GAC06 said:

---

Our "funding" of NATO is less than one percent of our defense budget

---

What AlaskanAg stated. Again, I'm ok staying in it. We just don't need to carry the total burden of it which is what we do now.

To ask a naive question. Can't we continue in NATO, funding our share of its joint expenses, but still significantly scale back the scope of US military presence in Europe?

93MarineHorn said:

---

What benefit does NATO bring the US? Seems to me we bear all the risk and responsibility. We don't need anyone's help defending our interests. It's helpful, but not necessary.

---

Its basically a tool to babysit the Euros to keep them from killing eachother. They've decided to just kill themselves by replacing themselves with immigrants so I give them credit for finding an alternative way to accomplish the mission.

YouBet said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Our "funding" of NATO is less than one percent of our defense budget

---

What AlaskanAg stated. Again, I'm ok staying in it. We just don't need to carry the total burden of it which is what we do now.

---

Again, they are meeting the agreed upon spending target.

GAC06 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Our "funding" of NATO is less than one percent of our defense budget

---

What AlaskanAg stated. Again, I'm ok staying in it. We just don't need to carry the total burden of it which is what we do now.

---

Again, they are meeting the agreed upon spending target.

---

Yeah, which is irrelevant to the point I'm making....being their spending targets should be such that we are no longer the #1 spender. We should be spending the least as a participant that doesn't even live in the hemisphere where this defense alliance takes place. If that means the rest of them have to up their spending and resource commitment's to offset us dialing back, then so be it.

GAC06 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Our "funding" of NATO is less than one percent of our defense budget

---

What AlaskanAg stated. Again, I'm ok staying in it. We just don't need to carry the total burden of it which is what we do now.

---

Again, they are meeting the agreed upon spending target.

---

So you're a big NATO fan I see.

https://www.mappr.co/military-spending-by-country-2024/#gid=1&pid=4

Honest question: do you understand the difference between what we contribute for the cost to run the organization of NATO and the defense budgets of each member?

That says 2024.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/commentary/trackers-and-data-visualizations/nato-defense-spending-tracker/

Head in the clouds assessment again.

We are the elephant in the room ready to trample the enemy on the behalf of NATO.



https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/July-August-2024/Who-in-NATO-Is-Ready-for-War/

GAC06 said:

---

That says 2024.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/commentary/trackers-and-data-visualizations/nato-defense-spending-tracker/

---

True. Shows the Obama effect. Thank God Trump has a boot up their butts.

Eliminatus said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Ah yes. The other 600 NATO soldiers that died fighting our war don't count.

---

We've lost 100s of thousands of soldiers bailing out the Euros and their wars and spent unknown billions rebuilding their economies and protecting them. THEY OWE US far more than we owe them.

---

Did they need a higher body count in the GWOT? Would that assuage whatever notion of "owing us" you have in your head? Not even sure what you are arguing for here tbh.

Oh and don't think for a second we didn't profit MASSIVELY from the rebuilding of Europe. It was a huge part of our rebuilding aims. Nothing we did in Europe at that time was 100% altruistic.

---

Nothing a government, especially ours, ever does is even .00001% altruistic.

northeastag said:

---

To ask a naive question. Can't we continue in NATO, funding our share of its joint expenses, but still significantly scale back the scope of US military presence in Europe?

---

Yes. What not one of the naysayers here seems to understand, is that WE, chose to do this. The United States. Us. America. Over multiple generations over multiple administrations.

There is nothing, and I mean absolutely zero, obligation for us to have a military presence in any of these countries dictated by NATO guidelines. NATO as a body has no say on where and what we do with our armed forces. We could have withheld every single soldier on European soil since the inception.

Yet, we didn't. Because the Cold War was always us vs. Russia at it's core. The rest of Europe was just the chosen battleground by us. We used them just as much as they used us. We based our military there and in return it was understood that it would be their cities and populations going through a war firsthand. Yes, that war would have come anyway against them but it gave us a chance to fight it there instead of our lands. It's what I have been saying when I said NATO extends our boundaries and potential battlefields.

Those same lack of guidelines of what we do with our forces still applies today. We have agreements in place of course but none of that is from obligations as a NATO state. We do it, we have always done it, because it is in our best interest to do so.

FWTXAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Ah yes. The other 600 NATO soldiers that died fighting our war don't count.

