TRUMP: WILL EXPRESS 'MY DISGUST' WITH NATO IN HIS SPEECH; SAYS HE IS 'ABSOLUTELY' CONSIDERING WITHDRAWING U.S. FROM NATO

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) April 1, 2026

That's great, we will be spending all the money we are saving on tax relief for Americans and paying down the debt. Right?

TxAG#2011 said:

---

That's great, we will be spending all the money we are saving on tax relief for Americans and paying down the debt. Right?

---

Or we could just reduce spending.

I have yet to even hear of a single Democrat for federal office campaign on reducing discretionary spending, let alone entitlement spending. Well, maybe the last quasi-claim as such might have been the algore 'lock box' bit back in 2000.

Republicans at least talk about it from time to time. And yes, our basing costs in Europe are discretionary spending so this would save us considerable funds.

I imagine our world power projection will be drastically cut with our departure from NATO.

We will lose our foreign base privileges immediately. Then China/Russia will step in to fill the vacuum left by the US. Even if just offering money to help buttress a "European Led" defensive organization will severely undercut the US in shaping world affairs and elevate China to new heights.

What I'm expecting is an announcement tonight of a plan to gradually withdraw from NATO over the next 5-10 years. When the new dem president in 3 years is sworn in I expect them to immediately reverse it and let the Euros socialist gravy train to keep on chugging.

GAC06 said:

---

So you didn't like that I said we turned our backs on them but now you're pointing out that we… turned our backs on them.

---

GBU's, Patriot batteries and their missiles and ATACM's , IMO probably saved the Ukes in several places from breaches which would have been disastrous. We've supplied more to Ukraine than anyone. Throw in tanks, meals arms, all. What about critical intelligence?? No one can say we've turned our backs, with a straight face.

I REALLY want Ukraine to survive and prosper. I also think Russia is at its weakest overall in nearly 80 years and would love to knock them back economically and militarily. We just can't do it ourselves. Time for the euros to take over

We provided those things, then we stopped when Ukraine wouldn't cave to the Russian demands we tried to force on them. Thus, we turned our backs on them.

Gaeilge said:

---

I seem to recall several NATO countries laughing at the US and hitching their energy needs and infrastructure onto the Russian wagon.

They brought their exposure to their own doorstep with the Ukraine/Russia conflict.

---

EXACTLY; furthermore, with oil spiking, our actions did NOT help Russia because they stood to make a TON, but with the price of crude where it is, Russia is making VERY LITTLE!! Of course the Euros could buy US oil, but that WOULD help the US, & they're hellbent on refusing to do ANYTHING that helps the US.

So, in the metaphor used earlier, the 3 yr old should cram the building blocks up the 5 yr old's ass; they SUCK as a "friend."

Russia isn't making any money right now because Ukraine is blowing up all of their O&G too.

When considering whether we exit Nato maybe go look at the fall of Rome...and the continuance of the success of Constantinople as the Rome of the east.

Rome fell to the invaders...got mired in too much debt...stopped growing its empre and its people stopped caring about its empire success. It also began to pull out of foreign relationships.

Constantinople continue its heavy use of foreign influence and maintained its military spending.

If you want us to leave NATO you want us to eventually fail.

Gaeilge said:

---

Russia isn't making any money right now because Ukraine is blowing up all of their O&G too.

---

Kiev school of economics says they have doubled daily revenue, to $760 million/day.

Quote:

---

Recent analysis from the Kyiv School of Economics Institute paints a striking picture. Russia's monthly earnings from energy could almost double, jumping from roughly $12 billion to as much as $24 billion in the current month. The main drivers are skyrocketing crude oil prices combined with a temporary loosening of sanctions pressure from the United States under President Donald Trump. That easing has made it easier and less risky for buyers to purchase Russian oil that was previously harder to move, leading to stronger demand and smoother shipments.

---

GAC06 said:

---

We provided those things, then we stopped when Ukraine wouldn't cave to the Russian demands we tried to force on them. Thus, we turned our backs on them.

---

For the record…I hated DJT trying to allow Russia any Ukraine territory. I think a foolish position. Would have rather him say "good luck" don't ever give in " if he was going in that direction. In a larger sense, if we don't pull back some , the euros would never step to the plate, I think this was some of DJT's motivation.

