MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

'Peaceful' Montenegro Says It's 'Too Small' To Start World War III

President Trump suggested earlier this week that the "aggressive" Montenegrins could spark a global conflict.

Leon Neal/ZUMA Press/NewscomLeon Neal/ZUMA Press/NewscomMontenegro's foreign minister says his country is "too small" to start World War III. His comment appears two days after U.S. President Donald Trump's suggestion that "aggressive" Montenegrins could spark a global conflict.

"We have no intentions whatsoever to start World War III, we are too small for that," Montenegro Foreign Minister Srdjan Darmanovic tells CNN in an interview published today. "It was fun to hear about it, actually like a good joke, but we are a very peaceful nation."

On Wednesday, Fox News host Tucker Carlson asked Trump why the United States should send forces to defend the small NATO member if it were attacked, as mandated by Article 5 of NATO's Washington Treaty. "They may get aggressive, and congratulations, you're in World War III," Trump responded.

Montenegrin officials disagree. "Aggressive is a word which can't be applied in the case of Montenegro," Montenegrin U.N. Ambassador Milica Pejanovic-Djurisic tells The Washington Post. In a statement posted on its official website, the Montenegrin government says it is "proud" of the "history and tradition and peaceful politics that led to the position of a stabilising state in the region."

Darmanovic, for his part, isn't taking Trump's words literally. "I think President Trump actually did not speak on Montenegro. He spoke on 2 percent on financing and contributing to NATO, and Montenegro was just picked up as an example—maybe because we are one of the tiniest countries in the alliance," he said. Regardless of what Trump did or did not mean to say, the president signed a communiqué endorsing Article 5 during the NATO summit in Belgium earlier this month.

It's unlikely that Montenegro will cause World War III, though not impossible. Montenegro joined NATO last June to the great chagrin of Russia, which supported a failed coup against the Montenegrin government in 2016. If Russia were to invade the tiny nation, the U.S. would be required to come to Montenegro's defense, potentially sparking a massive global conflict. Again, that's unlikely. But it wouldn't be the first time a world war started in a small Balkan country.

Photo Credit: Leon Neal/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Just Say'n||

    Questioning the expansion of NATO is literally treason or something

  • Tony||

    You would be an authority on loyalty what with your jumping to the defense of every insane Trump mouth fart.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, Tony, you jump to the defense of every Hillary queef that was her 2008 campaign promises, Senate promises, Secretary of State promises, and 2016 campaign promises.

  • Tony||

    I'd settle for a president who put the US's interests ahead of Russia's, at this point. What about you?

  • Liverpudlian||

    So you finally realized the truth about Hillary and gave up on her.

  • perlchpr||

    Sadly, Gary Johnson was not actually a serious contender for the position.

  • ||

    Hillary would put HER interests first. Then everyone else.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Luckily, Trump is doing just that.

    You know it too, which is why you and your Lefty friends scream so much about Trump.

    You hate America and everything it stands for and Trump literally is MAGA.

  • Oli||

    Sure, if America's interests are licking Russia's feet, then Trump is totally putting US' interests ahead of Russia's. Who knows, maybe Russia doesn't want her feet licked! But: When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Stick their toes right in your mouth! You can do anything.

  • Juice||

    Tony's an America Firster now.

  • fdog50||

    The American Left complains and accuses an American president of cozying up to the top man in the kremlin who is a former KGB colonel. Dalton Trumbo and the rest of the rest of the Hollywood 10 must be turning over in their graves.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Nah. Tony's been an American fister ever since he found that jar of vaseline in his grandma's nightstand.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maga

  • Just Say'n||

    This may surprise you because you are such a tribalist, but some of us oppose war and the intelligence community regardless of who is in charge. And opposition to NATO expansion use to be a left-wing principle.

    You might remember me defending the Iran Deal with you. We're not all partisan numbskulls like yourself, Tony.

    Try not to be a hack. Listen to Tulsi Gabbard and not Elizabeth Warren

  • Tony||

    I'm not entirely convinced Tulsi isn't on Putin's payroll as well. Steve Bannon is a fan for God's sake.

  • Citizen X||

    It's pretty simple - you're either fully and rabidly on board with Tony's tribe, or you're Russian.

  • Microaggressor||

    Tony's tinfoil hat is designed to block Russian mind influence waves and inconvenient facts.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    I know where the hotter women are.

  • ||

    I'm guessing you're rethinking supporting the Iran deal now that we know more about its content?

    Essentially, it was a vainglorious pet project and piece of crap.

  • Cathy L||

    Be fair, Tony, I still don't think he's actually defended what Trump said. He's just pretending to.

  • gah87||

    If one wants to view alliances in statistical, historical terms, consider that our NATO ally, Germany, started two world wars in a brief span of 25 years... and lost both times. That's some track record.

