White House Prepares for NATO Summit Next Week in London – Bilats With Merkel, Conte and Frederiksen Announced…

The leaders of the twenty-nine NATO member nations are scheduled to meet next week in London, England.  Amid consistent pressure on the member states for increased defense spending to live up to their prior 2014 promises (Wales summit); and with NATO economies in a stalled geopolitical stasis due to their attachment to China (5G telecom), Russia (Nordstream II), and Iran; this summit holds increased possible ramifications.

This NATO summit could very well expose the duplicity and hypocrisy of the EU depending on how far U.S. President Donald Trump is willing to call them out.

There are going to be a lot of nervous snake handlers around the table(s), and with the U.K. elections in the near future there is a great deal at stake. The summit is Tuesday and Wednesday.  Here’s the White House background briefing:

[Transcript] – SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I just want to thank everyone for being here today, Friday after Thanksgiving.

Just up front, this call is going to be on background, attribution to a senior administration official, and there will be an embargo on the contents of this call until it’s completed.

Here’s the run of show for today. Our first — our speaker will be [senior administration official], and he will provide an overview of the President’s trip. And I will follow with an overview of the President’s key events and bilats. And after that, we’ll take some questions.

So with that, over to you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks, and thanks everyone for listening in. This is a celebratory Leaders Meeting, in many ways. The President is greatly looking forward to it. This is the most successful alliance in history. It remains instrumental in guaranteeing the security and prosperity and freedom of our allies.

The President, as you know, has been committed to making NATO stronger and ready to face today’s threats and tomorrow’s challenges. This is why he places such an emphasis on encouraging all allies to live up to their commitments and increase defense spending, in line with their Wales commitments.

I have to say, for a priority that United States has had for — since at least the 1960s — the President has been spectacularly successful. Since he has taken office, the Allies have added over $100 billion in new spending. In 2016, only four Allies spent 2 percent of GDP on defense. Now, there are nine, and following through their implementation plans to get the 2 percent, we expect there to be eighteen by 2024. This is tremendous progress, and I think it is due to the President’s diplomatic work.

However, there are continuing challenges that NATO needs to face: China, above all. China is actively seeking a great presence and more influence across the globe, including in NATO’s area of responsibility. It is offering cheap money, cheap investment, and critical infrastructure, including ports and electricity grids. It is seeking to trap nations in debt, and thus bring diplomatic concessions that way. And it is looking to undermine the rules-based international order and skirting, in some cases, (inaudible).

5G, as you know, is another area where NATO has to be vigilant. This is a priority of the President. Trading security of our telecommunications networks and privacy of our personal data for savings is not in any of the Allies’ interests. This is an issue we continue to socialize and raise with our NATO partners, and we will certainly be discussing it at the summit today.

Lastly, while we welcome our European Allies doing more and spending more on defense, we have to continue to socialize that EU defense initiatives not undermine or duplicate those of NATO, and that procurement and defense industrial issues are open to United States and U.S. companies.

We are stronger together. The transatlantic relationship is in a very, very healthy place. And I think that will be the message, loud and clear, at this 70th anniversary of NATO.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, thank you. Before we go into Q&A, I just want to provide an overview of the President’s key events and bilateral meetings. So — and I will speak slowly so that folks can take notes.

On Tuesday, December the 3rd, the President will have a working breakfast with NATO (inaudible) — with NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg. We will be having a bilateral meeting with President Emmanuel Macron of France, and we’ll be going in that evening to the NATO Leaders Reception, hosted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

On the 4th, we are looking at the official welcome ceremony. The NATO Leaders Meeting Plenary Session, a bilat with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, and then a working lunch with representatives of the following nations: Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Bulgaria, and the United Kingdom.

Additionally, we’re looking at meetings with Prime Minister Frederiksen of Denmark and Prime Minister Conte of Italy. And I just want to — I just want to also caveat that we are also working on additional bilats, and those will be announced once they are confirmed.

Okay, that’s all I have. And so at this time, Operator, I’ll go and hand off you for moderating Q&A.

