Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Merrill's avatar

One of Trump's best gifts to us this cycle had been his unAmerican comments about NATO and Putin. Sadly, Peter Baker, one of the Times best foreign policy journalists, seems to have succumbed to Times decision to pander to the MAGA crowd. We need to call out the Times everyday for playing this dangerous game.

Today I wrote to Peter Baker to object:

Trump’s NATO Threat Reflects a Wider Shift on America’s Place in the World

Mr. Baker

I have admired your objective reporting on US foreign policy for years.

It sad to see your perspective in this article has been absorbed into current partisan politics.

The existential question of whether the US is safer and wealthier with or without our NATO alliances is not an equivalent question. We absolutely would be in a more dangerous place without our European allies containing Russia's aggressive ambitions.

This article's analysis seems to imply maintaining NATO is an open question. Why ? Because some voters believe Trump's MAGA claims that NATO makes the US weaker. It may validate these dangerous ideas among his base but it's not an "experiment" worth trying in our real world without do overs. Your article might have asked where America would be today if we didn't join WWII.

IMO, the core of Trump's argument is that we'd be better off with Putin and friends taking over European democracies like Hitler and Mussolini tried in the last century.

From this perspective, the real meaning of MAGA is "Make Aryans Great Again" not America as we know it.

Thank you,

Merrill Weingrod

401-480-8003

You can reach Peter Baker and other decision makers at:

peter.baker@nytimes.com

david.halbfinger@nytimes.com

joe.kahn@nytimes.com

Expand full comment
Terry Nicholetti's avatar

Thanks, Jessica! I'm always in awe at the new resources you find for us. Your response to "when will it end" is perfect and I'm going to use it wherever I can.

Blessings,

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts