What Trump and Tyler get wrong about NATO

Former (and future) President Trump recently encouraged Russia to invade Nato members that spent less than 2% of GDP on defense. Tyler Cowen didn’t endorse the specific words, but suggested that Trump was “basically correct” to pressure Nato members.

I believe that both Trump and Tyler misunderstand the role of Nato. The most important aspect of Nato is not the amount it spends on the military, rather its role is to provide a mutual defense pact so large that no nation would dare to attack even its tiniest members. In that regard, it’s a smashing success.

Consider the recent war in the Ukraine, where Russia has been stalemated for 2 years. To say that Ukraine is weaker than Nato would be an understatement. Nato has 31 members, many of which are individually richer and more powerful than Ukraine. As long as Nato sticks together, Russia would not dare to attack even a small member like Estonia. It makes essentially no difference whether Germany spends 1.4% or 2.0% of GDP on its military. Nato is ten times over impregnable, if it sticks together.

But will Nato stick together? Late in his first term, Trump told aides that he hoped to pull the US out of Nato in his second term. That’s why Putin desperately wants Trump to win the election. How do I know this? Putin is so desperate that just recently he endorsed Biden (knowing the endorsement would help Trump), which must have made Putin feel sick to his stomach. If (under a future President Trump) Putin starts to doubt that the US would defend Estonia, then he might seek to recreate the Soviet Empire, triggering World War III.

Nato is the world’s most powerful force for peace. It is essential that each country’s commitment to Nato remain rock solid. It’s not a negotiating tool to be used to get a foreign policy gain, or to save a bit on the US military budget. Too much is at stake.

And keep in mind that most of our military spending is unrelated to Nato. Even if Europe did not exist, we’d spend vast sums on nuclear weapons to deter Russia, and a navy to deter China. We’d also spend lots of money on things like bombers and fighter planes to use when we intervene in the Middle East. Maybe we’d spend a tad less than 3.5% of GDP, but without Europe our GDP would be much smaller.

Let’s not forget that America’s per capita GDP is much higher than almost all other Nato members (except Norway and Luxembourg.) It’s not unreasonable for us to spend a bit more, especially given how much of our current prosperity comes from abuse of “intellectual property rights” rules.

After 1500, Europe became the world’s most successful continent by stealing its more important technologies from China, with no compensation. In the 1800s, the US became the world’s greatest industrial power by stealing its technology from Britain, with no compensation. Now we demand that (poorer) foreign countries pay up any time they use an idea or product that looks even vaguely like something produced by one of our companies. America is the most successful extortionist in global history.

A signficant portion of native born Americans are lazy slobs who sit around enjoying the world’s highest standard of living, brought to them by immigrants like Elon Musk. They believe our politicians will preserve that high standard of living by shutting off trade and keeping those immigrants out. This is the group that is outraged that those devious foreigners are free riding on our great nation by not spending enough on defense. Sorry, I’m not buying the self pity. Americans are incredibly lucky people.

PS. I hope it’s obvious that only the first half of this post is directed at Tyler’s comments.



42 Responses to “What Trump and Tyler get wrong about NATO”

  1. Gravatar of dirk dirk
    19. February 2024 at 15:55

    Do you have any opinion on whether Xi prefers Trump or Biden? Do you think it matters? Can China, Russia, Iran or NK influence the outcome of the US election?

  2. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    19. February 2024 at 16:18

    Sadly, reason is in increasingly short supply. One would think the utility of NATO would be obvious, but that supposes many citizens actually pay attention to history or foreign affairs. NATO. and I’d argue, MAD, have helped create the longest period of peace in Europe in modern Statecraft at least, which dates back to 1648.

    I’m not a Constitutional lawyer, but it doesn’t seem right to me that a President can unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, given that the Senate must approve all treaties that are signed. That said, with this sort of treaty, the Commander in Chief has discretion over compliance, so this question may not matter that much.

    Biden can push to do some things that would be very controversial, but guarantee some help for Ukraine, even if he loses the election. For example, he can push to give the few hundred billion dollars in frozen Russian reserves to Ukraine. That won’t completely make up for any lack of arms provided by the US, but at least it will allow them to possibly buy arms and other supplies elsewhere.

    Another thing that can be done, and this will sound crazy, is to re-arm Ukraine with nuclear weapons, citing Russia’s failure to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and security, despite the agreement reached to convince Ukraine to give up nuclear weapons over 30 years ago. This could at least help preseve Ukraine’s independence, if not help return any lost territory.

