3 ms·

One of the reasons that Trump wanted to break up NATO was specifically related to Germany's reliance on Russian gas: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-sum

One of the reasons that Trump wanted to break up NATO was specifically related to Germany's reliance on Russian gas: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-summit-pipeline/trump-lashes-germany-over-gas-pipeline-deal-calls-it-russias-captive-idUSKBN1K10VI https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-summit-pipeline/trum...

blitzar 5y ago
On one hand he wanted to "break up nato" and on the other he wanted nato to collectively spend 100s of billions every year to militarize. Broken clocks and politicians who take every side of every argument are right every so often.
- abalashov 5y ago
  Yeah, exactly. Trump's position on NATO was, as his position on damn near anything else, unintelligible gibberish. There was no constant except a pervasive affectation--colouring his rhetorical posture on everything he ever discussed--that the US was, in some ineffable but profound way, being "screwed".
- simulate-me 5y ago
  Those positions are not mutually exclusive. Rather, it's more of an ultimatum. "Spend more on our collective defense and reduce your dependence on our adversaries, or we'll no longer be allies."
BlueTemplar 5y ago
Huh, this is a surprising lack of pro-Russian pandering coming from Trump !
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  The only thing I can figure is that it was Tillerson's input as Secretary of State that Trump was passing along. Tillerson, being affiliated with US energy interests, may have wanted to encourage Germany to import more from us or our Middle Eastern allies. Trouble is, the summit took place in July 2018 and Tillerson was fired by Trump in March. (From Tillerson's Wikipedia article: "... Trump allegedly suggested a tenfold increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which would cost trillions and take centuries. These reports were denied by White House officials and by Trump after which individuals familiar with the meeting told journalists that Tillerson either called Trump a "moron" or a "fucking moron.") It's not clear why Pompeo would have pushed this particular agenda item, only that Trump likely didn't come up with it on his own.

blitzar 5y ago

On one hand he wanted to "break up nato" and on the other he wanted nato to collectively spend 100s of billions every year to militarize. Broken clocks and politicians who take every side of every argument are right every so often.

abalashov 5y ago
Yeah, exactly. Trump's position on NATO was, as his position on damn near anything else, unintelligible gibberish. There was no constant except a pervasive affectation--colouring his rhetorical posture on everything he ever discussed--that the US was, in some ineffable but profound way, being "screwed".
simulate-me 5y ago
Those positions are not mutually exclusive. Rather, it's more of an ultimatum. "Spend more on our collective defense and reduce your dependence on our adversaries, or we'll no longer be allies."

BlueTemplar 5y ago

Huh, this is a surprising lack of pro-Russian pandering coming from Trump !

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CamperBob2 5y ago
The only thing I can figure is that it was Tillerson's input as Secretary of State that Trump was passing along. Tillerson, being affiliated with US energy interests, may have wanted to encourage Germany to import more from us or our Middle Eastern allies. Trouble is, the summit took place in July 2018 and Tillerson was fired by Trump in March. (From Tillerson's Wikipedia article: "... Trump allegedly suggested a tenfold increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which would cost trillions and take centuries. These reports were denied by White House officials and by Trump after which individuals familiar with the meeting told journalists that Tillerson either called Trump a "moron" or a "fucking moron.") It's not clear why Pompeo would have pushed this particular agenda item, only that Trump likely didn't come up with it on his own.