Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 10 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 12/4/19

Trump denounces Macron's criticisms of NATO at London summit

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages) (# of views)   1 comment
Author 34400
Message Alex Lantier


Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron
Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron
(Image by U.S. Secretary of Defense)
  Details   DMCA

Bitter conflicts between the United States and the major European powers erupted into the open yesterday, as the two-day NATO summit began in London.

Arriving at a brief pre-breakfast press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Trump denounced French President Emmanuel Macron. He declared that Macron's statement to the Economist magazine that the NATO alliance is "brain-dead" was "very nasty." Macron was referring to US-European conflicts over issues such as Trump's cancellation of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty with Russia, Brexit, and Turkey's recent invasion of Syria.

"I think that's very insulting to a lot of different forces," Trump said, adding, "It's a tough statement when you make a statement like that. It's a very, very nasty statement to essentially 28 countries."

"Nobody needs NATO more than France, and, frankly, the one that benefits the least is the United States," Trump added. Trump pointed to trade conflicts after Paris slapped a tax on US internet firms Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon, to which Washington reacted with $2.4 billion in tariffs on French luxury exports. He then said, "France is not doing well economically at all. They're starting to tax other people's products."

Trump also related Macron's statement on NATO to "yellow vest" protests against Macron's deeply unpopular austerity policies, declaring: "It's a very tough statement to make when you have such difficulty in France. You look at what's happening with the yellow vests... They've had a very rough year and you just can't go around making statements like that about NATO. It's very disrespectful."

The US president addressed a variety of issues during his rambling, 53-minute speech in front of Stoltenberg and the media, including a threat to prolong US tariff disputes with China until after the 2020 elections. This sent US stock market futures plunging. Later in the day, Trump held joint press conferences with both Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Speaking with Macron, Trump boasted that he had succeeded in forcing NATO's European member states to boost military spending. Indeed, an enormous military build-up is underway, with NATO collectively increasing military spending by $160 billion since 2016 and set to increase it by another $240 billion by 2024.

Trump and Macron repeatedly clashed at the press conference, during which Macron said he would "stand by" his comments. After Trump jokingly threatened to return European Islamic State (ISIS) fighters captured in Syria to France, Macron replied that most ISIS fighters were Middle Eastern and criticized Trump for authorizing a Turkish offensive in Syria to attack NATO-backed Syrian Kurdish militias. After Trump said NATO has a "very good relationship" with Turkey, Macron replied, "We have lost cooperation with Turkey."

Macron also raised Trump's cancellation of the INF treaty and the issue of "peace in Europe," to which Trump responded by blandly claiming that the NATO powers "get along with Russia."

At the press conference with Trudeau, Trump attacked Canada for spending less than 2 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on the military: "We'll put them on a payment plan, you know? I'm sure the prime minister would love that." He also claimed to support protesters in Iran against the Iranian government and said that Washington is "looking" at a new nuclear treaty with Russia and China. He then dismissed the issue of a nuclear arms control treaty with Russia and China, saying, "It might not even happen."

Trump, who withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord to underscore his contempt for the environment, also claimed while meeting with Trudeau that he was deeply concerned by the issue. "I think about it all the time. Honestly, climate change is very important to me," he said, adding that "very, very crystal clear, clean water and clean air" are "a big part of climate change."

Trudeau reacted by boasting of Canada's record of fighting wars: "Canada has been there for every NATO deployment. We have consistently stepped up, sent our troops into harm's way. We continue to step up -- like most of our allies. There are some countries that, even though they might reach the 2 percent, don't step up nearly as much, and I think it's important to look at what is actually being done, and the United States and all NATO allies know that Canada is a solid, reliable partner and will continue to defend NATO and defend our interests."

This open feuding and mutual denunciation between top officials of NATO countries points to the deep-going breakdown of the alliance. While the NATO heads of state meeting takes place today, followed by a press conference by Stoltenberg, political conflicts are tearing the alliance apart.