---

We've lost 100s of thousands of soldiers bailing out the Euros and their wars and spent unknown billions rebuilding their economies and protecting them. THEY OWE US far more than we owe them.

---

Did they need a higher body count in the GWOT? Would that assuage whatever notion of "owing us" you have in your head? Not even sure what you are arguing for here tbh.

Oh and don't think for a second we didn't profit MASSIVELY from the rebuilding of Europe. It was a huge part of our rebuilding aims. Nothing we did in Europe at that time was 100% altruistic.

---

Nothing a government, especially ours, ever does is even .00001% altruistic.

---

Yet, so many here have a white savior complex when it comes to the World Wars and Europe and feel almost personally entitled to whatever they have in their mind at that point. I have seen that sentiment ad nauseam on many different threads and it is just not factual. Saving Europe was a consequence of Germany declaring war on us. Then it was just a matter of protecting and investing in our efforts there.

Glad you can see that.

Eliminatus said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

Ah yes. The other 600 NATO soldiers that died fighting our war don't count.

---

We've lost 100s of thousands of soldiers bailing out the Euros and their wars and spent unknown billions rebuilding their economies and protecting them. THEY OWE US far more than we owe them.

---

Did they need a higher body count in the GWOT? Would that assuage whatever notion of "owing us" you have in your head? Not even sure what you are arguing for here tbh.

Oh and don't think for a second we didn't profit MASSIVELY from the rebuilding of Europe. It was a huge part of our rebuilding aims. Nothing we did in Europe at that time was 100% altruistic.

---

Nothing a government, especially ours, ever does is even .00001% altruistic.

---

Yet, so many here have a white savior complex when it comes to the World Wars and Europe and feel almost personally entitled to whatever they have in their mind at that point. I have seen that sentiment ad nauseam on many different threads and it is just not factual. Saving Europe was a consequence of Germany declaring war on us. Then it was just a matter of protecting and investing in our efforts there.

Glad you can see that.

---

For sure. Governments are just legalized and sanctioned gangsters.

There is a LOT of ignorance on NATO and it's workings here on this thread. There is one point I would like to clarify that many miss.

A country as a NATO state and a country by itself are two different entities outside of outright war. Bound by different obligations and differing interests. What that means is that Trump has been barking up the wrong tree the whole time and erroneously *****ing at our "NATO" allies in this Iran war we find ourselves in. With how NATO is structured, it was never going to happen under those auspices. It can't. Now, what a nation does under their own flag is another thing entirely.

So Trump can be yelling at the nations themselves and honestly, that's fine. That's his prerogative whether I agree with it or not. Trying to hold them to standards as NATO members is wrong though. NATO should not be part of this discussion and never should have been. It's not a NATO war and it can't be. Now, him wanting to have our allies join the war because of their historical agreements and understandings is the route he should want to go. It's ok for him to get mad that Britain our long time ally is not blowing up stuff in the ME again. It's not ok to get mad at Britain, and calling them out as a NATO member, for the same thing. It's ignorant and frankly, dumb AF. Again, this is not a NATO war and never will be. NATO, by definition and charter, is a defensive alliance. No spin is strong enough to say this is a defensive war we are in. I don't know what Trump is thinking.

The Euros are becoming paralyzed because of their rising immigrant/islamic minorities. Londonistan is not London, etc. Russia is not the opponent anymore, the New Caliphate is. And it's inside the wire. America needs to find better allies for the next few decades.

GAC06 said:

---

Honest question: do you understand the difference between what we contribute for the cost to run the organization of NATO and the defense budgets of each member?

---

Absolutely, and again, I don't really care. It's the principle. The EU tells the world they are our equal, so act like it. Why can't they take up the slack so that all EU countries together offset our spend so that we can be the low spender as the lone country in another hemisphere? We have our own hemisphere to worry about (which has been ignored for almost 40 years until Trump) where the future majority of our people will come from anyway.

Don't rely on us for defense so you can fund cradle to grave welfare in your exorbitantly red taped societies. Merz has acknowledged this in his own speeches to the EU.

Also, we are $39T in debt. We are running out of money and desire to continue as the world's bank because our own government has abdicated all responsibility and accountability. We are currently able to do what we've always done because we are running on fumes from prior largesse and historical practice. That will end in our lifetimes. Frankly, you are seeing that ending happening right before your eyes right now. It's been ramping up for about 10 years.

One, Canada is in NATO and in our hemisphere.

