Tag: nato

Trump Administration To ‘Re-Evaluate’ NATO Membership After Europe Declines To Assist War In Gulf

 President Donald Trump has signaled a major potential shift in U.S. foreign policy, stating he is strongly considering withdrawing the United States from NATO after alliance members declined to support American military operations against Iran, including efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph published Wednesday, Trump described NATO as a “paper tiger” and said a U.S. exit from the 77-year-old defensive alliance is now “beyond reconsideration.”

“I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way,” Trump told the British newspaper.

The comments come as the U.S.-led military campaign against Iran, which began on February 28, continues. Trump had pressed NATO allies to contribute naval forces to secure the Strait of Hormuz — a critical chokepoint carrying roughly 20% of global oil and gas supplies — but most declined to participate in what they viewed as an offensive operation rather than a defensive one under NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense clause.

Trump framed the lack of support as a key test of alliance reliability. In recent speeches, he warned that failure to back the U.S. would not be forgotten, adding: “If the ‘big one’ ever happened, I guarantee you they wouldn’t be there.” He also expressed doubt about future U.S. commitments, saying, “We are always going to be there — at least we were; I don’t know anymore, to be honest with you.”

Keep reading

Why Is America Bankrolling NATO? Trump Says It’s Time to Rethink the Deal

President Donald Trump on Tuesday sharply criticized NATO allies after several European countries declined his request to assist in maintaining open shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for global energy transport.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump raised the possibility of taking further action against the alliance when asked whether he would consider withdrawing the United States from NATO.

“It’s certainly something that we should think about,” he said.

“I don’t need Congress for that decision, as you probably know, I can make that decision myself.”

The comments followed reports that key European allies, including France and the United Kingdom, declined to provide military support for operations aimed at securing the strait.

The administration has been seeking additional naval assets, including minesweepers to detect explosive devices and destroyers to protect commercial vessels moving through the narrow passage.

Trump has long expressed concerns about NATO’s structure and financial commitments, arguing that member nations rely too heavily on the United States.

Keep reading

Trump Says US Doesn’t need NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia in Strait of Hormuz After They Snub Request for Help – “WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!”

President Trump expressed displeasure with other countries for turning down his request to send their militaries to the Strait of Hormuz to protect oil tankers as Israel and the US wage war against Iran, saying that the US will remember the refusal. 

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Trump on Saturday claimed, “Many Countries, especially those who are affected by Iran’s attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait, will be sending War Ships, in conjunction with the United States of America, to keep the Strait open and safe.”

He specifically called out “China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint,” saying securing the Strait “should have always been a team effort, and now it will be.”

However, the countries quickly rebuffed his demand and instead called for and instead urged the United States to end the war.

Trump responded to their declination of his proposition on Tuesday during a bilateral meeting with Taoiseach of Ireland Micheál Martin, saying, “We don’t need help.”

Trump further said he was “surprised” that NATO allies, while supportive of the war, “don’t want to help.”

“This was a great test because we don’t need them, but they should have been there,” he said, noting that “we as the United States have to remember that, because we think it’s pretty shocking.”

Keep reading

Article 5 Looming: NATO Shoots Down Iranian Ballistic Missile Fired At Turkey

There’s looming fear that Trump’s Operation Epic Fury is fast spinning into a broader regional war, even a possible WW3 scenario – though large powers like Russia and China are expected to remain on the sidelines. 

Illustrating this potential, on Wednesday a ballistic missile launched from Iran and tracked across Iraqi and Syrian airspace before heading toward Turkish territory was shot down by NATO air defenses, according to Turkey’s Defense Ministry.

NATO Article 5 potential? Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth was quick to downplay the issue, saying in a fresh briefing: “On the matter with Turkey, I’ll have to get back to you on exactly what the intercept looked like,” before adding, “We’re aware of that particular engagement, although no sense that it would trigger anything like Article 5.”  

In a sharply worded statement Wednesday, the Turkey’s Defense Ministry laid out, “A ballistic munition launched from Iran, which was detected passing through Iraqi and Syrian airspace and heading towards Turkish airspace, was engaged in a timely manner by NATO air and missile defense assets stationed in the eastern Mediterranean and rendered inactive.”

No casualties have been reported in the highly alarming incident, though Ankara stressed it “reserves the right to respond” to any hostile act, and urged all sides to show restraint. 

Turkey has reportedly summoned the Iranian ambassador, while Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan lodged a formal protest with FM Abbas Araghchi, warning that “any steps that could further widen the conflict must be avoided,” according to Reuters.

Naturally, NATO quickly lined up behind Ankara, with a command statement condemning Iran’s “targeting of Turkey” while declaring the alliance “stands firmly with all Allies, including Turkiye.”

“Our deterrence and defence posture remains strong across all domains, including when it comes to air and missile defense,” the NATO statement said.

