Tag: perpetual war

While Ukraine Empties Out Due To Mass Ethnocide, Globalist NGOs Are Filling It Back Up — With Someone Else

The billboard in the photo above is not in Kyiv. It’s in India.

In Hindi and English, it reads: “Create a family. Search Jobs. Create the future. Select Ukraine!” — stamped with the URL visitukraine.today. Someone is paying to recruit Indian citizens to migrate to a country that is actively at war, where Ukrainian men are being conscripted off the streets, and where the native population has collapsed by more than half in a single generation.

That someone isn’t hard to find. And the question of why should disturb every American who’s been told this war is about freedom and democracy.

Ukraine’s Minister of Social Policy acknowledged in May 2026 that only 22–25 million people now live in Kyiv-controlled territory. In 1991, that number exceeded 50 million. The IMF projects the population will fall to 33.3 million by end of 2026 — and that’s the optimistic figure. Indirect indicators — banking users, SIM card registrations, social payment recipients — suggest the real population may already be below 20 million.

The math is brutal: four years of war have killed, crippled, or conscripted hundreds of thousands of men. Another 5–6 million fled west into Europe as refugees and haven’t returned. Birth rates have collapsed — death rates now nearly triple births. The country’s age pyramid has a statistical hole where its 20–25 year olds should be.

Keep reading

New Atlas Aircraft Targets Long-Range Strikes Without Runways Or Large Flight Decks

Mach Industries has won a Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) contract to develop a long-range unmanned aircraft designed to launch from austere locations and ships without large flight decks.

The aircraft, called Atlas, is being developed for the DIU’s Runway Independent Maritime Expeditionary Strike (RIMES) program. Mach Industries will serve as the aircraft integrator, working with propulsion company Whisper Aero.

According to the solicitation, the Department of the Navy is seeking an unmanned aerial system capable of conducting long-range strikes while operating from expeditionary sites with minimal infrastructure or from ships that lack conventional runways.

Mach said Atlas is designed to meet those requirements with a hybrid-electric propulsion system, runway-independent operations, a 1,000-pound payload capacity, and a range of 1,400 nautical miles.

Built For Austere Operations

The aircraft combines Mach Industries’ platform development capabilities with Whisper Aero’s JetFoil propulsion technology.

Unlike conventional fixed-wing aircraft that require runways, Atlas is being designed to operate from unimproved landing zones while retaining the control characteristics of a fixed-wing platform. The companies say the approach could give military units greater flexibility in contested environments where traditional airfields may be unavailable or vulnerable.

The aircraft is also intended to support distributed operations, a growing focus for the U.S. military as it prepares for conflicts in which logistics networks could come under attack.

In recent testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Emil Michael identified contested logistics as one of the Pentagon’s critical technology priorities. The challenge centers on sustaining military operations when transportation routes, supply chains, and support infrastructure are disrupted.

Mach says Atlas addresses that challenge by reducing infrastructure requirements for launch and recovery while simplifying maintenance through a highly redundant propulsion architecture and a lower part count.

“Mach’s speed to prototype and production, coupled with Whisper Aero’s novel aerodynamics and propulsion makes Atlas a revolutionary air mobility platform,” said Nathan Diller, President and Chief Strategy Officer at Mach Industries.

Quiet Propulsion Advantage

A key feature of the aircraft is Whisper Aero’s JetFoil technology, which the company says improves efficiency while reducing acoustic signatures.

The system is designed to generate lift and thrust more efficiently than traditional approaches, helping extend range while allowing operations from confined locations. Lower noise levels could also make the aircraft more difficult to detect during missions.

“We developed JetFoil to propel the next generation of conventional, short, and vertical takeoff and landing aircraft silently and efficiently,” said Mark Moore, CEO of Whisper Aero.

According to Moore, the technology allows Atlas to meet RIMES requirements while operating from smaller naval vessels. “With JetFoil, Atlas can effectively meet the needs of the RIMES mission to operate even from destroyer class vessels.”

The award adds to Mach Industries’ expanding defense portfolio. Founded in 2023, the company says it is currently flying five different platforms and has manufactured more than 250 aircraft. Over the past two months, it has also conducted flight operations in four countries under complex electromagnetic conditions.

If successful, Atlas could provide the Navy and joint force with a long-range strike platform capable of operating from locations where traditional aircraft cannot, while reducing dependence on large runways and established air bases.

