3 ms·
> While the president publicly said that, his actions were different. Sure. Certainly no one ever accused the Trump administration of well-coordinated messagi
by ajross 3y ago
> While the president publicly said that, his actions were different.
Sure. Certainly no one ever accused the Trump administration of well-coordinated messaging and communications strategies. Nonetheless the fact that the president was personally constrained by the needs and conventions in the rest of his administration isn't much solace to an ally trying to figure out how much reliance to place on US assistance in the future.
The somewhat awkward truth is that a large portion of the republican political base at this point have turned inward and are deliberately hostile to organizations like NATO. That's not good, but it's not something to ignore just because the existing policy apparatus (the "deep state", if you will) is holding it in check for the moment.
- andsoitis 3y ago> The somewhat awkward truth is that a large portion of the republican political base at this point have turned inward and are deliberately hostile to organizations like NATO. According to Global Affairs, support for US commitment to NATO is at a 48-year high. Quoting from https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/support-us-commitment-nato-48-year-high https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/sup...: a) Eighty-one percent of Americans say the United States should maintain (62%) or increase (19%) its commitment to NATO, the highest level of support recorded since Chicago Council Surveys began in 1974. b) Support for maintaining or increasing the US commitment to NATO is bipartisan, with large majorities of Democrats (90%), Independents (78%), and Republicans (75%) in support. c) Bipartisan majorities support the admission of Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, and Georgia as new NATO members.