Category Archives: NATO

Deputy Secretary General Rose Gottemoeller outlined the decisions taken by Allied leaders last week in a keynote speech to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Tbilisi on Monday (29 May 2017). She highlighted that the Alliance is stepping up in the fight against terrorism and making progress on fairer burden-sharing across NATO.

The Deputy Secretary General welcomed that NATO is now a full member of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS a strong symbol of the Alliances commitment to the fight against terrorism. NATO AWACS surveillance aircraft will also support the Coalition with airspace management, and a new terrorism intelligence cell at NATO headquarters will improve the sharing of information among Allies. Ms. Gottemoeller stressed that NATO leaders also agreed to do more to ensure fairer burden sharing across the Alliance, with national plans setting out how Allies intend to meet their defence commitments. She highlighted that Montenegro will soon become the 29th member of the Alliance a clear sign that the door to NATO membership remains open.

The Deputy Secretary General also thanked Georgia for its contributions to NATO, including in Afghanistan. She noted that NATO continues to support Georgia, helping to boost its defence capabilities and to prepare the country for NATO membership. Ms. Gottemoeller added that NPA members play an important role in representing constituents and holding political leaders to account for the decisions they take.

During her visit to Georgia, Ms. Gottemoeller will meet with Georgian President Giorgi Margvelashvili, Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili, Foreign Minister Mikheil Janelidzem, Defence Minister Levan Izoria and the Chairman of the Parliament Irakli Kobakhidze.

Read more:
NATO - News: Deputy Secretary General addresses NATO ... - NATO HQ (press release)

By Thorsten Benner By Thorsten Benner May 30 at 1:59 PM

Thorsten Benner is director of the Global Public Policy Institute (GPPi) in Berlin.

It was clear from the start that President Trump would not be a normal president for Americas European allies Trumps visit to Brussels and Sicily last week confirmed as much. Panicked headlines ensued: Trump confirms Europes worst fears. However, much of the alarmism surrounding Trump and Europe is misguided. Trumps approaches to both NATO and the European Union have proved much more constructive than Europeans could have assumed just a few months ago.

In Brussels, Trump took time to meet European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council. Even E.U. foreign policy head Federica Mogherini got some face time with the American president. Gone is Trumps enthusiasm for Brexit and his talk about a breakup of the E.U. He made a point of reaching out to newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron, praising his huge victory and offering to exchange cellphone numbers. Trump claimed that Macron had been his guy during the French election and that he had deliberately not met with Marine Le Pen when she was at Trump Tower earlier this year. Trump did not support or praise Europes right-wing nationalists; Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban is still waiting for his White House invitation. Despite his early support for Trump, the U.S. government sternly rebuked Orban over his legal moves against academic freedom and threatening the closure of the George Soros-funded Central European University in Budapest. So far, there has been no deal with Vladimir Putin of Russia. The United States is holding up the sanctions regime against Russia and also the troop reinforcements on NATOs eastern flank.

Trumps Brussels speech repeated the myth of a NATO debt account for those countries spending less than 2 percent of gross domestic product on national defense, and he berated allies in his push to make them to pay up. Heraised many eyebrows when he mentioned immigration as a key area of focus for the alliance. Many commentators were alarmed when Trump did not mention support for Article V, which ensures that allies will come to defense of any NATO member facing an attack.

But the stir over Trump omitting Article V in his NATO speech is way overblown.Instead, Europeans should ask themselves what difference a formal commitment to Article V would have made in the first place. Trump is a president who relishes unpredictability and changes his opinions frequently. So regardless of what Trump says, there will always be uncertainty about his commitment. That is the immutable nature of the Trump presidency and Europeans better get used to it. That does not mean that Trumps refusal to explicitly endorse Article 5 may come to be one of the greatest diplomatic blunders by a U.S. president since 1945. Trump critics suggest that this makes Trump look weak and indecisive and that Putin may now be tempted to turn on Trump and put him to the test on NATOs eastern flank. This argument overlooks that NATOs enemies such as Putin are likely to read Trumps behavior as a negotiating tactic to get allies to spend more on defense, one of his few core beliefs that have remained constant for the past 30 years.