Q Hi, thank you. Christina Anderson. Thank you for doing this call. Kristina Anderson, AWPS News. Last week, the NATO ministers voted to declare space another domain, along with the other standard domains: air, land, and sea, and cyber. Will there be discussion about space as a domain and the framework to promote cooperation between the NATO Allies going forward? Will this take place at the Leaders Meeting also? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, Christina, thanks for that. No, I think this is a really interesting and exciting point. As you know, the President has stressed space as a domain in his administration. NATO’s adaptation of it is one more example of NATO addressing new challenges. We have already been discussing with our Allies how this works, how this looks, some of the conceptual issues. I expect — yes, I expect that it will come up during the Leaders Summit.

Q Good morning. Thank you for doing the call. This is Dmitry Kirsanov with TASS. I wanted to ask if there will be a discussion at the NATO Summit about (inaudible) relations with Russia. And if that’s going to be the case, and if President Trump is going to raise this issue during his bilats what is he going — what is he planning to tell his counterparts? Thanks so much.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, thanks, Dmitry. I suspect NATO’s relationship with Russia will certainly come up. You know, none of NATO’s measures are intended as a threat to Russia. For example, you know, the four NATO battle groups in the eastern part of the Alliance are relatively modest in size and can’t compare to the very large conventional ground forces that Russia has on the ground. Those are fully in line with our international commitments.

By contrast to NATO’s defensive and proportionate deployments, Russia has shown a consistent disregard for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors. It is no wonder that so many countries are concerned about Russian threats to their security. Certainly that will be something that will be discussed at the Leaders Summit.

Q Hello, this is David Alandete, from ABC Spain. I wanted to ask about President Trump’s position towards those countries that are the ones that are paying less for defense. (Inaudible) nation — the case is specifically of Spain, Italy, and Belgium. And I wanted to know if Mr. Trump is expecting to meet with these leaders or is he going to push these less-investment countries towards spending more in the coming years? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, the President, as you know, is going to be engaging a number of different leaders. For example, Germany is not paying 2 percent of its GDP in defense. And he will certainly be meeting with Chancellor Merkel.

I would point out though that even among most of the states that have not hit the 2 percent threshold, they are making progress. For example, Germany has added over $14 billion in new spending since 2016. For the first time — Ambassador Grenell told us this a few days ago — has announced a plan to reach 2 percent.

So we think those are marks of progress. But, of course, in that meeting, the President will be urging Germany and other countries to do more.

Q Thank you.

Q Hi, can you hear me?


Q Yeah, hi. Thanks for the call. This is Sebastian Smith with AFP. Just a bit more on the Russia question. Does the President — is he thinking more along the lines of what Emmanuel Macron seems to be saying, that Russia is no longer really the priority for NATO? Macron wants to look more to the south and to terrorism-type threats. Is Russia still a threat for NATO? Thanks.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think Russia will be an issue of interest and concern at the NATO Leaders Summit. While we have, I think, successfully worked to adapt NATO to address new challenges — as you point out, like terrorism; and as I mentioned earlier, like China and 5G — the territorial threats to sovereignty, as well as hybrid threats posed by Russia, are an issue a deep, deep concern for many Alliance members, and indeed for us. And certainly — certainly that will be a high priority at this Leaders Summit.

Q Thanks so much.

Q Hello, it’s David Charter from the London Times. May I ask: There’s no bilateral you’ve announced with Boris Johnson of the host nation. What’s the reason for that, please? Is it something to do with the election? Was that a UK request? And is President Trump actually going to appear at a press conference?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, David. As I mentioned, we’re continuing to develop our bilats and that we’ll update accordingly.

Q Press conference?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Stay tuned. We might have more for you on that as it goes forward.

