Trump has not ditched Article 5. He's merely blabbed on about how maybe he's not so sure about it.
I feel like I'm not making myself clear here. Would you drive a car if the mechanic at the garage blabbed on aobut how he's "not so sure" about the brakes? Would you drive that car with your family in it? And all your money? And the medication you need to live? And the deeds to your house?
Or would you nope the fuck out of doing that and cab it on down to the showroom and start looking at what you could afford?
You are making yourself clear. You are just wrong.
In a press conference on Wednesday before the summit, Stoltenberg had downplayed Trump’s silence on Article 5. He said that because Trump has expressed support for NATO—which he declared no longer obsolete during Stoltenberg’s visit to Washington last month—he “has also of course expressed strong support of Article 5, because Article 5, collective defense, is NATO’s core task.”
At a press conference after the leaders’ meeting on Thursday, Stoltenberg was asked repeatedly about Trump’s refusal to verbally commit to Article 5. He maintained his position, arguing that Trump has shown sufficient commitment to NATO, and thus to Article 5. “President Donald Trump dedicated a 9/11 and Article 5 memorial,” Stoltenberg said. “And just by doing that he sent a strong signal. … We have had a clear message from the U.S. administration,” he added, citing assurances he received from top administration officials as well as from Trump himself in meetings. “It’s not possible to be committed to NATO without being committed to Article 5.”
That's the US government saying "Yes, of course we will uphold Article 5" while talking around Trump's stupidity.
If you wanna use this stupid analogy it's like the owner of garage you brought your car too being Trump and blabbing on about how great his car is and how your breaks suck and he's not so sure about them and when you ask him specifically if they are ok, he doesn't even notice and keeps rambling on but the mechanic who actually worked on your car is standing over his shoulder nodding his head at you.
In reality, this analogy is stupid and what's actually happening is Trump is spouting his usual bullshit but his own people are saying "Yeah, no, we are still committed to Article 5". Which is bad but not what you keep pretending it is.
The 8 words that actually matter to Europe from everying you just posted:
"Trump’s refusal to verbally commit to Article 5"
No, the other words matter to. That's why NATO still exists even though Trump's been blabbing on about this shit for like a year now. NATO (which isn't just europe fyi) certainly cares that Trump talks like this but that's not the end of the story.
Like, we spend pages talking about how he's a joke internationally and yet a ton of y'all are not applying that here. They don't take what he says 100% seriously. His stupidity worries them but it does not mean the end of NATO and if Trump is gone and nothing has happened that required him to make the call in the meantime, everyone will just go back to business as usual.
If the other members of NATO doubt the US commitment to Article 5, they will have to take steps to ensure that NATO can stand without the US. That means accelerating European integration. That means, ironically, ramping up their own militaries to compensate. And as we know, once you have a military capable of fighting Russia, it tends to find ways to justify it's own existence. That means more direct intervention by European countries, individually or as part of some new EU military command, in places like the Balkans, the Middle East, etc. Possibly counter to US interests in those regions, as they will no longer consider themselves beholden to US policy.
So no, it is entirely possible, even likely, that Trump doing things like this can and will, eventually but inevitably lead to the end of US hegemony and the rise of regional alliances like the EU as equal powers.
Which may be silver lining to his presidency actually.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Unfortunately Trump's idiocy is the one that matters. State can't run an end around on the American President. And because "serious Republicans" like Bob Corker are fully endorsing this idiocy it is beyond obvious that Europe cannot trust America whenever a Republican is President. And that's the end of the post-war order, right there.
Trump's idiocy is easily manipulated too though. Remember when he wasn't gonna do shit in Syria? How long did that last?
It doesn't matter. The perception that he might not uphold Article 5 is enough to considerably weaken the alliance.
It does matter. Trump blabbing on about not upholding Article 5 is a bad thing that does weaken NATO. The fact that he's a blowhard moron and everyone knows it means it's a lot less then if anyone thought his word meant jack shit. And it means the perception of any lack of commitment to NATO by the US is a lot less certain and a lot more easily walked back by the next guy.
Trump has not ditched Article 5. He's merely blabbed on about how maybe he's not so sure about it.
I feel like I'm not making myself clear here. Would you drive a car if the mechanic at the garage blabbed on aobut how he's "not so sure" about the brakes? Would you drive that car with your family in it? And all your money? And the medication you need to live? And the deeds to your house?
