Tag: nato

Why Diplomacy Is Going Nowhere & Ukraine Is Doomed

With Zelensky having much-belatedly dropped aspirations for Ukraine’s NATO membership, European officials are now openly admitting what pretty much everyone knew but was afraid to say.

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas has newly acknowledged in fresh remarks that Ukraine’s membership in the military alliance is now obviously “out of the question” – but that the European Union now needs to provide concrete security guarantees.

“Now if this [Ukraine’s NATO membership] is not in question, or this is out of the question, then we need to see what are the security guarantees that are tangible. They can’t be papers, or promises, they have to be real troops, real capabilities,” she told reporters ahead of an EU Foreign Ministers meeting.

Kallas asserted that “in the last 100 years, Russia has attacked at least 19 countries,” and so this means “the security guarantees are needed for all other members” in the EU.

Keep reading

The Death of Ukraine’s Dream of NATO Membership

Ukraine’s dream of NATO membership is dead. It died, surprisingly, not on the battlefields of Ukraine nor at the negotiating table with Russia. It died in a document written in the White House to be sent to Congress to explain America’s national security vision.

The 2025 National Security Strategy of the United States of America, dated November 2025, was released on December 4. Embedded unimposingly, without fanfare, in a section on The Regions called Promoting European Greatness, and not even in the section that discusses the war in Ukraine, the Security Strategy quietly states the priority policy of “Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance.” Those fourteen words seem to have pulled the plug on a dream that was already on life support.

That policy priority found expression in point 7 of Trump’s 28 point peace plan that states that “Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.”

Since it was first promised at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest that Ukraine and Georgia “will become members of NATO,” the dream has been an unrealistic one. It did not take into account the real wishes of Ukraine, NATO or Russia, and it did not take into account previous promises already made by NATO and Ukraine. At the time of the Bucharest summit, the U.S. may have wanted NATO membership for Ukraine, but only 20% of Ukrainians did.

In 1990 and 1991, at the end of the Cold War, NATO promised Gorbachev and the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand any further east. But it was not just NATO that promised to stay out of Ukraine, it was also Ukraine that promised to stay out of NATO. Article IX  of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, “External and Internal Security,” says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs…” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance: that included NATO. Moscow has recently reminded that Russia “recognized the sovereignty of Ukraine back in 1991, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence” and added that one of the main points for [Russia] in the declaration was that Ukraine would be a non-bloc, non-alliance country; it would not join any military alliances.”

Ukraine’s constitution was only amended to include a mandate for all future governments to seek NATO membership in 2019, five years after the U.S. supported coup. The amendment was made with neither vote nor referendum. At the time, public support in Ukraine for NATO membership hovered around a tepid 40%.

That that amendment could be reversed, and that Ukraine could be willing to do so, was signaled by Ukrainian officials, including President Volodymyr Zelensky, in the early days of the war. At the start of the war, Zelensky said he has “understood that NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine.” In March 2022, he said “For years we have been hearing about how the door is supposedly open [to NATO membership] but now we hear that we cannot enter. And it is true, and it must be acknowledged.”

In April 2022, after the war had begun, polling indicates that only 24%-39% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership. At that time, the tentative agreement arrived at in Istanbul included that “Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership…” The draft reportedly stipulated that “permanent neutrality” be enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution.

Ukraine was pushed off that path by the U.S. for their own policy reasons, including the “core principle” that Ukraine has the right to choose their alliances and that NATO has the right to expand.

Keep reading

Germany Sends Troops Into Poland ‘To Protect’ NATO’S East Border With Russia and Belarus

They keep beating the drums of war.

Germany is sending troops into Poland! Calm down – it’s not 1939. But it could end up just as bad.

Today (13), it has been reported that Germany is sending soldiers to Poland, in a bid to ‘strengthen’ NATO’s eastern border with Belarus and Russia.

