Tag: nato

US Opposes Ukraine’s Participation in Upcoming NATO Summit, Diplomatic Sources Say

In a revealing development that underscores shifting geopolitical tides, the US is reportedly opposing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s invitation to the NATO summit scheduled for late June in The Hague, Netherlands, according to multiple diplomatic sources cited by Italy’s ANSA news agency.

If confirmed, this marks the first time since the start of Russia’s military incursion in February 2022 that Zelensky will be absent from a NATO summit—either in person or virtually. His exclusion, in all likelihood, comes as a surprise to many European allies, with one Dutch official describing it bluntly to the NOS broadcaster as “a diplomatic disaster for the Netherlands that no speaker could justify.”

Yet, to many conservatives, nationalists, and anti-globalist observers weary of endless military entanglements, Zelensky’s sidelining may signal a long-overdue shift away from the globalist war footing that has dominated the collective West’s policy toward the Russo-Ukrainian war.

The upcoming NATO summit is being tightly choreographed to avoid offending former—and possibly future—US President Donald Trump, a well-known critic of NATO’s freeloading members.

The agenda, reportedly, has been trimmed to a single session focused on increasing military spending and adopting new defense capability objectives. Notably, Ukraine’s NATO membership—a subject that has fueled Western adventurism and provoked Russian security concerns—is not on the agenda.

Keep reading

Trump envoy reveals NATO troop deployment plans for Ukraine

Washington is in talks with its European NATO allies about deploying military contingents to Ukraine as part of a possible post-conflict settlement, US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Keith Kellogg, has said.

A group of European NATO member states has for months been seeking to muster a force to be deployed to Ukraine as part of a so-called “coalition of the willing,” purportedly in a post-conflict peacekeeping role. Russia has repeatedly warned it would treat any foreign troops on Ukrainian soil as legitimate targets, saying such a move could escalate the conflict.

Speaking to Fox Business on Tuesday, Kellogg said troops from France, Germany, the UK, and Poland could be part of what he described as a “resiliency force.”

“This is a force referred to as the E3, but it’s actually now the E4 – when you include the Brits, the French, and the Germans, and in fact, the Poles as well,” he said. Kellogg added the troops would be positioned west of the Dnieper River, placing them “outside the contact zone.”

“And then to the east you have a peacekeeping force, and what it would look like with a third party involved with that. So, you can actually monitor a ceasefire; we have this thing pretty well planned out,” he said.

The remarks come as preparations are underway for possible direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul. Kellogg and Steve Witkoff, another senior envoy for US President Donald Trump, are reportedly expected to attend. Russian President Vladimir Putin on Sunday proposed conducting negotiations without preconditions in Türkiye on May 15.

Keep reading

NATO general fired over rape gaffe – Spiegel

NATO’s deputy commander for Ukraine support has been dismissed over a rape-related remark he made during a high-level meeting, Der Spiegel reported on Tuesday.

Major General Hartmut Renk told a gathering in February “If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy.”

Following a formal complaint from a female British officer, Renk admitted to making the comment but reportedly used it sarcastically to motivate his team, according to the outlet.

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius and General Carsten Breuer, the head of the German armed forces, oversaw an investigation, after which, the minister removed Renk from his NATO post, canceled his planned promotion to a role in the US, and initiated disciplinary proceedings.

The two-star general now reportedly faces early retirement.

Keep reading

Palantir Partners with NATO on Controversial AI Project Maven

In late March, the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) Communications and Information Agency (NCIA) and Palantir Technologies Inc. announced a new agreement for the Palantir Maven Smart System NATO (MSS NATO) to be deployed by NATO’s Allied Command Operations (ACO).

Palantir was co-founded by Alex Karp and Peter Thiel, the Technocrat-Zionists who also happen to be Steering Committee members of the Bilderberg Group.

The new deal will see NCIA partner with Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and Palantir to deliver Maven Smart System NATO to the Warfighter. A move which NCIA general manger Ludwig Decamps says will provide “customized state-of-the-art AI capabilities to the Alliance” and allow NATO to “operate effectively and decisively.”

The Maven Smart System (MSS) uses AI-generated algorithms and memory learning capabilities to scan and identify enemy systems.

Palantir’s MSS NATO makes use of “cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI)” for core military operations, including using large language models (LLMs) for generative and machine learning.