More importantly, Trumps unpredictability is not just risky for U.S. allies but also for enemies. Trump made a show of this by launching an airstrike against Syrian President Bashar al-Assads regime during Chinese President Xi Jinpings visit to Mar-a-Lago. If NATOs collective defense is ever tested by Russia, Putin cannot be sure whether Trump wont fiercely retaliate

Certainly, Trumps approach to his European allies has a corrosive effect on transatlantic trust (as shown in his tweet against Germany this morning) and is an accelerant for anti-Americanism on the continent. But it does not spell the end of NATO. Europeans do not exactly have many mouthwatering alternatives to turn to (a military alliance with China? Russia?). Now Europe finally realizes it has to try to stand on its own feet much more. Earlier this month, German Foreign Minister Gabriel demanded that Europe develop its own projection of power, including militarily. After the meetings with Trump in Brussels and Sicily, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that Europeans need to take our fate into our own hands much more. If Trump pushes Europe to invest in its own self-reliance, it will be a positive side effect of his presidency. In a sense, this is already happening; from Merkel to Macron, the resurgence of pro-E.U. centrist forces is partly a reaction to witnessing Trump and Brexit.

The more Trump discovers that America First means Trump Alone, the more the limits of his unpredictable approach may become apparent. Europeans need to be prepared to defend their interests whenever and wherever Trump fundamentally acts to challenge them. In the area of trade, the E.U. is in a strong position and has the instruments to strike back at the United States. Still, Europes powers to defend multilateralism are limited if Trump directs his wrecking ball to the foundations of the post-World War II global order. That has not happened yet. At the moment, Trump seems intent on gutting U.S. diplomacy, development assistance, humanitarian aid and contributions to multilateral organizations. As a consequence, the United States is much less present in many volatile regions (such as Asia). A Europe dealing with a lot of its own challenges at home can only partly fill this vacuum. From a European perspective, it is this American retreat, rather than Trumps approach to the E.U. and NATO, that is so far the true foreign policy danger of Trumps presidency.

Go here to read the rest:
Stop panicking over Trump and NATO - Washington Post

A veteran Russian politician has suggested that Moscow could resort to nuclear arms to defend the nation if forces led by the U.S. or NATO moved against the Crimean Peninsula or eastern Ukraine.

Vyacheslav Alekseyevich Nikonov, amember of Russia's lower house of parliamentand a political scientist involved with Russian politics since the 1970s, told attendees of the 2017 GLOBSEC Bratislava Global Security Forum in Slovakia on Sunday that Russian forces would need to utilize some form of nuclear warfare to deter U.S. or NATO forces from invading Russia should they decide to enter Crimea or eastern Ukraine.

Russia annexed Crimea during a 2014 political upheaval in Ukraine, claiming the unrest threatened Moscow's interests and the large ethnic Russian community in Crimea. Since then, Russia's control of Crimea and support for separatist militants in neighboring eastern Ukraine have angered Washington and its NATO allies. Both NATO and Russia have undergone military buildups across their mutual borders in Europe, with both sides accusing each other of instigating a military conflict.

Subscribe to Newsweek from $1 per week

Related: Who Is Sergey Gorkov, the Russian bankerJared Kushner allegedly met?

"On the issue ofNATOexpansion on our borders, at some point I heard from the Russian militaryand I think they are rightifU.S.forces,NATOforces, are, were, in the Crimea, in eastern Ukraine, Russia is undefendable militarily in case of conflict without using nuclear weapons in the early stage of the conflict,"Nikonov said, according to DefenseOne.

