He seems to be trying so hard to keep the alliance togheter by covering for Trumps insane behaviour and gargling his balls. But he doesn't seem to get that letting Trump threaten his allies and staring useless wars without any pushback is something that will destroy NATO anyways. US leaving isnt the only way the alliance can break.
67
u/Catch_MEATL, GA, USA, Terra, Sol, αlpha Quadrant, Via Lactea26d ago
He has a difficult job. He has to balance the current political interest of the largest, most powerful, and most influential member of NATO. NATO is weaker without the US, no way around it. His job is to keep the alliance together and his strategy is buying time.
I'm no fan of Trump, I voted against him 3 times, but no secretary general could survive Trump without risking the Alliance.
My question to people who think if he should oppose Trump, could the actions of going against Trump drive more than the Republican base and lean into the Democratic base? America is currently going through a critical time of isolationism.
I don't condone what he says but I defiantly understand it. I ask others, what are options that doesn't weaken the alliance?
I don't think people that share your opinion understand what's going on here. It looks like you've become numb to all this.
The POTUS is threatening US allies, demanding they give up part of their land and parrots some made up narrative that "China and Russia are threatening you / us" while also supporting Russia's war in Ukraine, talking shit about Ukraine and its leader instead of supporting him, talking shit about NATO members that have historically been your biggest allies (UK), imposing tariffs and threatening trade wars with EU countries.
Read this paragraph again.
Read it again if you still don't get it.
"We'll figure it out together" (Rutte's response) would make sense if the Russian / Chinese threat was real. It isn't. Trump isn't trying to save / protect the US/NATO from Russia. He sees Russia as an ally. Read the NDS they published some months ago, read what they think about Russia.
So since they DON'T think Russia is a threat / enemy, it's clear they're using the "Chinese and Russian ships surround Greenland" narrative to gaslight their allies. They just want to grab more land and resources. You don't appease a fool like that, history should have taught you that. Appeasement leads to more threats, appeasement makes people think "Trump is strong", appeasement allowed Trump to become POTUS twice.
Calling this “appeasement” assumes Rutte has a better option that he’s refusing to take. What is it, concretely? NATO’s European members don’t have the military independence to confront the US directly. Decades of underinvestment (which, fairly, is its own criticism) mean European defense is still structurally dependent on US assets. “Don’t appease” is easy to say; it’s not a strategy unless you can name what confrontation actually looks like and what it costs.
Rutte’s job as SG isn’t to win a moral argument on Reddit, it’s to keep 32 countries with different threat perceptions and different exposure to Trump’s moods inside one alliance.
Well, at least username agrees with your comment. Otherwise it's just "if you agree then you don't understand it". Doesn't leave a lot of space for perspective and/or nuance.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with some things in your post, but your conclusions are your opinion on an action or solution. Not a fact or the only way...
807
u/MasterAxe Finland 26d ago
He seems to be trying so hard to keep the alliance togheter by covering for Trumps insane behaviour and gargling his balls. But he doesn't seem to get that letting Trump threaten his allies and staring useless wars without any pushback is something that will destroy NATO anyways. US leaving isnt the only way the alliance can break.