GMaster0 said:

---

Military alliances are one of the many advantages we have over our enemies that they can't replicate. Nations with strong alliances thrive and those without them wither. Alliances are a key underpinning of our current National Security, Defense and Service level strategies.

Someone once said if you can't create harmony vicious harmony on the battlefield, based on trust across different military services, foreign allied militaries, and diplomatic lines, you need to go home, because your leadership is obsolete.

---

In order to create harmony on the battlefield, your allies have to first be willing to actually show up on the battlefield. If they don't and actively work against you away from the battlefield, it is reasonable to question their true value as an "ally".

Got this gem from video below. NATO. Needs America To Operate




VDH is spot on:

I'm a little surprised that Germany seems to still be in Trump's crosshairs. Merz has been saying all the right things in the last few months calling out the EU for relying on green energy and obsessing over red tape which has shackled their economies. And he was just here a couple of weeks ago visiting Trump at the WH and I thought they had a good meeting. Trump was praising him. Not to mention he's publicly worked around and put Macron in a corner by working directly with Melloni in Italy instead.

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I think it needs to be explicitly stated: the current treaty is obsolete and barely in any compliance. Tear it up and renegotiate a new treaty that puts a higher burden on countries to defend their own territory and mutual defense areas.

---

the mechanism for increasing burden sharing already exists within the treaty and is already working.

---

How about the mechanism for actually acting like allies towards one another? Do they have a mechanism for working on that? Because there are a bunch of our NATO "allies" who seem to have forgotten how that part works.

---

how so? because they didn't leap to join us in iran? something else?

---

No. Because they denied letting us even fly in their airspace or use the air bases we already paid them for and that are a huge economic contributor to them. It would cost them nothing to let us use their bases and overfly their airspace and they refused us even that. No reason other than to virtue signal to Iran whose side they were really on. Well, picking the wrong side has consequences as they are about to find out.

---

sovereign allies refusing to participate in a war they believe is strategically reckless is the system working as designed, the same principle that lets the US ignore european objections when it suits american interests.

if american power projection in the middle east and africa depends so heavily on european basing and overflight rights that denial creates genuine operational hardship, then the case for maintaining the alliance that guarantees routine access to the infrastructure makes itself

---

You are ignoring what is being said and creating a strawman to fit your narrative. I am not talking about asking them to participate in the war, such as protecting shipping in the SoH. I am talking about flights coming from the US to the Middle East being told to go around Spanish airspace. I am talking about Italy and Britain telling us that we cannot land or takeoff planes from our own bases that we paid them to let us place on their soil. That is not "refusing to participate in the war", that is needlessly making things more difficult and expensive for us in the name of virtue signaling to islamic regime in Iran that they are more on their side than on the side of the US.

If they are against us using our bases on their land to project power in the middle east and africa, that is fine. But we are also justified in reviewing whether a continued alliance with them is in our interests or not based on their refusal to act like an ally.

---

the distinction between participation and transit access blurs more than you'd like to admit. every nation that allowed american overflight and basing for iraq transit in 2003 paid real diplomatic costs in the muslim world, and these governments know that facilitating power projection against iran makes them co-belligerents in tehran's eyes, regardless of what washington calls it.

the entire reason you have those bases and routine overflight agreements is because NATO's legal and political architecture underwrites them. withdraw from the alliance and you don't punish them for saying no, instead you lose the standing to ask at all. dismantling the framework that gives you leverage over their behavior guarantees you get even less cooperation.

---

And the part in bold is exactly what I am talking about. They weighed the value of being an ally to us against the value of being seen as an ally to Iran and decided that being an ally to Iran was worth more to them. They believed that they would suffer little or no consequences from telling us no, and they are about to find out how wrong they were about that. Who else in the muslim world was going to hold it against them? All of the gulf states are under attack too and they are letting us use their bases. The reality is that being seen favorably by the Islamic regime in Iran and their own imported muslims was more important to them than being seen favorably by the US. Which is fine if that is what they want, but we should not just forget about it and pretend it never happened. We should reevaluate their value as an ally and reassess our own commitment to being tied to them geopolitically.

