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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Europe has no choice but to join in for their dates, the US has paid the freight on nato for too long
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.
Nato has stated it will broke if US doesn't make its payment