Keep reading

The Drone Has Replaced the Tank

Military strategists are still fighting the last war while the battlefield has already changed. Every major conflict throughout history has been defined by a technological revolution. Gunpowder ended the age of castles. Tanks transformed World War II. Precision missiles reshaped modern warfare. Now we have entered the age of the drone. The military that cannot dominate the skies with unmanned systems will lose, regardless of how many tanks, aircraft, or soldiers it possesses.

South Korea has reached the same conclusion. Its Defense Ministry announced that it will train approximately 500,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines as “drone warriors.” Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back said every service member should become as proficient with drones as they are with their personal weapons. The plan calls for procuring 11,000 commercial drones by the end of 2026, expanding to 60,000 training drones by 2029, while also acquiring more than 20,000 low-cost combat drones by 2030. Seoul is accelerating production of loitering munitions, AI-enabled drone swarms, laser weapons, and microwave systems designed to destroy incoming drones.

They are responding to the lessons of Ukraine, where inexpensive FPV drones costing only hundreds or thousands of dollars routinely destroy tanks worth millions. The battlefield has become saturated with unmanned aircraft. Ukraine plans to manufacture roughly 7 million military drones in 2026 after producing about 4 million in 2025. According to Ukrainian officials, drones now account for the overwhelming majority of battlefield strikes, fundamentally changing military doctrine. Entire branches of both the Ukrainian and Russian militaries are now dedicated solely to unmanned systems.

A modern drone operator can eliminate armor, artillery, supply convoys, or individual soldiers from miles away while sitting in relative safety. Fiber-optic drones have largely defeated electronic jamming. AI-assisted targeting is reducing operator workload. Swarm attacks can overwhelm traditional air defenses that were designed to intercept aircraft, not hundreds of inexpensive autonomous systems arriving simultaneously. Ukraine has even developed interceptor drones whose sole mission is to hunt other drones, creating an entirely new layer of aerial combat.

South Korea is not alone. Russia formally established its Unmanned Systems Forces, with Ukrainian military estimates claiming the branch could expand from roughly 80,000 personnel today to more than 165,000 during 2026 and perhaps over 200,000 by 2030. NATO countries are pouring billions into drone production, counter-drone technologies, autonomous weapons, and electronic warfare. The United States, China, Israel, Turkey, and Europe are all racing to build domestic drone industries because they understand the next war will not be won by the side with the largest army. It will be won by the side that can produce, replace, and innovate faster than its opponent.

This is precisely why I have warned that the War Cycle is changing the global economy. Wars no longer require decades to build fleets of battleships or thousands of heavy tanks. A nation with sufficient manufacturing capacity can produce tens of thousands of drones every month. The barriers to entry have collapsed. Software updates now matter as much as ammunition. Engineers have become as important as infantry.

The defense industry is no longer limited to traditional contractors producing aircraft carriers and fighter jets. Semiconductor manufacturers, AI companies, battery producers, optics firms, communications specialists, robotics companies, and rare-earth miners have all become part of the defense sector. This is why governments are scrambling to secure critical minerals, expand chip production, and protect supply chains. They are preparing for a world where industrial capacity determines military survival.

Our computer has consistently projected that 2026 marks the acceleration of the international War Cycle. The military transformation unfolding before our eyes confirms that forecast. The next great conflict will not resemble Iraq, Afghanistan, or even the opening stages of Ukraine. It will be fought by autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, electronic warfare, and millions of inexpensive drones operating continuously across every battlefield. The drone has become what the machine gun was in World War I and what the tank became in World War II. Anyone who fails to recognize that reality is preparing for a war that no longer exists.

Keep reading

Eight Contradictions Behind NATO’s Summit of ‘Love’

“I just want to say there was tremendous love in that room,” President Trump declared as he wrapped up the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara.

But anyone looking beyond the carefully choreographed photo-ops saw an alliance beset by public feuds, competing visions of security, and widening political divisions.

Here are eight contradictions that defined the Ankara summit—and raise fundamental questions about NATO’s future.

1. Military Spending vs. Real Security

NATO leaders had already agreed at the previous summit to move toward spending 5 percent of GDP on military-related expenditures, but Ankara exposed how divisive that commitment remains. Trump used the meeting to chastise allies for failing to meet even the old 2 percent benchmark, arguing that most allies were not paying what they should. Spain became the main target because it refused to commit to the full 5 percent goal, prompting Trump to call it “a terrible partner in NATO” and threaten trade retaliation.