Two, most of our military spending has nothing to do with NATO, so why would you expect them to try to match it? They aren't attacking Iran and Venezuela and maintaining a presence in Syria and Iraq and the Pacific on and on and on that doesn't necessarily pertain to them.

You don't join an HOA and build a house five times bigger than every other house in the neighborhood then complain that the other houses are too small, as long as they're paying their agreed upon dues.

European countries haven't always lived up to the expectation of defense spending but they are now. There never was or will be an expectation that they match us.

If you're talking about the incredibly smaller amount of money actually paid to NATO to maintain the organization, perhaps we can art of the deal that down or doge the NATO administration or something but that's simply not a major issue l.

GAC06 said:

---

One, Canada is in NATO and in our hemisphere.

Two, most of our military spending has nothing to do with NATO, so why would you expect them to try to match it? They aren't attacking Iran and Venezuela and maintaining a presence in Syria and Iraq and the Pacific on and on and on that doesn't necessarily pertain to them.

You don't join an HOA and build a house five times bigger than every other house in the neighborhood then complain that the other houses are too small, as long as they're paying their agreed upon dues.

European countries haven't always lived up to the expectation of defense spending but they are now. There never was or will be an expectation that they match us.

If you're talking about the incredibly smaller amount of money actually paid to NATO to maintain the organization, perhaps we can art of the deal that down or doge the NATO administration or something but that's simply not a major issue l.

---

Canada is irrelevant....it might actually be generous to even say they are irrelevant. They matter none.

I'm not trying to argue that Europe should be going in with us on our own offensive endeavors. It's a defensive alliance with a supposed certain mission scope that doesn't include a lot of the adventures we go on. I agree with Eliminatus on that.

My sole argument is that Europe is adult enough that they should be pulling their weight and they are not. If Russia is still their boogeyman and the reason for NATO to exist, then let them take the lead on funding their defense against Russia. We shouldn't be the top payer and backer of an organization supposedly designed to prevent Russia from attacking Europe. They have 100M more people than us and have the built-in potential to equal or surpass our GDP, if they wanted to. They more than have the means to fund an adequate defense against Russia, but why would they do that when they can mooch off of us.

dmart90 said:

---

NATO is still useful. I would like to see our allies supporting whats happening with Iran, but I don't believe the NATO charter requires it.

---

How is NATO useful?

YouBet said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

One, Canada is in NATO and in our hemisphere.

Two, most of our military spending has nothing to do with NATO, so why would you expect them to try to match it? They aren't attacking Iran and Venezuela and maintaining a presence in Syria and Iraq and the Pacific on and on and on that doesn't necessarily pertain to them.

You don't join an HOA and build a house five times bigger than every other house in the neighborhood then complain that the other houses are too small, as long as they're paying their agreed upon dues.

European countries haven't always lived up to the expectation of defense spending but they are now. There never was or will be an expectation that they match us.

If you're talking about the incredibly smaller amount of money actually paid to NATO to maintain the organization, perhaps we can art of the deal that down or doge the NATO administration or something but that's simply not a major issue l.

---

Canada is irrelevant....it might actually be generous to even say they are irrelevant. They matter none.

I'm not trying to argue that Europe should be going in with us on our own offensive endeavors. It's a defensive alliance with a supposed certain mission scope that doesn't include a lot of the adventures we go on. I agree with Eliminatus on that.

My sole argument is that Europe is adult enough that they should be pulling their weight and they are not. If Russia is still their boogeyman and the reason for NATO to exist, then let them take the lead on funding their defense against Russia. We shouldn't be the top payer and backer of an organization supposedly designed to prevent Russia from attacking Europe. They have 100M more people than us and have the built-in potential to equal or surpass our GDP, if they wanted to. They more than have the means to fund an adequate defense against Russia, but why would they do that when they can mooch off of us.

---

Europe is pulling their weight, 2% of each country's GDP to defense, increasing eventually to 5%.

As for paying for NATO itself, we cover about 16%, the same share as Germany. Give this a quick read.

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

GAC06 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

GAC06 said:

---

One, Canada is in NATO and in our hemisphere.

Two, most of our military spending has nothing to do with NATO, so why would you expect them to try to match it? They aren't attacking Iran and Venezuela and maintaining a presence in Syria and Iraq and the Pacific on and on and on that doesn't necessarily pertain to them.

