[dangoor]

I don't think our allies felt quite so flung about until Trump came along. Sure, administrations might engage a little differently from one another, but fundamentally they could count on the US for a very long time. Presidents did not, before Trump, throw NATO under the bus, for example.

[barrkel]

Allies were so put out by Bush II that they gave Obama the Nobel peace prize before he did anything.

[datavirtue]

That was a jaw dropper.

[spurgu]

Reminding NATO countries to adhere to the 2% of GDP spending stipulated in the terms of the alliance is "throwing NATO under the bus"? Or did he do something else I'm unaware of?

[llamaimperative]

Did you forget the first impeachment for withholding critical aid from a buffer country between NATO and USSR-hopeful in exchange for them investigating his political rival?

[briandear]

Ukraine has nothing to do with NATO. If Poland were attacked, then there’d be something to discuss. As an American taxpayer, Ukraine is none of my business. Was Ukraine sending troops to help find Bin Laden when the U.S. was attacked? What strategic value does Ukraine have for the U.S.? Very little. It wasn’t like they were letting us put airbases or missile defense systems in their country. If Russia attacked Finland, Ukraine wouldn’t have done anything.

[llamaimperative]

Its strategic value is exactly as described: a buffer state. It gives us months, if not years, of warning and can potentially totally rebuff an aggressive Russian state.

To be confused about this at this point reveals either profound ignorance or extreme motivated reasoning.

[briandear]

Trump was found not guilty in the impeachment trial. Effectively he was “indicted,” but not convicted. So according to the Constitution, he did not do what he was accused of.

[llamaimperative]

lol, that is absolutely not what “not guilty” means.

That’s why it’s “not guilty” or “acquitted” as opposed to “innocent”

[AlexandrB]

I think the point is that, in the eyes of the law, "not guilty" is all that matters. Whether he's "innocent" in some moral or karmic sense is up to God at this point.

[llamaimperative]

Uhhh I’m not talking about morals or karma whatsoever. I’m talking about factually, what actually occurred. One can look at the timeline of events themselves: $400MM in aid frozen a few days before a phone call with Zelensky in which he pressured an investigation into Biden. The records exist, you can look at them yourself.

You’re free to take the position that the timeline, testimony, and transcripts from the call are overruled by your belief in Trump’s and the Senate GOP’s integrity, but that’s not the only reasonable interpretation of events.

One can absolutely draw their own conclusions separately from what the obvious sycophants in the Senate ruled. A finding of acquittal does not mean that the alleged acts didn’t happen, in any court case, never mind one as politically loaded as this one.

[ericmay]

There are things you are not seemingly aware of, to your point.

But while I do agree NATO allies should spend 2% or more on the militaries in a good faith effort, the spending value itself is kind of a dumb metric if for nothing other than they could just spend money and have poorly trained militaries anyway. It’s a rallying point to be angry about by people who didn’t know what NATO even was before Trump started complaining about it.

Going back to the awareness issue, the United States and allies across the world have been working to stop Russian aggression in Ukraine, and potentially elsewhere like the Baltic states or other formerly occupied Soviet Union states. Many of those in leadership in Europe and elsewhere are concerned about Trump because they do not, for good reason, trust him to act faithfully on the commitments that the United States has made in Europe.

Vladimir Putin believes that the United States and its influence should be degraded in Europe and that European states should instead be under the influence of Russia. This is a net negative for the United States obviously, and the concern here is that Donald Trump seems to either agree or find himself apathetic toward this because he doesn’t seem to understand that he’s being played for a fool to the detriment of the United States and European partners.

To try and paint a more clear picture, if the United States were to fail to honor its security commitments to Europe, it calls into question the ability of the United States to honor any strategic commitment. This pulls not just European countries closer to Russian influence, but causes the United States a massive headache in the Pacific as South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (never mind the Philippines or others in South East Asia) stand to be sucked into the sphere of Chinese influence which means that the United States loses military, diplomatic, and economic capabilities and leverage.

You might say “so what?” and to that I’d say you’ll find our country worse off economically, higher prices for many goods, and whatever meager international influence exists today to cooperate on global or regional issues will be significantly degraded.

[Pet_Ant]

Bush going unilaterrally to war with Iraq (albeit with his lapdog Blair) really didn't do US foreign relations any favors either. It's not just Trump, it's a long-running theme. Trump just accelerated the trend.