Vice President JD Vance declared in a Tuesday interview that Europe must stop being America&#8217;s &#8220;permanent security vassal&#8221; while slamming continental leaders for repeatedly ignoring voters on immigration.
&#8220;Europe&#8217;s entire security infrastructure, for my entire life, has been subsidized by the United States of America,&#8221; Vance <a href="https://unherd.com/2025/04/jd-vance-my-message-to-europe/">argued</a> in an interview with British website UnHerd.
The vice president specifically noted that with the possible exception of Britain, France, and Poland, &#8220;most European nations don&#8217;t have militaries that can provide for their reasonable defense.&#8221; He emphasized that European leaders have &#8220;radically underinvested in security, and that has to change.&#8221;
&#8220;It’s not good for Europe to be the permanent security vassal of the United States,&#8221; Vance said.
Vance&#8217;s comments <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/jd-vance-europe-permanent-security-vassal-united-states/">align</a> with the Trump administration&#8217;s frequent criticism of European nations for relying too heavily on U.S. military power, with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warning that American presence in Europe is not &#8220;forever,&#8221; per Politico.
President Trump has been pushing NATO countries to spend 5% of their GDP on defense, which represents a significant increase from the alliance&#8217;s current 2% target, with the potential increase set to be discussed at the upcoming summit in The Hague.
In 2022, only 7 of the 30 NATO members <a href="https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2024/6/pdf/240617-def-exp-2024-en.pdf">met</a> the minimum 2% GDP threshold for defense expenditures, a number which shot up to 23 in 2024 after Russia invaded Ukraine.
Vance also expressed frustration with many European leaders who continue to implement migration policies that in his view were completely contrary to what their citizens voted for.
&#8220;We&#8217;re very frustrated — &#8216;we&#8217; meaning me, the President, certainly the entire Trump administration — that European populations keep on crying out for more sensible economic and migration policies, and the leaders of Europe keep on going through these elections, and keep on offering the European peoples the opposite of what they seem to have voted for,&#8221; Vance said.
Despite his criticism of European foreign and domestic policies, Vance emphasized his admiration for the continent, stating, &#8220;I love European people. I&#8217;ve said repeatedly that you can&#8217;t separate American culture from European culture. We&#8217;re very much a product of philosophies, theologies, and of course the migration patterns that came out of Europe that launched the United States of America.&#8221;
However, in Vance’s view, Europe being an ally of the United States doesn’t afford it special treatment, particularly in trade.
“With the United Kingdom, we have a much more reciprocal relationship than we have with, say, Germany … While we love the Germans, they are heavily dependent on exporting to the United States but are pretty tough on a lot of American businesses that would like to export into Germany.”
The administration’s guiding principle for the continent going forward is quite simple: “fairness.”
“I think it will lead to a lot of positive trade relationships with Europe. And again, we very much see Europe as our ally. We just want it to be an alliance where Europeans are a little more independent, and our security and trade relationships are gonna reflect that.”
Vance also responded to criticism from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who accused him of &#8220;somehow justifying&#8221; Russia&#8217;s invasion, saying it is &#8220;sort of absurd for Zelensky to tell the [American] government, which is currently keeping his entire government and war effort together, that we are somehow on the side of the Russians.&#8221;
The vice president concluded the interview with a straightforward summary of the administration&#8217;s foreign policy philosophy: &#8220;We&#8217;re not on anybody&#8217;s side; we&#8217;re on America&#8217;s side.&#8221;

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-MARINE-MILITARY

Vance: Time For Europe To Stop Being America’s ‘Permanent Security Vassal’

Free Trade

Global Politics

J.D. Vance

NATO

Tariffs

Volodymyr Zelensky

World

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has &#8220;removed U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield from her position as U.S. representative to NATO’s military committee,&#8221; Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell announced on Tuesday.
Parnell announced the news in a statement on X, adding that Vice Admiral Chatfield had been removed by the Defense Secretary &#8220;due to a loss of confidence in her ability to lead,&#8221; but giving no specifics as to what that might mean. He further noted, &#8220;The Defense Department is grateful for her many years of military service.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Secretary Hegseth has removed U.S. Navy Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield from her position as U.S. representative to NATO’s military committee due to a loss of confidence in her ability to lead. The Defense Department is grateful for her many years of military service.
&mdash; Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellATSD) <a href="https://twitter.com/SeanParnellATSD/status/1909613375115370775?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 8, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Chatfield has held the position since 2023, after a delay in her promotion due to Sen. Tommy Tuberville&#8217;s lengthy blockade of military promotions over the Pentagon&#8217;s abortion policies — but comments she had made in previous years were what put her on the radar of conservative critics.
Speaking on Women&#8217;s Equality Day in 2015, for example, Chatfield had complained about the gender imbalance in the halls of power and said that &#8220;investing in gender equality and women&#8217;s empowerment can unlock human potential on a transformational scale.&#8221;
Chatfield, the only woman serving on the NATO Military Committee, is the third high-ranking female military officer to be relieved of duty since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January. Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to hold the top rank in the United States Navy, was also let go earlier this year; as was Admiral Linda Fagan, the U.S. Coast Guard&#8217;s first female leader.
No specific reason has been given for Chatfield&#8217;s termination, and thus far, the Defense Department has given no indication of who might serve as her replacement or when that replacement might be chosen.

