Tag: nato
Putin and Trump in Alaska

As Trump Dismantles NATO And Abandons Ukraine, Putin Couldn't Be Happier

A lot of people finally have begun to notice that Donald Trump, much to the pleasure of Vladimir Putin, is not terribly supportive of NATO.

In fact, also to Putin’s extreme pleasure, he kind of wants to destroy it.

In other words, Trump is finally coming out of the closet—more or less— as a Russian asset. How else to explain why he is granting sanctions relief to Russia? Why he’s agreeing to buy billions of dollars in diesel fuel. And why, in doing so, he’s decided to subsidize the Kremlin’s brutal war against Ukraine.

If Trump’s affinity to Putin, and his distaste for NATO surprise you, then you—like so much of the American media— haven’t been paying attention. Enthusiastic support of NATO is one of the very few issues that has enjoyed true bipartisan support for nigh on eighty years. Yet for more than four decades Trump has argued the same thing: America’s allies are freeloaders, the Western alliance is a bad deal, and Moscow is someone to bargain with rather than contain.

Trump is dismantling the foundation of American power — and fulfilling Putin’s greatest dream

Now that he is well into his second term in office, Trump has really and truly begun to do something about it. He has begun to dismantle the entire world order that is the foundation of American power since the end of World War II, and, in so doing, he has begun to fulfill Vladimir Putin’s greatest dream.

It’s worth pointing out that Russian money started flowing into Trump’s coffers decades before he developed his Russia-friendly policies. Indeed, as I have reported in my Trump Russia Timeline, in 1984, David Bogatin, an émigré tied to the Russian Mafia, met with Trump at 721 Fifth Avenue—aka Trump Tower— and plunked down $6 million(nearly $20 million in today’s dollars) to buy five condos in a deal that, according to the New York State attorney general’s office, laundered money for the Russian Mafia.

In the four decades since then, Trump has repeatedly made the same argument: that America’s allies are freeloaders, that our alliances with Japan and Europe are bad deals, and that we should regard Moscow as someone to bargain with rather than contain. In a 1990 interview in Playboy Magazine, for the first time, Trump explicitly equated allies and adversaries as equally untrustworthy, and framed tariffs on both European and Japanese goods as the cure:

We Americans are laughed at around the world for losing a hundred and fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about fifteen minutes if it weren’t for us. Our “allies” are making billions screwing us.

Ten years later, in The America We Deserve, co-written by Trump and Dave Shiflett, he said, “Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually. The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous, and these are clearly funds that can be put to better use. Our allies don’t seem to appreciate our presence anyway.”

Ghostwriter Shiflett later characterized the book as a “work of fiction,” but recent events have shown, alas, that Trump seems to have really meant what he said.

In the 1990’s and 2000’s, Russian mobsters replicated David Bogatin’s practice of buying high-end real estate from Trump as an ideal vehicle through which it laundered money from criminal enterprises. In large measure, it was thanks to the influx of Russian money that Trump, who filed for six corporate bankruptcies, managed to sustain a reputation as a successful businessman.

In the 2000’s, the Bayrock Group, managed by Felix Sater, a twice-convicted felon with ties to the Russian Mafia, helped transform Trump into the Colonel Sanders of luxury high-rises by franchising the Trump brand and erecting Trump Towers in SoHo, Toronto, and all over the world.

Bayrock’s former finance director, Jody Kriss, portrayed the Trump SoHo as a “monument to spectacularly corrupt money-laundering and tax evasion.” Documents and emails unearthed in related litigation indicated that the project served as a vehicle for laundering illicit funds. (Bayrock settled the lawsuit out-of-court in 2018. Terms of the settlement were not revealed.)

When Trump began running for the presidency 2016, he retained his antipathy towards NATO—even though it has enjoyed extraordinary bipartisan support since its birth immediately after World War II. During the 2016 campaign, Trump asked the Washington Post editorial board why the US should carry NATO’s costs and the defense of Ukraine. Later that month, he called NATO “obsolete” and said America’s allies were not paying their fair share.

