The European Soviet Union is proving to be as incompetent as its Bolshevik predecessor.

The P:romethian action scenario is looking stronger all the time. The EU , Canada, Austrlia, all looking like Communist strongholds.

This is why the mullahs need to be removed

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/06/19/iranian-and-iranian-backed-attacks-against-americans-1979-present/

it would be fantastic if Trump would pull out of NATO, but he won’t and he can’t without senate approval thanks to a bill Marco Rubio passed right before the election, when it was clear Trump would win.

Dubious advice? How do you know that? Do you claim equal knowledge with the information the ODNI provides the President in his daily presidential briefing? Or from other sources?

There is no planet on which ridding a world sponsor of terrorism that has actively attacked and threatened the US and the world directly and through proxies for 50 years, which was near nuclear weapons, and which murders anyone in its path, including its own citizens, is a “stupid decision”.

America First means clearing the field of America’s enemies. Luckily Trump understands this, and bases his decision to wipe out Iran’s terror network and nuclear ambitions on facts, law, logic, and common sense, rather than your delicate feelings.

Rather naive expecting other nations to fall in behind a unilateral attack decision.

The Strait was open prior to the US attack. Want it open? Leave.

Who gives a rat’s ass that you are offended

I’ve said this so many times people are tired of it no doubt but, it’s still true IMHO. The day after Gorby’s USSR dissolution speech, 12/26/91, we should have held a victory parade, packed up all our kit and all our folks and brought it and them home. All of it. Full stop. Europe, you’re on your own. But no, here we are. As a military alliance NATO’s as useless as wings on an ostrich.

https://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/nuclear/its-suicidal-not-to-take-iran-seriously/

“It’s Suicidal Not to Take Iran Seriously”

by Thomas Sowell

3rd January 2006

Excerpt
“That is where we are internationally today. Many years ago, there was a book with the title “The Suicide of the West.” It may have been ahead of its time.

The squeamishness, indecision, and wishful thinking of the West are its greatest dangers because the West has the power to destroy any other danger. But it does not have the will.

Partly this is because most of our Western allies have been sheltered from the brutal realities of the international jungle for more than half a century under the American nuclear umbrella.”

Marching as to War
https://buchanan.org/blog/marching-war-6297?doing_wp_cron=1773825818.2998309135437011718750

“Sweeping through Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania this week, Joe Biden reassured all three that the United States’ commitment to Article Five of the NATO treaty remains “solemn” and “iron clad.”
Article Five commits us to war if the territory of any of these tiny Baltic nations is violated by Russia.
From World War II to the end of the Cold War, all three were Soviet republics. All three were on the other side of the Yalta line agreed to by FDR, and on the other side of the NATO red line, the Elbe River in Germany.
No president would have dreamed of waging war with Russia over them. Now, under the new NATO, we must. Joe Biden was affirming war guarantees General Eisenhower would have regarded as insane.”

NATO is a sham, Much ado over a nothingburger:

The North Atlantic Treaty (Washington Treaty of 1949) requires almost nothing tangible or quantifiable from the United States—no specific number of troops, no stationed forces anywhere, no dollar amounts, no percentages of GDP, no fixed units or equipment, and no automatic military deployments.

Here is the verbatim core text on obligations (full treaty is short and public; these are the only parts that could even remotely touch “requirements”):

• Article 3: “The Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.”
• → No numbers, no targets, no troops mentioned. The U.S. decides unilaterally what “capacity” looks like.
• Article 5 (the famous one): “…each of them… will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force…”
• → The U.S. itself decides what (if anything) is “necessary.” It can be diplomatic notes, sanctions, equipment, or nothing military at all. It does not require sending troops, declaring war, or any specific response.
• Article 11: “This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”
• → For the U.S. this explicitly means Congress must authorize any use of force (War Powers Resolution reinforces that no treaty can bypass Congress).

Everything else in the treaty is about peaceful dispute settlement (Art 1), consultation (Art 4), setting up a council (Art 9), ratification, and withdrawal rules. There is literally no mention of troops, bases, spending, or stationed forces.

What people often confuse with “treaty requirements”

• 2% (or the new 2025 3.5% + 1.5% = 5% by 2035) GDP defense spending guideline: Purely a political pledge from NATO summits (Wales 2014, Hague 2025). Not in the treaty, not legally binding, not enforceable. The U.S. itself does not even meet every proposed target in the same way.
• U.S. troops in Europe (~100,000 currently, with recent U.S. law setting a floor of 76,000 via the 2026 NDAA): Entirely a U.S. policy and congressional decision. The treaty requires zero troops anywhere. The 1951 NATO Status of Forces Agreement only governs the legal status of troops if the U.S. chooses to send them—it does not require sending any.
• NATO common-funded budgets (civil, military, infrastructure—total ~€4.6 billion in 2025): The U.S. pays a negotiated share (historically ~15–22%). U.S. law (10 USC 2263) actually caps or baselines these contributions and requires congressional notification. The treaty itself mandates nothing specific.

In short: The treaty’s only real tangible requirement on the U.S. is that it must ratify it (done in 1949) and participate in the North Atlantic Council (which it does). Everything beyond that—troops, spending, deployments, exercises—is voluntary U.S. policy, summit pledges, or implementing decisions that the U.S. can change at any time without violating the treaty text.

