Why are they pretending like this is something new for them when they knew about this way before? Burner phones at this point in time feels like trying birth control when your kid is already 13 years old.
i would also just be happy for something being done now even if it could have been done earlier
So who's the one doing the Russian appreciation here, in practice I mean, not in virtue signaling?
You can see this from the Spanish reaction to US spies recruiting people in Spanish intelligence, to France's desire to join Five Eyes provided that a mutual no-spying agreement were signed, etc.
The reason you don't see stronger reactions is probably because countries were afraid of upsetting the US leadership, but being spied on is bad.
Both US political parties were doing this decades ago to the German Chancellor. There is no escalation beyond her. If you're willing to tap her, you're willing to tap anyone.
Here's why wiretapping allies is important: if the US agencies can wiretap you, then so can Russia, China, Israel, North Korea, etc. So if you notice your allies being sloppy with their InfoSec, you can also let them know about it before the enemies find out and exploit them.
So it's your job to implement security that nobody else can tap. That's why citizens pay taxes to the defense sector, that's why you have intelligence and counter intelligence agencies, etc. they just need to do their fucking job instead of going after citizens who buy weed online or who call politicians dicks on Xitter.
The big difference now is that the US (my own damn country) is not nearly as trustworthy as it was (for some value of trustworthy), nor is it nearly as competently led as it was (for some value of competence), nor is it behaving in rational and predictable ways (as compared to before). So, maybe we all just understand that it's in everyone else's best interest to keep a close eye on conditions in the US, because it's not going to get better any time soon. And we all should probably also understand that the US is just going to see enemies wherever it looks and that's not going to improve any time soon, either.
Temporary internal economic disputes (these happen all the time, especially between EU members) have little to do with military alliances against external threats.
So, that is what changed.
I daresay his judgment is informed by his consideration of Russia as closer to an ally than a foe.
Trump doesn't care about cost. And investing in your own military is not the same as paying America. The Baltic countries and Poland have spent a higher then recommended percentage of their gdp on the military and have done more to keep a positive relationship with America but Trump doesn't seem to care
And it would not required Trump lying about Ukraine war either.
Which is true since defense money doesn't rain from the sky. Taxpayers on both sides of the atlantic are footing the bill.
>He always says Europeans are not paying their fair share.
Which is true when you look at per member spending percentages. Mostly Poland and a couple of other members have been meeting their agreed spending targets, but the rest have been slacking.
>He has been talking about it for ten years:
From your article:
"While Trump has gone so far as saying that, as president, he would consider pulling the U.S. out of NATO if it is not restructured, we’ve found no instance of him saying he wants to do so at this point. And the Clinton campaign hasn’t been able to point to an example of Trump saying that either.
In fact, it was during the interview with the Post, which initially brought attention to Trump’s feelings about NATO, that Trump said that he doesn’t want the U.S. to leave the alliance."
> While Trump has gone so far as saying that, as president, he would consider pulling the U.S. out of NATO if it is not restructured, we’ve found no instance of him saying he wants to do so at this point
US won't because US needs NATO more than other countries. US is the only country to ever invoke article whatshernumber.