Russian political scientist Vyacheslav Nikonov speaks to journalists after arriving at Sheremetyevo airport in Moscow on July 12, 2013. Nikonov, a parliamentarian, told attendees of the GLOBSEC Global Security forum in Bratislava, Slovakia, that Russia could defend itself with nuclear weapons if the U.S. and NATO enter eastern Ukraine or the Crimean Peninsula, on May 28. Grigory Dukor/Reuters

With at least 7,300 nuclear weapons, Moscow possesses the largest nuclear stockpile of any nation in the world. The U.S. comes in second, with about 7,000, according to a 2016 estimate by the Federation of American Scientists. Both the U.S. and Russia maintain forms of a "launch-under-attack" policy and have not precluded the use of a pre-emptive nuclear strike if they faced an existential threat.TheMilitary Doctrine of Russia, last updated in 2014, says Moscow reserves "the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy."

Nikonov cited 400 points of NATO military installations near its borders, some armed with nuclear weapons, and said the West was "not just a force for good," He claimed one of Russia's main concerns was a lack of dialogue between Russia and the West, which increased the likelihood of a military conflict. He saidU.S. officials were fired for reaching out to Russia, further alienating bilateral relations at a tense time between the two superpowers.

A number of high-ranking U.S. officials in the administration of President Donald Trump have resigned or been fired because of their alleged connections to Russia, and additional figures, including the president himself, continue to face investigation for contacts with Moscow. Initiallya political ally of President Vladimir Putin, Trump has since disavowed much of Russia's foreign policy goals and Wednesday reaffirmed Washington's demand that Russia disavowits ties to Crimea or continue to face sanctions.

Link:
Russia Conflict With NATO and US Would Immediately Result in Nuclear War, Russian Lawmaker Warns - Newsweek

In the wake of President Trumps first overseas trip, many are wondering whether the Presidents campaign trail rhetoric questioning our commitment to NATO is now starting to manifest itself as policy.

Amid the Presidents omitting to mention Article Fives defense mechanisms in his speech to NATO and subsequently Germanys Chancellor Merkels statement that Europe must truly have to take our fate into our own hands, the future of NATO is starting to look uncertain for the first time its long history.

Whatever the case, the fact remains that NATO is a prime example of an extraordinarily successful American foreign policy maneuver that remains as important as ever in ensuring the stability of the international system and, consequently, Americas own security.

It is exceedingly rare nowadays that a democracy or republic engages in military conflict with another such democracy. However, much of the world remains in the grips of authoritarian or oligarchic governments, whether Putins Russia or Communist China, that still readily engage in conflicts contrary to the ideals of human freedom, dignity, and independence.

NATO, strung together by moral commitments, military cooperation, and most importantly its Article Five deterrence and activation mechanism, prevents authoritarian aggressors such as Putins Russia from engaging in a slow divide-and-conquer conquest of Europe.

Furthermore, NATOs stability gives confidence to Americas other allies outside of Europe that America is indeed committed to partaking in aiding in their protection and security.

Undoubtedly Americas commitment to NATO is both costly and risky. However, the costs and risks of not keeping our commitment to NATO are far greater in the long run. Were Europe to become destabilized and fall into the grips of authoritarians, it would only be a matter of time before conflict arrived on Americas shores as well.

America learned that firsthand in the World War 2 era, when a decade of American neutrality in the 1930s, while authoritarians slowly conquered territory by territory, was not able to stop the country from being targeted come the early 1940s.

When Putins Russia invaded Crimea, much of America fiercely condemned it because, despite it being a relatively small-scale action, it was precisely the kind of brinkmanship that threatened to test Americas commitment to European security.

Furthermore, were Americas commitments to be questioned, then our allies may seek new alliances and blocs to ensure their security. We may find some of these blocs eventually are no longer our friends but suddenly competitors or even outright hostile. This would be a disastrous weakening of Americas influence and security.

Despite the costs and risks, America is deeply intertwined in the worlds and must engage. If we dont, we will soon enough face the dire consequences of those who are opposed to interests slowly gaining power and a better position.