Shon Manasco, Senior Counselor at Palantir Technologies, said the arrangement with NCIA and SHAPE will “bolster deterrence by deploying an AI-enabled warfighting platform”.

General Markus Laubenthal, SHAPE Chief of Staff, said Maven will allow NATO to be “more agile, adaptable, and responsive to emerging threats”.

SHAPE is the headquarters and commander of NATO’s ACO based near Mons, Belgium.

Keep reading

Europe Just Proved Trump Right About NATO

In a shocking-not-shocking exclusive report in The (UK) Times, Europe “would struggle to put 25,000 troops on the ground in Ukraine” as part of a postwar peacekeeping force. Defense Editor Larisa Brown “was given a rare insight into conversations between Europe’s defence ministers and military chiefs as they thrashed out plans for a ‘coalition of the willing’ force,” and the results are as disappointing as they are sobering. 

And you know how much I hate sobering.

British defense chief Admiral Sir Tony Radakin asked European defense ministers “if they could put together a 64,000-strong force to send to [Ukraine] in the event of a peace deal.” Britain offered up to 10,000 personnel, but even then, “defence ministers across Europe said there was ‘no chance’ they could reach that number and that even 25,000 would ‘be a push for a joint effort.'”

This is not your father’s NATO.

During the Cold War, the British Army of the Rhine stood watch in West Germany for half a century with a force of 50,000 men — and the promise of swift reinforcements almost as quickly as the balloon went up.

Today, all of European NATO couldn’t put a peacekeeping force in Ukraine of half that size without wheezing like an asthmatic with a sinus infection hiking up Kilimanjaro.

NATO was always a little fractured and weaker than it should have been. Unlike the Warsaw Pact on the other side of the Iron Curtain, NATO members were independent nations, each with its own priorities and needs.

Paris could complain about American “hyperpower” all it liked, but we didn’t send in the tanks — like Moscow would have — when France withdrew its forces from NATO command and ordered NATO troops out of France in 1966. We just made do. 

And while Washington was correct to ask for more “burden-sharing” from our allies during the Cold War, it wasn’t as though they didn’t take the Soviet threat seriously. The West German Bundeswehr consisted of 10 battle-ready heavy Panzer and Panzergrenadier divisions, plus another division each of airborne and mountain forces — for a total of 38 combat brigades. That was just the Field Army. The Territorial forces consisted of reserve troops — older men called up to defend their cities, towns, and homes — amounting to another 450,000 soldiers. 

But here’s the rub.

West Germany raised those forces from a population of 60 million with a GDP of $1.6 trillion in today’s dollars. Unified Germany has 80 million people, a GDP of $4.7 trillion, and a military of three divisions that are understaffed, under-trained, and unfit for combat.

The balloon went up more than three years ago in Ukraine, and yet the only substantial-sized NATO member seriously rearming is Poland.

Keep reading

NATO forces in Ukraine could trigger World War III – Russia’s security chief

The deployment of foreign troops to Ukraine could lead to a clash between Russia and NATO, and ultimately to World War III, Sergey Shoigu, secretary of Russia’s National Security Council, has warned. The term “peacekeepers” is being used as a cover for the true objective of establishing control over Ukraine, according to the official.  

The defense chiefs from a number of NATO member states – led by the UK and France – have been discussing the idea of positioning a “peacekeeping” force in Ukraine. They claim the troops would contribute to a “lasting peace” between Russia and Ukraine. Russia has rejected the deployment of NATO forces, or troops from members of the bloc under a “coalition of the willing” to Ukraine under any pretext.  

In an interview published on Thursday by TASS, Shoigu, who previously served as Russia’s defense minister, stated that the presence of foreign “peacekeepers” on “Russia’s historic territories” could provoke a direct confrontation between Moscow and NATO, potentially escalating into a third world war. According to him, this risk is acknowledged by “reasonable politicians in Europe.”   

The term “peacekeepers” is being used to mask the true objective of gaining control over Ukrainian territory and its resources, Shoigu believes. He argued that it would be more accurate to describe such a force as “invaders” or “occupiers.”

Keep reading

Fateful Errors: Why NATO Leaders Should Have Listened to George Kennan in 1997

In 1997, veteran U.S. diplomat George Kennan stated that ‘expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American foreign policy in the entire post-Cold War era’. Twenty-eight years later, who would say he was wrong?