SMS Cormoran II 100 Years Memorial Ceremony

Pete Hegseth Axes Navy Official Who Promoted ‘Gender Equality And Women’s Empowerment’

Department of Defense

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Military

Pete Hegseth

Politics

Speaking at a NATO event in Brussels, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reassured NATO nations that the United States would not leave the alliance, but also warned that European nations would have to increase their own defense spending as a deterrent to outside forces.
“We want NATO to be stronger; we want NATO to be more visible, and the only way NATO can get stronger, more visible is if our partners, the nation states that comprise this important alliance, have more capability,” he <a href="https://apnews.com/article/nato-us-security-ukraine-russia-rubio-210c5c3856ab32570f165ea31be5e39e" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
“I understand there&#8217;s domestic politics, after decades of building up vast social safety nets that maybe don&#8217;t want to take away from that and invest more in national security,” Rubio added. “But the events of the last few years … full-scale ground war in the heart of Europe as a reminder that hard power is still necessary as a deterrent. We do want to leave here with an understanding that we are on a pathway, a realistic pathway to every single one of the members committee, and fulfilling a promise to reach up to 5% of spending.”
Rubio stated the United States would also spend 5% of its GDP on defense as well.
“The majority of the 32 NATO members currently spend 2% of their nation’s GDP per previous NATO commitments, eight nations – Croatia, Portugal, Italy, Canada, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia and Spain – have yet to meet their <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/trump-effect-forces-germany-reprioritize-defense-nation-plays-catch-up-military-spending" target="_blank" rel="noopener">defense spending</a> pledges,” <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/world/rubio-demands-nato-ponies-up-dismisses-hysteria-over-us-role-under-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fox News</a> noted. “Only Poland spends over 4% of its GDP on defense, while four other nations spend over 3% – Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece.” The United States spent 3.38% of its GDP on defense in 2024.
“As we speak right now, the United States is as active in NATO as it has ever been,” Rubio said. “Some of this hysteria and hyperbole that I see in the global media and some domestic media in the United States about NATO is unwarranted. The United States president [has] made clear: He supports NATO. We&#8217;re going to remain in NATO.”
Roughly 100,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Europe.

NATO Foreign Ministers Meet In Brussels

Rubio Urges NATO Members To Increase Their Own Defense Spending To 5% Of GDP

Defense

Europe

Marco Rubio

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Wednesday that four U.S. soldiers who went missing during training exercises in Lithuania this week have died.
&#8220;This is still early news so we do not know the details,&#8221; he said. &#8220;This is really terrible news and our thoughts are with the families and loved ones.&#8221;
The U.S. military said that the soldiers were riding in a M88 Hercules armored recovery vehicle, which is a giant armored tow truck designed to pull damaged tanks off the battlefield, when they went missing.
The vehicle was &#8220;discovered submerged in a body of water in a training area after a search by U.S. Army, Lithuanian Armed Forces and other Lithuanian authorities,&#8221; the statement said. &#8220;Recovery efforts are underway by U.S. Army and Lithuanian Armed Forces and civilian agencies.&#8221;
The U.S. military said earlier in the day that the four U.S. Army Soldiers from 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, went missing during scheduled tactical training this week at the General Silvestras Žukauskas training ground in Pabradė, just a few miles away from the country&#8217;s border with Belarus.
“I would like to personally thank the Lithuanian Armed Forces and first responders who quickly came to our aid in our search operations,” said Lt. Gen. Charles Costanza, the V Corps commanding general. “It’s this kind of teamwork and support that exemplifies the importance of our partnership and our humanity regardless of what flags we wear on our shoulders.”