There undoubtedly is always room for us to examine our foreign policy commitments and strategy and reevaluate their efficiency and positioning. Yet the fundamentals that have guided much of American foreign policy since the end of World War 2 remain as proven and important as ever.

Europe is no longer the central focus of attention in world affairs as it was throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries, as other regions of the world have modernized and entered the international arena as well.

Nonetheless modern Europe remains a cultural and economic hub with deep ties to the United States. Furthermore, the fact that America no longer has to engage in major conflicts in Europe alleviates a lot of the resources and sacrifice we would otherwise have to make when we are inevitably dragged into various disputes and events.

While those working in our defense, diplomatic, and intelligence communities are on the frontlines of developing and implementing our national security and foreign policy strategies, the American people remain the ultimate arbitrators of the direction of such policies.

The world is presenting ever new and chaotic challenges. Americans should continue to support our national security grand strategy and apparatus that has kept us from disaster over the course of what has been a very dangerous past half-century. While we always ought to seek to adapt to new playing fields, the fundamentals of our strategy remain as firm and proven as ever.

America will always remain a target by those who oppose our ideals of human freedom. Only by supporting a secure international system can we protect ourselves.

Read this article:
NATO Remains As Important To American Security As Ever - The Daily Caller

Arthur I. Cyr More Content Now

The NATO summit in Brussels on May 25 has received relatively little attention, thanks to the crowded schedule of President Donald Trumps visit to the Middle East and Europe.

The diplomatic whirlwind commenced with the Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Leaders from 55 nations addressed the threat of terrorism. The NATO summit was followed almost immediately by a meeting of the G7, comprised of the worlds principal industrial nations, in Taormina, Italy. Main agenda item was the continuing debt problems of Greece.

The brief Brussels meeting nevertheless contained heavy symbolism. Remnants of the Berlin Wall, and World Trade Center destroyed in the 9/11 attacks, were dedicated.

The NATO meeting probably will prove the most significant, simply by confirming the solid durability of the alliance. NATO demonstrates unity, and these summits are positive for international stability, especially long-term. The media should focus on these realities.

Warsaw, Poland, was the site for the May 2016 NATO summit, which linked the present with the past. Invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany in 1939 sparked World War II in Europe.

The Warsaw delegates agreed to commit troops to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania -- and Poland. Montenegro was formally invited to join NATO.

NATO also underscored commitment to Afghanistan, confirming involvement there until 2020. The senior civilian NATO representative in the country at that time was Turkeys diplomat Ismail Aramaz. This is a particularly important point, given Turkeys crucial front-line position against the Islamic State, and Ankaras vexed relationship with the rest of Europe and the U.S.

British voters narrow but clear decision to leave the EU has generated alarm, notably among business executives as well as politicians and civil servants. They fear economic instability and even recession may result. So far, these fears have not been realized, except for the decline in value of the British pound.

One important neglected point is that Britains long-term role as military leader in Europe and the wider Atlantic area will probably be reinforced. Starting with World War I, Britain has encouraged United States engagement with Europe, in military and also economic terms. Creation of NATO followed a series of more limited steps, preliminary building-blocks on which the final structure was created.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter explicitly supports collective self-defense. In March 1947, representatives of Britain and France signed the Treaty of Dunkirk. The main perceived potential threat at that time was Germany. The text of the treaty stated the signatory nations would protect one another from any threat arising from the adoption by Germany of aggression.

By then, severe strains were growing between the Western allies and the Soviet Union. In March 1948, the Dunkirk alliance was widened into the Brussels Pact. The resulting Western Union included Belgium, Britain, France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and was a positive precursor to the European Economic Community established in the following decade.

Britain steadily fostered cross-Atlantic military cooperation as the Cold War developed. Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin kept the far left of his Labour Party at bay. He was effective in dealing with European leaders in forging the European Coal and Steel Community and forming NATO. Institutional collaboration was reinforced by interpersonal dynamics, starting with Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II.

