Is WWW III moving toward the front burner in Europe, as Trump and Putin play their long-term game of kissy-kissy; could this become hellish in a hurry?

Street art of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin kissing has gone worldwide (AP)

Of all the undesirable traits that should have disqualified Donald Trump from ever serving as president of the United States, this might be No. 1 on the list: Trump has shown that he is not very smart, at least in terms of governance. 

That issue arose in our post yesterday about Trump seeking an immediate ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Paris, with Trump also commenting about the U.S. alliance with NATO. From our post dated 12/8/24:

Donald Trump on Sunday called for an immediate ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia to end “the madness” in the region.

The president-elect's message, which he shared on Truth Social, came hours after Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Paris. Trump vowed during the presidential campaign to bring an end to the conflict, which he said he could do before his inauguration, but he has provided few details as to how he intends to do so. . . .

Trump also said in a Meet the Press interview that was taped Friday, just before he left for France (that was set to air on Sunday morning), he would end the war “if I can" and that Ukraine could “possibly” receive less military assistance from the U.S. when he is in office.

He also said the U.S. would remain in NATO if other countries step up their contributions. “If they pay their bills, absolutely," he said.

That last sentence indicates Trump does not know how NATO operates. It should be alarming to all Americans but especially for those who went to the polls and voted for a candidate that numerous news outlets, including The New York Times, had pronounced unfit to be president. Why is it important for the president to know how NATO works? We addressed that issue in a post dated 2/12/24 under the headline "Trump long has been a threat to U.S. democracy, but his statements on NATO go well beyond that, suggesting he would be a threat to world peace. Consider this passage:

Many world leaders and scholars consider NATO to be perhaps the most effective treaty of its kind in world history, likely keeping Russian President Vladimir Putin from running roughshod over his European neighbors, as he already has done in Ukraine. Trump's latest words on the subject indicate the U.S. could pull out of NATO on his watch, giving Putin a free shot at his neighboring countries -- probably allowing the Ukraine conflict to spread and ushering in an era of instability in Europe. Writes Kate Sullivan:

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday said he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member country that doesn’t meet spending guidelines on defense in a stunning admission he would not abide by the collective-defense clause at the heart of the alliance if re-elected.

Here is more to consider:

As often seems the case with Trump, this appears to be an instance of him spouting off on a subject he knows little about. Writes Sullivan:

At the core of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and enshrined in Article 5 of the treaty is the promise of collective defense — that an attack on one member nation is an attack on all the nations in the alliance. Trump has long complained about the amount other countries in NATO spend on defense compared with the United States and has repeatedly threatened to withdraw the US from NATO. But his comments Saturday are his most direct indication he does not intend to defend NATO allies from Russian attack if he is re-elected.

Trump has for years inaccurately described how NATO funding works. NATO has a target that each member country spends a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, and most countries are not meeting that target. But the figure is a guideline and not a binding contract, nor does it create “bills”; member countries haven’t been failing to pay their share of NATO’s common budget to run the organization.

What do we learn from all of this? One, Trump was ignorant of how NATO operates this past weekend, just as he was ignorant on the subject 10 months ago. 

We close with insights from a Newsweek article dated 12/3/24 and titled "Europe Quietly Prepares for World War III":

With warnings swirling over a possible war with Russia in a matter of years, NATO's European members have already started laying the groundwork for defenses, should Russian troops set foot on alliance soil.

"Russia is preparing for a war with the West," Bruno Kahl, the head of Germany's foreign intelligence service, said in late November.

But it's not likely to be a large-scale attack into NATO territory, the intelligence chief warned. Moscow could opt for a limited incursion or upping its hybrid warfare tactics to probe the alliance's conviction, Kahl said.

NATO is trying to prepare for both scenarios: an all-out war, and less obvious techniques designed to undermine stability in the alliance's member countries. . . 

The urgency is now obvious from senior military and political officials. Andrius Kubilius, the European Union's commissioner for defense, said in September that defense ministers and NATO commanders "agree that [Russian President] Vladimir Putin could be ready for confrontation with NATO and the EU in six to eight years."

Estonia's foreign intelligence service warned in February NATO "could face a Soviet-style mass army in the next decade" if Russia successfully reforms its military. The army would be "technologically inferior" to NATO forces in areas other than electronic warfare and long-range strikes, the service said, but its "military potential would be significant."

"If we take these assessments seriously, then that is the time for us to properly prepare, and it is a short one," Kubilius, a former Lithuanian prime minister, told the Reuters news agency. "This means we have to take quick decisions, and ambitious decisions."

The main catalyst is Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, prompting Sweden and Finland to abandon their long-held policies of non-alignment and join NATO, lengthening Russia's border with the alliance.

Across Europe, NATO is now battling to raise defense spending up and beyond the two percent of GDP requested—but not enforced—by the alliance. Many countries have historically fallen far short of this benchmark in the decades since the end of the Cold War.

But times are changing. European nations have pledged to meet or exceed the target, and officials and experts broadly expect the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump to double down on pressure directed at Europe to increase military spending further.

Are these words comforting, with Trump at the U.S. helm, seemingly with every intention of cultivating a long-range relationship with Putin. My answer? Absolutely not.