---

romania, bulgaria, greece, and the baltics all approved expanded access or deployment so characterizing NATO as uniformly siding with tehran over us collapses a split continent into a single villain. the gulf states letting us use their bases only really proves self interest. they are under direct iranian threat and would cooperate with anyone willing to shoot back, which ultimately undermines the point about them being reliable partners.

if spain and italy's refusal genuinely created operational hardship, that dependency is the strongest argument for using american leverage within the alliance to force compliance rather than walking away from the only legal framework that gives you standing to demand base access in the first place

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I think it needs to be explicitly stated: the current treaty is obsolete and barely in any compliance. Tear it up and renegotiate a new treaty that puts a higher burden on countries to defend their own territory and mutual defense areas.

---

the mechanism for increasing burden sharing already exists within the treaty and is already working.

---

How about the mechanism for actually acting like allies towards one another? Do they have a mechanism for working on that? Because there are a bunch of our NATO "allies" who seem to have forgotten how that part works.

---

how so? because they didn't leap to join us in iran? something else?

---

No. Because they denied letting us even fly in their airspace or use the air bases we already paid them for and that are a huge economic contributor to them. It would cost them nothing to let us use their bases and overfly their airspace and they refused us even that. No reason other than to virtue signal to Iran whose side they were really on. Well, picking the wrong side has consequences as they are about to find out.

---

sovereign allies refusing to participate in a war they believe is strategically reckless is the system working as designed, the same principle that lets the US ignore european objections when it suits american interests.

if american power projection in the middle east and africa depends so heavily on european basing and overflight rights that denial creates genuine operational hardship, then the case for maintaining the alliance that guarantees routine access to the infrastructure makes itself

---

You are ignoring what is being said and creating a strawman to fit your narrative. I am not talking about asking them to participate in the war, such as protecting shipping in the SoH. I am talking about flights coming from the US to the Middle East being told to go around Spanish airspace. I am talking about Italy and Britain telling us that we cannot land or takeoff planes from our own bases that we paid them to let us place on their soil. That is not "refusing to participate in the war", that is needlessly making things more difficult and expensive for us in the name of virtue signaling to islamic regime in Iran that they are more on their side than on the side of the US.

If they are against us using our bases on their land to project power in the middle east and africa, that is fine. But we are also justified in reviewing whether a continued alliance with them is in our interests or not based on their refusal to act like an ally.

---

the distinction between participation and transit access blurs more than you'd like to admit. every nation that allowed american overflight and basing for iraq transit in 2003 paid real diplomatic costs in the muslim world, and these governments know that facilitating power projection against iran makes them co-belligerents in tehran's eyes, regardless of what washington calls it.

the entire reason you have those bases and routine overflight agreements is because NATO's legal and political architecture underwrites them. withdraw from the alliance and you don't punish them for saying no, instead you lose the standing to ask at all. dismantling the framework that gives you leverage over their behavior guarantees you get even less cooperation.

---

It's quite simple. Enemies do not allow you to flyover their country...

GAC06 said:

---

Calling out specific countries for not allowing overflight or use of bases would be perfectly reasonable.

Calling out a defensive alliance for declining to join your offensive war is mind blowingly dumb.

---

It's called piling on the grievances. Rightfully so.

The article below has great amount of information on the status of NATO. The graph really lays bare the US contribution to NATO vs the rest of NATO.

Quote:

---

The numbers are stark enough: the United States accounts for more than 60 per cent of Nato's total defence spending and provides the bulk of the alliance's firepower, particularly at sea, in the air and in nuclear deterrence. It has 1.3 million active military personnel a full million more than Turkey, the next largest Nato force.

---

Free Telegraph article:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/4c9c058a97a0734d

That's not a contribution "to NATO". That's our defense spending which we use as we please.

