Trump Gives NATO A Kick In The Pants

[HisArpy]

I see no reference to 3% in either the video or anywhere else. Do you have a source?

Sorry, it's actually 3.5% agreed to this year, increasing to 5% by 2035. My mistake, but probably because Trump wanted NATO to increase to 3%, and started discussion on that, in 2017. Most member nations have achieved that goal but agreed this year to 3.5%.

 

[Rightguide]

So you stopped defending your previous comments about the US doing much more than they should and focus on wanting to get the US out of NATO. That's a different point, but fair enough. The EU isn't forcing the US to be part of NATO - they can leave if they want. That would essentially mean the end of the alliance and it would most likely be replaced by an EU army. Nothing wrong with that.

But the US has not done that. I guess they must see some value to NATO after all.

Strategically, the elephant in the room is the 4,000-mile supply chain the U.S. must maintain in any modern European war. The original NATO model assumed a permanently forward-based U.S. army sitting on a mountain of pre-positioned gear. Today we’ve got a skeleton footprint, fewer stockpiles, and an adversary (Russia) that can hit ports, airfields, and ships with precision weapons. That means America is expected to fight a high-intensity war on another continent while dragging every bullet, missile, and replacement part across the Atlantic. That’s not a strategy, it’s wishful thinking in the present reality.

 

[LoneMilf]

Sorry, it's actually 3.5% agreed to this year, increasing to 5% by 2035. My mistake, but probably because Trump wanted NATO to increase to 3%, and started discussion on that, in 2017. Most member nations have achieved that goal but agreed this year to 3.5%.

Thanks for confirming that

 

[Rightguide]

Thank you. That is exactly the same information I can find - but HisArpy keeps claiming that there is a current target of 3%

As of 2025, all allied countries (except Iceland, which has no standing forces) are expected to meet or exceed the old 2%-of-GDP defence-spending target — a first for the alliance. Defense News+2euronews+2

For the newly agreed 3.5% core-defence target, only three NATO members — Poland, Lithuania, and Latvia — currently meet or exceed it. Defense News+1

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Psst, hey buddy, wanna history lesson?

JOE BIDEN was President when Russia invaded Ukraine, not Donald Trump.

I also seem to remember something about Obama sending blankets when Russia seized Crimea instead of coming to Ukraine's defense. Again, the President wasn't Donald Trump at the time.

That means your TDS driven narrative falls apart at the very beginning, Budapest memorandum or not, because Trump wasn't the President. So, if you have a problem with the US not living up to its obligations, BLAME JOE BIDEN AND BARAK OBAMA.

Pssst. Here’s a history lessson. Trump personally gauaranteed over 53 times that the Russsia Ukraine war would be over a year ago.

 

[Chernosoth]

With Europe starting to get serious about rearming, the Mideasterners, North Africans, and Indians who will eventually take all of Europe will be well equipped for Europe's default state of declaring war on Monday and peace on Friday to be ready for a new war next week.

 

[MajorRewrite]

Thomas Massie introduced a bill to pull America out of NATO.

He pretends it’s to save money, but the US contribution to NATO is a paltry $560 million. In our $900 billion military budget, that’s not even a rounding error (it’s 0.062%).

So what is Massie’s actual motive? Probably just a reelection stunt. Or he’s a Russian agent like Tulsi Gabbard.

 

[Wilson23]

Strategically, the elephant in the room is the 4,000-mile supply chain the U.S. must maintain in any modern European war. The original NATO model assumed a permanently forward-based U.S. army sitting on a mountain of pre-positioned gear. Today we’ve got a skeleton footprint, fewer stockpiles, and an adversary (Russia) that can hit ports, airfields, and ships with precision weapons. That means America is expected to fight a high-intensity war on another continent while dragging every bullet, missile, and replacement part across the Atlantic. That’s not a strategy, it’s wishful thinking in the present reality.

None of that matters at all. Because there is no conceivable scenario in which the U.S. fights a war with Russia that does not immediately go nuclear. That is one thing that has not changed since the Cold War.

 

[Wilson23]

the Mideasterners, North Africans, and Indians who will eventually take all of Europe

You really are an idiot, aren't you?

 

[briancamdudetenger2018]

didnt donnie j trump want usa out of nato

 

[DeluxAuto]

Trump Admin Reportedly Gives Europe’s Militaries Kick In The Pants​

Wallace WhiteDefense Reporter
December 05, 20255:16 PM ET

The Trump administration has given European NATO members until 2027 to take on the majority of the alliance’s conventional defense responsibilities, sources told Reuters this week, or face diminished U.S. participation.

Officials from the Pentagon reportedly told European diplomats at a meeting in Washington this week that they expected more from Europe in taking up their part of the alliance, expressing some doubts about their current efforts. President Donald Trump has long advocated for the rest of the NATO alliance to spend more on their defense, most recently publishing a National Defense Strategy (NDS) document Friday calling on Europe to save itself from “civilizational erasure.”