Similar sentiments prevailed during the Republican National Convention that year, when Trump’s campaign aides famously watered down a plank calling for lethal arms shipments to Ukraine. Similarly, that same month, in an interview with the New York Times, Trump said that if the Baltic states were attacked by Russia— a threat that is all too real now— he would check first to see if they had fulfilled their financial obligations to the US before agreeing to defend them.

And so it went. Before his first inauguration, in January 2017, in interviews with the Times of London and Bild, Trump repeated the line about NATO being obsolete. Not long afterwards, in a May 25 speech at NATO headquarters in Brussels, he deleted a planned line reaffirming Article Five. A year later, he justified stiff tariffs on Canada, Mexico and the EU on national security grounds. In early June 2018, he urged readmitting Russia to the G7.

At the NATO summit in July, he threatened to leave NATO and go it alone if spending didn’t rise. On July 16, at Helsinki, Trump famously accepted Putin’s denial of interference in the US elections—accepting the assertions of the Russian president—a former KGB officer, mind you—over the findings of America’s own intelligence services. In January 2019, the New York Times cited senior officials saying that Trump had threatened to withdraw from NATO on multiple occasions.

As for his second term, Trump’s two-pronged strategy—ripping apart NATO while he wooed Vladimir Putin— began even before he was inaugurated. On January 7, two weeks before he was sworn in, Trump called Canada “the 51st state,” and refused to rule out the use of military or economic force to take over Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark that, like Canada is a NATO member. (There is no mechanism in NATO to deal with one member that threatens another.)

In early February, Trump announced punishing tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Then, on February 24, 2025, just five weeks into his second term, Trump made it crystal clear what side he was on. On the the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the US voted with Russia and North Korea against a resolution condemning the invasion. Russia and North Korea were our allies. Ukraine and Europe were not. It was official.

Four days later, in the Oval Office, with Vice-President Vance at his side, Trump publicly berated Zelensky: “You don’t have the cards!”

If it seemed like Trump was tormenting America’s longtime allies over the next few months while he cozied up to Putin, that’s because he was. He blitzed Canada and NATO allies with a chaotic series of on-again-off-again tariffs. Then, in the fall, after Trump greeted Vladimir Putin with a red carpet reception in Alaska, special envoy Steve Witkoff, a billionaire real estate developer with no experience in diplomacy, came up with a 28-point peace plan that essentially capitulated to Putin’s desire to eliminate Ukraine’s sovereignty. Dismissing the proposal as “blatant corruption,” Garry Kasparov, the chairman of the Renew Democracy Initiative, told TVP, the Polish broadcast network, that the plan sought to place U.S. hands on frozen Russian assets earmarked for Ukraine’s reconstruction. “It’s a business deal… nothing to do with peace,” he said.

He added, “Putin cannot continue this war indefinitely if the free world is united behind Ukraine.”

But the “free world,” or at least the President of the United States, was NOT behind Ukraine. Thanks to Trump, the US had become an unreliable partner in NATO, and the November 2025 National Security Strategy, released December 4, made that crystal clear. Without mentioning NATO by name, the White House’s official strategy document asserted that “Our elites badly miscalculated America’s willingness to shoulder forever global burdens to which the American people saw no connection to the national interest.”

It was official: Russia and North Korea were our new allies, Ukraine and Europe were not

The White House effectively dismissed NATO as one of those burdens. But in fact, the alliance supports the world’s largest trade and investment relationships, which are worth roughly $8 trillion and support millions of U.S. jobs. Its collective defense has deterred adversaries from launching a great power war for more than 75 years. The alliance also gives the US enormous advantages in intelligence sharing. It provides international legitimacy for sanctions on Russia or pressure on China—neither of which have comparable alliances. And, finally, it projects American power into the Middle East, Africa and the Arctic.

