"What is the point of NATO anymore?" Topic

SBm +1

OVI +1

Goibinu, Goibinu, Goibinu… it's clear that many Europeans strongly dislike Trump. But optics really are a two-way street.

Can't say it any better than that …

You should be aware that optic is a two way street.

Yes so should you.

You, in particular, are not as well informed about Europe as you think you are.

Better informed about Europe that you are about the USA …

You have no clue about how Trump is viewed here by many with a visceral level of hatred

Yes many but not all … However, those who believe as you do, the POTUS will always be wrong. So yes, bias, misinformation, spin, propaganda, etc. goes both ways as well.

FWIW – Ireland is not in NATO … You don't have a horse in this race.

Your constant anecdotes about being a junior officer decades ago are amusing but irrelevant.

I'm glad you are amused …🥱 But again, I don't see my past training and experience, plus study of history as being irrelevant … But as far as that goes … I find many things you post as not only irrelevant,but amusing as well.

Geopolitics is not like the military, and there's far more at stake than getting a telling off from a superior officer. So be a good fella and stop telling me I'm confused, eh?

Yes I too understand that … maybe you don't understand what I am saying … Hence you appear confused …

I don't know what your maunderings about the Red Army are for. You must be replying to someone else

You got that right … it was not for you … Hmmm ? You must be confused …

We certainly don't share your view that he's the harsh but fair daddy whose ****ing Europe about is for our own good.

Never said that … but you can believe as you wish. As I know you will …

if the Russia does push further west, we'll be the poor bastards doing the dying first.

Maybe you are again confused or blinded by your hatred, etc. for the POTUS, etc. But US troops are in many NATO nations right now as I type this. Those US troops along with other NATO Forces will be the first to die if WWIII breaks out with the Russians. As they are between Russia and Ireland. If there was a nuclear war, may the gods forbid, Ireland is probably not on Russia's target list. Plus its military is too small to be a concern/threat to the Russians.

However, if much of Europe and North America, etc. are nuked. Ireland's population will like so many other die of radiation poisoning, nuclear winter, etc., etc. So I imagine I'll be waiting for you in Hell. As I'll probably be dead before you are.

And stop the harping on you are being abused by the USA, etc. Add to that you'll die with the first few rounds of nuclear war. Before the USA … You won't … Again, generally, the Russians, may find your tiny little corner of the world as irrelevant. At least to the Russians as well as others …

Just say'n …

Hey, guys… Nuclear war is quite likely, not because anyone actually wants it, but because accidents are inevitable. It's happened many times before, but apparently God still saw enough righteous people on Earth to give us another chance:

link

It'll be funny when humanity destroys itself simply because of a simple mistake…

I'd say the most likely choice for a nuclear war … would be allowing militant islamists to get nukes. E.g. like we see what is going on now in Iran. They don't want to give up the idea of getting deployable. No matter how much the USA wants to talk them out of it.

In reality you can't trust islamists, they see most others as infidels, sub-humans, etc. So it is paramount that the USA has to not let this happen. As we see other POTUS's[Obama and Biden] just tried to appease them by buying them off, etc. That didn't work …

If at all possible, the US and probably the IDF should do what has to be done. To assist/support the anti-regime forces to overthrow the Ayatollah, his cabinet, etc. With that islamic regime gone. That would most likely change the entire region for the better. Much better …

I'm all in favor of keeping America in NATO, as a minor player, "keep yor friends close and yourenemy closder" and all that.

Legion 4, Pakistan has nuclear weapons… It's also a non-secular Muslim state, and it's in a permanent conflict with another nuclear power, India. And so far, none of them have decided to destroy the planet to win the conflict…
I think in the near future, the process of acquiring nuclear weapons by various countries will become widespread, since it will be the only chance to deter aggression from other world powers…
If Denmark had its own nuclear missiles, would the US lay claim to Greenland? I think so, but I doubt they would openly threaten them with military force. Unless they bombed them earlier, preventing the development of such weapons.

