NATO is in disarray after the US announces that its security priorities lie elsewhere - ukraine isnt a priority for america and eurocucks will have to defend their own countries.

link | archive

BRUSSELS (AP) — In just one speech by U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth this week, the most powerful member of NATO has thrown the world’s biggest military alliance into disarray, raising troubling questions about America’s commitment to European security.
Hegseth told almost 50 of Ukraine ’s Western backers on Wednesday that he had joined their meeting “to directly and unambiguously express that stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.”
“The United States faces consequential threats to our homeland. We must — and we are — focusing on security of our own borders,” he said.
Reading the riot act to U.S. allies, Hegseth said that Ukraine will not get all its territory back from Russia and will not be allowed to join NATO, which would provide the ultimate security guarantee to ensure that Russian President Vladimir Putin never attacks it again.

He insisted NATO will not be involved in any future force that might be required to police the peace in Ukraine. European and other nations will, but the Europeans will have to pay for it. No American troops would take part in such an operation, he warned.


Beyond that, Hegseth said that NATO will not come to the rescue of any European nation involved in that force if it is attacked by Russia. It’s unclear what role the U.S. would play, if any, although Russia is sure to test the force’s resolve if America does not provide backup.


French Defense Minister Sébastien Lecornu said that NATO faces “a real moment of truth.”
“To say that it’s the biggest and most robust alliance in history is true, historically speaking. But the real question is will that still be the case in 10 or 15 years,” he said.

What is NATO?​

Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to European security posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA. Keeping the peace outside the Euro-Atlantic area is not.
NATO’s ranks have grown since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago — to 32 countries after Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia.
NATO’s collective security guarantee — Article 5 of the treaty — underpins its credibility.
It’s a political commitment by all member countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Hegseth has now raised doubts about the U.S. commitment to that pledge, although he did say that his country is not planning to leave the alliance.
NATO’s doors are open to any European country that wants to join and can meet the requirements and obligations. Importantly, NATO takes its decisions by consensus, so every member has a veto. This week, Hegseth took Ukraine’s candidacy off the table.

Who’s in charge?​

The United States is the most powerful member. It spends much more on defense than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. So Washington drives the agenda. Hegseth’s speech, essentially saying “this is how it’s going to be,” was further proof.
NATO’s day-to-day work is led by former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.
As NATO’s top civilian official, he chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other “NACs” at ministerial level and summits of heads of state and government. Rutte runs NATO HQ, tries to encourage consensus and speaks on behalf of all 32 members.
NATO’s military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top U.S. officer. The current supreme allied commander Europe is Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli.

What is NATO doing to help Ukraine?​

Even though most allies believe that Russia could pose an existential threat to Europe, NATO itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organization, NATO possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, the alliance provides only non-lethal support — fuel, combat rations, medical supplies and body armor, as well as equipment to counter drones or mines.
But members do send arms on their own or in groups. European allies provided 60% of the military support that Ukraine received in 2024.
NATO has also helped Ukraine’s armed forces shift from Soviet-era military doctrine to modern thinking, and has strengthened Ukraine’s defense and security institutions.
Much of what NATO does for Ukraine, and indeed for global security, is misunderstood. Often the alliance is thought of as the sum of all U.S. relations with its European partners, from imposing sanctions and other costs on Russia to sending arms and ammunition.
But as an organization, its brief is limited to the defense by military means of its 32 member countries — the sacred Three Musketeers-like vow of all for one, one for all — and a commitment to help keep the peace in Europe and North America.
At least that was the case until this week.

Why has NATO stationed more troops on its European borders?​

While some allies have left open the possibility of sending military personnel to Ukraine, NATO itself has no plans to do this, and Hegseth ended any speculation over whether it might.
But a key part of the commitment for allies to defend one another is to deter Russia, or any other adversary, from launching an attack in the first place. Finland and Sweden joined NATO recently because of this concern.
With the war in Ukraine soon to enter its fourth year, NATO has 500,000 military personnel on high readiness to counter any attack, whether it be on land, at sea, by air or in cyberspace.

Isn’t the U.S. doing the heavy lifting?​

Due to high U.S. defense spending over many years, America’s armed forces benefit not only from greater troop numbers and superior weapons but also from significant transport and logistics assets.
Other allies are starting to spend more, though. After years of cuts, NATO members committed to ramp up their national defense budgets in 2014 when Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.
The aim was for each ally to be spending 2% of gross domestic product on defense within a decade. In 2023, they agreed to make 2% a spending floor, rather than a ceiling. A record 23 countries were expected reach that spending target last year, up from only three a decade ago.
But Rutte has said they will need to raise that to 3% or more.