    But of course, we are assured, [famous last words] this time is different.

  • DajjaI||

    Eastern Europe is overrun with neo-Nazis and the west is descending into a socialist dystopia. None of them support freedom of speech or religion. If they are any better than Russia it is only temporary. I'm tired of paying for their defense so they can enjoy universal healthcare while we go without. (But I'm sure there are some very nice people in Montenegro.)

  • Earth Skeptic||

    So in the next world war, western Europe plays the commie socialists and eastern Europe plays the facsists.

    Is history always this ironic?

  • Oli||

    Montenegro doesn't support freedom of religion? That's funny, considering that you can find quite a lot of churches and mosques there. Even a synagogue.

    I'm curious: when was the last time you've been to Montenegro? Or any Eastern European country, really?

  • Kristian H.||

    Archduke Ferdinand could not be reached for comment. (Yeah, that was Sarajevo in what is now Bosnia Hezagovinia (please excuse my spelling).

  • buybuydandavis||

    Did he have a pot belly? Is that why he was big enough to start a World War?

    It's not that Montenegro would *start* a war, it's that the US would be dragged into one if someone attacked them.

    Jefferson:
    "Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none"

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maga

  • Citizen X||

    "We have no intentions whatsoever to start World War III, we are too small for that," Montenegro Foreign Minister Srdjan Darmanovic tells CNN in an interview published today.

    He went on to add, "Look at my name. We can barely afford vowels!"

  • Drave Robber||

    Off the coast of Croatia, there's an island named Krk.

  • sarcasmic||

    Jms T?

  • Rhywun||

    KHN!

  • Citizen X||

    Nrds.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    "Krk" means neck in Slavic tongues. I think it's onomatopoeic for choking a bitch out for demanding too many vowels.

  • Citizen X||

    Choking your loved one is considered an affectionate greeting in most of Eastern Europe.

  • KevinP||

    Heard in 1913: It's unlikely that a little nation like Serbia could spark a Great War.

  • JFree||

    It's even more unlikely that Trump has the slightest clue what caused WW1 - or for that matter where/what Serbia or Montenegro even ARE

    IMO - the only thought that entered Trump's head when he heard 'Montenegro' was well of course the negroes can be uppity and they are always gonna expect us to subsidize them and bail them out of trouble they get into - so its about damn time they stood on their own two feet. And no doubt a good portion of his white nationalist base is probably gonna think the same damn thing and its about time we had a Prez who stood up for America instead of negroes and Kenyans and Muslims all that shit.

  • KevinP||

    LOL, why are progressives so obsessed with race and negroes? Perhaps because racism thrives the most in their own midst:

    Bernie Sanders' Own Black Press Secretary Was Profiled and Stereotyped By His Staff, Event Hosts


    Quote:
    There were multiple instances. There were places where I literally I couldn't get in. I would go to the door, the staff entrance, and people would say, "This is staff only." I'd have to explain to them that I was staff, and they would question me. I would have to say, "I'm the national press secretary. Did you watch me on the news the other day?"
  • sudon't||

    Serbia - my thought exactly. lol! Trump has always been very responsive to the Kremlin, going back to 1987 when he ran a full-page ad in the NYT criticizing US foreign policy - the day after he got back from Moscow. Little Montenegro is a bugaboo for Putin, so I'm sure Donald was just repeating what he'd been told. It's not like he thinks this stuff up on his own.

  • Echo Chamber||

    Collective defensive only applies for large members, not tiny members? Apparently size does matter

  • Leo Kovalensky II||

    Interestingly, NATO Article 5 has only ever been invoked after 9/11. So yes, I think it probably only does apply to large members.

  • Nardz||

    It's not an absurd point. Every addition to NATO makes the US more vulnerable, and without much (If any) strategic advantage.
    Thankfully they tend to be on good terms, but say Montenegro gets into a spat with Serbia. Serbia has a much more capable military than Montenegro, and it goes sideways. Montenegro invokes article 5, and now NATO is OBLIGATED to intervene. So now you have NATO against Serbia (again), only Serbia's traditional protector (for around 200 years) - Russia - is in an entirely different geopolitical situation than it was in the late 90s.
    Would we see direct confrontation between NATO and Russia? Probably not, but if Russia thinks NATO is determined to have war at some point, why not now? I doubt they'd just sit back and let NATO bomb the he'll out of Serbia again. On top of that, what does Turkey do? All of a sudden you have another Balkan crisis, and we know where that's led in the past.

  • Nardz||

    And none of this even gets into the false flag possibilities, which there is certainly precedent for. Hell, we tried to get Georgia and Ukraine into NATO then stirred up trouble in both and orchestrated a coup in the latter. We still won't even recognize Crimea as part of Russia, despite their overwhelming vote to join.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    To be fair, Russians kicked any dissenters out of The Crimea.