All of which is particularly relevant because in recent weeks both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump appear to be facing existential crises. In Putin’s case, it’s because his three or four day “special military operation” is now well into its fifth year and has caused more than one and a half million Russian casualties. In other words, Russia is losing it war with Ukraine, and if Putin’s imperial ambitions go up in flames—well, so does Putin.

As for Trump, his Republican Party is facing a wipeout in the November 3 midterms and, if that comes to pass, Trump will have to face the rest of his terms handcuffed by an adversarial Congress that will likely spend its time investigating one malfeasance after another.

And so, 42 years after David Bogatin walked into Trump Tower, the Kremlin continues to collect on the $6 million Bogatin plunked down for Trump real estate. The only question left is whether Russia can cash out before American voters close the account.

Craig Unger has served as the deputy editor of The New York Observer, editor-in-chief of Boston Magazine, and a frequent contributor to The New Republic and Vanity Fair. His most recent book is American Kompromat: How the KGB Cultivated Donald Trump, and Related Tales of Sex, Greed, Power, and Treachery. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, from which this is reprinted with permission.


Macron and Trump

Enraged By Rate Hike, Trump Threatens To Expand Trade War Again (Huh?)

Donald Trump seems determined to outdo himself on crazy every day. Many people thought he had hit peak crazy when he threatened to tear down the Kennedy Center if they wouldn’t let him put his name on it, but he quickly took crazy to the next level. He is now threatening to cut off trade with some countries because the Fed raised interest rates on Wednesday.

If the threat to cut off trade as a response to a Fed rate hike doesn’t make sense to you, don’t worry. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not clear what Trump imagines he can accomplish by cutting off trade with a country. It will hurt the country with whom we stop doing business, just as it would hurt Michigan if Ohio stopped trading with it, but it will also hurt American households. The loss of imports will mean shortages and higher prices. If we also stop exports to a country, it will mean a loss of jobs.

Trump didn’t say which countries he wanted to end trade with, but we can have some fun speculating. So here are my top three candidates, along with the items where our markets would be most affected.

Canada

Trump would almost certainly put Canada at the top of his list of trade enemies. After all, they sell us all sorts of things; what could be worse than that? This is probably the most absurd of Trump’s targets. Canada has been a close ally for more than a century. Their trade is being governed by a trade agreement negotiated by Donald Trump in his first term, which Trump insists was signed by a stupid president.

The largest import from Canada is 3.9 million barrels a day of oil, roughly 20% of our total consumption. If Trump were to suddenly cut off this flow, to make good on his plan to end trade with Canada, we can expect an enormous surge in gas prices, likely on the order of several dollars a gallon. There would almost certainly be shortages in many areas as new distribution networks would need to be established.

Another major import is cars and car parts, which came to $45.8 billion last year. This would put upward pressure on vehicle prices due to less competition, but more importantly, it would throw a huge monkey wrench into the domestic industry. More of the parts used in assembling vehicles in the United States come from Canada. In principle, these parts can be produced here, but it would take many years to develop this capacity. In the meantime, our industry would be seriously hampered by the inability to get necessary parts. Again, this almost certainly means much higher car prices and shortages of many models.

Two other major imports are lumber at $10.2 billion and aluminum at $9.7 billion. These are both intermediate inputs into the production process. If we lost access to imports from Canada look to much higher house prices, as new construction becomes far more expensive. Similarly, it will be difficult to replace the aluminum the U.S. gets from Canada. This would make airplanes and other products produced in the United States far more expensive.

Spain

Spain likely also features prominently on Trump’s target list. Spain’s prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, has repeatedly stood up to Trump openly. He refused to go along with Trump’s demand that NATO countries increase their military spending to 5% of GDP. He also has been extremely critical of Israel’s mass murder of Palestinians. This has led to explicit warnings of retaliation from Netanyahu. Trump may opt to ban trade with Spain as part of this retaliation.

