@@JoannDavi we're still bound by the treaty until the Senate terminates it. So withdrawing troops doesn't do anything at all except make it that much harder for us to meet our obligations to NATO.
Within 2 years Trump will be doing exactly what will feed his ego and his bank accounts and the likes of congress woulld just be a paper exercise to rubber stamp what he had dreamt up the night before. I hope I'm wrong but the man will be chaotic, contradictory, untrustworthy and an ex ally of the UK. Or natural causes might have rid the world of a moral pestilence and we will be fearing the unknown quantity of whomsoever takes over the dictatorship - Probably the man child Musk!
I think Trump's main concern is that most NATO countries aren't paying anywhere near their fair share, and if we are honest he has a good point here that will resonate well with the American people: nobody likes to be taken for a sucker. As long as other countries start pulling their weight I think Trump will keep the US in NATO.
Trump will keep the US in NATO, but just refuse to honour Article 5 if it is ever invoked, fatally disabling the entire Alliance thus rendering it useless. Since an American General is always Commander-in-Chief. He pulled US troops out of forward bases in Germany when he was President previously.
Let's not forget one teeny tiny fact. In the whole time of NATO's existence, only one country has come out begging for help from the others, and that was the USA after the appalling attacks on 9/11 on Trump's own turf. The help was given without question and a lot of non-US service personnel died as a result and no one whined about it, the dead were honored and that was it, the lives of NATO personnel were a good return on your investment. Trump's in Putin's pocket, if Trump wins the USA can't be relied on anymore, and yes Trump is a convicted criminal and conman and you are been taken for suckers. Just thought I'd mention it.
For 100 years no European country has repaid their war loans to America without, discount, offset, and delay. Add to that the incredible sacrifices of Americans as well as the expense of the Cold War, and it’s no wonder that the US is losing its tolerance for free-loaders and cowards in NATO. Perhaps the Europeans need to ask themselves, just why should the Americans continue to make sacrifices for people who casually threw away the peace dividend gifted to them? Because a thankless task for a thankless people has run its course no matter who is in the White House.
No! European countries were not given loans by the US to rebuild their countries! The Marshall Plan was a the only assistance given to Germany and Japan. Under the Marshall Plan the two countries had to agree to use US equipment, machinery, and other products. This of course created a massive boom in manufacturing for the US. Other European countries had to fund their own rebuilding. It should also be remembered that the US did not enter WW2 until Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941. Much of Europe had been overwhelmed by this time.
@ Incorrect. In WWI the US was lending money to every allied country in Europe, the same in WWII. In WWII, just where do you think Europeans got finance, equipment, transport, and weapons from? Sure Australia financed the Dutch and Canada helped finance Britain, but just where do you believe the rest of the money came from, for instance $500.0M in gold to the USSR? Britain repaid 10% of the cost of Lend-Lease, France paid nothing, the list goes on, but you seem to think that Europeans have repaid loans from two world wars, and that’s plainly false.
@@seanlander9321You are incorrect! Europe sought loans from other sources. The countries managed their own rebuilding. That's why millions migrated to Australia and the US. The conditions were appalling and many of the cities were little more than rubble. Australia in particular welcomed migrants from Italy, Greece, and many other European countries. You are trying to make out that Trump is rightly demanding money back from war torn Europe. You're wrong!
Putin is finished. He cannot win the war but if he loses he's done for hence his demand to keep the invaded territory in any peace deal. Ukraine will never accept giving up territory after all the many thousands of dead and injured who gave everything to drive the Russians off their land. Slava Ukraini. 🇺🇦
Canada's contribution in blood has been more than proportional. Her war fighters are top tier. Those two should never be undervalued. It definitely needs to spend more and fix it's procurement at the same time.
Before the U.S. granted the U.K. the Anglo-American Loan in 1945, thwy made sure Britain was stripped of its financial independence transferring all its gold to the US and forced a sell off of all valuable and overseas assets, including shares in American companies at cheap rates. Far from an act of kindness, America’s support was conditional... the U.K. had to deplete its resources before receiving any assistance, and even then, the loan was provided at interest, further indebting Britain. Rather than a generous gesture it was about securing U.S. economic leverage which was done with great success. They sued this leverage in the Suez Crisis.
The Anglo-American Loan, agreed in 1945, provided the U.K. with $3.75 billion (equivalent to about $57 billion today) at a 2% interest. Repayments began in 1950, but the U.K. was permitted to defer payments in 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968, and 1976. Even with these deferrals, interest continued to accrue, increasing the total repayment amount over time. The final payment, including accumulated interest, was made on December 29, 2006. The US did not favour's to the UK in its financial dealings and before lending the UK any money cleared out all the gold from its vaults etc.
Why would we want any other nation “shaking in their boots” when considering their relationship with our country? Wouldn’t it be better for them to count on integrity and honesty in dealing with us in hopes of developing a peaceful co-existence? Only a bully would promote putting fear in the hearts of others. And that is because bullies are weak and cowardly.
The CIA, the US Military, under the various US Presidents, for Economic reasons has been bullying other Countries for decades. For Decades the US has been interfering with the Governments of other Countries. either militarily or economically. to suit Washington aims.
Because there are some nations on the planet will only ever be impressed by that. Others may be able to discuss/debate/compromise others will treat you with disdain should you try what I would call the reasonable avenues first.
Finlandization was appeasing policy of Soviet Union decided by 2 Finnish presidents after the WW2 Paasikivi and especially Kekkonen, the policy was convenient for them to stay in power, Kekkonen was in power for 26 years. It was convenient for him to appease Soviet Union by tight contact with Soviet leaders while furthering Nordic policies and western type democracy, which he controlled by always playing the Soviet card and maintaining neutrality by reminding the disasters of 2 wars against them.
This, potentially, was a really interesting interview scenerio with two good minds bringing up relevant facts and issues. But the interviewer was, like some other Times journalists, an impediment. His questions went on for far too long and if you listen to Theo's waffle they could have been made much shorter, still making sense and getting to his point. The overuse of "you know" indicates a lack of skill as well. I thought journalists were supposed to be trained to ask succinct and precise questions. Also, interrupting the interviewees when they were answering was annoying. More of the interviewees, please, and less of the interviewer.
Who is the Trump appologist? Every one of the people he named as giving good advice either quit or were fired and now they are telling the public that Trump is a facist and a danger to the country. So if they give such great advice maybe we should be listening to them now, rather than the talking head you have on your show.
