Trump Redux: The Death of Democracy, or Overblown Hyperbole?

[Buck_Mulligan]

I wouldn't disagree with that, but I also didn't say they were forced nor does it negate the point that NATO functions like a protection racket that primarily advanced US interests. Both can be true. In Trump's first term, he made a big stink to shake down member countries if they weren't paying up the 2% GDP thing (https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/25/politics/trump-nato-financial-payments/index.html). Obama did similar things, just far less brashly and not in public. No other country in NATO does this because everyone knows who is really steering that ship lol. Aligned interests between NATO and member countries is a given, but it's still sort of signing a deal with the devil.

There's nothing unreasonable about a US Prez, or anyone else asking countries to meet the obligations they committed to.
NATO adopted the 2% threshold in 2014 after the invasion of Crimea. In 2023 only 10 of 31 had reached it. It's expected in 2024 that 23 will have hit it. And now it's going to have to be raised further.

[Buck_Mulligan]

@Auroras In Ice @Lisnaholic 

I'd be interested to hear what tore or other Europeans or Brits think about the European attitude towards NATO over the years, cause it's not like I have much direct reference to that memory. I was more aware of the American conversation,  but even in America there were critics of US empire on the left who regarded NATO basically as a counterproductive relic of the cold war that had lost its original mandate when the Soviet Union collapsed, yet persisted anyway because the true purpose was to pursue and protect the strategic interests of the United States.

But Russia itself shattered the illusion that it is less belligerent than the Soviet Union was, and as such it provided the strongest possible counter argument to the idea that NATO had become obsolete. 

Now, with the 2nd Trump admin, it's not so much obsolete as it is in shambles.  And yeah Lisna I honestly stand by what I said.  It's an American centric view because as Ori pointed out,  NATO has always been a US centric alliance.  Not that whatever new arrangement that emerges between Europe and Canada couldn't still call itself NATO.  But it certainly wouldn't be the same alliance that it has been historically.

Especially since without the US on side,  you not only lose military cornerstone of the alliance,  you then potentially have to treat the most powerful country in the world as a potential hostile threat that you have to manage. That's a twighlight zone version of NATO if I ever heard of one.

I've lived my first 30+ years in Europe, and 2nd 30+ in the US. EU has a schizophrenic attitude toward the US.

For as long as I can remember the EU activist left has had a condescending attitude toward the US, focusing only on perceived grievances, and ignoring benefits, while also opposing military spending by their own governments. The left is a much stronger political force in EU than in the US, consequently governments of all stripes have to pay attention. 

OTOH, every time the US suggested reducing its presence in EU, the political class usually raised their voice in protest. What about the revenue we'll lose?

If Trump scares the EU into spending money, he'll have done a good day's work. EU has been living in an unsustainable dreamland for too long. Angela Merkel was fond of pointing out that EU has 5% of global population, 25% of global GDP, and 50% of global social spending. Add to that shorter work weeks, and less productivity per hour worked and you have a disaster in the making.

[Auroras In Ice]

There's nothing unreasonable about a US Prez, or anyone else asking countries to meet the obligations they committed to.
NATO adopted the 2% threshold in 2014 after the invasion of Crimea. In 2023 only 10 of 31 had reached it. It's expected in 2024 that 23 will have hit it. And now it's going to have to be raised further.

I'm probably in the minority of leftist opinion that NATO was a necessary evil and that we should have dedicated more to defense (offset the spending by cutting corporate subsidies, taxing the shit out of billionaires, and investing that back in social programs, etc. etc. etc.), though the way in which the Trump admin is behaving from a Canadian POV makes me question the point of being in NATO when the main player of the alliance is pivoting to become an existential threat. When you take the necessary part out of "necessary evil" what do you have left? Again, we have very very few of our own adversaries other than ones we've adopted from backing the US, so what's left to gain from it? Things for the EU are obviously more complex.

Anyhow, looking pretty grim for NATO. Why Musk is sticking his pecker into this issue is beyond me, but I guess he just runs everything now lol. Wish he would fucking di.... spend more time taking care of his kids.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/world-news/nato-final-days-trump-ukraine/

Taking a step back, it's kinda neat how conservatives and leftists actually have a very similar understanding of how NATO operates in terms of realpolitik it's just that one group says "ew gross" and the other says "hell yeah"    Breaking through the idealistic liberal view of NATO is the tricky part.