  • Cathy L||

    We still won't even recognize Crimea as part of Russia, despite their overwhelming vote to join.

    Ha!

  • MWG||

    Literally the dumbest interpretation of what happened in Georgia, Urkraine and Crimea all in one comment.

  • John||

    We did orchestrate a coup in Ukraine. And the Russian parts of Ukraine want to be part of Russia. Also, the Ukraine government is even more corrupt and incompetent than the Russian government. Russia certainly is not the good guys in that conflict but neither is Ukraine. It is basically two corrupt oligarchies fighting it out over who gets to screw the population.

  • MWG||

    You're correct about corruption in the Ukraine, but it was NOT a US orchestrated coup, despite Ron Paul's idiotic conspiracy theories. It started when the corrupt Russian-backed leader pack-peddled on joining the EU. Ukrainians wanted to be part of the EU, not under the economic thumb of Russia, which makes total sense given their history under the Soviet Unioin.

    In terms of 'Russian' parts of Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia, I trust those polls less than polls in Russia.

    Between the US and Russia, which country actually put troops on the ground?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    In terms of 'Russian' parts of Ukraine wanting to be part of Russia, I trust those polls less than polls in Russia.

    So you throw out the available evidence and then make your decision based on feels.

    Kind of like the EU refusing Russia's invitation to monitor the Crimea referendum, then turned around and claimed it was fixed.

  • Liverpudlian||

    "It started when "

    There is nothing less valuable than this kind of comment. A useless analysis from a no one thousands of miles from the event and with no actual information that is unavailable to the rest of us.

    Stop presenting your opinions as the concrete reason, period.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Leave it to the Muscovites to educate you about what happened!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We leave to it to Socialists like you to explain what happened.

  • sudon't||

    I'm guessing you haven't heard the phone call between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey R. Pyatt, (US ambassador to Ukraine)? It's worth a listen.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Ukrainians hate Russians. If you can imagine that.

    Russia wants Ukraine back in the fold of Mother Russia and it would be a big get. It would also set a precedent for the Russian Federation that all former territory of Mother Russian belong to Russia.

    To illustrate how much the Ukrainians dont like Russians, they speak Ukrainian NOT Russian. Most other former territories of Russia speak Russian and whatever other languages they speak.

    Ukraine thought that they could live in peace with Russians living inside their country. They were wrong.

    Just because the USSR fell apart did not mean that Communists just disappeared. They had kids and brainwashed them into regaining the glories of Mother Russia.

    Finland better rebuild that Mannerheim line.

  • Ron||

    growing NATO does not improve our safety considering how these smaller countries are more apt to fight each especially once they have NATO covering their back

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Art 5 doesn't apply if they start the fight.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Article 5 only applies when the NATO member was attacked, not when it started the war.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Doesn't Montenegro have beef with Italy, Serbia, Bosnia, Albania, Germany....

    Montenegro: Shut your little face, fork over 2% GDP, and try not to drag the USA into another war where we have to save Europeans.

  • Cathy L||

    "Fork over"

    Right.

  • Liverpudlian||

    I bet you thought that was a good comment.

  • Cathy L||

    I bet you think Montenegro is supposed to give NATO 2% if it's GDP.

  • Just Say'n||

    Remember when you lied about opposing NATO and an expansive government? Good times

  • Cathy L||

    Uh, no, I do not.

  • Cheap shot guy||

    We do.

  • Liverpudlian||

    I bet you think you're not an idiot.

  • Chasman1965||

    That's not the way it works. They aren't paying a fee with that 2%. They should be building their military with it.

  • Tony||

    The president of the United States is taking foreign policy advice from the guy who employed cyberwarfare to disrupt the United States election to help ensure the victory of said president. Just in case any of you were starting to think Trump has ever even heard of Montenegro before, let alone has some sort of thoughts or ideas about the subject in question.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    They didn't "disrupt the election". That is provably false. At most they disrupted public opinion, though that effect appears to have been negligible.

    The country whose nationals unlawfully disrupt the election, i.e. change the vote counts, by the most is Mexico, by far.

  • Tony||

    There's an easy test to see how negligible the propaganda's effects were. Are you worried Hillary Clinton was going to start WWIII? What about the child sex ring in the pizza shop, real or no?

  • perlchpr||

    Are you worried Hillary Clinton was going to start WWIII?

    Hrm. WWIII? Maybe not. American Civil War II? I wouldn't rule that one out.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Are you worried Hillary Clinton was going to start WWIII?"'