I strongly believe we are still helping Ukraine in many ways , today, though I can't say for sure. I don't believe we have cut off intelligence. I also don't think the Ukes would have any spare patriots , bombs etc at this point without a supply of some sort from us. I wouldn't call that turning our backs, certainly pulling back though.

DOG XO 84 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

So you didn't like that I said we turned our backs on them but now you're pointing out that we… turned our backs on them.

---

GBU's, Patriot batteries and their missiles and ATACM's , IMO probably saved the Ukes in several places from breaches which would have been disastrous. We've supplied more to Ukraine than anyone. Throw in tanks, meals arms, all. What about critical intelligence?? No one can say we've turned our backs, with a straight face.

I REALLY want Ukraine to survive and prosper. I also think Russia is at its weakest overall in nearly 80 years and would love to knock them back economically and militarily. We just can't do it ourselves. Time for the euros to take over

---

We dribbled that stuff in as it became politically convenient to do so. Thousands upon thousands of Ukes died as we dangled our toys in their faces over the first two years of the war and made "ah ah ah!" noises. We actually caused several of those breaches as we kept holding our aid at the worst times btw.

And no person who is not trying to be disingenuous could ever discuss the conflict there without acceding the two extremely different admins running it. Biden et al didn't give a damn about the Ukes and just bought political favor with their lives with our military aid. However, Trump and company f'ing despise Ukraine and have from day one and have not lifted a finger that they were not bound to by earlier agreements to help. In fact, if you truly wanna to get into the nitty gritty, a massive argument can be made Trump has muddled and muddied the war over there so much he is actually been more hurtful than helpful to Ukraine. To put it lightly. With that viewpoint, (which I tend to agree with) Trump has turned his back on Ukraine and by extension, we have.

People here keep throwing this argument around like we were pretty little altruistic angels when in reality pretty much every piece of gear and other aid was painfully extracted after ugly political fights for pretty much every single bullet and MRE.

nortex97 said:

---

Gaeilge said:

---

Russia isn't making any money right now because Ukraine is blowing up all of their O&G too.

---

Kiev school of economics says they have doubled daily revenue, to $760 million/day.

Quote:

---

Recent analysis from the Kyiv School of Economics Institute paints a striking picture. Russia's monthly earnings from energy could almost double, jumping from roughly $12 billion to as much as $24 billion in the current month. The main drivers are skyrocketing crude oil prices combined with a temporary loosening of sanctions pressure from the United States under President Donald Trump. That easing has made it easier and less risky for buyers to purchase Russian oil that was previously harder to move, leading to stronger demand and smoother shipments.

---

---

I get the price is higher, but Ukraine has hit ~30% of their export terminals in the last couple of weeks with drone attacks.

Gaeilge said:

---

TRUMP: WILL EXPRESS 'MY DISGUST' WITH NATO IN HIS SPEECH; SAYS HE IS 'ABSOLUTELY' CONSIDERING WITHDRAWING U.S. FROM NATO

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) April 1, 2026

---

Ah. There it is. To be expected I guess. My God, it is becoming harder and harder to take this man seriously. Something, something better than Kamala. Yes, we all know that. Doesn't mean we have to be happy with these outright petulant and childish tantrums that most of us know by now are just hot air.

I swear his conduct is legitimately embarrassing/disgusting to watch not as a leader of our nation even, but as just a grown man.

Nevertheless, if it does happen the next admin will get us back in. This is all so damn pointless and if anything is just an indictment of how poorly our Iranian adventure has gone off the rails.

Wow, amazing appeal to authority, what a convincing argument.


Can you please post more twitter slop to support your positions?

Of course not….

Doesn't mean there will not new understandings, roles and funding expectation. But the idea we don't need NATO is silly.

Quote:

---

So your take is that if we don't continue to fund 2/3 of NATO in perpetuity

---

We spend more than them. It didn't mean we are "funding 2/3 of NATO". They are expected to spend at least 2% of GDP on defense and now they are.

We don't fund NATO 2/3s though? Where does that even come from?

And while I agree that I don't think we would "fail" per se without them it sure as **** would make things so much harder in the future in our next Article 5. Which is just a PC way of saying more American dead at a much higher dollar cost.

