1. In "Operation Epic Fury" (US-led strikes to reopen the Strait of Hormuz), America suffered 13 KIA, 381 wounded, and over $900 million in equipment losses while striking 13,000 targets over 38 days with massive deployments.
2. Most European NATO allies provided minimal or zero support during combat: Spain and Italy blocked airspace/bases, France parked its carrier defensively in the Mediterranean, Germany issued statements only, and the UK offered limited help after a two-week delay. NATO's collective response came only symbolically after the ceasefire.
3. Non-NATO Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan) plus Israel delivered full, immediate support—basing, logistics, air/missile defense, and joint operations from Day 1—absorbing Iranian retaliatory strikes without any treaty obligation.
4. The author proposes a "voting stock" reform for NATO decisions: each country's direct NATO contribution (in euros) multiplied by a factor of (its actual defense spending as % of GDP ÷ 2% threshold). This would give the US ~35% of votes (reflecting its 62% of alliance military capacity) while rewarding high spenders like Poland and penalizing minimal-effort members.
5. Bottom line: Restructure NATO around actual performance rather than 1949 geography (possibly inviting Gulf states who "showed up"), or the US should consider leaving. Trump’s leverage already forced higher European spending targets, but free-riding must end—especially after 13 Americans didn’t come home.
Superficially this sounds good. But as a practical matter it won't work, simply because the politics are more complicated than that. It'd work great for equipment purchases, research investment and training schedules, but lousy for things like what constitutes an invasion, or whether to admit Ukraine or Macedonia, and which country gets the next base or port, and troop deployments. You'd have to separate military decision-making vs political, and that brings a lot more into question about sovereignty. Any country that can't control troop deployments inside their own borders is a vassal or a protectorate, not a country.
Restructuring NATO like this would be like restructuring the politics of the whole continent. Which might be a good thing (or not), but it wouldn't be a defensive military alliance.
While the cost of being in NATO is significant, it’s not the most critical factor. The European dependency is becoming a suicide in slow motion. This is a continent where many countries are no longer able to protect, generate enough energy, or feed themselves. It’s also becoming a danger to America as we’re increasingly seeing false flags in the Ukraine war designed to draw it (and the rest of NATO) into a war with Russia.
Every military decision is political and can not be seperated. Its the first thing we learned during strategic military planning. In fact those plans are made based on current political assessments and decisions which trigger the development of plans. As old as war.
Superficially, Trump offered a pathway to DACA if democrats would fund the wall.
Superficially, Trump offered to stay in the Paris Accord if they held the same standards to China as the rest of the world.
Maybe Trump doesn't want the NATO deal to work.
You'd have to separate military decision-making vs political
America spent 70% of NATO budget, America's military gets 70% of decision in invasions or whether to admit Ukraine. Trump commands the military (let's invade) and Trump commands the political (lets not include Ukraine). I don't get where the difficulty is supposed to be.
If England for instance wants an equal vote then they contribute as much as we have, until then every decision is unilaterally Trump's to make.
America always should, and does, have total control of its own troops and equipment.
The point I was making is only that this suggestion for reforming NATO in this way is really a discussion about overall political sovereignty, not just cost-sharing and accounting.
That's actually a logical proposal which is why it will probably never fly.
The most likely scenario is the second option where we pull out of NATO and spend that money on her own military and charge other countries for our help when it aligns with our interests.
You are already spending the money on your own military. It is just that some like to portray that payment as being towards NATO when it really is not.
We spend that money on our own military, and then WE USE OUR OWN MILITARY FOR THE BENEFIT OF NATO COUNTRIES. An investment into our own military IS an investment into NATO as long as we remain in an alliance with all those blood-sucking leeches.
When all these eurofag countries stop spending all of their money on socialist/communist bullshit, redirect a big chunk of it towards their own militaries and their own defenses, and make those military assets available for the good of the alliance, then they will earn the right to flap their worthless gums.
How much less would the US pay for its defence if it left NATO?
There is the three quarters of a million dollars paid towards the common budget and all the other $billions is US defence spending. That would remain whether in NATO or not.
Oh, and other countries are spending the amounts agreed so why all the whinging?
The United States and Germany each contributed 15.8% of NATO’s annual common budget in 2024, the largest shares, followed by the UK and France at 10% each. NATO’s total common funding for 2024 was approximately $4.1 billion, which covers civilian and military infrastructure, operations, and joint systems.
The U.S. spends far more than any other NATO nation on defense. NATO alliance has 32 member countries with a total combined population of approximately 980 million people. The United States has a population of 340 million, and the non-US NATO members comprise a population of over 640 million people.
