74OA said:

---

No, we're not spending $200B to defend Europe and you yelling otherwise doesn't make it so.

The Europeans have indeed been feckless and slow to respond to the changing security environment but, to their belated credit, they are finally doing so.

---

How much did we spend over the past 36 months to defend Europe, and stage/position/train forces there, in your estimation? Please include Kiev, because per Zelensky those funds were donated, not repayable.

Even just merging EUCOM and Africom could save us several hundred million a year. Eliminating our deployments/troop positioning on both continents should save much more.

Logos Stick said:

---

knoxtom said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Realistically, Russia is not a threat to the United States from a physical standpoint

We should absolutely be involved in NATO but other countries need to foot most of the bill.

That is the only answer

---

Would Russia be a threat if they took over Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, and Finland? It would not take long if NATO disappears.

---

Uh, Ukraine is not part of NATO.

---

Did someone say that it is part of NATO?

Monsieur Macron is going to get around to the second part of FAFO pretty quick.

BREAKING: Ric Grenell just advised President Trump to cancel the $5B American loan for France's TotalEnergies African LNG project after French President Emmanuel Macron called on companies to stop investing in the U.S.

Two can play this game. pic.twitter.com/uFJU1Bab8r

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 4, 2025

Archbishop Vigano called out the war/Nato:

Quote:

---

The International Political Situation

While we are here discussing issues that are particularly close to our hearts, our rulers are planning the rearmament of European countries, justifying it with the alleged threat that the Russian Federation would represent for international peace and security. Yet we know well that it was not Russia but NATO that did not respect the commitments it made with regard to the non-expansion of bases towards the East, with the complicity of the Anglo-American deep state in the destabilization of Ukraine through regime change sponsored by USAID. The constitution of a common army actually serves to create the conditions for the creation of a European entity that absorbs and annuls national sovereignty, and that is able to force the member states waiting to engulf them through the use of military force. If Hungary or Romania or any other nation not subject to the diktats of Brussels were to create problems for the pursuit of the European Union's goals, we could in fact see von der Leyen's army move on Budapest or Bucharest, perhaps with Islamic soldiers enlisted among the hordes of immigrants invading us.

Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni should think carefully about this and listen to those in the government coalition who retain greater objectivity than some "pro-European" members of her party and Forza Italia. Let us not forget that the armed forces are institutions that must enjoy democratic legitimacy: placed under the control of a superior entity, they are in fact an instrument of illegitimate coercion of a dictatorship. But this, in a long-term perspective, is exactly what the globalist synarchy concretely aims to do: to create a European nation that in its turn flows into the single government of the New World Order.

It remains to be seen whether the United States will allow the creation of a potentially enemy army, which paradoxically would operate within the framework of NATO of which Washington is still a member.

---

Quote:

---

The Real Reasons for Rearmament
As with previous pandemic and environmental emergencies, the official reason given for the feared war emergency serves to hide other purposes: the real objective of the Rearm Europe plan now renamed Readiness 2030, with significant references to the Agenda of the same name is to allow Germany and France, as well as Great Britain, to convert the automotive sector destroyed by the crazy policies of NetZero into the production of weapons and tanks.

Stellantis and Luxottica, for their part, are already moving to have the government provide the aid that will allow the same conversion, after having benefited from public funds in 2020 to produce masks for the psychopandemic. And while the taxpayer pays for the disasters of the Agenda 2030, Ursula von der Leyen is preparing to get her hands on the current accounts of private individuals to finance her warmongering delusions with over 800 billion euros, with the encouragement of national leaders, enticed by the prospect of producing armaments at the expense of their citizens and in derogation from the Maastricht parameters. Of course, seeing the pacifist Left gathered on March 15 in Rome in Piazza del Popolo to support rearmament was surreal, made grotesque by the presence of those who are ready to deny their ideas on command (and for pay). But we cannot forget that Elly Schlein's Left wants to be the heir of that subversive Manifesto of Ventotene, in which the Freemason and "founding father" of the European Union, Altiero Spinelli, theorized the dictatorship of the proletariat, the uselessness of the democratic process, and the use of a European army to force the masses to obey.

