Maybe I'm missing something here. I thought NATO was a defense organization where members pledged to defend each other if attacked. The U.S. is a member but the U.S. wasn't attacked; it is, in fact, the aggressor. NATO is not refuting its mandate, the U.S. is making a request outside the principals of the organization.
If Trump and the U.S. need help, then his requests should go to individual states or countries. If they choose to help they should have lots of strings attached. The rescinding of tariffs for one, with a treaty to never impose them again. I would suggest Trump needs to resign before I would help. This has nothing to do with NATO.
In any given situation you have weak and strong leaders for different sides. It often happens that one side, now under weak leadership, will then get strong leadership and so on. It is terrible if both sides have weak leadership at the same time, but can be beneficial if both sides have strong leadership, at the same time. With regards to NATO, it has very weak leadership in the form of Mark Rutte. He comes across as a groveling, sniffling underling, who asks "How high" when Trump says "Jump". Much worse than Keir Starmer, Rutte projects the image of one who is spineless, who will cave at the least bit of inconvenience.
Yes, the alignment of the Alliance is in question. Some of the leaders appear strong, while others not so much. The weak will follow/ be lead by even a weak leader, if said leader is a little bit stronger. One of the problems it seems, is that everyone wants to be seen as doing the correct thing while not being able to muster the actual fortitude to do it when push comes to shove. Things are no longer what they were and the sooner NATO realizes that, the better for us all. Some leaders are standing up (and sticking their necks out). Others have to get off the pot, so to speak.
Let's not forget NATO is by nature a defensive alliance, Article 5 (obligation to DEFEND by the entire alliance) is only invoked when a NATO member is attacked, not when a member decides to attack someone. So Trump as usual is wrong or deliberately misleading when he's asking NATO to help, they have zero obligation to assist.
As to allies in general, yes you might expect them to assist but then if you treat Russia more as an ally than you do the EU countries which you've been insulting for 15 months, should you be really surprised they said no?
He is blathering because he's trying to change the narrative that it will be the EU’s fault that the Strait remains closed. His usual pattern, do something stupid that backfires then try to pin the blame elsewhere (he's thrown Hegseth under the bus, started hunting Israel is a problem, etc). This isn't over because he's lost control of the narrative, Iran is in control and that's why the EU is steering clear militarily but is trying to engage Iran diplomatically.
Here's the deal...you do not spit on the graves of our NATO partners military that served with the US in Afghanistan and Iraq and died there, let alone the tens of thousands of wounded. Prince Harry SERVED in Afghanistan...and none of the Trump boys have ever served in the military.
I get the frustration Cassandra... a lot of people feel like the system isn’t working for them.
But once everything gets framed as one big hidden group controlling everything, it gets harder to have a real conversation about what’s actually happening.
Let trump hang himself. Don't waste money and lives for someone who doesn't deserve it. If you bail him out he will just keep bullying and bashing. He needs consequence especially now. If he hadn't been covered for all his life we wouldn't be here. He should have been jailed a dozen times.
Now he needs to be told no. No he doesn't get rescued for this dumbass decision. This one he owns wholly. And the gop have responsibility and needs to be put in time out, if not jail for colluding with the president. Don't let them off.
NATO shouldn’t be involved at all. This war has nothing to do with NATO. Rutte should have said that NATO is defensive and as such is unable to participate. Individual countries whether in NATO or not are free to choose their own path.
Don’t let the orange man frame the discussion. State the defensive purpose of NATO and bow out.
Mark Rutte has ALWAYS been a Trumper! He adores him. And I can guarantee that the rest of the leadership in NATO, is now in discussion about removing Rutte from his post!
He is NOT acting as spokesperson for NATO after being directed by the rest of the NATO countries, he is acting on his own. And I rather doubt he will still be in his position within the next 2 months because everyone is getting very fed up with him!
I would hazard a guess that the NAC will be meeting shortly to discuss this, especially since NATO operates on consensus and I doubt they authorized Rutte to make these comments as a whole!
Different angle on this, when is Chump going to increase his spending on defence as a percentage America is spending 3.2% of GDP on defence. America spends more because America has a larger economy than the other members put together.
This is Chumps war not NATO's, he can't invoke art.5 because America along with Israel are the aggressors, he started a war he realistically cannot win. I fore one am glad we have Starmer in charge and not Badenoch/Farage who would have committed because they want to be in Chumps good gracies.
Chump told, no insisted, that other NATO members increase defence spending and they are but they're not buying American they're keeping the money in Europe and manufacturing locally.
