Trump Takes on Germany/Europe at NATO Summit

Toplines from Trump at the NATO summit:

  1. Trump accused Germany of being “totally controlled” by Russia in comments about their proposed Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.
  2. German Chancellor Angela Merkel replied that she’d already “experienced the Soviet occupation … it is good that we are independent today.”
  3. Trump called on NATO members to double their defense spending commitment to 4%. (The U.S. is at 3.5%). Only five nations (if you include Poland at 1.99%) currently meet the 2% target for 2024.

Axios’ Jonathan Swan asked NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg a pair of questions in Brussels.

  • Swan 1: Did President Trump assure you he wouldn’t make any concessions in his meeting with Vladimir Putin — for example on Crimea?
  • Stoltenberg 1: “Action speaks louder than words. And I’m absolutely confident about the U.S. commitment to European security.” Stoltenberg noted that all allies, including the U.S., signed a declaration today saying they don’t recognize Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. (But he dodged the question about what assurances he sought and received.)
  • Swan 2: Has President Trump, in any of his conversations with you, suggested he thinks the United States has too many troops in Europe?
  • Stoltenberg 2: “This is the unified position of all allies… The illegal annexation of Crimea is one of the main reasons why NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of collective defense since the end of the Cold War.” (Again, separating Trump’s words from the Trump administration’s deeds.)

Swan’s thought bubble: Stoltenberg has a point about Trump’s words versus his administration’s deeds (so far). Trump has not done anything to reduce U.S. military support for NATO and has actually increased military investments in Europe.

  • But at the same time Trump has done what no recent U.S. president has done — publicly questioned the value of NATO for the U.S. and in the process made some of America’s closest allies privately question whether they can still rely on American protection.

Macron and Trump France’s President Emmanuel Macron jokes with President Trump. Photo by Tatyana Zenkovich/AFP/Getty Images.

So, what about NATO?

Former defense minister of Georgia stands to ask if NATO regrets not giving full them membership, because “it was seen as an invitation for Russia” to invade. And asks when will there be appetite for NATO expansion. Germany’s Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen: “I have been to a lot of NATO meetings… this summit has the most substance that I have seen”
President Trump asserts that Germany is ‘captive to Russia’ over pipeline project in testy exchange with NATO chief. That was at the breakfast meeting.

Then is Europe threatened by Russia, hence the reason for NATO? Yes, an example –>

A group of Russian special operations forces parachuted onto the island of Gogland in a Russian-controlled portion of the Gulf of Finland. They hid their parachutes, journeyed deep into the interior, and destroyed a series of mock communications stations, radars and ASM batteries. They then prepped a landing site for a helicopter escape — despite the fact that the island already has a helipad.

The troops jumped from a Mi-8AMTSH helicopter at an altitude of 2,500 meters, and used satellite navigation equipment to guide them to their landing site, notes a July 10 press release on the drill from the Russian Ministry of Defense. The soldiers that took part in the exercise had “not less than a hundred jumps with parachutes of various types,” it said.

Aki Heikkinen, who curates Russianmilitarywatch.com, pointed out that Gogland, seized by Russia in 1944, is just 24 miles from the Finnish city of Kotka. More here.

So, as these encounters went on today at the NATO Summit, Trump went so far as to suggest 4% of GDP payments to NATO members.

Meanwhile: NATO existed below the creation of the European Union, and…

President Trump has consistently railed against other members of the NATO security alliance for freeloading off the United States and not doing enough to manage their own defense.

“NATO has not treated us fairly,” he told reporters before leaving for a NATO summit meeting this week in Brussels. “We pay far too much and they pay far too little.”

As with many Trump crusades, there’s truth to his claims—but more to the story. Trump will press for more European defense spending at this week’s meeting, which is likely to be contentious. Other NATO members are already pushing back, arguing that their commitment to defense is rising and they back US priorities in other important ways. But the basic numbers support Trump.

The United States has been the biggest contributor to NATO since Western nations founded the alliance in 1949 to help prevent any more world wars and shield Europe from the Soviet Union. Underpayments by European nations have been contentious since long before Trump started complaining about the problem–especially following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, when many nations began to slash defense spending.

In 2014, NATO agreed that each member country should spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on defense within a decade. So far, only five countries meet that threshold: the United States, the United Kingdom, Greece, Estonia and Latvia. The United States spends 3.5% of GDP on defense, the most of any NATO member. Among other big NATO members, France spends 1.8% of GDP on defense, Germany 1.2%, Italy 1.2%, and Spain 0.9%.

