During a recent campaign rally, Donald Trump said he told a NATO leader he would “encourage” Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to countries that were “delinquent” and had not paid bills they “owed” the alliance. His remarks set off a firestorm domestically and internationally, as the U.S. Congress argues over how and when to provide Ukraine with additional military assistance in its efforts to halt Russian aggression.
This situation was exacerbated by the sudden death of Alexei Navalny in a Russian Arctic penal colony. Navalny was a long-standing opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s dictatorial rule. The Kremlin had even attempted to poison Navalny in 2020 and jailed him on trumped up charges upon his return to Russia in 2021. Despite these facts, Trump refused to condemn Putin. Instead he compared his own extensive and ongoing legal struggles to Navalny’s struggle for freedom in Russia, casting himself as a victim.
Trump’s NATO comments were irresponsible, put Americans at risk, and show how little value he has for loyalty and commitments.
This drama likely foreshadows what U.S. national security policy would look like in a second Trump administration. And taken together, these incidents illustrate a serious divide within the Republican Party about the overall direction of American national security policy. Trump’s disconnect from reality during a challenging time in global history is just one more example of the stakes in this year’s election.
Trump’s NATO comments were irresponsible, put Americans at risk, and show how little value he has for loyalty and commitments. His comments would scrap Article 5 of the NATO Treaty — that an attack on any member should be considered “an armed attack against all members” — which is considered the defining aspect of the agreement. Remember this article has been invoked only once, on Sept. 12, 2001.
Allied leaders immediately denounced Trump’s remarks. For the first time…
Read the full article here
