Tag Archives: NATO

International news

Don’t go public with private concerns, Mr. POTUS

I feel the need to flesh out a bit a point I made briefly in an earlier blog post, but which seems to have gotten some traction among the various TV talking heads commenting on that particular point.

Donald J. Trump delivered a scolding lecture to fellow NATO heads of state and government about whether their countries are paying their fair share of the alliance’s defense.

I will ask again: Why couldn’t the president have delivered that message in private instead of standing in front the whole wide world and telling the NATO nations’ leaders about how “unfair” it is to saddle American taxpayers with such a burden?

Other presidents have griped about the cost of paying for NATO defense, but they’ve done so more discreetly. Then they would stand out front and declare solidarity with NATO. Trump did some of that the other day, but his message was diluted by the scolding he delivered about the price tag of providing for the defense of western Europe.

NATO nations certainly have stepped up in response to direct threats against member states, such as when 9/11 occurred. The president was good enough to acknowledge that NATO fighting personnel answered the call to fight the terrorist monsters who killed so many of our citizens on that terrible day.

But what we heard in Brussels was the rhetoric of a man who doesn’t know anything about diplomacy and how to use it effectively to achieve a common purpose.

International news

Trump started out well at NATO, then …

Donald J. Trump actually knows how to deliver the right message at the right moment.

Such as when the president spoke Thursday at the NATO summit in Brussels of the terrible tragedy that befell the United Kingdom in that massacre in Manchester, England. The president called for a moment of silence and told British Prime Minister Teresa May that the alliance stands foursquare behind her beleaguered nation.

Then, at about the 4:50 mark of this video, the president decided to scold members of our nation’s oldest alliance by reminding them that they need to “pay more” for their defense. And, by golly, he actually cited threats from Russia as a concern with which NATO must deal.

I could not help but notice the looks on the president’s fellow heads of state and government as he reminded them publicly that many member nations aren’t paying what they supposedly have pledged to pay for NATO’s defense. They looked at each other, they looked at their feet, a couple of them seemed to snicker.

I understand that Trump was elected in 2016 on the pledge to “put America first.” He spoke at the NATO meeting of the burden that American taxpayers are bearing  because of so-called deadbeats in Europe who aren’t shouldering their financial obligations.

I am left to wonder: Is that really how one talks to allies — in public?

International news

Trump shows bad manners at NATO

There’s no need to belabor this particular bit of news from the NATO summit in Brussels.

It’s still worth a mention.

Donald J. Trump was seen shoving aside Dusko Markovic, the prime minister of Montenegro, the newest member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Trump pushed Markovic away while seeking to be photographed along with other leaders.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-shoves-a-fellow-world-leader-at-nato/ar-BBBwCkm

Markovic reportedly seemed a bit surprised by the bull-in-china-shop approach from Trump. Then he smiled and patted the president on the back.

Hey, I get that the United States is the big dog. We’re the world’s greatest nation. But it brings to mind this question: Is this what Trump means by “putting America first”?

International news

Trump runs smack into long memories

Donald J. Trump has now met most of his European colleagues on their turf.

My understanding is that the leaders of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization weren’t exactly opening their arms in a warm embrace of the president of the United States.

They have long memories of the things he said while campaigning for the presidency.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-gets-frosty-greeting-from-eu-leaders/ar-BBBwFBZ?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump called NATO “obsolete,” but has taken it back; he demanded the NATO member nations pay more for their defense; he said he wants to tear up the climate change accord signed this past year in Paris, but now says he United States is still undecided.

I guess I ought to mention, too, that NATO doesn’t trust that big neighbor to its east, Russia, which Trump seems unable to criticize with quite the fervor he expends on the Islamic State and other enemies of the United States.

NATO, which sits at Russia’s front porch, isn’t so, um, tolerant of Vladimir Putin’s motives or the tactics he has employed.

U.S. intelligence agencies already have concluded his government interfered in our election this past year. The Russians have done the same in France and are doing it yet again in Germany. Every leader in Europe knows it; so do our intelligence analysts. The only significant person on Planet Earth who’s denying it — other than Putin and his minions — is the president of the United States.

Is it any wonder that NATO — meeting in Brussels, a city Trump once called a “hellhole” — would be less than chummy with Donald Trump?

Hey, Mr. President. These folks are our allies. They are our friends. They are posted on the front line of defense against Russia, which is neither an ally or a friend.

Trump simply shouldn’t have said what he did about NATO. He might not remember it, or understand the implications of his remarks, but his NATO colleagues damn sure do.

International news, military news

NATO never has been ‘obsolete,’ Mr. President

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization once was “obsolete.”

Now it’s relevant.