Well aware of that .. However the Paks primarily have their nuke to use on India. FYI – The Paks are primarily moslem while India is primarily Hindu. No love there …

Pretty sure in will be a very cold day in Hell the Paks will use Nukes on any one but India.

The Paks at least Intel reports. The Paks say they will give KSA nukes in Iran gets nukes. FWIW – KSA is primarily Sunni vs. Ira which is primarily Shia … again not love their either …

The point is the Wert must keep anymore islamists getting nukes for the reasons I stated …

You don't understand the USA wanting to put base again, on Greenland. And as a Russian you should understand this. Also as you know very few members in NATO have nukes. And even in the world. The concern is not just the Chicoms and/or Russians having nukes. As we all understand MAD.

But Iran's islamists gov't being radical fanatical Shai moslems. They very well may attack the infidels, with nukes. As they believe they will be martyred and go to paradise or wherever. As they can be assured their attempt at firing nukes at the infidels with result in their obliteration. Literally … Do the "infidals" want to risk the militant islam firing nukes at them ? NO …

The reason the US wants to rebuild/build bases on Greenland is a matter of self-defense. As Denmark or anyone else in NATO can't provide the assets the US will. Primarily ADA systems to intercept Russian and Chicom Hypersonic missiles. Does the US want to risk that sort of attack for those two enemies ? NO …

I'm all in favor of keeping America in NATO, as a minor player, "keep yor friends close and yourenemy closder" and all that.

Good -- that's the goal. With a x3 larger total population and an economy x12 larger than Russia, you should be able to handily fend off the Modern Muscovite Mussolini, allowing the US to focus more resources on the Beijing Hitler of our age.

SBm +1

I'm all in favor of keeping America in NATO, as a minor player,

What ? The most powerful military on the planet and in NATO. BTW – Turkey is 2d.

The Chicoms have numbers going for them. But we know never to attack on their terrain/China. And we know that NATO is not the defuncted SEATO. Which may be needed to be brought back into existence. With the Chicoms building up their military as if on a war footing. Or are planning to go on a war footing.

Of course this does not take into account if someone wants to start tossing nukes around.

Russia has demonstrated their military is a "paper bear". Are incapable in effectively fight modern combined arms maneuver warfare. However, they do have nukes … that is their only trump card.

So again I and others believe without the US in NATO … it may be just a paper tiger. Albeit some NATO members are making a clear effort to building up their militaries. In case the Russians and their allies think they want to attack a NATO member(s). E.g. Poland, the Baltic States, Finland[one of the new NATO members], etc.

I would and many others would like to see some NATO members start or continue to make bigger stronger best armed forces. Again, some have, IIRC e.g. Poland, Germany, France, possibly the UK, etc.

I'm Lillain, etc. will correct me if I'm wrong …

Errata: "I'm *sure* Lillian will correct me …"

Legion 4, I understand that Greenland is convenient for deploying missile defense systems, but nuclear weapons have been around for a long time, and Greenland is only now needed to protect the US.))) And it's unlikely that Denmark would refuse the US request to build new missile defense sites…
In fact, in my opinion, this is part of the struggle for resources in the only, still underdeveloped, region of the planet. Now the great powers are racing to possess them.

It's simply business, accompanied by unbridled propaganda from all sides.)))
It's always about money…

Not all Muslims are fanatics. And not all Muslim leaders are willing to allow terrorists, even Muslim ones, to possess WMD.
I don't understand one thing: why is the West so persistent in destroying secular regimes in the East (even authoritarian ones), allowing them to be replaced by either chaos (the perfect breeding ground for terrorists) or outright jihadists… This is downright suicidal behavior. If the regime in Iran is overthrown, there's a high risk of the country turning into another Libya or Syria. Only now – much more so…

SBminisguy, subtract Turkey's military and economic potential from NATO. Do you really think he's loyal to NATO and Europe? I think you're very much mistaken… The Sultan dreams of a revival of the Ottoman Empire. And the fall of Iran is the fall of his eternal adversary. He waits with bated breath…

@Cuprum2, even without Turkey the Europeans have all the resources to keep Putin in a box -- the EU Bureaucracy-aligned leaders seem to simply lack the will to do so and want the US to do it for them while chastising the US the whole time.

