Yet again, you tell me something I never really knew and was important for me to learn. Now I understand. You would think more people would be talking about NATO, if for no other reason than trying to figure out what Trump is up to. Say what you will about his “style,” he is up to something, and it becomes clearer, to me, at least, with each passing day that he is trying to save what’s left of the American Dream. Who else could or would have done this?
While I enjoy your writing and analysis, you elided the elephant in the room. A strong case can be made that if the US had abstained from entering WWI, that war would have ground to a stalemate instead of concluding with the ridiculously punitive Treaty of Versailles which created the conditions that fostered the rise of communism, national socialism, Stalin, Hitler, WWII, Mao, the deaths of tens of millions, the Cold War, and the need for NATO. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Putin even petitioned to join NATO! That boondoggle is long past its sell-by date.
I do not agree that the Treaty of Versailles was needlessly punitive. By way of contrast, Brest-Litovsk was far more punitive in every way. The problem was the French not satisfied even with the parameters of Versailles as such and thus choosing to occupy the Ruhr beyond what was feasible or tenable. Even so, after they withdrew and the Americans stepped in with the Dawes Plan the German economy bounced back impressively. What blew it all up was the Great Depression.
"Europe, as a result of purposeful replacement migration, is quietly but quickly becoming an Islamic stronghold, and if current trends persist, a Muslim majority follows in short order."
This is an important issue. The current circumstances in many European countries are that a parallel society is being built within and it is one that is in conflict with the society that is native to that country. And is a society that is hostile to the US as well. So how does NATO continue to maintain equilibrium in Europe? The internal strife will reach a point where we are faced with a fractured Europe and serious conflict with US interests. The current dispute over Greenland is evidence of where we are in this scenario. I don't think this is caused by Pres Trump's policies or political viewpoints. It is because he isn't willing to ignore realities that are occurring in Europe. Because ignoring these realities pose a serious threat to the US. At what point does America's presence suck us into Europe's inevitable societal conflict (such as a civil war in the UK or France)?
Eisenhower didn’t consider NATO as something that ought to be permanent. Our Cold War trade policies, which rationally supported our allies at our own expense to defeat the Soviets, irrationally continued after the Soviet demise at the expense of our working class. This, combined with poor performance by our leaders during the GWOT and the 2008 financial crisis, undermined support for NATO.
NATO is likely dead. Frankly, it should be. One of the things that we learned to our sorrow during the Cold War and GWOT is that weak allies are not assets. They’re liabilities. We could, for example, maintain an alliance with Poland if we find it to be in our interest. Why should we defend Portugal or France? Ditto for Germany.
Very good piece. I recognized some of this intuitively but your analysis is excellent. I guess an unintended consequence of three quarters of a century of peace, and accompanying prosperity, made for good times make weak men though which made Europe right for plucking by Muslims. Which is why IMO we need to stop the support. Let the Muslims have it if they can keep it. Just not on the back of the American taxpayers. And for Pete's sake blow up the armaments before we leave.
"Europe, as a result of purposeful replacement migration, is quietly but quickly becoming an Islamic stronghold, and if current trends persist, a Muslim majority follows in short order."
And this is something that America CANNOT tolerate. Because the Islamic Europe will have access to a fully formed technological base, including nuclear weapons. It will instantly be a contender for control of the Mediterranean, and isolate us from our ally Israel.
This is the part of NATO nobody says out loud because it sounds impolite—but history backs it up. America didn’t just defend Europe from the Soviets; it restrained Europe from itself. By locking rival powers into a U.S.-managed security architecture, Washington froze centuries of continental blood feuds and made independent militarism structurally impossible. That wasn’t charity—it was self-preservation after two world wars proved Europe’s instability inevitably drags America in. The irony is that NATO’s success erased the memory of why it was necessary. Trump’s challenge cracks that amnesia. If Europe re-arms independently, the question isn’t just capability—it’s whether the old demons stay dormant without the American leash.
