Yes, I cannot understand why 5 generations (count them yourself) of our troops are still serving in Europe. Those people are incapable of defending themselves. We need to cut them loose.
OK, my math was off, only 4 generations. The nine-year-olds (b. 2017) are not yet eligible for enlistment. I am old and slow, and I am still willing to defend our country. I will never again travel beyond our borders to do so.
Brett: Turkey makes some very good roasted eggplant and fruit preserves, which argues for a stronger role in NATO. When munitions stockpiles are running low, it's always good to have some jars of roasted eggplant and fruit preserves to throw at the enemy.
“Compromised low-T drone”, f’ing brilliant! And don’t forget those who say “turk-iyay” instead of “turkey”. What a bunch of garthok snarflers…. And I hold the Turks in high-regard having done 2 back-to-back tours with NATO there in the 80s. Loved living in Izmir, and the Turquoise Coast back then was even more beautiful than it is today.
The Ottomans conquered it in 1453 but didn't get around to changing the name until the 1920s after the Ottomans were in the dustbin of history. So it was Byzantium for about 500 years, Constantinople for about 1600 years and Istanbul for about 100 years.
The Ottoman Turks conquered the city in 1453 thereby putting an end to the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. The Hagia Sophia which was built by the Emperor Justinian in the 6th century was converted into a mosque.
Unlike some, I am not really comfortable with the Europeans increasing defense spending (assuming they actually do it rather than reclassifying other expenditures). There are two risks here. One is it will make them more aggressive. In the short run, this is likely to be aimed at Russia. The problem is it has the possibility of dragging us into their war. In the long run, it could well be directed at us. The second risk is that the assets developed fall into the hands of the Islamists and their fellow travelers and will be used against the indigenous Europeans and eventually us.
As one who has lived in Napoli, not Naples as well as sailed from Livorno not Leghorn, Loved the art and food of Firenza and Venazia, not Florence and Venice....it is all the damned Brits fault.
A few random thoughts, Canada isn't a NATO deadbeat anymore? Almost makes me want to buy a lottery ticket.
The missile defense for the southern flank is already partially in being courtesy of the USN installation in Romania and the TBM Burkes home ported in Rota. Given current Spanish enthusiasm perhaps their home ports can be split between Cyprus and Crete. (Too bad Tenders are gone.)
Our NATO friends had better not annoy Israel too much either as their new euro-centric TBM system uses that oh so hated Jewish Science in the Arrow 3 missile Germany is building.
NATO is lazy and all talk at this point. It's long been time to pull chalks. They are full of themselves. I will hangout at the compound sipping Ouzo helping the ladies work off their debts. Let me know when it's time to get back underway.
The problem with the GDP per capita numbers is that they don't compare each country’s defense spending per capita relative to its GDP per capita. Here's a better comparison courtesy of one of our AI overlords.
Playing the Devil's Advocate, and as someone who has served multiple staff roles involving NATO, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, I may tick some people off.
NATO was conceived as a defensive alliance to deter the Soviets et al. Eisenhower's view was that U.S. forces would not be permanently stationed in Europe.
Two questions are not asked. The first reason is that once the reason for a defensive alliance disappeared in the 1990s, and being realistic, it wasn't much of a threat in the late 1980s, why didn't the alliance dissolve? The second, and more perplexing, question is why, despite the gentleman's handshakes and promises made to the Kremlin, Washington encouraged the alliance's eastward expansion? At that time, the Russian government was attempting to diplomatically and economically integrate with the West. Certainly, we cannot argue that the West did not invest heavily in the Russian market, particularly in the country's natural resources. I'm referring to the period before 2014. The period from 2014 to the present is another matter.
However, that brings the discussion to NATO in 2026, before Ankara, from my perspective, the strategic decisions to be on the table going forward are as follows:
First, the U.S. force posture in Europe. The answer to that will come once the current posture review is completed in a few months. However, we hope that the U.S. will retain the necessary infrastructure to support our interests in the Middle East and Africa.