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I think it needs to be explicitly stated: the current treaty is obsolete and barely in any compliance. Tear it up and renegotiate a new treaty that puts a higher burden on countries to defend their own territory and mutual defense areas.

---

the mechanism for increasing burden sharing already exists within the treaty and is already working.

---

How about the mechanism for actually acting like allies towards one another? Do they have a mechanism for working on that? Because there are a bunch of our NATO "allies" who seem to have forgotten how that part works.

---

how so? because they didn't leap to join us in iran? something else?

---

No. Because they denied letting us even fly in their airspace or use the air bases we already paid them for and that are a huge economic contributor to them. It would cost them nothing to let us use their bases and overfly their airspace and they refused us even that. No reason other than to virtue signal to Iran whose side they were really on. Well, picking the wrong side has consequences as they are about to find out.

---

sovereign allies refusing to participate in a war they believe is strategically reckless is the system working as designed, the same principle that lets the US ignore european objections when it suits american interests.

if american power projection in the middle east and africa depends so heavily on european basing and overflight rights that denial creates genuine operational hardship, then the case for maintaining the alliance that guarantees routine access to the infrastructure makes itself

---

You are ignoring what is being said and creating a strawman to fit your narrative. I am not talking about asking them to participate in the war, such as protecting shipping in the SoH. I am talking about flights coming from the US to the Middle East being told to go around Spanish airspace. I am talking about Italy and Britain telling us that we cannot land or takeoff planes from our own bases that we paid them to let us place on their soil. That is not "refusing to participate in the war", that is needlessly making things more difficult and expensive for us in the name of virtue signaling to islamic regime in Iran that they are more on their side than on the side of the US.

If they are against us using our bases on their land to project power in the middle east and africa, that is fine. But we are also justified in reviewing whether a continued alliance with them is in our interests or not based on their refusal to act like an ally.

---

the distinction between participation and transit access blurs more than you'd like to admit. every nation that allowed american overflight and basing for iraq transit in 2003 paid real diplomatic costs in the muslim world, and these governments know that facilitating power projection against iran makes them co-belligerents in tehran's eyes, regardless of what washington calls it.

the entire reason you have those bases and routine overflight agreements is because NATO's legal and political architecture underwrites them. withdraw from the alliance and you don't punish them for saying no, instead you lose the standing to ask at all. dismantling the framework that gives you leverage over their behavior guarantees you get even less cooperation.

---

And the part in bold is exactly what I am talking about. They weighed the value of being an ally to us against the value of being seen as an ally to Iran and decided that being an ally to Iran was worth more to them. They believed that they would suffer little or no consequences from telling us no, and they are about to find out how wrong they were about that. Who else in the muslim world was going to hold it against them? All of the gulf states are under attack too and they are letting us use their bases. The reality is that being seen favorably by the Islamic regime in Iran and their own imported muslims was more important to them than being seen favorably by the US. Which is fine if that is what they want, but we should not just forget about it and pretend it never happened. We should reevaluate their value as an ally and reassess our own commitment to being tied to them geopolitically.

---

romania, bulgaria, greece, and the baltics all approved expanded access or deployment so characterizing NATO as uniformly siding with tehran over us collapses a split continent into a single villain. the gulf states letting us use their bases only really proves self interest. they are under direct iranian threat and would cooperate with anyone willing to shoot back, which ultimately undermines the point about them being reliable partners.

if spain and italy's refusal genuinely created operational hardship, that dependency is the strongest argument for using american leverage within the alliance to force compliance rather than walking away from the only legal framework that gives you standing to demand base access in the first place

---

Which is why my original post was about criteria for assessing whether a member of the alliance is being a good ally or not. I wasn't saying we should leave NATO over this, but there are some nations that pretty consistently don't behave as good allies and we shouldn't automatically consider them as such just because they once were. If their willingness to be our friend depends on who is running our country, they are not that good of a friend.

GAC06 said:

---

That's not a contribution "to NATO". That's our defense spending which we use as we please.