    Given the situation in Syria at the time, and her attitude towards it. It was actually a valid concern. She thought the Don didn't go far enough when we bombed their airbase. She wanted a no fly zone for the Russians which means you're willing to risk an air war with Russia. Which can quickly escalate.

  • Tony||

    So you're appalled now that Trump actually bombed Syria, yes?

  • ||

    Most people here were, yes.

  • ||

    And note how smoothly and easily Tony slid from "you people have been brainwashed into think HRC was going to start a war" to "you people are such hypocrites for complaining about HRC's warmongering when Trump bombed Syria, too!"

  • ||

    And in the final weeks of the campaign she was literally saying she would invade Syria with ground troops.

    But if you think she was going to start a war, you've been brainwashed by Russians.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    I thought it was the U.S., actually. We've been involved in everyone's elections since the 1940s.

  • Longtobefree||

    Not to mention several things that were not elections.
    Back when the President had balls, and the CIA was effective.

  • John||

    The point is that when you tell nations that you will back them up with the force of a superpower, those nations have more of an incentive to do aggressive things. A great example of this is Austria Hungary in 1914. Austria knew they had the backing of Germany and therefore felt empowered to demand that Serbia give up its sovereignty and to tell Russia to go screw itself after the assassination of the Arch Duke Ferdinand. Had Germany not been so firm in its commitment to Austria, the First World War likely never happens.

    You don't have to know much about history to understand the dangers of alliances between great powers and regional powers. Such alliances make regional conflicts global ones by placing the prestige and credibility of great powers at issue.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Founders warned Americans very strongly against multiple things and entangling alliances was at the top of the list.

    "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world": it was George Washington's Farewell Address to us. The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson was no less clear: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Monte what?

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Burns?

  • $park¥ The Misanthrope||

    Brewster?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Hall?

  • Don't look at me.||

    Cristo?

  • Mithrandir||

    Python?

  • Longtobefree||

    3 card?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Monte is Montenegrin for Mountain.

  • sarcasmic||

    Trump is such a numbskull he probably thinks that Austrian is a language and that there are 57 states. Or was that varieties. I can never tell.

  • sarcasmic||

    That was supposed to be a reply to Tony.

  • Longtobefree||

    Please don't do that. It encourages him.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    He meant Australian.

  • perlchpr||

    Shit. It's sarcasmic. I often can't tell.

    OK. On the assumption that this was all supposed to actually be sarcasm, I'm going to tell you that the Germans certainly think that Austrian is a separate language.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Throw another shrimp on the barbie?

  • Cathy L||

    Let's all take a moment to remember that only one country has ever dragged its NATO allies to war under Article 5. And it wasn't fucking Montenegro.

  • John||

    And they did it without any justification. How dare the US go to war after the government of Afghanistan harbors a terrorist group that murders 3,000 people on American soil and then refuses to turn them over or make any effort to control them or bring them to justice.

  • Cathy L||

    Please, John, defend our longest war. Tell us how much safer we all are now that we've been in Afghanistan for 17 years.

  • John||

    So, you are saying we should not have done anything after 9-11? Just told the Afghans it was okay that they allowed the people who did it to operate on their soil?

    Please Cathy tell us more about how it is American's jobs to die lest anyone else in the world get hurt.

  • Cathy L||

    How many billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives will it take to bring back the 3,000 who were killed on 9/11?

  • Don't look at me.||

    You can't get these back. You hope to prevent more deaths. By killing.

  • Cathy L||

    Innovative.

  • perlchpr||

    There is a very large gulf between "We should not have responded to 9/11 at all", and "our presence in and handling of Afghanistan has been a gigantic clusterfuck".

    There are many things which we could have done as a response to 9/11, which are not what we actually did in response to 9/11.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Exactly. I was all for retribution for Obama Bin Laden attacking us and Afghanistan harboring the terrorist leadership.

    Rebuilding Afghanistan, invading Iraq, and remaining in both nations for 17 years was not the correct move.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    You can oppose the 17 year occupation without opposing the initial invasion.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I agree with this.

    I think going to war with Afghanistan because of 9/11 was probably the right call.

    But the US has stayed there far too long, and aimlessly.

    The US should have been out of there in like 2 years tops. Not this 17-year occupation and "nation building" crap.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Problem is, if we withdraw, then some ISIS/Taliban group will immediately take over, which is bad press. So the occupation has to go on indefinitely to keep the president from looking bad. And before you use this as another kludgel against Trump, Obama did the same thing.

  • Longtobefree||

    There is always the Vietnam option; Say we won and leave.
    The millions of deaths that follow are not on us.

  • ||

    ^ This.

    Our troops are still there because the foreign-policy establishment wants troops there to contain Iran. A punitive expedition against the Taliban would have been short and simple and would have required no long-term occupation.