There are those who argue that Zelensky cannot be excluded from the peace negotiations for Ukraine, despite the fact that he is clearly a loser on all fronts and enjoys no legitimacy, having banned presidential elections and banned Ukrainian opposition parties. In 2023 I wrote:

"Ukraine is acting as a battering ram in NATO's proxy war against the Russian Federation, so we should first of all stop considering Zelensky as an interlocutor in any peace agreements: if he has counted for nothing in the declaration of war and in the continuation of the military actions conducted so far, I do not see what his role at a peace table should or could be."

---

Much more at the link. He's a lot more eloquent than I am, to be sure, but I agree entirely with his analyses/conclusions about the direction the EU, and Nato are attempting to take 'the old continent' toward more war(s).

German left leader proposes a replacement for Nato.

Quote:

---

The co-leader of the German Left party, Jan van Aken, has called for NATO to be replaced with a new security alliance involving both Russia and the United States, arguing that the US-led military bloc "has no future."

In an interview with Die Zeit published on Saturday, van Aken said the party continues to support its 2011 platform, which called for Germany to exit NATO and help create a new collective security system.

"We never wanted to abolish NATO without replacement but rather replace it with a cooperative security system," van Aken said when asked whether Germany and its European allies could defend themselves without US support. He proposed a new model similar to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), focusing on peacekeeping and joint defense.

"Something like OECD 2.0. A peace and defense alliance, together with Russia and the US. But of course, if we were to rebuild it, it would certainly require another ten years of confidence-building measures. NATO would still exist that long, but it no longer has a future," he stated.

Van Aken also called for the withdrawal of US troops stationed in Germany. "Yes, and they should take their nuclear weapons with them," he said, noting that the nuclear stockpiles in France and the UK are already "more than enough."

He confirmed that the vision of a demilitarized Europe remains central to the party's agenda. "Of course I want to live in a country without an army. Don't you?"

Last month, Germany unveiled a new military aid package for Ukraine, including vehicles, air-defense rockets, and howitzers. Incoming Chancellor Friedrich Merz has indicated support for supplying Ukraine with Taurus cruise missiles capable of striking deep into Russian territory. The Social Democrats, who are holding coalition talks with Merz's Christian Democrats, have opposed the move as a needless escalation.

---

Not sure this has a snowballs chance in…but it's interesting to see it pushed from the left there.

This is HUGE. This is astoundingly frank talk coming from a VP and a Sec State directed at a long-time ally. This is the "pre-divorce" talk. This is "We're leaving NATO, and screw you, you're on your own" talk. Vance comparing the German establishment unfavorably to the… pic.twitter.com/fW0m6lqOBV

— Matt Bracken (@Matt_Bracken48) May 3, 2025

Hopefully true.

I have no doubt this administration wants to leave NATO, they are so short sided that they have no interest in the legacy our ancestors built for their lineage . Hopefully, Congress will get a backbone.

Wait what - NATO is our heritage and the bill of rights are aged and require modern interpretation?

NO! People now want the bill of rights to be exclusive - only applies to special people. That group will slowly get smaller.

NATO is weakened and so completely irrelevant that it will be gone by end of year but certainly by 2026.

This is becoming more and more widely accepted.

It's a very positive thing for the world.

rgvag11 said:

---

NO! People now want the bill of rights to be exclusive - only applies to special people. That group will slowly get smaller.

---

This may be a shock to some but all rights do not attach universally to all people in a given location, let alone the world. This has always been the case. The constitution uses words such as 'the people' and 'citizens,' not interchangeably.

Which amendments/rights attach and can be applied to limit the states for instance is an entire body of constitutional jurisprudence.

ETA: this is particularly ironic given how incredibly restrictive speech rights are now in Europe/Nato, to the point they are now going to go after American social media companies for not censoring speech unsupportive of their fascism/islamist doctrines.

A well balanced discussion/monologue, imho, of US forces in Europe/draw down prospects. They are basically dependent still on us for the 'nervous system' of their defense.