---

You are wrong because without our military NATO doesn't work. They couldn't handle Kosovo or Libya without the US doing all the heavy lifting. They currently don't have any capability to shoot down ICBM's or IRBM without the US military. They don't have sensor platforms, heavy lifting capabilities, and tankers why because they are counting on the US providing all that. Time for bilateral security deals that insures basing and over flight rights no matter what.

VDH is spot on as usual.

Quote:

---

When NATO members in the past have operated unilaterally to defend their own national interests, they have often called on the U.S., as NATO's strongest member, for overt help.
For nearly 40 years, the U.S. had offered logistical, intelligence, reconnaissance, refueling, and diplomatic support to the French in their unilateral and postcolonial efforts to protect Chad from Libya and, later, Islamists.

---

Quote:

---

No matterRonald Reagan rightly saw the importance of solidarity with a NATO member and a long-time American ally. So he gave Britain a veritable blank check for American aid.
Currently, America has not asked NATO members to help bomb Iraneven though Europe, not the U.S., was in range of Iranian ballistic missiles, and soon perhaps nuclear-tipped ones as well.
Europeans are far more vulnerable to Iranian-inspired Islamic terrorism. They are more reliant on foreign oil from the Middle East, some of it passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

---

The British really have been exposed in last couple of months:

Quote:

---

Even worse was the pathetic British reaction to another Iranian missile launch at a British base at Akrotiri, Cyprus.
Yet a successful American effort in neutering a theocratic Iran was clearly of benefit to Europe. So is preventing the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz from becoming a toll booth run by the Iranian mullahs.

---

https://amgreatness.com/2026/04/02/a-foolish-nato-was-a-big-loser-in-the-iran-war/

GAC06 said:

---

That's not a contribution "to NATO". That's our defense spending which we use as we please.

---

As do we collectively use our war machines for the common good of NATO. The annual budget is the clubhouse fee only.

Quote:

---

NATO's annual budget is expected to cost about 5.3 billion (4.6 billion) in 2026, which includes contributions from member countries for various operational and administrative expenses.

---

The 5.3 billion is a pittance and does not fund any war fighting.

The percentage of GDP defense budget requirement is not contributed to NATO annually but spent by each member state.

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

AlaskanAg99 said:

---

I think it needs to be explicitly stated: the current treaty is obsolete and barely in any compliance. Tear it up and renegotiate a new treaty that puts a higher burden on countries to defend their own territory and mutual defense areas.

---

the mechanism for increasing burden sharing already exists within the treaty and is already working.

---

How about the mechanism for actually acting like allies towards one another? Do they have a mechanism for working on that? Because there are a bunch of our NATO "allies" who seem to have forgotten how that part works.

---

how so? because they didn't leap to join us in iran? something else?

---

No. Because they denied letting us even fly in their airspace or use the air bases we already paid them for and that are a huge economic contributor to them. It would cost them nothing to let us use their bases and overfly their airspace and they refused us even that. No reason other than to virtue signal to Iran whose side they were really on. Well, picking the wrong side has consequences as they are about to find out.

---

sovereign allies refusing to participate in a war they believe is strategically reckless is the system working as designed, the same principle that lets the US ignore european objections when it suits american interests.

if american power projection in the middle east and africa depends so heavily on european basing and overflight rights that denial creates genuine operational hardship, then the case for maintaining the alliance that guarantees routine access to the infrastructure makes itself

---

You are ignoring what is being said and creating a strawman to fit your narrative. I am not talking about asking them to participate in the war, such as protecting shipping in the SoH. I am talking about flights coming from the US to the Middle East being told to go around Spanish airspace. I am talking about Italy and Britain telling us that we cannot land or takeoff planes from our own bases that we paid them to let us place on their soil. That is not "refusing to participate in the war", that is needlessly making things more difficult and expensive for us in the name of virtue signaling to islamic regime in Iran that they are more on their side than on the side of the US.