George Kennan famously authored the U.S. policy of containment of the Soviet Union, in an article in the New York Times of 1947, which he signed X, to maintain his anonymity. His view was that containment would lead to the eventual break up or mellowing of Soviet power and, as it turns out, the former prediction came to pass.

Yet, he was opposed to the expansion of NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union and argued that asking European nations to choose between NATO and Russia would eventually lead to conflict.

In an article in the New York Times of 5 February 1997 he asked: ‘Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the cold war, should East-West relations become centred on the question of who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military conflict?’

His article was intended to influence discussions ahead of the July 1997 NATO Summit in Madrid which would consider the planned expansion of NATO to include the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. Each state had suffered under Soviet repression after World War II but were now free and democratic after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.

Kennan’s warning went unheeded, the NATO Summit agreed to the inclusion of three of the four former Warsaw Pact countries within NATO, excluding Slovakia which had not received the required number of votes in a referendum.

Keep reading

NATO Is A Corpse

NATO is a corpse. All that remains is the grotesque performance art of a diplomatic zombie stumbling from summit to summit, mouthing tired clichés about “shared values” and “burden sharing,” even as its core strategic logic lies rotting beneath the surface. The Atlantic Alliance, once the steel scaffolding of Western security, has become a hollow ritual. Its military readiness is an illusion. Its political cohesion is fraying. Its future, if it has one, lies not in revival—but in reinvention or replacement.

This is not a triumphalist declaration from the Kremlin or Beijing. It is a sober diagnosis, grounded in realism and restraint. And it should be a wake-up call in Washington, Ottawa, Berlin, and beyond.

NATO’s death was not caused by Donald Trump, though he may soon become its undertaker. Nor was it caused by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, though that war has exposed the Alliance’s hollowness in ways no war game or communique ever could. The real cause lies in decades of European free-riding, American strategic drift, and a foundational lie at the heart of the Alliance: the idea that an empire can masquerade as a collective defense pact without consequences.

Let’s start with the numbers. Most NATO members still do not meet the 2 percent of GDP defense spending benchmark, despite years of promises and performative panic. Canada, which has taken freeloading to an art form, has shown no serious intention of meeting its obligations. As I’ve written elsewhere, Trudeau’s empty pledges mask a decaying defense industrial base, a stagnant recruiting system, and an Arctic strategy made of snow and sentiment.

Germany—the economic motor of Europe—still can’t field a combat-ready army for more than a few weeks at a time. The Bundeswehr is a shell. Its special fund is already mostly spent, and its political class remains addicted to strategic ambiguity and military minimalism. France wants “strategic autonomy” but lacks the scale and will to lead Europe alone. Poland, despite its impressive rearmament, cannot carry the continent’s defense burden on its shoulders—certainly not while Berlin dithers and Washington increasingly looks west, not east.

Meanwhile, the United States—still NATO’s military backbone—faces a fiscal cliff, a recruitment crisis, and an overstretched force posture. The era of limitless resources is over. American global primacy has ended. Multipolarity has arrived. The U.S. must now prioritize. And that means making hard choices about where its forces are truly needed—and where others must finally step up or face the consequences.

The war in Ukraine has laid these contradictions bare. NATO as an institution is not fighting the war. The United States is. Some European countries are helping—but most are hedging. NATO has been bypassed in favor of bilateral and ad hoc coalitions. Article 5 hasn’t been tested, and it may never be. The idea that NATO is “more united than ever” is a comforting fiction, trotted out to conceal the fact that the Alliance can no longer mount a serious, conventional defense of Europe without massive and prolonged American escalation.

Even the so-called Nordic expansion—Sweden and Finland joining NATO—has not changed the equation. It’s a strategic sideshow. Unless Europe can build up a credible, conventional deterrent in the East, without expecting Washington to always bail it out, the Alliance will remain a Potemkin village: flags, acronyms, and summits without substance.

Keep reading

The United States Can and Should Reduce Its Defense Spending

Secretary of State Marco Rubio attended his first NATO foreign ministers’ meeting and was more concerned about European sensibilities than American interests. Unfortunately, Rubio embraced the past rather than promoted the future. It would be tragic if the MAGA revolution resulted in more of the same.

