Tag: Trump Relationship with NATO

Let The Games Begin

The Daily Escape:

The Tetons in winter, Moran, WY – February photo by See America’s Best

Wrongo, last Sunday:

“The House Republicans have effectively turned the Ukraine war into a free-for-all. Without US arms assistance, there’s a substantial risk that this war could easily escalate, with the US having only a limited voice in both strategy and tactics.”

The next day, as if on schedule, France chimed in. From Politico:

“French President Emmanuel Macron said on Monday that sending Western troops to Ukraine should not be ruled out….There is no consensus today to send ground troops officially but … nothing is ruled out… We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war.”

This kabuki took place during a crisis meeting in support of Ukraine that was attended by heads of European states, including German Chancellor Scholz, and top government officials like UK Foreign Secretary Cameron. Ukraine’s president Zelensky attended the meeting by video link.

The subject was first raised publicly by Slovak Prime Minister Fico, who said a “restricted document” circulated prior to the summit had implied that a number of NATO and EU member states were considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis.

The too-clever part is “on a bilateral basis”. That’s a mealy-mouth way of saying that NATO wouldn’t be supplying the troops, just the individual NATO members.

Macron’s suggestion has started a free-for-all among the NATO members about possibly sending troops to Ukraine. As Wrongo said, the inability of House Republicans to mount a legislative program is clearly affecting both Ukraine and NATO.

Macron’s comments prompted a hawkish response from Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov:

“In this case, we need to talk not about the likelihood, but about the inevitability of a conflict….These countries must also assess and be aware of this, asking themselves whether this is in their interests, as well as the interests of the citizens of their countries.”

Russia implies that any Western troop deployment in Ukraine would trigger a direct conflict between Moscow and the NATO military alliance.

That naturally sent European leaders scrambling to backtrack: A NATO official told CNN the alliance had “no plans” to deploy combat troops in Ukraine. And German Chancellor Scholz​immediately said that European leaders unanimously rejected sending troops to fight in Ukraine against Russia. He was backed up by NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg (the same fellow who gave “permission” to Ukraine to bomb inside Russia using NATO’s soon-to-be delivered F-16s).

The US has always told NATO that it would be foolish to send NATO troops to Ukraine. But what leverage does the US have if it isn’t supplying its share of weapons and ammo right now when they’re most needed? The inaction by House Republicans was the precipitating reason for the hastily called European summit in the first place.

​One of the outcomes of the EU meeting was support for sourcing more ammunition from outside of NATO. President Zelensky offered a sharp reminder that the EU had massively undershot promises on ammunition deliveries. He underlined the EU’s failure to deliver 1 million shells by March:

“Of the million shells promised to us by the European Union, not 50% arrived, but 30%….

This includes practically everything, ranging from air defense missiles to howitzer shells.

As a possible solution, Czech Prime Minister Fiala said he received “big support” at the talks from European partners for his proposal to source shells from outside the EU for Kyiv. The Czech Republic is leading a campaign to raise €1.4 billion to pay for ammunition for Ukraine, in compensation both for the stalled US aid package and delays in EU deliveries.

This means that buying exclusively within the EU simply isn’t realistic. Region-wide reductions in defense spending following the end of the Cold War led to arms manufacturers reducing their capacity to make such weapons. And rebuilding the industry won’t happen overnight.

Widening out the view, Macron appears to be attempting again to assert himself as the leader of a united Europe, just as Europe braces for the possibility of a) no weapons funding from the Biden administration, or b) Trump winning a second term.

Given Trump’s antipathy toward NATO and transactional view toward alliances, Macron and others have stressed that the burden must fall to Europe to protect from future Russian aggression.

Macron also said he was abandoning his opposition to buying arms for Ukraine from outside the EU. This potential program is known in the EU as “strategic autonomy”, policies aimed at making Europe less reliant on the US.

