Analytiker: Europeiska Nato-allierade måste sluta lägga ut sitt försvar på entreprenad | NTD NYHETER

Joining us now to look ahead to next week's summit is Rod Martin, a geopolitical analyst. He's also the founder and CEO of Martin Capital. So Rod, thank you for joining us as always. So, you know, the Iran war was a source of disagreement between the U.S. and some NATO members. President Trump said he was disappointed. He was unhappy with how some members had not offered help quickly enough. So how do you expect the dynamics to look like with that being said, going into this summit? I think it'll be a surprisingly quiet summit. I think we have sorted a lot of the problems that we have. But the truth is, when the president says that the status quo is ridiculous, he may be understating. You know, the truth is, I just saw the deputy prime minister of Poland interviewed on the BBC here a little while ago, and he pointed out that Britain is spending $60 billion a year on defense, $360 billion on welfare, $60 billion a year on defense is about one twentieth of what America is spending. That's a joke out of the sixth largest economy in the world. These guys are not doing their part. And then when you add to that denial of access to bases the United States has had for decades and in many cases paid for, overflight rights with the Spanish, this is just not acceptable. But I think the point is increasingly being made. And we saw that a week ago when the EU ratified the trade deal that the president worked out with Ursula von der Leyen at St. Andrews a year ago. I think the Europeans like to be surly. I think they like to talk back. But at the end of the day, they're going to get on board. And we're already seeing that actually with this new aid package to Ukraine and also with a number of NATO countries actually moving expeditiously toward their 5% of GDP goal. The problem, of course, being that the United States on the far west side of the alliance and Poland and others like it on the far east side of the alliance are stepping up and getting things done. And the guys in the middle are freeloading on the rest. OK, so the United States pays more than any other country into NATO. And when the U.S. asked for help, these countries didn't give help. What would be a fair situation then for the U.S.? Should there be consequences? What do you think should be the result? Well, it's not just more than any other country. Until a couple of years ago, we were paying more than 70% of the entire defense expenditures of the alliance. It's an alliance of 32 countries, for heaven's sake. So, you know, they're paying 29 and a half. We're paying 70 and a half. That's gotten better. It's now about 60-40. But that's still silly. I mean, the British Navy is non-functional at this point. And, you know, it hasn't been that many years since Germany was showing up at NATO exercises. It's infantry armed with broomsticks because they didn't have enough rifles. This is just a joke. And again, the deputy prime minister of Poland made the point really well when he said to the BBC reporter, you guys are obviously not afraid of any threats. You don't think anybody's going to hurt you. And that's just ridiculous. So we are in a position where we have to get these guys to actually be allies and not just welfare recipients. And a perfect example of that is actually the announcement on Polish TV. This week, that apparently we're going to go ahead with permanent basing of U.S. forces in Poland. This is a very sensible move. It actually puts U.S. forces close to the action. If the Russians were to attack NATO, they would have to attack Poland. They're not going to attack Germany first. That is just welfare to the local German economies. And the same is true in Italy and Spain. If they aren't going to give us overflight rights, if they're not going to let us use our bases, then our bases are just welfare to these very large economies that ought to be able to take care of their own defense. The president's not going to put up with that anymore. So the movement of U.S. forces to Poland is good strategically. It's good for the alliance, but it also makes a point. If you guys won't step up and do your part, we're going to leave you behind. What I want to know is, as of right now, are there any mechanisms to enforce these agreements where if the U.S. wants help, for example, and if a country doesn't give help, that there will be consequences or anything of that sort? Are there any ways to enforce agreements with NATO right now? Well, clearly not enough. But this is an incredibly interconnected relationship. So I don't think I'm overly concerned about them stepping up at real need. The truth is, we didn't need them that much in the Iran war, and they knew it. So I wouldn't put too much weight on that. But there's going to be a big reaffirmation in Ankara of Article 5. All of us are going to say, yes, yes, we will come to each other's aid, no matter what. And I don't doubt that that's true in a real crisis that actually affects the security of all the members. I don't think we have too much of a problem there. The problem isn't that. The problem is that the Europeans aren't spending enough on their own defense to be able to be meaningful help if there were a crisis. If the Russians invaded, and they're not going to do that. The Ukrainians are whipping them right now. But if the Russians somehow manage to muster the ability to invade Poland and march on Berlin, I don't think anybody would fail to fight alongside us. I don't think they'd have the troops to be able to fight alongside us meaningfully. They are needlessly outsourcing their defense to the United States. The president's simply