  • ||

    Agreeing with Longtobefree, since the threading isn't clear. Nothing to stop US Gov from just saying "we won" and walking away, not even turning back to look at the explosions.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Longtobefree and [] = O are right.

    Neocons took the public support for revenge with Al-Qaeda and turned it into an Iran military containment plan. Neocons also took public support for blocking Communism in Vietnam to a horrible nightmare where 58,220 Americans died.

    Neocons and friends of Israel were very upset that public support for attacking Iran was not forthcoming.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Look, someone has to build nations so others can knock them down. Have you never been to a preschool and watched kids play with blocks?

  • Liverpudlian||

    "Please, John, defend our longest war. "

    Incorrect. It is currently Vietnam and will be for a few more months.

    Sorry, I like to be factually correct, and you weren't.

  • perlchpr||

    More than "a few more months". Apparently our involvement in Vietnam has been retroactively decided on as occurring in 1955. So Vietnam, from our perspective, was over 19 years long. There are still years before Afghanistan hits that mark.

  • Liverpudlian||

    No, that is also incorrect. The current sources say Vietnam was months longer than our current involvement in Afghanistan.

    US war participation

    Post your source if you have one.

  • Longtobefree||

    You can pretty much pick a date. Aid, military supplies, advisers, troop training, troops in combat, whatever. You can also pick several Wikipedia pages - - - -
    President Harry S. Truman provided progressively increasing amounts of financial and military assistance to French forces fighting in Vietnam. From the spring of 1950, their involvement increased from just assisting French troops to providing direct military assistance to the associated states (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Role_of_the_United_States_in_the_Vietnam_War

  • JFree||

    Man - that retroactive decision stuff is just plain deceitful.

    If the MAAG stuff counts as 'being at war in South Vietnam' - then wtf wouldn't sending cruise missiles into Afghanistan after the 1998 embassy bombing count as 'being at war in Afghanistan'?

  • ||

    In which case we've been at war in Afghanistan since the 80s.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    US involvement was very minor until JFK escalated it. The 'Vietnam War' was raging after France took Vietnam back from the Japanese.

    I would even say that US military advisors and US pilots fucking around in Vietnam did not make it OUR war. Even if it was OUR war, that was 1961.

    The CIA having Diem ousted and murdered was when the USA bought Vietnam. That was 1963.

    LBJs escalation with regular Marine and Army units in late 1963 definitely made the Vietnam War OURS.

  • JFree||

    US involvement was very minor until JFK escalated it.

    The US paid about 3/4 of the costs for the French phase of the war (1946-54). We paid about 100% of what Diem did to consolidate his power as 'S Vietnam' - roughly Diem v Vietnamese peasants (1954-1959) then Diem v more formal Viet Cong (1959-1963). We tried to assassinate Sihanouk in 1959 and would've been up to our eyeballs in Laos in 1958 except that it was landlocked.

    The only thing you could argue is that during Eisenhower's admin, our involvement was channeled via JF Dulles (State) and Allen Dulles (CIA) - not via Pentagon. Feb 8 1962 (MACV is created) is when our covert involvement becomes overt - and overt is a reasonable place to set the start of a war since covert stuff can stay covert for a long long time afterwards. But 'covert' doesn't = 'minor'. It merely = deniable.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Interesting claims. Citations?

  • JFree||

    Try the Pentagon Papers - even though that is obviously from DoD perspective not State/CIA so not much operational detail.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Interesting. It looks like $10M was authorized by Truman in 1950 for Indochina.

    My context was 'minor' compared to US involvement from 1965-1970 which included hundreds of thousands of troops and over hundred billions dollars.

    The Department of Defense (DOD) reports that the United States spent about $168 billion (worth around $950 billion in 2011 dollars) in the entire war including $111 billion on military operations (1965 – 1972) and $28.5 billion on economic and military aid to Saigon regime (1953 – 1975). At that rate, the United States spent approximately $168,000 for an "enemy" killed. However, $168 billion was only the direct cost. According to Indochina Newsletter of Asia Resource Center, the United States spent from $350 billion to $900 billion in total including veterans' benefits and interest.
    Vietnam War costs

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    It does illustrate, however, the bullying and hypocrisy that American foreign policy can be at times.

    When the big fish gets attacked, then all the little fish are expected to come to its aid.

    But when one of the little fish might get into trouble, then the big fish whines and moans about it.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Complete bullshit. The conditions for Article 5 had never been met previously, that's why it never happened. and the main reason none of the other countries in NATO ever had to invoke Article 5 was because their alliance with the US was a huge deterrent.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Did I say other nations had been attacked? No.

    But the moment that Montenegro joins, Trump gets all bitchy that he might actually have to adhere to Article 5 to defend them, just like Europe had to adhere to Article 5 to "defend" us when we invoked it.

