Do We Really Want NATO Countries to Spend More on Weapons?

For decades, the bedrock rationale for NATO’s existence has been the formidable conventional and nuclear threat Russia posed. However, recent geopolitical realities necessitate a critical re-evaluation of this foundational premise.

Russia, the very reason for NATO’s enduring vigilance, increasingly reveals itself as a waning power. Its protracted and costly war against Ukraine has demonstrably exposed severe limitations in military capability, logistical resilience, and strategic foresight. Despite its historical might and nuclear arsenal, Russia has failed to decisively defeat a significantly smaller neighbor after years of brutal conflict.

This protracted stalemate suggests that Moscow’s capacity for conventional expansion is severely diminished, and its strategic influence waning, particularly when compared to rising geopolitical forces and the accelerating pace of technological warfare. While the adage “keep your enemies close” holds some wisdom, the evolving landscape urges a re-evaluation of where future adversarial attention truly lies, focusing on emerging threats rather than solely fixating on a fading adversary.

Image: X screen grab.

The USA, through its leadership within NATO, is currently driving a significant increase in military spending among its European allies, particularly France, the United Kingdom, and Germany (among these countries, only Germany is not a nuclear power). This strategy carries a profound and underappreciated risk: given the substantial and growing Muslim populations within these three key nations, coupled with observable patterns in crime statistics and historical precedents, the weaponry and military capabilities acquired through increased budgets could ultimately be turned against the United States itself.

As seen in the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a seemingly stable allied nation can undergo internal shifts leading to a complete geopolitical reorientation, transforming previously supplied and/or accumulated military assets into instruments of opposition against the very power that helped build them.

Current projections indicate significant growth in the Muslim populations of these three critical NATO members by 2050. The Pew Research Center, in its “Europe’s Growing Muslim Population“ report, projects that under a “medium migration” scenario, the Muslim population in France could reach approximately 17-18% of the total, the UK could reach around 16.7%, and Germany approximately 10.8%. Under a “high migration” scenario, Germany’s Muslim population could reach about 20%, France’s 18%, and the UK’s close to 20%. These are substantial shifts from their current proportions.

An examination of crime and prison statistics in these nations reveals a disquieting pattern regarding individuals from Muslim-majority countries and those identifying as Muslim.

The concerning aspect for U.S. interests is not merely the demographic shift itself, nor crime rates per se, but the potential for political and societal realignments should these populations, or elements within them, pursue a distinct geopolitical agenda.

The significant overrepresentation of individuals from Muslim-majority backgrounds in European prisons, coupled with observed increases in certain types of violent crime where foreign nationals are disproportionately represented, suggests a divergence from the internal societal norms traditionally aligned with Western democratic principles.

If these demographic trends continue, and a substantial portion of these growing Muslim populations were to continue developing an adversarial stance towards traditional Western alliances, the implications for U.S. security are severe. A key concern is the potential for the very military hardware and strategic capabilities that NATO nations are now acquiring with increased budgets to become compromised or even hostile to U.S. interests.

Some Context for consideration....

The mayors of Birmingham, Sheffield and Rochdale told Reuters they were not Muslim. The office of Leeds’ lord mayor declined to comment.

Many of the cities or towns are within the constituencies of directly elected executive mayors. For example: Leeds and the mayor of West Yorkshire; Sheffield and the mayor of South Yorkshire; and Oldham and Rochdale and the mayor of Greater Manchester. Reuters has spoken to the offices of all of them to verify none identify as Muslim. The Mayor of the West Midlands, who has Birmingham in his constituency, did not respond.

Also, “The government does not specify the content for religious education, what should be taught as part of it, or how it should be delivered,” a spokesperson for the Department of Education said in an email to Reuters.

“Content is determined locally, and it is for individual schools to plan and organise their curriculum.”

"What happens when these NATO countries become majority Muslim with Muslim leaders ( like some cities in the UK already have )? Will their weapons be trained against the USA?"

Those countries were overrun with Nazis and we had to save their asses twice. If those countries weren't so weak, they wouldn't be overrun by hoards of muslims to point weapons at the US. Isn't that why Trump is developing the Golden Dome? We're not sitting back and waiting for those missiles to arrive. Europe never learned the lessons of two World Wars. England couldn't fight themselves out of a paper bag right now. They, and all of Europe are a lost cause. We should defend ourselves, none other. America First.

"Well, we need to be prepared and look out for a possible Muslim invasion (using European weapons ) a few decades from now if demographic trends follow their course."

We've already had a muslim invasion, a Chinese invasion, a Mexican invasion among others. Remember the first Trade Center bombing and 9/11, along with all of the "lone wolf" muslims that have murdered people over the years. The muslim invasion increased since 9/11, thanks to George W. Bush, Obama and Biden. Trump's travel ban started today. Our government needs to remove every person who is a danger to this country, but that's not going to happen in my lifetime. Trump's time in office is limited. He can't even get a Republican-controlled Congress to give him what he wants, and this country needs. And there are no guarantees that his policies will be continued once he's out of office, or that RATS won't steal the White House again, and finish the job of destroying this country.

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.