BAE Deploys Contractors To Pressure Congress For Bradley Funds

Four U.S. Soldiers Found Dead After Training Exercise Near Belarusian Border

Belarus

Lithuania

Soldiers

U.S. Army

U.S. Military

Britain announced on Tuesday that it will ramp up its military spending in the coming years as Prime Minister Keir Starmer prepares to meet with President Donald Trump at the White House on Thursday.
Trump has long pushed European allies to spend more on their own militaries and contribute more to NATO&#8217;s defense. Starmer told Parliament that the U.K. would increase its military spending from 2.3% of gross domestic value to 2.5% by 2027 and then to 3% by 2034, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/25/world/europe/uk-defense-spending-starmer.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
&#8220;It is my first duty as Prime Minister to keep this country safe. That is why we are increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP from April 2027,&#8221; Starmer, the liberal Labour Party leader, <a href="https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1894372457370316803" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. &#8220;In an ever more dangerous world, it’s vital that we protect British people at home.&#8221;
Britain will pay for the increase in military spending by cutting back on foreign development aid from 0.5% of GDP to 0.3%, according to Starmer, who said the move was unfortunate but necessary. “At times like this, the defense and security of the British people must always come first,” he said.
The prime minister added that the announcement means the U.K. will be taking on more responsibility in its commitment to NATO and &#8220;the collective defence of our continent,&#8221; according to the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyrkkv4gd7o" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BBC</a>.
The U.K.&#8217;s move amounts to the nation&#8217;s largest military spending increase since the Cold War, a decision Starmer <a href="https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/ap-business/ap-starmer-commits-to-raise-uk-defense-spending-to-2-5-of-gdp-by-2027/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> is necessary because &#8220;tyrants like [Russian President Vladimir] Putin only respond to strength.&#8221; The Labour Party leader added that Britain will remain committed to supporting Ukraine&#8217;s defense as the U.S. continues peace negotiations with Russia and Ukraine.
&#8220;We will walk with [Ukraine] through this conflict and we will continue to do so for as long as is necessary,&#8221; Starmer <a href="https://x.com/Keir_Starmer" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>, adding, &#8220;We will not falter in our support for Ukraine. We will not stop our efforts to end this war. And we will not rest until the people of Ukraine can live peacefully and safely in their own country.&#8221;
President Trump, meanwhile, has been critical of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as the U.S. seeks to broker a peace deal with Russia and Ukraine. Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-says-zelensky-shouldnt-attend-meetings-with-russia-he-makes-it-very-hard-to-make-deals" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> last week that he&#8217;s had “very good talks” with Putin but “not such good talks with Ukraine” after calling Zelensky a &#8220;dictator&#8221; and blaming him for starting the war.
&nbsp;

British Troops

U.K. Says It Will Increase Military Spending As Prime Minister Set To Meet With Trump

Donald Trump

Keir Starmer

U.K.

National security adviser Mike Waltz pushed back on Thursday against claims that the United States has not consulted with its allies in Europe as it looks to bring Russia&#8217;s war in Ukraine to an end.
Waltz made the remarks during a White House press briefing after officials from the United States met with Russian officials in Saudi Arabia this week without officials from Ukraine.
&#8220;I&#8217;ll remind everyone that Putin had some type of conflict, invasion, or issue with their neighbor under President Bush with Georgia, under President Obama with Ukraine 2014, not under President Trump 45, and again with President Biden in 2022,&#8221; Waltz said. &#8220;The war should have been deterred, the war should have never happened, and I have no doubt it would not have happened under President Trump, and will stop under President Trump again.&#8221;
&#8220;But I just want to push back on this notion of our European allies not being consulted as we&#8217;ve entered into this process,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I already mentioned the immediate phone call President Trump made to President Zelensky. He has talked to President Macron of France repeatedly last week. President Macron convened European leaders and then is coming here on Monday.&#8221;
&#8220;Prime Minister Starmer is coming next Thursday,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;I&#8217;ve talked to every one of my national security advisor counterparts across the spectrum in Europe. I&#8217;ve talked to Secretary General Rutte the Secretary General of NATO.&#8221;
&#8220;We have repeatedly – oh, by the way, we had half our Cabinet, seven Cabinet officials, including the Vice President, at the Munich Security Conference, all engaging, all listening, and all making sure our allies are heard,&#8221; he added. &#8220;However, we&#8217;ve also made it clear for years, decades even, that it is unacceptable that the United States and the United States taxpayer continues to bear the burden not only of the cost of the war in Ukraine but of the defense of Europe. We fully support our NATO allies.&#8221;
He said that while the United States fully supports the NATO Article 5 commitment, it is time for Europe to &#8220;step up.&#8221;
&#8220;One of the things that [NATO] Secretary General Rutte said on our call was this last couple of weeks have been a real wake-up call,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And I asked him, &#8216;What have you been missing the last couple of years?'&#8221;
&#8220;The fact that we are going to enter into a NATO summit this June with a third of our NATO allies still not meeting the minimum, a commitment they made a decade ago, literally a decade ago, with a war on their doorstep, the largest war that they&#8217;re all extremely concerned about, but yet it&#8217;s, well, somebody else needs to pay,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;We&#8217;ve got other domestic priorities. It&#8217;s unacceptable.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/MikeWaltz47?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MikeWaltz47</a>: &#8220;I just want to push back on this notion of our European allies not being consulted as we&#8217;ve entered into this process. I already mentioned the immediate phone call President Trump made to President Zelenskyy. He has talked to President Macron&#8230; Prime Minister… <a href="https://t.co/4Xe9avjZTu">pic.twitter.com/4Xe9avjZTu</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1892646954955661504?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2025</a></blockquote>

Key Speakers At Republican Jewish Coalition Annual Leadership Meeting

Waltz Blasts America’s European Allies For Not Meeting Defense Spending Commitments: ‘Unacceptable’