That needs to end. Long video, but the last segment is where he gets into that, for those without the interest/time to listen to it all. Dark Eagle (army hypersonic) doesn't have a role in Europe, imho.

Bottom line, we've got our own problems we need to spend money on.

Get USA OUT of NATO. USA is Not obligated to help provide defense for crazy totalitatian EU countries run by Brussels' WEF globalists and allowed a new ottoman empire to spread into the EU. Ditto for Canada, ruined by liberals who voted the same for Carney.

Ask yourself if Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc….that group working against U.S. interests across the globe…whether they would be happy or disappointed if NATO fell apart. And there is your answer of whether that would be a good idea.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Ask yourself if Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc….that group working against U.S. interests across the globe…whether they would be happy or disappointed if NATO fell apart. And there is your answer of whether that would be a good idea.

---

Or, ask yourself, what has Nato, or the EU said over the past 90 days that is supportive of American interests? Why can't Europe decide to defend itself? Do we benefit, or breed resentment by claiming control/partnership via Nato?

Reports in a German paper of a partial withdrawal of American forces from Europe coming next month.

Quote:

---

Rumors about a potential pullout have been circulating in the media ever since NBC News reported in April that the US was considering withdrawing up to 10,000 troops from Eastern Europe. US President Donald Trump later confirmed that he is considering a partial withdrawal but did not elaborate on either its scale or timetable.

In mid-May, the US ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, said Washington plans to start talks about a potential pullout with other NATO members following the bloc's summit in June. "We are not going to have any more patience for foot dragging in this situation," he said at the time, while admitting that "nothing has been determined" yet.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz publicly denied speculation about a US pullout during a visit to Lithuania this week. "We currently have no indication that the United States of America will withdraw troops from Europe," he told journalists at a joint press conference with Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda in Vilnius.

The cost of replacing the US equipment and personnel following a withdrawal could amount to around $1 trillion over 25 years, Politico reported earlier in May, citing a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

As of early 2025, there were nearly 84,000 US troops stationed in Europe, with the largest concentrations in Germany and Poland, and smaller deployments in Romania, Estonia, and Lithuania, according to the US European Command.

---

Good, hopefully correct. If it costs the Euro's a trillion to replace our forces (politico), that's perfectly fine by me.

Quote:

---

A study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies published Thursday found that a hypothetical U.S. withdrawal from Europe would leave the continent's NATO members vulnerable to a Russian threat and faced with "stark choices" on how to fill the immense gaps.

The costs of like-for-like replacement of U.S. equipment and personnel would add up to approximately $1 trillion over 25 years, the study found. That includes one-off procurement costs ranging from $226 billion to $344 billion depending on the quality of the equipment purchased and additional expenses associated with military maintenance, personnel and support.

The most expensive line item on the shopping list would be 400 tactical combat aircraft, followed by 20 destroyers and 24 long-range surface-to-air missiles.

The IISS also estimated that in the event of a large-scale military operation to counter a Russian attack, the cost to replace U.S. personnel (estimated at 128,000 troops) would exceed $12 billion.

The assessment does not include other glaring gaps, the cost of which is harder to quantify. These include command and control, coordination, space, intelligence and surveillance, as well as the cost of nuclear weapons.

Europeans would also need to fill certain top jobs, like the position of supreme allied commander in Europe NATO's commander on the continent and its second-highest-ranking military position. With the U.S. out of the picture, they would also have to step up diplomatic coordination efforts.

---

Again, good stuff.

It seems to me, the best time to withdraw is when the principal enemy the coalition is built to defend against has weakened itself considerably in a drawn-out conflict over a territory dispute. If we are going to vacate NATO, I can't think of a better time than now.

So….update, out of UNESCO, and 'evaluating' other organizations.

The U.S. is reviewing participation in all international organizations, due to President Donald Trump's executive order. https://t.co/0f5LY80NeS pic.twitter.com/0wVD5KNQme

— The National Desk (@TND) July 22, 2025

Yes.