Yet again, you tell me something I never really knew and was important for me to learn. Now I understand. You would think more people would be talking about NATO, if for no other reason than trying to figure out what Trump is up to. Say what you will about his “style,” he is up to something, and it becomes clearer, to me, at least, with each passing day that he is trying to save what’s left of the American Dream. Who else could or would have done this?
While I enjoy your writing and analysis, you elided the elephant in the room. A strong case can be made that if the US had abstained from entering WWI, that war would have ground to a stalemate instead of concluding with the ridiculously punitive Treaty of Versailles which created the conditions that fostered the rise of communism, national socialism, Stalin, Hitler, WWII, Mao, the deaths of tens of millions, the Cold War, and the need for NATO. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Putin even petitioned to join NATO! That boondoggle is long past its sell-by date.
I do not agree that the Treaty of Versailles was needlessly punitive. By way of contrast, Brest-Litovsk was far more punitive in every way. The problem was the French not satisfied even with the parameters of Versailles as such and thus choosing to occupy the Ruhr beyond what was feasible or tenable. Even so, after they withdrew and the Americans stepped in with the Dawes Plan the German economy bounced back impressively. What blew it all up was the Great Depression.
Very astute analysis.
"Europe, as a result of purposeful replacement migration, is quietly but quickly becoming an Islamic stronghold, and if current trends persist, a Muslim majority follows in short order."
This is an important issue. The current circumstances in many European countries are that a parallel society is being built within and it is one that is in conflict with the society that is native to that country. And is a society that is hostile to the US as well. So how does NATO continue to maintain equilibrium in Europe? The internal strife will reach a point where we are faced with a fractured Europe and serious conflict with US interests. The current dispute over Greenland is evidence of where we are in this scenario. I don't think this is caused by Pres Trump's policies or political viewpoints. It is because he isn't willing to ignore realities that are occurring in Europe. Because ignoring these realities pose a serious threat to the US. At what point does America's presence suck us into Europe's inevitable societal conflict (such as a civil war in the UK or France)?
Eisenhower didn’t consider NATO as something that ought to be permanent. Our Cold War trade policies, which rationally supported our allies at our own expense to defeat the Soviets, irrationally continued after the Soviet demise at the expense of our working class. This, combined with poor performance by our leaders during the GWOT and the 2008 financial crisis, undermined support for NATO.
NATO is likely dead. Frankly, it should be. One of the things that we learned to our sorrow during the Cold War and GWOT is that weak allies are not assets. They’re liabilities. We could, for example, maintain an alliance with Poland if we find it to be in our interest. Why should we defend Portugal or France? Ditto for Germany.
History doesn't repeat, doesn't rhyme, can't keep a beat, but it is really, really, hard for us to unlearn old dance steps.
Very good piece. I recognized some of this intuitively but your analysis is excellent. I guess an unintended consequence of three quarters of a century of peace, and accompanying prosperity, made for good times make weak men though which made Europe right for plucking by Muslims. Which is why IMO we need to stop the support. Let the Muslims have it if they can keep it. Just not on the back of the American taxpayers. And for Pete's sake blow up the armaments before we leave.
"Europe, as a result of purposeful replacement migration, is quietly but quickly becoming an Islamic stronghold, and if current trends persist, a Muslim majority follows in short order."
And this is something that America CANNOT tolerate. Because the Islamic Europe will have access to a fully formed technological base, including nuclear weapons. It will instantly be a contender for control of the Mediterranean, and isolate us from our ally Israel.
This is the part of NATO nobody says out loud because it sounds impolite—but history backs it up. America didn’t just defend Europe from the Soviets; it restrained Europe from itself. By locking rival powers into a U.S.-managed security architecture, Washington froze centuries of continental blood feuds and made independent militarism structurally impossible. That wasn’t charity—it was self-preservation after two world wars proved Europe’s instability inevitably drags America in. The irony is that NATO’s success erased the memory of why it was necessary. Trump’s challenge cracks that amnesia. If Europe re-arms independently, the question isn’t just capability—it’s whether the old demons stay dormant without the American leash.