NYTimes Admits "Trump Got From NATO Everything Obama Ever Asked For"

Did something get into the water at the New York Times? Because the latest from their Editorial Board - which "represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher," is entitled:

Trump Got From NATO Everything Obama Ever Asked For

It begins: 

Now that the smoke has cleared from the NATO summit meeting, the most tangible result is apparent: President Trump advanced President Barack Obama’s initiative to keep the allies on track to shoulder a more equitable share of NATO’s costs. Mr. Trump even signed on to a tough statement directed at Russia. For once he saw eye to eye with his predecessor. -New York Times

To be sure, the Times dings Trump for bruising a few EU egos (while making his Chief of Staff John Kelly cringe during a particularly blunt public excoriation of Germany), and they rebuke the President for suggesting the US might withdraw from NATO if military spending targets aren't met by member nations. At the end of the day, however, the New York Times just gave President Trump massive credit for achieving significant progress on a longstanding dispute over fairness and commitments.  

*  *  *

Trump Got From NATO Everything Obama Ever Asked For

But alliance members leave Brussels bruised and confused.

By The Editorial Board
The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section.

Now that the smoke has cleared from the NATO summit meeting, the most tangible result is apparent: President Trump advanced President Barack Obama’s initiative to keep the allies on track to shoulder a more equitable share of NATO’s costs. Mr. Trump even signed on to a tough statement directed at Russia. For once he saw eye to eye with his predecessor.

Yet whether Mr. Trump himself is clear about the strategy he’s pursuing, or whether he in fact has one, remains as mysterious as ever.

Mr. Obama persuaded NATO leaders to increase their military spending at a meeting in Wales in 2014, after a newly aggressive Russia invaded Ukraine. Back then, alliance members pledged to work toward raising spending levels to 2 percent of their gross domestic products by 2024. All 29 allies have begun to increase their military budgets in real terms, and two-thirds of them have plans to reach the 2 percent target by 2024. And they reaffirmed their “unwavering commitment” to these targets in the communiqué issued at the end of the two-day summit in Brussels this week.

Of course, two days of gratuitous and self-defeating Trump bombast and threats preceded this resolution.

The president publicly browbeat and insulted allies as deadbeats taking advantage of American generosity. He then raised the ante, demanding that they meet the 2 percent target — it’s a target, not some specific legal obligation — by January and then go on to raise spending to 4 percent of G.D.P. Why that much? What strategic objective, what threats to the alliance, is Mr. Trump worried about? He didn't say.

Since he came into office, Mr. Trump’s urging has gotten some allies to accelerate spending increases. The response to his latest remonstrations, though, was mainly  bafflement. Even after a military spending increase under President Trump, American military spending is only 3.2 percent of G.D.P. this year. What’s more, it’s expected to fall to 2.8 percent in 2024, leaving it unclear as to how even the United States would meet the 4 percent figure.

As Mr. Trump, and Mr. Obama before him, have argued, Europe can do more to help itself. The allies rely too heavily on the Americans to transport troops and equipment, for instance, and the fact that France ran out of bombs during the 2011 Libya operation demonstrated a crucial weakness. There may be other shortcomings, too — NATO is not transparent with its data.

Greater spending by American allies might mean the United States could lower its own spending and bring thousands of troops home. Mr. Trump didn’t make that argument, but he has often talked about withdrawing forces and closing bases, whether in Germany or Syria or somewhere else.

So would the president then push for cuts in the Pentagon budget, which now stands at roughly $700 billion, more than the next eight countries in the world spend together, and use it for, say, badly needed infrastructure? Don’t bet on it. Mr. Trump has relentlessly pushed for a bigger military, seemingly mesmerized by the flashy hardware and the show of hard power that it projects.

