Tag: nato

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

NATO, More Militarism No Defense Against US Expansionists

If you believe Donald Trump might invade you should be calling for Canada to withdraw from NATO. The alliance won’t defend Canada, has enabled US interference and gobbles up resources.

During a recent meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, US President Donald Trump questioned the border and Canadian sovereignty. He said, “if you look at a map, they drew an artificial line right through it, between Canada and the U.S. … somebody did it a long time ago, many many decades ago, and (it) makes no sense.” Trump also repeatedly said Canada should be a US state, noting “to be honest with you, Canada only works as a state.”

Sitting next to the US president, Rutte stayed silent. A bit later Trump suggested Rutte might assist him in taking part of NATO member Denmark, noting “I’m sitting with a man who could be very instrumental. You know Mark, we need that for international security.” Rutte replied, “when it comes to Greenland yes or not joining the U.S. I would leave that outside for me this discussion because I don’t want to drag NATO in that.”

Rutte doesn’t seem to want to commit even rhetorically to defending alliance members’ sovereignty. Even if Rutte had interrupted Trump and told the US president his comments were inappropriate the idea that NATO would defend Canada from a US invasion is ridiculous. Latvia and Estonia will not send troops to repel a US invasion. Nor will France or the UK.

Will Canada send troops to defend Greenland if Trump takes it from NATO member Denmark? Does anyone think that would that be a good idea?

Article 5 of the NATO Charter is not clear on what collective defence entails. It says an attack against one member “shall be considered an attack against them all.” But it doesn’t stipulate what the response should be, noting only that each member state must take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” Article 5 has only ever been invoked after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.

Keep reading

Swiss Think-Tank: US Intel Investigating Anthony Blinken For Potential Involvement in Romania’s Globalist Coup

A Swiss think tank has reported that U.S. intelligence agencies, allegedly acting under the directives of the Trump administration, are investigating former Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and his assistant James O’Brien for purportedly pressuring Romanian authorities to annul the country’s presidential election results.

According to the report, Blinken—an arch-neocon and influential figure in America’s globalist, interventionist foreign policy establishment—collaborated with former Romanian Foreign Minister Luminița Odobescu to pressure officials in Bucharest into annulling Călin Georgescu’s first-round presidential victory, thereby ensuring Romania remained aligned with pro-NATO and globalist interests.

The Diplomatic Affairs, a Geneva-based think tank focused on assessing global geopolitical developments, told The Gateway Pundit that its report is based on information they received from a source within the U.S. intelligence community.

The allegations raise serious concerns about the extent of foreign interference, particularly from the Biden administration, in Romania’s domestic politics. The Swiss think tank’s report suggests that Blinken and his associates actively lobbied key Romanian figures, including former President Klaus Iohannis and Acting Prime Minister Marcel Ciolacu, to invalidate the election under the pretext of Russian interference.

The report, if true, lends support to statements made last month by Richard Grenell, former Special Envoy under Trump, who asserted that it was Biden, not Russia, that interfered in Romania’s recent election.

Keep reading

Rutte Confirms NATO Membership For Ukraine Off The Table, Hints At Future Normalization With Russia

In fresh comments NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte confirmed that NATO membership for Ukraine is off the table when it comes to negotiations with Russia to end the war.

Rutte in an interview Friday was asked by Bloomberg TV’s Annemarie Gordern if Trump has definitely removed the issue of Ukraine’s accession to NATO from the negotiating table. Rutte answered “yes” and nodded in the affirmative when pressed.

The issue of NATO constantly expanding right up to Russia’s borders, which especially ramped up in the mid-2000s during the Bush era, has been consistently identified by President Putin as a key motive in his ordering hundreds of thousands of Russian troops into Ukraine in February of 2022.

Russia sees this as a continuation of a war in Donbass that was already burning since 2014, which saw CIA and Western intelligence assist Kiev in seeking to push back Russian influence. But the reality has always been that natives on the Donbass are overwhelmingly Russian-speaking and pro-Moscow.

Rutte’s predecessor Jens Stoltenberg made a bombshell admission in a televised 2023 speech stating that the bloc’s refusal to stop expanding east as a key reason for why the Ukraine war started.

“President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement,” Stoltenberg said at the time. “That was what he sent us. And [that] was a precondition for not invade [sic] Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.”

Previous to those words, this was considered a ‘pro-Kremlin talking point’. NATO chief Stoltenberg had even emphasized in the remarks that Putin “went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.”

But apparently no lessons have been learned, and mainstream Western media has still by and large failed to feature the Stoltenberg admission as part of the narrative on the build-up to war.

As for Rutte, he explained in the new Friday Bloomberg TV interview Europe could normalize ties with Russia when the war is over. “It’s normal if the war would have stopped for Europe somehow, step by step, and also for the US, step by step, to restore normal relations with Russia,” he stated.

Keep reading

Record dropouts in Bundeswehr as delusional EU/NATO still mulls going to Ukraine

It’s no secret that Western militaries have suffered from poor recruitment for years. Virtually all EU/NATO members have this problem and there are no signs it will go away any time soon. Worse yet, they are now faced with record dropout rates, which is threatening the integrity of their armed forces. Despite all this and for some inexplicable reason, the EU/NATO still wants to pick a fight with Russia, a “noble democratic endeavor” that would require many times more troops. However, as previously mentioned, their ability to even retain (let alone attract) soldiers remains highly questionable. Namely, the latest reports confirm that 25% of new recruits in the German Bundeswehr drop out after only six months of service.

According to Financial Times, personnel shortages are “pushing troops to a breaking point”. The report cites Eva Högl, the Commissioner for the Armed Forces (Bundeswehr) in the German Parliament (Bundestag), who pointed out that “despite some success in recruitment, poor   meant that the armed forces had come no closer to meeting their target of having 203,000 soldiers by 2031”. As a result, this number dropped to just over 181,000. FT laments that “this comes at a time when Germany is pledging to do more to bolster Europe’s own defenses in the face of a potential US retreat from the continent”. It should be noted that Washington DC has anywhere between 50,000 and 84,000 troops deployed in Europe.

It’s virtually impossible to imagine Bundeswehr being able to deploy even 10% of that outside of Germany. Worse yet, while US soldiers are often very young (teenagers or in their early 20s), the Bundeswehr is “shrinking and getting older”, as Högl pointed out. In her annual report on the state of the German military, she lamented that “the average age had risen to 34 years — up from 33.1 years in 2021”.

“This development must be stopped and reversed as a matter of urgency”, she stated, adding: “I said the troops are challenged, but they are also very overburdened. I’ll go as far as to say they’re at breaking point. When we look at where our Bundeswehr is needed — for national defense, [NATO] alliance defense, international crisis management — it is a lot. And it really is at the limit.”

Keep reading