The timing made the debate especially striking. As leaders met to discuss pouring hundreds of billions more into weapons and armies, Europe was enduring one of the most severe heatwaves in its recorded history, with deadly temperatures, wildfires, strained electricity grids, and mounting pressure on public health systems. The contrast raised an unavoidable question: at a time when climate change is already killing people and overwhelming governments, why is the overriding political priority dramatically expanding military budgets instead of investing in the threats people are facing today?

2. NATO Countries Reluctant to Support Trump on Iran

The recent U.S.-Israeli war on Iran cast a long shadow over the summit. While most European leaders continued calling for diplomacy and de-escalation, the summit itself began with renewed U.S. bombing of Iranian targets after attacks in the Strait of Hormuz. During the meeting, Trump declared the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding “over,” dismissed further negotiations as “a waste of time,” and referred to Iran’s leaders as “scum.”

Trump also complained that European allies had failed to support Washington’s military campaign, saying, “We are there for them, but they are not there for us.” Spain was among the strongest critics of the war, and Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez refused U.S. requests to allow American bases in Spain to be used for offensive operations against Iran. Before the summit, Trump publicly feuded with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni after she likewise refused to allow Italian bases to be used for attacks on Iran. Germany and France also declined to participate militarily.

The contradiction was unmistakable: NATO presents itself as a defensive alliance, yet its most powerful member expected allies to support an offensive war against a country thousands of miles from the North Atlantic that had not attacked a single NATO member.

3. Europe Pushes Support for Ukraine as the United States Pulls Back

Missing from NATO’s final declaration was its previous pledge that Ukraine would eventually become a member of the alliance—a notable concession to Trump’s opposition. Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership, first strongly backed by President George W. Bush at the alliance’s 2008 Bucharest summit, has long been one of Russia’s central stated objections and was repeatedly cited by Putin as a justification for the 2022 invasion. Its omission from the declaration reflects a significant shift in NATO’s position.

The declaration pledged roughly $82 billion in military assistance for Ukraine in both 2026 and 2027, but unlike in previous years, the overwhelming share will come from European allies and Canada rather than the United States. After Washington poured well over $100 billion into Ukraine’s war effort, the United States is now stepping back. That reflects a growing sentiment among Trump supporters that the U.S. should stop financing what they see as another endless foreign war. Many European governments, however, continue to see Russia as a direct threat and remain committed to arming Ukraine rather than pushing for a diplomatic solution.

Keep reading

The US Has Been Violating MoU With Iran From Day One

The fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States has been broken once again. The United States has been bombing Iran, claiming that its attacks are in retaliation for Iran attacking three vessels near Straight of Hormuz, which it considers as violation of the Islamabad agreement, officially known as the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two nations.

But it is in fact the United States that has been violating the MoU because its interpretation of Article 5 of the MoU is simply false. According to Article 5 of the MoU, Iran is obligated to

“Make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman, and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran, will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialogue with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states, in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz.”

The statement is unambiguous, and cannot be interpreted in any way other than Iran, in collaboration with Oman, is the party responsible for navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. It also clearly distinguishes a temporary arrangement for 60 days, and the long-term traffic regime in the Strait. Therefore, any vessel passing through the Strait must coordinate it with Iran, as well as Oman.

But this is not what the United States has been doing. In an effort to test Iran’s resolve for its control of the Strait, and to weaken it, Arab States of the Persian Gulf and  others, with direct support of the United States, dispatched several commercial vessels to pass through Oman’s territorial water without any coordination with, or even informing, Iran. They had even turned off their Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponders to evade Iran. This is in clear violation of Article 5, which Iran will not accept. Indeed, no self-respecting nation will.

This view is fully supported by Article 4 of the MoU:

“Immediately upon the signing this MoU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal.”

In other words, it is Iran that should restore the vessel traffic through the Strait to its pre-war level. Thus, once again, no vessel can pass through the Strait, unless it is coordinated with Iran, at least as one of the two parties specified by Article 5.

Keep reading

Shock Report: Macron and France Were Prepared for ‘War’ with America After Maduro Raid

French President Emmanuel Macron said his country was willing to engage in a “shooting war” with the U.S. earlier this year, according to a report.

The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Macron made the decision earlier this year after American forces carried out a precision strike in Venezuela that led to the arrest of former dictator Nicolas Maduro.