Q Yes, this is Mario Parker with Bloomberg News. Wondering if there’ll be any bilat or other interactions between Trump and Erdogan, and what the President’s message to him will be at the summit, particularly given the S-400 activation.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, thanks for that. So we are not doing as you know, Erdoğan — President Erdoğan was just here a few weeks ago. The President spent several hours in direct diplomacy with him then. We do not have a separate bilat scheduled for the NATO Summit. I suspect President Erdoğan will hear from many Alliance members that — their concern over the activation of the S-400 radar.

We have been very, very blunt with him that that radar is inconsistent with Turkey’s duties as a NATO member, and particularly its participation in a bilateral sense in the F-35 program. That message will be reinforced across the Alliance.

Q Thank you.

Q Hey, it’s Tom Howell from the Washington Times. I just want to know if you’re going to spend a lot of time on 5G technology, pushing for nations to resist Huawei, things like that — if you can just give me a sense of whether that will feature.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. You know, the — this has been a major push of ours. We are absolutely going to insist that our NATO Allies use trusted and reliable partners — providers in their 5G networks.

This is not something they want, where they want to allow the Chinese Communist Party to be able to siphon off their citizens’ data or entry into their networks at all. So this is a very, very high priority for us. And the President’s going to reiterate that message.

Q Hi, this is Lucía Leal with EFE News. I was wondering if there — the President is planning to have any interactions at all with Prime Minister Sánchez of Spain. And secondly, President Macron said recently that the NATO was in a state of cerebral death. I was wondering if President Trump agrees with that.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, there. You know, we are not currently scheduled, as my colleague noted earlier, to have a bilateral meeting with Spain, though we continue to engage them at a high level outside of this event.

With regard to the second part of your question, you know, there is a 70-year history here of the United States — at least a 60-year history — of the United States urging its Allies to pay more in the Alliance. There is concurrently a 60- or 70-year history, as Secretary Pompeo noticed, of contentious actors, (inaudible) France, with NATO. That is part of having Alliance of 29, soon to be 30, democratic nations. But I think, underneath all of the democratic politics hurly-burly, the Alliance members are fully in accord on the goals of their shared commitments in this institute, absolutely.
So, I think we take this as part of the hugger-mugger of democratic politics with the Alliance.

Q Hi, can you hear me?


Q Yes, I am (inaudible) from Sky News Arabia. I want to follow up on Turkey. You said that Erdoğan will hear from several members during this summit, their concern regarding the S-400. But also, there are several issues with Turkey: their invasion to northeast Syria, and we saw this exchange of statements between them and the French leader. To what extent do you think that issues of Turkey would be present during this summit?

And also, the second question, please. I want just to make sure that I have all the bilateral meetings that you mentioned. Can you repeat them, please? On the second day, especially. Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: [Senior administration official], do you want to repeat the bilateral meetings?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. Ma’am, if you could just send me an email, please. I will be happy to clarify that for you on the second question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. Okay. So, on the substance here. Diplomacy is a game of addition, not of subtraction. That is a facile way of saying that the Alliance is stronger with Turkey — fully in sync with Turkey, than out of sync with Turkey. That underpins the President’s diplomacy with the Turks, and it underpins all of our desire at the very top level, which you saw leading up to the October 17th ceasefire, when the President sent most of his senior national security officials out to Ankara to negotiate with Erdoğan and his Cabinet on a ceasefire in Turkey — in Syria, rather.

We believe that ceasefire is still holding. This is — this has been widely confirmed. We are working with the Turks to allow humanitarian access to the area, to that box; to maintain security at the ISIS detention facilities; and to impose order and accountability on those proxy forces — the TSO — that the Turkish armed forces support, engage with.

So all of that to say, I’m not going to speak to the bilateral Turkey-France back-and-forth. But our approach on Turkey — and I believe, which is shared by the vast majority of NATO members — is very clear: direct engagement, working out the tough issues, holding them to their commitments.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Operator, we have time for two more questions.

Q Hi, this is Jordan Foster, with ABC. Can you hear me?