These unilateral actions by Europe signal two ideas. First, that there is no Plan B for supporting Ukraine beyond sending them more weapons, and advanced weapons that have the capability to strike inside Russia. Striking inside Russia is key to Ukraine having a stronger position in any negotiated end to the War, but NATO fears Russia’s retaliation if longer range weapons are supplied to Ukraine, so they will come slowly, if at all.

Second, Europe believes as of now that Ukraine is losing. Wrongo heard on the PBS NewsHour that the best likely outcome in 2024 is for a Ukraine holding action followed by another offensive in 2025, even though Ukraine’s 2023 offensive produced very little. In this view sending more weapons to Ukraine only seems to buy time in 2024.

The alternative view is that Russia is outproducing the West in artillery shells and ammunition. And think about the Russia, China, Iran axis that Wrongo mentioned last week: Neither China or Iran will willingly let Russia lose a war, because they know who’ll be next.

Another way to think about this: Trump weakened NATO during his presidency. Biden was able to rebuild America’s credibility with NATO, helped enormously by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Since then, NATO has expanded, adding two new countries to the membership and by stepping up with weapons and financial support for Ukraine. Now, in the waning months of Biden’s first term, Republicans have cracked NATO again with their unwillingness to fund the Ukraine War.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Saturday’s Kinda Soothing Links

The Daily Escape:

Surf, Shore Acres SP, OR – December 2023 photo by Alan Nyri Photography

Next week is the last before the Christmas and New Year’s festivities. The extended holiday time will reduce Wrongo’s output and most likely limit his posts to season-appropriate musical selections. But that’s next week. With what remains of this week, here are some snippets from longer articles.

First, from Kyle Tharp, “Inside the first-ever White House holiday party for internet celebs”:

“It’s the influencer party,” I overheard one Secret Service officer mumble to another….We were in line for one of the annual White House Holiday Receptions…where allies of the President, dignitaries, and the press are invited to gather for spiked eggnog and hors d’oeuvres while touring the newly unveiled holiday decorations. Unlike past parties, however, the guest list for the reception…was unprecedented: this event was organized by the White House’s Office of Digital Strategy….That meant the median age of attendees was probably decades younger than most holiday shindigs in DC, and the cumulative social media audience of those in attendance approached 100 million followers.”

Jill Biden gave a short toast:

“Welcome to the White House….You’re here because you all represent the changing way people receive news and information.”

Next, Politico reports that Bidenomics is a big hit outside the US:

“Bidenomics” is falling flat with American voters. But the rest of the world can’t get enough of it.

The Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) mix of support for clean energy technologies and efforts to box out foreign competitors is also promoting a kind of green patriotism — and even some politicians on the right outside the US say that’s a climate message they can sell:

“It’s probably the most impressive piece of legislation in my lifetime,” ex-diplomat Marc-AndrĂ© Blanchard, an executive at Canada’s biggest pension fund, told POLITICO at the…COP28 UN climate talks…”

Biden’s climate law has shown leaders around the world that winner-picking is back, something that has been out of fashion for the past 40 years. The IRA is having a real-world impact as investors shift their money to the US from abroad, hungry to take advantage of US tax breaks:

“In July, for example, Swiss solar manufacturer Meyer Burger canned plans to build a factory in Germany, choosing Arizona instead.”

Third, The Hill reports that buried in the just-passed defense bill was an anti-Trump nugget:

“Congress has approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an Act of Congress.”

The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and is expected to be signed by Biden.

You have to give credit to Lil’ Marco, a shameless Trump supporter who publicly slams Biden, but who clearly understands that Trump back in office is a massive threat. It’s interesting that both Houses passed this, meaning that some House Republicans are acknowledging that Trump will abandon the US commitment to NATO if he gets the choice.

Finally, Drones. They are rapidly changing how soldiers fight, and as both sides in the Ukraine War grow more dependent on them, it’s becoming clear that the US doesn’t have the countermeasures that can defeat drone attacks. From Foreign Policy magazine:

“The advent of pervasive surveillance…has created a newly transparent battlefield. Ubiquitous drones and other technologies make it possible to track, in real time, any troop movements by either side, making it all but impossible to hide massing forces and concentrations of armored vehicles from the enemy.”