The French president reportedly made comments about fighting Americans over Greenland, the desolate Danish island that could prove crucial to keeping non-NATO powers out of the North Atlantic.

With President Donald Trump expressing his desire to acquire the island as a territory for the U.S., coupled with the success of the raid to capture Maduro for drug crimes, Macron reportedly was prepared to fight one of his country’s oldest allies — an ally that twice saved it from German aggression in the last century.

In a report with multiple authors, the Journal reported:

It was almost midnight in Brussels and the leaders of Europe were locked in their fifth hour of an emergency meeting with a single theme for discussion: how to manage a breakup with America.

The new year was only three weeks old and President Trump, after removing Venezuela’s autocratic strongman, had briefly threatened to seize Greenland from Denmark. Around a circular table in the European Council headquarters known as “The Space Egg,” heads of government were venting so emotionally about the 47th president that some of the nearly 30 leaders present would later call the session “therapy night.”

In a room where no phones or recording devices were permitted, Macron reportedly said, “We are drawing a line here.”

Keep reading

Madrid Requests European Army

Spain’s latest position perfectly illustrates what has become one of the great contradictions within NATO. Madrid wants Europe to build its own military capable of acting independently of Washington, yet Spain has consistently resisted NATO’s higher defense spending targets while expecting the alliance to continue providing collective security.

Spain is again championing the idea of a European army while insisting it can meet its NATO obligations without matching the spending commitments accepted by virtually every other member. Europe cannot demand strategic independence while simultaneously asking someone else to pay the bill.

I have said for years that Europe has always dreamed of becoming an independent military power. Long before the war in Ukraine, Brussels was discussing a unified European army, common procurement, centralized command, and eventually a foreign policy independent of Washington. Every crisis has been used to advance that objective. The migration crisis expanded Brussels’ authority. COVID centralized health policy. The Ukraine war accelerated fiscal integration through joint borrowing and massive defense spending. Now the argument is that Europe needs its own army because it can no longer rely entirely on the United States. That has been the destination all along.

Ironically, Spain is making the argument while remaining one of NATO’s weakest contributors. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez rejected the alliance’s new goal of spending 5% of GDP on defense by 2035, insisting Spain can fulfill its obligations while spending only about 2.1% of GDP. That position has frustrated allies who argue collective defense cannot function if some members continually expect others to shoulder the burden. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has repeatedly argued that Europe’s security environment now requires substantially greater investment across the alliance.

Europe must ultimately decide what it wants. If it genuinely intends to build an independent military capable of defending the continent without American leadership, then it must also accept the enormous financial burden that comes with that decision. A modern European army would require hundreds of billions of euros in new spending, integrated command structures, common procurement, expanded ammunition production, satellite capabilities, cyber warfare, missile defense, logistics, and nuclear deterrence. None of that comes cheaply.

The greatest long-term strategic challenge is no longer Europe. It is the Indo-Pacific. China is rapidly expanding its navy, modernizing its nuclear arsenal, increasing pressure on Taiwan, and competing directly with the United States across technology, manufacturing, shipping, and finance. America cannot simultaneously concentrate the majority of its military resources in Europe while preparing for a potential confrontation in Asia.

If Europe believes Russia represents its primary existential threat, then Europe should take primary responsibility for confronting Russia. That is neither anti-European nor isolationist. It is simply strategic reality. The United States should remain an ally, but not Europe’s permanent security guarantor. Washington has carried that burden since the end of the Second World War. Meanwhile, European governments repeatedly criticize American foreign policy while relying upon American aircraft carriers, intelligence, logistics, nuclear deterrence, and taxpayers whenever a genuine crisis emerges.

The post-1945 order is fragmenting. Nations are increasingly pursuing regional spheres of influence rather than a single American-led global system. Europe seeks strategic autonomy. China seeks dominance in Asia. Russia seeks influence over its near abroad. The United States must decide where its vital interests truly lie. If Europe wants its own army, then let Europe build it. America’s focus should increasingly shift toward maintaining stability in the Pacific, where the balance of power over the next several decades is far more likely to determine the future of the global economy than another generation of underwriting European defense.