The Trump administration also threatened to scale back U.S. involvement in some NATO coordination efforts if Europe fails to meet the target, sources who requested anonymity told Reuters.

“We’ve been very clear in the need for Europeans to lead in the conventional defense of Europe,” Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson told the Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement. “We are committed to working through NATO coordination mechanisms to strengthen the alliance and ensure its long-term viability as European allies increasing take on responsibility for conventional deterrence and defense in Europe.”

More here: https://dailycaller.com/2025/12/05/...y-gives-europes-militaries-kick-in-the-pants/

It's about time.

Hey, dipshit!

When the felon pedo says the world respects him, this is the kind of respect that loser is being shown.

 

[Chadrone]

didnt donnie j trump want usa out of nato

Along with everyone who's not a European ass licker and gives a fuck about the USA.

 

[MajorRewrite]

It’s weird that Trump and the MAGA sheep picked NATO as its “who we hate this week” target.

NATO costs the US basically nothing ($560 million), and the alliance has successfully deterred outside aggression for decades. The only reason to break up NATO is to aid Russia.

 

[Rightguide]

None of that matters at all. Because there is no conceivable scenario in which the U.S. fights a war with Russia that does not immediately go nuclear. That is one thing that has not changed since the Cold War.

You don't know what you're talking about. You think you do, but you don't.

 

[DeluxAuto]

You don't know what you're talking about. You think you do, but you don't.

He knows as much or as little as you, Jack. For someone who is consistently wrong, your sense of self is ridiculously inflated.

 

[Rebel5soul]

He knows as much or as little as you, Jack. For someone who is consistently wrong, your sense of self is ridiculously inflated.

And here's another ^^^^^^ mealy mouthed shit for brains that contributes NOTHING to this board.

 

[Rightguide]

It’s weird that Trump and the MAGA sheep picked NATO as its “who we hate this week” target.

NATO costs the US basically nothing ($560 million), and the alliance has successfully deterred outside aggression for decades. The only reason to break up NATO is to aid Russia.

Your argument rests on false assumptions and selective framing. First, NATO does not “cost the U.S. basically nothing.” The U.S. bears a disproportionate share of NATO’s military burden, by design. While the commonly cited $560 million figure refers to NATO’s civil and military budgets, that number is misleading. The real cost comes from U.S. force posture, basing, deployments, readiness, and forward-stationed troops and weapons stockpiles in Europe, which runs into tens of billions annually. Pretending otherwise is simply BS or wishful thinking.

Second, criticizing NATO is not “hating NATO,” nor is it a weekly emotional target. The core criticism, made by multiple U.S. presidents before Trump, is that many NATO members free-rode for decades, underfunding their own defense while relying on U.S. taxpayers and U.S. military guarantees. Demanding that allies meet agreed-upon defense spending targets is not sabotage; it’s enforcement of commitments they voluntarily made.

Third, the claim that questioning NATO “aids Russia” confuses incentives with outcomes. In fact, pressuring NATO members to rearm and take their own defense seriously weakens Russia, not strengthens it. NATO deterrence has worked not because of bureaucracy or slogans, but because of "credible" force, and credibility erodes when one member shoulders the burden while others treat defense as optional.

 

[DeluxAuto]

And here's another ^^^^^^ mealy mouthed shit for brains that contributes NOTHING to this board.

The only thing you've contributed is a bad case of syphilis and the unintentional hilarity of your stupidity, shit for brains

 

[Chadrone]

It’s weird that Trump and the MAGA sheep picked NATO as its “who we hate this week” target.

Really? Wh've been openly hating on them for over a decade.......

 

[MajorRewrite]

While the commonly cited $560 million figure refers to NATO’s civil and military budgets, that number is misleading. The real cost comes from U.S. force posture, basing, deployments, readiness, and forward-stationed troops and weapons stockpiles in Europe, which runs into tens of billions annually. Pretending otherwise is simply BS or wishful thinking.

The US’ humongous military budget would be exactly as high as it is with or without NATO. Pretending that the levels of military spending in other NATO nations made the US spend a lot is just ridiculous.

 

[Rotadom]

I don't know much about the legality of it all but this seems like a reasonable chain of events.





Maybe the pedo should just tariff them 11,987%.

 

[Chadrone]

I don't know much about the legality of it all but this seems like a reasonable chain of events.


View attachment 2589895


Maybe the pedo should just tariff them 11,987%.

OH noes, the Eurotards are going to take their ......their........broke ass's home and not play with us.

LOL They'll fucking starve to death and Putin will make them his bitch.

 

[Rotadom]

OH noes, the Eurotards are going to take their ......their........broke ass's home and not play with us.

LOL They'll fucking starve to death and Putin will make them his bitch.

Your small brain never had a chance to make a relevant and reasonable reply, .

 

[Chadrone]

Your small brain never had a chance to make a relevant and reasonable reply, .

You got REKT and I didn't even have to try.

 

[Rotadom]

You got REKT and I didn't even have to try.

Is that what you really think just happened? Your barely literate response did nothing but further secure your spot in the circus, .