Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/13/2026 7:49:13 AM PDT by delta7
WASHINGTON, — June 12, 2026 : The United States has formally proposed a significant reduction in the military assets it contributes to NATO operations in Europe, marking a major shift in the alliance's force posture and burden-sharing arrangements.
According to a document shared with European allies earlier this month, Washington intends to scale back several key military capabilities currently allocated under the NATO Force Model, including fighter aircraft, surveillance platforms, aerial refueling tankers, naval strike assets, and bomber forces.
The planned reductions are part of a broader effort by the United States to encourage European NATO members and Canada to assume greater responsibility for the continent's conventional defense while maintaining the alliance's overall military readiness.
The number of F-16 and F-15E fighter jets available for NATO missions would be reduced by approximately one-third, decreasing from around 150 aircraft to 100 aircraft.
In the surveillance and reconnaissance sector, maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft would be reduced from 26 aircraft to 15 aircraft, lowering the alliance's available airborne maritime monitoring capacity.
The plan also calls for the complete withdrawal of eight aerial refueling tanker aircraft currently assigned to support European operations. Military analysts note that the removal of tanker support could limit the operational range and endurance of alliance aircraft during extended missions.
In addition, the United States intends to redeploy several major naval and strategic assets, including an aircraft carrier, a missile-launching submarine, associated warships, and carrier-based aircraft. One of the two bomber task force groups currently assigned to Europe's defense would also be reassigned to another region....
(Excerpt) Read more at thedefensenews.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“.....UK Defence Secretary John Healey suddenly resigned because the government cannot find the money to fund military commitments....”
So Laughable. $$$ billions to Ukraine, Islamists, welfare programs, etc has finally caught up with them.
Awesome...now withdraw completely from that useless organization.
Time for those parasites to fund their own defense.
WW1 led to WW2. Europe couldn’t govern itself and you know darn well our withdrawal will lead to war. It wouldn’t be such a bad thing come to think of it. They needed our products when it was destroyed.
> our withdrawal will lead to war <
Europe sure couldn’t govern itself after WW2. American economic and security help was needed.
But by 1989 Europe was back on its feet again. America had changed from being a protector to being a sucker. Like I said, it was time for a graceful American withdrawal. Then let Europe fund its own collective defense.
I once read an article that said continuing NATO with the Warsaw Pact gone actually made things worse. Because it made Russia paranoid and insecure. I don’t totally buy that. But it does make some sense.
Sadly, UK France Belgium Spain +? appear to be lost causes. Forget them (at least as long as their current governments invite invasion and infiltration while backstabbing USA).
As a % of GDP Greece is either 2nd or 3rd in NATO military spending. Why? Because it needs to defend itself from fellow NATO member Turkey. That pretty much sums up the usefulness of this worthless pact.
Literally, for YEARS you had major countries like Germany spending 1.2% of GDP on defense, and even falling into our back on security matters (missile defense, Iraq 2003...).
If we disengage, it's not like thing will fall apart. The Euro's will be FORCED to carry their own weight.
You'll see an internal power shuffle with the French trying to use national security as a way to become more influential in European affairs. France will throw their weight around and ironically be far pushier and demanding than we ever were... That's why the French for years have been essentially backdoor sabotaging NATO. They see NATO as weakening their position / influence in Europe.
What option do they have?
The Europeans are MORE resource dependent from North Africa and the Middle East, rely more on the Suez Canal, are closer to the threat, and have a greater internal threat then we have, yet we were the ones carrying the baggage!!!
Look at Iran today... Same shit different day. Today it's the UK that fell into our back, in 1986 with Libya it was France that fell into our back, in 2003 Iraq it was Germany that fell into our back...
We can as a general rule, neither depend on them, nor even expect them to carry their own weight on defense spending, but in their mind, there is an EXPECTATION that we step up to the plate every time they call upon us.
It's been a one-way road for a long time.
No country in Europe is being honest about its defense spending, including the PIIGS.
Europe is always there for us, when she needs us.
Sorry, but that’s just completely absurd. Russia is part of the actual axis of evil, via their wartime asset sharing with Iran and North Korea.
They also just signed a similar agreement with the Taliban. Yes, the Taliban.
I'm encouraging all that. And they do have the MIC just like we do here in USA.
They have internal issues to deal with just like the UK so it's unlikely that they will replace our role as we leave NATO.
**it was time for a graceful American withdrawal. Then let Europe fund its own collective defense...continuing NATO with the Warsaw Pact gone actually made things worse...it made Russia paranoid and insecure. I don’t totally buy that. But it does make some sense.**
If Putin said the breakup was a mistake they would have reclaimed those nations at some point. Too many Putins in Russia. Poland never experienced freedom and the Baltics certainly appreciate it now.
**As a % of GDP Greece is either 2nd or 3rd in NATO military spending. Why? Because it needs to defend itself from fellow NATO member Turkey. That pretty much sums up the usefulness of this worthless pact.**
Perhaps it’s our presence that keeps them all on a self-imposed leash. Too expensive.
Good news but the Europeans seem fixated with a war with Russia. It won’t end well for them.
> If Putin said the breakup was a mistake they would have reclaimed those nations at some point. <
Yep. That’s the fly in the ointment. I’m not an expert on the Polish military. But their military eventually became robust after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Poland would certainly give Russia a bloody nose.
But as you mentioned, the Baltic States are another story.
America and NATO prevented that mischief.
Now let’s say America left NATO (but stood by as a friend). That would force the EU to pay for its own NATO-like organization. Would that be a good enough deterrent?
I would think so, if the EU was serious enough. Their choice.
PS I’m off to pull some weeds now. Thanks for another good conversation.
Uh, they’re kind of busy right now trying to prevent nuclear war (with no help from the Europeans).
The United States currently sends the Taliban $530,000,000 a year by GAO numbers. Yes that Taliban.
Thanks for pointing that out. There’s obviously some strange arrangements going on right now, especially with these withdrawals from NATO.
The AI response I just got was that none of that money is supposedly going to the Taliban, but rather just food and medicine to the starving there, who are suffering under the Taliban rule. So they may be indirectly benefiting, but it’s not cash money for them to spend.
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.