Keep reading

NATO Member Claims Ukraine Won the War

The politicians are now trying to redefine what victory means because they cannot admit the obvious. CNBC reported that Finnish President Alexander Stubb declared that Ukraine has already “won the war” against Russia because it preserved its independence and sovereignty. He said, “I say Ukraine has won,” while arguing that Russia advanced only 60 kilometers in four years. Sweden’s Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson joined the same fantasy, saying, “Russia is certainly not winning,” and claiming Ukraine is having “spectacular successes.” These people are playing word games while young men are still dying every day in trenches, cities are still being bombed, and Ukraine survives only because the West continues financing the war.

This is the propaganda that has kept this war going. Ukraine did not win. Ukraine was used. There is a very big difference. A country does not “win” when millions have fled, its economy has been destroyed, its population has been shattered, and its government must beg NATO for air defense, ammunition, budget support, and money to keep the state functioning. CNBC itself noted that Stubb still warned Kyiv urgently needs more NATO air defense. That alone exposes the contradiction. If Ukraine has won, why must it still plead for Patriot missiles, NATO membership, and endless Western financing?

Russia has not won either. NO ONE WINS DURING WARFARE! CSIS estimated Russia suffered roughly 1.4 million battlefield casualties through June 2026, including 400,000 to 450,000 deaths. That is a meat grinder. But the fact that Russia has suffered enormous losses does not magically mean Ukraine has won. War is not a football match where one side loses badly and the other is declared victorious by default. Ukraine has suffered staggering losses as well, with CSIS estimating 525,000 to 625,000 Ukrainian military casualties, including 125,000 to 150,000 dead. That is a generation destroyed.

The UN reported that since the 2022 full-scale invasion, at least 15,172 civilians were killed and 41,378 injured by February 2026, and the real figures are likely higher. Civilian casualties continued rising in 2026, with April marking the highest monthly toll since July 2025 and May becoming the deadliest month for civilians since April 2022. This is not victory. This is the complete failure of diplomacy, the failure of NATO expansion policy, the failure of European leadership, and the failure of anyone who believed war could be managed like a public relations campaign.

Ukraine has only held off Russia because the West turned it into a proxy war. The Council on Foreign Relations reported that the United States made available $195 billion in Ukraine-war-related spending by March 31, 2026. The EU Council states total EU support has reached €215.2 billion, including €77 billion in military support. Ukraine is now seeking another €6.6 billion from the EU’s peace fund while its own officials say total defense needs for the year are about €136 billion, with the domestic budget covering only about €53 billion. That is a state kept alive by foreign taxpayers.

Stubb is wrong because he is measuring survival as victory. Kristersson is wrong because “spectacular successes” do not change the strategic reality. Ukraine has launched impressive drone strikes and disrupted Russian energy infrastructure, but Russia is still fighting, still advancing in places, still bombing Ukrainian cities, and still forcing Kyiv to rely on NATO for survival. Ukraine may have prevented Russia from taking the whole country, but preventing total defeat is not the same as winning a war.

The neocons never cared how many Ukrainians died. If Ukraine were winning, there would be peace. If Russia were defeated, the war would be over. Instead, we have a devastated country, a shattered generation, an endless funding pipeline, and NATO leaders pretending that attrition is victory.

Keep reading

Nuclear Mass Death

Mark Twain was right when he said history may not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

Consider America’s approach to nuclear weapons. Under Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s, America’s strategic nuclear triad was modernized at immense cost. One hundred B-1 bombers were built. The stealthy B-2 bomber followed. MX “Peacekeeper” ICBMs were deployed. New Ohio-class nuclear subs armed with Trident missiles were launched. Pershing II and GLCMs (ground-launched cruise missiles) were fielded in Europe. And Reagan presented his idea of a missile defense shield, known as the strategic defense initiative (SDI) or informally as “Star Wars.” All this cost enormous sums of money.

Fortunately, the Pershing IIs and GLCMs were retired under talks that eliminated intermediate-range nuclear missiles. The Peacekeeper missiles are already gone. The B-1s are due to be retired over the next decade and no longer fly nuclear missions. And the Ohio-class submarine force, the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad, remains on station, with just one submarine capable of destroying much of the world.

The U.S. today possesses an enormous nuclear overkill capacity. The arsenal consists of roughly 5000 nuclear bombs and warheads. Again, just one submarine carries up to 20 Trident II D5 missiles with multiple nuclear warheads, each warhead being far more powerful than the bombs used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. To borrow a line from Daniel Ellsberg, each submarine is capable of 100 Holocausts. They are genocidal weapons to a degree that is unimaginable. By the way, the U.S. has fourteen Ohio-class “boomer” submarines.

