The Los Angeles Times on how Trump’s bombast on NATO invites Russian aggression:

Given that Donald Trump talks trash about a range of issues, it’s tempting to discount the rant in which he suggested that as president he would encourage Russia to attack NATO allies who were “delinquent” in their financial obligations.

That would be a mistake. Trump’s remarks are alarming even if he isn’t seriously urging an act of war against a U.S. ally or suggesting that, if elected, he would pull the United States out of NATO. Instead of trying to explain away Trump’s outrageous comments, his allies in Congress should condemn them.

In remarks at a rally in Conway, South Carolina, over the weekend, Trump relayed an incident in which the president of a “big country” — presumably a NATO member state — supposedly asked Trump “if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?” Trump said he replied: “No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.”

Some prominent Republicans pooh-poohed his comments. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., noted in a CNN interview that virtually every president has complained about other countries in NATO not doing enough. “Trump’s just the first one to express it in these terms,” Rubio said, “but I have zero concern, because he’s been president before.”

It’s true that Trump isn’t the only president to call on NATO member states to spend more on defense. Such jawboning seems to have had a positive effect.

Some NATO states are now satisfying the benchmark that they spend at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense. NATO member states also have joined the U.S. in assisting Ukraine, which is not a member of the alliance, in its resistance to Russian aggression.

It’s important that all North Atlantic Treaty Organization members meet the 2% benchmark. But that shouldn’t be a condition for benefiting from the alliance’s commitment to mutual defense. That principle is reflected in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which says that “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” This commitment isn’t a one-way street.

It may be unlikely that Trump would try to take the U.S. out of NATO. For one thing, Congress last year approved legislation that would require an act of Congress or approval of two-thirds of the Senate before the president could withdraw the U.S. from the alliance. Yet that doesn’t make his comments any less destructive. If Russia believes Trump as president wasn’t committed to NATO and the principle of collective defense, it might be emboldened to move openly or through subversion against neighboring NATO countries.