Q Hi, thanks for doing the call. I wanted to ask: President Trump is often viewed as a disruptive force within NATO. But this year, President Macron has sort of been competing for that title, many observe. So I was wondering if you could speak to the, kind of, special bond between the two men. And going into this NATO Leaders Meeting, how do the two men relate to one another? Do they see themselves as sort of a unified force working for change? If you could speak to that relationship a bit?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Oh, I think they have a great deal of respect for each other. You know, the — they have different — they have different priorities for the Alliance. The President wants to make it stronger and the burden sharing more equitable. I think President Macron is still, kind of, working out what he wants out of the group.

But — but I think they have a healthy level of respect for each other. That will come out in their bilateral conversation; indeed, it comes out in every conversation they have.

We were saddened by the loss of 13 French soldiers recently in Africa as part of the great work the French do on CT missions elsewh- — and other things outside of NATO down there.

But in terms of Macron’s participation in NATO, I would simply refer you back to the Secretary’s comment that the, kind of, one or two standard deviations removed of normal of Alliance discourse that sometimes we hear is really just well within the standard of democratic politics, and indeed of democratic politics at NATO over the last 60 or 70 years.


Q Hi, there. It’s (inaudible) with the Sunday Times. I wanted to shore up on a question about Mr. Trump and Boris Johnson. There’s an election coming up in Britain. And I just wonder if the President has been briefed and warned not to speak about it. The Prime Minister today has said that he — even though the President has said nice things about him in the past, that he should not endorse or say anything about the Prime Minister. Is that something that the President has been aware of, that he should avoid talking about the general election while he’s in London? And is that a reason why there’s no bilat currently scheduled? Or is that something you’re still working on? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Hey, that’s something we’re still working on, as my colleague noted earlier. I would point out, the President is very conscious — he doesn’t need briefings from us — of the fact that we do not interfere, wade into other (inaudible).

Q He has said things in the past, though. I mean, he gave quite a splashy interview with The Sun about Theresa May the last time he was there. Is that a concern? Is that something that, you know, has come up that he should stick to?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. He’s well aware of this. He also, as I suspect you know, likes Boris Johnson — Prime Minister Johnson, personally. But he is absolutely cognizant of not, again, wading into other country’s elections.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. Thank you very much. We’re out of time, as we have to transition. Thank you, everyone for your time today. And this — the embargo is lifted. And we will follow up with any details on bilats.

Thank you so much.


This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, China, Cyber Security, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Economy, Environmentalism, European Union, Fabian Socialists - Modern Progressives, France, G20, media bias, NATO, President Trump, Russia, Uncategorized, United Kingdom (UK) and Great Britain, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to White House Prepares for NATO Summit Next Week in London – Bilats With Merkel, Conte and Frederiksen Announced…

  1. Mike in a Truck says:

    NATO’s mission ended when the Warsaw Pact dissolved. Our Founders would be appalled at the entanglements the Globalists have pushed our Nation into.

    Liked by 11 people

    • WSB says:

      Mike, that is so true.

      I just posted this on another thread; however, since this thread is covering international response to US positions, it seems particularly appropriate here.

      I have always heard that the Founders wanted to make sure that no one of title of nobility or ‘honours’ ever was a member of our Federal Government, and that there is a missing 13th Amendment that has been cleverly tucked away, stating so.

      In this one research paper, find the following passage,

      “Even though the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, the simple fact of our existence threatened the monarchies. The United States stood as a heroic role model for other nations, that inspired them to also struggle against oppressive monarchies. The French Revolution (1789-1799) and the Polish national uprising (1794) were in part encouraged by the American Revolution. Though we stood like a beacon of hope for most of the world, the monarchies regarded the United States as a political typhoid.”

      So, it would seem The USA, as political typhoid the rest of the world is still trying to eliminate, is right where we were after our Revolution. Thoughts from any Constitutional historians would be welcomed, as I am uncertain of the veracity of the findings by this author.


      Liked by 4 people

    • Dutchman says:

      Why, didn’t Jefferson say “entanglements with none, except the 29, soon to be 30 nations in NATO?/S

      Seriously, people mistakenly attach the bond of brotherhood, established while fighting against a common enemy, to an alliance between COUNTRIES, and the countries governments.