Second, the discussion regarding containing Russia. NATO involvement in Ukraine is problematic. NATO is providing ISR and targeting data to Ukraine. It is providing military planning assistance and advanced weapons systems that require technical knowledge that is, in theory, restricted information. NATO continues to escalate the types of weapons deliveries that have crossed Russia's red lines. The fact that Russia has not responded militarily is not a weakness. It is a restraint; Russia does not want a confrontation with NATO. Nor does it want full control over Ukraine, which would threaten its internal security. Frankly, I agree with those analysts that Russia is running out of patience. That brings us to the United States.
For all intents and purposes, Washington has been and is NATO. Listen to the Coalition of the Willing, who say they cannot deploy "peacekeepers" on the ground in Ukraine without a U.S. backstop. The real NATO problem for D.C. policymakers is: What is the desired relationship with Russia? This is a geopolitical problem that extends well beyond NATO and Ukraine. The basic question is, do we continue down the current path and risk a war with Russia? Do we restrain the European NATO Pillar? Or do we want to restore relations with Moscow?
Lord Palmerston has been quoted as saying, "Countries have no permanent friends, only interests."
We should also remember the cautionary statement in Washington's Farewell Address, to "avoid entangling alliances."
Going into the Ankara summit, President Trump and the rest of the delegation should keep both in mind.
I did my share of time with NATO.
Italy and Germany.
The tours were great but I came away with a very low of opinion of NATO as a fighting force.
After recent events, I am convinced that NATO is not only worthless but harmful to our interests.
Time to ditch this baggage.
Yes, I cannot understand why 5 generations (count them yourself) of our troops are still serving in Europe. Those people are incapable of defending themselves. We need to cut them loose.
For those of you following at home, here are their approximate birth years:
1927, 1945, 1963, 1981, 1999, 2017.
So beginning with the 1945 cohort, we now have great-great grandsons serving in Europe.
Same for Japan. Last December, I met a patriotic family in a stateside Walmart.
Three generations of service in Japan were in the store. The previous 2 generations had passed on.
OK, my math was off, only 4 generations. The nine-year-olds (b. 2017) are not yet eligible for enlistment. I am old and slow, and I am still willing to defend our country. I will never again travel beyond our borders to do so.
go ahead and include the 1909s
Sorry, need the weird spelling to remind me not to buy a cheap Turkish shotgun again.
Brett: Turkey makes some very good roasted eggplant and fruit preserves, which argues for a stronger role in NATO. When munitions stockpiles are running low, it's always good to have some jars of roasted eggplant and fruit preserves to throw at the enemy.
I'm still looking for some good Türkiyish taffy.
Great source of dried figs and apricots.
“Compromised low-T drone”, f’ing brilliant! And don’t forget those who say “turk-iyay” instead of “turkey”. What a bunch of garthok snarflers…. And I hold the Turks in high-regard having done 2 back-to-back tours with NATO there in the 80s. Loved living in Izmir, and the Turquoise Coast back then was even more beautiful than it is today.
It should be Angora, not Ankara, just as Churchill insisted.
"Constantinople next year!"
The Ottomans conquered it in 1453 but didn't get around to changing the name until the 1920s after the Ottomans were in the dustbin of history. So it was Byzantium for about 500 years, Constantinople for about 1600 years and Istanbul for about 100 years.
It should be Constantinople not Istanbul.
Why did Constantinople get the works??
The Ottoman Turks conquered the city in 1453 thereby putting an end to the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. The Hagia Sophia which was built by the Emperor Justinian in the 6th century was converted into a mosque.
In Islam “peace” means submission.
That's nobody's business but the Turks
Unlike some, I am not really comfortable with the Europeans increasing defense spending (assuming they actually do it rather than reclassifying other expenditures). There are two risks here. One is it will make them more aggressive. In the short run, this is likely to be aimed at Russia. The problem is it has the possibility of dragging us into their war. In the long run, it could well be directed at us. The second risk is that the assets developed fall into the hands of the Islamists and their fellow travelers and will be used against the indigenous Europeans and eventually us.
Really good synopsis, thank you!! As to umlauts: I have been known to say "Angora" and even (gasp) "Constantinople". Don't get me started on "Hawaii".