Or would you nope the fuck out of doing that and cab it on down to the showroom and start looking at what you could afford?
You are making yourself clear. You are just wrong.
In a press conference on Wednesday before the summit, Stoltenberg had downplayed Trump’s silence on Article 5. He said that because Trump has expressed support for NATO—which he declared no longer obsolete during Stoltenberg’s visit to Washington last month—he “has also of course expressed strong support of Article 5, because Article 5, collective defense, is NATO’s core task.”
At a press conference after the leaders’ meeting on Thursday, Stoltenberg was asked repeatedly about Trump’s refusal to verbally commit to Article 5. He maintained his position, arguing that Trump has shown sufficient commitment to NATO, and thus to Article 5. “President Donald Trump dedicated a 9/11 and Article 5 memorial,” Stoltenberg said. “And just by doing that he sent a strong signal. … We have had a clear message from the U.S. administration,” he added, citing assurances he received from top administration officials as well as from Trump himself in meetings. “It’s not possible to be committed to NATO without being committed to Article 5.”
That's the US government saying "Yes, of course we will uphold Article 5" while talking around Trump's stupidity.
If you wanna use this stupid analogy it's like the owner of garage you brought your car too being Trump and blabbing on about how great his car is and how your breaks suck and he's not so sure about them and when you ask him specifically if they are ok, he doesn't even notice and keeps rambling on but the mechanic who actually worked on your car is standing over his shoulder nodding his head at you.
In reality, this analogy is stupid and what's actually happening is Trump is spouting his usual bullshit but his own people are saying "Yeah, no, we are still committed to Article 5". Which is bad but not what you keep pretending it is.
The 8 words that actually matter to Europe from everying you just posted:
"Trump’s refusal to verbally commit to Article 5"
No, the other words matter to. That's why NATO still exists even though Trump's been blabbing on about this shit for like a year now. NATO (which isn't just europe fyi) certainly cares that Trump talks like this but that's not the end of the story.
Like, we spend pages talking about how he's a joke internationally and yet a ton of y'all are not applying that here. They don't take what he says 100% seriously. His stupidity worries them but it does not mean the end of NATO and if Trump is gone and nothing has happened that required him to make the call in the meantime, everyone will just go back to business as usual.
No. They do not. The CiC determines whether or not troops move and so his words are all that matters.
And the CiC is gonna get a very serious folder from his Secretary of Defence et all saying what he should do and he'll go "Ok" just like every other time he has.
It's kinda funny seeing the same people who a few pages ago were talking about how easily manipulable Trump is taking this line now.
It's because we're paying attention to who is manipulating him.
Unfortunately Trump's idiocy is the one that matters. State can't run an end around on the American President. And because "serious Republicans" like Bob Corker are fully endorsing this idiocy it is beyond obvious that Europe cannot trust America whenever a Republican is President. And that's the end of the post-war order, right there.
Trump's idiocy is easily manipulated too though. Remember when he wasn't gonna do shit in Syria? How long did that last?
It doesn't matter. The perception that he might not uphold Article 5 is enough to considerably weaken the alliance.
It does matter. Trump blabbing on about not upholding Article 5 is a bad thing that does weaken NATO. The fact that he's a blowhard moron and everyone knows it means it's a lot less then if anyone thought his word meant jack shit. And it means the perception of any lack of commitment to NATO by the US is a lot less certain and a lot more easily walked back by the next guy.
But what's to say we won't elect a buffoon again. Republicans have been increasingly buffoonish for 40 years. This is not getting better.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Trump has not ditched Article 5. He's merely blabbed on about how maybe he's not so sure about it.
I feel like I'm not making myself clear here. Would you drive a car if the mechanic at the garage blabbed on aobut how he's "not so sure" about the brakes? Would you drive that car with your family in it? And all your money? And the medication you need to live? And the deeds to your house?
Or would you nope the fuck out of doing that and cab it on down to the showroom and start looking at what you could afford?
You are making yourself clear. You are just wrong.
In a press conference on Wednesday before the summit, Stoltenberg had downplayed Trump’s silence on Article 5. He said that because Trump has expressed support for NATO—which he declared no longer obsolete during Stoltenberg’s visit to Washington last month—he “has also of course expressed strong support of Article 5, because Article 5, collective defense, is NATO’s core task.”