    I think this should only be done after very careful thought and analysis, as it may lead to Russia and/or China perhaps trying to arm some anti-US Western Hemisphere countries with nuclear weapons. Or, it could lead to some other undesirable escalation. But, if we’re serious about defending Ukraine, we should take serious action.

    Another thing we can do is to consider direct involvement in the war, by using our naval and airforces to gain naval and air superiority to degrade Russia’s defensive lines in Ukraine. I’m sure this also seems crazy, and there are considerable risks, but we greatly outclass Russia militarily. Also, as soon as we’re at war with Russia, which I hope would be limited to the Ukraine theater, I think a lot of the pro-Putin, pro-Russia talk goes away and opponents of liberal democracy will be more clearly seen as the traitors that they are.

  3. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    19. February 2024 at 16:23

    By the way, just to pre-empt some statements of the obvious, I realize there’s some irony the US getting involved in the war and my point about NATO preserving peace. However, the idea is to fight a limited war now to prevent having to fight a much larger one in Europe at some point, and possibly one in East Asia also.

  4. Gravatar of David S David S
    19. February 2024 at 17:27

    The grotesque behavior of Mike Johnson and others in Congress makes Trump effectively a second president in the realm of foreign affairs.

    A bit of a qualifier to your comment about America’s theft of British industrial technology in the 1800’s—we stole it and then made it better.

  5. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    19. February 2024 at 17:45

    “After 1500, Europe became the world’s most successful continent by stealing its more important technologies from China…”I get your point that there was some uncompensated theft of Chinese IP several hundred years ago: paper, gunpowder, etc. But it seems quite a stretch to say Europe’s success was the result of these thefts. I doubt they explain why the Agricultural, Industrial and Scientific revolutions took place in Europe and not China, which, of course, also had these inventions having, well, invented them.
    That said, the US clearly benefitted greatly from pirated British technology in the 1800s. In short, I take your point, although I think you overstate it.
    Nevertheless, I am curious what you would propose as a proper US stance on Intellectual Property rights that promotes innovation without being “extortionary.”

  6. Gravatar of Bob Bob
    19. February 2024 at 19:07

    Most European countries aren’t big enough to make their defense expenses be just pork like in the US: No doubt a reason they are less interested in defense expenses. They would spend more if the US departed NATO, but they would also be far less happy letting the US have naval and air bases. A big loss for the US’ reach.

  7. Gravatar of Lizard Man Lizard Man
    19. February 2024 at 19:22

    I think that Cowen has a point.

    I would argue that the surest way to tell the actual strength of NATO is to look at how close Poland is to acquiring a nuclear arsenal. If NATO is really all that much of a deterrent, Poland wouldn’t have to worry about maintaining the ability to swiftly go nuclear to provide for its defense. Of Germany and Western European NATO members truly are reliable, committed allies, NATO should be strong enough to provide for the common defense of its members even without the participation of the US. Yet:


  8. Gravatar of Rob Rob
    19. February 2024 at 19:35

    Good post.

    I get a bit bemused with Americans seeming to demand strict ‘fairness’ in military/defence spending (speaking from a country not in NATO at all). The USA is a hegemon. This comes with costs (other countries can ‘free ride’ to an extent on America’s interests in maintaining tradelines etc). But then it also has enormous benefits that tend to be taken for granted–reserve currency, ability to attract immigrants, investment and companies, setting the lingua franca, international influence. What other western country could just invade Iraq because they wanted to, or implement something like FATCA (or as you say, promote international legal IP frameworks to their benefit). Not even saying if these policies are right or wrong, simply that by being a hegemon the USA gets flexibility that no other country gets.

    I get the impulse to complain about free-riding, and it’s probably good to pressure some NATO members to take their collective security more seriously. But it’s a bit like a country getting rich by hitting oil and then complaining about the ‘unfairness’ of Dutch disease.

  9. Gravatar of Sara Sara
    19. February 2024 at 23:30

    Trump was joking.

    You’re taking him out of context….again.

    He’s simply alluding to the fact that the United States foots most of the bill, gains very little benefit, and if Europe doesn’t pull its weight, then maybe we ought to stop paying. Then, the Big Bad Russia will invade.

    Everyone knows Putin isn’t going to attack NATO.
    The only people who actually believe in such nonsense, are suffering from babyboomer delusion.

    For the millionth time, tt’s not the USSR. It’s the republic of Russia, which employs capitalism as its mode of production.