France’s Lecornu claims that the wrangling over defense spending is “a false debate” as governments and parliaments across Europe are already approving more weapons purchases and bigger military budgets, all while arming Ukraine so it can defend itself.
 
No more retiring in your mid 50's. No more free uni for the youth. No more socialism. If the Europeans want a military they will need to build their own and it won't be cheap. If they would all just keep up some level of military they would be fine. Russia can't even take Ukraine so it's days of being a threat are basically over. Russia is only a threat if you are so severely weak you let them become a threat. When the Russian tanks start rolling into your cities (without infantry support) and all you can do is run around and scream like a bitch you might be in trouble. But if you can pop the turrets off the first few dozen Russian tanks that come through the Russians will be the ones screaming like bitches.
This is my thing, I don't doubt that Europe could build a very powerful military I just don't know if the political will is there to do what it takes.
 
From the looks of things Poland might put up some actual resistance, the Baltics, UK, France and Germany will fold like Assads forces. Russia outproduces Europe in missiles, shells, drones and armored vehicles. When western volunteers decided to join Ukraine, they all immediately wanted to go back to their countries since they found out what it was like fighting another country that has 10 times more firepower than you with high chances to die from shelling. Unlike Ukrainians or even the Poles most of western Europeans are not born as nationalists nor do they care of wanting to die for some eastern European shithole run by Jews especially if they have less pride to get conscripted to their own country's military, than forget about them wanting to fight for some other irrelevant country.

You need energy and fuel which I don't think Europe can deal with those costs or they would have started mass production for their armed forces a long time ago. Since the US doesn't want to get involved are they just going to wait for 4 years until the US elects another president? Russia's only major disadvantage of the war was their lack of satellites for targeting purposes and they are planning by 2030 to have 850 satellites produced and if a pro-euro US president does come into office like the 1st month of 2029 Russia by than would have more than enough missiles and satellites to target enough ships and other transportation moving massive number of bodies and equipment off their coast.

If Russia was in deep shit, China would also likely get involved in this war. The west put up some major sanctions that China had to produce their own chips. In the world market 50% of neon is from Ukraine, 30% is from Russia. This material is needed to produce semiconductor chips I am just going to wait on the euros now if they will plan to do anything by the time the Ukraine war is over. Russia has all the time in the world and 4 years is more than enough to deal with Ukraine in which the country is promoting benefits for income and college for 18-24 year olds to me conscripted to the Ukrainian army by the time they will later pass a law to lower the draft age in Ukraine to 18. The euros can still get 30% of Ukraine's rich resources, if they want to keep supporting Zelensky they better hope Russia does not end up too far west where the euros get 0% instead.
 
Jeans, caps and other junk clothes has an American flag by default. WTF are you even talking about?


Nobody is expecting it and America has never done anything with altruism. It has always been about power, you just happen to trade with protection as a service.
Kill yourself newfag.
 
I'm not the first one to observe this, but

Some historians use the term "the long 18th century" to describe the period between the Glorious Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Now I think we're seeing the end of the "long 20th century", or at least the long modernity.

Post WWII there was an understanding that America was the leader of the free world, and inherently protected "The West". I can't say I fault America for this, but I think we're witnessing the end of "The West" as a cohesive concept. Europe outsourced its defence to America, and now America doesn't want to do that any more - in no small part because both Trump and actual president Elon Musk are cosying up to Putin... but regardless of the whys, Europe is going to have to accept it cannot rely on American charity any more, because the reasons behind that are too far in the past.

People like to say 9/11 was the end of the 20th century or the end of the 90s, but I think this is the real end of it. It's a massive paradigm shift and who's to say how it will pan out?
 
Man the Olympics are gonna be weird if everyone decides to cancel because of Trump.
Literally who the fuck cares about the tard pit? The viewership for that shitshow just keeps going further down.

Unfortunately the Eurofags had already and repeatedly established precedent they will fuck with American people, businesses, and interests in and near Europe. So even if U.S. military does leave Europe, it will inevitably have to come back cause the Euros can't leave well enough alone and need another skull fucking.
Import all of their women, use the secret brainwashing technologies hidden in Area 51 and the CIA MKUltra labs, and just nuke the entire continent.
 
