I want to lay out a theory that feels increasingly plausible when you look at the trajectory of recent geopolitical moves and the broader narrative around “peace through strength.”
One factor worth noting is that during recent Iran-related tensions, NATO as an alliance was not meaningfully unified or visibly central in supporting U.S. positioning. Whether fair or not, that lack of collective NATO framing in that context has been interpreted by some as reinforcing the optics that the alliance is not consistently aligned as a coordinated security bloc. In a political sense, that kind of moment strengthens arguments for reducing or rethinking U.S. commitments abroad.
This isn’t about predicting certainty—but about mapping what a coherent next step could look like if current policy logic continues.
Step 1: Reframing U.S. Global Commitments
There has been a consistent theme in Trump’s worldview for years: the idea that U.S. security guarantees—especially through NATO—are asymmetrical.
The core argument is:
The U.S. shoulders disproportionate military and financial burden European nations benefit from U.S. deterrence But do not always align politically or strategically with U.S. priorities
From that perspective, NATO becomes less of a sacred alliance and more of a negotiated security arrangement that can be reweighted or even exited if necessary.
Step 2: NATO Exit (or Functional Withdrawal) as Leverage
A full formal NATO exit is one extreme version, but even short of that, the U.S. could:
Reduce forward troop presence in Europe
Scale back intelligence or logistics support
Limit funding or joint operations
Publicly question Article 5 guarantees in practice
The effect is similar either way: Europe is forced to reassess its own security assumptions.
Step 3: Europe’s Ukraine Position Becomes Unsustainable Without U.S. Backbone
Right now, Ukraine’s long-term capacity is heavily dependent on:
U.S. military aid
U.S. intelligence and targeting support
U.S. logistics and air/missile defense systems
If that backbone is reduced or removed, Europe is left with:
Smaller, unevenly equipped militaries
Limited stockpiles
Industrial ramp-up still in progress
At that point, Europe has to make a choice:
Continue escalating support without the U.S. safety net ...or
Push for a negotiated settlement to avoid a prolonged, destabilizing conflict on its doorstep
Step 4: Russia’s Incentive to Freeze the Conflict
From Russia’s perspective, if Western unity fractures or U.S. backing declines, the rational objective may not be full expansion—but:
Consolidation of current territorial gains
Security buffer arrangements
Sanctions relief over time
Formal or informal recognition of a new status quo
That creates conditions where a frozen conflict becomes more likely than an open-ended war.
Step 5: Outcome — Negotiated End Driven by Strategic Exhaustion
In this theory, Trump’s leverage move (NATO withdrawal or partial disengagement) doesn’t directly “end the war.”
Instead, it:
Removes the assumption of unlimited Western backing
Forces Europe to reassess cost vs. risk
Pushes Ukraine toward negotiation rather than indefinite escalation
Gives Russia incentive to lock in gains rather than expand uncertainty
The result could be:
Not a decisive victory for any side, but a pressured settlement driven by shifting support structures.
Final Thought
If you zoom out, this fits a broader pattern of:
Using alliance uncertainty as a tool to force recalibration and rebalancing of global conflicts.
Whether one agrees with it or not, it is a coherent strategic logic:
Reduce commitments
Increase allied self-reliance pressure
Force negotiation through resource reality rather than open-ended support.
Curious how others see this playing out—especially whether Europe would actually choose deeper militarization or pivot toward settlement if U.S. guarantees were reduced.
Also, Europe could once again access relatively inexpensive Russian energy supplies, if they can back away from their self-imposed Russian sanctions. Russia can very sensibly ask for Europe to back away from supporting the Ukraine war and to support a peace plan in exchange for access to Russian oil and gas.
https://greatawakening.win/p/1ASGIxq99G/trump-puts-our-allies-on-blast-a/
This post by POTUS started me down the track of NATO withdrawal/reduction as a means to leverage an end to the Ukraine/Russia conflict.
I believe he is also exposing the globalist corrupiton of the catholic church as well.
That’s gonna a hard one, Catholics think the pope is Jesus on earth.
Ha, no we don’t.
I go to mass every Sunday, not my pope.
FUCK UKRAINE, 1/4 part of the country in a war zone 3/4 lives on, tens of thousand murdered, no elections, a billionaire actor as a dictator and we have in our nation millions of kids going hungry, elderly can’t pay their utilities bills, 3/4 of congress is corrupt and the senate is a mental institution
The other NATO countries would press for a negotiated settlement, I think. They are deathly afraid of "total" U.S. withdrawal from NATO because they absolutely fear Russian expansion. But they are also tired of the Cabal's "endless wars" just as much as we are. And they know they can't protect themselves. Two world wars showed them that. That was why NATO was created. I'm surprised Britain came out and admitted it, even after that Russian Navy ploy last week.
They're also afraid of us leaving NATO, withdrawing from Europe and free to open up our manufacturing processes for our own uses and not theirs. One of the things that keeps us weaker than we should be is having to arm/supply NATO. They're afraid that if we were to leave, that we could later come back even stronger than we are now and just conquer them. (I'm not above supporting that possibility, either.)
But I think they'd more than consider taking on more financial burdens in order to keep us from permanently and completely exiting NATO and leaving Europe.
Sure, they'll have to restructure their economies and social programs, but I think they're finally beginning to realize they can't keep those going with the current Islamic Expansion happening in their borders. They have more illegals immigrants floating their lands than we do simply because they refuse to scale back their socialism through capitalism experiment.
This newest mention of turning NATO into EUTO is one I particularly like. There's no reason why they can't get off their fat, lazy asses and start protecting themselves. It will give their younger generations some of the pride in their homelands they seemingly lack. Besides, there isn't any reason why we can't still serve as the world's premier fighting force and can't still be anywhere in the world in less than 24-48 hrs if we're needed. Some of the EU nations would still want our bases occupied with U.S. military, even if it's only a part time basis.
I'd still love to see a complete withdrawal from NATO and Europe, but I don't think that'll happen. It would require complete trust in Putin and Xi/CCP. It would also anger the European leaders and their people, and it would damage or even end our trade agreements, too. European leaders are spiteful like that. I think a partial withdrawal measured out over the course of a decade is probably the best we'll see. Like, a 1/2-2/3 withdrawal of U.S. forces and support carried out slow enough to give them time to strengthen up and keep any "enemy" expansionist ideas at bay but fast enough to suit the American public's wants. It'll also somewhat please th die-hard NATO supporters among us. And, who knows, maybe Trump successfully negotiates the annexation of Greenland for us, too.
No more money or weapons to The Ukraine. Cut them off. Anything we do, should not be injurious to Russia.
I think weakening London and WEF countries is best, and is the plan, threatening to leave NATO is a chip on the table for getting Europeans to consider spending more money on defense
Ukraine’s leadership needs to go, Russia, I think has the forces to make major advances May through September of this year, putting pressure on Ukraine to ditch Zelenskyy.