Tag: nato

Why NATO’s defense spending imbalance lasted for decades

For more than three decades, the U.S. carried the largest share of NATO’s military burden while many European allies spent far less on defense than Washington wanted.

The imbalance survived the Cold War, multiple U.S. administrations and repeated debates over burden sharing. Only in recent years — following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine and renewed pressure from President Donald Trump — have many NATO members begun significantly increasing defense spending.

So why did the gap persist for so long?

Defense analysts say the answer lies in a combination of post-Cold War optimism, domestic political priorities and an American defense umbrella that convinced much of Europe it could safely spend less on defense without sacrificing its security.

“For much of the post–Cold War period, it is fair to say that Europeans underinvested in defense, partly because threats were low, and partly because a series of U.S. presidents did everything they could to convince Europeans that we would stay there forever,” Barry Posen, a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told Fox News Digital.

The collapse of the Soviet Union reinforced that mindset. 

With the primary threat NATO had been created to deter suddenly gone, governments across Europe moved to collect a so-called “peace dividend,” redirecting resources toward domestic priorities and away from their militaries.

Between 1992 and 1999, defense spending among European NATO members fell 22%, helping establish a pattern of underinvestment that would persist for decades even as the United States maintained troops in Europe and continued serving as NATO’s ultimate security backstop.

Keep reading

EU & NATO Member State Bulgaria Tells American Military to Leave After Trump Says No To Visa-Free Travel Deal

Bulgaria’s new government has moved to terminate an arrangement that allows American military aircraft to use Sofia Airport for refueling and logistical operations, linking the decision to the Trump administration’s continued refusal to grant visa-free travel to Bulgarian citizens.

Prime Minister Rumen Radev, elected weeks ago in a landslide election, announced Friday that permission for American aircraft and personnel to remain at Sofia’s Vasil Levski Airport would expire at the end of June, bringing an abrupt end to an agreement approved by the previous government earlier this year.

The decision marks one of the first major foreign-policy disputes between the newly elected Bulgarian government and the Trump administration.

Radev said he personally raised the issue of visa-free travel during a recent conversation with President Donald Trump but failed to secure a positive response.
“I called for the suspension of visas for Bulgarian citizens during my conversation with the American President, but I have not received a positive answer,” Radev said.

While acknowledging the complexity of immigration and regulatory procedures in the United States, the Bulgarian leader suggested that Sofia could not indefinitely continue accommodating American requests without progress on issues important to Bulgaria.

“We also have our priorities and we cannot respond positively to the request for long stays of aircraft and tankers at Sofia airport,” he added.

Under the extension approved by the Bulgarian government, the arrangement will remain in force only until June 30.

The temporary extension is intended to provide time for allied militaries to relocate aircraft and personnel to alternative facilities elsewhere in Europe.

“We’re extending the permission until the end of June so we can give time to our allies to reschedule and find another location,” Radev explained.

The agreement currently covers up to 15 American military aircraft, associated equipment, and as many as 500 personnel.

Aircraft operating from Sofia have included Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker refueling aircraft, Lockheed C-130 Hercules transport planes, and Boeing C-17 Globemaster III heavy-lift cargo aircraft.

Bulgarian officials, for their part, have emphasized repeatedly that the aircraft were not intended for any kind of combat missions.

Former caretaker Defense Minister Atanas Zapryanov previously stated that the deployments were primarily logistical in nature and designed to support allied activities.

Keep reading

Is A New Iron Curtain Inevitable?

Russia’s consequent focus on the western front might embolden US-backed NATO member Turkiye to accelerate its power play in the south at the risk of sparking another regional crisis after Ukraine.

Russian Ambassador-at-Large Artyom Bulatov warned in a recent interview that “Westerners, with energy worthy of a better cause, are erecting a new ‘Iron Curtain’, seeking to make irreversible the rupture – provoked by themselves – of socio-economic, trade, transport, interpersonal, cultural, and historical ties that have been built in the region not over years, but over centuries.” He also condemned the weaponization of regional interaction mechanisms like the Council of the Baltic States against Russia.

Truth be told, a new Iron Curtain is inevitable and has been since summer 2024 when the Baltic States and Poland combined their respective border fortification plans along NATO’s Eastern Flank to unveil what they now officially refer to as the “EU Defense Line”, which readers can learn more about here. This initiative will likely be expanded to include Finland too, thus stretching from the Arctic to Central Europe. Even in the event of a Russian-US rapprochement, which is now unlikely, these barriers will still remain.

Russian experts, who operated for so long under the influence of the wishful thinking fantasy that the EU is challenging Russia at its senior US patron’s behest and not due to its own ideologically driven hatred of Russia (contrary to its objective interests), are finally waking up to reality. New President of the Russian International Affairs Council Dmitriy Trenin, who issued an unprecedented clarion call in April for correcting foreign policy misperceptions, published a relevant piece in parallel with Bulatov’s interview.