More:

“That same surveillance…makes sure that forces, once detected, are immediately hit by barrages of artillery rounds, missiles, and suicide drones.”

As drones take an increasingly prominent role in modern warfare, it’s clear that the need to disable or kill them is critical. Back in the stone age, when Wrongo was an air defense officer, it was the domain of specialist units with very expensive equipment. Now, the proliferation of small, cheap drones is spreading the anti-drone role down to the infantry squad level. From the WSJ:

“Pentagon acquisition chief Bill LaPlante said…that the US needed a surge in production of counterdrone technology, and that a lack of such equipment was hampering operations in both Ukraine and Israel.”

While Ukraine has successfully used drones throughout the war, Russia has recently improved its capabilities. That’s causing Ukraine to lose 10,000 drones a month. Both sides are also expanding their capacity to make drones. More from the WSJ: (brackets by Wrongo)

“Russia has been very effective at bringing Ukrainian drones down by sending out more powerful signals to control the drone than [can] its actual operator….This ability to jam drone signals means that Ukrainian operators have to move closer to the front line to maintain a signal with their [drones]…”

State-of-the-art drone Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) are severely lagging in the West, reducing our ability to help Ukraine, and potentially endangering us here at home. Warfare has changed and America’s playing catch-up. You better believe China is going to school on drone warfare in Ukraine.

Enough of the scary stuff. It’s time for our Saturday Soother, where we decide to unplug from all news all the time and spend a few moments gathering ourselves before the rush of news and holiday shopping that will fill next week.

Start by arranging yourself in a comfy chair by a south-facing window. Now, watch and listen to Edvard Grieg’s  Peer Gynt Suite No. 1, Op. 46 “Morning Mood”. It is performed here by the Berlin Philharmonic, conducted by Herbert von Karajan in 1983:

Practically every human being has heard this at least once in their life.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Saturday Soother – July 14, 2018

The Daily Escape:

Newhaven Breakwater Lighthouse, East Sussex, England – photo via @mindcircle

It was a tough week for our Orange Overlord, what with picking fights with NATO, and with Theresa May about Brexit. Who knew that he would get sucker punched by his good buddy North Korea’s Kim Jong Un? From the NYT:

North Korean officials did not show up on Thursday for a meeting with Americans at the inter-Korean border to discuss the return of remains of United States soldiers killed in the Korean War, officials said.

You may remember that at the Singapore summit in June, Kim Jong Un, and America’s Very Stable Genius agreed that the remains of American soldiers killed during the Korean War would be repatriated. North Korea has returned the remains of some American soldiers since 1953, but about 5,300 Americans presumed to have been killed in the North remain unaccounted for.

Secretary of State Pompeo said after meeting with officials in North Korea last week, that working-level talks on returning the remains would be held in Panmunjom on Thursday. More from the NYT:

Though American military officials went to Panmunjom for the meeting on Thursday, their North Korean counterparts did not, according to a United States defense official….A South Korean government official, who also asked for anonymity, confirmed that the North Koreans had not shown up at Panmunjom.

Was North Korea just late to the party, or were they sending a message to Trump that he needs to give something to get something? It seems that we were caught flat-footed by the NorKo no-show:

Last month, Trump told a Republican convention in Las Vegas that North Korea had “already sent back, or are in the process of sending back” the remains of 200 US or allied service members following his summit with Kim.

The US military also announced that 100 wooden coffins had been dispatched to Panmunjom to receive the remains, although repatriation has yet to take place.

Remember when Trump said that hundreds of parents of Korean War vets (they’d all had to have been at least 99 years old) begged him during the campaign to help get the remains of their dead sons back? Do you remember that on June 13, Trump said on FOX that he’d gotten it done in Singapore?

Doesn’t look like it’s happening at the moment.

But Trump tweeted that everything is fine, because he got a nice note from Kim. From the Guardian:

“A very nice note from Chairman Kim of North Korea. Great progress being made,” the president said in a tweet that included both a copy of Kim’s letter, dated 6 July, and its translation.