Good job by Rubio, coherent, sensible, even if I don't agree entirely. This is why the number of Independent voters in the US keeps growing as folks in the middle flee both Dems and Repubs. Marco reverse engineers the Trump speeches with connected thoughts and stays on point.

We will not get out of NATO in the end, I think. Article 5 was once a powerful deterrent, the reason why NATO worked. Taking a gamble on it not holding up was something no dictator wanted to test. Putin targeted non NATO states. Now the US has undermined this by acting like we just might not be the most reliable friend. And we have done it by insulting and demeaning our long time allies. Somebody will have their work cut out repairing this.

The US President appeared to fall asleep during the inaugural meeting of his Board of Peace. Sleepy Joe Biden indeed…we need to present an image of power in all of our interactions with the rest of the world…

Did Trump shake things up? Yes, and Europe needed it. Like a lot of things, like Gaza or Venezuela – the vision for the future is not clear to the average person unless its reverse engineered. POTUS seems to be thinking -let's see what happens when we shake up a bunch of things at once, and let money talk. Then somebody like Rubio explains. Alliances are also about vision and balance. Getting rich may motivate leaders. But harmony, stability and peace are not commodities.

The idea that we were not great before because of one political party or the other has never held water for me. Of course we have issues, but who has been the greatest, strongest, wealthiest power in our lifetimes?

SO what if we paid more into NATO than smaller European nations? We benefited just like Europe did from stable global norms. Why make a public spectacle out of it and weaken all of the West? We have thrown away plenty of money on less important things, IMO. Things are way better without Soviets/Russians invading and running other nations. And with Article 5, they are sure to hesitate, unless the US is vague in its commitment.

Tort + 5

Armand

I understand that Greenland is convenient for deploying missile defense systems, but nuclear weapons have been around for a long time, and Greenland is only now needed to protect the US.)))

No … the US has had bases there for a long time going back decades … The US bases should never have been shut down. The US has one base still active. For the USSF. This episode with the US, Greenland and Denmark will pass. With all players benefiting in the end.

The fact that nukes have been around for a long time. Is not the key concern. However, with hypersonic nukes being in some inventories now. It becomes more important that those hypersonic WMDs get intercepted as far out as possible…

, this is part of the struggle for resources in the only, still underdeveloped, region of the planet. Now the great powers are racing to possess them.

That is an important consideration as well. And the US does not want our enemies to get any closer to those resources. Or setting up bases in the Western Hemisphere. We want to keep those types out of the neighborhood.

Not all Muslims are fanatics. And not all Muslim leaders are willing to allow terrorists, even Muslim ones, to possess WMD.

DID I SAY THAT ? NO … not all followers of islam are militant fanatical, etc., etc. But there is a minority of the lunatic fringe that have proven to be very dangerous. And we are hunting them down and have been for a very long time. And generally killing them …

why is the West so persistent in destroying secular regimes in the East (even authoritarian ones),

That is not the case. Secular or not … if they pose a threat. That threat has to be mitigated …

(even authoritarian ones), allowing them to be replaced by either chaos (the perfect breeding ground for terrorists) or outright jihadists… This is downright suicidal behavior.

That is not the intention, and yes we all know how more jihadi, terrorist, etc. may be created. Sometimes that appears to be the cost of doing business. Admittedly some previous admins in the WH handled the situations in that region very poorly. Demonstrating total incompetence.

E.g. the handling of Libya, Iran and Syria in two previous admins. Along with one of those same admins bringing the more recent debacle of the A'stan. Tragically executed by some of the worse personal to occupy the WH in modern times …

If the regime in Iran is overthrown, there's a high risk of the country turning into another Libya or Syria.