Keep reading

Greenland Gambit: How Trump’s Arctic Ambition Shattered the Atlantic Alliance

A specter is haunting the transatlantic alliance – not from the East, but from within. What began as a seemingly quixotic real estate fantasy has evolved, through weeks of escalating pressure, into the most profound stress test of U.S.-European relations since the Cold War. President Donald Trump’s campaign to acquire Greenland has laid bare a stark reality: the alliance’s most powerful member is willing to wield coercion against its own partners, treating sovereignty as a transactional commodity. While an eleventh-hour tactical retreat has pulled the world back from the brink of immediate conflict, the crisis has illuminated a fatal flaw in the alliance’s foundation.

The Tactical Retreat: A “Framework” That Exposes More Than It Resolves

The immediate crisis abated not with a grand diplomatic triumph, but with a characteristically vague post on Truth Social. On January 21, following a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, President Trump announced he was withdrawing his threat to impose sweeping tariffs on eight European allies and ruled out using military force. In return, he claimed the two had formed the “framework of a future deal” for Greenland and the Arctic. This sudden de-escalation was less a resolution and more a revelation of pressure points. The threatened tariffs had sent Wall Street into its worst single-day decline since October, demonstrating the economic self-harm of his coercive strategy.

The substance of Trump’s “framework” remains conspicuously absent. Reports suggest discussions may involve the U.S. gaining “total access” to parts of Greenland for military purposes. Crucially, Trump’s language has shifted from “ownership” to “access,” a nod to political reality. Yet, the core ambition persists; he continues to frame Greenland as imperative for missile defense and minerals, bluntly stating the U.S. will achieve “all of its strategic goals… at very little cost, forever.” As Ole Wæver, a professor of international relations at the University of Copenhagen, skeptically notes, this is likely a “pretend” deal. He argues, “NATO can’t negotiate minerals or ownership of territory for bases… Most likely, the main process now goes back… to a bureaucratic committee.”

The Unbreakable Red Line: How European and Greenlandic Resolve Forced a Climbdown

Trump’s tactical pivot was forced by an unprecedented and unified wall of resistance. European leaders had declared they “will not allow ourselves to be blackmailed.” The non-negotiable line was drawn by Denmark and Greenland. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated unequivocally, “We cannot negotiate on our sovereignty.” This was echoed by Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, who called sovereignty a “red line.” Perhaps more devastating was the visceral rejection from Greenlanders themselves; a new poll finds 85% of residents oppose joining the U.S.

Remarkably, this resistance transcended Europe’s political divides, isolating Trump even among ideological allies. In the European Parliament, typically pro-Trump, far-right figures condemned the threats. France’s Jordan Bardella called them “coercion,” while Germany’s Alice Weidel said Trump had “violated a fundamental campaign promise.” This unanimity was backed by concrete action: Denmark dispatched more troops to Greenland as part of “Operation Arctic Endurance,” making clear that its defense would be a collective endeavor.

Keep reading

Trump Announces ‘Framework’ Of Deal For Greenland With NATO

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte have “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland,” a move he said will halt a looming round of tariffs on Europe.

Trump announced the development in a Truth Social post, saying the talks prompted him to scrap punitive tariffs that were set to hit a range of European countries starting Feb. 1.

“Based upon a very productive meeting that I have had with the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, we have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America, and all NATO Nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on February 1st,” Trump wrote.

“Additional discussions are being held concerning The Golden Dome as it pertains to Greenland. Further information will be made available as discussions progress. Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and various others, as needed, will be responsible for the negotiations — They will report directly to me. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Keep reading

Trump Begins Quiet NATO Drawdown as Greenland Clash Exposes One-Sided Alliance

Amid sky high tensions with globalist Eurocrats over Greenland, the Trump administration has begun a quiet but consequential rollback of America’s military footprint inside NATO, signaling a broader rethinking of Washington’s long-standing role as Europe’s sole security guarantor.

The move comes amid rapidly escalating tensions with western EU ‘allies’ (i.e. liberal globalists who’ve attempted to sabotage Trump at every step of his presidency) over Greenland, defense spending, and what President Trump increasingly views as a one-sided alliance.

According to a report from The Washington Post, which cites multiple officials, the Pentagon is preparing to eliminate roughly 200 American military positions embedded within NATO command and advisory bodies. These personnel cuts will affect several of the alliance’s most influential planning centers, including intelligence, special operations, and maritime command structures.

The reductions will be carried out primarily by declining to replace American officers as their assignments end, rather than through abrupt withdrawals. While modest in raw numbers, the cuts will significantly reduce America’s role inside NATO’s decision-making architecture.

Among the entities impacted are the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre in the United Kingdom, the Allied Special Operations Forces Command in Brussels, and STRIKFORNATO in Portugal, which coordinates maritime operations. In total, roughly half of the American personnel assigned to these bodies will be removed.