If they are against us using our bases on their land to project power in the middle east and africa, that is fine. But we are also justified in reviewing whether a continued alliance with them is in our interests or not based on their refusal to act like an ally.

---

the distinction between participation and transit access blurs more than you'd like to admit. every nation that allowed american overflight and basing for iraq transit in 2003 paid real diplomatic costs in the muslim world, and these governments know that facilitating power projection against iran makes them co-belligerents in tehran's eyes, regardless of what washington calls it.

the entire reason you have those bases and routine overflight agreements is because NATO's legal and political architecture underwrites them. withdraw from the alliance and you don't punish them for saying no, instead you lose the standing to ask at all. dismantling the framework that gives you leverage over their behavior guarantees you get even less cooperation.

---

this is pure AI slop.

KentK93 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

That's not a contribution "to NATO". That's our defense spending which we use as we please.

---

You are wrong because without our military NATO doesn't work. They couldn't handle Kosovo or Libya without the US doing all the heavy lifting. They currently don't have any capability to shoot down ICBM's or IRBM without the US military. They don't have sensor platforms, heavy lifting capabilities, and tankers why because they are counting on the US providing all that. Time for bilateral security deals that insures basing and over flight rights no matter what.

---

Then make a logical argument based on that rather than nonsense like total defense budget. We have commitments all over the globe in our own interests that are out of NATO's role (like our current war) so our total spend isn't terribly relevant to our contribution to NATO. What matters is: are the member nations living up to their agreement to spend what's expected on defense and right now the answer to that is yes.

It's pretty simple if there is a war in Europe it would be the US Military doing the heavy lifting! We would be doing the most strikes. We would be moving the most supplies and soldiers. The US navy would be protecting the sea lanes. US Army will have more troops on the front line quicker than probably 2/3 of NATO countries. The US is the eyes, ears, and muscles of NATO by far. Most of the rest of NATO are leaches of caveats on what their troops can and can't do when Article 5 is invoked. I hope that helps you understand the basics if not do some research on each NATO country T&E really focus on supplies & transport.

We do the heavy lifting. I find it odd that such is not common knowledge to commissioned military personnel.

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2024/natos-direct-funding-arrangements-who-decides-and-who-pays

KentK93 said:

---

It's pretty simple if there is a war in Europe it would be the US Military doing the heavy lifting! We would be doing the most strikes. We would be moving the most supplies and soldiers. The US navy would be protecting the sea lanes. US Army will have more troops on the front line quicker than probably 2/3 of NATO countries. The US is the eyes, ears, and muscles of NATO by far. Most of the rest of NATO are leaches of caveats on what their troops can and can't do when Article 5 is invoked. I hope that helps you understand the basics if not do some research on each NATO country T&E really focus on supplies & transport.

---

There is a war in Europe. Thanks for the tip, friend. I've been to war alongside NATO.

Our nato 'allies' in Ottawa:

So @MarkJCarney shills for terrorists and has no problem with terrorist cells. https://t.co/cIfBiRpImh

— 𝕊𝕂𝕐 (@SKYRIDER4538) April 9, 2026

GAC06 said:

---

KentK93 said:

---

It's pretty simple if there is a war in Europe it would be the US Military doing the heavy lifting! We would be doing the most strikes. We would be moving the most supplies and soldiers. The US navy would be protecting the sea lanes. US Army will have more troops on the front line quicker than probably 2/3 of NATO countries. The US is the eyes, ears, and muscles of NATO by far. Most of the rest of NATO are leaches of caveats on what their troops can and can't do when Article 5 is invoked. I hope that helps you understand the basics if not do some research on each NATO country T&E really focus on supplies & transport.

---

There is a war in Europe. Thanks for the tip, friend. I've been to war alongside NATO.