I believe that assessment is not accurate. Different leadership currently in the WH has is much more competent in this situation, than the two previous POTUS's and their admin …

That ball is still in play … there is more to come on all of these subjects …

U.K. Denying U.S. Use Of Key Bases Would Impact Bombers' Role In Iran Air Campaign

link

Armand

Yes, I saw that in the media today … Reports are there are very many KC-135s, etc. in the air for refueling. And I'm sure there will other option for this op to go into effect, etc., if need be.

So now the US can claim the UK is a bad ally as they and so many others in NATO have said about the USA … Hmmm ?!?

If the regime in Iran is overthrown, there's a high risk of the country turning into another Libya or Syria.

Why would Europe care? I mean, they worked with Obama to start a deliberate War For Oil in Libya to collapse the Khaddifi regime to prevent China's Sinopec from getting drilling rights instead of TOTAL ELF FINA DUTCH ROYAL SHELL BRITISH PETROLEUM. They did't care about the death and chaos they unleashed then, so why now? Unless, unlike in the Libya War, they might miss out on the oil??

I knew that it wouldn't be long until someone on these boards claimed the UK was a bad ally for not allowing the use of UK bases for an attack on Iran.
When the US has:
- insulted the UK troops over Afghanistan and Iraq
- unilaterally slapped tariffs on the UK
- threatened a Nato ally
- thrown doubt on whether they would honor article 5
- generally acted as though they don't value or see a need for allies

and now the US is all bent out of shape about allies not supporting them. Not shocking but somewhat disappointing.

Myself, don't care if they help or don't.

24 hour news just looking for filler.

SBminisguy, they should care… Any destroyed stable regime in the East and Africa means hundreds of thousands of refugees in Europe, who simply "wash away" the traditional European identity… How much longer will it take before we see "European Emirates" on Russia's borders?)))

" How much longer will it take before we see "European Emirates" on Russia's borders?)))"
🤨

Possibly closer than one might think? 🤔

Subject: Wall Street Apes on X: "Europe will never recover from this "50 million Muslims now live in Europe. At the turn of the century, that number was less than 500,000 and more are arriving every day — Muslims are now running major cities across the country for the first time in history" "As the people who t.co/ZxzilsgFQ5 / X

link

Adding to the above:

"Islam employs 9 types of deceptions to destroy non-Muslims: Taqiya, Hiyal, Adab al jadal, dawah, kitman, tafsir, darura, and muruna. According to sharia, in certain situations, deception – also known as 'taqiyya', based on Quranic terminology, – is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory. The sole function of the "peace-treaty" (hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup for a renewed offensive"
….
"Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era." The primary Quranic verse sanctioning deception with respect to non-Muslims states: "Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah – unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions." (Quran 3:28; see also 2:173; 2:185; 4:29; 22:78; 40:28.) Al-Tabari's (838-923 AD) Tafsir, or Quranic exegeses, is essentially a standard reference in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he wrote: "If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harbouring inner animosity for them… Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers – except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them." Regarding 3:28, the Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) wrote: "Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil, may protect himself through outward show." None of this should be surprising considering that Muhammad himself, whose example as the "most perfect human" is to be tenaciously followed, took an expedient view on the issue of deception."
….
"Allah himself is often described in the Quran as the "best deceiver" or "schemer." (see 3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Quran contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones. When Muslims are weak, they should preach and behave according to the Meccan verses; when strong, they should go on the offensive, according to the Medinan verses. Many Islamic books extensively deal with the doctrine of abrogation, or Al-Nasikh Wa Al-Mansukh. according to all four recognised schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah" (Quran 8:39). According to the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Online edition): "The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorised. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict." Islam's dichotomised worldview pits Dar al Islam (House of Islam) against Dar al Harb (House of War or non-Muslims) until the former subsumes the latter."