Mike Waltz

Ukraine-Russia War

Former NATO Deputy Supreme Commander General Sir Richard Shirreff warned this week that the U.S. and European leaders are asleep at the wheel when it comes to confronting Russia in Ukraine.
Shirreff told the BBC that he believes that remarks made by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Saudi Arabia were &#8220;Cloud Cuckoo Land.&#8221;
&#8220;I think that it shows a failure to understand what Russia is about,&#8221; he said. &#8220;What Russia is about is removing Ukraine from the map as a sovereign state, incorporating Ukraine, either physically annexing it in terms of the Eastern and Southern regions of Ukraine, or installing a puppet government in Kiev so that Ukraine becomes a sort of client state, rather like Belarus.&#8221;
He said that any negotiator who believes that Russia will accept peace terms that Ukraine is comfortable with &#8220;is deluding themselves.&#8221;
Shirreff said that President Donald Trump&#8217;s intense criticism of Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, means that &#8220;Pax Americana is finished.&#8221;
&#8220;America has effectively abdicated its leadership of the free world,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Because with leadership comes responsibilities, and it has made it very clear that it is not going to be the security guarantor for Europe.&#8221;
He said that it was up to Europe and Canada to forge a new security alliance without the U.S. to guarantee their own safety.
Shirreff warned that if Russia senses that NATO is weakening that it may invade all the Baltic states in an attempt to rebuild the Russian empire.
&#8220;We through our failure to spend more on defense, our willingness to freeload off American largesse for the last umpteen decades, have now got to dig deep,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Because now we&#8217;ve got to replace the capabilities that America brought to the alliance. Now, that is one massive ask. Of course, it is.&#8221;
He said the only way to stop Russian aggression on the continent was to build a &#8220;strong NATO deterrent presence from the Baltic to the Black Sea, incorporating Ukraine as a NATO member.&#8221;
&#8220;That requires every NATO member—including America—to lean in and, as a start, put together a strategy to support the Ukrainians in defeating Russia,&#8221; he added. &#8220;Because that&#8217;s the only way Russia is going to be stopped. Anything less than that, which is what we&#8217;re seeing now in spades, is merely starting the unraveling of European security, which could so easily end in catastrophe.&#8221;
WATCH:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="US-Russia talks: Ex-Nato commander criticises US President Trump’s Ukraine plans | BBC News" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VKvxf6PUqpk?start=12&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Edinburgh Hosts The Annual International Book Festival

Ex-NATO Commander Warns ‘Pax Americana Is Finished’ If U.S., Europe Don’t Work Together On Russia

