Tag: nato

Trump Flirts with NATO’s Hardliners

Multiple reports in Western news media highlight President Donald Trump’s growing dissatisfaction with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Financial Times reported that Trump had encouraged Kiev to punish Putin by striking deep inside Russian territory—perhaps even hitting Moscow—if the U.S. provided it with more long-range weapons. (Trump has denied he supports such strikes.)

In marked contrast to the initial weeks of his second term, Trump has now effectively signed on to NATO’s uncompromising strategy of insisting on Russia’s capitulation with respect to the terms of a peace accord between Russia and Ukraine. The Western demands include Russia’s complete withdrawal from conquered Ukrainian territory (including Crimea) and its acquiescence to Kiev’s possibly joining NATO. 

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Admiral James Stavridis expresses the prevailing mentality of hardliners when he contends that sending Ukraine openly offensive weapons might be the most effective way to force Moscow back to the negotiating table.

The ongoing transformation of Trump’s overall approach to the war between Russia and Ukraine has been breathtaking. During the 2024 presidential election campaign, Trump portrayed the Biden administration’s participation in NATO’s policy of using Ukraine in a proxy war against Russia as an expensive, potentially dangerous blunder. Trump led his political followers to believe that he would terminate the Ukraine entanglement as soon as possible, since it was inconsistent with his overall concept of an “America First” foreign policy. On one occasion, he even boasted that he could bring an end to the Russia–Ukraine conflict in 24 hours. Instead, he has now decided to help rearm Ukraine and even escalate Washington’s support by accelerating shipments of Patriot air defense missiles and other munitions to Kiev.

Trump’s attitude toward Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has undergone a similarly radical transformation. In the initial weeks of his second term, Trump seemed to grasp that improving Washington’s relations with Moscow needed to be a high priority, and that the Ukraine conflict was the principal obstacle to achieving that objective. His rhetoric toward Putin was conciliatory, in marked contrast to the openly hostile and contemptuous attitude of Biden administration officials. At the same time, Trump seemed to regard Zelensky as an arrogant, ungrateful U.S. and NATO client determined to continue pursuing a “wag the dog strategy” toward his Western patrons.

Keep reading

What NATO Countries Spend On Military, Health, & Education

NATO countries officially agreed to raise their defense expenditures to 5% of their GDP by 2035.

But how do their military expenditures compare to what they spend on health and education?

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, shows a side-by-side comparison of government spending priorities as a percentage of GDP for all NATO members.

Compared: NATO’s Spending on Military Vs. Education and Health

Currently, every NATO country currently spends less on its military than on health or education.

However, the new 5% of GDP target for defense spending is currently higher than what every NATO country currently spends on their military.

Keep reading

NATO Turning Moldova Into ‘Cannon Fodder’ To Confront Russia: Kremlin

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) on Monday issued a rare statement accusing the West, under US leadership, of turning Moldova into a military outpost aimed at confronting Russia, akin to what has happened over several years with Ukraine.

The SVR’s provocative statement said Washington wants to use the country as “cannon fodder” in future hostilities, which is allegedly being fast-tracked by Western foreign policy decision-makers.

The statement further alleged that NATO wants to turn tiny Moldova into a “military testing ground” by modernizing its railways to European specifications and constructing major logistics hubs for future Western military deployments. This also includes serious upgrades to airfields, to host military planes, according to Russian state media.

Russian intelligence also accused Moldovan President Maia Sandu of surrendering national interests to Western powers, dubbing her administration a “comprador regime” – and that her pro-European Party of Action and Solidarity is being propped up and strengthened by the West.

These charged can’t exactly be dismissed as paranoia or propaganda, given for example that just last year the United Kingdom inked a new defense pact with Moldova, precisely to counter ‘Russian aggression’ – as we previously detailed.

The tiny Eastern European nation bordering Ukraine has experienced the same kind of internal political pro-EU vs. pro-Russia tug of war historically on display in other countries such as Ukraine or Georgia.

The UK foreign ministry described the defense agreement as about “building on extensive cooperation between the two countries and strengthening Moldovan resilience against external threats.”

One thing which has long alarmed the West is the presence of Russian ‘peacekeeping’ troops in Moldova’s breakaway Transnistria region. 