If you are a True Believer in Trump, you say he’s shaking things up, and soon his stellar negotiating skills will have us wading hip-deep in all of the global winning. If you’re not a True Believer in Trump, you need some Saturday soothing.

It looks like a warm weekend in the Northeast, so start by brewing up some Yemen Microlot from whole beans, roasted by Dragonfly Coffee. Dragonfly is a Boulder, Colorado-based micro-roaster. The Yemen Microlot is delicate, and richly sweet. It tastes of caramelized apple, baker’s chocolate and tangerine zest, and its only $75/8oz.

Now, take a short walk outside, barefoot. Listen to the birds, avoid stepping on any bees. Settle somewhere in the shade, and listen to Matthew McAllister playing Sonata Pathétique, the 2nd movement of the Adagio Cantabile by Ludwig van Beethoven. Although it is a piano sonata, McAllister is playing it on guitar. It was written in 1798 when Beethoven was 27 years old:

Those who read the Wrongologist in email can view the video here.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Trump Tells NATO to Arm Up

The Daily Escape:

Louvre, Paris – 2017 photo by Brotherside

From the WaPo:

President Trump joined fellow NATO leaders here Wednesday in approving a sweeping set of plans to bolster defenses against Russia and terrorism, hours after delivering a blistering tirade against Germany and other allies.

Trump is obsessed with the levels of military spending by NATO members. At breakfast with Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general, he said:

Many countries are not paying what they should, and, frankly, many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money from many years back…They’re delinquent, as far as I’m concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them.

But NATO doesn’t owe the US anything. Trump says that NATO member countries are freeloading on the US taxpayer’s dime. Trump throws around the target of 2% of GDP as the target share that each NATO country should pay toward the overall NATO budget, but that’s wrong.

Josh Marshall of TPM gives us some perspective: (emphasis by Wrongo)

The actual NATO budget is quite small — a $1.4 billion military budget and a $250 million civilian budget. The US pays a relatively modest part of that total, about 22%. The percentage is based on a formula which includes the size of each member state’s economy. This mainly goes to pay for the NATO headquarters in Belgium and the quite thin military infrastructure which coordinates and integrates the various member-country militaries which make up the alliance. That’s it. The whole thing is budgeted at less than $2 billion. The percentage the US pays is reasonable relative to the size of the US economy and no one is in arrears.

In 2014, at America’s request, NATO set a target that member states should get to a minimum of 2% of GDP on military spending by 2024. Almost all of them have increased spending in GDP terms. But few are at 2% yet, and it’s an open question how many will get there by 2024.

So, the issue of the 2% is not directly related to NATO spending, it relates to overall defense spending by NATO members. To review, the military budgets of all the member countries combined was $921 billion in 2017. The US military budget is the largest, at $610 billion in 2017, or about 66% of the total of the NATO military budgets. Since the US has the largest economy of any country in NATO, it isn’t surprising that ours would be the largest.

Based on the 2017 numbers, the US spends 3.61% of GDP on defense. The next is the UK at 2.36%, while the other major NATO powers are significantly under 2%: France, 1.79%; Germany, 1.2%; and Canada, 1.02%. And in “great negotiator” style, at the Summit, Trump asked other NATO members to raise their defense spending commitment to 4% of their respective GDP’s, never mind that they are not yet at the already agreed 2%.

Trump and former US presidents have asked a legitimate question regarding whether the US should still be paying the vast majority of the cost of a European military presence that acts as the guarantor of security in Europe. The primary reason for the US to argue for other nations shouldering a greater share of military costs is to assure that NATO members have modern, interoperable weapons and the required readiness to work together with the US, if Europe is threatened.

And none of the NATO players has proposed a reduction to US defense spending in Europe, or said that they wanted to reduce their own spending. In fact, at the NATO summit, The NYT reports that Trump and the allies signed a 23-page NATO declaration: (brackets by Wrongo)

[The] allies agreed to a NATO Readiness Initiative, which would allow the group to assemble a fighting force of 30 land battalions, 30 aircraft squadrons and 30 warships within 30 days. The initiative reflects a “30-30-30-30” plan pushed by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and meant to deter Russian aggression in Europe.