America doesn't want to do that any more - in no small part because both Trump and actual president Elon Musk are cosying up to Putin...
America doesn't want to do that any more because it has ran out of money and does not want to go into even more debt over an area it no longer has any strategic interests in.

I will elaborate. During the Cold War, the two superpowers at the time actively sought to recruit allies, America by opening its markets to countries in Europe so that traditionally democratic middle class would appear and the Soviet Union by pouring money and engineers into shithole countries so that more subsistent farmers could become blue collar workers, traditionally communist.

But USSR collapsed 35 years ago, and for the first time in almost a century Trump has reversed this policy. Now it is European countries that have to pay for the priviledge of being friends with the US, not the other way around. Since American budget is in a rough shape, he has shifted attention from NATO to AUKUS to contain China that harbors global ambitions and away from Russia that doesn't (because Russia is a regional power at best). It is a very pragmatic move.

Note that Australia, Japan, South Korea and the bongs are NOT being hit with tariffs or demands of any kind. He needs them against China. He is also against putting any more pressure on Russia because it is driving the brown bear into the panda bear's loving embrace, and he wants to deprive China of partners.
 
This is my thing, I don't doubt that Europe could build a very powerful military I just don't know if the political will is there to do what it takes.

It would take an absolute crisis and land incursion somewhere. Even then major interoperability problems especially for existing higher trained, 'better' units that just do exercises or NATO exercises with no combat experience. EU parliament and sniveling on a wartime battlefield.
 
That would mean giving right wing elements of society more political power and putting guns in their hands. This is the real reason Europe doesn't want to rearm I wager. Its either this or arming the 'immigrants' because liberals themselves are largely unwilling to die defending others.
It's also why the us was never serious before trump about getting them to re-arm

It was part of the post war plan, keep the right in Europe weak and powerless by effectively subsidizing the European left with us tac payer money

Hard to be a right of centre, social conservative or fiscal conservative in Europe when there was American money flowing in to allow your leftist opponent to keep cracking on with the welfare state etc

Can you imagine trying to make the argument in the last 80 years that we needed to cut money to welfare to pay for a better military? Why? America has us covered

People forget just how shocking Hitler and friends resurrection of Germany was and how fresh in the mind it was in the post war

Versailles was supposed to keep Germany down for generations. It didn't even manage 20 years.

The number 1 priority after ww2 wasn't containing the Russians, it was making sure Europe didn't pull the entire world in to a bloodbath again
 
From the looks of things Poland might put up some actual resistance, the Baltics, UK, France and Germany will fold like Assads forces.
Funny you bring up Assad, two months ago you were in the Aleppo Offensive thread waffling about how him and Putin were slaughtering HTS and conducting counteroffensives left and right. If I were you, I'd be less self-assured about judging someone's military situation.
 
Soft power is for faggots. We have the most powerful military in history.

This is probably one of the most retarded takes a person can have.
1739807229274.jpeg
Is it, though?
 
I'm not the first one to observe this, but

Some historians use the term "the long 18th century" to describe the period between the Glorious Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Now I think we're seeing the end of the "long 20th century", or at least the long modernity.

Post WWII there was an understanding that America was the leader of the free world, and inherently protected "The West". I can't say I fault America for this, but I think we're witnessing the end of "The West" as a cohesive concept. Europe outsourced its defence to America, and now America doesn't want to do that any more - in no small part because both Trump and actual president Elon Musk are cosying up to Putin... but regardless of the whys, Europe is going to have to accept it cannot rely on American charity any more, because the reasons behind that are too far in the past.

People like to say 9/11 was the end of the 20th century or the end of the 90s, but I think this is the real end of it. It's a massive paradigm shift and who's to say how it will pan out?
America can't afford to do it anymore and it was never charity, it was playing geopolitics to keep Europe in the American sphere of influence rather than that of the Soviet Union.
 
Versailles was supposed to keep Germany down for generations. It didn't even manage 20 years.
Hardly. The utility of Versailles at actually doing so was hotly debated at the time with one Frenchman even stating it was just an armistice of twenty years, and the fact the French weren't sure of even that is why as early as 1929 they started to build the Maginot Line (to force the Germans into trying to cross the natural barrier of the Meuse River when they inevitably decided to restart things) and joined the Little Entente as a means of containment.
1739808797222.png
There's a reason Daladier is giving Chamberlain the biggest side-eye you can imagine right after he handed over the Sudetenland. Even Mussolini could tell that this shit wasn't going to end well down the line.
 