Chump supports Russia against Ukraine, Russia supports Iran against America but Ukraine is supporting the Gulf States and America with drones and drone operators. Or have I read it wrong.
Ukraine sent anti-drone drones that cost about $2,500 against the 2-4 million dollars for the American missiles, it's a war of economics, which country can afford and replace its armaments the quickest, Russian backing of Iran could swing the balance of warfare into Iran's favour.
Well Zelenskyy just signed a ten year deal to share technical expertise and training with Saudi Arabia so to me that indicates he is supporting the Israeli and American terrorists
Thanks Fred for insisting on clarity as far as Ukraine & President Zelenskyy. It’s so easy to start rumors and/or misinformation in the climate fostered by the orange idiot in the White House. Can you tell I never use his I’ll-begotten title as that belongs to President Zelenskyy nor do I like to use his name unless it’s the original spelling of his grandfather with a little personal twist of my own - dRumpf!!
so it’s weird that you’re focusing on NATO not being aligned while you also recognize this War of Choice is not what NATO was made for. It was to protect each other when they were attacked.
The U.S. wasn’t attacked. It’s been the one doing the attacking. Just like Russia and Isreal.
Venuzula didn’t attack us. Cuba didn’t attack us. Iran didn’t attack us. Ukraine didn’t attack Russia. Gaza, Lebanon and Iran didn’t attack Isreal no matter how much they consistently claim victimhood. We have these war-mongering leaders all doing wars of choice and acts of aggression.
That’s not how NATO works. NATO is a DEFENSIVE retaliatory pact. If the UK attacked Turkey, why would the rest of NATO get involved with that?
The biggest issue here isn’t the majority of NATO countries. It’s the U.S. & Isreal being wannabe conquerers attacking other countries. This isn’t rocket science, it’s pretty cut and dry.
Maybe I'm missing something here. I thought NATO was a defense organization where members pledged to defend each other if attacked. The U.S. is a member but the U.S. wasn't attacked; it is, in fact, the aggressor. NATO is not refuting its mandate, the U.S. is making a request outside the principals of the organization.
If Trump and the U.S. need help, then his requests should go to individual states or countries. If they choose to help they should have lots of strings attached. The rescinding of tariffs for one, with a treaty to never impose them again. I would suggest Trump needs to resign before I would help. This has nothing to do with NATO.
You’re not missing anything Jim.
NATO is a defensive alliance, and this situation doesn’t trigger that.
So this isn’t NATO refusing...
it’s countries deciding individually whether to get involved.
Big difference.
somebody needs to tell the Orangutan that.
In any given situation you have weak and strong leaders for different sides. It often happens that one side, now under weak leadership, will then get strong leadership and so on. It is terrible if both sides have weak leadership at the same time, but can be beneficial if both sides have strong leadership, at the same time. With regards to NATO, it has very weak leadership in the form of Mark Rutte. He comes across as a groveling, sniffling underling, who asks "How high" when Trump says "Jump". Much worse than Keir Starmer, Rutte projects the image of one who is spineless, who will cave at the least bit of inconvenience.
I get where you’re coming from Ron.
What we’re seeing right now feels less like “weak vs strong leadership”… and more like a system that isn’t aligned anymore.
NATO only works when there’s real consensus behind the scenes.
When that disappears, even a strong leader would struggle... because they’re trying to represent positions that don’t actually match.
What stood out to me here wasn’t personality… it was the gap...
👉 What’s being said publicly
👉 vs what countries are actually willing to do
That’s where things start to break down.
And once that gap gets too wide, it’s not about who’s strong or weak anymore... it’s about whether the alliance can function at all.
Yes, the alignment of the Alliance is in question. Some of the leaders appear strong, while others not so much. The weak will follow/ be lead by even a weak leader, if said leader is a little bit stronger. One of the problems it seems, is that everyone wants to be seen as doing the correct thing while not being able to muster the actual fortitude to do it when push comes to shove. Things are no longer what they were and the sooner NATO realizes that, the better for us all. Some leaders are standing up (and sticking their necks out). Others have to get off the pot, so to speak.
Let's not forget NATO is by nature a defensive alliance, Article 5 (obligation to DEFEND by the entire alliance) is only invoked when a NATO member is attacked, not when a member decides to attack someone. So Trump as usual is wrong or deliberately misleading when he's asking NATO to help, they have zero obligation to assist.
As to allies in general, yes you might expect them to assist but then if you treat Russia more as an ally than you do the EU countries which you've been insulting for 15 months, should you be really surprised they said no?
