Jump to content

Papa Putin, Trump, Montenegro, NATO, WW3.


Recommended Posts

Quote

Trump did not bring up Montenegro himself. It was used as an example by Tucker Carlson during an interview on Fox News.

 

"Membership in NATO obligates the members to defend any other member that's attacked," Carlson said. "So let’s say Montenegro, which joined last year, is attacked. Why should my son go to Montenegro to defend it from attack?"


Trump answered: "I understand what you're saying. I've asked the same question. Montenegro is a tiny country with very strong people. … They're very aggressive people. They may get aggressive, and congratulations you're in World War III."

 

Quote

By saying that he had "asked the same question" why Americans troops should be asked to defend their allies, Trump was challenging the entire point of NATO.


Article 5 of its founding treaty states that an attack on one member "shall be considered an attack against them all" and is at the "very heart" of the organization. It doesn't specifically mandate allies respond with force but that's the spirit in which many see it.

 

The only time Article 5 was invoked was on behalf of the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

 

It's not the first time Trump has questioned the principle of mutual defense. During his presidential campaign he told The New York Times that his willingness to protect smaller states from Russia was conditional on their defense spending. He was also slow to commit to Article 5 once in office.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-calls-out-very-aggressive-montenegro-latest-nato-jibe-n892311

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s fine to question whether specific mutual defense agreements are in the best interest of your nation. It makes sense to sign mutual defense agreements with nations where we share strong economic ties and that have a relatively low likelihood of being involved in a conflict.

 

Obviously there are more issues than that underneath this particular questioning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I think it’s fine to question whether specific mutual defense agreements are in the best interest of your nation. It makes sense to sign mutual defense agreements with nations where we share strong economic ties and that have a relatively low likelihood of being involved in a conflict.

 

Obviously there are more issues than that underneath this particular questioning.

In this particular case, the Senate voted 97-2 to accept them into NATO, and Trump himself signed the Senate ratification of their accession into NATO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I think it’s fine to question whether specific mutual defense agreements are in the best interest of your nation. It makes sense to sign mutual defense agreements with nations where we share strong economic ties and that have a relatively low likelihood of being involved in a conflict.

 

Obviously there are more issues than that underneath this particular questioning.

 

*Assuming a rational actor is at the helm should be at the end of almost every post we all make. :p 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...