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
    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.