NATO has 29 member countries. Here’s how they measure up:

Graphic by David Foster

NATO said earlier this year that eight members will meet the 2% threshold in 2018, with Poland, Romania, and Lithuania joining the club. The alliance also said 15 nations would hit the target by 2024, though it hasn’t identified the other seven. That would still leave 14 members falling short of NATO’s own spending target. And that’s if there’s no recession by then, which could force governments to cut spending, not raise it, as tax revenue declines.

European leaders seem to realize they have a weak argument when Trump blasts them for subpar defense spending. Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, argued in a statement prior to Trump’s visit that Europe spends more on defense than China and Russia, and he urged Trump to “appreciate your allies.” But he also acknowledged that Trump is right on spending, saying “dear Europe, spend more on your defence, because everyone respects an ally that is well-prepared and equipped.”

While Trump is right about the spending numbers, some analysts worry he’s overly fixated on one metric that doesn’t fully capture the way various NATO members contribute to real-world security operations. Also important, for instance, are troop and equipment contributions to NATO missions. By those metrics, some of the deadbeat members look much more involved.

NATO members other than the United States have taken on steadily more of the NATO mission in Afghanistan since the US first invaded in 2001, for instance. Seven nations—the Czech Republic, Romania, Montenegro, Albania, Denmark, Croatia and Germany—contributed more troops to Afghanistan operations, as a percentage of their total military force, than the United States did between 2015 and 2017, according to analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

By the same metric, nine NATO members, led by Canada, Norway and Denmark, contributed a larger portion of their military force to operations against ISIS than the US did in 2016. And the US ranks 18th in refugees taken in due to Mideast instability as a percentage of total population, with Turkey, Sweden and Norway accepting the most.

 

Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018, Will it Pass?

You can read this proposed legislation here.

It has only been introduced in the House….a very long way to go. It has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

The 3 co-sponsors are:

Rep. King, Peter T. [R-NY-2]*
Rep. Budd, Ted [R-NC-13]*
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4]*

Antifa's Berkeley Violence Ought to Frighten the Left ... photo

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalty enhancements for committing certain offenses while in disguise, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018”.

SEC. 2. Interference with protected rights while in disguise.

(a) In general.—Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 249 the following:

§ 250. Interference with protected rights while in disguise

“(a) In general.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

“(b) Rule of construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to deter any law enforcement officer from lawfully carrying out the duties of his office; and no law enforcement officer shall be considered to be in violation of this section for lawfully carrying out the duties of his office or lawfully enforcing ordinances and laws of the United States, the District of Columbia, any of the several States, or any political subdivision of a State. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘law enforcement officer’ means any officer of the United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or political subdivision of a State, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of, or make arrests because of, offenses against the United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.”.

(b) Clerical amendment.—The table of sections for chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item related to section 249 the following:


“250. Interference with protected rights while in disguise. ”.

SEC. 3. Destroying buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction while in disguise.

Section 1363 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “Whoever, during the commission of an offense under this section, wears a disguise, including a mask, shall, in addition to any term of imprisonment otherwise imposed under this section, be imprisoned for 2 years.”.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/08/28/01/439F6FDE00000578-0-Gibson_second_from_left_and_his_body_guard_retreat_behind_police-a-15_1503878660344.jpg photo

*** Last year, the New York Times did an interesting summary on the unmasking. In part, please note:

Since 1949, it has been illegal to wear a mask in public in Alabama outside of occasions like Halloween and Mardi Gras. That sweeping law, and others enacted across the country around that time, was in direct response to the Ku Klux Klan.

Numerous states have laws governing the wearing of masks in public. In Ohio, for instance, it is illegal for two or more people to wear “white caps, masks or other disguises” while committing a misdemeanor. In West Virginia, a broad law prohibiting the wearing of masks includes several exceptions: holiday costumes and winter sports attire, among others.

California had an expansive anti-mask law for decades, until the Iranian revolution in 1979. Iranian-Americans in California sued over the law, saying it kept them from shielding their identities for safety purposes in protests against the new leadership in Iran. The law was struck down.

“The California court recognized, and other courts recognize, that people wear masks in all sorts of situations for completely nonviolent and, in fact, purposes that are protected by the First Amendment,” Michael T. Risher, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, said in an interview.

After that case, the state enacted a far narrower provision: It is illegal to wear a mask in the act of committing a crime. The University of California, Berkeley, also has its own regulation for masks: People who are not affiliated with the university cannot wear masks on campus for the purpose of intimidation. Read more here.