      An alliance between countries, is like a ‘marriage of convenience’; its NOT romantic, its practical, and based on enlightened self interest.

      “A marriage continues, as long as each partner percieves that they don’t have to eat more sh*t, from the other partner, for the sake of the marriage, than the other partner is willing to eat from them (for the sake of the marriage).
      Once either partner crosses that trip wire, while the process may take months or years, the marriage is essentially and effectively over.”

      Applying this to the NATO alliance, underfunding by our allies has been going on for 60-70 YEARS?

      Meanwhile, these countries have maintained Tariffs and blocked markets for our (U.S.) products for 30-40 years after it was no longer justified in order to enable them to recover from WW2.

      This combination has enabled them to have great infrastructure, and generous social programs, while our infrastructure is crumbling, and social programs consume 40% of our budget, and we are basically bankrupt.

      We are the agrieved, abused spouse in this marriage of convenience, and the NATO countries are also, for the most part, the,EU countries.
      The EU’s purpose, is as a TRADING block; to counter (screw) the U.S.

      While pressuring them to meet their commitments to NATO, PDJT is also tariffing them, to (ostensibly) apply pressure to them to make a trade deal.

      And, EU is suffering, because China isn’t buying,…

      WHY would PDJT conclude and sign a trade deal with the EU?
      Firstly, he has said he wants BI-lateral, NOT multi-lateral trade deals.

      Secondly, like China they have a long history of renegging (60-70 years).

      And, they have been ripping us off, for many years and many trillions of $, also just like,China.

      Let the tariffs roll, on China AND EU, until both Conmunism and Conmunism lite, collapse.

      Conmunism works, until you run out of Other Peoples Money. Time to set things right.

      Liked by 3 people

  2. JohnCasper says:

    Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.
    – Eric Hoffer, The Temper of Our Time

    I think this fits NATO rather well. I think President Trump agrees but he’s not some anonymous commenter on the internet, so prudence dictates he not say it. Although he has certainly strongly hinted at it.

    Liked by 9 people

  3. Sentient says:

    I don’t care if Europeans spend more on their defense, I just want us to spend less.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Anon says:

    NATO is the enforcement arm of the Financial Oligarchy. It’s policy is set by the CFR not the citizens. NATO is planning a war with Russia that will cost you enormously in terms of blood and treasure, but will finally put the vast natural wealth of Russia under Oligarch control. America’s ruling class is prepared for this war. They have built themselves fallout shelters. And the Russians have built and refurbished shelters for their people. Where are your shelters? Also, since when is war a conservative value? Do you ever wonder why all the neoCons claim to be Dems these days?

    Liked by 4 people

  5. trapper says:

    Might be an opportune time to roll out to the NATO members America’s ideas for how they might replace the EU with a purely trade arrangement that restores national sovereignty, something along the lines of a European USMCA. No need for a Brexit if you dismantle the offending monster. Then there is nothing left to leave.

    I know, apples and oranges. Time to think outside the fruit bowl.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Sentient says:

    Who is NATO even supposedly defending against? Russia? Why would Russia invade Europe? Because they don’t have enough trannies? Because the biggest country in the world – and a sparsely populated one at that – needs more land? The whole idea is ridiculous.

    Liked by 11 people

    • Mary Wilson says:

      Especially since Russia could conquer most of Europe just by turning off the oil pipelines.
      No need to waste lives when it’s that easy.

      Liked by 1 person

    • mtk says:

      Has any the ‘deep thinkers’ in ‘think tank-land’ ever stopped to objectively muse about the rhetoric put forth about their expertise verses the US domestic political ‘football’ landscape as a contributing factor to the evolving geopolitical actions of the FSU.

      Where as the FSU is going…
      “WTF, the West can not speak with one voice, let along come to a consensus but only sees the ‘politics of the moment’ kicking over ‘can of worms’ after ‘can of worms’ with no end in sight on our door steps as the prosecution of the ‘war of islamic fundementalism/terror becomes in-vogue talking points to win elections.

