.
Posted on 04/20/2026 6:25:44 PM PDT by McGruff
Russia’s foreign minister delivered a prosecution of the American-led world order from Turkey’s annual diplomacy forum over the weekend. Sergey Lavrov called NATO an “aggressive bloc” and the rules-based international system a slogan that “never existed.” He said the war the U.S. and Israel launched against Iran was “a plan to control the oil through the Strait of Hormuz.”
Hours earlier, NATO’s deputy secretary-general told the same forum that Europeans and Canadians must now take primary responsibility for their own defense. Radmila Shekerinska said alliance credibility depends on action, not words.
The three-day Antalya Diplomacy Forum, with an estimated 6,400 participants from 150 countries around the world, underscored the NATO member’s growing role as a bridge connecting the West to a skeptical Middle East, Asia and Africa — and this year, the international conference came just two months before Ankara hosts its first NATO summit.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Such great pleasure we take in watching NATO melt.
NATO is represented by girlie men and masculine women.
It was up to the Europeans to get involved.
2026 is going to be one for the history books. This looks to be positions being made and new alliances formed. The precursor to more conflict. You know what they say, a war economy is a prosperous economy.
“Hours earlier, NATO’s deputy secretary-general told the same forum that Europeans and Canadians must now take primary responsibility for their own defense.”
Donald Trump has been telling them that for a decade ...
Rots a Ruck doing that though: no money remaining for defense after the expense of supporting millions of domestic and foreign freeloaders, plus some of those countries are having trouble keeping the lights on right now ...
NATO was no longer needed when the USSR collapsed. The EU is now more dangerous to the US than Russia is.
.
Ukraine seems to holding the Russians back pretty well.
Ending the Ukrainian/Russian conflict would allow NATO military stocks to build back up.
Now NATO will be replaced by the new European Defense Force
Which will include Ukraine ...
“Which will include Ukraine ...”
Not until the war is settled. The Eurofags wouldn’t risk war with Russia.
You guys are still inhabiting a weird pre-end-of-cold-war delusion that Russia is anything more than a retard gangster state, wallowing in Stalin’s past glories and drowning in delusions of imperial grandeur that have been fuelled by decades of revanchist fantasies.
Europe is not scared of any conventional force that Russia might use. America isn’t scared of that either, really. We can all see they’re a busted flush. Despite suffering years of “don’t poke the bear” driven mithering and slow-walked aid, Ukraine’s not just holding Russia’s grunt waves in position, it’s driving them back.
Some of the smaller states inside Eurasian diaspora have trolled Putin to his face in recent years.
The only thing that nobody wants, is Putin getting so desperate that he launches a pre-emptive nuclear attack. But if Putin ever had cause to nuke the USA he certainly wouldn’t do it by firing rockets over the Arctic or over continental Europe; he’d do it from the Pacific side. Possibly with support from China or North Korea.
One has to ask why you three, and your fellow pro-Kremlin waterboys here, are so far out of touch with reality. Russia and North Korea are two cheeks of the same ass; there is no planet Earth in any multiverse where Russia under its current leadership and Iran under the Mullahs is anything other than a threat that has to be either contained or smashed.
“One has to ask why you three, and your fellow pro-Kremlin waterboys here, are so far out of touch with reality. “
What does your childish tirade have to do with taking pleasure in the demise of NATO?
Are you so simple as to equate being anti NATO with being pro Russia/China/Norklandia/Iran?
“there is no planet Earth in any multiverse where Russia under its current leadership and Iran under the Mullahs is anything other than a threat that has to be either contained or smashed”
How about you and your vaunted British military go get that done. Apparently nobody there wants to help the US get it done...and in fact obstructs our efforts.
We’ll be glad to be rid of NATO and are confident in our ability to go it alone.
While those on the other side of the Atlantic are rightfully terrified. We take pleasure in that too.
And the APPOINTED Putin vowed to bring Russia back to its former glory.
Instead, all he wanted was to get rich.
NATO is first and foremost an American project, drafted jointly by Canadian and American folks, and the signed in Washington in 1949 by 12 founding countries. It had two principal aims:
1. to deter further Soviet expansion westwards, and deter Soviet aggression westwards (toward the US). The entire point of the “attack on 1 = attack on all” principle was to serve as a deterrent - the USSR was told that if it tried to Europe it’d be inviting an American retaliation alongside a Euro retaliation, AND the same would happen if the USSR attacked the USA.
It was BRILLIANTLY successful. Because the entire total number of confirmed American casualties across the UK and Europe, from combat, throughout the entire Cold War, is 357. There were 200 US airmen and 126 MIAs between 1948 and 1991, on top of the 31 deaths recorded specifically during the 1948–1949 Berlin Blockade. Which made it a damn sight cheaper mission in human cost terms than the 36,000 U.S. troops who were KIA in Korea, or the 58,000 KIA in Vietnam.