The Trump Administration is making some fairly serious moves, and one of those moves involves pushing Europe to stand on its own two feet — for the first time in nearly a century.
Since the end of World War II, the United States has bankrolled European security. That’s because Europe destroyed itself during World War II. The United States had to prop up Europe afterward so that it didn&#8217;t become a communist-ridden hellhole.
And then Europe essentially became a sick man reliant on the ministrations of the United States and our taxpayer dollars in order to uphold itself against the Soviet Union.
Then the Soviet Union fell. And rather than Europe actually getting its act together, Europe simply continued to live on largesse from the United States. We helped prop up their security arrangements; we helped prop up NATO.
Meanwhile, they themselves got more robust in their stupidity. They decided they could play with house money — meaning, they decided they could be as Left-wing as they wanted while also knowing the United States would provide an almost endless security guarantee for them.
So, they decided open immigration from radical Islamist countries would be a great idea. They decided to pass forms of blasphemy laws in their own country in order to facilitate their idiotic notion that a post-colonialist society ought to be invaded by many of the areas that had once been colonized. They believed they would put those policies in place without any negative side effects.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2140-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Over the weekend, Vice President JD Vance spoke at the Munich Security Conference, and the Europeans became enraged. In his speech, he addressed some problems in Europe involving, for example, China and Russia. But the biggest problem is that Europe has forgotten what Europe is about.
Europeans don&#8217;t like being told this. The Europeans like to believe they&#8217;re the sophisticates on the block. They like to believe they are more nuanced and knowledgeable than brash, annoying Americans.
But what Vance said was 100% true. He called out the fact that Europe decided to let terrorists into their own borders and to crack down on free speech, free market, and economics — all of their own choice. He further questioned why America should have to pay for it, precisely.
Vance <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/politics/frightening-bullshit-senate-democrat-hammers-jd-vance-saying-europes-biggest-threat-is-within-not-russia-or-china/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stated</a>:
<blockquote>The threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia. It’s not China. It’s not any other external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within, the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/us-vice-president-jd-vance-attack-europe-migration-free-speech/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">values shared</a> with the United States.</blockquote>
This should be considered alongside the speech Vance gave three days prior at the Paris AI Action Summit. In it, he chided the European Union for being so risk-averse that they were basically cracking down on their own ability to innovate in the AI space.
Dominic Green, a fellow of the Royal Historical Society, wrote in <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/jd-vances-message-at-munich-foreign-policy-europe-america-bc4a8b82" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Wall Street Journal</a>:
<blockquote>Combine the two speeches and you have the classic American one-two. Economic and individual freedom support each other. Innovation, competitiveness and risk-taking are the natural partners of liberty, free speech and democracy. Europe should be the natural partner of the U.S. and a key link in the emerging American-led alignment. But Europe is divorced from reality.</blockquote>
Green is correct. One of the seeming policies of the Trump administration is to force the Europeans to own their own policies or to dissociate from their own stupidity of the past. And that stupidity is very, very real.
For instance, if you say something insulting about Islam in Britain, you might go to jail for as long as some of the people engaged in trafficking of young white girls in Rotherham. CBS’ “60 Minutes” reported that German officials have openly acknowledged they will criminally prosecute people for insulting others in public. A German official <a href="https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1891328859372400705">added</a>, “The fine could be even higher if you insult someone in the internet. Because on the internet, it stays there.”
“60 Minutes” is pushing for this. How do we know? Because this is the overall view of the legacy media: Only things the legacy media like being said should actually be said.
Margaret Brennan of CBS’ News “Face the Nation” <a href="https://x.com/michaelbd/status/1891206009508536367" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interviewed</a> Secretary of State Marco Rubio. She chided Vance for going to Europe saying of Vance in Germany, “He was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-Right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that, that the censorship was specifically about the Right.”
“I have to disagree with you,” Rubio fired back. “Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that— they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none.”
By the way, there was not a lot of free speech prior to Nazi Germany. The Weimar Republic had many laws on the books that restricted speech. In fact, Adolf Hitler ended up spending some time in jail, not because of his speech but because he tried to lead a revolt. And then afterward, he wasn&#8217;t allowed to speak publicly for several years. Joseph Goebbels, the publicist for Hitler, actually was forced not to speak publicly. There were numerous lawsuits against Goebbels.
In fact, hate speech laws in Weimar Germany did not prevent the rise of the Nazis. In many ways, they actually facilitated the rise of the Nazis because people thought the Nazis might have something to say but were being suppressed.