He is blathering because he's trying to change the narrative that it will be the EU’s fault that the Strait remains closed. His usual pattern, do something stupid that backfires then try to pin the blame elsewhere (he's thrown Hegseth under the bus, started hunting Israel is a problem, etc). This isn't over because he's lost control of the narrative, Iran is in control and that's why the EU is steering clear militarily but is trying to engage Iran diplomatically.
Exactly Denis... Article 5 is about defense, not joining offensive actions.
That’s why Europe is holding back.
And yeah… when relationships have been strained, you don’t get automatic support... you get hesitation.
This feels less like “alliance failure” and more like misalignment in real time.
As some Trumpsters like to say, FAFO!
Here's the deal...you do not spit on the graves of our NATO partners military that served with the US in Afghanistan and Iraq and died there, let alone the tens of thousands of wounded. Prince Harry SERVED in Afghanistan...and none of the Trump boys have ever served in the military.
That history matters Kay... a lot.
Allies have stood together before, and there’s real sacrifice behind that.
Which is why moments like this feel different…
because support isn’t automatic when the situation itself isn’t agreed on.
Lets call this entire shitshow for what it really is
The Epstein class.
They rule it all
They want it all
They will do anything to get what they want.
Zionism is evil
Christian nationalism is evil
The “ humans” are
All 7 deadly sins walking.
THIS MUST END. ⛓️💥💯🇨🇦
I get the frustration Cassandra... a lot of people feel like the system isn’t working for them.
But once everything gets framed as one big hidden group controlling everything, it gets harder to have a real conversation about what’s actually happening.
Right now there are very real, visible issues...
leadership decisions, alliances shifting, conflicting interests.
That’s where I try to keep the focus.
Excellent idea.
I am so constantly shocked I often react quickly
N A T O Is resisting the crack pot ruling the USA’s attacks !
Let trump hang himself. Don't waste money and lives for someone who doesn't deserve it. If you bail him out he will just keep bullying and bashing. He needs consequence especially now. If he hadn't been covered for all his life we wouldn't be here. He should have been jailed a dozen times.
Now he needs to be told no. No he doesn't get rescued for this dumbass decision. This one he owns wholly. And the gop have responsibility and needs to be put in time out, if not jail for colluding with the president. Don't let them off.
I get the frustration.
What we’re seeing right now is countries deciding where their limits are...
especially when they weren’t part of the original decision.
Saying “no” isn’t about punishment…
it’s about not getting pulled into something they don’t control.
That’s where this moment feels different.
NATO shouldn’t be involved at all. This war has nothing to do with NATO. Rutte should have said that NATO is defensive and as such is unable to participate. Individual countries whether in NATO or not are free to choose their own path.
Don’t let the orange man frame the discussion. State the defensive purpose of NATO and bow out.
That’s pretty much where a lot of countries are landing Kalyrn.
NATO itself isn’t triggered here...
so it comes down to individual decisions, not alliance obligation.
The tension right now is more about how it’s being framed…
than what NATO is actually required to do.
Mark Rutte has ALWAYS been a Trumper! He adores him. And I can guarantee that the rest of the leadership in NATO, is now in discussion about removing Rutte from his post!
He is NOT acting as spokesperson for NATO after being directed by the rest of the NATO countries, he is acting on his own. And I rather doubt he will still be in his position within the next 2 months because everyone is getting very fed up with him!
I would hazard a guess that the NAC will be meeting shortly to discuss this, especially since NATO operates on consensus and I doubt they authorized Rutte to make these comments as a whole!
There’s definitely frustration showing Alexis, no question.
But I’d be careful about assuming what’s happening behind closed doors...
NATO tends to move slower and more quietly than that.
What is clear is the gap right now between what’s being said…
and what countries are actually willing to do.
That’s the real tension.
Different angle on this, when is Chump going to increase his spending on defence as a percentage America is spending 3.2% of GDP on defence. America spends more because America has a larger economy than the other members put together.
This is Chumps war not NATO's, he can't invoke art.5 because America along with Israel are the aggressors, he started a war he realistically cannot win. I fore one am glad we have Starmer in charge and not Badenoch/Farage who would have committed because they want to be in Chumps good gracies.
Chump told, no insisted, that other NATO members increase defence spending and they are but they're not buying American they're keeping the money in Europe and manufacturing locally.
Chump supports Russia against Ukraine, Russia supports Iran against America but Ukraine is supporting the Gulf States and America with drones and drone operators. Or have I read it wrong.
You’ve got parts of that right, but it’s getting mixed together a bit.
NATO spending pressure is real...
but this situation still doesn’t trigger Article 5, so countries decide individually.
On Ukraine...
they’re sharing defensive expertise, not sending forces into this conflict.
