>For example, asked about Russia’s threatening activities that have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing whether those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.”
And unwilling to help those who refuse to meet their obligations is the very heart of reciprocal exchange. This is just common sense.
I agree.
Everyone in NATO needs to fulfill their military obligations.
Right now, many NATO countries do no.
I even think the requirements should be made stricter.
If you don’t oblige for 10 years or somesuch your country is liable to be suspended from NATO.
I guess to try to view this in a positive light.
As a negotiation tactic it will put fire under the feet of all NATO countries to meet their obligations.
The Erdogan comments though...
The two percent of GNP defense spending figure is a goal agreed to by NATO members. It is not part of the treaty and is not a binding requirement on NATO members. Article V, on the other hand, is. If any country does not think it can abide by Article V then then should withdraw from NATO.
Less than a week ago Trump was on "60 Minutes" talking about how as president he would get NATO troops involved in fighting ISIS. If he's placing conditions on the treaty obligations that the U.S. will fulfill then how does he expect to get other NATO members to join in when he wants them to?
>>>And unwilling to help those who refuse to meet their obligations is the very heart of reciprocal exchange. This is just common sense.
So if on Jan 21, 2017, Putin rolls his tanks into the Baltics, do we defend Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania who may not be meeting their obligations as viewed by Trump?