This analysis is free, but with Premium Membership you get MORE. Join today.
by Rod D. Martin
May 4, 2026
Today we’re talking about the unraveling of NATO. Is it happening? Is that a good or bad thing, and what can we do about it?
So first, we have to understand what NATO is for. NATO was created in 1949 in the aftermath of World War II because of the Soviet threat. The Soviet Empire made no secret of its desire to subjugate the entire world, and it had a great big army in the center of Europe aimed at Frankfurt and Paris and London and Madrid. So it’s pretty important to us to prevent that because the last thing in the world we wanted was for the Soviets to control the Atlantic ports in the way that Hitler had and potentially launch an invasion of the United States. Better to fight there than here.
So we created NATO, 32 countries, all of them well-to-do. Germany has the third largest economy in the world. Great Britain has the sixth largest economy in the world. These are not microstates, nor are they poor. They are countries that could carry their own weight, and yet they don’t.
So here’s the problem.
An alliance is supposed to be a group of partners who materially add to each other’s defense. The question I would ask you is, what is the threat that Germany would protect us from? There really isn’t any. And for that matter, what threat are we protecting Germany from? Who’s going to invade them? Switzerland? This just isn’t the world we live in. The Soviet Union ended in 1991, and modern Russia can’t get to Kiev after four years. It’s certainly not marching on Warsaw or Berlin.
But even that’s not the point. Germany should be able to stop them if they did. But Germany can’t. They’ve outsourced that — for free — to us.
So what’s an alliance for? Well, there is the general benefit, of course, of just having people on side and not against you. That’s good.
But I’m not too worried about Germany invading the United States right this minute. And even if I were, I would have to note that they aren’t carrying their weight enough for it to matter. The Germans, not long ago, were showing up at NATO exercises, their troops armed with broomsticks because they didn’t have enough rifles. Are you kidding me?
Likewise, Great Britain: “Britannia rules the waves”? They now have twice as many admirals as warships. They can’t get a single destroyer to Cyprus in eight weeks’ time. They have no capability to project power at all.
So if we got in a fight with somebody we needed their help with, what could they do for us? Literally nothing. And yet, the truth of the matter is, we pay more than 70% of the cost of defending the NATO area. One country paying nearly all the bills, 31 countries sitting on their butts, spending lavishly on their welfare programs, adding nothing.
Now, it’s important to remember that this is not uniform. Poland is an incredible ally. I wouldn’t mind if we got rid of Donald Tusk, but I’m very, very happy with Poland in general, and they live up to their commitments. So does Sweden. So does Lithuania, and Latvia, and Estonia, and Romania, and lots of these countries, and we shouldn’t be down on them.
But it might be worth considering whether we want bilateral defense agreements with some of them instead of this NATO mess where Britain, France, Germany, and Spain are constantly obstructing us in our foreign policy aims.
They say Iran is “not our war”. They didn’t mind starting a “not our war” in Serbia. They didn’t mind starting a “not our war” in Libya. They are certainly committed to our fighting a “not our war” in Ukraine.
And all of those things might be worthy on the merits. That’s not my point. And I certainly don’t want Putin to win in Ukraine, although to be clear, he’s not going to. That’s not the point. The point is they want us committed to their cause. But at that same moment, those same European “partners” have sent twice as much money to Moscow in energy purchases as they have to Kiev in aid.
So I’ll bottom line it for you. Our European allies hector us unceasingly about Ukraine, but are actually financing Putin’s invasion. It’s absurd. It’s got to stop. And they built up Iran as well.
So the truth is, NATO is not worth salvaging in its current form unless our allies actually become partners, not dependents. That’s what the president was trying to do with the 2 percent of GDP defense spending target, which now, to be fair, NATO has met.
The new goal is 5 percent of GDP. That would actually make Europe a potent military force. And for some inane reason, the Beltway establishment is horrified by that. Apparently they think the European Union is somehow going to become a threat to the United States. That’s just hooey. That will never, ever happen.
The European Union having enough military to defend itself means the United States doesn’t have to have as much military presence there. If Europe can handle its own region, they’re a real partner. And American power can come in decisively at the moment of decision in a crisis.
That’s exactly the model we’re constructing in East Asia with partners like Japan and South Korea and Taiwan and the Philippines and Malaysia and Singapore and Indonesia, not to mention Australia, which is a little iffy just at the moment, but so far so good. We’re going to sell them nuclear submarines and we’re talking about maybe selling them B-2 or B-21 bombers. So they can be a potent force. In a crisis they can matter, with our help.
We’ve extended that logic all the way to India. Trump’s trade agreement with India in February was transformative, not just economically, but also — crucially — militarily. Immediately, the Indians started capturing Russian oil tankers, shipping steeply discounted illegal oil to the Chinese. So the entire American security architecture is being transformed before our eyes. And the model is simple: partners, not dependents.
NATO is a dependent. It is absurd how they have treated us, particularly with their high-handed, surly, utterly condescending bunk. It’s tiresome. It’s enough. And I don’t want to pay for labor union benefits in Germany because Friedrich Merz doesn’t want to pay for rifles for his troops. That’s just stupid.
There is one more element of this, which is economic. We did ink a trade deal with the EU and they’ve cheated on it nonstop since. I don’t see any reason why we should put up with four times the auto tariff from Germany that we charge them. They’re bad friends. They’re a bad ally. They can be good friends and a good ally very, very simply. They just have to want to.
So I’m on record right now. I am pro-NATO. I want to see a NATO that works the way it’s supposed to work, not as a welfare project for the American taxpayer. If we can save that, that would be good for the world. If we can’t, the world won’t end. And, crucially, it might be a really good object lesson for future allies in more dangerous regions.