There is a normal human tendency to buck against censorship by suggesting the person has something to say.
This is in accordance with the Left-wing perspective that you can shut down opinions you don&#8217;t like to magically protect yourself from the impact of those opinions. 
JD Vance was saying in Europe, “Guys, you&#8217;ve given up the thing that made you Europe in the first place.”
All of this is part and parcel of a much broader attempt by the United States to force the Europeans to stand up on their own two feet. And that is most evident when it comes to Ukraine.
Ukraine is exceptionally close to the rest of Europe. Ukraine borders a number of European countries, including Hungary, Poland, and Romania, among others. Though Europeans have increased their defense spending, they have been hesitant to take further action. They want the United States to foot the bill.
Thus, the Trump administration has been saying to the Europeans, “Listen, we&#8217;re tired of footing the bill. This is on your continent. Why don&#8217;t you take a leading role here? And if you want to take a leading role in the negotiations, perhaps you should step up to the table and increase your defense spending. Perhaps you should make the kinds of moves that might lead people to take you seriously when you guarantee, for example, Ukrainian security. Why is it that the United States always gets dragged into your domestic squabbles?”
Precisely. The Trump administration is not saying the United States should leave Ukraine to the predations of Vladimir Putin. They are trying to cajole the Europeans to do what they&#8217;re supposed to do.
According to the Associated Press, top diplomats from Russia and the United States met Tuesday in Saudi Arabia to discuss improving ties and bringing the war in Ukraine to an end. No Ukrainian officials attended the meeting.
On the surface, the United States might appear to be leaving Ukraine out of the loop or, perhaps, making a deal to then cram down on Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the president of Ukraine.
But this is also a way of forcing the Europeans to the table. If they say, “We want to hear what the United States is saying,” and they want to come to the table, the question becomes: “What is it that makes you valuable in this conversation?”
This is one way of getting the Europeans to step up and do what they are supposed to do.
All of this makes perfect sense, to say to the Europeans: “Listen, you want to sit down at the table? You don&#8217;t get a free ride anymore.” It doesn&#8217;t get to be like the U.N., where France has a seat on the Security Council without doing anything for collective security.
If you want to be part of this conversation, you should have some skin in the game.
We&#8217;re going to find out very quickly who&#8217;s willing to put their money where their mouth is.

61st Munich Security Conference

Trump And Vance Wreck Europe

60 Minutes

Ben Shapiro

Germany

JD Vance

Nazi Germany

Opinion

President Trump

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said this week that the alliance understands the message that President Donald Trump has delivered and it is committed to increasing its defense spending.
Rutte made the remarks during a Fox News interview Monday afternoon as Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Riyadh to pressure Saudi Arabia into helping to force a quick end to Russia&#8217;s war in Ukraine.
Rutte said that the meeting between Trump special envoy General Keith Kellogg and European leaders was &#8220;very successful&#8221; and that the continent has agreed to &#8220;stepping up&#8221; its defense spending.
&#8220;Last week, I was a bit disappointed that Europeans were saying, &#8216;Hey, we also have to be at the table. And why are we not there?'&#8221; he said. &#8220;And they are now really starting to dialog, to strategize how they can support the peace effort, and that is important, because we know that post a peace deal, there will be the need to make that peace deal lasting, enduring.&#8221;
He said that he told European leaders who were whining about Trump demanding they do more that they needed to &#8220;stop complaining&#8221; and &#8220;start acting.&#8221;
&#8220;Get your act together,&#8221; he said. &#8220;And tonight was an event, an evening, a discussion to really get that done. And what I heard here is people are willing to step up to support a peace deal. Obviously, that means that we still have many details to hammer out, because the whole peace process still has to start, but it is important that there is now more conversations on this and I&#8217;m really positive.&#8221;
He noted how Trump in the past got European countries in NATO to increase their defense spending by $700 billion, a sum he said was still not enough.
&#8220;We have to do much, much more,&#8221; he said. &#8220;But the good thing is now that we have a process in place by which we can exactly determine what the gaps are in terms of long range missiles, in terms of our armies, in terms of our logistics, in terms of our military mobility, in terms of our air defense, and it will require a lot &#8230; more money than we spent so far.&#8221;
He added that it was important for NATO to become stronger, not only because it over-relies on the United States, but because other adversaries like China were watching.
&#8220;The U.S. is by far the most important ally within NATO, but the U.S. is absolutely right that it is only fair that on the European side of NATO, we ramp up spending because we need to do it for our own defense, but also because it is fair to get this balance with what the U.S. is spending on defense, but that doesn&#8217;t mean that U.S. is abandoning Europe,&#8221; he said.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Breaking: Paris talks yielding charge of heart from Europe: “They know now they must step up.” Don’t miss my exclusive interview with NATO Secretary General <a href="https://twitter.com/SecMarkrutte?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecMarkrutte</a> <a href="https://t.co/tq9Mlxz3sR">pic.twitter.com/tq9Mlxz3sR</a>
— Martha MacCallum (@marthamaccallum) <a href="https://twitter.com/marthamaccallum/status/1891592580774744169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 2025</a></blockquote>