At a press conference after the leaders’ meeting on Thursday, Stoltenberg was asked repeatedly about Trump’s refusal to verbally commit to Article 5. He maintained his position, arguing that Trump has shown sufficient commitment to NATO, and thus to Article 5. “President Donald Trump dedicated a 9/11 and Article 5 memorial,” Stoltenberg said. “And just by doing that he sent a strong signal. … We have had a clear message from the U.S. administration,” he added, citing assurances he received from top administration officials as well as from Trump himself in meetings. “It’s not possible to be committed to NATO without being committed to Article 5.”
That's the US government saying "Yes, of course we will uphold Article 5" while talking around Trump's stupidity.
If you wanna use this stupid analogy it's like the owner of garage you brought your car too being Trump and blabbing on about how great his car is and how your breaks suck and he's not so sure about them and when you ask him specifically if they are ok, he doesn't even notice and keeps rambling on but the mechanic who actually worked on your car is standing over his shoulder nodding his head at you.
In reality, this analogy is stupid and what's actually happening is Trump is spouting his usual bullshit but his own people are saying "Yeah, no, we are still committed to Article 5". Which is bad but not what you keep pretending it is.
The 8 words that actually matter to Europe from everying you just posted:
"Trump’s refusal to verbally commit to Article 5"
No, the other words matter to. That's why NATO still exists even though Trump's been blabbing on about this shit for like a year now. NATO (which isn't just europe fyi) certainly cares that Trump talks like this but that's not the end of the story.
Like, we spend pages talking about how he's a joke internationally and yet a ton of y'all are not applying that here. They don't take what he says 100% seriously. His stupidity worries them but it does not mean the end of NATO and if Trump is gone and nothing has happened that required him to make the call in the meantime, everyone will just go back to business as usual.
No. They do not. The CiC determines whether or not troops move and so his words are all that matters.
And the CiC is gonna get a very serious folder from his Secretary of Defence et all saying what he should do and he'll go "Ok" just like every other time he has.
It's kinda funny seeing the same people who a few pages ago were talking about how easily manipulable Trump is taking this line now.
If you're the head of state for a minor NATO member do you stand your nation's continued sovereignty on that chance?
NATO's existence cannot be based on whether the President of the United States feels like backing it today.
It is either something that all members stick with, hell or high water, or it is paper.
It cannot be subject to the whims of a single head of state, or the changing policy of administrations, or the mood of the voters on election day. If you're in NATO you're in NATO 100% until you formally leave.
This is the kind of basic understanding of how these sorts of things work that Donald Trump doesn't have and thinks he can just fuck with. Fuck him. He's destabilising the whole fucking world and fuck him.
I don't see anyone saying that the world is freaking the fuck out, but at the same time his words and actions and what he hasn't done and said are noteworthy. It is an unfortunate reality that Trump's intentional uncertainty is causing countries to rethink their military standing. I'm sure plenty of people have come up with fanciful or far fetched variations on "Contingency Plan Omega-4: What If The US Elected Someone Batshit Crazy?", but nobody really expected to have to put it to use.
It is my understanding that Merkel recently walked back statements regarding Germany avoiding nuclear weapons, a variety of other leaders have made statements about needing to be more self sufficient. I'm not involved in national defense, but I'm guessing a lot of these changes would be predicated on spending a lot of money and setting up a lot of infrastructure that they wouldn't just abandon the next time the presidential coin flip landed on D rather than R.
Apologies if this seems offensive or condescending, but let's try a bit harder than Fox News levels of nuance. It is possible to have damage done to the status quo, and it possibly be some measure of permanent/irreparable or at least choices that will take considerable time and effort to rescind.
It can be bad without being the worst. It can be concerning without being apocalyptic. It can be a problem that needs addressing in the future and represent an unfortunate black mark in US relations and even global standing.
It should not remotely be surprising that when allies are told 'oh, maybe we'll support you' they decide they don't want to hedge their continued existence should an adversary decide to test those ties and obligations. When the American electoral system elects a man who prides himself on uncertainty and not holding to agreements and deciding that every treaty he can find needs to be 're-negotiated to better benefit the US', who seems to have odd and inappropriate ties to an adversarial nation, yeah, I'm glad to hear hints and outright statements regarding nations deciding they need to prepare for all kinds of other contingencies.
And that is something that can't and hopefully won't be forgotten.