As for Transnistria, although it has diverse ethnic demographics almost equally apportioned between Russians, Moldovans, Romanians and Ukrainians, the Russian demographic slightly ekes out its counterparts with a plurality of 29% of Transnistrians belonging to the group.

Keep reading.

Could NATO Burden-Sharing Be a Subtle Snare for the United States?

Both Donald Trump and his legions of critics in Europe are celebrating the outcome of the latest NATO summit.  The centerpiece of NATO’s renewed image of solidarity was an agreement among all Alliance members (except Spain) to boost their annual defense outlays to at least 5 percent of their yearly gross domestic product (GDP).  Although NATO officials portrayed this commitment as a purely voluntary step, it appeased Trump’s long-standing demands for greater financial “burden-sharing” within the Alliance.

Hawks on both sides of the Atlantic may cheer this development, but advocates of a genuine “America first” foreign policy for Washington have little reason to celebrate.  Indeed, more burden-sharing has a disturbing potential to entangle the United States in a growing array of dangerous quarrels between Europe (especially NATO’s East European members) and Russia.  Thus, there could be more Ukraine-style proxy wars in our future.

European leaders apparently were willing to make major concessions to secure America’s continued entanglement in the continent’s security affairs.  They even let Trump take his propaganda victory lap following the U.S. attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, despite continued misgivings in some European capitals about the wisdom of his action.  They gave the U.S. leader an even more impressive, albeit implicit, diplomatic victory lap regarding Alliance defense spending.  This theme had dominated Washington’s transatlantic agenda during Trump’s first term, when he pressured the allies to fulfill repeated pledges they had made over the years to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense.  During the 2024 U.S. presidential campaign, his demand escalated to 5 percent – the same figure that NATO summit leaders have now adopted.

Despite any superficial appearances, the outcome of the June 2025 NATO summit was not good for the American people.  A meaningful debate in the United States on the future of Washington’s transatlantic policy should not focus on the issue of burden-sharing.  America’s principal need is not for more burden-sharing within NATO; our republic needs a strategic divorce from NATO.

Despite hoary propaganda about NATO being an alliance of equals, there was always a yawning gap between that image and the reality of U.S. hegemony.  The United States invariably  called the shots on Alliance policy regarding security issues that U.S. leaders deemed truly important anywhere in the world.

An especially graphic demonstration of how the transatlantic power relationship worked in practice came during the Cuban Missile crisis during the autumn of 1963.  John F. Kennedy’s administration dispatched former ambassador W. Averell Harriman to meet with French President Charles De Gaulle about the alarming situation.  Near the end of the session, De Gaulle asked Harriman if he was consulting with him about U.S. policy or “informing” him.  Harriman conceded that Washington was merely informing its ally. The United States would make the final decision unilaterally, based on America’s best interests.

One consequence of that confirmation of Washington’s dominance within NATO was that France promptly developed and deployed an independent strategic nuclear deterrent and withdrew from NATO’s military structure, thus asserting an independent role for France.

Keep reading

Europe’s Defense Reality Check: The Mathematics of Military Inadequacy

Following President Trump’s successful push for NATO allies to commit to spending 5% of GDP on defense by 2035, Europe now faces the potentially insurmountable challenge of reversing decades of military neglect. Building a force capable of defending the continent against Russia or China will be a massive undertaking, made even more difficult by declining birthrates, a shrinking workforce, and the political cost of maintaining generous welfare states and pacifist norms.

NATO allies agreed on June 25, 2025, to more than double their defense spending target from 2% of GDP to 5% by 2035, with the commitment structured as 3.5% for “core defense” and 1.5% for broader security measures including infrastructure and cyber defense. This achievement was widely praised, with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte stating: “Would you ever think that this would be the result of this summit if he would not have been re-elected president? … I think he deserves all the praise”. However, the magnitude of this commitment becomes clear when examining current spending levels and capability gaps.

In 2024, European NATO members spent a combined $454 billion on defense, just 30% of total NATO spending, while the United States spent $997 billion, or 66%. Reports claim European military spending rose by 17% to $693 billion in 2024, but that figure misleadingly includes Russia’s estimated $149 billion. Given that NATO exists primarily to deter Russian aggression, it is absurd to include Russia’s defense budget in Europe’s total.