not going to pay for that anymore. They're going to have to step up. A lot of our allies are beginning to. They're getting the message. And honestly, this movement of just 5,000 troops to Poland put a huge exclamation point on what he's been saying to them. I think they're going to get the message from there. I think they're going to get the message in Ankara. So, Rod, where do you stand? What are your comments on whether it is a net benefit for the U.S. or not paying into NATO? Well, it absolutely is. I'm not against NATO. I'm against the way our allies are treating us in NATO. They're not taking this seriously. They're using the alliance as a way to subsidize their own welfare states and industrial policies. And we took a big whack at the ladder with this new trade deal that was just ratified a week ago. That's a big step forward in rebalancing things. But they actually have to meet this 5% target. And that is essential. It's also essential what they spend it on. You know, if they disguise it and it's really just domestic spending that isn't military-related infrastructure, it's not really helpful. We also need them to actually build things like ammunition, tanks, missiles, fighter jets. And there are a lot of people on the American side of the Atlantic who just have their hair on fire about that. Oh, that's terrible. The Europeans will be taking business from U.S. arms manufacturers. No, no, no. We don't have enough arms manufacturing capacity across the alliance to meet the need. These guys need to be building like crazy. That will help their industrial issues. They also need to be buying from us. And that is all happening. So these things are all interrelated. I think they're moving in the right direction. You're right to question enforcement mechanisms. But the ultimate enforcement mechanism is that if they simply won't step up, the United States may shut this all down. Do you see any scenario where the United States may do what other countries did, might not come to the aid of some members? Well, I think it is amusing that Trump occasionally saber-rattles and makes the point that we might not. But the truth is, if it weren't for the United States, Ukraine would be a Russian province now. Because the Europeans have actually spent, since Putin's invasion, twice as much on energy from Russia as they have on aid to Ukraine. Our European allies, who are constantly hectoring us about not doing enough for Ukraine, are actually financing Putin's war. So that has to change. And it is changing because that trade deal deals with a very crucial element of it in the form of $700 billion in new European energy purchases from the United States, directly replacing Russian supply. That's a huge, huge boon, not just to American producers, that's half the story or less, to alliance security. Europe was caught flat-footed and nearly had a winter of shivering in the dark in 2022 because they had made themselves completely dependent on Russian fuel. And this president, in his first term, did everything in his power to keep them from doing it. They did that under Biden. Biden greenlit the Nord Stream 2 pipeline pretty much on his first day in office. They set this all up for a disaster, and then they marveled when the disaster came. So they're going to have to get more serious about these things, but we're seeing progress. Okay. Before I let you go here, Rod, let me just get one more comment from you on Greenland. What do you see here for U.S. interests in Greenland? NATO member Denmark is going to be in the NATO summit. Do you see some friction happening there when Trump attends the summit? What do you see the dynamic going to look like? We have very quietly been having talks with the Danes and with the Greenlanders all this year, and where that stands is a bit of an open question. They're keeping that pretty close to the vest. But the truth is, Denmark and Greenland are not as cozy as they might seem. There is tremendous upset in Greenland over, for instance, the Danish forced sterilization program of Greenlandic women that continued well into the 1990s. They're just stringing these people along financially, but Greenland can't do without the subsidy. So you're going to have to get to a point where Greenland feels secure in changing the arrangement. But if you ever do, they're going to. And so I think the ultimate solution, as we've discussed before, is independence for Greenland that is guaranteed by a compact of free association with the United States, very similar to what we have with Palau and the Marshall Islands and Micronesia, where they get all the benefits of independence, but none of the costs. And we would go in and develop their economy because they have a ton of resources that are beneficial to the United States. And they would have the ability, honestly, if they want to, to become a tax haven, not that different from Bermuda or somebody else, just a little colder weather. And this would be better for all. The truth is, it would even be better for Denmark because they can't afford the subsidy they're giving Greenland. So we just got to get to a point where everybody can be calm and work through that. But if the president hadn't been the way he likes to be, this issue never would have come to the table at all. So very much like other things, like the birthright citizenship case, which the president lost, but he got four votes out of nine for his position. If he hadn't forced the issue, it wouldn't be an issue at all. It would just be crazy fringe talk. And now it's a live issue. And I think we're going to make progress on it. OK, Rod, good comments. And of course, wishing you a happy Fourth of July weekend. Thank you very much. And you.