Titled “The EU, Like ‘NATO 3.0,’ Will Remain Our Adversaries”, it dramatically begins by informing readers that “For the first time since 1945, the most pressing military threat to Russia is coming from Europe—European states themselves. This represents the most significant military-political shift for Russia since the victory in the Great Patriotic War.” The goal, Trenin believes, is “to split the Russian Federation into externally controlled components and turn them into semi-colonies of the European Union.”

This will be pursued through indefinitely perpetuating the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine together with ramping up sanctions and military pressure for undermining domestic political stability.

Keep reading

US Plans Sharp Cuts To Bombers, Warships And Other Assets Available To NATO In Crisis, Report Says

The United States intends to significantly reduce the military forces it would make available to European allies during a potential crisis, including strategic bombers, fighter jets, warships and refueling aircraft, according to a report by German news magazine Der Spiegel.

The planned reductions come as the NATO alliance faces growing strain amid transatlantic tensions. European officials have expressed concern that Washington could scale back its commitments or even withdraw support entirely.

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized European NATO members for insufficient defense spending and has pledged to withdraw thousands of American troops from Germany. His interest in acquiring Greenland, a Danish territory, has further heightened tensions. Trump has also lambasted allies for limited support in efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz amid conflict with Iran, while questioning the U.S. obligation to honor NATO’s mutual defense pact.

According to Spiegel, a senior U.S. envoy briefed NATO officials on the changes during a closed-door meeting at alliance headquarters in Brussels late last week. The envoy was identified as Alexander Velez-Green, representing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The U.S. would cut the number of strategic bombers available to NATO by half, the report said. The number of fighter jets would decrease by one-third, while the U.S. Navy would provide fewer destroyers and no longer contribute submarines to alliance operations.

Europe would also need to supply its own reconnaissance drones, as the U.S. plans to significantly reduce support for both reconnaissance and armed drone operations. Mid-air refueling aircraft would also see cuts, the report added.

Keep reading

NATO-made mines found on gas tanker arriving in Russia from Belgium – investigators

A tanker ship that arrived in Russia’s Leningrad Region from the Belgian port of Antwerp had NATO-made magnetic mines attached to its hull, the Russian Investigative Committee has said.

A criminal case has been opened over an attempted terrorist attack on the gas tanker, the Arrhenius, the agency said in a statement on Monday.

Divers discovered “factory-produced naval magnetic mines manufactured in one of the NATO countries” on the hull when they inspected the vessel upon its arrival in the port of Ust-Luga, the statement read.

The explosive devices were neutralized by Federal Security Service officers, working together with servicemen from the Defense Ministry and the National Guard, it added.

Keep reading

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: UK, France, Spain, Italy and Canada Reportedly Reject NATO Plans for Extra Funding for Ukraine

NATO’s Rutte knows the proposal is dead.

We’ve come to a point where even the most ardent supporters of the Kiev regime are starting to wonder just how much more money they will have to sink into their unwinnable war effort.

Yesterday, a report arose that Britain, France and other countries have sunk the chances for a proposal that would have NATO allies spend 0.25 percent of GDP on military aid for Ukraine.

The Telegraph reported:

“Mark Rutte, the alliance’s secretary-general, this week conceded his plan wouldn’t be taken forward because it didn’t have sufficient support. ‘I don’t think this one will be proposed’, he told reporters, without naming the opponents.

But now The Telegraph can reveal that the UK, France, Spain, Italy and Canada blocked the idea when it was floated in discussions for how to boost support for Kyiv.”

Keep reading

U.S. Removing 5,000 Troops From Europe

NATO’s top military commander, U.S. Air Force Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, assured allies Tuesday that the planned withdrawal of approximately 5,000 American troops from Europe will not weaken the alliance’s defense posture in the region.

Speaking to reporters after meetings with NATO military chiefs in Brussels, Gen. Grynkewich — who serves as both Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and head of U.S. European Command — described the move as part of a broader adjustment in U.S. force posture. The withdrawal involves an armored brigade, primarily from Germany, and aligns with efforts to shift more conventional defense responsibilities to European allies and Canada, reported Reuters.

“I’d like to emphasise this decision does not impact the executability of our regional plans,” Grynkewich said. He noted that as the “European pillar” of NATO strengthens, the U.S. can focus on providing critical capabilities that allies cannot yet fully deliver.

The drawdown, announced by the Trump administration earlier this month, comes amid ongoing reviews of U.S. commitments in Europe. Grynkewich indicated that further adjustments to the roughly 80,000 U.S. troops currently stationed in Europe are expected over several years, timed to coincide with growing allied capabilities.

The comments aim to reassure NATO partners following concerns over the reduction, which follows heightened U.S. pressure for European nations to increase defense spending. Grynkewich stressed that the process will be gradual to maintain deterrence, particularly along the alliance’s eastern flank.