Ramping up to that level of readiness will cost a lot. And we are the primary driver behind the plan. Remember, the US military budget will grow from $610 billion in 2017 to $700 billion (14.75%) in the next fiscal year.

So, Trump wants Europe to arm up, we sure are.

After all, what else could we do with all that money?

Facebooklinkedinrss

February 17, 2017

The Daily Escape:

(National Library of Ireland)

The NATO Defense Ministers are meeting this week, and a big issue is the financial support provided by the member nations. The US spends more of its GDP on NATO than any other member, 3.6%, or $664 billion in 2016. NATO countries have committed to spending 2% of their GDP on the military, but the only countries currently meeting that target are Britain, Poland, Estonia and Greece. At a preliminary meeting, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the ministers would “stress the importance of fair burden-sharing and higher defence spending,”

New US Defense Secretary, Gen. Jim Mattis, warned that continued American support for NATO could depend on other NATO countries meeting their spending commitments:

Americans cannot care more for your children’s future security than you do…I owe it to you to give you clarity on the political reality in the US and to state the fair demand from my country’s people in concrete terms…If your nations do not want to see America moderate its commitment to this alliance, each of your capitals needs to show support for our common defense…

Europe is reluctant to pay for its own defense. The GDP of the EU approximates that of the US, but its military budget is less than half of ours. Trump is correct to question why Europe doesn’t pay its fair share. Of course, he isn’t the first US president to make that point.

This issue is well known, but a Win/Gallup survey provides a disturbing portrait of the will of people in Europe to defend themselves. The survey shows that 61% of people polled across 64 countries would be willing to fight for their country. However, there are significant differences in willingness to fight by region. It is highest in the Middle East (83%), but, it is lowest in Western Europe (25%).

Win/Gallup surveyed a total of 62,398 persons globally, and developed a representative sample of around 1000 men and women in each country. This is somewhat old data, the field work was conducted during September 2014 – December 2014.

In Europe, the highest number willing to fight was Finland at 74%. The Netherlands was at 15%, Germany was at 18%, Belgium, 19%, Italy, 20%, UK, 27%, France, 29%.  Except for Turkey at 73%, Greece at 54%, and Sweden at 55%, a clear minority of people in the NATO countries said they would be willing to fight for their country.

Only 44% of Americans surveyed said that they would fight for our country.

We should remember that like us, most European armies have professional militaries, and that is probably reflected in the survey results. Neutral Finland still has a draft, and trained reserve of about 900 000. They also have an 830 mile border with Russia.

It is also possible that there was confusion, with some respondents thinking about fighting an offensive war, while some could have been thinking of a defensive war. Another difference could be due to whether the respondents think an offensive or defensive war is more likely for their country.

Europeans have become used to having the US foot much of the NATO bill. The bigger question is raised by the Gallup survey: What would they do if we had a real fight?

BTW, would most Americans fight for America? Survey says “no”.

 

With the Trump administration’s moves to deport Mexicans, let’s remember a plane crash in Los Gatos Canyon in January 1948 that resulted in 32 dead. The news reported it as four Americans and 28 migrant workers whose names were not recorded. They were simply called “deportees” in news reports, because they were being deported back to Mexico. Woody Guthrie wrote “Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos)” to remember them. Here is Judy Collins with “Deportee”:

On Labor Day, 2013, a monument was unveiled listing the names of the 28 who perished in the crash. After 65 years, the names of the 28 were finally known.

Those who read the Wrongologist in email can view the video here.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Is It Legitimate To Say Trump’s Not Legitimate?

“As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew” – Lincoln

Everybody’s been talking about the dust up between Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and Donald Trump. Lewis’s statement that Trump is not a legitimate president obviously hit our Overlord-elect in a soft, squishy spot, and he immediately lashed out at Lewis.