    It’s only interest in Ukraine is to end a bloody civil war raging on its border. If Russia sends 100B to mexico to fuel a civil war raging on our border, how do you think that would look?

    Not too good. Well, it doesn’t look good when we sent 100B to corrupt Ukraine to fuel a civil war on Russia’s border. Of course, they have to get involved.

  10. Gravatar of Peter Peter
    20. February 2024 at 00:30

    Your post implies that we should care about a Soviet Empire or Europe, neither of which is objectively true. The EU is free to expand and create it’s own military to counter Russia, not our problem.

  11. Gravatar of Solon of the East Solon of the East
    20. February 2024 at 01:54


    “Tokyo bourse reclaims top spot for market capitalization in Asia”

    Tiny Japan, whose stock market cap is bigger than China’s.

    They are doing something right in Japan.

  12. Gravatar of Edward Edward
    20. February 2024 at 02:41


    Sumner equates Elon Musk to ten million immigrants pouring across the border.

    That’s terrible logic.

    Elon Musks father was a very wealthy man. The Musk family did not seek economic asylum. Elon didn’t show up at the border, demand a job, food, shelter and clothing on the taxpayer dime.

    Your comments about Americans being fat and lazy shows how out of touch you are. America has a lot of home grown entreprenuers. And many of the blue collar class work two jobs. Americans are some of the hardest workers in the world.

    Sumner goes on to describe America as having the ‘highest standard of living’, but we don’t have the highest standard of living.

    We have a mediocre standard of living. 70% of Americans have less than 1000 dollars in their bank account. Most are heavily indebted. Every industry is controlled by a few corporations who have consolidated and concentrated power. 90% of what you drink is owned by Pepsi or CocaCola. 90% of what you eat is brought to you by a handful of companies under the umbrella of Cargill and Nestle. Want to surf the net? You’ve got Google and Google. Want to access applications? No choice but google or Apple. Want to eat out? You’ve got a few big box stores to choose from. Want to shop for foods? Don’t dream of getting fresh food from a local farmer; you’ll have to go to a big box store. Want to buy a sim card, you’ll have to register a monthly plan with a thuggish monopoly who sells all of your data to centralized actors.

    Sumner equates nominal salaries to standard of living, which is the most idiotic measurement. But even if you use that measurement, America doesn’t have the highest nominal salary so that doesn’t support his claim.

    Standard of living is determined by real income, and America’s real income has been on the decline for decades. A simple blue collar job in the 1950’s could pay for a home, a car, the costs of raising three kids, discretionary money for the wife, and you could save for your future. Today, you need three jobs, and then while working three jobs you’ve got a paperpushing loser named Scott Sumner who calls you fat and lazy.

    People don’t mind high quality immigrants like Elon Musk, or the Indian engineer that gets sponsored by a tech company; they do wonder, however, why google won’t hire homeless black people in San Francisco, and instead opt for Indians. But at least they can understand why a highly coveted Indian engineer might be given a work visa.

    The idiots at the southern border, on the other hand, are not sponsored by anyone other than the cartel who gives them access to the border.

    That’s not the kind of immigration we want.

    Trump is right. Deport them. If you want to come here, then get sponsored by a company.

    I did it. It took me two years to get the visa, which was delayed by the POEA in the Philippines. But I got the visa. I didn’t show up at the border, and demand Americans give me things for free.

  13. Gravatar of Ricardo Ricardo
    20. February 2024 at 04:00

    Yes, let’s all increase density until we’re living side by side, elbow to elbow, like Southeast Asia because that’s going to really fix our obsesity problem.

    Every immigrant at our border is the next Elon Musk, Trump is Hitler, Putin is the reincarnation of the devil, and Xi Jinping is our master.

    I like the way Scott thinks. It’s pretty funny.

  14. Gravatar of steve steve
    20. February 2024 at 07:11

    “It’s only interest in Ukraine is to end a bloody civil war raging on its border. ”

    That’s funny. They can stop it anytime by leaving. This isn’t a civil war it is Russia attacking Ukraine. If you actually listen to Putin he makes that clear. He, and most Russians, dont believe that Ukraine has the right to exist as a separate entity. They are trying to reform their empire. Ukraine knows what that is like. In the 30s and 40s Russia killed millions of Ukrainians, deported millions and they stole thousands of their children. Now Russia is again stealing children and committing war crimes. Capitalsim? Crony capitalism at best. Note that countries which manage to leave the Russian sphere like the Baltics have better economies than Russia.