Even in terms of GDP percentage, Russia continues to outpace the European Union in defense spending. The EU’s total defense spending is projected to reach around 2.04% of GDP in 2025, while Russia is expected to spend 7.5% of its GDP on the military. But the gap in spending is just one part of Europe’s broader capabilities deficit.

Unlike Russia or the United States, Europe’s $454 billion in defense expenditures is fragmented across more than 30 countries, each with its own command structure, procurement system, administrative overhead, and military bureaucracy. In contrast, the United States achieves far greater efficiency and combat power through its unified $997 billion defense budget, which supports a single military structure with global reach.

Keep reading

NATO Holds Drills Near Russian Border Based on Israel-Iran Conflict Tactics

NATO forces near Russia’s border in Karelia have recently conducted drills simulating a breakthrough of Russian air defenses, based on scenarios from the recent Israeli-American campaign in Iran, the Izvestia newspaper said citing unnamed sources.
According to the outlet, NATO aircraft maneuvers in Finland near the Russian border took place as part of the Atlantic Trident 25 exercises held from June 16 to 27. The drills involved over 40 aircraft from the air forces of Finland, the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. Notably, the Izvestia reports that RQ-4D Phoenix reconnaissance drones were deployed to Finland for the first time during the exercise.

In parallel with Atlantic Trident 25, NATO also reportedly conducted another set of maneuvers titled Itakaira-2025/2, which were not officially announced by the alliance. These exercises included rapid aircraft launches, air combat, gaining air superiority, striking ground targets, and penetrating Russian air defense systems, according to the publication.

Military analyst Yuri Lyamin stated that NATO’s growing strike presence along Russia’s border necessitates a reinforcement of Russia’s fighter aviation and air defense systems.

Another expert, Dmitry Kornev, suggested that in the event of actual hostilities in the region, NATO could deploy over 70 aircraft against Russia.

Keep reading

Russian Military Instructs China How To Beat US & NATO Weapons

One key trend to have emerged over the course of the Russia-Ukraine war is that China, Iran, and Russia are increasingly and very openly cooperating militarily and technologically, including Moscow sharing experience gained in the course of its Ukraine ground operations.

Newsweek reports that “Russia plans to train hundreds of Chinese military personnel this year on lessons learned from its ongoing invasion of Ukraine,” based on regional sources. Some of what has been ‘learned’ is how to defend against US-made and NATO-supplied weaponry – something which Beijing is surely interested in amid the long-running Taiwan standoff with Washington.

“Instructors will cover methods for countering weapons systems used by Ukrainian forces that were produced by the United States and its NATO allies, a source in Ukraine’s top intelligence agency told the outlet,” the Newsweek report continues.

Specifically ‘lessons for a Taiwan conflict’ would be gleaned:

This training would further strengthen security ties between Russia and its “no limits” ally China, which in recent years has stepped up joint military exercises. Battlefield insights into U.S. weaponry could offer an advantage as China seeks to surpass the U.S. as the leading military power in the Indo-Pacific.

And Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Directorate has told local media, the Kyiv Post, that “The Kremlin has decided to allow Chinese military personnel to study and adopt the combat experience Russia has gained in its war against Ukraine.”

Not only have Russian forces destroyed and disabled possibly dozens of Western-supplied main battle tanks, including M1 Abrams, UK Challengers, and French Leopard 2’s – but F16s have also been shot down.

American troop carriers have additionally been destroyed, and in some places Western armored vehicles have been put on display in the capital of Moscow, as trophies recovered from the battlefield.

Meanwhile, China this week hosted defense ministers from Iran and Russia for a meeting in its eastern seaside city of Qingdao.

Keep reading

Europe ‘wary’ of US arms dependence after unprecedented NATO spending boost

As European nations commit to their most significant military buildup in decades, growing unease is emerging over their reliance on US weapons manufacturers.

Despite depleted stockpiles due to aid to Ukraine, many European leaders are questioning the wisdom – and political cost – of deepening their dependence on US arms under the leadership of US President Donald Trump.

Trump’s recent trip to Europe underscored his push for allies to buy more US-made weapons. Yet his open admiration for Russia and controversial comments – such as threats to annex Greenland – have fueled wariness. “Buying American weapons is a security risk that we cannot run,” Danish parliamentarian Rasmus Jarlov declared earlier this year.