You don't join an HOA and build a house five times bigger than every other house in the neighborhood then complain that the other houses are too small, as long as they're paying their agreed upon dues.

European countries haven't always lived up to the expectation of defense spending but they are now. There never was or will be an expectation that they match us.

If you're talking about the incredibly smaller amount of money actually paid to NATO to maintain the organization, perhaps we can art of the deal that down or doge the NATO administration or something but that's simply not a major issue l.

---

Canada is irrelevant....it might actually be generous to even say they are irrelevant. They matter none.

I'm not trying to argue that Europe should be going in with us on our own offensive endeavors. It's a defensive alliance with a supposed certain mission scope that doesn't include a lot of the adventures we go on. I agree with Eliminatus on that.

My sole argument is that Europe is adult enough that they should be pulling their weight and they are not. If Russia is still their boogeyman and the reason for NATO to exist, then let them take the lead on funding their defense against Russia. We shouldn't be the top payer and backer of an organization supposedly designed to prevent Russia from attacking Europe. They have 100M more people than us and have the built-in potential to equal or surpass our GDP, if they wanted to. They more than have the means to fund an adequate defense against Russia, but why would they do that when they can mooch off of us.

---

Europe is pulling their weight, 2% of each country's GDP to defense, increasing eventually to 5%.

As for paying for NATO itself, we cover about 16%, the same share as Germany. Give this a quick read.

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

---

Going in circles. I'm aware of all of this and it's irrelevant to what I'm arguing. Our 16% share is way too high. NATOs mission is not our fight anymore.

NATO's mission is not our fight anymore now that NATO is no longer literally fighting in our war in Afghanistan?

You're crying about .1% of our defense budget.

https://www.taxpayer.net/national-security/how-much-does-nato-cost-the-united-states/

An excerpt:

" The direct costs of U.S. participation in NATO are far more modest than the nearly $900 billion in national security spending just authorized by Congress in the FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. NATO's direct costs to member nations, often referred to as "common funding," came to 4.6 billion in 2024, or about $4.7 billion in U.S. dollars, with each member nation contributing a percentage of their Gross National Income (GNI). U.S. contributions accounted for about 16 percent of these common funds in 2024roughly $753 million. That's less than 0.1 percent of total U.S. military expenditures."

Let them figure out how to transport their own damn oil through the strait of hormuz. Trump did enough by saving their sorry asses from a nuclear holocaust. We dont need them for *****

Exactly right. Nato the big loser of the Iran war: VDH.

Quote:

---

Many NATO heads of state rebuked the U.S. to their domestic audiences while, in typical two-faced fashion, publicly offering empty verbal support for the U.S. effort.

The NATO response to an Iranian missile aimed at fellow NATO member Turkey was anemic.
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.

Such passivity was in sharp contrast to the five-year-long Ukraine War on the borders of Europe.
Ukraine was not in NATO.

Ukrainian politicos and ambassadors had sometimes played an intrusive, partisan role in the 2016, 2020, and 2024 American presidential elections.

Nonetheless, there were urgent European requests for the U.S. to honor the spirit of NATO solidarity and to get across the Atlantic as quickly as possible to protect the territorial integrity of Europe.
...
Instead, he ripped off a happy-face scab and exposed a festering wound of increasingly anti-American hypocrisy beneath.

If you wanted to wreck the alliance, there would be no better way than to follow the duplicitous examples of Western European NATO members.

---

More at the link. End our participation in Nato with these duplicitous and feckless 'allies.' The mask is off.

GAC06 said:

---

NATO's mission is not our fight anymore now that NATO is no longer literally fighting in our war in Afghanistan?

You're crying about .1% of our defense budget.

https://www.taxpayer.net/national-security/how-much-does-nato-cost-the-united-states/

An excerpt:

" The direct costs of U.S. participation in NATO are far more modest than the nearly $900 billion in national security spending just authorized by Congress in the FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. NATO's direct costs to member nations, often referred to as "common funding," came to 4.6 billion in 2024, or about $4.7 billion in U.S. dollars, with each member nation contributing a percentage of their Gross National Income (GNI). U.S. contributions accounted for about 16 percent of these common funds in 2024roughly $753 million. That's less than 0.1 percent of total U.S. military expenditures."

---

NATO fought the war in Afghanistan?
The $4.6 Billion is for the clubhouse dues.

How much of that annual amount funded the $8 trillion for the post 9/11 wars? LOL.