[Lisnaholic]

It's not "me and Trudeau", it's the entire country hence why we've had an absolutely massive and rapid political inversion since Trump took office again and plenty of international recognition of the threat with a lot of interaction with allies to figure out ways to shore up defense against US threats. We have a big election coming up, and this is the top issue across the entire political spectrum from left to right. Our next PM will likely be chosen on the basis of who will be most aggressively defiant and even hostile to the leader of our closest ally. That's fucked up. Even if this amounts to little in terms of Trump's intended outcome, the very threat of annexation from a US president is not a trivial thing and is a significantly coercive tactic against a fiercely loyal ally. Not to mention, Canada/US relations are already permanently damaged from this. When you handwave away the 51st state thing which you may very well turn out to be right on, you are trivializing a huge amount of damage that has already been done to this relationship.

I wouldn't read too much into my light-hearted phrase "you and Trudeau". I mentioned you both simply because you were both there on the forum page in front of me.
I am aware that even just talk of "51st state", and 25% tariffs, has had an immediate negative effect on the Canadian economy, and has -quite rightly- been making Canadians furious. I didn't mean to trivialize any of that when I said that the literal 51st state thing was not going to happen.

[Jwb]

With regard to the protection racket analogy and NATO, I would point out that my understanding is a protection racket basically just intimidates businesses into extortion money through direct threats and violence.

In other words you pay them,  or they personally come assault you and/or bust up your shop. It's not just giving them the option to pay for protection from other gangs. That wouldn't even be extortion in my eyes.  That's just hiring private security.

I say this not to be pedantic but because I think that distinction is crucial. What's more, the pressure the US applies to other NATO members regarding defense is for them to beef up their defense spending.  So it's not like they're saying to be part of NATO you have to pay the US a certain % of their GDP. Rather they have to invest that into their own defense.  There's really no extortion there in my eyes.

Now,  of course in reality a lot of that money in fact ends up going to the US based arms industry, because when European countries up their defense spending,  they often do so by purchasing American weapons. And often they buy American weapons not even because the weapons themselves are necessary for their defense,  but in exchange for security guarantees from the US.

So it's not like there's not also financial motivations for the US to favor this set up. But intuitively I also tend to think that dynamic was also useful for some European countries who would rather just outsource their defense to the US which then frees them up to focus on domestic affairs. I think they simply followed the path of least resistance.  But theoretically they were capable of doing otherwise.

That being said, what does look a lot more like classical extortion is Trump trying to strong arm Ukraine into some minerals deal, using their dependence on our military aid and support to basically make them an offer they can't refuse.  Trump knows they really have no cards, as he kept repeating,  which is why they have to entertain his naked attempts at extortion and continue to try to work with him.

[Weekender]

Nations act in their own self-interest, but American dominance is in Europe's interest as long as it maintains their trade advantage over the developing world.

[Buck_Mulligan]

Nations act in their own self-interest, but American dominance is in Europe's interest as long as it maintains their trade advantage over the developing world.

I wouldn't dispute that US dominance is in Europe's interest, but the current difficulties have nought to do with the developing world, and because of Trump and only Trump, Europe is now having to face the reality that they may not be able to rely on the US.

[Trollheart]

As far as protection rackets go, I agree with @Jwb : my experience of that (from TV and movies) is someone opens a store, or a gang move into the area. Said gang visit said store owner. "Nice place ya got here. Oops!" Something valuable is broken. The implication is made that should said owner not pay them, these people or their associates will come back and make sure more stuff is broken, possibly also bones. My understanding is that they pay for protection from the people who are asking it, a circular argument really: you pay us so we don't have to hurt you. We don't have to hurt you, and you don't need to pay us, but if you don't pay us then we will hurt you. Who's gonna stop us? We will, provided you pay. Otherwise, who knows what we might do? We both know, and that's why you'll pay.

[Weekender]

Sure, I'm just responding to the idea that NATO is a racket. Western Europe has an interest in maintaining the current world order as it is. It is true that if the US doesn't fulfill their duty as the enforcer, it presents a problem for Europe.

