re: #91 The Ghost of a Flea

In addition to sounding like a protection racket, this sounds stupid because NATO was about having US forward positions against the USSR—thus the defense of the USA. I mean, the calculation was all about the the most likely initial move for Soviet conventional warfare *and* about surveillance and first-strike options in a nuclear exchange.

What bugs me is how eerily this mirrors the ressentiment that the Russians have nurtured about “saving Europe” from Hitler, Napoleon, and the various “Tartar hordes.” ETA: and thus fell entitled to order Europe around, lean on neighboring state, and mock more progressive nations as weak and effiminate.

I realize that the mission, structure, financing, etc. of NATO is a matter for serious discussion: but that seems to disqualify Trump (like it does for most things) from even opening his yap about the subject. What’s the game here? “Pay up or else?” “Or else” what, exactly? We withdraw from/dissolve NATO? Is anybody in the Administration likely to have thought this through? The Moron likes to surround himself with military types: has he bothered to ask any of his star-studded advisors what exactly taking an adversarial stance against NATO might entail? (Especially as it seems to be being pushed as adversarial primarily on monetary grounds!)

I know it may be paranoia, but ISTM that Russia will come out the big winner here if the US takes steps to disassociate itself from the NATO/European defense alliance. I’m sure that if the Idiot-in-Chief makes any concrete steps towards pressuring the Europeans, Putin will be having his generals dust off “Plan X” - or whatever the code is for sending the tanks rolling into Ukraine - ASAP….