  15. Gravatar of John Hawkins John Hawkins
    20. February 2024 at 07:42

    You could have just called them deplorables, Scott

  16. Gravatar of Frank Frank
    20. February 2024 at 08:03

    I totally agree. Nato is about values, not fighting together, since it practically never has happened. As long as the member states’ democratic values are aligned then Nato is unchallengeable. It has nothing to do about money. Italy could quadruple its defense budget next year and the US wouldn’t be a tenth of a percent more secure. Trump and his antidemocratic supporters would just find some other part of the treaty that isn’t being held up to the letter and use it as an excuse to leave Nato. Basically, Nato was created to be a backstop for democratic western nations, and since Trump and his supporters are anti-democratic, they see it as a treat. Trump and his vote stealing, election denying, anti-democratic supporters are the biggest threat to our country.

  17. Gravatar of Junio Junio
    20. February 2024 at 08:40

    I haven’t thought about this entirely, but state actors exchange ‘power’ with each other as a way to achieve their self-interests in a presumably more efficient arrangement (NATO), otherwise there wouldn’t be participation. I’m curious if that exchange (effectively trading) follows a comparative advantage pattern. I imagine it would. The free rider complaint largely comes out of the growing nationalist sentiments that could indicate a renewal in the purpose or details about NATO more necessary as a way to handle that.

  18. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    20. February 2024 at 09:23

    Dirk, I don’t know.

    Michael, I don’t know why we haven’t already given Ukraine those Russian assets. What are we waiting for?

    David, Agreed.

    Carl, Agreed, but does anyone seriously think that China’s explosive growth since 1980 is due to theft of intellectual property?

    Lizard, Was Poland behaving that way before Trump threatened to pull out of Nato?

    Sara, “a bloody civil war”

    LOL, You will do anything to defend Putin. Have you no sense of shame?

    Frank, Good comment.

  19. Gravatar of Cameron Blank Cameron Blank
    20. February 2024 at 09:32

    Does anyone remember if these longwinded pro-Trump commenters showed up before or after chat GPT became big? Just curious.

  20. Gravatar of Sean Sean
    20. February 2024 at 11:00

    Europe isn’t poor and can defend their borders. The US is the backbone but the weak area in global defense is now Asia and it makes more sense for the big dog to focus on that area. Europe is rich enough to provide the security blanket themself in Europe.

    Its actually very debatable whether Europe without Poland has the resources to defend against Russia right now. They just don’t have the soldiers or equipment right now which is completely unacceptable.

  21. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    20. February 2024 at 11:13

    Cameron, They were here before GPT.

    Sean, This is the sort of comment that makes me want to ban people. If you aren’t even going to address any of the points I made in my post, why even bother responding?

    BTW, weren’t the experts that are telling us that Europe has a weak military the exact same experts who told us that Russia would easily defeat Ukraine in weeks? Why do you still trust those people?

  22. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    20. February 2024 at 11:28

    I agree that it isn’t due to intellectual property theft. I think it has to do with the liberalizations of the Chinese economy that began under Deng and a focus on education, especially technical education.
    And, if you do get time, I would love to hear your answer to my question: “what would you propose as a proper US stance on intellectual property rights that promotes innovation without being ‘extortionary.'”
    Regarding the main thrust of this blog post, I think you’re probably right about the NATO cost calculus, but I don’t think the opposition to NATO is about cost. At a time when the GOP is supporting deficits running in the trillions, I find it hard to believe that withdrawing from NATO is driven by any fiscal concern. I think it’s part war exhaustion and part anti-globalism, the latter being a bit ironic given that supporting NATO strongly right now would support the Ukrainians who are probably the best example of patriotism in the world right now.

  23. Gravatar of Sara Sara
    20. February 2024 at 12:23

    A very good illustration of Trump delusion was on display yesterday when Ed Krassenstein, a far left activist read online that Roman Sharf, a man who bought shoes from Trump was a “Russian CEO”. He presumably heard that from the NY Times, MSNBC, the Washington Post, and CNN all of whom ran stories with eerily identical titles, published within five minutes of each other.

    Krassentstein, like most leftists, simply believed the NY Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC and CNN. And like most leftists, he did not investigate further.

    Unfortunetly, for Ed and the left wing propaganda machine, it turns out that Roman Scharf is an American citizen, and a veteran of the U.S. armed services. And yes, he’s a CEO.

