congress will vote any way but how Trump tells them to vote.

[Tribble]

All this rests on the assumption that Congress will vote any way but how Trump tells them to vote.

Ya, fat chance of that happening when he is in charge. Just about the only thing which might be disobeyed is if he ordered outright invasions and/or nuclear strikes on NATO members. Which is why Project 2025 exists - to purge all military and civil leaders and replace them with people who will obey all Trump's orders without question.

In Trump's ideal America, if you refuse to set a baby on fire and eat it on live televsion when he tells you to, you deserve to go to jail. If you're lucky.