My best breakups have been when I didn’t wait for the best or right time to break up. Because once you are there, even if you wait, you know it’s never going to be the right time; it will only fester and fester until your entirety is gradually dragged into an existential sepsis.
I hope America leaves, next 9/11 no one will be obliged to help them out.
No american NATO? I was calling for it way back when trump was doing the greenland threats
I called it after Helsinki 2018.
What happened then ? wasn’t born yet
You’re less than 8 years old?
56, actually. I am living in dog years
That’s ruff.
Putin told him who’s in charge, in case he somehow thought he’d be off the hook because he’s now a big man president. Then he threw out the interpreter so he could gobble Putin’s balls while he has the chance.
The rest I’ll leave to your imagination.
You’re totally wrong, he actually gave Putin a rim job.
Oh yes, Putin’s in charge, that’s why he blew up his own pipeline, cleverly waited for Biden to be president to invade, then got Trump to attack Iran, Russia’s ally.
Does anything make sense in conspiracy land? Or is it only the other guys that are conspiracy theorists, but you are a fact-based scientist?
Diplomats say France wants to lead the mission, exclude America and bring in India and perhaps China.
Its best option, he says, would be to redouble efforts to build the European pillar of NATO. Perhaps that would convince Mr Trump that allies are willing to take up more of the burden. More probably, it would at least start to prepare them for the daunting task of taking over NATO if Mr Trump abandons it.
New bloc goes brrrr.
Also, no thanks to this guy, who’s basically been supporting the complacency this whole time:
“I have spent the past five years telling people not to worry about Trump and NATO,” says one European diplomat in Washington, DC. “Now I am genuinely quite worried about Trump and NATO.”
Don’t let the doorknob hit their ass on the way out.
Worst case scenario is Russia tries to take advantage of the situation and gets curb stomped by a NATO that is roughly 30% weaker but still more than powerful enough to handle the paper tiger that Russia has proven itself to be.
Trump is dead within a year, guaranteed. The GOP will fall to infighting after the cult of personality ends, and when the next president wants to clean up his mess and rejoin NATO, they can be allowed back in without the bullshit VETO that they for some reason have. They can return as an equal, not as a boss.
I kinda hope Trump lives and runs in the 2028 GOP primaries—the GOP deserves it.
Let them go, with this leadership having them part of NATO when they ideologically oppse it only gives them power to damage it from within, it is clear tRump is more aligned with Putin, and that makes him an implicit threat to stability. Eject US based on their leadership under existing rules, or create new ones to do it, and tell them they can reapply when they get someone rational in power.
Trump is such a loser
Baby Trump is furious.
Your article is pay walled, so we cannot respond to what was written.
Having said that… I’m reasonably sure Europe isn’t wringing over US staying in NATO.
I’d imagine you’d be hard pressed to find popular support for America in Europe…anywhere.
Here you go: "The suez crisis, the Vietnam war, the invasion of Iraq: non-European wars have a way of tearing at the fabric of nato. Now America’s air campaign (alongside Israel) against Iran may rip the alliance apart. Donald Trump has grown increasingly hostile towards European allies, furious at their refusal to help America re-open the Strait of Hormuz. Worse, several European countries have made American operations in the Middle East more difficult.
“Cowards, and we will remember!” blasted Mr Trump in one social-media post on March 20th. In recent interviews he said he was “absolutely” considering leaving the alliance, although he did not repeat the threat in a televised address about the Iran war on April 1st. The president’s imprecations have been echoed by Marco Rubio, his secretary of state, once a staunch defender of the transatlantic alliance. Calling nato “a one-way street”, Mr Rubio declared: “There is no doubt, unfortunately, after this conflict is concluded we are going to have to re-examine that relationship.”
Mr Rubio’s shift has helped create a funereal mood in European capitals. As a senator, he co-sponsored a bipartisan law in 2023 to prevent the unilateral withdrawal that Mr Trump is now contemplating. “The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty […] except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate” by a two-thirds majority, declares the act. Now as one of the most important figures in the Trump administration, Mr Rubio appears to be recanting. He has often acted as the last grown-up in Mr Trump’s court, stepping in to steady transatlantic relations and prevent the full abandonment of Ukraine. The last constraint may now be gone.
“This is the worst moment that nato has faced,” says Ivo Daalder, a former American ambassador to nato. “Rather than trying to convince Donald Trump not to leave, allies have to focus…on strengthening their military capacity.” He said European refusal to facilitate the war had undermined pro-nato Americans, who argue that Europe offers America a launch-pad to project power globally.
Spain’s Socialist prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, has been the most confrontational, barely meeting the old 2% of gdp target for defence spending, but rejecting the new one for 3.5% (plus 1.5% on defence-related infrastructure). Spain has closed its bases and airspace to American forces attacking Iran. France has been more measured. Its fighter jets have helped the United Arab Emirates shoot down drones, and it has sent an aircraft carrier to help defend Cyprus. Mr Trump has nevertheless lashed out at France’s “very unhelpful” refusal to let some American military aircraft fly over its territory.
Britain, having initially refused to let American forces use its bases, now permits it, but only to protect neighbouring countries from Iran’s retaliation. “This is not our war,” Sir Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, has repeatedly insisted. Mr Trump has retorted that Sir Keir is “no Winston Churchill”. Italy, another defence-spending laggard, reportedly stopped some American planes from using a base in Sicily. For Kurt Volker, another former American ambassador to nato, European actions have been “foolish”, though understandable: “They are responding emotionally against Donald Trump, not rationally, in accordance with their interest.”