    At least, Ed apologized. No such apologizes or retractions were issued by the propaganda outlets.

    Sumner, consistently does the same thing. He reads the NY Times, CNN, the Washington Post and takes the information at Face Value. But unlike Ed, he doesn’t apologize. He just doubles down.

    It’s very disturbing, because it’s quite similar to the propaganda machine employed by Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China, which is to say that these regimes created a fictious enemy, and then used that to create a bubble of fear, justifying their emergency decrees.

    Take a look at our propaganda machine; we are told:

    1. Russians will secretly strike us with nuclear weapons from space. Give us more tax money to stop it.
    2. Impending doomsday for Europe unless they receive 100B, and unless we continue to fund Europe’s security through NATO.
    3. Navalny, Navalny, Navalny, Navalny, Navalny.
    4. Trump & Putin have a secret relationship. There is no evidence, but it’s true. Just believe us.
    5. We need to place Nuclear weapons in Europe to deter Putin.
    6. We need to expand NATO, despite saying we wouldn’t, because we have to deter Putin.
    7. An American CEO with a Russian sounding last name, who bought Trump shoes, is now a Russian citizen. You see, we were right about Trump all along. Believe us.

    24/7 coverage. 24/7 fear.
    Be afraid. Be very afraid. Give us more money.


    The uniparty mafia.

  24. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    20. February 2024 at 12:24

    Carl, I’d dramatically shorten the period of time that copyrights apply. I would also not use trade barriers to punish countries that violate our property rights law. A certain amount of piracy is inevitable and even beneficial.

    As far as the GOP, one would have to be blind not to notice that there’s substantial support for Putin among the right. I recall Putin’s name being chanted at a recent conservative conference, like he was some sort of hero. The right seems to love his defense of “traditional values” like homophobia.

  25. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    20. February 2024 at 12:55

    And, “globalism” may not have been the best choice of words. I was thinking globalism, wokeism, progressivism, leftism…, in short, a lot of the usual enemies of conservatism. I agree that a lot of members of the US right have gotten it in their heads that Putin is a defender of traditional values which I guess means that traditional values now include trying to reconstitute the Soviet Union to a certain number of our countrymen.

  26. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    20. February 2024 at 17:12


    Fortunately, it looks like the EU is heading in the direction of beginning to use the Russian frozen assets to help pay for the war, though only profits from them at this point.


    Hilariously, the Russians are threatening legal action if those assets are used to help Ukraine.


    Gotta love when a country threatens to use legal systems to protect themselves from the consequences of its lawless war.

  27. Gravatar of bill bill
    20. February 2024 at 20:23

    Another NATO benefit has been reduced nuclear proliferation. If the US leaves NATO, I think Poland will seek nukes.

  28. Gravatar of mbka mbka
    20. February 2024 at 20:38

    What Rob said.

    Plus: precisely because the US is a global hegemon, much of their military spending is not NATO related. It is disingenious to compare, say, Germany’s military spending, exclusively used in the NATO context, to US military spending, which it uses in a lot of wars that have nothing to do with NATO. As for example, ALL of the Pacific theater and much of Middle East and Asia. Only exception was Afghanistan because article 5 was invoked for 9/11. All the other trillion dollar wars of the past decades, Iraq, Syria, what have you, were exclusively US hobbies that had nothing to do with NATO.

  29. Gravatar of dtoh dtoh
    21. February 2024 at 00:22

    I think your hyperbole detectors are broken.

  30. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    21. February 2024 at 07:58

    All discussions of American whining aside, it is in the interest of the European countries to meet the GDP goals to convince Russia of their seriousness and to reduce their vulnerability to US domestic squabbles.

  31. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    21. February 2024 at 11:23


    Why is nuclear non-proliferation necessarily a good thing?

  32. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    21. February 2024 at 12:07

    Carl, Globalism is good. Nationalism has replaced communism as the greatest evil facing the world in the 21st century. It could lead to WWIII.

    Support globalism and oppose nationalism.

  33. Gravatar of Carl Carl
    21. February 2024 at 13:31

    I get that. Where I get wrapped around the axle is trying to figure out if the world looks more like it did before WWI or WWII. Is the greater risk for us over-extension and entanglement or isolationism and withdrawal? In the Middle East, it seems the former is the greater danger. In Ukraine, the latter. In Taiwan, a mix.

  34. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    21. February 2024 at 13:33

    Carl, That’s pretty much my view.