Politico reported:

“Several dozen German soldiers will join Poland’s East Shield from April 2026, with the mission initially running until the end of 2027, Deutsche Welle reported, citing Berlin’s defense ministry.

German troops will focus on engineering work, according to a ministry spokesperson quoted in the report. The spokesperson described this as building positions, digging trenches, laying barbed wire and constructing anti-tank obstacles.

The East Shield is a €2.3 billion program announced by Warsaw last year to bolster security along its eastern border.”

Keep reading

NATO Leader Mark Rutte Urges Europe to Prepare For ‘Widespread Suffering’ and WW3 With Russia Within Five Years

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is urging member states to prepare for World War III with Russia and its dictator, Vladimir Putin.

During a speech in Berlin on Thursday, the former Dutch prime minister said that “dark forces of oppression are on the march again” and that Europe is facing a “scale of war our grandparents or great-grandparents endured.”

He declared:

We must all accept that we must act to defend our way of life, now. Because this year, Russia has become even more brazen, reckless, and ruthless, towards NATO and towards Ukraine.

Russia’s economy is now geared to wage war, not to make its people prosperous.

Russia is spending nearly 40 per cent of its budget on aggression, and around 70 per cent of all machine tools in Russia are used in military production.

Taxes are going up, inflation has skyrocketed, and petrol is rationed.

How is Putin able to maintain his war against Ukraine? The answer is China. China is Russia’s lifeline. China wants to prevent its ally from losing in Ukraine. Without China’s support, Russia could not continue to wage this war.

For instance around 80 per cent of critical electronic components in Russian drones and other systems are made in China.

So when civilians are made in Kyiv or Kharkiv, Chinese technology is often inside the weapons that kill them.

NATO’s own defences can hold for now but with its economy dedicated to war, Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO within five years.

How deterrence is achieved, through retaliation, through pre-emptive strike, this is something we have to analyse deeply because there could be in the future even more pressure on this”

Keep reading

Rep Massie Introduces Bill For US To Dump ‘Cold War Relic’ NATO

Conservative and outspoken libertarian-leaning Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky introduced legislation Tuesday for the United States for formally withdraw from NATO. Sen. Mike Lee is also helping lead the charge, introducing companion legislation in the Senate.

The bill argues that the US military cannot be seen as the police force of the world, and that given NATO was created to counter the long-gone Soviet Union, which no longer exists, American taxpayers’ money would be better spent elsewhere.

“We should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our own country, not socialist countries… US participation has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and continues to risk US involvement in foreign wars… America should not be the world’s security blanket – especially when wealthy countries refuse to pay for their own defense,” Massie said.

That latter part is likely designed to gain Trump’s attention and sympathy, given the president has been emphasizing this point all the way back to his first term.

The bill if passed would require the US government to formally notify NATO that it intends to end its membership and halt the use of American funds for shared budgets. Republican Senator Lee actually introduced similar legislation earlier this year, but it stalled in committee.

Of course, most Congress members have viewpoints which merely reflect the ‘pro-NATO’ established position of the vast majority of Western politicians generally, so it’s very unlikely to ever be passed.

Massie wrote on X, “NATO is a Cold War relic. The United States should withdraw from NATO and use that money to defend our country, not socialist countries. Today, I introduced HR 6508 to end our NATO membership.” 

“Our Constitution did not authorize permanent foreign entanglements, something our Founding Fathers explicitly warned us against,” he said additionally. 

Keep reading

NATO Is a Menace, Not a Benefit, to America

Since its creation in 1949, NATO has been the keystone of U.S. foreign policy in Europe.  Indeed, the alliance has been the most important feature of Washington’s overall strategy of global primacy.  America’s political and policy elites have embraced two key assumptions and continue to do so.  One is that NATO is essential to the peace and security of the entire transatlantic region and will remain so for the indefinite future.  The other sacred assumption is that the alliance is highly beneficial to America’s own core security and economic interests.