    That's the hypocrisy part. And no it's not just Trump who gets bitchy about it. Lots of people are happy to demand that Europe help us out, but then at the same time whine and moan about the prospect of us helping them out.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    US membership in NATO was never about Europe helping the US out, but the reverse. The 2001 invocation of Article 5 was so funny in a way because it was the reverse of what the article was supposed to accomplish. And of course even without EU support the US was going to obliterate the Taliban regardless.

    If the US is leeching off of Europe's military might, then Europe should be thrilled about the prospect of the US leaving NATO. That doesn't appear to be the case.

  • Cathy L||

    Exactly.

    Which fits Trump's personality to a T.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    This is why Lefties will never understand how to beat Trump.

    Always underestimating Americans and people like Trump.

    Keep at it though, I want Trump to be reelected in 2020.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    It was the only time a NATO country had been attacked in the treaty zone. (French Indochina and the Falklands don't count as they were outside the treaty zone)

  • Just Say'n||

    This is actually a good argument for not having NATO, which makes no sense in light of your defense of Montenegro being part of the alliance. Do you have a Think Progress article to explain your tone deafness here?

  • ||

    This is actually a good argument for not having NATO

    It's fun watching you and Cathy L angrily agreeing with one another.

  • John||

    It doesn't matter if Montenegro is interested in war. If war is interested in Montenegro, thanks to it being in NATO, it is interested in the United States as well.

    Whatever happened to Libertarians being isolationists and against foreign entanglements? I assume reason still objects to foreign wars. Does the staff not understand that alliances can create a reason for the US to go to war where it would not have otherwise had one?

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Has libertarianism ever meant "isolationism"?

    Being opposed to foreign wars of choice does not necessarily mean being opposed to all foreign wars, or foreign wars conducted on behalf of an ally.

  • Cathy L||

    Libertarianism now means hating the fact that such a thing as allies exist.

  • John||

    If you are not willing to go to war for your allies, and since you made it clear that you think the US should never go to war, then why are you defending the US having more of them? Like most things on here, you really don't seem to have a coherent position or understand the issue. The US is committed itself to go to war to defend the members of NATO. It boggles my mind to consider the amount of cognitive dissonance it must take for you, on the one hand, to object to foreign wars but on the other hand, think the US committing to go to war in defense of more countries is a good idea.

    I am just going to put this out there that maybe "I hate whatever Trump does no matter what" isn't a very good basis for your thinking about things.

  • Cathy L||

    If you are not willing to go to war for your allies, and since you made it clear that you think the US should never go to war, then why are you defending the US having more of them?

    I'm not. I'm criticizing the position that it's Montenegro that is likely to fuck up the world, when all the evidence suggests it's the US.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    In that case, NATO should be happy at the prospect of the US leaving and therefore love Trump.

  • John||

    You seem incapable of understanding that the other nations might attack Montenegro and thus draw the US into a war or that any country other than the US could ever start a war in the first place.

  • Cathy L||

    You seem incapable of understanding that the other nations might attack Montenegro and thus draw the US into a war

    You seem incapable of understanding that it's more likely for that to happen to the US than it is for it to happen to Montenegro.

    You know, like it actually did happen in real life.

  • Don't look at me.||

    The US suffered a military attack?

  • ||

    The US suffered a military attack?

    That was the basis of leveraging Article 5. Whether you could properly define 9/11 as a "military attack" is open to debate, but for the purposes of "International Law" it was regarded as such.

  • Cheap shot guy||

    "You seem incapable of understanding that it's more likely for that to happen to the US than it is for it to happen to Montenegro.

    You know, like it actually did happen in real life. "

    Yes everyone, Cathy actually said this.

    Yes, it is ok to laugh at the ignorance of Cathy's comment.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Nations know that attacking Montenegro means attacking the US, England, Germany, France, etc. The spoils of Montenegro are not worth facing the consequences of that. That's why no nation has invaded a NATO member.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Like most things on here, you really don't seem to have a coherent position or understand the issue.

    She does have a coherent position: Trump is bad, mmm-kay?

  • Cheap shot guy||

    She pulled that shit yesterday, she talked about "the libertarian way" and when asked to describe it, fled.

  • Cathy L||

    How many socks do you need, exactly, to complain about me?

  • Cheap shot guy||

    Shorter Cathy "I pretended I can answer but I can't answer and IT'S YOUR FAULT!!"

  • Cathy L||

    That was longer than what I posted.

  • Cheap shot guy||

    So I guess you understand that joke like you understand libertarians.

  • Cathy L||

    Oh, I understand that you're a joke.

  • Cheap shot guy||

    Who ran you off with a question about libertarian doctrine.

    Someone you think is a joke posed a question you still cannot answer.