Advocates from both sides rushed to defend their guy’s actions. Lots of people are saying “not my president”, which doesn’t necessarily imply illegitimacy as much as disapproval, but many like the sound of saying Trump is illegitimate:

  • There are misguided people who sincerely think that Trump wasn’t elected in a fair election, that votes were somehow stolen from Hillary Clinton, despite the lack of evidence to support that contention.
  • There are others who think the result was unfairly influenced by outside forces ranging from the FBI here at home, to foreign governments, principally Russia. If you believe that FBI Director Comey’s actions were illegitimate, or that Russia intervened, you could conclude that the result may be illegitimate.

But, most think the election results reflect what happened in the voting booth; that the outcome was how people voted, and Trump won according to the rules.

Charles Blow in the NYT defined two types of legitimacy: (brackets by the Wrongologist)

It is true that Donald Trump is, by all measures of the law, the legitimate president-elect and will legitimately be inaugurated our 45th president on Friday…There simply is no constitutional or statutory mechanism to nullify the installation of an elected president based on election influencing, even by a hostile state actor. The framers of the Constitution had no way of anticipating digital warfare being used in a propaganda attack. The Constitution was ratified before electric lights were invented.

But there is another way of considering legitimacy, another test that his election doesn’t meet: That is when legitimacy is defined as “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards.”

Here, [John] Lewis and his fellow believers are on solid footing.

Trump overreacted to Lewis, saying that John Lewis’s Congressional district is poverty stricken, and all Lewis does is talk, Trump is simply wrong on the facts. Lewis’s district includes a combination of prosperous and less prosperous bits of Atlanta. From Atrios:

But basically this is Trump’s view that all black people live in hellholes and all urban areas not within 15 feet of his golden palace in the sky are hellholes…Which is fine, he’s entitled to his preferences. But 70 years on this Earth and it seems like he’s seen his penthouse, some golf courses, the occasional glance out his limo window, and that’s it, other than 24/7 cable news. Strange life, given his resources.

Charles Blow reminds us: (brackets and emphasis by the Wrongologist)

[Trump is] A lecher attacking a legend; a man of moral depravity attacking a man of moral certitude; an intellectual weakling attacking a warrior for justice…Trump attacks Lewis as, “All talk, talk, talk — no action”; Lewis, who repeatedly thrust his body unto the breach for justice, who was arrested, beaten and terrorized, including during the time that young Trump was at his well-heeled schools, receiving draft deferments from the Vietnam War.

In fact, one of Trump’s five deferments was in 1965, the same year as the Selma marches and “Bloody Sunday,” during which Lewis was struck so violently by a state trooper wielding a billy club that Lewis’s skull was fractured.

Let’s stop focusing on whether the Overlord-elect is “legitimate”.  The important thing is that we now have a president who wants to help Putin destroy the European Union. He wants to dismantle NATO, tear up the Iran Nuclear Agreement, and confront China.

At home, we will lose the ACA. There will be malicious surgery to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Corporate and personal income taxes (at least for the wealthy) will go down. (In fact, the rash of corporate commitments to build new production facilities in the US may be in anticipation of a corporate tax deal). We may see a Value Added Tax (VAT) of 20%-30% to pay for it all. VAT’s fall disproportionately on the middle and lower classes.

There will be ideologically-driven Supreme Court appointments as well.

It is worth emphasizing that Trump has the most conservative Senate and House since at least 1930. Part of the reason he is dangerous is that the restraint centrist Republicans once placed on Republican Presidents is largely gone.

America’s center and left are so weak, they can’t stand against the programs that conservative Republicans, the Tea Party and the alt-right coalition that will govern us, are now preparing.

The question shouldn’t be whether Trump was elected legitimately, that ship has sailed.

But how will we derail his program?

Facebooklinkedinrss

Will Erdogan Remain In The Trump Fan Club?

Trump has two towers in Istanbul. In December 2015, his local partner explored legal means to take Trump’s name off the towers after the Orange Overlord called for a ban on Muslims entering the US. In June, Turkish President Erdogan reportedly called for the removal of the Trump name from the towers.

