These NATO 'Allies' are worried the US can't protect them. How about this, NATO 'Allies' provide their own defence and the US steps in as a supplemental force as needed. You want defense, Europe, you bare the brunt, not the US. If these clowns dont want to defend themselves, then it looks like Greenland and Canada are ours. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ar-BB1rjiTT NATO allies worry the US can't defend Europe and counter China NATO allies worry that the growing threat China poses may distract the US from Europe. A seapower expert argues the forces needed in Europe are different than in the Asia-Pacific. A confrontation over Taiwan would be primarily a naval fight; Europe would be a land battle. China's threat to Taiwan also poses a profound dilemma for NATO — does it tie up its most powerful ally from European defense at a critical moment?
You are retarded beyond belief. Trump threatened military force against Greenland though it's under Denmark's sovereign protection, which is NATO. Yes, he is THAT stupid. Beyond the threat against Nato by Nato, Nato protects Greenland already. Go back to your suspect Russian teenager videos.
If the world wants peace, it must hunt down all the Neo Cons and maroon them on Greenland as Trumps penal colony for the unaccountable.
If anybody knows this idiot, PM me. My land manager has a half a semi load of contaminated manure I'd like to send to his house.
What part of this do you not understand, Bad Bunny? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ar-BB1rjiTT NATO allies worry the US can't defend Europe and counter China NATO allies worry that the growing threat China poses may distract the US from Europe. A seapower expert argues the forces needed in Europe are different than in the Asia-Pacific. A confrontation over Taiwan would be primarily a naval fight; Europe would be a land battle. China's threat to Taiwan also poses a profound dilemma for NATO — does it tie up its most powerful ally from European defense at a critical moment?
White House announces the names of two new aircraft carriers. CVN 82 will be the USS William J Clinton and CVN 83 will be the USS George W. Bush. Note: CVN 77 is already the USS George H.W. Bush.
Trump supporters entirely fail to recognize the dynamics behind U.S. weapons sales to allied nations. As the world’s largest arms manufacturer by far, the U.S. relies on agreements with allied countries to purchase its military hardware, not as an act of charity, but as a strategic economic arrangement. These nations are spending hundreds of billions on American made weapons, directly supporting U.S. industry and indirectly subsidizing the American military. The narrative that Europe "doesn't pull its weight" ignores the fact that many European nations prioritize investments in vocational training and social infrastructure over sheer military spending. In the U.S., limited social safety nets often make the military the default path for those without other opportunities. In contrast, Europe provides broader vocational and career options, reducing reliance on military service as an economic fallback. However, the global arms market is evolving. Sweden is developing a stealth variant of its Gripen E, a highly capable and cost-effective fighter jet. Norway still chose the F-35, driven by the allure of U.S. technology and interoperability. Yet, this dependence on U.S. systems raises strategic risks. If Denmark were threatened, the other Nordic countries would almost certainly rally to its defense. The question is whether they would rely on jets that could potentially be rendered ineffective by an adversary exploiting vulnerabilities in systems designed for U.S. control. The U.S. benefits immensely from allied nations purchasing its arms, but as alternatives emerge and countries prioritize greater autonomy, this dependency model may not be sustainable. The Nordics, known for their pragmatic and self-reliant defense strategies, could lead the way in seeking systems that aren't tethered to external control or vulnerable to electronic disruption by the manufacturer.