American force posture in Europe will technically remain near 80,000 troops, just above the threshold that would require congressional approval for deeper reductions.

The move, for the Trump administration, reflects a long-standing argument: Europe must take responsibility for its own defense, and if it doesn’t, it ought to stop lecturing America or acting like a global player.

Pentagon officials allegedly have privately told European diplomats that America expects Europe to assume the bulk of conventional defense capabilities—intelligence, missile defense, and logistics—by 2027, a timeline many European leaders admit is unrealistic.

The personnel cuts also align with a newly released American National Security Strategy (NSS) that prioritizes the Western Hemisphere over Europe. The document explicitly calls for reallocating American military resources closer to home, where border security, cartel violence, and hemispheric stability now dominate strategic thinking.

Keep reading

Carney Threatens US, Goes Full Vassal State As He Kowtows To China’s Xi Jinping -Gives Merit To Trump’s Greenland Argument

The former nation of Canada is now a full vassal state of the Chinese Communist Party. This is of course already known, as Justin Trudeau moved far down that path while trying to conceal his true intentions.

Mark Carney is doing no such thing as he kowtows to China’s Xi Jinping while on a recent trip to China.

“A pleasure to meet with President Xi in Beijing. Canada and China are forging a new strategic partnership. We’re leveraging our strengths — focusing on trade, energy, agriculture, seafood, and other areas where we can make massive gains for both our peoples,” Carney declared in Beijing.

“The progress we have made in the partnership sets us up well for the new world order.”

A reporter asked — What did you mean by the new world order?

“The architecture, the multilateral system is being eroded—undercut. The question is what gets built in its place,” Carney replied

Regardig Greenland, Carney threatened Trump.

“We are NATO partners with Denmark. Our full partnership and our obligations to Article 5 and Article 2 stand. We stand fully behind those.”

The US is urging allies to move faster on reducing reliance on Chinese critical minerals, planning a Feb. 4 meeting of foreign ministers to strengthen and diversify supply chains, reported Bloomberg.

It is not likely President Trump will take these comments sitting down.

The move may backfire as the sight of a Canadian leader licking Beijing’s boots will likely increase the American public’s support for President Trump’s Greenland viewpoint.

Keep reading

What’s Behind Washington’s Signaling Support For NATO Troops In Ukraine?

It might be a negotiating tactic to pressure Russia into concessions on its maximalist goals in the conflict as a quid pro quo for not reprioritizing Russia’s containment over China’s by extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine and thus reducing the odds that they’ll actually deploy there.

France and the UK recently committed to deploying troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire as part of their latest proposed security guarantees to that country, the principle of which was praised for the first time ever by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the US’ Special Envoys for talks with Russia. The Paris Declaration that France and the UK signed also pledged their support for “Participation in a proposed US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism”. All of this certainly raises concern in Russia.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth declared last February during his speech at NATO HQ that his country won’t consider member states’ troops in Ukraine to be covered by Article 5 and won’t deploy any of its own there either as part of any security guarantee. In light of the Paris Declaration, however, some in Russia might wonder whether the US is soon planning to reverse both policies to protect its NATO allies’ troops in Ukraine upon their deployment and deploy its own there too for monitoring a ceasefire.

Putin himself warned as recently as last September that Russia would deem Western troops in Ukraine “legitimate targets for destruction.” It’s therefore easy to see how their deployment en masse, unlike the minor unofficial French and UK troop presence in Odessa that Russian spies confirmed later that same month, could spiral out of control into World War III if Russia targets their forces. That might not happen, though, if the US’ support for the latest security guarantees is just a negotiating tactic (at least for now).

To explain, Trump 2.0 could have continued pumping Ukraine with weapons for free and never initiated talks with Russia if it wasn’t sincere about ending the conflict, all while gradually ramping up escalations against Russia as part of a “boiling the frog” approach for normalizing the path to World War III.

Keep reading

Russia Repeats Long-Standing Objection To Any Deal That Puts NATO Troops in Ukraine

The Russian Foreign Ministry on Thursday repeated its long-standing objection to troops from NATO countries deploying to Ukrainian territory as part of a potential future peace deal, as Ukraine and its Western backers continue to push the idea.

“The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs warns that the deployment of military units, military facilities, warehouses, and other infrastructure of Western countries on Ukrainian territory will be classified as foreign intervention, posing a direct threat to the security of not only Russia but also other European countries,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.

“All such units and facilities will be considered legitimate combat targets of the Russian Armed Forces,” Zakharova added.

Her statement came after the UK and France signed a “declaration of intent” committing to lead a troop deployment to Ukraine. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the declaration “paves the way for the legal framework, under which British, French and partner forces could operate on Ukrainian soil,” though the document is lacking in details on what the force would actually look like.

Keep reading