That’s the former and current view of the president of the United States. What changed? What did NATO do to regain its status as a dependable and valuable defense treaty?

Donald John Trump met today with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. The two men had a cordial and constructive meeting at the White House.

So here we are. The president who campaigned for office in 2016 while griping repeatedly about NATO’s obsolescence now says the organization is a partner in the fight against terrorism.

Will we learn from the president what changed his mind on this matter? Hardly. My guess is that even he doesn’t know, except that the secretary general told him that NATO matters.

Well, it does. It matters a lot.

The NATO alliance sits just west of its big and fearsome neighbor. I refer to Russia, which is governed by Vladimir Putin who — until just recently — seemed to be bound at the hip to Donald Trump. The bromance is fading quickly as the Trump administration starts turning the screws on Russia over its complicity in the Syrian civil war; oh, and Congress is starting to fire up the jets under Putin over his government’s role in seeking to “rig” the 2016 presidential election in Trump’s favor.

NATO matters

Yes, NATO came into being after World War II to deter potential aggression by the former Soviet Union. But in 1991, the Evil Empire disappeared, only to be replaced by another sinister governmental being. Russia has shown its aggressive self already, threatening Ukraine, retaking Crimea and blustering about re-conquering the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

NATO now comprises 28 nations. Its relevance is quite vital to the stability of Europe, which remains crucial to the national security interests of the United States of America.

If only we could get the president to stop yammering about how NATO must pay its “fair share” or else. It’s the “or else” that some of us find most troubling.

My curiosity persists, though. What did NATO do to regain its status as a partner in the struggle to maintain international equilibrium?

International news, national news

Now it’s the Germans feeling Trump’s wrath

Let’s see. How many more vital U.S. allies can the president of the United States anger?

He tells Mexico that it will pay for a wall across our nations’ shared border; Mexico says “no way, dude!”

Trump calls Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Trumbull and then berates him over his country’s immigration policy before hanging up on him.

The president first accuses his immediate predecessor of wiretapping his offices and then accuses the British intelligence agency of colluding with President Obama; the Brits denied it, angrily.

Now it’s the Germans, who Trump now says have to pay more for their participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Germany has rejected Trump’s demand. The Germans say they don’t owe a “debt” to NATO and won’t do what the U.S. president has suggested.

Meanwhile, the 45th president treats Russia with kid gloves; he calls Vladimir Putin a “strong leader” and says he wants to make nice with the Russians, who are doing all they can to make life miserable for the United States and our allies.

Who’s next for Trump? Maybe he can build a wall across our northern border to keep Americans from fleeing to Canada … and then demand the Canadians pay for it, too!

International news

What will it take for Trump to lash out at Putin?

Donald J. Trump is exhibiting a maddening — and frightening — refusal to issue tough talk to Vladimir Putin.

It is baffling to many of us in the extreme. Hell, it’s worse than that! It’s scaring the crap out of me.

Trump tears our allies a new one: the Australian prime minister; the president of Mexico come immediately to mind. The Aussies have died next to our guys on battlefields around the world. The Mexicans are a huge trading partner and we share a lengthy border with them.

The president puts NATO on notice: Pay up or we might not come to your defense if the Russians attack any one of you.

But yet, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies conclude unanimously that Russia sought to influence our election; Trump dismisses their findings. Commentator Bill O’Reilly reminds Trump that Putin “is a killer”; the president says the world has “lots of killers” and adds that the United States isn’t “so innocent.”

The president continues to refuse to release his tax returns so that Americans can see with whom and/or what he does business. Many of us are left to wonder: Does he have some kind of business relationship with Vlad? It’s a fair question, given Trump’s stubborn and, frankly, inexplicable reluctance to talk as tough to Putin as he does to our allies.

Dude, Putin is no friend of this country! He reportedly has ordered the murder of journalists in his country, yet you say the media here are the “enemy of the people”; Putin’s actions against media representatives demonstrates that he share that hideous view.

I’m basically venting at this point. I know Trump isn’t going to do something that little ol’ me wants him to do.

For the ever-lovin’ life of me, I cannot fathom why our president can’t muster up the anger against a guy who in a previous life was spook in chief for the Evil Empire.

International news, military news, national news, political news

NATO remains our premier alliance

formation-of-nato-hero-AB

Here’s a quick pop quiz question for you …

Of all the alliances that included the United States, which of them was deemed the most crucial and which of them has lasted the longest?

Time’s up!

The answer is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, formed in 1949 as the Cold War was reaching a fever pitch. It was formed as a defense alliance against the military threat posed by the Soviet Union and its bloc of nations against Western Europe.

Its mission has changed a bit since 1991, when the Evil Empire collapsed. The Soviet Union no longer poses a threat, but Russia does.