We can assume many of the "refugees" and "immigrants" adhere to these beliefs, as we have already seen the examples in many countries. (And they are NOT the majority yet).

SBm +1

OVI +1

I knew that it wouldn't be long until someone on these boards claimed the UK was a bad ally for not allowing the use of UK bases for an attack on Iran.

Well frankly it does not make things any better between the two. However, I too find this turn of events disappointing. France maybe the USA's oldest ally. The UK and the US have worked closely together for decades.

Albeit burning down the WH in the War of 1812, few remember that. However, many who study history do. Regardless it was a long time ago. And it matters little now. But it still happened.

I rarely don't support everything the POTUS does or says. I may have handled it differently … But I'm not in any position to influence anything except to vote. I and many others voted for this POTUS. With the primary intent of closing down the open borders of the "failed" Biden Admin, etc. And start deporting millions of illegal aliens who crossed into the USA. Sanctioned, supported, requested by the Biden admin, Dems, etc.

Causing many catastrophic results. Including all sorts of crimes including murder, rapes, drug running, sex trafficking, etc. costing thousands of US deaths. Even fraud, theft, etc. of all types of entitlements. Stealing aid, that should go to the US taxpayer as it is paid by the same.

Albeit it only a small percentage are actually hardened criminals. However, like in an insurgency, the guerilla blends in with the masses. Bottom line if you crossed the border illegally YOU BROKE THE LAW. For whatever reasons. IF you don't qualify, you broke the law. You are a criminal …

So with all the vitriol, derision, hatred, disdain, etc. for the current POTUS and his Admin. I am willing to say yes I did agree with some things. Event with European allies, etc.

Again I'm not 100% satisfied with the way certain aspects have been handled by this WH. But again, they voted in to close the border and deport criminal, not just cartel members, gang bangers, murders, rapists, etc. But even mommy, daddy and baby(s) who broke the law coming here again… Illegally …

So the world can and moan, "ringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, etc., etc. IMO the priority is to make the US citizens safe again …

So are some in NATO, Europe, etc. upset with this POTUS … This to shall pass. Or like any former BFFs, they can remain angry … or work things out, etc.

I do prefer that NATO and the US get along. However, the WH has a point … most NATO members were not carrying their own weight, drastically downsizing their militaries with the end of the Cold War. Which appeared they expected the USA to come to their aid as in WWI and WWII.

So yeah … both sides are disappointed with the other. But again the ball is still in play … It's not even half time … And there won't be a half-time show like in the last Superbowl …

France Reveals New 78,000-Ton Nuclear Aircraft Carrier "France Libre" with 40+ Aircraft Capacity

link

France Confirms 3 Electromagnetic Catapults for PA-NG Next-Generation Nuclear Aircraft Carrier

link

Armand

Europe Advances MARTE Next-Gen Main Battle Tank for High-Intensity Combat.

link

Armand

Just read the news today. US defence massively compromised due to the utter and completer lack of respect for Canadian soiverenty, they can nolonger safely watch the arctic as they were utterly contemptable to there NATO partners so are banned from their soil.

The quetion is more, what the worth of an allie that is as happy to attack there allies as there supposed enemies? Such a group would be useless in any military alliance as they would be below respect or trust and certainly not safe to share intelegence with.

@UshCha

Look, Canada isn't the victim here. An alliance is supposed to be a two-way street, not one side always carrying the load.

The US didn't disrespect Canadian sovereignty just for fun. Under the Liberals, Canada chose politics over real partnership. Instead of negotiating seriously with Trump, they fired up their base by painting him as the boogeyman to win elections. Then they doubled down by courting US adversaries and acting deliberately antagonistic.

That's exactly why trust has eroded.And no, the US isn't "banned from NATO soil" or suddenly unable to watch the Arctic — that's pure fiction. NORAD, Five Eyes intelligence sharing, and joint exercises are still going strong. Those claims of total collapse are just nonsense not backed by any real reporting.