Whatever validity those assumptions may have had at one time, they are dangerously obsolete today. The toxic, militaristic views toward Russia that too many European leaders are adopting have made NATO into a snare that could entangle the United States in a large-scale war with ominous nuclear implications.  It is urgent for the Trump administration and sensible proponents of a U.S. foreign policy based on realism and restraint to eliminate such a risky and unnecessary situation.

Throughout the Cold War and its immediate aftermath, NATO’s European members followed Washington’s policy lead on important issues with little dissent or resistance.  That situation is no longer true.  The governments and populations in the alliance’s East European members (the countries that the Kremlin held in bondage during the Cold War but that eagerly joined NATO once the Soviet Union collapsed) have adopted an especially aggressive, uncompromising stance toward Russia as the USSR’s successor.  They have lobbied with special fervor in favor of admitting Ukraine to NATO, despite Moscow’s repeated warnings over the past two decades that such a step would constitute an intolerable provocation.  The East European states also have been avid supporters of the proxy war that NATO has waged against Russia following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Their toxic hostility toward Russia has inexorably made inroads even among the previously more restrained, sensible members of the alliance.  With a few partial exceptions, such as Hungary and Slovakia, NATO governments now push for unrealistic, very risky policies with respect to the Ukraine-Russia war.  Washington’s volatile, ever-changing policy under President Donald Trump regarding that armed conflict has not helped matters.

The Trump administration’s latest approach has been to try to inject some badly needed realism into the position that Ukraine and its NATO supporters pursue.  Realities on the battlefield confirm that Russia is winning, albeit slowly and at considerable cost, the bloody war against its neighbor.  Moscow’s forces are gradually expanding the amount of territory they control.  Kyiv’s propaganda campaign to portray Ukraine as a stalwart democracy and a vital symbol of resistance to an authoritarian Russia is collapsing as well.  Corruption scandals now plague the government of President Volodymyr Zelensky, as does growing evidence of his regime’s authoritarianism.  Proponents of NATO’s continuing military intervention now seek to downplay the once-dominant “moral case” for the alliance’s involvement and try to stress Ukraine’s alleged strategic importance to both the United States and its allies.

Stubbornness and lack of realism on the part of NATO’s European members (as well as too many American policy analysts and media mavens) is worrisome and dangerous. They have launched a concerted effort to torpedo the Trump administration’s latest peace initiative.  Proponents of continuing the alliance’s proxy war insist that no peace accord include territorial concessions by Ukraine.  They also demand that Kyiv retain the “right” to join NATO.  Finally, they insist that any settlement contain a NATO “security guarantee” to Ukraine, and that a peacekeeping force that includes troops from alliance members enforce that settlement.  Britain and France have explicitly made the demand to send troops.

Such demands amount to a poison pill designed to kill any prospect of an agreement that Moscow might accept.  The insistence on a security guarantee to Kyiv and a peacekeeping contingent especially fits that description.  Any accord that puts NATO military personnel in Ukraine would make the country a protectorate of the alliance, even if Kyiv did not receive an official membership card.  The commitment itself would have NATO’s military might perched on Russia’s border.  That is precisely the outcome that Moscow has sought to prevent for decades.

Keep reading

Tensions Escalate Within NATO as Pentagon Abruptly Halts Ukraine-Related Communications with Germany

Strains within NATO appear to have intensified following the Pentagon’s sudden decision to sever routine communications with Germany’s Defense Ministry on matters related to the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, according to German officials who described the move as unexplained and ‘disruptive.’

Lieutenant General Christian Freuding, head of Germany’s Ukraine coordination task force, told reporters on Tuesday that what had been round-the-clock exchanges with U.S. counterparts have now ceased entirely, leaving Berlin without direct insight into American strategic planning.

German defense sources said they have been forced to route inquiries through their embassy in Washington, with senior military figures acknowledging a lack of dependable channels to engage Pentagon officials amid the communications blackout.