Rubio sought to reassure European officials who have begun to do more in their own defense because they have been discomfited by both Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Rather than intensify European fears that the Trump administration finally meant business, the secretary disclaimed any intention to leave the alliance: “The United States is as active in NATO as it has ever been,” he insisted. While speaking next to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Rubio added: “Some of this hysteria and hyperbole that I see in the global media and some domestic media in the United States about NATO is unwarranted.” 

Indeed, Rubio suggested that Trump was apparently a secret alliance enthusiast: “We want NATO to be stronger, we want NATO to be more visible and the only way NATO can get stronger, more visible is if our partners, the nation states that comprise this important alliance, have more capability.” That doesn’t sound like the Trump that most of us know, but the new U.S. ambassador to NATO, Matt Whitaker, similarly opined that “under President Trump’s leadership, NATO will be stronger and more effective than ever before, and I believe that a robust NATO can continue to serve as a bedrock of peace and prosperity.”

In short, per the president’s aides, America plans on sticking around to protect the Europeans. Rubio insisted, “President Trump has made clear he supports NATO. We’re going to remain in NATO.” What the latter dislikes, Rubio explained, is states which lack the capabilities to fulfill their obligations. This is the same message that Joe Biden, both as vice president and president, routinely brought to the continent. Indeed, he spent years actively discouraging the Europeans from doing more on their own behalf.

In contrast, during his first term Trump reportedly told aides he wanted to withdraw from the alliance. His failure to act during the first few weeks of this presidency doesn’t mean he has grown to love what he once sought to delete. Of course, Rubio still echoes his boss in pushing other NATO member governments to do more. But without ill consequences for their failure to act, enthusiasm for reform is likely to quickly wane. After all, President Barack Obama’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, excoriated the Europeans for their lackadaisical attitude, but his message was drowned out by Biden singing a European variant of Bobby McFerrin’s hit tune “Don’t Worry Be Happy.” 

Nevertheless, the secretary has a tough sales job. Reported Deutsche Welle, “Rubio’s task of putting fellow NATO members at ease was made even harder on Wednesday when Trump announced tariffs that many fear could kick off global trade war. A 10 percent levy now applies to virtually all goods imported into the U.S. Goods from the European Union, which includes 23 of the 31 NATO member states, face tariffs of 20 percent.” The U.S. and Europe are struggling to remain friends, but just as in any other busted romance, Uncle Sam obviously no longer respects his partner. An unnamed European diplomat told the Associated Press, “We need to preempt a rapid retreat, but we’ve had nothing precise from the U.S. yet.” 

Keep reading

NATO’s Operation Condor steamrolls onwards

O Liberté, que de crimes on commet en ton nom! ~ Madame Roland

Following what a friend calls my eloquent and excellent article regarding the fate of Ms Ozturk, he writes that we “need to shout loud and often about this growing suppression of free speech, because if we don’t, we will undoubtedly be faced with Operation Condor type disappearances at a future time”. As this article shows, though some of us have long been hoarse, that time is already upon us and, though Latin America is not as jam-packed as it once was with right-wing dictators and former high-ranking Nazis, below the surface, little has changed or will change until we make it change.

The fear factor faucet

As in ancient Rome, we must always be kept on edge, in fear that our “freedoms” are under attack by extraneous powers, Russia’s over-worked President Putin in particular, who is set to conjure up out of thin air a couple of million paratroopers to pop down in front of us and take those illusory freedoms away. To safeguard ourselves against that, we are being urged to stockpile food and, presumably, to give the Ivans a bloody nose with our cans of sardines when they kick in our front doors.

Although crass tommyrot like that is not worth a hearing, it works on its core target markets, most particularly those who are in receipt of State payments and/or who want to aimlessly drift through life, oblivious to the dangerous currents underneath the surface.

Although not all of them will believe that Putin’s paratroopers will shortly be dropping in for afternoon tea, or that every Arab baby is a suicide bomber or that every Latino is a drug dealing cut throat, because enough people will believe there is no smoke without fire, NATO’s charlatans can continue to get away with their scams until they are overthrown.

If one must worry about Putin, it is not his paratroopers that should concern us, but his vast array of state-of-the-art F35 bombers, about which the ordinary Joe is powerless. If we are worried about China annexing the Panama Canal, we should be more worried it is being gifted to Black Rock and the other parasitic companies that are the real powers behind NATO’s machinations.

But, then, fear is only one of our three primary choices, the other emasculating one being freeze, to which we now come and the preferable one being fight, which we will leave to last.

Keep reading