The Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal isn’t buying Donald Trump’s claim he was just trying to persuade NATO countries to increase defense spending when he threatened that the U.S. would not fulfill it’s treaty obligation to protect them in the case of Russian attack.
At a campaign rally in South Carolina on Saturday, Trump claimed he once had a conversation with the leader of a NATO ally who asked how he’d respond if a NATO member that hadn’t spent enough on defense was attacked by Russia.
Trump said he replied: “‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’”
Now we don’t know whether or not this was an imaginary conversation or actually took place. But Trump sure came off sounding like a mob boss running a protection racket.
So in an editorial published Monday, the Wall Street Journal wrote:
But this isn’t 2020 any more. Russia has invaded Ukraine, bombed its cities and civilians, mused about using nuclear weapons, and threatened Finland and Sweden for seeking to join NATO. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty pledges every member of the alliance to aid another treaty member if attacked. The only time it has been invoked was after the 9/11 attacks on America.
Deterrence depends on a combination of force and the will to use it. Mr. Trump’s boasts that he wouldn’t aid an ally will sow doubt in the minds of our allies and might encourage Mr. Putin to think he could get away with another invasion. Mr. Putin has all but said that the Baltic states are rightfully Russia’s.
The editorial then quoted a response to Trump’s remarks by NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.
While visiting Warsaw, Poland on Sunday,Stoltenberg issued a statement that said:
“Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security, including that of the U.S., and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk.”
Stoltenberg diplomatically added that he expects that “regardless of who wins the presidential election, the U.S. will remain a strong and committed NATO ally.”
The WSJ editorial board then wrote:
Mr. Trump’s riff also comes in the context of his lobbying against more U.S. military aid for Ukraine. He boasts about his admiration for Mr. Putin, and his bromance with the dictator during their 2018 Helsinki summit was a low point of his Presidency. Mr. Trump now says he’ll end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours, even before he’s inaugurated. The only way to do that is to deny Ukraine more weapons and tell President Volodymyr Zelensky to give Mr. Putin what he wants. The word for that isn’t peace; it’s appeasement.
The editorial was published before the Senate early Tuesday passed a $95.3 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. Hopefully, it might help shake loose a few Republican votes in the House to pass the aid package despite the opposition of Trump and hardline GOP members to the legislation.
The vote came after a small group of Republicans opposed to the $60 billion for Ukraine held the Senate floor through the night, using the final hours of debate to argue that the U.S. should focus on its own problems before sending more money overseas. But 22 Republicans voted with nearly all Democrats to pass the package 70-29, with supporters arguing that abandoning Ukraine could embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin and threaten national security across the globe.
Of course, this being a Murdoch-owned newspaper, the editorial board had to begin the piece by lamenting that Trump’s provocative comments are “the reason many Americans won’t vote for him again even against a mentally declining President Biden.”
Reading between the lines, it’s clear that the editorial board would have preferred a conservative Republican nominee like former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, who would support Ukraine and NATO. But that’s not likely to happen. And Fox News continues to give a platform to Trump and his MAGA Kool-Aid cult drinkers who oppose aid for Ukraine and are soft on Vladimir Putin.
And the editorial concludes with an outlandish claim about Biden weakening U.S. deterrence when in fact his policies have strengthened unity among NATO members.
The newspaper wrote:
The U.S. should be having an election debate over the growing dangers to U.S. security and how to counter them. Instead we have an incumbent who has presided over the collapse of U.S. deterrence, and a GOP front-runner who dotes on dictators. No wonder Mr. Putin is looking so confident these days.