The freeze coincides with the U.S. administration’s efforts to revise its proposed Ukraine peace framework, reducing it from 28 to 22 points after consultations with both Kyiv and Moscow, highlighting what critics call a faltering approach to a war that has dragged on without resolution.

U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is Moscow meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin for additional talks, a development that has caught European allies off guard after years of insistence from NATO leaders that direct negotiations with Moscow were untenable.

Berlin only learned of the Trump administration’s suspension of certain weapons shipments to Ukraine last summer when deliveries failed to materialize, despite Germany’s key involvement in coordinating NATO support, sources familiar with the matter said.

Freuding emphasized the shift, noting that “day and night” messaging with American officials has “broken off— completely,” underscoring a broader erosion of trust in between the traditionally close  transatlantic partners.

In response, German policymakers are accelerating an overhaul of the country’s security posture, investing billions in domestic arms production and converting civilian industries to bolster military capabilities.

Officials in Berlin have stated that Germany must prepare for potential U.S. disengagement, with commitments to forge Europe’s most robust armed forces marking a stark departure from the nation’s post-World War II pacifist traditions.

Freuding has publicly cautioned that the once-solid U.S.-led security architecture is unraveling, with many in Germany perceiving Washington as increasingly unreliable in upholding alliances it previously championed.

Keep reading

NATO Mulls ‘Preemptive Strike’ Against Russia’s Hybrid Warfare, Claims ‘More Aggression’ Needed

At a moment Washington under President Trump is busy issuing rare calls for restraint, de-escalation, and to enact a peace deal in Ukraine, a top NATO commander says the conflict needs more aggression by the Western military alliance directly against Russia.

Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone, chair of NATO’s Military Committee, has told Financial Times as part of a fresh report that NATO is currently mulling more proactive measures in response to Russia’s escalating hybrid warfare. The report cites an alleged rise in Russian-backed cyberattacks, sabotage operations and airspace violations over Europe – which NATO could mirror and more, as any potential “pre-emptive strike” on Russian targets would be justified.

“We are studying everything… On cyber, we are kind of reactive,” Dragone said. “Being more aggressive or being proactive instead of reactive is something that we are thinking about.”

That’s when he explained his view that a “pre-emptive strike” could under certain circumstances and context be classified as a defensive action. “It is further away from our normal way of thinking and behavior,” he conceded.

“Being more aggressive compared with the [aggressiveness] of our counterpart could be an option” – but he said that the questions that remain are: “legal framework, jurisdictional framework, who is going to do this?”

Multiple diplomats and officials from Eastern European and Baltic states are calling for this more proactive stance, or a less merely ‘reactive’ approach, to make Moscow feel real pain.

“If all we do is continue being reactive, we just invite Russia to keep trying, keep hurting us,” one Baltic diplomat was quoted in the FT as complaining.

“Hybrid warfare is asymmetric – it costs them little, and us a lot. We need to be more inventive,” the diplomat said.

And yet, there already have been years of covert sabotage operations in place, aimed at Russia and overseen by the West. These efforts, some which long ago were exposed in mainstream publications, are a large reason of why there’s been constant escalation of the Ukraine war. 

This has in turn resulted in escalation of nuclear rhetoric and threats between Russia and the West. But the temperature needs to be drastically turned down, but these latest comments by the chair of NATO’s Military Committee will only do the opposite.

Keep reading

Inside NATO’s procurement scandal: How corruption at NSPA exposes a rot at the heart of the alliance

NATO’s central procurement arm, the Luxembourg-based NSPA, has become the focus of a widening corruption scandal that raises far deeper questions than the arrest of a few officials. What is emerging is not merely a story about individuals taking bribes, but about a procurement system that has grown opaque, unaccountable, and increasingly vulnerable to private interests feeding off NATO’s expanding military budgets.