Hard agree our internal strife is far more dangerous to us in the long run. Though that may just manifest into a conquering of us by outside forces as we splinter apart at the seams.

NATO should have been disbanded when the Warsaw Pact broke up.
It seems like it now exists purely for its own sake. Not really sure what we get from it at this point.

The compromise position on NATO which I would be fine with:

1. We stop being the top funding and resource mechanism for NATO. We transition to being a minor participant. It makes no sense that a country not even in the same hemisphere as Europe carry's the burden for it. This also has the added benefit of forcing European countries to be accountable for its own sovereignty, safety, and sustainability. Three things they have utterly failed at and accelerated in the last 20 years.

2. Change the mission. The Soviet Union died 35 years ago. At least make the mission and purpose relevant.

3. Regarding Trumps address tonight, he launches into a lengthy monologue chastising Europe and NATO and then at the very end of his speech, he pauses, and then says "April Fools!!!" [/screen fades to black].

Quote:

---

Change the mission

---

We are the only NATO country to invoke article five. 1000+ NATO troops died fighting for us and it wasn't against Russia.

Also Russia is currently invading a country in Europe so I'd say perhaps they're still worth some focus.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Stole this from somewhere, but it's fitting.

This whole situation is like watching a 3YO and a 5YO stacking blocks together, and then the 3YO just knocks them all down for the hell of it. The 5YO gets up and walks away, and the 3YO throws a fit and yelling at the 5YO for not helping him restack the blocks.

---

That analogy is not really accurate.

More like, the 5YO consistently sits and watches the 3YO stack blocks. Always tells Mom that they BOTH did it, and then whines, stamps their foot, and walks away when the 3YO knocks down the blocks.

Then Mom (resident libs) gets upset when the 3YO says he doesn't want to play with the 5YO anymore.

twelve12twelve said:

---

Wow, amazing appeal to authority, what a convincing argument.


Can you please post more twitter slop to support your positions?

---

It appears you don't understand the Appeal to Authority fallacy. It applies when you use only the authority figure - without any other argument made - to justify a position.

See Anthony Faucci and "I am the science, so do what I say."

In Ike's case, his argument and rationale is right there in the tweet: The object of NATO - per its first commander - was to ultimately allow the NATO member countries to stand on their own and defend themselves within a 10 year time frame. Here we are 70 years later and most of the NATO "allies" are weaker militarily than they were at the close of WWII. That's a simple fact.

The argument is that NATO hasn't - and will not - meet the objective of European countries being able to defend themselves.

How does NATO help us with China?

That's the big question in my view.

Thank you.

While we've had our own factions clearly aligned against American interests for decades (ahem, USAID), the time to exit entangling 'alliances' that are anything but is clearly the present one.

.@RonPaul Trump’s clear mandate of pursuing America’s First agenda we have the best opportunity in decades to sever our damaging and expensive entangling alliance sacross the globe. Let’s start with NATO.
💥GET OUT OF NATO.

.@SenMikeLee Those who worship at the altar of NATO… pic.twitter.com/EmREZG70rF

— 🦅 Eagle Wings 🦅 (@CRRJA5) March 4, 2025

Basing decisions/rights/negotiations can and should be handled quite separately.

Question: How exactly do they plan to enforce us not using said airspace or bases? You literally contract out your defense to us. Are you really gonna stop us if we ignore this 'ban'?

Maybe man up and account for your own defense if you don't want us using your airspace etc and essentially funding NATO ourselves.

What really would they do if we ignored this?

Operating large jets (tankers/bombers etc) in contradiction of approved flight plans/air traffic controller instructions would be highly impractical imho.

And, while we are a nato member, the bases are signed with member countries again outside of nato itself, so those agreements as to basing rights/uses of the facilities are subject to the terms of these agreements, which is yet another point supporting my belief that nato is useless to us, at best. Being a nato member doesn't give us a right to go build another large airbase in Romania/Italy etc. which is a common misperception imho. There's no contractual nato template for 'air base use rights.'

We're not protecting Europe by being in NATO, we're protecting our own national strategic interests. We do roughly two trillion dollars of mutual trade with the EU every year and that trade generates approximately six million US jobs.