  • Just Say'n||

    Pro-war libertarians are quite disgraceful in every way possible. They always pull a "Brink Lindsey". They cheer lead expansive alliances and the build-up to war and then turn into rabid anti-war people when the war and alliances that they cheer leaded for eventually come to fruition.

  • Cathy L||

    You're talking about John, right?

  • Cheap shot guy||

    John has repeatedly and consisitently stated he is not a libertarian.

    So, even as you continue to dodge, you find a way to look stupid.

  • Cathy L||

    I'm not "dodging." I'm choosing not to respond to a ridiculous asshole.

  • Cheap shot guy||

    "I'm choosing not to respond"

    You've responded to everything but the question.

    You can't answer the question and you're making stupid excuses, and lying in the process. You responded multiple times you fucking clown, so who the fuck do you think you're fooling?

  • Cathy L||

    You seem kind of butthurt. Sand in your puppethole?

  • Cheap shot guy||

    Another response and another dodge, without answering the question.

    Add to that the "you mad" troll thing, and it's pretty clear you know you I'm right and hate it.

  • Cathy L||

    So, definitely butthurt. Why so whiny on a Friday, my dude?

  • Cheap shot guy||

    Is this how you choose not to respond?

    #ImStillNotTiredOfWinning

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I'm starting to wonder if Cathy is really Tony at this point.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Cathy L is not a Libertarian. That's all I know.

  • Sevo||

    Cathy L|7.20.18 @ 12:29PM|#
    "How many socks do you need, exactly, to complain about me?"
    None, you fucking imbecile.

  • Happy Chandler||

    Uniting Western Europe has prevented war for 70 years. Why didn't East Germany every try to take over West Germany, or at least West Berlin? A united Western Europe/US proved that it would not accept incursions, proven with the Berlin Airlift. This was formalized under NATO. In the decades before NATO, Germany, France, and Britain were all involved in wars that ended up involving the US. Since then, they haven't. Expansion of NATO means more countries end up in the no-war zone.

    Nobody would ever attack an Article 5 covered nation, because it would mean swift, certain, and merciless retaliation. If Ukraine had been admitted to NATO, Russia would never have attacked.

    Article 5 and NATO prevent wars, prevent wars from expanding, and prevent wars from dragging the US in. Without US participation in Article 5, other countries may risk an attack of a European country which would pose the risk of turning into a war the US would be a part of, and a war that would be much bigger than otherwise.

    Article 5 is to prevent wars, and it has a track record of doing that.

  • Just Say'n||

    Chandler Bing thinks it's 1955

  • Happy Chandler||

    What Article 5 nation has been invaded?

    Unprovable counterfactual: If Ukraine was admitted to NATO, Russia would not have invaded.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Libertarianism means respecting contracts and our alliance in NATO is a contract.

    Trump is doing what Trump does but he's right to pressure Montenegro to stop causing trouble.

    What most Americans dont realize is that Russia has had plans for the Balkans for over 100 years. Bulgaria, Montenegro, Serbia, Romania, Hungary....

    Montenegro is probably following Russian GRU mandates to undermine NATO.

    This is all postering now that European Socialists and Putin know that Trump is not a push over like Obama and BOoosh.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    1914 Serbia called, they'd like to have a word with Montenegro.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    The article references that in the last sentence. Another one of those SJW Reason posts where information that rebuts the article thesis is buried in one sentence within.

  • ||

    1991-1995 Serbia too.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Maybe they have an Archduke driving around in a convertible or something.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Who going to fill in for a member of the Serbian Black Hand organization?

  • Modus Pwnens||

    You know who else was too small to start a world war...

  • John||

    There is no danger of a world war starting over the Balkans. No one would go to war over defending Serbia or any issue in the Balkans. Where do you nuts ever get that idea that such a thing could happen?

  • General_Tso||

    Lest we forget what happened when Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry.

  • Modus Pwnens||

    Remember the Cecil the Lion!

  • perlchpr||

    Nicely done. :D

  • Earth Skeptic||

    I keep looking at the photo of Darmanovic and can't decide between fuzzy loveable uncle and hard-boiled gangster.

  • Longtobefree||

    Depends: family, or business?

  • 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed||

    President Trump suggested earlier this week that the "aggressive" Montenegrins could spark a global conflict.

    That isn't an accurate summary of his quote. He's a buffoon, he doesn't need your help.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Hey, retards--the president signs something about defending NATO members and is talking about defending Montenegro and you all think 'they' meant Montenegro itself.

    And why the fuck is everything linked in the article EXCEPT the actual piece from FOX where this all comes from?

    Trying for a FakeNews Award to go with all the love you get from lefties?

  • Eddy||

    Educate the Montenegrins into the ways of peace.

    Donate to the United Montenegro College Fund.