Spain is a much less consequential trading partner than Canada, being on the other side of the Atlantic and also orienting most of its trade towards the European Union. Our largest imports from Spain are $2.9 billion in pharmaceutical products, $2.6 billion in machinery, and $2.0 billion in electrical equipment.

None of these are especially large for the U.S. economy, but the loss of imports from Spain would almost certainly mean selective shortages and higher prices. Again, these items can be replaced with imports from elsewhere and domestic production, but it will take time.

France

A third likely target is France, first and foremost because its president, Emmanuel Macron, is articulate and internationally respected, and far better looking than Donald Trump. Along with the rest of the European Union, he also has refused to go along with Trump’s war on Iran.

Our largest imports from France are similar to the ones from Spain, but the amounts are much larger: pharmaceutical products, $11.6 billion, machinery $10.5 billion, and aircraft and parts, $6.1 billion. These can be replaced, but not overnight. A cutoff of trade would lead to shortages in many items and lead to serious upward pressure on prices.

How Much Will Americans Pay for Trump’s Quixotic Trade War?

These are my top three candidates for Trump’s trade embargo, but who knows? Trump’s trade wars are not being driven by any rational strategy; it is a question of who happens to get him angry over something, and who will bribe him to not cut off trade.

It’s also possible that Trump just backs down or forgets about his threats. That happens all the time. How many times has he said he was going to destroy Iranian civilization and then, thankfully, forgotten or ignored his threat? Remember the 50% tariffs he threatened to impose on India for buying Russian oil? Trump doesn’t seem to.

Trump makes all sorts of half-baked threats all the time, and the absurd threat to retaliate against a Fed rate hike with random trade embargos is certainly a serious half-baked threat. But it is one that people should keep an eye on.

If Trump does move forward on the threat, it would amount to a big new tax and economic disruption at a time when most people are already feeling pinched. If Trump has his little embargo(s) before the election, it would likely further damage Republican electoral prospects. If he plans to wait until after the election, I guess Republicans can say that the taxes and shortages are their reward for having Trump in the White House.

Dean Baker is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the author of the 2016 book Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer. Please consider subscribing to his Substack, from which this is reprinted with permission.

Americans Reject Monarchy, But We Admire The King For Upholding Democracy

Americans Reject Monarchy, But We Admire The King For Upholding Democracy

I've always been both a small-r republican and an Anglophile, so I looked upon the British monarchy with at least a pinch of smug superiority. The Windsors are revered for nothing more than birth — not talent, nor accomplishments, nor virtue. It's all a throwback to an earlier stage of human development, when people were not mature enough for representative democracy.

I wasn't feeling smug as I watched King Charles III address Congress the other day. Quite the opposite. Though I remain a small-r republican, I couldn't help but be embarrassed at what we supposedly mature, self-governing Americans have wrought.

Seated behind Charles were the vice president and speaker of the House, among the highest officers of the land. But befitting our descent from mature self-government, they were both bedecked in the MAGA uniform — blue suits, white shirts and red ties. Everything about them — every word, every gesture and even their clothing — attests to their fealty to their liege lord. Ditto for more than half of the representatives and senators in attendance. While they didn't all wear the uniform (they weren't on camera), the Republicans in Congress have surrendered their self-respect and independent judgment to the man who would be king. They are far more subservient to Trump than any member of Parliament is to Charles.

Trump revels in the servility of his vassals. The White House tweeted a picture of the two men with the caption "two kings." Yes, this tweet is partly a troll to enrage the "libs," but frankly, it doesn't go far enough. Trump aspires not just to be a king but to be a god-emperor. Look around — the massive Trump banners defacing official buildings, the renaming of the Kennedy Center and U.S. Institute of Peace, the coins, the proposed triumphal arch, the Trump ballroom, the reflecting pool (which will now look like Mar-A-Lago north), the new passports, the Trump class battleships, the national park passes, to say nothing of sidelining Congress, disregarding court orders, making unilateral war, and attempting to criminally prosecute his critics — all of it flagrantly un-American. And this from the party that garlands itself in flags and showy patriotism.