[Weekender]

Also the notion that the EU is somehow getting one over on the US is shortsighted. The US enjoys strategic privileges in exchange for fronting the costs.

This agreement is understood by basically everyone in any position of power, well... everyone except Trump I guess.

[Auroras In Ice]

I do get the distinction, and it's fair enough, but it's also a distinction without a difference in terms of the intent and outcome of the racket. You pay up/comply with the demands, or you get harmed. Whether the harm comes directly from blowing your brains out or indirectly by unlocking a door open for the killer to walk in and blow your brains out instead, the intent and outcome are the same from the party offering the "protection". You do as they wish or you get hurt. More than one way to crack that egg.

This analogy as applied to NATO is also not uncommon or new, particularly as directed to Trump's approach to NATO since his first term. He's pushed things via direct means tying NATO payments to his threats of US tariffs to NATO members (https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/01/23/trump-at-davos-nato-5-push-tariff-warnings-for-europe) and also indirectly through basically saying "be a shame if we just let Putin have his way with you broke fucks" (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/trump-rally-nato/677426/). Criticizing Trump for treating NATO as a protection racket was also a common line of attack from Biden (other world leaders, too) and Michael McFaul (https://michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/trump-does-not-understand-or-value). If the means Trump is using to enforce NATO payment doesn't meet your standard of coercion and seems appropriate, cool let's discuss that. If using this analogy is going to bog down discussion, I'll use other terms moving on.

That said, my overall point is that the underlying power dynamic of how Trump thinks of NATO, using whatever terms you want to describe it, is actually an accurate reflection of how the alliance has always functioned in reality. He's being a nut about it, but not wrong. Like a caricature that, though exaggerated, highlights real features of the alliance that aren't savoury even with aligned interests and values among member nations. Even if I'm wrong on my position that this is always how NATO worked, Trump is driving NATO to function like this now. Very notable that leaders from NATO member states across the EU and Canada all met yesterday to discuss security (primarily about Ukraine), without any US representation present. So, even as the US seems to be wavering on staying in NATO, it seems like there's new security alliances forming to deal with Russian aggression sans American input.

[Buck_Mulligan]

WaPo...

Trump administration to pause all deliveries of U.S. military aid to Ukraine, officials say
In the wake of President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's disastrous Oval Office meeting on Friday, the U.S. president is halting the provision of weapons and military assistance critical to Ukraine's fight against Russia.

[Trollheart]

[Buck_Mulligan]

I do get the distinction, and it's fair enough, but it's also a distinction without a difference in terms of the intent and outcome of the racket. You pay up/comply with the demands, or you get harmed. Whether the harm comes directly from blowing your brains out or indirectly by unlocking a door open for the killer to walk in and blow your brains out instead, the intent and outcome are the same from the party offering the "protection". You do as they wish or you get hurt. More than one way to crack that egg.

This analogy as applied to NATO is also not uncommon or new, particularly as directed to Trump's approach to NATO since his first term. He's pushed things via direct means tying NATO payments to his threats of US tariffs to NATO members (https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/01/23/trump-at-davos-nato-5-push-tariff-warnings-for-europe) and also indirectly through basically saying "be a shame if we just let Putin have his way with you broke fucks" (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/trump-rally-nato/677426/). Criticizing Trump for treating NATO as a protection racket was also a common line of attack from Biden (other world leaders, too) and Michael McFaul (https://michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/trump-does-not-understand-or-value). If the means Trump is using to enforce NATO payment doesn't meet your standard of coercion and seems appropriate, cool let's discuss that. If using this analogy is going to bog down discussion, I'll use other terms moving on.

That said, my overall point is that the underlying power dynamic of how Trump thinks of NATO, using whatever terms you want to describe it, is actually an accurate reflection of how the alliance has always functioned in reality. He's being a nut about it, but not wrong. Like a caricature that, though exaggerated, highlights real features of the alliance that aren't savoury even with aligned interests and values among member nations. Even if I'm wrong on my position that this is always how NATO worked, Trump is driving NATO to function like this now. Very notable that leaders from NATO member states across the EU and Canada all met yesterday to discuss security (primarily about Ukraine), without any US representation present. So, even as the US seems to be wavering on staying in NATO, it seems like there's new security alliances forming to deal with Russian aggression sans American input.