Even so, the spending metric is a narrow measure of what NATO needs to meet today’s challenges, and it may need to be discarded. One example is Denmark, which has made important contributions to alliance operations in Afghanistan and has sacrificed considerable trade with Russia because of sanctions — yet spends less than 2 percent of G.D.P., according to a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Other allies could better advance their own security, and NATO’s, by spending more to solve the migration crisis and other problems that have fanned nationalism and authoritarianism, and weakened democratic institutions, especially in Turkey, Hungary and Poland. This trend, encouraged insidiously by Russia, may be the biggest threat, eroding the alliance from within.

Such sensible discussions weren’t possible in Brussels, as allies were left instead with angst over Mr. Trump’s hint that he may withdraw from NATO if the military spending targets are not met. He said on Thursday that he could probably withdraw from NATO on his own authority.

This threat seems more in line with Mr. Trump’s broader interests. He has made clear that Russia’s attack on Ukraine and seizure of Crimea are of little matter to him. He’s spoken more warmly of President Vladimir Putin than of any ally, even disputing the Russian leader’s role in undermining the 2016 election.

For these reasons, it’s imperative that Congress, which has abdicated to Mr. Trump on many crucial issues,  pass immediately legislation prohibiting him from leaving NATO unilaterally. The Senate had to ratify the treaty when America created NATO, and it should block any move to destroy the alliance that has been an anchor of trans-Atlantic stability over seven decades.

Comments

macholatte monad Fri, 07/13/2018 - 09:14 Permalink

So in their mind, the Brown Clown deserves all the credit?

 

They are more sinister attempting to make Trump into Barry's nigger.

Next they will attempt to make Trump into Clinton's nigger because Clinton tried to get North Korea to denuclearize, but failed.

 

Just another NYT false narrative.  Another NYT fraud.

 

 

In reply to by monad

Klassenfeind Son of Loki Fri, 07/13/2018 - 10:09 Permalink

Let NATO go poof and then see how fast the US will be crawling back on it's knees...

Trump probably didn't get anything from NATO just like he didn't get anything from North Korea, but it seems that some of the left wing/liberal mainstream media are switching to a new tactic.

I get the impression that they switched from the old 'purely smear' tactics (usually reserved for politicians) to a tactic used on Hollywood celebrities: respect and glorification, only to pull the rug from underneath them at a later stage. In order for the smear/rug pulling tactics to work better and more effective, you first need to elevate the target so that subsequently they'll fall deeper and harder.

So far, Trump has been more or less immune to smear tactics, because 1) his supporters don't take left wing media serious anyway and 2) because they only report negatively about him. By luring the Trump voter back to the MSM by being more balanced and fair about Trump, the MSM  is setting Trump up for the fall.

Negative reporting can be easily dismissed by Trump and his supporters as "fake news," but what to do if that reporting is becoming more balanced?

Back to NATO.

NATO is an important extension for the US worldwide hegemony as the sole surviving superpower, a vital element to maintain that sole superpower status (i.e. prevent Russia from challenging the US), an important pillar for US dominance in the Middle East, and the 'enforcement' side (ask Gadaffi) of the US Dollar Reserve Currency Status.

Trump is too dumb to understand that, he's just a short-term thinking Yank who is looking to make 'a fast Buck.' One foot firmly planted in their (leased) private jet, the other foot firmly planted in bankruptcy court whilst simultaneously huffing and puffing loudly in order to inflate their image and their ego. That's the American Way: it's all 'fiat, fake and financed.'

Instead of dismantling NATO after the Cold War ended in the early 1990's, the Americans decided to expand NATO eastward. Remember the "not an inch East" promise made to Gorbachev?

Running a global empire costs money, so stop begging. You can't have your cake (a global empire + worldwide military dominance + USD reserve currency) and expect someone else to pay for it.

Instead of complaining and begging, perhaps start managing your own money in a better way? Stop running up debts, stop spending money you don't have, stop driving gas guzzling 've-hi-cles' requiring permanent wars in the Middle East, stop supporting Israel, and start to live within your means.

