Physician, heal thyself.
Nuff said.
Posted on 05/05/2026 9:32:50 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
American and European foreign policy "elites" (globalists) are perpetually outraged and shocked at President Donald Trump’s attitude towards NATO.
By suggesting that NATO doesn't have to go on forever, our nation's 47th commander in chief is shaking the status quo foreign policy establishment to its core.
Any analysis of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (founded on April 4, 1949) should rightfully commence from the perspective of "What have you done for me lately?"
So NATO, "What have you done for the United States, now and in years and decades past?"
For the most part, we've witnessed nations less friendly to liberty and freedom than the United States get to demand handouts and military defense when they are threatened.
Unfortunately, they're no different than spoiled, entitled grown children who constantly put down mommy and daddy while happily taking their money.
That's been the dynamic since the end of World War II in 1945!
So, why would losing NATO be so terrible?
It seems that these European countries, "allies," are quite content to look down on American economic freedom, American prosperity, as well as our First and Second Amendments.
Yet they're concurrently more than happy to take the military defense and aid required to keep their less prosperous, less free nations going, particularly when the going gets tough.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
When a stamp got a letter moving for 3 cents, NATO was a powerful and important group, they say. Not true for a long time. Stamp now is 78 cents.
I dont see a need for the US to protect european countries that are solidly liberal socialist. Now its really just us backing certain types of various smaller socialist countries over one larger socialist country.
It's time - past time...
Once the European Union was formed without our consent after Soviet Union crashed, NATO’s job of occupying Germany and keeping the Soviet Union at bay was over.
The EU-— with a common currency, central bank and free trade between member states was meant to emulate the success of the United States, but skipped one important thing, ie to provide for the common defense of the new Union.
Instead, EU got away free by relying on United States protection without even having a free trade alliance and monetary alliance with the USA.
USA under Bush and Clinton decided to create a North American free trade alliance with Canada and Mexico without any common currency or central bank, and created chaos by building up China, instead of doing the smart thing—— disbanding NATO, letting the EU provide for their own common defense, then having a free trade, monetary and military alliance with the EU, with Japan, Canada, Australia.....to bury Russia and China, get Cuba free. ...move the whole world towards sound money, free trade and capitalism.
I would love to hear President Trump say, “With allies like this,....who needs enemies.”
NATO not needed since the fall of the Soviet Union. Some American military personnel wanted it continued because they liked the European posts.
Same with the UN.
wy69
Physician, heal thyself.
Nuff said.
The USSR was never dead, only wounded and retreated temporarily while nursing back to health.
It has now risen again as, not the Soviet Union, but the Zombie Union, full of living dead marching to their graves in Ukraine.
The Russian Empire today is doing what it always did, and will always do: aggress against its weaker neighbors.
It can't help itself, it can't stop itself, only superior forces can stop Russians from being Russians.
NATO today prevents Russians from invading directly member countries like Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, indirectly nearby countries like Hungary, Romania & Bulgaria.
The US interest in preventing Russian military expansion is the same today as it was in 1949, and Zombie Russians are as dangerous today, arguably more dangerous than at any time since 1949.
from the article: "Unfortunately, they're [Europeans] no different than spoiled, entitled grown children who constantly put down mommy and daddy while happily taking their money."
That is a problem Pres. Trump was elected to correct.
Once the money issue is properly realigned, we return to the basics of how to defend the democratic Western World against aggressive authoritarian zombie Russians & CCP China's Xi-snakes, Iran's Moolah Mullahs and others.
Today's Alliance of Western Democracies vs. Axis of Evil Dictators**:
**map not 100% accurate
It may not be enough of a reason to stay in NATO, but we shouldn't say they never did anything.
Russia has been unable to defeat the most corrupt of European countries for 4 years now.
Russia, Russia, Russia isn’t going to cut it anymore. If Europe want to defend Ukraine and itself, then it needs to pay for it themselves.
Europe has been living high on the hog on US money and making fun of us while doing so for over 30 years now. Doling out generous welfare benefits is easy when the US is paying the bills.
Russian propagandists Simonyan, Solovyov, Skabeyeva, Nordkin:
packrat35: "Russia has been unable to defeat the most corrupt of European countries for 4 years now."
Ukraine is not as corrupt as it was in, say, 2000 -- today Ukraine ranks with countries like India, Turkey and Brazil, all of which are US allies, defense & trading partners.
Ukraine has benefitted from now approaching $500 billion in global aid since February 2022, yes, not enough to win against Mother Russia, but enough to stay in the fight and prevent losing.
Russia, by contrast, has always been and remains among the most corrupt countries on earth.