2. To create enough stability in western Europe to enable rebuild, regrowth, civil cooperation and trade between North America and Europe. Which was ALSO a resounding success - every dollar the US spent on “defense” in Europe without having to fire a single shot has returned ten bucks back to the USA in business ventures, trade, cultural capital, and military kit orders.
Nobody in EU-NATO or UK NATO is either causing the demise of NATO, or lobbying or it. Unless you’re looking at PROVEN ex-communist pro-Kremlin waterboys like Jeremy Corbyn, who definitely would take pleasure in that outcome and have been campaigning to get us out of NATO since before the Berlin Wall came down.
“Are you so simple as to equate being anti NATO with being pro Russia/China/Norklandia/Iran?”
No. But, are you being so simple as to equate being pro NATO with being anti America?
NATO is not a transactional arrangement. It’s a symbiotic relationship. It is not like swapping dollar notes for cigarettes at your 7-11. It has obviously not been “unfair” to the USA. It has been a goose that has been laying golden eggs for the USA for decades.
Without the peace dividend NATO delivered, the USA wouldn’t even be able to spend the $980bn a year it currently spends on its own Military Industrial Complex, because its income stream would be $1.2 trillion a year annually if nobody in Europe was buying American.
So, in that sense, either people who want to give NATO a darned good kicking, if not quit it altogether, are the ones who’re actively campaigning to harm the United States of America, both reputationally and financially, by pushing for NATO withdrawal (while burning as many bridges as possible with EU NATO partners on the way out.)
The only people benefiting from that outcome would be Russia/China/Norklandia/Iran. So either one supports this outcome because one is pro-those-guys, or one supports this outcome because one is a fantastically gullible, mathematically innumerate, retard who actually buys the world’s most transparently dumb “It’s been SOOO unfair to the USA” rhetoric.
Give me a third option, by all means.
100% hogswoggle...and the notion that the US needs NATO largess to fund its own defense spending is risible.
“So, in that sense, either people who want to give NATO a darned good kicking, if not quit it altogether, are the ones who’re actively campaigning to harm the United States of America, both reputationally and financially, by pushing for NATO withdrawal (while burning as many bridges as possible with EU NATO partners on the way out.)”
No real harm comes to America by leaving NATO. In fact, it is in our best interests to do so.
- US has no real interests in over half of NATO countries
- Under NATO the US is pledged to existential war to protect them.
- EU NATO would still be buying US arms because they are the best and they have no real alternative for a decade or so
- It is the US that is causing the demise of NATO because it is in our interests to do so. It’s just coincidental that there’s a bunch of anti US entities in power throughout Europe and UK that makes it easy.
Not hogswoggle. But I do need to make a minor correction:
Without the peace dividend NATO delivered, the USA wouldn’t even be able to spend the $980bn a year it currently spends on its own Military Industrial Complex, because the USA national income stream would be ***REDUCED BY*** $1.2 trillion a year.
The reason for that is, Europe has been buying American for decades, generating hundreds of billions a year for the USA - and that win for America is entirely a by-product of the peace dividend. In effect, a $1.2tn revenue stream for the USA is built entirely on mutual trust and convenience. It’s easier to phone in an order to a US supplier, than pivot to a different nation supplier.
The USA takes this relationship totally for granted. The USA, under Trump, even goes as far as to insult the paying customers while blatantly trying to screw them over.
The USA took money from Switzerland for military orders, then sat on the orders for years without fulfilling the orders. The only reason the Swiss put up with that for so long was because, long term, they thought they could trust the USA. They’ve now decided that the USA is just shafting them, and are cancelling their orders. And they won’t be the only ones. THAT’S how you lose the revenue stream. Countries will stop buying American, not because they want to hurt you, but because they want reliability without the abuse.
From the Atlantic Council:
1. Largest Trading Partnership: Europe is the top trading partner for dozens of countries and acts as a cornerstone of the globalized U.S. economy.
2. Defense Exports: European nations are huge consumers of American defense technology. By 2025, the US had nearly 500 outstanding fighter jet orders (F-35s) in Europe, supporting American jobs and industry. *** EMPHASIS ON ‘HAD’ THERE - lots of those orders could be cancelled and redirected to Gripen ***
3. Avoiding Costly Conflicts: the AC notes, a large-scale European war with Russia could cost the US over $2.5 trillion per year, whether it wanted to get involved in that war or not. It’s therefore in America’s own interest to dissuade Russian revanchist ambitions in Europe’s direction.
How does Trump’s Mara Lago fit in? Trump and Vlad are the two most powerful and feared men on the planet...both supported by their citizens, both have their people’s interests in mind, both have accumulated much Wealth, they both earned it.
Your St Z earned and produced nothing ( but war and misery for his people), all his money given to him by confused western leadership, a corrupted beggar.
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.