Trump and Stoltenberg get into tense exchange at NATO summit

What people said

0xDEAFBEAD · 2026-05 · Reference

>Remember that Trump also had a term before Biden where he undermined cross-atlantic relations. Sure, tell me about Trump's first term where he made statements about Europe's relationship with Russia that look incredibly prescient with the benefit of hindsight: [VIDEO] >Before Obama you had Bush Jr's wars, with especially the Iraq war being very controversial. Yes, I'm an isolationist. I say the US should end all defense commitments and warmongering. Starting with Europe. US should withdraw from NATO, because Europe complains about US foreign policy the most. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Read the original HN comment ↗

TMWNN · 2024-02 · Reference

>until they elect a president that throws allies under the bus (I.e. NATO, NAFTA, etc) Based on recent news, Trump has done more for NATO rearmament than any US president in history. Gee, maybe sometimes drastic steps are needed when 20 years of three other presidents doing everything but stand on their heads while begging other NATO members to spend more on their own defense failed. Trump was lambasted by the usual bien-pensant suspects when he told NATO this in 2018 < [VIDEO] >. He was right when at the UN he warned against Western European dependence on Russian energy, for which the German foreign minister and others laughed at him < [LINK] >. And remember, Trump isn't even in office now; he's already done more for Western collective defense than a) the putative current president and b) an actual land war in Europe! >and gives state secrets to enemies Repeat this often enough and maybe it'll come true one day!

Read the original HN comment ↗

TMWNN · 2023-06 · Reference

If opposing "dictators and warmongers" is so important, why were European NATO members so unprepared for the 2022 war? Poland, the Baltics, and other ex-Warsaw Pact countries by and large did their best to wean themselves off the Russian oil and gas teat they fed from during the Cold War, even while Germany and other far wealthier countries did their best to suckle ever more from the same teat. Since energy is fungible, the far higher prices they are now having to pay affect them and the rest of the world, even those like the US and UK that never relied on Russian energy themselves, but at least Poland and the Baltics tried their best. It's also entirely possible that greater European investment in defense might have dissuaded Russia from the February invasion. Or, at the least, be able to contribute now more than the relatively paltry sums and supplies they have so far sent. Again, the ex-Communist countries by and large both met the 2% GDP spending guideline that their far wealthier NATO fellow members have mostly ignored, and are sending as much gear as they can without endangering their own defense. Sweden and Finland's militaries were and are far better prepared than the average NATO member despite (or, perhaps, because of) not being part of the alliance. Consider two moments five years ago: 1) Trump and NATO secretary-general and former Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg argue on camera (video < [VIDEO] >, article < [LINK] >) about dependence on Russia. Who turned out to be

Read the original HN comment ↗