Top 5 Things to Know from the Post:
1. In "Operation Epic Fury" (US-led strikes to reopen the Strait of Hormuz), America suffered 13 KIA, 381 wounded, and over $900 million in equipment losses while striking 13,000 targets over 38 days with massive deployments.
2. Most European NATO allies provided minimal or zero support during combat: Spain and Italy blocked airspace/bases, France parked its carrier defensively in the Mediterranean, Germany issued statements only, and the UK offered limited help after a two-week delay. NATO's collective response came only symbolically after the ceasefire.
3. Non-NATO Gulf states (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan) plus Israel delivered full, immediate support—basing, logistics, air/missile defense, and joint operations from Day 1—absorbing Iranian retaliatory strikes without any treaty obligation.
4. The author proposes a "voting stock" reform for NATO decisions: each country's direct NATO contribution (in euros) multiplied by a factor of (its actual defense spending as % of GDP ÷ 2% threshold). This would give the US ~35% of votes (reflecting its 62% of alliance military capacity) while rewarding high spenders like Poland and penalizing minimal-effort members.
5. Bottom line: Restructure NATO around actual performance rather than 1949 geography (possibly inviting Gulf states who "showed up"), or the US should consider leaving. Trump’s leverage already forced higher European spending targets, but free-riding must end—especially after 13 Americans didn’t come home.
Superficially this sounds good. But as a practical matter it won't work, simply because the politics are more complicated than that. It'd work great for equipment purchases, research investment and training schedules, but lousy for things like what constitutes an invasion, or whether to admit Ukraine or Macedonia, and which country gets the next base or port, and troop deployments. You'd have to separate military decision-making vs political, and that brings a lot more into question about sovereignty. Any country that can't control troop deployments inside their own borders is a vassal or a protectorate, not a country.
Restructuring NATO like this would be like restructuring the politics of the whole continent. Which might be a good thing (or not), but it wouldn't be a defensive military alliance.
While the cost of being in NATO is significant, it’s not the most critical factor. The European dependency is becoming a suicide in slow motion. This is a continent where many countries are no longer able to protect, generate enough energy, or feed themselves. It’s also becoming a danger to America as we’re increasingly seeing false flags in the Ukraine war designed to draw it (and the rest of NATO) into a war with Russia.
👍
Every military decision is political and can not be seperated. Its the first thing we learned during strategic military planning. In fact those plans are made based on current political assessments and decisions which trigger the development of plans. As old as war.
👍
Superficially, Trump offered a pathway to DACA if democrats would fund the wall.
Superficially, Trump offered to stay in the Paris Accord if they held the same standards to China as the rest of the world.
Maybe Trump doesn't want the NATO deal to work.
America spent 70% of NATO budget, America's military gets 70% of decision in invasions or whether to admit Ukraine. Trump commands the military (let's invade) and Trump commands the political (lets not include Ukraine). I don't get where the difficulty is supposed to be.
If England for instance wants an equal vote then they contribute as much as we have, until then every decision is unilaterally Trump's to make.
America always should, and does, have total control of its own troops and equipment.
The point I was making is only that this suggestion for reforming NATO in this way is really a discussion about overall political sovereignty, not just cost-sharing and accounting.
That's actually a logical proposal which is why it will probably never fly.
The most likely scenario is the second option where we pull out of NATO and spend that money on her own military and charge other countries for our help when it aligns with our interests.
You are already spending the money on your own military. It is just that some like to portray that payment as being towards NATO when it really is not.
The hell it's not!
We spend that money on our own military, and then WE USE OUR OWN MILITARY FOR THE BENEFIT OF NATO COUNTRIES. An investment into our own military IS an investment into NATO as long as we remain in an alliance with all those blood-sucking leeches.
When all these eurofag countries stop spending all of their money on socialist/communist bullshit, redirect a big chunk of it towards their own militaries and their own defenses, and make those military assets available for the good of the alliance, then they will earn the right to flap their worthless gums.
How much less would the US pay for its defence if it left NATO?
There is the three quarters of a million dollars paid towards the common budget and all the other $billions is US defence spending. That would remain whether in NATO or not.
Oh, and other countries are spending the amounts agreed so why all the whinging?
Greetings from Airstrip One.
The United States and Germany each contributed 15.8% of NATO’s annual common budget in 2024, the largest shares, followed by the UK and France at 10% each. NATO’s total common funding for 2024 was approximately $4.1 billion, which covers civilian and military infrastructure, operations, and joint systems.
The U.S. spends far more than any other NATO nation on defense. NATO alliance has 32 member countries with a total combined population of approximately 980 million people. The United States has a population of 340 million, and the non-US NATO members comprise a population of over 640 million people.
Better yet just dismantle the stupid thing.