Founded in 1949 as an alliance against the Soviet Union in Europe after World War II, its founding mission evaporated with the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union by the Stalinist regime. No longer unified by a common enemy, Washington and its main European allies have clashed ever more bitterly in recent decades. The eruption of trade war conflicts over control of multi-billion-euro markets underscores that these conflicts are, in the final analysis, rooted, as the world wars of the 20th century were, in the competing profit and strategic interests of major corporations and banks.

Next Page  1  |  2


Rate It | View Ratings

Alex Lantier Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Alex Lantier has written extensively for, a forum for socialist views & the website for the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). His writings have also appeared on,, (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Malaysian press charges Ukraine government shot down MH 17

US threatens war while considering talks with Syria, Iran

US military plans direct intervention in Syria

The war drive against Syria

Torture and Washington's Policy of Aggressive War

Trump denounces Macron's criticisms of NATO at London summit

Comments Image Post Article Comment and Rate This Article

These discussions are not moderated. We rely on users to police themselves, and flag inappropriate comments and behavior. In accordance with our Guidelines and Policies, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms.

  • OpEdNews welcomes lively, CIVIL discourse. Personal attacks and/or hate speech are not tolerated and may result in banning.
  • Comments should relate to the content above. Irrelevant, off-topic comments are a distraction, and will be removed.
  • By submitting this comment, you agree to all OpEdNews rules, guidelines and policies.

Comment Here:   

You can enter 2000 characters. To remove limit, please click here.

Please login or register. Afterwards, your comment will be published.


Forgot your password? Click here and we will send an email to the address you used when you registered.
First Name
Last Name

I am at least 16 years of age
(make sure username & password are filled in. Note that username must be an email address.)

1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments  Post Comment

Richard Burcik

Become a Fan
Author 513799
(Member since Jul 1, 2019), 1 articles, 16 comments (View Extended Stats)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

Why does your organization steadfastly refuse to report the contrary scientific findings regarding alleged human-induced climate change?

On Aug. 9, 2019 -- Prof. Shaviv insisted that CO2 plays only a minor role in climate change.

On Aug. 11, 2019, Prof. Wu reported that her investigative team could find no evidence of human influence on the Earth's climate.

In Oct. 2019 -- Over 700 climate experts wrote to the UN stating that "NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY EXISTS" and asserting that the climate models are unfit for policy-making purposes.

The Foolish Idea of "Settled" Science

The Main Stream Media trumpets (almost endlessly) that the science regarding climate change is "settled" as evidenced by 97% of climatologists who have reached a "consensus" about anthropogenic (human-induced) global warming. What the press does not stress is that this like-mindedness among these experts is based almost entirely upon computer simulations (GCMs or climate models) and not on any significant experimental data or evidence. Even more distressing is that many (most?) climate advocates see the current scientific findings as fixed and they reject out of hand any actual contrary research results. Like it or not science is simply never settled.

Any historian of science will quickly belie the unsound position regarding "settled" science. A few solid examples should suffice to dismiss this misbegotten belief. During the late 19th century the entire scientific community accepted as fact the necessary existence of a "luminiferous ether" through which photons from the Sun traveled to reach the Earth. Then in 1887 Michelson & Morley of Case Western Reserve conducted a single experiment that showed that no such "ether" existed. Thus, all the prior evidence and belief was discarded. [Note: Interestingly, it was M&M's research that set Einstein on his search concerning relativity.] The bottom line is that the 97% "consensus" concerning the "settled" science regarding the existence of a luminiferous ether was wrong.

Next, at the turn of the 20th century, virtually every cosmologist and astronomer agreed that the stars and galaxies that made up our universe were fixed in position. Then in 1930, Edwin Hubble by studying the "redshift" of the light reaching Earth from these heavenly bodies showed that our universe was expanding and that it was doing so at an accelerating rate. Once again, all of the "settled" science was placed in the trash bin of history.