Here is where history rhymes. Under yet another tough-talking Republican president, the U.S. today is yet again “modernizing” its nuclear triad while imagining a missile defense shield (now known as “Golden Dome”). The Air Force wants a new nuclear bomber (the B-21 Raider) and ICBM (the Sentinel), and the Navy wants a new ballistic-missile-firing submarine, the Columbia-class.

None of this is really necessary. ICBMs are obsolete; they are static targets and destabilizing ones at that. Bombers are superfluous and besides, the Air Force still has B-52s and B-2s for nuclear missions. Missile shields like “Golden Dome” are easy to conceptualize but impossible to build. They can be fooled by decoys and overwhelmed by an enemy with sufficient warheads (Russia).

But logic doesn’t matter here. Nor does morality. What matters is money, power, jobs, and the military-industrial-Congressional complex (MICC). That’s why history is rhyming here. The MICC will always fight for more ICBMs, more bombers, more submarines because that is its health, its wealth, its reason for being. To the MICC, the nuclear triad really is the holy trinity. It is something to be worshipped and preserved irrespective of cost and logic.

The U.S. should lead the world in reducing the deployment of nuclear weapons. Instead, the U.S. leads in nuclear escalation. And it does so always in the stated cause of “deterrence” when the real reason is the health and wealth of the MICC.

No one really knows how much nuclear triad modernization and the “Golden Dome” will cost; estimates for both reach $3 trillion over the next thirty years. But it’s not just the cost in dollars that matters — it’s the cost to our collective existence. These weapons systems are making the U.S. and the world less safe, less stable, rather than more so. They are possibly the very worst examples of human folly, and that’s truly saying something.

I very much doubt the average American wants more nuclear bombs and missiles, but what we want doesn’t seem to matter. The MICC wants — and it gets what it wants. It does so by scaring us about Russia or China or Iran while selling these genocidal weapons as job-creators. It’s a living, they might say. But as the Outlaw Josey Wales once said, “Dyin’ ain’t much of a living,” especially when you’re talking about murdering most of humanity in a genocidal nuclear war.

We must put a stop to this madness while we still can.

Keep reading

Trump’s Ankara Reversal — Ukraine Gets Patriot Manufacturing License As NATO Wraps Summit With €70B Pledge

The Ankara NATO summit closed Wednesday with Trump performing one of his signature pivots: arriving hostile, leaving warm. The substantive headline is real regardless of the theater around it — Trump told Zelenskyy the US will grant Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriot air defense interceptors domestically, something Kyiv has requested for years and Washington had consistently refused. “We’re gonna give you a license to make Patriots. We’ll show them how to do it,” Trump said at a joint press conference. “I think they can produce them pretty quickly.”

Whether they can is a separate question. Patriots are expensive, technically complex, and take time to produce at scale — the manufacturing license addresses the supply-chain bottleneck in principle but is not a short-term battlefield fix. Ukraine’s air defense remains critically thin right now, not in 18 months when domestically built interceptors might plausibly come online. The real-money test is what bridge supply the US is providing in the interim. That was not spelled out publicly.

On the collective declaration: NATO allies pledged €70 billion in military equipment, assistance, and training for Ukraine in 2026, with a commitment to sustain equivalent levels in 2027. The Guardian noted — correctly — that this “largely reflects commitments already made.” It is a re-packaging of existing pledges rather than new money, a pattern NATO communiqués repeat with reliable consistency.

Trump also used the summit to publicly savage Spain as “a terrible partner in NATO,” repeating threats to cut off trade after Madrid declined to join the US Iran campaign. He arrived demanding European allies’ support in Iran and left praising “unity” — neither characterization was quite accurate. NATO Secretary-General Rutte, for his part, called the US strikes on Iran “absolutely necessary” and told Trump: “I’m with you on this.” Whatever you think of the Iran strikes, having the NATO chief functioning as a presidential cheerleader on a non-Article 5 unilateral US military campaign is worth watching.

Meanwhile, Denmark’s PM Frederiksen felt compelled to state publicly that her country is “ready to defend every inch of NATO including our own territory” after Trump reopened the Greenland question at the summit itself. That a NATO summit requires an ally to publicly reaffirm sovereignty over its own autonomous territory speaks to how strained the foundational norms have become.

Keep reading