  35. Gravatar of Scott Sumner on Nato – Marginal REVOLUTION Scott Sumner on Nato - Marginal REVOLUTION
    21. February 2024 at 21:25

    […] titles his post What Tyler and Trump get wrong about NATO, […]

  36. Gravatar of Mark Bahner Mark Bahner
    21. February 2024 at 22:45

    “It makes essentially no difference whether Germany spends 1.4% or 2.0% of GDP on its military. Nato is ten times over impregnable, if it sticks together.”

    But that’s why it *does* make a difference whether Germany spends 1.4% or 2% of GDP on its military. It needs to spend 2% in order to keep NATO together. (Especially to keep the U.S. in NATO.)

  37. Gravatar of Michael Rulle Michael Rulle
    22. February 2024 at 09:41

    One of the most important points I learned in grad school at Columbia is the precise opposite of Scot’s pro NATO argument. I am pro NATO. But to guarantee war if one country attacks another was considered foolish. One should always leave an “out” while negotiating the situation. That is why I am glad we did not let Ukraine in NATO.

  38. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    22. February 2024 at 11:59

    Michael, Leaving an “out” makes war far more likely. That’s what Bush got wrong in 1990—and the result was a disaster.

  39. Gravatar of Callirhoe Callirhoe
    22. February 2024 at 12:23

    To whom should they have made out the check? Should we be getting a check for the “Green Revolution”? Or just sending out checks?

  40. Gravatar of Jim Glass Jim Glass
    22. February 2024 at 20:44

    “The most important aspect of Nato is not the amount it spends on the military, rather its role is to provide a mutual defense pact so large that no nation would dare to attack even its tiniest members. In that regard, it’s a smashing success. … Nato is ten times over impregnable, if it sticks together. But will Nato stick together?”

    This is all exactly true. Russia is tiny compared to NATO but BIG compared to the individual members of NATO. Putin wants to break up NATO so his “bargaining position” versus the members of NATO goes from small to *big*. His war plan (literally) is not to fight NATO, but to assault (perhaps with just very nasty threats of the violent type) a NATO member, in a way that calls for an Article 5 response (not war, but a serious response) and to have NATO decline to respond.

    E.g. he rolls his army up to the border of say Latvia and makes outrageous “or else” demands — exactly as he did at the border of Ukraine. Then Trump and Tyler and the Germans of 2022 go “nah, that’s not worth it to us”, Latvia goes overboard, Putin takes it over, NATO is broken, everybody has to look out for themselves from then on, Putin’s power rises hugely, Xi’s CCP is confirmed in its belief that the West is spineless and failing… We could be facing this situation right now if if Putin’s Ukrainian adventure had gone as planned. The Ukrainians are doing us the huge favor of spending their blood and what treasure they have to delay this from happening to us until we get our act together, if we do.

    Anders Puck Nielson, a Danish naval officer and strategist, explains in more detail: “NATO-Russia war: Can it really happen?”

    The nations closest to Russia who know Putin best are taking this very seriously. Denmark just gave 100% of its artillery to Ukraine.

  41. Gravatar of Eharding Eharding
    25. February 2024 at 09:51

    “That’s why Putin desperately wants Trump to win the election. How do I know this? Putin is so desperate that just recently he endorsed Biden (knowing the endorsement would help Trump), which must have made Putin feel sick to his stomach.”

    And yet Putin endorsed Trump at Helsinki in 2018. By your argument, he opposed Trump then.

    I think Putin supported Trump then and opposes Trump now, because I, unlike you, am a sane person. You can’t use contradictory pieces of evidence to argue for the same thing.

    BTW, you should read Michael Tracey as to why Putin now opposes Trump. Trump (unlike Obama) approved selling Ukraine weapons and (unlike Biden pre-SMO) supported sanctions on NordStream 2.

    BTW, if you want to learn about quantum mechanics, just sleep on your chin/ribcage.

  42. Gravatar of Eharding Eharding
    25. February 2024 at 10:08

    “As long as the member states’ democratic values are aligned then Nato is unchallengeable.”

    NATO includes Turkey, a country imprisoning ~40 journalists and occupying half of an E.U. member (and large parts of Syria).

    BTW, Musk, like many (though not most) immigrants in the U.S. is a pure scam artist. The U.S. would be better off without him.

    “Support globalism and oppose nationalism.”

    The poorer nations agree with you, which is why they have not tried to sanction Russia in the service of Ukrainian nationalism.

Leave a Reply