Right now it’s less about “who’s on whose side” and more about each country protecting its own interests.
Ukraine sent anti-drone drones that cost about $2,500 against the 2-4 million dollars for the American missiles, it's a war of economics, which country can afford and replace its armaments the quickest, Russian backing of Iran could swing the balance of warfare into Iran's favour.
No way any country should be getting involved in the terrorist attacks on Iran. It would appear that weasel Zelenskyy has jumped in
I’d be careful with that take.
There’s no evidence that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has “jumped into” the war in the way people are implying.
What is happening...
👉 Ukraine has supported pressure on Iran politically
👉 They’ve offered drone defense expertise to Gulf countries
👉 And Zelenskyy has been warning that Russia and Iran are working together.
That’s very different from sending troops into combat.
Right now, Ukraine is still fighting its own war...
they don’t have the capacity (or incentive) to open another front.
There’s a lot of noise flying around on this topic, so it’s worth separating...
👉 Political support / positioning
vs
👉 Actual military involvement
Two very different things.
Well Zelenskyy just signed a ten year deal to share technical expertise and training with Saudi Arabia so to me that indicates he is supporting the Israeli and American terrorists
That deal is about training and technical cooperation, not joining the war.
Ukraine’s main focus is still its own conflict... they’re not opening a new front.
Supporting partnerships in the region ≠ direct involvement in combat.
Thanks Fred for insisting on clarity as far as Ukraine & President Zelenskyy. It’s so easy to start rumors and/or misinformation in the climate fostered by the orange idiot in the White House. Can you tell I never use his I’ll-begotten title as that belongs to President Zelenskyy nor do I like to use his name unless it’s the original spelling of his grandfather with a little personal twist of my own - dRumpf!!
Thanks Sherry...
There’s a lot of noise right now, and it doesn’t take much for things to get twisted or exaggerated.
I’m just trying to keep things grounded in what’s actually happening vs what’s being said...
especially on Ukraine, where the lines get blurred fast.
Clarity matters more than ever right now.
Do a dive into Rutte and you'll understand why he call tRump daddy.
I get the frustration Alicia... there’s definitely a perception issue right now.
But I try not to get pulled into the “labels and nicknames” side of it.
What matters more (to me anyway) is what just happened...
👉 He spoke as if Europe was aligned
👉 Europe clearly isn’t
👉 And now there’s daylight between leadership and reality
That’s the bigger story.
Because once the person representing the alliance isn’t actually reflecting the alliance…
you’ve got a structural problem, not just a personality one.
so it’s weird that you’re focusing on NATO not being aligned while you also recognize this War of Choice is not what NATO was made for. It was to protect each other when they were attacked.
The U.S. wasn’t attacked. It’s been the one doing the attacking. Just like Russia and Isreal.
Venuzula didn’t attack us. Cuba didn’t attack us. Iran didn’t attack us. Ukraine didn’t attack Russia. Gaza, Lebanon and Iran didn’t attack Isreal no matter how much they consistently claim victimhood. We have these war-mongering leaders all doing wars of choice and acts of aggression.
That’s not how NATO works. NATO is a DEFENSIVE retaliatory pact. If the UK attacked Turkey, why would the rest of NATO get involved with that?
The biggest issue here isn’t the majority of NATO countries. It’s the U.S. & Isreal being wannabe conquerers attacking other countries. This isn’t rocket science, it’s pretty cut and dry.
You’re right about NATO being defensive... that part’s clear.
What I’m pointing to is something slightly different...
👉 not whether NATO should be involved
👉 but how it’s being presented vs what countries are actually doing
That gap is the story.
Because once the messaging and reality don’t line up…
that’s when you start seeing cracks show.
I hear that argument a lot… but it’s not that simple anymore.
NATO isn’t a “pay-to-play” deal where one country covers the bill and the others automatically follow into any conflict.
Each country still decides if and when it commits troops... especially when the situation involves a war they didn’t start and weren’t consulted on.
And that’s the key issue here.
Right now Europe isn’t saying “we won’t defend NATO.”
They’re saying...
👉 “This wasn’t a NATO decision.”
👉 “We weren’t part of the call.”
👉 “So we’re not jumping in automatically.”
That’s a very different line.
Also worth noting...
European countries have increased defense spending and contributed heavily in places like Afghanistan.
This moment isn’t really about “who paid more.”
It’s about how decisions are being made… and who’s expected to follow after the fact.
I think you are confused, perhaps you are thinking of the UN?
There is nothing about this and the US doesn’t find more than 15% of annual operating budget. So I have no idea what you’re referring too.