Funny you bring up Assad, two months ago you were in the Aleppo Offensive thread waffling about how him and Putin were slaughtering HTS and conducting counteroffensives left and right. If I were you, I'd be less self-assured about judging someone's military situation.
I was only saying the HTS was getting bombed and there are already talks with the new Syrian government with Russia. I am sure after the war with the extra number of soldiers and equipment they got after the war under the war economy they might start more incursions in the middle east and africa.

Edit: You know you fucked up if the country that hates Russians the most with a pretty big military is acting more rational in choices than the brits.
1739810689269.png
If Ukraine is winning for 3 years as the mainstream media and the other pro-ukraine war thread suggests than Ukraine wouldn't need foreign assistance like peacekeepers from the UK in the 1st place.
 
Última edición:
Man the Olympics are gonna be weird if everyone decides to cancel because of Trump.
It wasn't weird when 6 foot 8 black men called Semencock B'dunga were competing for Sweden in women's events and beating women literally to death by doing things like spiking a volleyball so hard it straight up breaks their neck?
 
Of course it is in disarray. The Euros believed they would never have to fight a war again. They have spent decades demoralizing their nations. Who wants to fight for a state that actively hates you and is hostile to you? Who wants to risk getting vaporized by artillery, getting their life extinguished in a flash of nuclear fire? All for their government to call the veterans racist, and move in the third world?

That is the cultural deficit that European nations are dealing with. On top of that, all left wing governments have decided that all militaries must be female friendly and gay. They forgot that the role of a military is to kill people and break their shit.
 
I was only saying the HTS was getting bombed
If SAA lines collapsed then we'd see a lot of SAA taken prisoner. Nothing like that has happened. They retreated where they needed to and nothing of value was lost.

This is going to be like the last Syrian war and the current Ukraine war where Russia just uses their firepower to slowly eat away their manpower. The only saving grace the Jihadis might have is if Turkey or Israel military comes to their rescue.

It looks like it's going to be the usual like the last Syrian war and current Ukraine war. If Aleppo and Hama are still being contested and they are not moving to another city, then they will continue eating bombs until their forces continue to deteriorate. I don't think the Turks planned this operation that far ahead like they did sending a column of leopard tanks into Syria before.

Edit: I know the NAFO squad from the pro-ukraine thread are tired of taking L's in the Ukraine war, but I don't think you guys will score a W with this war


I celebrated too early that the SDF and SAA joined forces 😔 Also I keep hearing about US assisting SDF by bombing the SAA but still don't see that visual proof yet on twitter.
Ver archivo adjunto 6709531
airstrikes airstrikes airstrikes
Ver archivo adjunto 6709532
SAA counteroffensive has begun, don't tell me the militants have already kicked the bucket? I knew that it was going to end for the militants but not that fast.
Ver archivo adjunto 6709534

This is my thing, I don't doubt that Europe could build a very powerful military I just don't know if the political will is there to do what it takes.
Europe could easily build a very powerful military right now. The problem is we're controlled by a cabal of French and German WEF technocrats who are busy jacking off in Bruxelles about the environment and gays. I've said it in other threads: re-militarization and seizing foreign-owned industry should be the first priority for Europe instead of putting cancer warnings on wine.
 
I think everyone agrees it'd be best for the EU to have their own army, that being beneficial to the US as well as it'd probably allow for more smooth joint-ops, it's not hard to coopt smaller armies under bigger ones, the Dutch armed forces are pretty much under command of the Bundeswehr (not completely but practically). It's already proven itself to be not that big of a deal if the countries involved are on good standing.
This is my thing, I don't doubt that Europe could build a very powerful military I just don't know if the political will is there to do what it takes.
This is what I mentioned before and this 100% the biggest hurdle, EU states need to STFU about retarded shit that happened 100+ years ago and is irrelevant as fuck to modern problems and threats. The EU loves to virtue signal and finger wag while not doing anything and giving themselves pats on the back for having the most inoffensive milquetoast stance.
The lack of political willpower within the EU is even stronger than the limp dicked national politics that takes place in EU countries.
How is it possible that tiny countries with tiny economies can stomp out certain issues like drug cartels but in a rich western nation it is already "too expensive" to start talking about a solution? Apart from the lack of willpower, there is also a lack of vision within the EU and it's many members.
 
Última edición:
Atrás
Top Abajo