Munich Security Conference at the Bayerischer Hof

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s Message To Europe: ‘Stop Complaining, Start Acting’

President Trump promised that when he entered office, he was going to assess the Russia-Ukraine situation and try to facilitate an actual end to the war. 
People who have been watching this war very closely understand Russia&#8217;s original goal: take Kyiv, completely ingest and then digest all of Ukraine, and turn it into a functioning part of the new Russian empire.
That failed very early on in the war.
The war then very quickly transmuted into a Ukrainian attempt, backed by Europe and the Biden administration, to take back portions of the country that had essentially been conquered by Russia in 2014 after the Euromaidan Revolution. That revolution was an attempt to take Donbas and Crimea back from Russian forces but was largely doomed to failure. The only way for it to have been successful would have been to arm Ukrainians to the extent that it might have prompted a larger Russian intervention, possibly using tactical nuclear weapons.
It may be that those concerns over a larger war were exaggerated. However, the risk-reward relationship was out of balance. The reality was that the West had very little interest in Ukraine fighting a large-scale war to take back Donbas and Crimea, areas that are predominantly pro-Russian by virtually all polling data, even before the fake Russian democratic takeover. Those areas were historically very pro-Russian.
Russia taking over those areas was devastating to the economy of Ukraine. Much of Ukraine’s oil-rich area is in its east, in the Donbas region. Crimea, of course, is on the Black Sea, where many of the warm water ports available to the Ukrainians were.
The reality was that, barring some sort of massive war effort, those areas were not going to be retaken by Ukraine. So, this conflict had settled into a stalemate for almost three years; the original invasion took place at the end of February 2022.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2138-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
For a very long time, the Biden administration had a conflicting and mutually exclusive strategy. On the one hand, the Biden administration suggested they would continue to provide endless aid until “victory was achieved,” but on the other, they refused to provide either the necessary aid to achieve full-scale victory or to define victory as something other than full-scale victory.
These were mutually exclusive tactics. If they were defining victory as, “Ukraine takes back Donbas and Crimea,” then they were going to have to give Ukraine the weaponry necessary to accomplish that. Anything less would lead to stalemate and loss. Or, theoretically, “victory” could have been redefined as survival, meaning Russia already controlled Donbas and Crimea before the 2022 invasion thus Russia&#8217;s goal had already been defeated. At that point, victory could have been achieved — by any sort of rational stretch of the imagination — by simply fending off further Russian territorial aggression.
By that measure, the war should have come to an end a couple of years ago, basically because the battle lines in Ukraine have been fairly solidified for roughly two and a half years.
The late Henry Kissinger proposed that this off-ramp essentially be offered in May 2022. I thought that his idea was the correct approach because there was no actual end goal achievable.
The Biden administration openly admitted this. They basically said, “We are going to provide weaponry until victory is achieved.” How was victory defined? They said, “We don&#8217;t know.”
You cannot win a war if you refuse to define victory. Either victory would mean taking back all Ukrainian territory, which would have required the Biden administration to send F-16s to Ukraine, or victory would be defined in some other way, in which case an off-ramp should have been sought.
Trump is taking a much more concerted view of reality; he is open to negotiations with the Russian regime. He has put forward a proposal to meet with Vladimir Putin directly. He revealed on Wednesday, according to the <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/02/12/us-news/trump-says-he-and-putin-agreed-to-start-negotiations-to-end-ukraine-war/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York Post</a>, that he and Russian President Putin have agreed to start talks immediately to end Moscow&#8217;s war on Ukraine.
<blockquote>“[W]e want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the War with Russia/Ukraine,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, contending that the war “would not have happened if I were President, but it did happen, so it must end. No more lives should be lost!”</blockquote>
The Post continued:
<blockquote>The president also said that he and his Russian counterpart expressed openness to “visiting each other’s nations,” while letting slip to reporters in the Oval Office Wednesday afternoon that “we expect that he’ll come here, and I’ll go there, and we’re going to meet also, probably in Saudi Arabia.”
Trump added on Truth Social that the negotiating process “will begin by calling President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy [sic], of Ukraine, to inform him of the conversation, something which I will be doing right now,” before revealing that the American delegation to any peace talks would be led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, national security adviser Mike Waltz, and Middle East special envoy Steve Witkoff.</blockquote>
Zelensky then confirmed in a Facebook statement that he and Trump had “a meaningful conversation” about “opportunities to achieve peace [and] discussed our readiness to work together at the team level, and Ukraine’s technological capabilities—including drones and other advanced industries.”
In other words, he was making an argument to Trump that the United States should provide Ukraine with enough weaponry to fend off any future Russian attack.
Now, in reality, Zelensky is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the deal, at least publicly. Why? Let&#8217;s assume you&#8217;re a Ukrainian citizen, and you&#8217;ve watched your brothers and sisters get murdered by the Russians, which is what has happened over the course of this war. You&#8217;re talking about hundreds of thousands of people if you combine both sides’ dead and wounded.
You&#8217;ve been told by Zelensky that you&#8217;re not just going to win the war, but you&#8217;re also going to push the Russians off of every inch of Ukrainian land, and now you&#8217;re going to get less than that. Zelensky is going to have to take the political hit unless the United States is willing to take the political hit.
Biden was never willing. He was always cowardly and pusillanimous when it came to the idea that he would take the hit for anything less than a full Ukrainian victory. He did not want to be blamed for Ukraine not being able to push Russia off that land. So, instead, he decided to let the war percolate and simmer on, and he was willing to allow his poll numbers to be boosted by Russian and Ukrainian dead.
Why? Because he was unwilling to do what actually had to be done, which was to publicly negotiate a deal with Putin over Zelensky&#8217;s head and then cram down the deal on Zelensky. That would have made him a bad guy in the eyes of many members of the Left in the United States who decided that the Ukrainian flag was going to go in their profile.
If Biden had been a brave, capable leader, he would have negotiated the off-ramp that everyone saw coming.
The off-ramp looks something like this: Ukraine does not become a part of NATO because one of the reasons that Russia says they invaded Ukraine was because Russia didn&#8217;t want to be bordered by NATO nations. Instead, there would have been, effectively, a mutual defense guarantee between the United States, Europe, and Ukraine to prevent a further act of Russian aggression that was not exactly NATO.
There wouldn&#8217;t have been an entry by Ukraine into the EU, which has always been a sort of hot button issue in Ukraine. In fact, when Zelensky was first elected, he was not somebody who was considered supremely for entering the EU. It was only after the Russian invasion that he seemed to turn wildly in that direction.
What the deal looks like is Ukraine gets armed up to prevent further Russian invasion. Russia gets to claim sovereignty over these areas — which, by the way, it already has. In its own Duma, they&#8217;ve already voted to claim sovereignty over Donbas and Crimea.
The international community probably half-accepts it. They don&#8217;t say, “Yes, this is now sovereign Russian territory,” but they do say, “We are not going to foment war over the retaking of that territory.”
Then, everybody basically goes weapons-down for the moment. It doesn&#8217;t end the conflict. It&#8217;s more like the Korean War. There&#8217;s an armistice line. There was never any peace agreement signed at the end of the Korean War. There just ended up being a North Korea and a South Korea. And that armistice line has been holding since 1953.
That’s probably the best-case scenario. President Trump is not willing to allow Putin to slow-play this, to wait for Trump to withdraw aid and then invade the rest of Ukraine.
I said all this during the campaign. There was all of loose talk, by both isolationists on the Right and nut-jobs on the Left, that Trump was going to walk into office, immediately pull all aid from Ukraine, and allow Putin to stroll down the streets of Kyiv.
I said that was not something that Trump was willing to do. Why? Because Trump doesn&#8217;t want a headline in which he surrenders Ukraine to Putin.
If there&#8217;s one thing that President Trump cares about on a personal level, it is not being made to look weak and feckless. So he was always going to provide continued aid to Ukraine to the point where some sort of off-ramp could be reached.
President Trump is a strong president. And he wishes to give off the image of a strong president, which is why he’s not going to cut off the aid. President Trump is deeply American. And this country was founded on strength and on freedom.
Trump is not a fool. He&#8217;s not going to trust Putin, who&#8217;s a deeply untrustworthy, evil dictator. He throws people off the third stories of buildings if they happen to cross his regime.
But Trump understands power. He innately understands politics in his bones.
He is taking the pragmatic, utilitarian approach to the situation. It has been the correct approach for several years, but Biden was unwilling to do it. Trump will be seen by those on the Left as a bad guy for having “sold out” Ukraine. But Ukraine was never going to be able to retake the territories.
And Trump has the guts to face everyone down and get the job done.

President Trump To Announce Reciprocal Tariff Plan

Trump Has The Guts To End Ukraine-Russia War. Biden Didn’t.