The US military stationed in Europe not only provide a crucial tripwire helping to deter Russian aggression against our vital European markets, but they also are an invaluable forward-based logistics structure and quick response force for protecting similar national interests in 92 countries across Europe, Africa and the ME.

The US only pays 16% (~$3.5B) of NATO's annual operating budget as each country's contribution is based on its GDP. So, only a miniscule fraction of total US yearly military budget ($852B) is for NATO alone, the vast preponderance of funding is for general-purpose forces used to protect all of our varied interests around the globe.

If NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US defense budget would remain essentially unchanged because the global threats to our national interests would also remain unchanged.

Failure to deter another major war in Europe could cost us tens of thousands of lives and many trillions of dollars in war costs and lost trade and, if the conflict went nuclear, might be the death of the US as we know it. So having the US lead NATO, stationing units in Europe to train on a daily basis with our allies and remaining fully integrated into the NATO command structure is far, far cheaper than the cost of another war.

Participation in NATO is straightforward risk management. We are simply protecting our multi-trillion-dollar market in Europe the same way a prudent businessman invests in a $5K alarm system to protect a million-dollar structure. It's worth every penny.

Europe is also the motherland of most of our ancestry. No matter how screwed up Europe is politically, you cannot ignore that we still, with a few exceptions, have far more in common culturally with Europe than any other region in the world. If Europe were to fall to Russia or simply become alienated from the US, the world would become a far more dangerous place for us. We are much stronger with Europe by our side than without them.

That said, I am pleased at this Administration's efforts to encourage our NATO allies to adequately fund their own militaries at least at 2% of GDP and all 31 now do so with several spending much more, up from only three in 2014.

This increase in defense spending means European NATO allies as a whole are collectively spending 2% of their combined GDP on defense for the first time and NATO has agreed to strive for 5% as soon as possible. We, and they, are safer when we all contribute to the deterrent credibility of the North Atlantic Treaty's military arm.

Gaeilge said:

---

TRUMP: WILL EXPRESS 'MY DISGUST' WITH NATO IN HIS SPEECH; SAYS HE IS 'ABSOLUTELY' CONSIDERING WITHDRAWING U.S. FROM NATO

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) April 1, 2026

---

By law, leaving NATO requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate or a separate law approved by both chambers of congress. Not happening.

nortex97 said:

---

Operating large jets (tankers/bombers etc) in contradiction of approved flight plans/air traffic controller instructions would be highly impractical imho.

And, while we are a nato member, the bases are signed with member countries again outside of nato itself, so those agreements as to basing rights/uses of the facilities are subject to the terms of these agreements, which is yet another point supporting my belief that nato is useless to us, at best. Being a nato member doesn't give us a right to go build another large airbase in Romania/Italy etc. which is a common misperception imho. There's no contractual nato template for 'air base use rights.'

---

Nothing says we have to leave NATO. But how about we just start taking our bases out of the countries that are opposing us and move them somewhere more friendly. Stop spending money on the others and move all of their orders for equipment and supplies to the back of the queue for purchase.

WestAustinAg said:

---

When considering whether we exit Nato maybe go look at the fall of Rome...and the continuance of the success of Constantinople as the Rome of the east.

Rome fell to the invaders...got mired in too much debt...stopped growing its empre and its people stopped caring about its empire success. It also began to pull out of foreign relationships.

Constantinople continue its heavy use of foreign influence and maintained its military spending.

If you want us to leave NATO you want us to eventually fail.

---

An incredible amount of stupidity in this post. If thr US leaves NATO, NATO doesn't dissolve. It means the Europeans have to cover the full freight of their own defense. Rome=Europe in your scenario. The US is vastly different because of the Atlantic Ocean.

The EU members have Not been covering their treaty agreements for decades. If NATO fails its not due to US withdrawing support, its due to the decades of deadbeats not maintaining their required level of support. The war in Ukraine has exposed all of this.

Trump has been fed up with it. The US taxpayer has been supporting the deadbeat euro trash for way too long. The war in Iran, which is critical for energy to Europe, has exposed again the lack of European military to not be able to defend their own critical energy supplies. And that's not account for their dependence on Russia who is also their sworn enemy.

TLDNR: Europeans are deadbeats, useless and without vision. The US does not need to support them 35 years after the soviets fell.