Russia's military -- despite spending totals nearing $1 trillion since 2021 -- is bleeding out in Ukraine, leading its propagandists to increasingly shrill threats of going nuclear against anyone and everyone who opposes Russian aggressions.
packrat35: "If Europe want to defend Ukraine and itself, then it needs to pay for it themselves."
By all reports I've seen, since January 2025 Europeans and other allies have carried the entire burden of supporting Ukraine against Russia.
The US has supplied no new aid to Ukraine under Pres. Trump.
Two new bills in Europe will add approximately $200 billion in new Ukraine aid, spread over several years.
packrat35: "Europe has been living high on the hog on US money and making fun of us while doing so for over 30 years now.
Doling out generous welfare benefits is easy when the US is paying the bills."
What's certainly true is that Europeans enjoyed their post-Cold War "peace dividend" more than prudence, in hind-sight, should have allowed.
Until recent years European spent less than 2% of GDP on defense while the US was spending circa 3.4% -- also a "peace dividend" down from nearly 7% of GDP under Pres. Reagan.
Today Europeans have pledged to spend 5% on defense and a few are already there.
Pres. Trump's 2027 defense budget is also nearly 5%.
These are serious numbers -- equivalent to Cold War spending, outside of major conflicts like Korea (1950-1952 peak ~15% of GDP) and Vietnam (1965-1975 peak ~10% of GDP) -- and if fulfilled, will change the nature of long-term relationships between the US and our allies.
I agree, it's a very optimistic map including as "allies" countries we can only expect to be on our side when they need us, but not when we might need them... ahem... India?
nathanbedford: "let's put some red in it by insulting every ally we ever had."
No need to worry about that.
In any given situation, countries will align as their interests and perceived threats dictate.
Did I mention India?
Brazil is another, shown here as a US ally, which it was and still is officially, having supplied a full infantry division plus fighter air wing to the Italian campaign during WWII, among other contributions.
But, could we expect such support again from a founding BRICS member against other BRICS countries?
My guess is, only if they threaten Brazil directly.
You get the picture... the map is optimistic at best, delusional at worst and out of date regarding countries like Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and... who knows... maybe even soon Iran?
Trump has found out in Iran that without allies, wars aren’t so easy. He should have also seen and learned by now that you will lose allies, and therefore ultimately wars, by insulting them, and threatening to takeover their land.
Based on all that my guess is he knows it would be foolish to actually disband NATO, he’s just trying to send them a message that our commitment to them won’t be as strong if they don’t 100% support us, as they didn’t in Iran.
They on the other hand aren’t helping matters with their ‘I told you so’ attitude recently, but this will eventually all pass, as they ultimately all know it must.
In March 2026, the Brits were caught with their naval "pants down", unable to deploy either of their QE class aircraft carriers due to major scheduled maintenance on both.
But the French did have their nuclear carrier de Gaulle ready, and it's 8-ship strike group is now in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden filling in for the withdrawn USS Ford (CVN-78) carrier strike group.
In total, the Euros are sending about 20 ships (British, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Belgian & Greek) for peacekeeping in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden/Arabian Sea/Hormuz Straight region.
In addition to the French nuclear carrier strike group, these ships will be focused on mine clearing and air defenses.
Even with the USS Ford's withdrawal, the US still has circa 25 warships in the Indo-Pacific, including two nuclear carrier strike groups, Lincoln & Bush.
Golden Eagle: "Based on all that my guess is he knows it would be foolish to actually disband NATO, he’s just trying to send them a message that our commitment to them won’t be as strong if they don’t 100% support us, as they didn’t in Iran."
Trump has no authority to "disband NATO", and what he wants is to make NATO more effective by increasing European contributions to it.
That's what all Trump's language is about.
Only time will tell, years from now, how well it worked.
The French de Gaulle nuclear carrier joint strike group near the Indian Ocean is a good step in the right direction.
It’s far from clear if the EU ships are being sent per Trump’s request, or simply out of their own national self interest. They probably couldn’t even give you a straight answer themselves.
As you say only time will tell if NATO will be strengthened our weakened by all this. But, it will surely survive, despite Trump’s threats, and the negative comments on FR. It just recently grew by a few more nations after Russia’s attack on Ukraine, further cementing its importance.
And based on Ukraine’s unexpected prowess on the battlefield, they might eventually prove a worthy member themselves. I’m sure that comment will set more than a few off here, but if the main goal of NATO is to defend from Russia, Ukraine now has more experience than anyone.
Therefore I’d suggest that NATO is actually growing in strength, at the present, despite all the verbal attacks from Trump and MAGA. Nature has a way of taking its own course like that, and after the aggression by Russia, there was no way it wouldn’t move one way or another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.