But things have changed. The Economist reports that:

Mr. Erdogan appears to have changed his mind, both about the towers and about the man whose name appears on them. Although polls show that most Turks would have preferred to see Hillary Clinton as America’s new president, Mr. Trump’s election has been greeted in Ankara with a mix of schadenfreude and hope.

In fact, Erdogan has called US protests against Mr. Trump’s election “a disrespect to democracy”. The Economist says that Trump reportedly told Mr. Erdogan over the phone that his daughter, Ivanka, admired him, and flattery works all over the world.

Erdogan thinks that our Orange Overlord may be more amenable to extradite Fethullah Gulen, the Pennsylvania-based preacher whom Turkey accuses of orchestrating the coup attempt in July. Since July, Turkey has pressed the Obama administration to extradite Mr. Gulen. The Turks felt sure that Hillary Clinton would not extradite him, since her campaign accepted donations from his followers.

In November, Trump’s National Security Advisor, former General Michael Flynn, strongly supported Turkish President Erdogan in an op-ed at The Hill, suggesting that Erdogan is under siege by “radical Islam” and desperately needs our help. Flynn said:

The forces of radical Islam derive their ideology from radical clerics like GĂŒlen, who is running a scam. We should not provide him safe haven. In this crisis, it is imperative that we remember who our real friends are.

Flynn also seemed to dismiss Erdogan’s crackdown on political dissidents and the dubious circumstances of the attempted coup which allowed Erdogan to solidify his power. So let’s review Erdogan’s actions since July:

  1. Turkey now has outstripped China as the world’s biggest jailer of journalists. In addition, 150 news outlets have been closed, ranging from TV stations to online enterprises.
  2. Erdogan has suspended or fired 110,000 civil servants, judges, teachers, journalists and soldiers. This has gutted the educated middle class of Turkey.
  3. He has restarted an internal war with Kurds in Eastern Turkey, and has arrested the leadership of the Kurdish minority HDP party, which got more than 10% of seats in the last election.
  4. He has sent the Turkish Army into Syria in what was first described as border defense against ISIS (a group he has long supported), but it has been revealed that his plan is to reach central Syria and depose Bashar Assad.
  5. The EU has suspended negotiations for Turkish membership for civil rights backsliding, but not before they gave Turkey €6 billion to stop sending refugees into the EU.
  6. Erdogan has threatened to reopen the flow of refugees if the EU doesn’t agree to further Turkey’s application to join. Opening the refugee flow is an existential threat to the EU, and thus, to NATO.

Trump is holding a tough hand while playing poker with Turkey. As a NATO member with the largest standing army in Europe, Turkey occupies an important place in NATO’s strategy. Trump has to balance Turkey’s support for the mutual defense of Europe against Turkey’s intentions to go one-on-one against Syria.

He has to balance the shaky EU refugee deal with Turkey against Erdogan’s effort to engage militarily against the PKK, a Kurdish group in Iraq and Syria who are allied with the US against ISIS.

Erdogan has made an overture towards Russia and China. A link with them would destabilize NATO even further. Erdogan seems to be testing Trump’s resolve and his commitment to NATO at the same time. Perhaps he sees an opportunity to garner some good old American baksheesh, so he’s putting a foot in the water to see if it’s comfortable enough to dive in.

That may be a poor play, since while Trump may be sympathetic to Turkish concerns about Mr. Gulen, the cleric’s fate rests with America’s courts. Meanwhile, The Economist reports that Trump’s team wants to list the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group, roll back the nuclear deal with Iran, and continue arming the PKK’s Syrian wing against ISIS.

Erdogan opposes all of these measures vehemently.

Some of Trump’s new team are not fans of Erdogan. In a tweet, Trump’s CIA-designate, Mike Pompeo, called Turkey an “Islamist dictatorship”.

Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Trump show certain similarities. Both are busy recasting and ruining their countries at the same time.

Let’s hope it doesn’t last.

 

Facebooklinkedinrss