If an ally is attacked, the U.S. obligation is exactly what the Senate and President decide it is, subject to Congress approving any fighting. That is deliberate vagueness built into the treaty by its drafters so no country would be automatically dragged into war. No specific troop count or dollar figure has ever been required of the United States by the NATO treaty itself.

perhaps more like anti London banks running their wars for profit

We need an embargo on energy exports to Europe. We should also seize the tankers that Iran is letting through Hormuz and give the oil to our friends in Asia.

Can we ditch the UN too?

Sundance

Thanks for starting the vid at the relevant time

for future articles, while Pres Trump stays on his talk track
it would be nice if you linked to the entire Q & A or meeting
preferably not on YT unless YT is helping to keep your lights on.

BitChute, Gab, Rumble etc

PS
Trump has been pre-selling a NATO exit for some time

and it is good that he is.

The US is a Naval and Air power, not a Eurasian land power

we do not have millions of American kids to fight land wars for everyone else in the world.

US can and must control all Strategic Naval choke points in the world,
and the deep blue water.

US interest in Europe should be total MED dominance via stationed on a string of bases across the MED
that are sovereign US territory in exchange for protection by the US

Azores, Spain, Malta, Sicily as the Hub, Crete, Cyprus
Italy and Greece have formidible Navies,
that can be backed by US EW, COMS, SAT, stand-off short and long range weapons, and aircraft
Aircraft and munitions principally in Sicily, but moved forward as needed.

Trump must negotiate with Turkey the transfer of Turkish occupied Cyprus to the US
as a permanent US protectorate.
Any Turks on Cyprus are bought out at market, pack up and return to Turkey
Turkey would be happy to unload money loser Cyprus, but can’t give it to the Greeks
Erdo would be dead in a day if he gave it to the Greeks.

At the current rate of allowed immigration across Europe and the UK, NATO will mostly consist of countries run by Sharia law.

Most people will gladly go to lunch with you if they only have to pay the tip.

Those same people won’t mind much if you pay for lunch and 1/2 the tip.

Yep, those people are moochers.

But if you are willing to take them to lunch every day, pay for lunch and 1/2 the tip, who’s the knucklehead?

Maybe you should stop paying for lunch and 1/2 the tip.

NATO are old leather shoes, the Western Hemisphere’s Shield countries are fresh new cross trainers.

You may choose to keep the old shoes, but never wear them.

Apparently I’m missing something.
If the US intention is to wipe out Iran’s military capability to end their regional/worldwide terrorism attacks/threats, then why does the Hormuz Strait need continued ‘protection’?
Protected from what? If Iran is removed from the equation and is no longer capable of attacking ships in the Hormuz Strait?

What have you done for me lately? Obviously, nothing!

President Trump does his best to get along and call EU leaders, “a good friend” or “a good man,,” and all he gets in return is, “Ah, no.”

We’re pretty much tapped out with Euroweenies, with the obvious exception of maybe two countries. Pull the checkbook and let’s see what happens!

GET OUT! This is the perfect opportunity. Europe has been playing America for fools. Time for Europe (and the corrupt) EU to stand on its own.

We have to leave NATO. Europe is a fascist censorship state. We cannot be compelled to fight a war on behalf of corrupt Europe, a Europe that still dreams of their lost colonies, and saber-rattles against nuclear Russia.

President Trump being an excellent strategist should incentivize the EU to incorporate NATO into an EU defense force. In so doing they would save the embarrassment of America withdrawing it’s support and money. If it were to become an EU defense of EU nations it would make more sense to retire NATO and sign a separate agreement with America who could not be a part of it.

That separate US agreement would be different than EU nation requirements and would be much more beneficial to the EU than having America simply withdraw. So, rather than lose America’s support completely, creating the EU Defense Force would allow both parties to avoid embarrassing breakup issues and allow both parties to brag about a new and better way.

Time for a divorce,the kids will be OK,

IMO we would be wise to revise our ties to NATO countries. They have not learned any lessons from their mistakes in pre-WWII or the concept of Peace Through Strength. They are still the same cowardly noodle-brains that allowed Nazi Germany to amp up until they all faced extermination. Now they are cowed by their massive Muslim immigrant voter blocks into docility against their enemies. Plus they have become like fattened leeches depending on the goodwill of US taxpayers to provide a great deal of their military defense so they can live their socialist lifestyles, providing freebies to their citizens that Americans can never hope for. (unless you are an illegal living in CA)

Due to the current conflict with Iran Brits are just discovering what an embarrassment their once-mighty navy has become, and they’re not happy. They’re discovering their money went to provide for immigrant welfare programs instead national security defense. Starmer vowed to keep them out of the war, but his neutrality vows didn’t save the British/Australian’s Al Minhad airbase from being attacked yesterday. Hmmm. Anyone else notice the similarities to the 1930’s practice of Appeasement while facing off against Hitler?

Many of these countries no longer share our values and are partaking in ever-growing tyranny and civil rights abuses toward their own citizens. Why should we go broke over trying to save them from themselves? More than likely they are going to continue on a path that will once again get us dragged into another world war that will spill American blood to bail them out.

The problem with NATO is that most of the member countries are over-run with muslim terrorists and the governments are paralyzed with fear. I they lift a finger the terror attacks will begin immediately.