European Union

Vladimir Putin

President-elect <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donald-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donald Trump</a> signaled in an interview over the weekend that Ukraine should prepare itself for the possibility that it will receive less aid after he takes office and that NATO needs to be prepared to step up its spending or else risk the U.S. leaving the alliance.
Trump made the remarks during a Sunday interview with NBC News&#8217; Kristen Welker on &#8220;Meet The Press&#8221; when asked about foreign policy.
When asked if Ukraine should be prepared to receive less U.S. assistance, Trump responded: &#8220;Yeah. Probably. Sure.&#8221;
&#8220;We’re in for $350 billion. And Europe is in for $100 billion. Why isn’t Europe in for the same as us?&#8221; he asked. &#8220;The one thing that should happen is that Europe should come in for &#8212; they should equalize. And, you know, Biden, all he had to do, like I did with NATO, I said, &#8216;You’ve got to pay your bills.&#8217; They weren’t paying their bills.&#8221;
Trump noted that he got NATO member countries to greatly increase their contributions to the alliance after a lot of nations were not paying up and were just relying on the U.S. to carry their load for them.
&#8220;Europe is in for a fraction. And war with Russia is more important for Europe than it is for us,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It’s important for everybody, but it’s more important for Europe than it is for us. We have a little thing called an ocean in between us.&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
Trump said that the war needed to be brought to an end quickly because of the amount of destruction and death that it was bringing to the European continent.
&#8220;It’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever seen, and it should’ve never been allowed to happen,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Biden should’ve been able to stop it.&#8221;
He pledged that the U.S. would stay in NATO, but only if the other countries stepped up and fulfilled their obligations.
&#8220;If they play their bills, absolutely,&#8221; he said. &#8220;But NATO’s taking advantage of us. Number one, they take advantage of us on trade, meaning the European nations, okay, like terrible. They don’t take our cars, they don’t take our food product, they don’t take anything. It’s a disgrace. And on top of that, we defend them. So it’s a double-whammy. So let me just tell you, I was able to get hundreds of billions of dollars put into NATO just by a tough attitude. I said to the countries, &#8216;I’m not going to protect you unless you pay,&#8217; and they started paying. And that amounted to more than $600 billion. That’s a big thing. Otherwise they wouldn’t even be fighting. They wouldn’t have any money to fight. If they’re paying their bills, and if I think they’re doing a fair — they’re treating us fairly, the answer is absolutely I’d stay with NATO.&#8221;
When asked if he would consider leaving if they don&#8217;t pay up, Trump said: &#8220;Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Trump says Ukraine should prepare itself for a change in how much assistance it gets and that NATO countries need to step up and start paying their fair share. <a href="https://t.co/mJOSKY1i1p">pic.twitter.com/mJOSKY1i1p</a>
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1865861719056150667?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 8, 2024</a></blockquote>

Donald Trump Watches SpaceX Launch Its Sixth Test Flight Of Starship Spacecraft

Trump Signals Change Is Coming With Ukraine; NATO Must Step Up

Ukraine

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/nato" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NATO</a> Secretary-General Mark Rutte credited President-elect Donald Trump for increased defense spending across the alliance on Wednesday.
Rutte defended the president-elect during an <a href="https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/supporting-ukraine-top-priority-says-nato-secretary-general-226147909811" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> on MSNBC where host Jonathan Lemire appeared to invite criticism of Trump over his relationship with NATO during his first term.
“In 2018, then-President Donald Trump, at a meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels, came this close to pulling the United States out of that organization. He has repeatedly criticized NATO since then. How is the alliance preparing for his return?” Lemire asked.
Rutte said that Trump was right to be critical of the organization at that time.
&#8220;But, he was right in 2018 when he said that we had to spend more. And I think it is thanks to Donald Trump that NATO, if we could exclude for a second the U.S., is now at the 2% which was agreed in 2014,” Rutte said, referring to the agreement that all NATO countries spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense.
“Not a lot happened between 2014 and when Donald Trump came on board in 2016 and 2017. Since then, we have massively, on the European side, increased our defense spending. So, this is thanks to Donald Trump,” he added.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
The secretary-general was clear that the 2% target should be considered a floor, however, and encouraged NATO countries to spend “much more.”
“We need to do more. We cannot stick at 2%. It has to be much more if, long-term, we want to keep deterrence against the Russians and others,” Rutte told Lemire.
The United Kingdom foreign minister, David Lammy, echoed Rutte’s comments in remarks at NATO&#8217;s headquarters in Brussels on Wednesday. Lammy was in Brussels to attend a meeting of foreign ministers of the alliance.
&#8220;I think Donald Trump is right to say that the 2% was set in some ways in less challenging times and all allies right across the family should be looking beyond that 2%,&#8221; Lammy said, according to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/trump-is-right-nato-spending-boost-uk-foreign-minister-says-2024-12-04/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reuters</a>.
The British foreign minister said that the U.K. had set its goal for defense spending well above the 2%-of-GDP benchmark.
“We’re going to 2.5%, but he&#8217;s right to challenge the alliance to come together and get beyond that,” Lammy said.

Mark Rutte

NATO Head Defends Trump To MSNBC: ‘We Have Massively … Increased Our Defense Spending’

Media

MSNBC

Menu