NATO continues to provide transatlantic cooperation. The current Britain-U.S. rift over publication of Manchester bombing photos by The New York Times is especially unfortunate.

-- Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of After the Cold War. Contact at acyr@carthage.edu.

More here:
Arthur I. Cyr: NATO summit underscores durable alliance - Penn Yan Chronicle-Express (blog)

Russian media now claims NATO is "a house of cards".

Just returned from Europe. Trip was a great success for America. Hard work but big results!

Donald Trump, Sunday morning tweet

For more than four months, the White House has confirmed no European ambassadors, filled no high-level diplomatic jobs and given no indication that it ever will. Occasional envoys, the vice president and defense secretary among them, have floated across the Atlantic, carrying messages of general reassurance. They have reconfirmed America's commitment to NATO, spoken of old ties and old alliances, hinted and winked that nothing has changed.

Europeans listened and pretended to believe them. Sure, one of them told me after hearing the vice president speak in February in Munich, "all of that's true until the guy's next tweet." But in the space of two short days last week, President Donald Trump himself ended those months of uncertainty without a tweet. Now we know: The envoys were unreliable. And everything really has changed.

What actually happened in Belgium and Italy? Having declared in Saudi Arabia that he would not "lecture" Arab leaders about human rights, Trump arrived in Brussels and began to lecture America's closest allies, accusing them of owing "massive amounts of money" to NATO and United States taxpayers. This made no sense: NATO is not a club like Mar-a-Lago with annual dues. But it was a clear sign, at last, of what many had suspected all along: Trump prefers the company of dictators who flatter him to democrats who treat him as an equal.

A few hours later, at a meeting on trade, Trump complained that Germany was "bad" because of the "millions of cars they are selling to the US" and appeared to want to rewrite America's trade deal with Germany. This made no sense either: As a part of the European Union, Germany does not negotiate its own trade deals. Also, German companies make "millions of cars" inside the United States, about the same number as they sell. But the comments made it clear: The days when the United States led the world in trade are over too.

At no point did the president seem to understand his role of alliance leader. Pressed to commit to a climate-change treaty, he tweeted, "I'll be making my final decision on the Paris Accord next week!" almost as if this were a television series that relied on cliffhangers to keep people watching. Proving that he still sees the world through the eyes of a property developer, he complained to the Belgian Prime Minister about European regulations that had slowed down the construction of one of his golf courses. Before the NATO summit photograph, Trump shoved aside the Montenegrin prime minister to put himself in front, because that's what boorish celebrities do.

At no point did the president even appear to understand the issues at stake either. During his NATO speech, he failed to mention Article 5, the clause that commits NATO members to defending one another if attacked. Later he declared that his trip would pave the way for "peace through strength", though it was clear he had no idea what that phrase, used by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, actually means: "We're gonna have a lot of strength, and we're gonna have a lot of peace," he explained.

After the visit ended, presidential aides rushed in to explain what the president meant to say. H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, immediately declared that Trump had supported Article 5. But this time no one pretended to believe him.

As a result of this trip, American influence, always exercised in Europe through mutually beneficial trade and military alliances, is at its rockiest in recent memory. The American-German relationship, the core of the transatlantic alliance for more than 70 years, has just hit a new low: On Sunday, the German chancellor told a sympathetic crowd that Germany could no longer depend on America, given what she had "experienced in the last few days". The Russian government, which has long sought to expel the United States from the continent, is overjoyed: On Russian television, Trump was said to have turned NATO into a "house of cards".

A "great success for America"? If that was "success", then I'd hate to see failure.

THE WASHINGTON POST

Here is the original post:
After Trump's NATO debut, everything has changed for the US-European alliance - The Australian Financial Review

"Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should," Trump told heads of NATO states assembled Thursday in Brussels. "Many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years."

It's not the first time Trump has suggested other NATO members have a debt to pay.

But NATO does not keep a running tab of what its members spend on defense. Treaty members target spending 2% of economic output on defense -- but that is merely a guideline.