Canada is now considering exiting the US-led F-35 program in favor of Sweden’s Gripen fighters, Bloomberg noted on 27 June. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently said, “We should no longer send three-quarters of our defense capital spending to America.”

Meanwhile, in France, President Emmanuel Macron has spearheaded EU efforts to boost local weapons production, with the bloc fast-tracking a €150 billion ($162 billion) defense funding initiative.

Despite these efforts, the US maintains a commanding lead in key defense technologies – from missile systems to satellites – and European firms lack the capacity to meet the continent’s defense needs. 

Carlyle estimates Europe’s planned defense buildup could reach €14 trillion ($16 trillion) over the next decade when infrastructure is included, far outstripping current European capabilities.

“We have far too many systems in Europe, we have far too few units, and what we produce is often far too complicated, and therefore too expensive,” said German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.

Keep reading

‘Time to Leave NATO’: Sen. Mike Lee Unveils Trio of Bills to Withdraw U.S., Expose Allied ‘Freeloaders,’ Demand Defense Transparency

As NATO leaders gather for another summit, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced sweeping legislation to withdraw the United States from the alliance and force America’s allies to pay their share, accusing European nations of relying on U.S. taxpayers to fund their defense.

“America’s withdrawal from NATO is long overdue,” Lee said in a statement Wednesday. “NATO has run its course — the threats that existed at its inception are no longer relevant 76 years later. If they were, Europe would be paying their fair share instead of making American taxpayers pick up the check for decades. My legislation will put America first by withdrawing us from the raw deal NATO has become.”

Lee’s latest bill, the Not A Trusted Organization (NATO) Act, would direct the president to formally notify NATO of U.S. withdrawal under Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty, fulfill the requirement for congressional authorization, and prohibit U.S. taxpayer dollars from funding NATO’s common budgets — including its civil and military programs.

“It’s time to leave NATO,” Lee posted Wednesday on X.

The Utah senator also introduced two companion bills on Tuesday— the Allied Burden Sharing Report Act and the NATO Burden Sharing Report Act — aimed at exposing which allied nations are failing to contribute their promised share to collective defense. The legislation would require the Department of Defense to produce annual reports detailing each ally’s defense spending, troop readiness, and limitations placed on military contributions. The NATO-specific report would go further by assessing each member state’s defense industrial base, contributions to Ukraine, and dependency on U.S. military assets.

“Year after year, our so-called allies shirk their commitments while we pay for the conflicts raging in their backyards,” Lee said. “By imposing annual reporting requirements, my legislation will identify delinquent allies — promoting accountability and putting them on notice to pay their fair share.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who supports the bills, delivered a scathing assessment of America’s role in the alliance.

“Our NATO allies expect the U.S. to be the sugar daddy and the world’s policeman while they sit back and let us do the heavy lifting. President Trump was right, it’s time for them to pull their own weight. Congress must stop giving blank checks to our allies and start demanding accountability. That’s why I’m pushing for the NATO Burden Sharing Report Act and the Allied Burden Sharing Report Act, to show the American people exactly who’s paying the bills and who’s shirking their share,” 

Keep reading

NATO chief calls Trump ‘Daddy’ after president drops F-bomb over Iran-Israel strikes

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Wednesday called President Trump “Daddy” after the commander-in-chief furiously dropped the F-bomb when he was ripping into Iran and Israel for temporarily breaking a cease-fire deal.

Rutte made the remark as Trump was comparing the fighting between Israel and Iran to children scrapping in a schoolyard — a day after the prez launched a blistering attack on both countries over the ongoing barrage of missiles being fired at each other.

“They’ve had a big fight, like two kids in a schoolyard. You know, they fight like hell, you can’t stop them. Let them fight for about 2, 3 minutes, then it’s easy to stop them,” Trump said as the pair gave a joint press conference ahead of the NATO summit at The Hague.

Rutte laughed and quickly added: “Daddy has to sometimes use strong language to get it stopped.”

Elsewhere, the NATO boss gushed that Trump was a “good friend” and praised the prez for making the summit a success by “finally” getting Europe to boost military spending.

“When it comes to Iran, the fact that he took this decisive action, very targeted, to make sure that Iran would not be able to get his hands on a nuclear capability — I think he deserves all the praise,” he said.

Keep reading