Mark Carney's moves look like classic globalist establishment pushback against Trump challenging the old, unsustainable order. Instead of fixing the imbalances — the free-riding, the lopsided trade, America always footing the bill — they're rallying "middle powers," cozying up to China, and pretending the deep US-Canada relationship is over.

A reliable ally pulls its weight, doesn't treat its biggest partner as a campaign prop, and doesn't undermine shared security for domestic political points.

Canada has been under-resourced and politically unreliable on defense for years. Friction exists because one side stopped acting like a serious partner. Alliances require reciprocity, not just geography and good vibes – it's time for Canada to step up instead of playing the victim.

SBm +1

UshCha – SBm is completely correct. But he and I are over here. We have a front row seat to all of this. With the predilection of most of the media. Many view what is going on here from over there thru a straw. Both many in the US and Euro medias are completely biased, narrative and agenda driven, prone to obfuscation, spin, just plain lying, etc., etc.

Spain closes airspace to US planes involved in Iran war, defense minister says

link

Armand

Why It's Right to Deploy Missile Defense in Europe

link

Armand

Hey guys, let's connect the dots here. These WEF-friendly European leaders like Sánchez, Macron, and Starmer aren't just talking tough, they're taking deliberately provocative anti-Trump actions that look a lot like they're trying to drive a wedge between America and NATO.

Look at Sánchez, he straight-up denied the U.S. access to Spanish bases (paid for by the US) and airspace for operations against Iran, then slammed the strikes as illegal and immoral. That's basically siding with Iran in tone while claiming it's about "values" and European sovereignty. At the same time, he's dragging his feet on serious NATO spending increases.

Macron keeps pushing his "true European army" and "strategic autonomy" talk, openly saying Europe shouldn't be America's vassal and needs to prepare for independence, even from the U.S. It's classic European Federalist stuff: weaken the transatlantic link so the EU can consolidate power on its own.

Starmer's playing it smoother but still calls for a "more European NATO" and shifting away from "overdependence" on America toward deeper EU defense ties.

The pattern feels coordinated. They use heated anti-Trump rhetoric to justify moves that limit U.S. operational freedom on European soil and push to build parallel European structures. Euro Federalists have wanted this for decades—reduce America's role so Europe can finally become a single sovereign power with each nation reduced to being just one state of a Euro Superstate.

Is this more than anti-Trump whinging for local headlines and political points? Or is it a calculated push to decouple from the U.S. while sounding morally superior about Iran? The timing with Trump back in office makes it hard to ignore.

What a strange parallel I perceive regarding the issue of Western Europe… On one hand, Russia (Cuprum) is meticulously describing how bad they are: expansionist, traitorous, selfish, conspiratorial, liars, corrupt, etc., etc.

On the other hand… Team Trump (fellow members, you know who they are) or USA is practically accusing Western Europe of the same things, but with a different objective… in another part of the map.

Both sides agree on who the villain is, conveniently ignoring any criticism or mistakes on their part in handling two serious conflicts.

Both sides also point to China as the bogeyman of the world, even though both are actively trading with it.

Of course, they both take jabs at each other as much as they can, but never openly, making it clear that neither has any real problem with the other.

What a strange situation…

At this point… I have no doubt whatsoever about the unwritten pact between Trump and Putin… watching them act, move, and make decisions makes it clear that one doesn't interfere with the other but supports and helps him when he can…

Armand

Coordinated conflict: how the Ukraine and Iran wars are starting to overlap

link

Armand

SBm +1

Tango +1

It seems many of our traditional NATO allies don't want to get involved for a variety of reasons. I think some of which have large islamic population. As we see in the US in some states and cities. For better or worst …

And again, many in NATO have downsized the militaries. As well the Cold War is "over"(?). However, some of our former WP members of NATO see what a threat Putin and the Russian are … And can't be trusted …

And it is clear, the US gets next to 0 of oil coming the Strait of Hurmuz. However, a number of NATO members do …

One would think that might be something that some in NATO would support this operation ?