"Elections have consequences", and unfortunately many of us facing those consequences weren't able to vote because we aren't Americans.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Eh. I think y'all are projecting too much long-term changes from this.
The most likely strategy here remains to prepare for Trump doing something insane and then to just batten down the hatches, wait another 3.5 years and go back to business as usual once Trump loses in 2020.
As long as Trump doesn't blow any agreements to pieces in the meantime, everyone will just be happy to get back to normal.
Under other circumstances i might agree, but with trump in office the US has effectively empowered two moronic candidates since the turn of the century and one of them is openly jeopardizing their position at the head of the table for the greatest military alliance in human history for reasons that could not be more ambiguous.
I'm thinking that this whole thing is going to have serious long term reprecussions.
Look what happened after the last moronic candidate. Obama came in and everyone breathed a sigh of relief and went back to business as usual.
The rest of the world is totally prepared to just wait Trump out. They'll prepare for what happens should the shit hit the fan or should there be a Trump 2.0 or something, but given the opportunity they'll return to the old status quo.
Europe is not gonna stay on the seesaw forever.
That confidence isn't a switch. It's an old wound that heals worse every time. We may be fine under an Obama, but the skin is brittle.
Under Bush, this was a slow boil. New discontent mounted over time.
After Bush, was after Bush, and Bush was no more.
In november, Bush was more. You didn't stop. It was never after, it was inbetween.
After the sequel, will not be after the sequel. It will be before.
And each Bush is worse.
The status quo has been good to us. Because we have been lucky.
We have enjoyed great security. Because nobody called the bluff yet. Because our great american boogeyman friend is still assumed, and not tested. Because the tiger at the petting-zoo hasn't bitten anybody.
Trump has not ditched Article 5. He's merely blabbed on about how maybe he's not so sure about it.
I feel like I'm not making myself clear here. Would you drive a car if the mechanic at the garage blabbed on aobut how he's "not so sure" about the brakes? Would you drive that car with your family in it? And all your money? And the medication you need to live? And the deeds to your house?
Or would you nope the fuck out of doing that and cab it on down to the showroom and start looking at what you could afford?
You are making yourself clear. You are just wrong.
In a press conference on Wednesday before the summit, Stoltenberg had downplayed Trump’s silence on Article 5. He said that because Trump has expressed support for NATO—which he declared no longer obsolete during Stoltenberg’s visit to Washington last month—he “has also of course expressed strong support of Article 5, because Article 5, collective defense, is NATO’s core task.”
At a press conference after the leaders’ meeting on Thursday, Stoltenberg was asked repeatedly about Trump’s refusal to verbally commit to Article 5. He maintained his position, arguing that Trump has shown sufficient commitment to NATO, and thus to Article 5. “President Donald Trump dedicated a 9/11 and Article 5 memorial,” Stoltenberg said. “And just by doing that he sent a strong signal. … We have had a clear message from the U.S. administration,” he added, citing assurances he received from top administration officials as well as from Trump himself in meetings. “It’s not possible to be committed to NATO without being committed to Article 5.”
That's the US government saying "Yes, of course we will uphold Article 5" while talking around Trump's stupidity.
If you wanna use this stupid analogy it's like the owner of garage you brought your car too being Trump and blabbing on about how great his car is and how your breaks suck and he's not so sure about them and when you ask him specifically if they are ok, he doesn't even notice and keeps rambling on but the mechanic who actually worked on your car is standing over his shoulder nodding his head at you.
In reality, this analogy is stupid and what's actually happening is Trump is spouting his usual bullshit but his own people are saying "Yeah, no, we are still committed to Article 5". Which is bad but not what you keep pretending it is.
The 8 words that actually matter to Europe from everying you just posted:
"Trump’s refusal to verbally commit to Article 5"
No, the other words matter to. That's why NATO still exists even though Trump's been blabbing on about this shit for like a year now. NATO (which isn't just europe fyi) certainly cares that Trump talks like this but that's not the end of the story.
Like, we spend pages talking about how he's a joke internationally and yet a ton of y'all are not applying that here. They don't take what he says 100% seriously. His stupidity worries them but it does not mean the end of NATO and if Trump is gone and nothing has happened that required him to make the call in the meantime, everyone will just go back to business as usual.
No. They do not. The CiC determines whether or not troops move and so his words are all that matters.