      Has any of these ‘deep thinkers’ ever stopped to question, “The actions taken by FSU(aka Moscow) are a direct result of particularly the US domestic political landscape not being able to prosecute(stay the course) on the ‘War on Islamic terrorism’.
      Yes, I am questioning the politics surrounding ‘code pink’ and moveOn dot org around the time of the Surge and Gitmo playing into the FSU going, “These people have a Zero Clue understanding and forced a dramatic re-evaluation within the former Soviet block to go, “The West is not up to the task and we need to go our own way.”
      An our ‘own way’ policy once casted(decided opon) would be very differcult to rein in. An example of a first policy undertaking of this dramatic shift would be Georgia 2005.

      The question is did the Russia reset of Obama become a dirty little secret visa diplomatic channels of horse trading away these concerns as the Libyan crisis of 2011 and then Syria became the final straw that broke the camel’s back that eventually lead to the bag man VP Biden going to Ukraine to profit off the Horse Trading Deal to off set Russian strategic concerns over the ‘Arab Spring’

      Hmmm… Just saying.


      • mtk says:

        Now of coarse having said this…
        Is the predicate… a bundering into miss step after political misstep, or is it a narrative of mapped out leftist collusion designed with a goal of eventuality built on the rhetoric of the day, “How dare ‘you’ question our patriotism.”


  7. Sharon says:

    Somebody needs to tell Micro Macron to keep his hands to himself.

    Liked by 3 people

    • mopar2016 says:

      The EU is a mess, Merkel and Macron seem to have an ongoing feud about money.
      They’ve sold out to China and Russia, enabled the cult of islam, and they can’t control the madness.

      The EU was a bad idea to start with, it eliminates the sovereignty and the pride that comes with having your own country IMO. I think it was better when they had competition between them and their own currencies. Sometimes you get what you ask for.
      They seem to be clueless.

      Liked by 4 people

  8. davidberetta says:

    I truly do not care if NATO remains nor exists. I would ENJOY the day that OUR Nation is no longer associated with it!

    That day would be a great day for American Citizens…A National Holiday would be in order and OUR wallets would grow larger.

    NATO has ZERO benefit to the people of the United States…it’s purely a hole that we pour dollars into without ANY benefit.

    Liked by 7 people

    • mikeyboo says:

      I agree. I can see some benefit to bilateral agreements but I have not discerned any substantive benefit from NATO. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable can explain how NATO currently benefits the US.


  9. emet says:

    NATO nations do not help us maintain a secure Southern border with Mexico. Why then should we concern ourselves with containing the Russians within their border?

    Liked by 8 people

    • 🍺Gunny66 says:

      NATO is a farce and mirrors the Ukraine as a money laundering tool for the Atlantic Council.

      How many times has Russia invaded Europe? ……hmmm

      I am not talking about WWII and Russia defeating Germany…….Leaving it’s troops behind forming the Warsaw Pact.

      Europe has invaded the Soviet Union 4 times on the last 130 years……Killing millions of Russian citizens. The British, French, Germans, and Finns were all part of this.
      Look it up…….Most of the invasions were for religious reasons.

      If Mexico had done this to the US, we would have created a “buffer zone”, as the Soviets did to save American lives.

      NATO is a rip off. They pay for nothing, but have taken billions from us, not used tor their military, but for their infrastructure And pay offs.

      We should abandon NATO and let them defend themselves.
      Europe is finished anyway. The Muslims have taken over.

      Liked by 9 people

      • I think, and pray for the people of the civilized world to wake up and rid ourselves of any muslim, man, woman, child. It took Spain 800 years the last time. Let’s learn from that and do it now. Our colleges have turned out some pretty pathetic ‘feely, lovey’ folks for too many years. If we don’t wake up and rid ourselves of the scourge we may well be lost…. I think a few beheadings in Europe and the US and South America will wake the rest of us up….. there will be bloodshed. Let’s make sure it’s theirs, not ours.
        God bless

        Liked by 2 people

        • mikeyboo says:

          “I think a few beheadings in Europe and the US “……There HAVE been beheadings in Europe and the US as well as “honor killings”. Yet the WEST has not awakened and immigration from these countries, legal and illegal,has increased.
          Is appears Western leaders are so greedy/corrupt they are accepting bribes to allow the growing peril to their own populations.