King Charles had a tricky task. His government (did you notice the way he referred to Kier Starmer as "my" prime minister?) and our other European allies are both horrified and scared about what Trump is doing to the transatlantic relationship. They've been adopting different tactics — concessions, flattery, toughness — to deal with the unhinged president who has stooped even to threatening military action against a NATO ally. Are the British questioning the "special relationship" with the United States?

Oh, yeah. In contrast to King Charles' soothing words, the Financial Times reports that Britain's ambassador in Washington, Sir Christian Turner, told a visiting group of students in early February that the phrase "special relationship" was "quite nostalgic, quite backward looking" and that the only country that currently enjoys a special relationship with the United States is "probably Israel." He did add that "there is a deep affinity between us, particularly on defense and security," but the message was clear. Trump has strained, if not quite ruptured, relations.

The king's visit can thus be interpreted as one more effort by the spurned Europeans to keep Trump on their side. Starmer, aware of Trump's imperial pretensions, played the "King Charles" card. The pomp, the state visit, the photo ops, and the speech to a joint session of Congress are all in service of both flattering and taming the disordered president.

King Charles, despite his title, is not free to say what he thinks. And yet he managed, subtly, to convey his awareness of the threat Trump poses not just to the relationship with the United Kingdom but to the values on which the Euro-American relationship is based. Referring to the shared legal traditions of the United States and Great Britain, he said:

"The U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta is cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances."

The King also mentioned September 11, and reminded his audience that it was the first and only time that NATO invoked Article V. The allies came to our aid, not the reverse — a pointed rebuke to the president who has repeatedly disparaged Europeans' contributions to NATO and to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He then added, "Today, Mr. Speaker, that same, unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people."

The king's speech closed with an invocation of Abraham Lincoln (hard to top), and a prayer:

"I pray with all my heart that our alliance will continue to defend our shared values, with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth, and across the world, and that we ignore the clarion calls to become ever more inward-looking."

We all know who is issuing those clarion calls. One of the callers hosted the state dinner, and another was sitting over his right shoulder. The actual king has never looked better than in contrast to the American pretender to a throne.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators


'Please Keep Bombing': Trump Insists Iranians Want To Suffer For 'Freedom'

'Please Keep Bombing': Trump Insists Iranians Want To Suffer For 'Freedom'

If President Donald Trump wanted to make the case that there’s no reason for Congress to consider invoking the 25th Amendment, he undermined it bigly during his latest press briefing on the Iran war.

“Your messaging on the war has moved from ‘the war is coming to an end’ to ‘we're going to be bombing Iran to the Stone Ages,’” one reporter said about Trump’s shifting motives and timeline. “So which is it?”

“I can't tell you. I don’t know,” Trump responded. “We're giving them ‘til tomorrow, 8 o'clock Eastern time, and after that they're gonna have no bridges, they're gonna have no power plants. Stone Ages. Yeah, Stone Ages.”

When asked whether threatening to destroy Iran’s infrastructure amounted to punishing innocent people, Trump claimed that Iranians are begging him to bomb them.

“They would be willing to suffer that in order to have freedom,” he responded. “We’ve had numerous intercepts: ‘Please keep bombing.’ Bombs are dropping near their homes. ‘Please keep bombing. Do it.’

Trump added, “And these are people that are living where the bombs are exploding, and when we leave and we're not hitting those areas, they're saying ‘please come back, come back, come back.”

It’s hard to believe that the children who were killed during a U.S. strike of a school last month would share that sentiment.

Then when asked about NATO, Trump offered up a version of events that only Russian President Vladimir Putin could appreciate.

“I've always said NATO's a paper tiger. Putin's not afraid of NATO. Putin's afraid of us—very afraid of us—and he's explained it to me a lot of times. I got to know him very well. I know him very well,” he said.

“NATO’s a paper tiger,” Trump repeated. “NATO is us.”

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Trending

World