If a European country lets a hostile country like Russia earn trillions by running pipelines through their country, are they really that much of an ally? Tarrifs make perfect sense in response to actions like that

Trump has continually let Russia do as it pleases, he kowtowed in Syria to Putin, he kowtowed by threatening to constantly defund NATO, he kowtowed in Crimea.

The facts are just too obvious. Trump is pro-Russia, he's done nothing but allow it to expand and influence US elections, too.

How is asking for fair proportional funding of european defense something we should be responsible for?

I understand we benefit from that too, but why should we carry the burden more than the direct beneficiaries?

The US benefits more from its forward bases in Europe than the European countries do. This isn't 1976. Russia isn't a direct military threat at this point in time.

In south east asia the argument can be seen differently - but even so, the US protects SK, Japan, Taiwan, and Australia to keep open the South China Sea. If that benefit disappeared the US wouldn't be as vigorous in its defense.

The reason presidents prior kept NATO together was because it is an extremely strong alliance that can protect each other's economic interests. If the US loses NATO now, they are simply no longer hegemon.

You got it backwards. The second Air Force in the world is the US Navy. The US Navy has 8 nuclear lead aircraft carrier groups. AFAIK, neither Russia nor China have nuclear aircraft carriers.

I think the US would be fine without NATO. The US projection would be mostly undamaged. Not so much the rest of the allies. It's the rest of the NATO that benefits from that projection (e.g. Somali pirates missions).

BTW I very much do NOT want NATO to disband. I think it's a great alliance. But let's be realistic. The US pays for alsmost 1/4 of the NATO direct spending, and 2/3 of the indirect spending:

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/trump-still-distorting-nat...

That’s all good but what’s wrong with fair proportionate funding? It’s not like the EU doesn’t benefit the same we do.

The only one I disagree with is cutting funding to USPS. Europe and Canada (nor anyone not specially exempted) should not enjoy advantage in trade. People were beside themselves over rumors of Russian snipers, this guy was directly responsible for troop deaths and much more instability in the ME. We’ve just seen peace agreements begin to bear fruit in the ME —would that have been possible with that guy stirring up hornets’s nests?

The US has countless examples of covert operations that de-stabilised nations and killed other soldiers. Perhaps a cruise missile should be aimed at one of our generals, I'm sure you'd support that.

> We’ve just seen peace agreements begin to bear fruit in the ME —would that have been possible with that guy stirring hornets’s nests?

Syria is still a cluster, Palestine is more oppressed than ever, endless war in Yemen, slave labor in Qatar for the world cup. Kurds abandoned and slaughtered by Turkey. Iran has major instability issues, Pakistan and India have had a major skirmish (granted, not the ME, but it's close enough.)

> this guy was directly responsible for troop deaths and much more instability in the ME.

Should Trump then assassinate Bush and Obama?

No, only external adversaries would entertain such pointless notion. Just like Duterte might in his dreams think of sinking Chinese ships, in reality he’d dig his own grave if he did.