NATO members spend money on their own defense. The funds they send to NATO directly account for less than 1% of overall defense spending by members of the alliance.

Here's how it works:

National budgets

NATO is based on the principle of collective defense: an attack against one or more members is considered an attack against all. So far that has only been invoked once -- in response to the September 11 attacks.

To make the idea work, it is important for all members to make sure their armed forces are in good shape. So NATO sets an official target on how much they should spend. That currently stands at 2% of GDP.

The 2% target is described as a "guideline." There is no penalty for not meeting it.

It is up to each country to decide how much to spend and how to use the money.

Related: Trump criticized NATO spending. Here's what's really going on

Related: Germany's defense minister to Trump: No, we don't owe NATO money

The North Atlantic alliance has its own military budget worth 1.29 billion ($1.4 billion), which is used to fund some operations and the NATO strategic command center, as well as training and research. But it is miniscule compared to overall spending on defense by NATO countries, which NATO estimates will total more than $921 billion in 2017.

The alliance also has a civilian budget of 234.4 million ($252 million), used mainly to fund the NATO headquarters in Belgium, and its administration.

Spending is rising

Only five of NATO's 28 members -- the U.S., Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. -- meet the 2% target.

The rest lag behind. Germany is set to spend 1.2% of GDP on defense this year, France 1.79%. Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg all spend less than 1%.

NATO has long been pushing for higher spending. At a summit in 2014, all members who were falling short promised to move toward the official target within a decade.

That pledge appears to be holding: The alliance as a whole increased defense spending for the first time in two decades in 2015.

And last year, 22 of 28 NATO members increased their defense budgets. If the U.S. is removed from the equation, the group increased its spending by 3.8% in 2016. Including the U.S., overall spending rose by 2.9%.

Fear of Russian aggression is driving some of the recent splurge. Latvia, which shares a border with Russia, increased its defense budget by 42% in 2016. Its neighbor Lithuania boosted its outlays by 34%.

The 2% problem

So why don't more countries spend 2% of GDP? Many experts point out that the target is problematic.

NATO has warned against a rush to spend for the sake of spending, emphasizing that budget decisions must be based on strategic planning. For example, it wants countries to spend 20% of their defense budgets on equipment.

Related: Lockheed Martin CEO promises Trump she'll cut F-35 costs

There's also pressure for more coordination of spending among European countries.

Some member countries simply don't have armies big enough to be able to absorb a huge increase in funding quickly -- that's why the 2014 summit pledge gave laggards until 2024 to do more.

NATO member Iceland, for example, doesn't have its own army and spends just 0.1% of its GDP on defense, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

And the 2% target doesn't just cover spending on defense to meet NATO commitments. The money can be used to fund other activities such as European peace missions in the Central African Republic and Mali, as well as national missions that are not part of NATO operations, for example the fight against ISIS.

CNNMoney (London) First published May 25, 2017: 11:55 AM ET

Read the rest here:
NATO funding: How it works and who pays what

Charlotte Observer

Trump's behavior at NATO is a national embarrassment Charlotte Observer According to press pool reports, Trump gave NATO allies the cold shoulder. He was the party guest who shows up and berates the hosts for not paying for their fair share of the defense spending cake. To borrow from NFL player Marshawn Lynch, Trump acted ... Trump says NATO allies don't pay their share; is that true?The Seattle Times Trump, NATO, and an effective Western allianceWashington Examiner Trump Remains a NATO SkepticThe Atlantic New York Post -Fox News all 3,029 news articles »

Follow this link:
Trump's behavior at NATO is a national embarrassment - Charlotte Observer

President Trump's pressuring of NATO member states to pay their fair share for a common defense is "consistent" with the message delivered by past administrations, Secretary of Defense James Mattis told "Face the Nation" in an interview on Saturday.

In a speech this week at NATO headquarters in Brussels, Mr. Trump said he was "honored" to address an alliance that has "promoted safety and peace across the globe." But in the same speech, the president also criticized "23 of the 28 member nations" for not paying enough for their national defense.

Play Video

Associated Press reporter Ken Thomas breaks down President Trump's message to world leaders at the NATO summit in Brussels.

"This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States," Mr. Trump said.

The president's emphasis on member states' financial contributions to the alliance, Mattis told "Face the Nation" host John Dickerson on Saturday, is in keeping with past administrations.

"Having been a NATO officer, under President Bush and President Obama, and then having been back there in Brussels representing the Department of Defense under President Trumpthis is a consistent message that we have given the NATO nations," said Mattis.

"They get the best defense in the world, the NATO countries, and we've all got to be willing to deal with it like a bank: if you want to take something out of it you've got to put something into it."

The secretary of defense said that presidents Bush and Obama sent similar messages to NATO members.

"So what President Trump is doing is consistent with both prior Republican and Democrat administrations. And the bottom line is that nations are spending more on defense now than they were five years ago or ten years ago."

For more of Dickerson's interview with the secretary of defense, tune into "Face the Nation" tomorrow. Check your local listings for airtimes.

2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Excerpt from:
Mattis: Trump's message on NATO consistent with past presidents - CBS News

Calvin Woodward and Josh Boak, Associated Press 3:02 p.m. ET May 27, 2017

President Trump, center, flanked by British Prime Minister Theresa May, third from right, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, second from left, joins fellow leaders in a group photo at NATO headquarters during the NATO Summit in Brussels, Belgium on May 25, 2017.(Photo: Sean Kilpatrick, AP)

WASHINGTON Its been a muted week for the real Donald Trump, the Twitter account where the president normally says a lot of things that are unreal. That respite may have come to a close, though, as he wrapped up his foreign trip with yet another mistold tale about NATO.

In a tweet and a speech before leaving for home Saturday, he said that thanks to him, money is starting to pour into NATO, which it isnt.

Besides going light on provocative tweets, Trump held no news conferences and gave no extended interviews abroad. Those venues are frequent sources of Trumps off-the-cuff misstatements. Even a more scripted Trump, though, does not always tell it straight, and the release of his proposed budget stirred a fresh round of questionable rhetoric from his stateside aides.

Read more:

Is NATO 'obsolete' or not? Trump and military alliance aim to work out differences

Trump's NATO mystery: How much does he support it?

Trump leaves G-7 summit amid climate change, trade disputes

At NATO, Trump does not pledge U.S. commitment to collective defense

A look at the NATOstatements under scrutiny over the past week:

TRUMP: I will tell you, a big difference over the last year, money is actually starting to pour into NATO from countries that would not have been doing what theyre doing now had I not been elected, I can tell you that. Money is starting to pour in. speech to U.S. troops in Sicily on Saturday

TRUMP tweet: Many NATO countries have agreed to step up payments considerably, as they should. Money is beginning to pour in.

THE FACTS: First, no money is pouring in and countries do not pay the U.S. Nor do they pay NATO directly, apart from administrative expenses, which are not the issue.

The issue is how much each NATO member country spends on its own defense.

Although the president is right that many NATO countries have agreed to spend more on their military budgets, that is not a result of the NATO summit this past week at which Trump pressed them to do so. The countries agreed in 2014 to stop cutting their military spending and to start increasing it toward 2 percent of their gross domestic product by 2024.

That goal was set during the Obama administration and is less than an ironclad commitment.

TRUMP: But 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States and many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years, and not paying in those past years. remarks to NATO on Thursday

THE FACTS: Members of the alliance are not in arrears in their military spending. They are not in debt to the United States, or failing to meet a current standard, and Washington is not trying to collect anything, despite the presidents contention that they owe massive amounts of money. They merely committed in 2014 to work toward the goal of 2 percent of GDP by 2024.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2s87V0B

View original post here:
Fact check: President Trump and his mistold NATO tales - USA TODAY