Trump's controversial stance on NATO funding sparks backlash and questions of US leadership

- In principle, I would encourage them (Russians - ed.), to do whatever they like. You have to pay. You got to pay your dues - summarised Trump, previously telling an account of an alleged conversation with a representative from a 'large' NATO country.

- The representative asked if their country doesn't pay, and they were attacked by Russia, would I defend them. I told him: if you don’t fulfil your arrears, I won’t come to your defence - Trump said.

The White House immediately criticised this statement. Concurrently, a deluge of comments appeared on social media. A large number of users responded to the former US president's words with utter disgust and horror. A plethora of passionate comments can be found on platform X.

"When we were attacked on September 11, 2001, our NATO allies came to our aid. Soldiers from NATO countries died, fighting alongside our soldiers in Afghanistan, despite none of their countries being attacked. Please remember these facts, Thank you," - wrote Michael McFaul, a political science professor, director of the Freeman Spogli Institute and Hoover Senior Fellow at Stanford University, and US ambassador to Russia between 2012 and 2014.

Professor McFaul also opined that he considers the former president's statement to be "insane". "Trump exhibits that he still does not comprehend how NATO operates! This isn't a defence missile. They don’t pay us for their protection. Unbelievable," - wrote the diplomat.

Anne Applebaum-Sikorska, an American-Polish journalist, Pulitzer Prize laureate, contributor to The Atlantic and author of numerous books on Russia's history, deduced in her post that Trump lacks an understanding of how the North Atlantic Treaty operates and "sends a dangerous signal to Russia". This, as Anne Applebaum specifies, is an "invitation to escalate the war".

Wojciech Jakóbik, editor-in-chief of BiznesAlert.pl, an energy sector analyst, appraised Trump's statement as "disgraceful and risky". "Such commentary is unbecoming of a past and potentially future president" - he contextualised.