And the CiC is gonna get a very serious folder from his Secretary of Defence et all saying what he should do and he'll go "Ok" just like every other time he has.
It's kinda funny seeing the same people who a few pages ago were talking about how easily manipulable Trump is taking this line now.
What is the basis of this theory given that he seems to blithely ignore his cabinet on a daily basis?
Nah for real, anyone in the alliance acting like article V isn't the word of God needs to get the fuck out. Alliances are alliances for a reason. The reason we have nato is so that if anyone in nato is attacked and we activate article V to deal with that attacker and fucking destroy whoever attacked the nato partner. Even if that attacker is fucking Russia. If you are in nato you don't just get to choose if you're going to honor that deal...that's literally the fucking deal.
My advice: rest of the world should militarise and kick the usa out of fuckin NATO
"Hey Macron, hit me up next time you're in NYC, we'll jam."
....sometime later at Kremlin, "Boris, guess what? Trump just texted Theresa May asking her to annex Ireland and let him build his prototype wall around his golf course. Classic Don, amirite?"
+1
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
"Hey Macron, hit me up next time you're in NYC, we'll jam."
....sometime later at Kremlin, "Boris, guess what? Trump just texted Theresa May asking her to annex Ireland and let him build his prototype wall around his golf course. Classic Don, amirite?"
nah it would just be Trump: aay macron lets have drinks at my place
"Hey Macron, hit me up next time you're in NYC, we'll jam."
....sometime later at Kremlin, "Boris, guess what? Trump just texted Theresa May asking her to annex Ireland and let him build his prototype wall around his golf course. Classic Don, amirite?"
nah it would just be Trump: aay macron lets have drinks at my place
So a while back I had a thought of how Macron could have honored trumps request for sharing Cell phone numbers; by offering to pay people 1 euro for writing his number on any given public surface (I.E. a bathroom wall) and sending in a pic of themselves with it, and stopping the offer when he pulls his cellphone out of service.
Hello world leaders! Vladimir asked me to ask you to please call me on my totally normal cell phone with just the best security instead. It'll be so great.
A reminder that President Trump has deliberately released the private phone numbers of politicians before.
There's that and then there's the whole legal ramifications which come with the office in terms of transparency and CYA. The latter is something I'd expect Trump to know something about, even if the former is something of foreign territory to him.
But yeah, this is another power play from the worst player currently in the game.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
I wonder if Trump thinks he can avoid having his conversations recorded this way. And never catches on that other world leaders can record it easily.
In the Comey story, one of the details Definitely-Not-Comey mentioned is that Trump would regularly just like, call him up from his cell phone.
And Comey would be like oh shit, the president is calling me directly something bad must be happening, hold my flight, yes Mr. President, what do you need?
And then Trump would just try to make like, small talk? and apparently genuinely seemed to believe they were friends now, which Comey thought was just bizarre.
Point being, while this can overlap with Trump's corruption, he's not necessarily doing it as a planned step in corruption, it's one of Trump's established bizarre beliefs in his own charm.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
The point of article 5 isn't just to invoke it. You want the rhetorical and material commitment to it to be free or any ambiguity so that no one ever thinks of crossing that line against the alliance.
Contextualized in a 20 period where 12 will be under American presidents who are internationally destructive and uninterested and disdainful of the multilateral Western alliance, Western policy makers would be negligent if they planned for a future that takes for granted a reliable American partner.
There is no bipartisan American support for NATO. Not enough at the elite level that Trump faces at opposition for behavior and at the grassroots level we have the level of support that enabled a candidate like Trump to get elected in the first place.
US commitment to a multilateral Western alliance cannot survive as a partisan Democratic issue.
A reporter for The Intercept tweeted this video of Stuart Jones, a high level acting official with the State Department, taken during a press conference. He was asked why the White House has been critical of Iranian elections while never questioning Saudi Arabia's undemocratic power structure.
Honestly, his response needs to be seen to be believed. He was completely flummoxed.
Trump has not ditched Article 5. He's merely blabbed on about how maybe he's not so sure about it.
I feel like I'm not making myself clear here. Would you drive a car if the mechanic at the garage blabbed on aobut how he's "not so sure" about the brakes? Would you drive that car with your family in it? And all your money? And the medication you need to live? And the deeds to your house?
Or would you nope the fuck out of doing that and cab it on down to the showroom and start looking at what you could afford?
You are making yourself clear. You are just wrong.
In a press conference on Wednesday before the summit, Stoltenberg had downplayed Trump’s silence on Article 5. He said that because Trump has expressed support for NATO—which he declared no longer obsolete during Stoltenberg’s visit to Washington last month—he “has also of course expressed strong support of Article 5, because Article 5, collective defense, is NATO’s core task.”
At a press conference after the leaders’ meeting on Thursday, Stoltenberg was asked repeatedly about Trump’s refusal to verbally commit to Article 5. He maintained his position, arguing that Trump has shown sufficient commitment to NATO, and thus to Article 5. “President Donald Trump dedicated a 9/11 and Article 5 memorial,” Stoltenberg said. “And just by doing that he sent a strong signal. … We have had a clear message from the U.S. administration,” he added, citing assurances he received from top administration officials as well as from Trump himself in meetings. “It’s not possible to be committed to NATO without being committed to Article 5.”
That's the US government saying "Yes, of course we will uphold Article 5" while talking around Trump's stupidity.
If you wanna use this stupid analogy it's like the owner of garage you brought your car too being Trump and blabbing on about how great his car is and how your breaks suck and he's not so sure about them and when you ask him specifically if they are ok, he doesn't even notice and keeps rambling on but the mechanic who actually worked on your car is standing over his shoulder nodding his head at you.
In reality, this analogy is stupid and what's actually happening is Trump is spouting his usual bullshit but his own people are saying "Yeah, no, we are still committed to Article 5". Which is bad but not what you keep pretending it is.
The 8 words that actually matter to Europe from everying you just posted:
"Trump’s refusal to verbally commit to Article 5"
No, the other words matter to. That's why NATO still exists even though Trump's been blabbing on about this shit for like a year now. NATO (which isn't just europe fyi) certainly cares that Trump talks like this but that's not the end of the story.
Like, we spend pages talking about how he's a joke internationally and yet a ton of y'all are not applying that here. They don't take what he says 100% seriously. His stupidity worries them but it does not mean the end of NATO and if Trump is gone and nothing has happened that required him to make the call in the meantime, everyone will just go back to business as usual.
No. They do not. The CiC determines whether or not troops move and so his words are all that matters.
And the CiC is gonna get a very serious folder from his Secretary of Defence et all saying what he should do and he'll go "Ok" just like every other time he has.
It's kinda funny seeing the same people who a few pages ago were talking about how easily manipulable Trump is taking this line now.
If you're the head of state for a minor NATO member do you stand your nation's continued sovereignty on that chance?
Yes. Because there's not a better choice. There's better options then "NATO that won't help us". There's not better options then "NATO that will almost certainly help us but maybe not if Trump is being particularly crazy". Your best bet still remains to wait him out.
And because y'all keep going on about Article 5 and misunderstanding where the certainty needs to lie. The point of Article 5 is not that your allies are 100% certain you will back them, it's that their enemies are 100% certain you will. The only question that matters is how certain are the Russians that the US won't follow through on Article 5. And they aren't that certain for the reasons I've given above.
A reporter for The Intercept tweeted this video of Stuart Jones, a high level acting official with the State Department, taken during a press conference. He was asked why the White House has been critical of Iranian elections while never questioning Saudi Arabia's undemocratic power structure.
Honestly, his response needs to be seen to be believed. He was completely flummoxed.
The admin freaking handed him a legitimate, if slimy ass excuse last week, $110 billion in arms sales and a 70 year BFF relationship between US presidents and the house of Saud dating back to FDR.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
A reporter for The Intercept tweeted this video of Stuart Jones, a high level acting official with the State Department, taken during a press conference. He was asked why the White House has been critical of Iranian elections while never questioning Saudi Arabia's undemocratic power structure.
Honestly, his response needs to be seen to be believed. He was completely flummoxed.
A reporter for The Intercept tweeted this video of Stuart Jones, a high level acting official with the State Department, taken during a press conference. He was asked why the White House has been critical of Iranian elections while never questioning Saudi Arabia's undemocratic power structure.
Honestly, his response needs to be seen to be believed. He was completely flummoxed.
A reporter for The Intercept tweeted this video of Stuart Jones, a high level acting official with the State Department, taken during a press conference. He was asked why the White House has been critical of Iranian elections while never questioning Saudi Arabia's undemocratic power structure.
Honestly, his response needs to be seen to be believed. He was completely flummoxed.
A reporter for The Intercept tweeted this video of Stuart Jones, a high level acting official with the State Department, taken during a press conference. He was asked why the White House has been critical of Iranian elections while never questioning Saudi Arabia's undemocratic power structure.
Honestly, his response needs to be seen to be believed. He was completely flummoxed.
<snip>
Wow. That's a full 20 seconds for him to formulate a half-assed response.
Honestly, this isn't that unusual for briefings coming from State and similar departments. These guys aren't working at the White House for a reason. They're not all this bad, mind you - IIRC, Justice is often much better - depending on who's getting sent out and whether it's a routine briefing or a prepared press conference.
Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, Stuart Jones is a career diplomat who has been working for State since 1994, and been ambassador to Iraq and Jordan. He's not a PR professional. (And it's not like this question is new. He'd probably give the same answer, or worse, if you asked him back in 1994.)
Posts
If the other members of NATO doubt the US commitment to Article 5, they will have to take steps to ensure that NATO can stand without the US. That means accelerating European integration. That means, ironically, ramping up their own militaries to compensate. And as we know, once you have a military capable of fighting Russia, it tends to find ways to justify it's own existence. That means more direct intervention by European countries, individually or as part of some new EU military command, in places like the Balkans, the Middle East, etc. Possibly counter to US interests in those regions, as they will no longer consider themselves beholden to US policy.
So no, it is entirely possible, even likely, that Trump doing things like this can and will, eventually but inevitably lead to the end of US hegemony and the rise of regional alliances like the EU as equal powers.
Which may be silver lining to his presidency actually.
It does matter. Trump blabbing on about not upholding Article 5 is a bad thing that does weaken NATO. The fact that he's a blowhard moron and everyone knows it means it's a lot less then if anyone thought his word meant jack shit. And it means the perception of any lack of commitment to NATO by the US is a lot less certain and a lot more easily walked back by the next guy.
It's because we're paying attention to who is manipulating him.
But what's to say we won't elect a buffoon again. Republicans have been increasingly buffoonish for 40 years. This is not getting better.
If you're the head of state for a minor NATO member do you stand your nation's continued sovereignty on that chance?
It is either something that all members stick with, hell or high water, or it is paper.
It cannot be subject to the whims of a single head of state, or the changing policy of administrations, or the mood of the voters on election day. If you're in NATO you're in NATO 100% until you formally leave.
This is the kind of basic understanding of how these sorts of things work that Donald Trump doesn't have and thinks he can just fuck with. Fuck him. He's destabilising the whole fucking world and fuck him.
It is my understanding that Merkel recently walked back statements regarding Germany avoiding nuclear weapons, a variety of other leaders have made statements about needing to be more self sufficient. I'm not involved in national defense, but I'm guessing a lot of these changes would be predicated on spending a lot of money and setting up a lot of infrastructure that they wouldn't just abandon the next time the presidential coin flip landed on D rather than R.
Apologies if this seems offensive or condescending, but let's try a bit harder than Fox News levels of nuance. It is possible to have damage done to the status quo, and it possibly be some measure of permanent/irreparable or at least choices that will take considerable time and effort to rescind.
It can be bad without being the worst. It can be concerning without being apocalyptic. It can be a problem that needs addressing in the future and represent an unfortunate black mark in US relations and even global standing.
It should not remotely be surprising that when allies are told 'oh, maybe we'll support you' they decide they don't want to hedge their continued existence should an adversary decide to test those ties and obligations. When the American electoral system elects a man who prides himself on uncertainty and not holding to agreements and deciding that every treaty he can find needs to be 're-negotiated to better benefit the US', who seems to have odd and inappropriate ties to an adversarial nation, yeah, I'm glad to hear hints and outright statements regarding nations deciding they need to prepare for all kinds of other contingencies.
And that is something that can't and hopefully won't be forgotten.
"Elections have consequences", and unfortunately many of us facing those consequences weren't able to vote because we aren't Americans.
That confidence isn't a switch. It's an old wound that heals worse every time. We may be fine under an Obama, but the skin is brittle.
Under Bush, this was a slow boil. New discontent mounted over time.
After Bush, was after Bush, and Bush was no more.
In november, Bush was more. You didn't stop. It was never after, it was inbetween.
After the sequel, will not be after the sequel. It will be before.
And each Bush is worse.
The status quo has been good to us. Because we have been lucky.
We have enjoyed great security. Because nobody called the bluff yet. Because our great american boogeyman friend is still assumed, and not tested. Because the tiger at the petting-zoo hasn't bitten anybody.
What is the basis of this theory given that he seems to blithely ignore his cabinet on a daily basis?
My advice: rest of the world should militarise and kick the usa out of fuckin NATO
I fucking quit.
-The President of the United States.
....sometime later at Kremlin, "Boris, guess what? Trump just texted Theresa May asking her to annex Ireland and let him build his prototype wall around his golf course. Classic Don, amirite?"
T: Hey G8!! This is my number!!! Feel free to plan or talk abt anything in here ^_^ this group chat is for BEST FRIENDS ONLY!
NNID: Hakkekage
nah it would just be Trump: aay macron lets have drinks at my place
Macron: new phone, who dis
Macron would throw more shade.
So a while back I had a thought of how Macron could have honored trumps request for sharing Cell phone numbers; by offering to pay people 1 euro for writing his number on any given public surface (I.E. a bathroom wall) and sending in a pic of themselves with it, and stopping the offer when he pulls his cellphone out of service.
Hello world leaders! Vladimir asked me to ask you to please call me on my totally normal cell phone with just the best security instead. It'll be so great.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
There's that and then there's the whole legal ramifications which come with the office in terms of transparency and CYA. The latter is something I'd expect Trump to know something about, even if the former is something of foreign territory to him.
But yeah, this is another power play from the worst player currently in the game.
In the Comey story, one of the details Definitely-Not-Comey mentioned is that Trump would regularly just like, call him up from his cell phone.
And Comey would be like oh shit, the president is calling me directly something bad must be happening, hold my flight, yes Mr. President, what do you need?
And then Trump would just try to make like, small talk? and apparently genuinely seemed to believe they were friends now, which Comey thought was just bizarre.
Point being, while this can overlap with Trump's corruption, he's not necessarily doing it as a planned step in corruption, it's one of Trump's established bizarre beliefs in his own charm.
Contextualized in a 20 period where 12 will be under American presidents who are internationally destructive and uninterested and disdainful of the multilateral Western alliance, Western policy makers would be negligent if they planned for a future that takes for granted a reliable American partner.
There is no bipartisan American support for NATO. Not enough at the elite level that Trump faces at opposition for behavior and at the grassroots level we have the level of support that enabled a candidate like Trump to get elected in the first place.
US commitment to a multilateral Western alliance cannot survive as a partisan Democratic issue.
Honestly, his response needs to be seen to be believed. He was completely flummoxed.
Yes. Because there's not a better choice. There's better options then "NATO that won't help us". There's not better options then "NATO that will almost certainly help us but maybe not if Trump is being particularly crazy". Your best bet still remains to wait him out.
And because y'all keep going on about Article 5 and misunderstanding where the certainty needs to lie. The point of Article 5 is not that your allies are 100% certain you will back them, it's that their enemies are 100% certain you will. The only question that matters is how certain are the Russians that the US won't follow through on Article 5. And they aren't that certain for the reasons I've given above.
oh he actually works for the state department, oh he's an actual designated person to speak with media on behalf of the state department
oh dear
The admin freaking handed him a legitimate, if slimy ass excuse last week, $110 billion in arms sales and a 70 year BFF relationship between US presidents and the house of Saud dating back to FDR.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
holy hell I thought the video froze
His parsing algorithm needs some fine tuning, I was expecting smoke to start coming out of his ears.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Yes, I counted.
So this is the completely unsecured cellphone he tweets from I assume?
Define unsecure?
Ice Cream Sandwich is still the new hotness, right?
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Wow. That's a full 20 seconds for him to formulate a half-assed response.
Who cares?
Personally I like this "Move fast and break things" approach to government. Shit might actually get done.
Honestly, this isn't that unusual for briefings coming from State and similar departments. These guys aren't working at the White House for a reason. They're not all this bad, mind you - IIRC, Justice is often much better - depending on who's getting sent out and whether it's a routine briefing or a prepared press conference.
Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, Stuart Jones is a career diplomat who has been working for State since 1994, and been ambassador to Iraq and Jordan. He's not a PR professional. (And it's not like this question is new. He'd probably give the same answer, or worse, if you asked him back in 1994.)