Then president told European commissioners in 2020 that ‘Nato is dead’ and the US would never defend Europe if it were attacked

Donald Trump told the president of the European Commission in 2020 that the US would “never come help” if Europe was attacked and also said “Nato is dead”, a senior European commissioner said.

Multiple news outlets said the exchange between Trump and Ursula von der Leyen at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2020 was described in Brussels on Tuesday by Thierry Breton, a French European commissioner responsible for the internal market, with responsibilities including defence.

“You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you,” Trump said, according to Breton, who was speaking at the European parliament.

According to Breton, Trump also said: “By the way, Nato is dead, and we will leave, we will quit Nato.”

Archive

  • @someguy3
    2•11 months ago

    is by no means impossible

    “is by no means impossible”. Like really that says it all. They don’t say it will happen. They don’t say it’s likely. All they do is rule out that it’s impossible.

    the end of this war will be combat experienced and considerably larger t

    Except they lost all their highly skilled troops. And their tanks. The aircraft they used before grounding them. And their BMPs. And most of their other equipment. And spent all their shells, they’re getting shells from North Korea FFS. Having a higher troop number doesn’t mean all that much. Industrial base? Sure they can remake that but it will take at least a decade, if not two.

    Ah yes like the sanctions on Iran have eroded… This can go on a long time if the west wants. And we really have no reason to want to trade with Russia. Russia’s gas and oil is slowly being cut off, both because of war and climate change. They have very little to offer. China may pick up the slack but what happens when you only have 1 buyer? The buyer has price control.

    What’s more likely is that the technological, industrial, and economic difference between Russia and the west / EU will continue to widen.

    Suwalki gap

    Written before Russia showed they are barely more than a farce. And before the recent war showed how things can be brought to a crawl with guided missiles and drones. What else, and how Russia’s military is now degraded. And how Sweden and Finland will soon become part of Nato. I guarantee you Nato is rewriting their plans to hold the gap and Baltics.

    UK or France risk starting a nuclear war

    …Are you serious? No they will not start a nuclear war. They will start a conventional war. You sure jump the gun to nukes.

    The whole point of Nato is going to war for allies. We all saw how appeasement and letting Hitler take one country at a time worked in WW2. This is literally the whole impetus and whole reason for Nato. Everyone saw how WW2 played out. Europe knows better than we ever will.

    Abandoned Ukraine? Are you serious? It was not part of Nato.

    Increase spending? Sounds good. But Russia couldn’t even deal with Ukraine’s budget plus old cold war era surplus from the west. They certainly can’t deal with Europe’s modern military or budget/economy.

    Important to keep the US in? Sure. If the US leaves, will everyone give up, let it crumble into pieces, and let Russia take them over? Lol no.

    I think I’m done here. Cheers.

    • Hyperreality
      0•11 months ago

      The experts cited largely disagree with your assessment, which is why they are so worried about Trump withdrawing from NATO, why leaders are ramping up military spending, and why countries like Japan and South Korea are having serious discussions about acquiring their own nuclear deterrent for the first time in decades. They wouldn’t do this, if they weren’t genuinely worried.

      I get the idea that you’re angry about what these experts write.

      Given this is an emotional reaction, perhaps you should ask yourself if you’re not suffering from a cognitive bias.

      It is possible that the reason you are annoyed is because you don’t want the experts to be right about how dangerous the current situation is. It is very scary stuff. Fear can cloud our judgement on stuff like this.

      • @someguy3
        3•11 months ago

        You’re knowingly citing things from before this war when everything they thought about Russia was thrown out. In addition to the new information about the effectiveness of guided missiles and drones.

        And yes people are worried about the US pulling out of Nato. That does not mean that nato will fall into pieces and let russia take them over if the US leaves. Different things. And that does not mean they will not increase their own budget to deal with an emergent terrorist russia. Different things.

        You’re conflating and confusing a ton of things, in both this response and the previous ones.

        Ah the strawman. I really think that wraps things up. Cheers.

        • Hyperreality
          1•11 months ago

          The Institute for the Study of War published the first article I cited on December the 14th 2023.

          I’ll quote another relevant bit:

          … The Kremlin has made great strides in its long-term project to gain control of the Belarusian military, and victory in Ukraine would likely get it the rest of the way. The Russians would thus likely deploy either permanently or in a nominally rotational way an airborne division (three regiments) and a mechanized infantry division (likely three regiments) in southwestern and northern Belarus as well. They would be able to threaten a short-notice mechanized offensive against one or several NATO states with at least 8 divisions (21 mechanized or tank regiments and brigades and three airborne regiments), backed by significant reserves including the 1st Guards Tank Army, which would be reconstituted around Moscow and was always intended to be the premier strike force against NATO. They could make such an attack and still threaten the Baltic States and Finland with the forces already present there and reinforcements they have announced they intend to station along the Finnish borders. Russian ground forces would be covered by a dense air defense network of S-300, S-400, and S-500 long range anti-air and anti-missile systems with overlapping coverage of the entire front. … NATO would be unable to defend against such an attack with the forces currently in Europe. The United States would need to move large numbers of American soldiers to the entire eastern NATO border from the Baltic to the Black Sea to deter Russian adventurism and be prepared to defeat a Russian attack. The United States would also need to commit a significant proportion of its fleet of stealth aircraft permanently to Europe.

          They don’t have to conquer the entirety of Europe. Just a small territory like the Suwalki Gap, something NATO without the US might not want to risk a nuclear war over. Present NATO with a fait accompli at a time when it’s weaker than it’s ever been, due to a US withdrawal. Severely undermine NATO credibility and trust in the alliance.

          Once again, I understand you don’t agree and that you’re getting angry, but I am simply repeating what plenty of experts say on the matter.

          As you say, agree to disagree.