In reply to by Son of Loki

DingleBarryObummer IridiumRebel Fri, 07/13/2018 - 09:55 Permalink

Trump is spending 40% more on NATO than Obama.  And I'll get out ahead of the cheesy lame excuse====>

now that we're in the 4% growth range, our spending on NATO is going to jump

A. Those numbers all get revised downwards much later, but we are already onto the next fake number so no one notices

B. wages are going nowhere so joe six pack is still getting hit harder in the pocket for NATO (maybe Trump would like to tweet how the FED caused stagflation)

C. Making NATO as inefficient for other countries as it is for us is not a good deal for us

In reply to by IridiumRebel

Aussiekiwi Dickweed Wang Fri, 07/13/2018 - 10:04 Permalink

'He has made clear that Russia’s attack on Ukraine and seizure of Crimea are of little matter to him. '

I must have missed that invasion, I do remember a CIA backed uprising in the Ukraine designed to remove the pro Russian government and install their own Neo-Nazi government in its stead, something that has resulted in the GDP of the Ukraine dropping in half and a great deal of suffering for Ukrainians.

In the Crimea I remember a referendum in 2014 to join Russia with the following result :

Join Russian Federation 96.77% Restore 1992 constitution 2.51% Invalid votes 0.72% Voter turnout: 83.1%

Not exactly what you would call a 'seizure', more a case of democracy in action.

 

There is a documentary online of several young Americans who went to the Crimea to document the affects of the harsh invasion by Russia of the Crimea, the documentary ended up being about themselves and how deluded they were, bit of a red pill moment for them.

 

 

 

In reply to by Dickweed Wang

Terminaldude Dickweed Wang Fri, 07/13/2018 - 10:44 Permalink

Yes, it is BS.

Russia has had a naval base in the Crimea for over a hundred years.  No invasion what so ever.

The problem is the vast majority of people are fucking idiots and get their news and logic from MSN, CNN, MSNBC, etc. etc. etc..

Most Americans under 30 probably don't even have a clue where the Crimea or The Ukraine or for that matter Europe are.  And yet they are allowed to vote.   It is the same in Canada but to a somewhat less degree.   Most of us know where you are, but a lot of Americans don't even realize Canada is a country, not a northern state (ya ya I know, our Government is fucked with JT at the helm).   Hmmm.

In reply to by Dickweed Wang

Meat Bunny Terminaldude Fri, 07/13/2018 - 19:28 Permalink

Russia took Crimea away from the Turks fair and square back before my mama's mama was born. When the Ukraine SSR was in charge of Crimea in the late 50's until recently, the whole place was sliding into being a shit hole.

The Crimeans, who were slowly being drawn into the Ukrainian Civil War, being quite clever folk, chose to disassociate themselves from the Uke losers and retain their Russian heritage. The Ukrainians had to stop making trouble, got the hell out of Sevastapol and went home to cause trouble for ethnic Russians back in the Ukraine. A fair trade for everybody involved.

Except for the American trouble makers who brought down the original government and caused unnecessary bloodshed across the Ukraine.

And the reason it was always called "The" Ukraine is the same reason we call it "The West", "The" Great Lakes, "The" South. It was never really a nation to start with. Until the Americans decided to rebrand "The" Ukraine as "Ukraine." Think about how that name change happened a few years back without anybody actually mentioning it.

In reply to by Terminaldude

Mentaliusanything 07564111 Fri, 07/13/2018 - 08:24 Permalink

NYT can be the man it always was, as a woman. What! you no like change of fetish, you hate Queers and transvestites. Good me too, NYT is Pussy paper but stirred in clitoral region by strong man. Now in doubt of sexual identity. I think wants Pussy grabbed or even touched but need blue gloves attached just in case. Boris on Holiday in Crimea so Cousin write while do time for crime in Crimea.

In reply to by 07564111

tmosley 07564111 Fri, 07/13/2018 - 09:22 Permalink

Hahahahaha, the cucks have given up on "Trump won't serve out his term", now they are on to "Trump won't win reelection".

Thought Russia was supposed to sink some US ships? Give old Trump a black eye?

Did you update your worldview when that failed to happen? Of course not! If you did, you wouldn't be a loser!

In reply to by 07564111