Keep reading

Who’s Your Daddy Now? Failing War Empowering Euros To Break With Trump

Nearly a year ago, NATO Chief Mark Rutte of the Netherlands was excoriated for calling Donald Trump “daddy” in reference to the American president’s “tough talk” on Europe, whether it be on member states’ per capita contributions to the defense pot, or Washington’s demands to “take” Greenland.

This was at a time of course when European leaders believed that appeasing Trump in such ingratiating terms, and in dulcet tones pitched to soothe rather than challenge, was the way to the man’s heart, if not soul. It certainly did not work.

So after Trump’s second attack on Iran in Feb. 28 and the resulting Iranian closure of the Hormuz Strait happened, some Europeans decided to change their tune. In addition to Rutte never again uttering the word “daddy,” the Spanish president Pedro Sanchez closed off the country’s bases to U.S. military access and condemned Trump’s war as a violation of international law. Germany’s Frederich Merz called the Iran War “humiliating” for the U.S. Italy has closed its bases, and UK and French leaders said the U.S. could only use their bases to defend UK and French assets, not to launch operations against Iran.

Meanwhile, Trump looked around and demanded NATO member states help him wrench control of the strait from Iran. Aside from pledging to meet and come up with ideas to secure the strait after the war, no one has complied. To say Trump is agitated and lashing out as a result is an understatement.

The situation has called into question the future of NATO, as the administration has suggested that the alliance is falling down on its Article 5 obligations, which is not true — a member was not attacked and NATO is not an offensive alliance designed to enter wars at members’ behest. Regardless, if the cohesion of NATO was shaky before, some are saying it’s on life support now.

Keep reading

Covert NATO initiative turns film into anti-Russia battleground

A scandal has erupted over covert NATO conferences with the Western entertainment industry. Leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone show how NATO has sought to infiltrate film and TV for decades, with UK intel operatives taking the lead.

On May 3, The Guardian revealed that NATO has held a series of secret meetings with film directors, screenwriters and TV producers in cities from Paris to Los Angeles. The disclosure suggests NATO is seeking to employ the entertainment industry in its propaganda operations as a European war looms.

To date, NATO’s “conversations” with scriptwriters have reportedly “inspired, at least in part” three separate unstated projects, which are already in development. At a forthcoming London summit, NATO operatives are set to meet with screenwriters tied to the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain (WGGB). In email correspondence, the union told its members the event will focus on the “evolving security situation in Europe and beyond.”

Organizers claim NATO was “built on the belief that cooperation and compromise, the nurturing of friendships and alliances, is the way forward.” The alliance is actively seeking to influence film and TV projects extolling this mantra, stating, “even if something so simple as that message finds its way into a future story,” as a result of the meeting, “that will be enough.” 

But collusion between NATO and the entertainment industry has a well-established history. Over recent decades, NATO has covertly sought to employ film and television creatives as psychological operations specialists, while influencing popular culture. A core driver of this push has been Chris Donnelly, a veteran British Ministry of Defence and military intelligence operative, who led alliance expansion into Central and Eastern Europe during the 1990s.

Donnelly later developed the Integrity Initiative to cultivate support for conflict with Russia through covert networks of influential pro-war pundits and operatives. Hidden behind a seemingly legitimate think tank called the Institute for Statecraft, the Integrity Initiative only became known to the public after independent outlets like The Grayzone reported on leaked emails from Donnelly revealing its existence.

In leaked documents discussing NATO expansion, Donnelly stated, “What I needed in the 1990s and did not have” was a major international public relations firm to “scale up successful activities to have real impact,” and achieve “essential behavioural change” in audiences. To address the problem, he proposed “advertising campaigns on TV promoting change, a TV soap opera looking at the problem of corruption” and other innocent-seeming cultural products aimed at enhancing NATO control.

Keep reading

Trump’s Iran Fiasco’s Silver Lining – The End of NATO

The one great big positive that has come out of the Donald’s Iran fiasco is that he has not held back in blackening the name of NATO in a manner that has heretofore been unthinkable:

“NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN. Remember Greenland, that big, poorly run, piece of ice!!!”

The Donald also described NATO as a “paper tiger” and stated he is “strongly considering” pulling the United States out of the alliance, citing its failure to support his reckless war on the Persian Gulf:

“They weren’t there. None of them. They weren’t there.”

The Europeans, of course, had good reason not to sign up for America’s latest Forever War. They are being reminded of that at the petrol stations every day, but there is more to be said than, well, finally Washington called a War Party and no one sent an RSVP.

What is actually transpiring on the fraught world stage at the moment is powerful demonstration that allies and alliances are a profound detriment to the Homeland Security of America, not a fundamental necessity.

That’s obviously true with respect to Israel, which lured the gullible Trump into attacking Iran for no good reason of Homeland Security, but it’s also true on a universal basis. In fact, NATO is every bit as much of an albatross for the reasons that we amplify at length below; it’s very existence 35 years after the Cold War ended demonstrates why it is long past time to revert to the wisdom of the Founders and anchor America’s national security posture on –

… peaceful commercial relations with all, entangling alliances with none.

Keep reading