  • Don't look at me.||

    A mine is a terrible thing to waste.

  • BYODB||

    This seems like a waste of breath given that Trump was pretty clearly using it as an example, and was indeed doing so because they're the smallest nation. It's obviously an allusion to WW1. Which, in fairness, is the most likely scenario for WW3 in the sense that we have entangling alliances with everyone these days.

  • Eddy||

    How could a country with a national anthem like this possibly be warlike?

  • Nardz||

    Damn. That's... intimidating

  • ||

    The idea that a small country can't spark a war is so queer only an illiterate progressive can believe it.

    Never mind from the powder keg known as the Balkans.

  • ||

    "No one who speaks German can be evil'"

  • lap83||

    "We have no intentions whatsoever to start World War III, we are too small for that," .........as of yet

    but seriously, that does leave room for interpretation about their willingness

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Montenegro's soldiers fought when America invoked NATO's mutual defense provision -- in a greater proportion of population than Americans, if I recall correctly.

    Donald Trump, however, was willing to dismiss and disparage Montenegro after Mr. Putin whispered in Mr. Trump's ear. And Mr. Trump's supporters are engaged in moral and linguistic gymnastics in an effort to defend Mr. Trump's shameful statements and conduct.

    Mr. Trump and his supporters are character-deprived people who should be politically neutered by their betters in every American election.

    Carry on, clingers.

  • Nardz||

    Montenegro didn't join NATO until 13 months ago, kkklinger

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Montenegro contributed personnel to the coalition forces beginning in 2003, before its admission to NATO was completed. That is to Montenegro's credit.

    Nardz is a half-educated, character-deprived, Trump-loving bigot whose next act of service to this country will be to take his stale thinking to the grave so that he can be replaced by a better American in our electorate.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maga

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA

  • fdog50||

    Montenegrins are aggressive? I don't think they even have a reputation for soccer hooliganism.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Trump was just repeating what Putin told him.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maga

  • jjjjj||

    Big enough to start World War I, yes. But World War III? The 3 is bigger than 1, so now they are too small.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Absolutely correct, especially since there's no Arch-Duke any longer who might want to visit.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The TDS Awakens

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hihn hates Libertarians is all you need to know.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The Adventures of Michael Hihn, Part 2

    Michael Hihn eagerly awaited the mailman. Today was the day he was likely to receive his welfare check for the month. Hihn loved receiving money at the expense of the taxpayer. It was one of his favorite things, along with ranting and raving online, when he was able to steal wifi access from a neighbor on his computer that he scammed from some charity he couldn't quite remember.

    His memory was problematic, and led to many factual inaccuracies, and helped fuel his spurious claims. It didn't matter though. All he really cared about was ranting and raving about all the great things in his manifesto. The manifesto was so important that he decided it couldn't be contained on mere printed paper.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Instead, Hihn chose to write it on the walls of the home where he semi legally resided by exploiting 'squatters rights' created by the far left progressive politicians that Hihn slavishly worshipped. As Hihn couldn't really afford paint, and had been unsuccessful in his many attempts to shoplift it, he decided it would be best to use his own fecal matter and the copious amounts of rectal blood from his many, many hemorrhoids.

    Minutes later the mailman came with the day's delivery. After five uncomfortable of listening to Hihn rave with selected passages from his manifesto, the mailman flung Hihn's mail at him and ran in annoyance and disgust (In addition to Hihn's ramblings, his smell was extremely objectionable for a variety of regrettable reasons). Hihn picked his mail up from the ground to discover hje had in fact received his welfare check, and an added bonus.

    Also in the day's mail was his subscription to Worker's World Monthly. One of his favorite periodicals, and so filled with the kind of marxist rhetoric he so loved to attack his many enemies (anyone who dared not blindly agree with anything he would ever say).

    Hihn took his new magazine to the living room and sat down in the weather beaten, moldy, discarded recliner he had dragged from in front of a neighbor's home and began to read the wonderful marxist propaganda that he looked forward to vomiting back up at the Reason commentariat later, all in the name of 'libertarianism'!

    To Be Continued.....

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    See now, this is what is going to get chapter after chapter written. Maybe you should just go away.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maga

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA!

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, Mike.
    Quite embarrassing yourself.

  • Carlos Jose||

    Trump is too ignorant to realize Montenegro deployed troops in support of NATO / US troops based in Afghanistan.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maga

  • Sevo||

    We got happy horseshit, the imbecile cathy, hihnsanitiy and the asshole rev. Didn't see Tony or trueman, but they might be here.
    A parade of fucking ignoramuses.

  • Sevo||

    Opps; started too far down; There;'s Tony making an ass of himself almost immediately. Stuff it up your ass, Tony.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    MAGA

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online