I don't think anyone here would disagree that Trump considers NATO a protection racket, he has said so, and you seem to agree with him.

You said upthread that NATO has always been like that, so Trump aside, can you give specific examples of what you mean?

NATO has been around for 75 years and I can't think of a single incident where the US acted as an extortioner towards other members. In all of the various wars that NATO members have been involved in, with or without NATO sanction, from Suez onwards (where Eisenhower hung the UK & France out to dry), they have played an aggressor rather than defender role . De Gaulle's beef with NATO in 66 was an administrative issue.

[Jwb]

I do get the distinction, and it's fair enough, but it's also a distinction without a difference in terms of the intent and outcome of the racket. You pay up/comply with the demands, or you get harmed. Whether the harm comes directly from blowing your brains out or indirectly by unlocking a door open for the killer to walk in and blow your brains out instead, the intent and outcome are the same from the party offering the "protection". You do as they wish or you get hurt. More than one way to crack that egg.

This analogy as applied to NATO is also not uncommon or new, particularly as directed to Trump's approach to NATO since his first term. He's pushed things via direct means tying NATO payments to his threats of US tariffs to NATO members (https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/01/23/trump-at-davos-nato-5-push-tariff-warnings-for-europe) and also indirectly through basically saying "be a shame if we just let Putin have his way with you broke fucks" (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/02/trump-rally-nato/677426/). Criticizing Trump for treating NATO as a protection racket was also a common line of attack from Biden (other world leaders, too) and Michael McFaul (https://michaelmcfaul.substack.com/p/trump-does-not-understand-or-value). If the means Trump is using to enforce NATO payment doesn't meet your standard of coercion and seems appropriate, cool let's discuss that. If using this analogy is going to bog down discussion, I'll use other terms moving on.

That said, my overall point is that the underlying power dynamic of how Trump thinks of NATO, using whatever terms you want to describe it, is actually an accurate reflection of how the alliance has always functioned in reality. He's being a nut about it, but not wrong. Like a caricature that, though exaggerated, highlights real features of the alliance that aren't savoury even with aligned interests and values among member nations. Even if I'm wrong on my position that this is always how NATO worked, Trump is driving NATO to function like this now. Very notable that leaders from NATO member states across the EU and Canada all met yesterday to discuss security (primarily about Ukraine), without any US representation present. So, even as the US seems to be wavering on staying in NATO, it seems like there's new security alliances forming to deal with Russian aggression sans American input.

Well,  from my pov it's not a distinction without a difference any more than the distinction between a mob run protection racket and a private security firm is a distinction without a difference.  It's the key distinction that separates selling a service from basic extortion, in my mind.

Like, you could say that if a store doesn't hire security, they will face a threat from potential criminals.  If the security firm is not causing this initial threat, then the fact that the store has to worry about what will happen if they don't hire the security firm only proves how valuable the service they are providing actually is.

With regard to Trump treating it like a protection racket,  that's because Trump seems to actually think it is one,  and doesn't quite seem to get the concept that when people talk about wanting them to meet their obligations,  they're referring to upping defense spending in their countries.  Not paying us some kind of dues,  as Trump seems to mistakenly assume. The second link you cited sums it up pretty well.

"The United States' greatest "return on investment" from our alliances does not come from increases in their military spending. Peace is our return, a "dividend" that produces economic and security gains for the American people. The United States has benefited economically from peace and stability in Europe and Asia. Trade and investment with our allies in Europe over the past several decades have contributed trillions of dollars to U.S. economic prosperity.

It's really not about "collecting dues " or whatever Trump thinks.  He's not exposing how it really works or saying the quiet part out loud,  he made it very clear he has a lack of understanding of the basic logic behind the alliance and thinks,  as he always does,  in terms of a zero sum game where our allies are just taking advantage of us.  This has been a consistent message from Trump since he first started auditioning for running for president in 1987.

Now,  is it actually extortion to threaten tariffs in order to pressure allies into higher defense budgets? I don't know.  It's not obvious to me that it is.  You can put a tariff on any country for any reason.  It's just a tax on imports. It's not obvious to me that it's coercion of any kind.  But I do think it's retarded, and very likely to strain your alliance.