According to GEN(RET.) Kellog, a very reliable source, a NATO member can suspend its membership for a year.

Something to think about …

According to GEN(RET.) Kellog, a very reliable source, a NATO member can suspend its membership for a year.

I think they can withdraw after giving one year's notice, but I don't see a provision for suspension.

Article 13:

"After the Treaty has been in force for twenty years, any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America, which will inform the Governments of the other Parties of the deposit of each notice of denunciation."

link

It seems many of our traditional NATO allies don't want to get involved for a variety of reasons. I think some of which have large islamic population. As we see in the US in some states and cities. For better or worst …

And again, many in NATO have downsized the militaries.

The US didn't even ask for direct military aid. And it didn't formally request NATO support. All the US did was make an ALLY TO ALLY requests per standing agreements, to use US constructed and maintained and staffed airbases in Spain, UK, etc.

Again, not only did these countries refuse to honor a request from a long-time ally, but their leaders rushed to the cameras to denounce America and Trump. Other countries piled on to deny airbase use and airspace use in a wave of self-congratulatory anti-US statements intended for domestic political audiences and to throw appeasement signals at Iran.

I mean, just blocking US access to airbases and airspace was enough, increasing the chance of US casualties. Then the pile on was pathetic. Some, like Macron, are opportunistically seeing this as the chance to avoid political exile in the next elections by trumpeting about how he can help lead Europe into the glorious future under the EUROPEAN FEDERAL STATES, others are messaging their internal leftist and islamist supporters.

And since the Democrats seem to have momentum, some of these Euro "leaders" may also feel that the Democrats will win in 2026 and defang Trump and so they are pre-positioning for that in the hopes that all this reform stuff will just go away, and the US will go back to being Europe's defense Sugar Daddy with no strings attached.

Anyways, we'll see.

Why the United States Must Withdraw from NATO: Reclaiming Maneuver Warfare, Mission Command, and Strategic Initiative in a Fourth-Generation World

link

Armand

Tango good article. Unfortunately I don't think most on TMP will read it, as with most links.

I've stated before, I don't believe in peacetime alliances. No maneuverability, if you adhere to them. Bad before WW1 and even worse since.

Tango

Now you've done it! 😱

"26 minutes ago
Tehran moves to rename Argentina Square after Buenos Aires brands IRGC terrorist

Tehran's city council has approved a proposal to change the name of Argentina Square after Argentina designated the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

Mehdi Pirhadi, a council member, said the move was approved in light of Argentina's stance against the Islamic Republic and that the council's naming committee would now review replacement options and present a final proposal at a future public session.

He said the names of several killed Iranian military commanders, including Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Alireza Tangsiri, Mohammad Bagheri, Mohammad Pakpour and Majid Mousavi, had been raised as possible alternatives."

😉

Those damned murderers attacked us with bombs twice… great joy to learn that in one of the many attacks they were all killed… couldn't you send one more to where Cristina Kirchner is staying?… a favor we could never repay in this life.

Armand

Send her on a fact finding mission of the Iranian power grid tomorrow. 😉

I think they can withdraw after giving one year's notice, but I don't see a provision for suspension.

Regardless of my paraphrasing … the fact remains as GEN Kellog said in that interview. The intent is any NATO member can withdraw/leave, etc. following the NATO protocols …

But thank you for that clarification … Which could mean something in court of law.

Europe mulls the prospect of a NATO without the US

link

Armand

The NATO SECGEN is visiting the POTUS today, IIRC … He thinks the US should stay in NATO. Some say NATO has to be reorganized. It appears much of Western Europe does not act like allies … where many in the East do. As they had to suffer under the dirty Russian booty for decades. They see the value of the US being in NATO. Maybe there should be a Western version of NATO and the Eastern version of if it?