          Liked by 2 people

      • dustycowpoke says:

        No Action Trouble Only.


  10. A2 says:

    I think that the 70th Anniversary meeting will make much progress in financial costs bearing, economic strategic security issues, Space policies. Merkel is already out the door and there is now domestic pushback against her Huawei and China policy disasters. Conte needs to be read the riot act on Huawei also. Trudeau is another one.

    If they keep Macron and Erdogan apart then no brawling, though both seem to be finger pointers and loudmouths or as some say, like to swing for the fences.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. NoTwoSystemsOnlyOneChiCom says:

    Time to find out what is brain-dead and dead-brained, eh?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. spoogels says:

    Little Macron says says Russia is no longer NATO’s enemy



    • Sentient says:

      He’s right. Any politician saying that here would be labeled a Russian lackey. Dems and their media allies have become deranged. Even crazier, they trust the CIA!

      Liked by 1 person

  13. pucecatt says:

    The same day no nads starts up his nonsense in the judiciary, these people are becoming so predictable, they always try to steal the spotlight when POTUS is on the world stage .. never fails and it pisses me off ..

    Liked by 1 person

  14. trialbytruth says:

    So POTUS will be out of country at NATO what will he drop back here at home. In the past that has been the pattern.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Elric VIII says:

    Basically, it’s put up or shut up. By now, a unified Europe should be able to take care of itself. If they want to import millions of Muslims and buy all of their energy from Russia, why should we care? They’re on their own. Mmm-Bye-Bye!

    Liked by 1 person

  16. A2 says:

    Except, they are not unified. That is why the meeting should be interesting. the President and team will move the goalposts, get them to accept their own failures, such as cost sharing, not funding defense, make them aware of National security threats re, Huawei and of course Russian expansionism and threats to Europe. Get them focussed on Space the new frontier and generally, realign and revitalise NATO for the new age of asymmetrical warfare.

    One of the most missed benefits of NATO, and only taken by the US, is to boost cooperation and training between the US and Europe. This means coordinated efforts so if any disaster starts, the allies work efficiently and effectively to deter collective threats.

    I dismiss the posters touting the Moscow line. Putin ‘s entire policy is to ramp up against NATO, who does not threaten Russia except defensibly. it is his problem that former soviet states are distrustful of him.

    Yet, makes big claims for counter moves threatening new weapons, massive disinformation campaigns, supporting the dictators club like China, DPRK ( recent security measures signed), Iran, Venezuela (sending Russian military ‘advisors’ and security forces there), and their old friend Cuba. Putin recently said, threatening the US and by extension allies, he
    “ took direct aim at NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) and accused its projects of delving into Russian territories and militarising space.

    The Russian President said: “We are also seriously concerned about the NATO infrastructure approaching our borders, as well as the attempts to militarise outer space.” Never mentioned his militarisation of the Arctic, Syria, and so on.

    Again, those liberated countries on the border want to defend themselves from a Crimea takeover, and the continuing war in Eastern Ukraine that numpties say is ok because in the past it was part of the Soviet Union. UKraine has a right of self determination.

    So there is that.


  17. spoogels says:

    Merkel’s new professionals hard at work in Germany.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. PaoLo says:

    The president has freedom of speech to say whatever he wants , now these morons want to stop him from speaking his mind or speaking to the millions of British people who want to thank him. Freedom of speech wins.


  19. Why is Emmanuelle Micron so “affectionate” in the photo?

    Is he thinking of his man, Benalla?


    • cbjoasurf says:

      Macron is predisposed towards guys like Obama, his marriage is merely for optics. Only question is whether he plays the pointer or setter part.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s