Investigations led by Belgian prosecutors, coordinated through Eurojust and involving Luxembourg, Spain and the Netherlands, have uncovered suspicions ranging from leaking confidential tender information to laundering illicit payments through shell consultancy firms. Some NSPA personnel are alleged to have passed sensitive procurement data to select defence companies in exchange for covert rewards. These were not trivial contracts: drones, ammunition and other high-value military systems lie at the centre of the probe — areas directly affecting NATO’s operational capacities. NATO’s leadership rushed to issue the standard line of “zero tolerance for corruption,” insisting that the agency is cooperating fully with national authorities. But such statements sound hollow without transparency, accountability, or a willingness to confront the structural weaknesses that allowed these practices to take root.

The significance of NSPA cannot be overstated. It manages billions of euros’ worth of joint procurement for NATO member states and is expanding its remit as Europe increases defence spending and accelerates its armament programs. When procurement of this scale takes place behind closed doors, the risks multiply: public funds become vulnerable to siphoning, tender processes become susceptible to manipulation, and strategic dependencies can be shaped not by security needs but by the profit motives of a handful of companies and intermediaries.

Patterns emerging from journalism collaborations and internal documents suggest structural, not incidental, failures: weak oversight mechanisms, a culture of secrecy, and a procurement architecture heavily reliant on external consultants. In some cases, whistleblowers report being discouraged or ignored, raising the possibility that internal resistance to misconduct was actively stifled. This undermines the notion that the scandal is the result of isolated wrongdoing and instead points to deeper systemic rot inside NATO’s procurement framework.

A broader critique is unavoidable. As NATO expands its defence procurement appetite under the banner of “collective security,” it funnels vast amounts of public money into increasingly complex military supply chains with minimal democratic supervision. The result is a procurement ecosystem where militarisation grows unchecked, private contractors accumulate influence, and public accountability erodes. The NSPA scandal is ultimately a symptom of this imbalance: a defence alliance claiming democratic legitimacy while managing enormous budgets through structures that are anything but transparent.

The consequences are potentially far-reaching. Public trust in defence spending — ultimately, for the proxy war against Russia in Ukraine — risks further erosion as taxpayers see an alliance unable or unwilling to police its own procurement processes. Should sensitive procurement data indeed have been exploited, the integrity of NATO’s armament plans may have been compromised, allowing certain suppliers to distort competition or inflate prices. Over time, such distortions would entrench a procurement environment dominated by a limited set of defence firms, reducing competition and raising costs for every member state.

Keep reading

Drones spotted near Dutch military base

Unidentified drones have been observed hovering over a military base used by Nato in the Netherlands, the Dutch defence ministry has said.

It said military personnel deployed weapons to try to take down the drones spotted near Volkel Air Base, north of Eindhoven, between 19:00 and 21:00 local time (18:00-20:00 GMT) on Friday.

The defence ministry said the devices “departed and were never recovered”.

The Netherlands is among a number of northern European nations to be blighted by drone sightings around military installations and airfields in recent months. Russia has denied accusations it was involved in previous incidents.

Dutch police are investigating Friday’s incident. Officials said that for security reasons they would provide no further details about how the drones or what action was taken.

As well as being used by the Royal Netherlands Air Force, Volkel Air Base hosts a US Air Force squadron as part of Nato.

The incident follows reports of drone sightings at other Dutch air bases in the past few weeks, as well as facilities in neighbouring Belgium, Denmark and Germany.

The sightings have disrupted air traffic and raised security concerns.

A lack of evidence pointing to their origins has plagued investigations into the incidents since they began in September, as in many cases the drones depart after a while.

Some European officials have attributed the sightings to “hybrid warfare” on the part of Russia, as the nations that have been targeted are all allied to Ukraine.

But the Kremlin has denied it has anything to do with past incursions.

Defence ministers from 10 EU countries have agreed to create a “drone wall” in response to the sightings, while some individual nations have sought to secure anti-drone defence measures.

Keep reading