Tango01 +1

The NATO SECGEN is visiting the POTUS today, IIRC … He thinks the US should stay in NATO

Because he's the only serious defense leader in Europe, it seems and understands the reality of the situation. The rest seem to be posturing to create the Federal States of Europe and a Euro Army they think they can totally control.

It could be the US stays in NATO at a redued role and shifts most of it's presence to Eastern Europe while it moves other assets to bolster Asia-Pacific defenses against China.

I can just imagine the feast Putin's having, surrounded by strippers spreading misinformation… (smile)

Of course, the price of oil…

Armand

Europe's Rearmament Spiral: The Security Dilemma Nobody Can Exit

link

Armand

Tango +1 The Euros can argue all they want. But much of Western Europe is nowhere near the combat ready. But after the Cold War, which never really ended, they spent $ on programs that really did little to support their own defense.

They must have thought the US will come to their sides once again ? And they won't even admit it. The nations in NATO that wouldn't even support this campaign against a militant lunatic islamists death cult. Who wanted nukes to begin the End Times, which still sounds ridiculous to me. But yet that is a fact. And want to get nukes to start this apocalypse.

As well as the biggest supporters of islamic terrorism, worldwide. Hated by many other moslems.

And some of our "allies" wouldn't even let the US use their airfields or fly over their lands. That is a horrible set of circumstances. Their nations are closer to Iran's nuke ranges than the uSA. Plus, sadly the US has a large well-funded 5th Column in gov't, and many other places in our society and trying to force their culture into ours.

Only fools or appeaser would allow this to happen.

Many of those Western European nations will find themselves replaced by those members of Eastern Europe that used to be part of the Warwas Pact. They never want to be under Russia's boot again …

Those nations in NATO should be ashamed to turn their backs on NATO's biggest, best ally that came to their assistance many times in the past …

Fools … just fools …

Those nations in NATO should be ashamed to turn their backs on NATO's biggest, best ally that came to their assistance many times in the past …

Fools … just fools …

Yep. This was not a NATO request -- it was an Ally to Ally request of the kind the US has honored before. Like Britain's campaign to retake the Falklands -- that wasn't a NATO operation or request. The US provided intelligence, satellite data and targeting data, munitions, millions of gallons of fuel, US basing rights and even offered to use a US carrier to shuttle more Harrier jets and aircraft to the combat zone. All to the grave protests and threats of alliance damage by many US South American and LATAM allies.

The US also supported multiple French campaigns in Africa -- the Sahel op, and so on, with air assets, logistics, intel, etc. The US enabled Australia's operation in East Timor. The US sent forces into the Balkans in the 1990s, etc.

So the US has repeatedly honored allies in ways they currently will not. We didn't ask for ANYTHING -- not one missile or bullet, not one left boot on the ground. Just permission to use the bases the US built and pay for.

I think the more likely route for NATO, that instead of taking the political heat to formally leave, Trump will just let it wither and die. There's nothing in the NATO charter that obligates a certain US troop level to NATO countries or where they are based or how much dedicated funding needs to be allocated.

Fine.

1. Policty control: The US stays in NATO to influence policy

2. NATO funding: There are 32 NATO nations, so the US can contribute 1/32nd of the budget.

3. Bases: There are NATO members who have acted more like allies recently, like Greece and Poland, so there's no reason to keep a presence in the UK, Spain, Germany or Italy.

4. Bilateral defense deals: the US can use more direct security deals with say, Portugal to have expanded basing rights in the Azores. With Greece to use Souda Bay as a naval base to replace Rota, or even Haifa in Israel, etc.

5. Troop strength: Cut by 50%. Most "leading edge" ground combat units shift to Poland and Eastern Europe, Spain sees a near elimination of troops (don't need their bases and shift Rota to Souda, Greece), sharp reductions in UK, Italy and Germany. The rest are redeployed to bases in the Middle East, to the Indo-Pacific and back to the US.

What do you think?