As I put back a page or so ago yesterday that membership cost is a fraction of what nato costs us, when looking at our overseas basing expenses, logistics, training, joint operations etc. The true total is closer to a hundred billion per year likely, vs. the $4 billion nato fans are insistent on using as the direct expense.

JTN: Europeans react with shock and anxiety to Trump withdrawal threat. Gee, who could have seen that coming?

Quote:

---

In the latest developments, Spain, France, and Italy refused U.S. access to their military bases or airspace for military actions against Iran.

"I was never swayed by NATO," Trump said. "I always knew they were a paper tiger, and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin knows that, too."

Thirty of 32 NATO member states are in Europe (the U.S. and Canada are the exceptions). Israel is not a member of the alliance.

The Guardian, another U.K. newspaper, said Trump's remarks represented an "existential threat" that could be the "worst crisis in NATO history." In Spain, El Pas said there was "shock and anxietyacross Europe."

---

ETA Shipwreckedcrew tweet (he was quoting a profane post last night around midnight so I can't just embed it per TOS):

Quote:

---

All these decisions increased risk of harm to US personnel.

It does not matter what they think of Trump's decisions on the war, they did not have the leeway to make decisions that increased the risk to U.S. troops when they were asked for assistance.

NATO is headed for the trash bin.

POTUS has the authority to withdraw the U.S. -- he does not need Senate agreement.

We should negotiate bilateral defense agreements with individual Euro countries.

The Marcons, Starmers, and Sanchezes of Europe can protect each other -- and answer to their electorate.

90% of the Euro countries have nothing to offer us except basing and overflight -- we do the dirty work and sell them defense technologies.

No more. Not until the Governments change.

---

Understand.

Some can't see, or refuse to see, the forest through the trees.

Quote:

---

NATO fought the war in Afghanistan?
The $4.6 Billion is for the clubhouse dues.

How much of that annual amount funded the $8 trillion for the post 9/11 wars? LOL.

---

Yes, NATO fought in Afghanistan for us after we call on them to do so.

What does the cost we incurred because of our military campaigns in the Middle East have to do with NATO? Are you lost?

Once we are serious about pulling our money out they'll bend the knee.

nortex97 said:

---

So sick of this canard about Article V usage.

The reason NATO has not had to go to war in Europe is because the U.S. has spent trillions of dollars over the decades to ensure it was protected.

The Cold War was real. It wasn't won by European social programs. https://t.co/nRGhKmt5jm

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) April 1, 2026

Wow. Even for CCP-turtle facing retirement this year and unable to walk/talk, that's pretty despicable. January 2027 can't come soon enough.

---

McConnell and Thune are everything that's wrong with the GOP.

ts5641 said:

---

Once we are serious about pulling our money out they'll bend the knee.

---

What money are you talking about? Be specific.

When Macron said that opening the Strait using the military was not an option, he was proving Trump was right.

If the Strait cannot be opened now, with Iran at 10% of their militart capability, how could it have ever been opened in the future if Iran decided to close it?

— Russell (@russell_m) April 2, 2026

Trump literally walked the Europeans into this trap, imho.

The SCOTUS has already ruled that any US President can withdraw from any defense treaty with any nation for any reason.

The US Executive branch's power on this point is absolute and unchallengeable under the US constitution.

SCOTUS Receipt ⬇️ https://t.co/j78jUyrU8m pic.twitter.com/gS6ANZZbo7

— Trent Telenko (@TrentTelenko) April 1, 2026

Perhaps the only instance in Jimmy Carter's entire horrible life where his winning something/getting his way was good for America.

GAC06 said:

---

Quote:

---

NATO fought the war in Afghanistan?
The $4.6 Billion is for the clubhouse dues.

How much of that annual amount funded the $8 trillion for the post 9/11 wars? LOL.

---

Yes, NATO fought in Afghanistan for us after we call on them to do so.

What does the cost we incurred because of our military campaigns in the Middle East have to do with NATO? Are you lost?

---

You are making an absurd claim that the membership / clubhouse dues are material. These dues are immaterial and do not provided any war funding.

If you had stated NATO countries joined the fight, as allies, and paid their way would be accurate for the wars as a result of 9/11.

If allies turn their back on the largest member that also protects all allies, then the membership should be shredded or changed.

Now what new excuse will you use to defend the NATO members abandoning their best ally?