So, what does the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, propose to do? He wants to establish financial conditions on whether the United States would honor its treaty obligations in case Russia were to attack, say, any or all of the Baltic States.

Trump told the New York Times that if he’s elected president that he would examine whether a threatened NATO nation had upheld its financial responsibilities as part of the defense pact. I mention the Baltic States because they once were Soviet provinces, but they became independent as the Soviet Union fell; Russia has been making some noise about re-annexing Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, all of which are now NATO members.

With that statement, Trump has proposed a fundamental rewriting of our oldest post-World War II military alliance.

According to the New York Times: “The United States created the 28-nation alliance, and Article 5 of the NATO treaty, signed by President Truman, requires any member to come to the aid of another that NATO declares was attacked. It has been invoked only once: NATO pledged to defend the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

Yes, we’ve been a charter member of the United Nations, which was formed in 1945. I’m wondering if Trump — in stating his nationalist fervor — is going to propose we withdraw from the U.N. as a sop to the TEA Party faction with the GOP that has been supporting his presidential candidacy.

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012 called Russia the nation’s No. 1 geopolitical threat. Given that hindsight provides such clarity, Romney’s view now appears to be quite prescient.

Trump now is going to put conditions on whether we rise to the defense of a NATO member nation. Are they paying their bills? Have they made good on maintaining their financial obligations to NATO? Are we going to let the citizens of a country under attack be subjected to the tyranny that Russian rule would bring to them because their government hasn’t paid their fair share of the cost associated with NATO membership?

How many more examples is the GOP presidential nominee going to provide that demonstrate his absolute ignorance of geopolitical alliances before it sinks in that he is unfit for the office he seeks?

Great nations do not go back on their word to protect their allies.

International news

World appears to have gone mad

turkey

My head is about to do a 360-spin.

The world has gone stark-raving bonkers.

A terrorist plows a truck into a Bastille Day crowd in Nice, France, and kills 84 innocent victims before French police killed him on the spot. The world is thrown into utter grief, shock, mourning and heartache over this latest spasm of terrorist violence.

We’d just experienced the tragedy in Dallas, where five police officers died when a gunman opened fire on a Black Lives Matter march through the city’s downtown.

Now, tonight, Turkey is undergoing what now looks like a failed coup attempt seeking to topple the government of President Recep Tayyp Erdogan.

The president had been out of the country, then he returned to Turkey — apparently being greeted by cheering crowds upon his arrival.

As one commentator noted this evening, the coup seems to have failed because the insurgents didn’t capture or kill the president, didn’t take control of the media.

Erdogan now appears to be reasserting his authority in Turkey.

This is a huge deal.

Turkey is a member of NATO. It borders Syria and Iraq, which puts it at ground zero in our war against the Islamic State. We occupy Turkish air space while we launch air strikes against ISIS targets. We also rely on Turkey to lend its own considerable military support in this effort.

Now we have word of this coup attempt.

Erdogan hasn’t been the most reliable ally of ours. The Turks, though, pose a significant military threat to anyone who happens to be on the opposing side in a fight.

I’m still trying to process the consequences of a failed coup attempt in Ankara and whether it means any kind of significant change — or potential improvement — in Turkey’s ability to wage war against our common enemy … the Islamic State.

I’m almost afraid to go to sleep tonight out of fear that I’m going to wake up in the morning to find something else has overtaken the world’s attention.

International news, military news, national news, political news

Another key GOP thinker dumps Trump

brent

Brent Scowcroft isn’t a Republican In Name Only.

He’s been a solid GOP wise man for decades. He also served with distinction in the U.S. Air Force, earning three stars and retiring as a lieutenant general.

Scowcroft today endorsed Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the next president of the United States.

If you place much value in these endorsements, this is a big deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/brent-scowcroft-endorses-hillary-clinton-224677

Scowcroft served as national security adviser to two Republican presidents: Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. He knows war and he understands the value of international alliances.

That’s why he’s backing Clinton over her presumptive Republican rival, Donald J. Trump.

“Secretary Clinton shares my belief that America must remain the world’s indispensable leader,” Scowcroft said in a statement, touting her experience as secretary of state. “She understands that our leadership and engagement beyond our borders makes the world, and therefore the United States, more secure and prosperous. She appreciates that it is essential to maintain our strong military advantage, but that force must only be used as a last resort.”

Trump doesn’t get it.

He wants to build walls. He wants to remove the United States from its most important military/political alliance — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

That doesn’t make the world safe, let alone “secure and prosperous.”

I can hear some of my Republican/Trump supporter friends now. They’ll blow off Scowcroft’s endorsement as being “irrelevant.” They’ll laugh it off. Scowcroft’s a has-been, they’ll say.

No. He’s a distinguished American patriot.