> Trump’s threats to leave NATO
Yeah, it's crazy to expect other countries to pay the agreed upon amount to support the organization.
Aside from that, why does NATO need to exist? Europe can fight their own battles, they have enough money.
Yeah, it's crazy to expect other countries to pay the agreed upon amount to support the organization.
Aside from that, why does NATO need to exist? Europe can fight their own battles, they have enough money.
> while the main adversary
How does this involve the US other than an antiquated alliance to stop the spread of the Soviet Union during the reconstruction period after WW2. That was 75 years ago, Europe can stand on it's own.
> war with Ukraine
I don't share that assessment. What happened was the democratically elected government was expelled by a paramilitary force, other portions of the Ukraine decided to not recognize the military coup, held elections to secede and join Russia. If you believe in democracy, those voting to secede and join Russia had the authority and justified reason to do so.
> targeting American soldiers in the Middle East
America seems to keep getting involved in all these fights. This doesn't really have much to do with NATO, though.
1: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/trumps-nato-criticism-is-val...
If you think that the vote in Crimea to join Russia was free and fair I have a bridge to sell you.
NATO is also about countering geopolitical adversaries, Russia is one of them. Russia paying Afghans to kill US soldiers anywhere in the world is part of the overall conflict.
Interestingly your isolationism doesn't extend to Russia. They can just invade countries by removing their patches from their uniforms. Ukraine wasn't occupied by paramilitary forces that just happened to have advanced military hardware, trained operatives and special forces that were regularly crossing the Russian border.
I'm all for free trade, but I'm against footing the bill for Europe's defense. You might not agree with this opinion, but it's a valid one. I should have a say where my tax money goes. I'd rather invest that money domestically than fighting the big bad wolf that perpetually pesters another continent. There's more non-Russian Europeans than there are Americans. Europe has the population and money required to fend for themselves at this point.
> Russia paying Afghans to kill US soldiers anywhere in the world is part of the overall conflict.
There's a handful of ways to solve this particular problem (if it's even a legitimate one, but for arguments sake, we'll say it is). We can destroy Russia, we can destroy Afghans, or we can not have US Soldiers places where they're likely to be targeted by these actors. I choose the 3rd option.
> Ukraine wasn't occupied by paramilitary forces that just happened to have advanced military hardware, trained operatives and special forces that were regularly crossing the Russian border.
What's interesting about this statement is it skips over the the first parts in a series of events. Importantly, the democratically elected government of the Ukraine was overthrown by military force (and, it just so happens, pro-Nato forces overthrew the goverment...). It also ignores the fact that the Ukraine's borders were drawn somewhat arbitrarily, and that the people in those areas have a right to self determination. NATO fired the first shot in the Ukraine and Russia elected to respond.
Complaining about US NATO spending when all the money goes to American defense contractors and the military budget keeps on rising is extremely peculiar. Europe benefiting from America subsidizing it's Red states is a positive externality.
Only Trump disputes Russian bounties, allies have been briefed as well and confirmed the intelligence.
You pivot from "paramilitary force" to admitting Russia "responded". Euromaidan wasn't a coup and the only sources I find are dubious Kremlin talking points disguised as "evidence". Though once again, you don't want the US in Afghanistan but Russia can invade Ukraine.
There was no pivot. I'm not sure if you kept up with the news at the time, but I followed the event quite closely when things were unfolding. I'm not sure how paramilitary forces storming the capital, the President fleeing the country, and the parliament voting in the "opposition" leaders that had previously met with John McCain and EU officials isn't a coup.
There was a lot of US-sponsored (and NATO sponsored) regime change during that era. Libya, Egypt, Syria (attempted), and the Ukraine.
> Complaining about US NATO spending when all the money goes to American defense contractors
I don't see how in any way this is an argument in defense of spending money on NATO. Decreasing military funding would be a net-positive for the US.