Mr Trump has toyed since his first term with the idea of withdrawing from nato. Last year, however, he cast himself as the alliance’s saviour by convincing allies to spend at least 5% of gdp on defence and related infrastructure. Relations later soured again as Mr Trump wooed Russia. He outraged allies by reviving his campaign to seize Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark. The war in Iran is bringing resentment to a boil. American officials have suggested they may withhold weapons intended for Ukraine, partly out of frustration at the lack of progress in peace talks with Russia, and partly because America’s own stocks are running low.
Mr Volker still hopes Congress will stop Mr Trump from abandoning nato. “It’s a red line for many Republicans—perhaps the only one,” he argues. But the 2023 law constraining Mr Trump from leaving nato may be ignored or deemed unconstitutional. In any case, Mr Trump need not formally leave the alliance to cripple it: he could withdraw American forces from Europe, or recall its military commander, an American general. “I have spent the past five years telling people not to worry about Trump and nato,” says one European diplomat in Washington, dc. “Now I am genuinely quite worried about Trump and nato.”
Mark Rutte, the nato secretary-general, who has raised eyebrows by on one occasion calling Mr Trump “daddy” and by endorsing his assault on Iran, is due to visit Washington on April 8th to try to soothe relations. Britain convened a video conference of about 40 countries on April 2nd—without America—to discuss ways of increasing political and economic pressure on Iran to re-open the Strait of Hormuz.
The international waterway carries about a quarter of global seaborne oil, not to mention similar shares of liquified natural gas and fertiliser. Since the start of the campaign on February 28th Iran has prevented all but a handful of ships—usually ones carrying its oil or from countries deemed friendly, such as India—from transiting daily in and out of the Persian Gulf. A French-owned container ship made the passage on March 28th. Iran is now talking about imposing a toll on ships seeking to use the strait.
“Iran is trying to hold the global economy hostage,” said Yvette Cooper, Britain’s foreign secretary, in a statement. Participants in the British teleconference, she added, called for “the immediate and unconditional reopening of the strait”. Those at a similar gathering on March 19th had declared themselves willing to contribute to “appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the strait”. Military chiefs are expected to discuss options for escorting ships at a meeting next week.
In his address on April 1st Mr Trump suggested he could end the war within weeks even if the strait remained closed. Iran had been “completely decimated”, he said. Countries that depended on the strait “must grab it and cherish it”, he added: “the hard part is done, so it should be easy.” Yet no American warship has yet run the gauntlet.
European countries say no escort mission is feasible until fighting has died down, and diplomats say there are disagreements over the terms of any such mission. Re-opening the strait by force would be “unrealistic”, insisted Emmanuel Macron, the French president, during a visit to South Korea. “First, there must be a ceasefire and a resumption of negotiations.” In that framework, he said, “reassurance missions may be possible.” Diplomats say France wants to lead the mission, exclude America and bring in India and perhaps China. Britain thinks Iran is unlikely to give up threatening ships; to protect allied forces, it thinks America should spearhead the mission. Mr Trump, for his part, says Europeans should “take the lead”, though America “will be helpful”.
One gloomy Finnish official thinks all this will make little difference. The situation may have gone “beyond the point” where European action could soften Mr Trump’s contempt for nato. The alliance faces grim times ahead of its annual summit in Ankara in July. Its best option, he says, would be to redouble efforts to build the European pillar of nato. Perhaps that would convince Mr Trump that allies are willing to take up more of the burden. More probably, it would at least start to prepare them for the daunting task of taking over nato if Mr Trump abandons it."
Trump can’t remove us from NATO w/o the normal Congressional process.
It’s good to know that Trump won’t do something if he needs the permission of Congress for it first. I’m sure he follows those rules very well, and would never break them.
Speaking of that, has anyone seen the official declaration of war and authorization of military action against Iran anywhere? The Congress seems to have misplaced it somewhere. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
535 bodies in congress, somehow zero spines
Even if there were 535 body bags from the “war”, you’d be hard pressed to find a spine in the US govt.
They hate kings but loooove strong presidents and a cult of personality
F-35 program needed to die anyway.
Except that it’s vastly better than anything else and in a peer to peer fight with a full air force the side with f35s against a side that doesn’t have stealth planes will win easily every time.
True for now. Drones have worryingly shown that things can evolve quickly lately.
If you’re interested then perun on YouTube has pretty good videos on the whole thing, but like everything else it will be both and the side with f35 and drones will always win, and the key part is that you can get a drone program going quickly while a stealth fighter or even a jet engine takes two decades.
Personally, I think the R&D times of planes and other mainstream gear takes so long, is because there isn’t genuine necessity. First and foremost, the MiC exists to enrich elite critters - actual defense of the nation is tertiary. The secondary is just to make fancy gear that looks neat for battle glamour, but lacks substance for warfare.
I suspect an actual peer-to-peer war between NATO and Dogey America would result in much faster development time. Also many failures, but necessity would force rethinking on how to produce weapons. I listen to many videos about plane development, and WW2 really stood out in how many fails there were, while the envelope constantly got pushed.
My prediction is that Europe would be much better than America when it comes to transitioning into a true war economy, because they have a less corrupted MiC to get in the way.
Good. Hosting US bases just makes you a target.
Good. One less thing to worry about.
No americas treaty organization.
No americas treaty organization.
Hey! What did we do? – Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc.
It’s No Americas, they’re allowed to have one.
Nope







