Posted on 01/30/2026 8:37:13 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is not expected to attend a NATO defence ministers' meeting in Brussels next month, two sources said, the second time in a row that a top Trump administration official skips a gathering of the military alliance.
U.S. President Donald Trump has had a tense relationship with NATO and many of its other members, most recently over his desire to acquire Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of fellow alliance member Denmark.
The sources, a U.S. official and a NATO diplomat, both said Hegseth would miss the Feb 12 gathering at NATO headquarters. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio did not attend the last NATO foreign ministers' meeting in December.
The two sources did not cite any reason for Hegseth's decision. The Pentagon and NATO declined to comment. "If confirmed, it will send a bad signal at a very tense time in transatlantic relations, and will only deepen the concerns of other allies about the U.S. commitment to NATO," said Oana Lungescu, a former NATO spokesperson who is now a Distinguished Fellow at the RUSI think tank.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
WHO earlier, NATO now, and hopefully the UN will be next.
Understandable. Those two men have real work to do ... FOR THE USA!
“ The two sources did not cite any reason for Hegseth’s decision. ”
Hey, “Casablanca” is on that night. Or maybe something more important is going on than that sausage party.
My guess is that pete is busy with important matters like iran.
(NATO defence ministers’ meeting in Brussels next month)
Hegseth could be nice and send them one of those bags of 100 plastic army 🪖🪖🪖 men
And a game of Risk (cue Seinfeld)
And some construction paper
And a box of crayons
And some hot cocoa
That would be nice
And cost maybe $25-$30
360PCS Military Soldiers Random Color Multiple Postures Army Figurine Model
$12.49
IF they paid their bills, we would be customary 15 mins early.
LOL
Ha! I was thinking something similar. Hegseth should tell NATO to go outside and play with their toy soldiers and bathtub Navies.
It would probably be safer
😃😄😅🤣🤣
Why should the US go? The other countries don’t pay their agreed share, but want to have a say in how things operate. No thanks.
“WHO earlier, NATO now, and hopefully the UN will be next.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WHO is not American.
UN is not American. (it’s a scam organization helping mostly China and Russia)
however:
NATO is a successful business model tailored FOR America. It actually explains why the alliance has lasted so long and why it benefits all sides, ESPECIALLY the United States.
Trump is the most PRO-NATO American president in post WWII.
Why, because he likes successful business models helping America’s industry.
Let me explain:
In a business model, participants invest resources to reduce risk, create stability, and generate long-term returns. That is exactly what NATO does in the security space. Member states invest in defense spending, interoperability, and shared infrastructure. The “product” is deterrence. The “profit” is the absence of major highly costly wars between advanced industrial powers for more than 70 years.
For the United States, NATO is a strategic investment platform. Instead of paying the full cost of global stability alone, the U.S. operates inside a network of 30+ advanced economies that host bases, share intelligence, contribute troops, and align politically. That lowers the cost of projecting power, increases operational reach, and multiplies U.S. influence. From a strategic accounting perspective, that is a high-return asset. Also Europe buys non-stop massive amounts of US military equipment - a boon for the US industry and the American worker.
Thus, European defense spending, especially when pushed higher in recent years, does not just “enrich” America. It builds a stronger supplier and capability network across the alliance. Yes, U.S. defense industries benefit. So do European ones. That industrial base supports innovation, jobs, and technological leadership in sectors that spill over into civilian economies. In business terms, NATO sustains a transatlantic security and technology ecosystem.
Afghanistan is a clear example of risk-sharing, which is core to any functioning business model. After 9/11, Article 5 was invoked for the United States. European and Canadian forces deployed, fought, and took casualties alongside Americans. Over a thousand European troops died. That is partners absorbing cost and risk in defense of a common system.
The fact that Article 5 has not been used to defend Europe is not proof of imbalance. It is proof the model works. Deterrence is like insurance. If the house never burns down, the policy still did its job. NATO’s credibility has helped prevent direct attacks on member states, which is exactly the outcome the “investment” is designed to buy.
From a hard-nosed perspective, NATO is one of the most successful strategic investments the United States ever made. It locks in allies (and their spending on US military equipment), stabilizes the world’s richest market, shares military burdens, and extends American influence at a fraction of the cost of going it alone. That is smart long-term strategy.
hopefully we’ll bankrupt the UnitedNazis ASAP and send all their (several thousand ) spies/moles from enemy states out of US
Please take me off any of your ping lists. Thanks.
I agree that NATO really isn’t the same sort of thing as the WHO or the UN. But it’s not a question of being for NATO or against NATO; the Trump administration is redefining NATO, and that’s what has to be done at this point in history.
NATO had three purposes:
(1) to provide security for the US and Europe, primarily against Soviet (now Russian) attack;
(2) to keep Europe (mostly Germany, but also France and others) squarely under an American thumb, so as to keep European conflict under control;
(3) to institutionalize the culture the US and Europe (especially western Europe) had in common.
People often emphasize (1), but (2) and (3) are just as important — or even more so.
As for (2), conflict in Europe had engulfed the world in war twice in the 20th century — World War I and World War II. And there was Napoleon in the previous century.
So now the US subsidizes European security, the benefit to us being that they are no longer a military threat. (The “benefit” to them is that they can fund their dumb welfare states with the money saved by not having a military.)
But (3) has gone by the wayside. Between the authoritarianism in the EU and the UK (no freedom of speech, etc.) and the inroads being made toward a caliphate, the US has very little in common with them anymore. The old Free World has vanished.
With (3) gone, the whole thing is now only a stark cost-benefit analysis for us, based on our strategic interests; it’s no longer also an alliance among like-minded friends. That was always true to some extent, but that’s turned into the whole story.
Why should we provide for the automatic defense of the UK or European governments? We may well decide, for instance, that it’s in our interest to stop Russia from invading western Europe, in order to preserve world stability. But that’s a far cry from saying that an attack on Europe should automatically be viewed as an attack on American soil.
Anyway, it’s not clear what the best course of action for us is right now. Preventing explosive conflict in Europe is still in our interest, as is deterring Russia from military action. But we no longer have a “special relationship” with the UK or, by extension, with western Europe. We need to deal appropriately with the leftist takeover there and not pretend that the UK and western Europe are still bastions of freedom. And we need to prepare for Islamic dominance in Europe, because it’s coming.
This could change if there’s a political upheaval in Europe and they decide to take a drastic last-ditch action against the Muslim invasion. It would be hard, but they could do it — and if they do, we should provide our support. But supporting leftist authoritarian regimes that are in the process of being Islamized is not in our interest.
The problem is if we withdraw from NATO, the Turks will take it over.
We really don’t want that.
We may not need to withdraw from NATO, but we do need to re-define it. To be more precise, the Europeans have re-defined who they are (both politically and demographically), and we need to react appropriately to that.
But worries that our withdrawal from NATO will let the Turks take over Europe? Europe is becoming Muslim whether we withdraw from NATO or not, and no matter what the Turks do.
Now, I’d be on board with supporting Europe if they decide to do something to prevent the Muslim civilizational capture.
But worries that our withdrawal from NATO will let the Turks take over Europe? Europe is becoming Muslim whether we withdraw from NATO or not, and no matter what the Turks do.
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.