Another excellent example is "continental drift". During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, virtually every scientific expert insisted that the position of the Earth's continents was fixed. This scientific conclusion was based upon the observation that although granite existed on the continents, the seafloor was composed of denser basalt, and the "settled" science during the first half of the twentieth century was that there were two types of crust, named"sial" (continental type crust) and "sima" (oceanic type crust). Furthermore, it was "accepted" by all researchers that a static shell was present under the continents. Then in 1947, a team of scientists using an array of instruments confirmed the existence of a rise in the central Atlantic Ocean and found that the floor of the seabed beneath the layer of sediments consisted of basalt, not the granite which is the main constituent of continents. They also found that the oceanic crust was much thinner than continental crust. All these new findings put the "settled" science into question.

Subsequently, beginning in the 1950s, scientists using instruments that measure attraction (magnetometers) began recognizing odd "striping" across the ocean floor. After the maps with this "zebra pattern" of magnetic bands were published, the connection between seafloor spreading and this layout was correctly linked to the historic evidence of geomagnetic reversals. Like it or not, the seven continents had been moving. Again, the 97% "consensus" regarding the "settled" science of fixed continents had to be discarded. In science, the idea of a "settled consensus" is simply silly. Science is constantly uncovering new truths.

The Concept of "Settled" Science Regarding Anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change has recently been falsified

In 2014, a group of Chinese researchers found evidence suggesting that the current warm phase of a 500-year cycle could terminate over several decades, ushering in a 250-year cool phase. Then on July 3, 2019, Science Daily announced that new evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an "umbrella effect." When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth's last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger. This is evidence that galactic cosmic rays influence changes in the Earth's climate. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it," stated lead Japanese investigator, Professor Hyodo. "This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era."

On Aug. 9, 2019, Prof. Nir Shaviv suggested that rising levels of CO2 play only a minor role in Earth's climate compared to the influence of the Sun and cosmic radiation. "Climate change has existed forever and is unlikely to go away. But CO2 emissions don't play a major role. Periodic solar activity does." He continued by asserting that "... science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right."

Subsequently, on Aug. 11, 2019, it was reported that a new study had found winters in northern China have been warming since 4,000 BC. The study found that winds from Arctic Siberia have been growing weaker, the conifer tree line has been retreating north, and there has been a steady rise in biodiversity in a general warming trend that continues today. It appears to have little to do with the increase in greenhouse gases which began with the industrial revolution, according to the researchers. Lead scientist Dr. Wu Jing, from the Key Laboratory of Cenozoic Geology and Environment at the Institute of Geology and Geophysics, part of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said the study had found no evidence of human influence on northern China's warming winters. "Driving forces include the sun, the atmosphere, and its interaction with the ocean," Wu said. "We have detected no evidence of human influence."

Then the web site,, on Nov. 6, 2019, cited three papers from the Federal University of Sao Paolo, Brazil which partially affirm the studies from Japan and China. This research insists that "The composition (of marine) sediments carried by rivers from the mainland to the ocean can be used as a basis for calculating variables such as temperature, precipitation, and marine salinity. In the context of ongoing global climate change, the study of the past is fundamental to validating the accuracy of the climate models used to make predictions."


The world-famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper, insisted that to be a valid scientific theory must be falsifiable. This includes the widely held conjecture of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. In short, a single set of scholarly findings that is not explained by the premise of man-made global warming which is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels can falsify this entire body of scientific speculation and this has now occurred. Today, six peer-reviewed scientific papers that were conducted by six separate groups of expert investigators from four different universities in three separate countries and which have all been published in eminent peer-reviewed scholarly journals have found no evidence to support the assertion regarding human-induced climate change. Instead, all six groups independently found that the warming that has happened was almost entirely attributable to galactic cosmic rays that affect the quantity of the Earth's low hanging clouds. These expert investigators call this canopy or blanket the "umbrella effect". The bottom line is that the entire climate change hysteria has now been falsified and is untrue. These six experimental results have shown that the IPCC and its computer simulation models (GCMs) are not valid.


For those who require links here are several:

click here

click here

click here

Submitted on Wednesday, Dec 4, 2019 at 9:37:52 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
  Recommend  (0+)

Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment