Did he really?
Seriously? He really did that?
Donald Trump reportedly gave German Chancellor Angela Merkel a bill for £300bn when the pair met recently to cover contributions he believes are owed to Nato.
The US president made the demand during private talks when the pair met in Washington DC, the Sunday Times reported.
Surely he didn’t. Surely even he can’t be that crude and stupid and inappropriate.
Nato countries pledged in 2014 to spend two per cent of their GDP on defence, something only a handful of nations – including the UK, Greece, Poland and Estonia – currently do.
The sum being demanded by the US has been backdated to 2002, the year Mrs Merkel’s predecessor, Gerhard Schröder, pledged to spend more on defence, according to the report.
Backdated, eh. On what pretext does he get to backdate such a thing? And how does he justify turning pledges by countries into sums owed, and owed to him in person at that?
Mr Trump reportedly instructed aides to calculate how much German spending fell below two per cent over the past 12 years, then added interest.
He’s shaming us all.
[The] White House press secretary has denied reports that Mr Trump gave Ms Merkel a bill during their meeting, telling Business Insider: “No, this is not true.”
And Spicey never lies.
German defence minister Ursula Von der Leyen has rejected the notion the European nation owed the US or Nato.
She issued a statement following Mr Trump’s tweets saying: “There is no debt account at Nato.
“Defence spending also goes into UN peacekeeping missions, into our European missions and into our contribution to the fight against [Isis] terrorism.”
Her comments were backed by Ivo Daalder, permanent representative to Nato from 2009 to 2013 under the Obama administration, who queried the President’s understanding of the organisation.
He tweeted: “Sorry Mr President, that’s not how Nato works. The US decides for itself how much it contributes to defending Nato.
“This is not a financial transaction, where Nato countries pay the US to defend them. It is part of our treaty commitment.”
Sorry, that’s too complicated for Donnie from Queens. He thinks he’s the universal landlord, and everyone owes him rent.
White House press secretary Sean Spicer attempted to pour cold water on the rumour when questioned on Sunday.
“No, this is not true,” he said. Michael Short, a White House spokesperson, also said the report was “false”.
While solid proof of the bill has yet to emerge, the allegation appears to fit with Mr Trump’s long-standing criticism of countries he says are not paying their fair share of the military alliance’s budget.
It fits with his criticism, but the question is whether it fits with his level of crude trashy inappropriate behavior. Would even he do a thing like that?
I don’t know.
Remember, Angela Merkel has been critical of Trump from day one. When Trump refused to shake her hand, my partner immediately replied, “Of course! Because she criticized him.”
I have no doubt that he would have leaped at the chance to hand her a “bill.” It’s in keeping with the non-handshake, or the public reference to her having been tapped by the NSA. These slights were intentional, to the extent that Trump is capable of intention at all, given that he’s incapable of comprehending the situation, or the implications or likely consequences of his actions. Like a five-year-old denied some ice cream, he’d as cheerfully call someone a doody-head as he would shoot them, if he happened to have a BB gun within reach. All he knows is that she didn’t lavish him with praise, and now he wants to pull her hair.
Given what happened last time Germany spent large sums on the military, I’m glad their spending remains modest. In fact, one of the great achievements of NATO has been keeping European military spending on the low side – this is a feature, not a bug. Of course, I don’t expect Don the Con to understand that.
Sam Day, to Donald low military spending is a sign of winpiness and dependence (and expecting the US to do it for you). It can’t be a sign of prudence; prudence means you cut funding form arts and sciences, because they are so unnecessary in a barbaric society. They only matter if you think there is more to life than cock fighting.
For some reason in this context I’m reminded of that scene from Skin Deep, rather than cockerel fighting.
I’m pretty sure the implication was not meant to invoke roosters.
There’s some argument that lower defense spending has supported the social advantages of Western European states. But that doesn’t mean they have any responsibility to subsidize the spectacular waste and corruption of U.S. military spending.