---

Ukraine isn't a NATO country. So you already know that without US forces NATO isn't much of a deterrence. Well I was lucky because I served 9 years when our allies were strong and didn't have to go to war. South Korea & Japan are increasing their capabilities vs our NATO allies even with a war going on for 5 years. By the way my Godson was in Poland during the start of that war and then back in 2024. Tell me about Poland Patriot battery and NATO ally Turkey?

https://amgreatness.com/2026/04/02/a-foolish-nato-was-a-big-loser-in-the-iran-war/
https://amgreatness.com/2026/04/05/the-end-of-nato-and-other-spring-tidings/

Quote:

---

Tell me about Poland Patriot battery and NATO ally Turkey?

---

What would you like to know?

Pulling out of Spain entirely and/or demanding they not be part of any reformed nato if we are still to be in it would be great (though I think Trump has said US trade with them will be ending). Punishment:

Quote:

---

That matches with a new report about what the Trump team may be planning for the feckless ones.

Quote:

---

Trump is considering punishing some NATO members for not supporting U.S. efforts in Iran, The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday reported. One option involves moving some U.S. bases to countries deemed more helpful during the conflict. Poland, Romania, Lithuania and Greece are countries that could stand to gain U.S. troops, U.S. officials told the newspaper. Besides relocations, the plan also could target a U.S. base in at least one European country, possibly Spain or Germany, for closure, officials said.

---

Spain has been the worst, not only not being supportive but also with its leader actively speaking out against the U.S. action. They are also refusing to support a new NATO plan calling for defense spending of 5 percent of gross domestic product. Why don't they want to pony up what everyone else is now doing (thanks to Trump) to defend themselves? They want to prop up their welfare state, and that might put a dent in it.

Moving a U.S. base would likely hit that country economically, as well as not having it there for protection.
There may be other plans in the works as well.

Quote:

---

The plan is in its early stages but is supported by some top Trump officials, with the administration also considering a range of other options to punish allies, according to the newspaper report.

---

Obviously, there are a lot of considerations to consider, including costs and strategic locations.
But we also need to ensure that "allies" is a two-way street that they are there when we need them, just as we have been there for them, saving their bacon for decades.

---

We could move our naval base from Rota, likely at significant expense.

I'd support that too. We don't need as many bases around the med. Israeli's seem ready to provide more help too (and Greek/Italians).

ETA: Rota served as a temporary residence for the Biden Afghan 'refugees' (unvetted) before getting flown here, one more reason to decrease our presence there (to prevent future such Democrats from 'evacuating' moslems to the US).

Quote:

---

In 2021 the base temporarily hosted thousands of Afghan refugees transported by the 2021 Kabul airlift. One of the agreements that emerged from the 2022 NATO Madrid summit was to expand the U.S. destroyers stationed at the base from 4 to 6 and 600 more troops. Finally, the extension agreement was signed in May 2023.

---

This thread has probably run it's course but I am excited to see folks like Margo Cleveland retweeting thoughts such as this;

Yeah, I don't really feel like funding 65% of NATO's military strength anymore for these people.

They side with Russia when it's convenient, they buy Russian energy, and they do nothing but virtue signal from the sidelines.

So let them live in the world they've built. https://t.co/KUxFpjla0y

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) April 9, 2026

I’ve always been a staunch NATO supporter but this is the closest I’ve gotten to “I don’t even care anymore”

It’s one thing to not get involved.

It’s another thing to limit your “getting involved” to contributing nothing, having the capacity to contribute nothing, *and then*…

— Sunny (@sunnyright) April 9, 2026

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Tell me about Poland Patriot battery and NATO ally Turkey?

---

What would you like to know?

---

Why didn't Poland send the patriot system to Turkey to shore up Turkey defense? NATO is defensive organization so this would have been a reasonable request from Turkey to Poland.

KentK93 said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

Tell me about Poland Patriot battery and NATO ally Turkey?

---

What would you like to know?

---

Why didn't Poland send the patriot system to Turkey to shore up Turkey defense? NATO is defensive organization so this would have been a reasonable request from Turkey to Poland.

---

What was wrong with the S-400s Turkey bought from Russia instead of buying their own Patriots? Weren't those spectacular examples of fine Russian engineering enough for them?