As one who has lived in Napoli, not Naples as well as sailed from Livorno not Leghorn, Loved the art and food of Firenza and Venazia, not Florence and Venice....it is all the damned Brits fault.
Spent 5 very happy years in Italia. Lived in Pozzouli. (Napoli suburb). Good times.
Hah-vah-e, Haw-Y-yah? I said it HAH-y-E for the 7½ years I was stationed there. Loco Kamaʻāina boi can say ennything he like.
Yeah. Not the pronunciation but the PC addition of an apostrophe that I refuse to accept.
Shipmates, good morning!
Let’s focus on these dates: July 7 and 8 in Ankara, Turkey …
July 9 -12 in Teheran Iran, the burial of their Leader!
Today is 24 June 2026…
1. There is no guarantee any final agreement signed by USA, Iran and Israel will take place.
furthermore:
2. Regarding the dates of Inspection for the enriched nuclear materials currently in Iran, no date for that inspection either!
3. Iran’s “Frozen Assets”. Tehran has not agreed that their “Frozen Assets” will pay American Farmers to ship cargo from USA to Iran.
Let’s focus on July 4th 2026!
That’s ten (10) days away!
Washington D.C. is a “Hot-Bed” of Supreme Court rulings coming down!
Litigation still proffered!
Beautification for the Drag Strip Automobile Race around our National Monuments.
Let’s not forget Americans are gearing up for their own “Vacations in the Summer Sun!”
This is the Prelude to “Chaos”, here, wherever sporting events are planned and on the other side of the Pond!
Please keep in mind the people and animals suffering in the Heat Wave in France and Italy. People have drowned in France!
Also, please know that the Golden Domestic Dome Shield was tested yesterday in America! I’m still waiting to read those “Results”.
Meanwhile in Germany, … loose lips sink ships, so I’m not sharing what I learned early this morning.
Eyes on the Dates please… Turkey loves to play “Monkey in the Middle”.
Good luck! Stay Strong! God Bless America! Nurse Jane
It seems I must start spelling Moscow as Mockba.
Bah to your mocking, Rooshworth. ☺
A few random thoughts, Canada isn't a NATO deadbeat anymore? Almost makes me want to buy a lottery ticket.
The missile defense for the southern flank is already partially in being courtesy of the USN installation in Romania and the TBM Burkes home ported in Rota. Given current Spanish enthusiasm perhaps their home ports can be split between Cyprus and Crete. (Too bad Tenders are gone.)
Our NATO friends had better not annoy Israel too much either as their new euro-centric TBM system uses that oh so hated Jewish Science in the Arrow 3 missile Germany is building.
NATO is lazy and all talk at this point. It's long been time to pull chalks. They are full of themselves. I will hangout at the compound sipping Ouzo helping the ladies work off their debts. Let me know when it's time to get back underway.
Every time I see OTAN on the side of an aircraft I think,(Effing French).
I heard a certain song by They Might Be Giants playing in my mind as I read this.
Can somebody persuade me why Turkey should still be our ally? Hell, why are we in NATO?
"...being unserious and petty".
I don't think so.
Umlauts were added to the English language with the formation of Mötley Crüe in 1981 .
The problem with the GDP per capita numbers is that they don't compare each country’s defense spending per capita relative to its GDP per capita. Here's a better comparison courtesy of one of our AI overlords.
Country GDP-adjusted defense burden (%)
Norway 3.2032010839649407
Poland 3.140198773525058
Denmark 3.1357890091633567
Lithuania 3.1030177532811596
Latvia 3.0249655383672844
US 2.7336066940027335
Finland 2.6512468121280817
Estonia 2.648215586307356
Sweden 2.44
Greece 2.4074553455863317
Netherlands 2.191432015494427
Germany 2.079782921623455
UK 1.9893070406887932
France 1.9211117923564276
Canada 1.8846947009773154
Italy 1.8442338802865728
Spain 1.8046487333507444
Belgium 1.7786302088456118
Slovenia 1.7051690446234977
Portugal 1.697444506621899
Slovak Republic 1.6843287248227947
Croatia 1.6547340736411458
Hungary 1.6107798342755362
Czechia 1.6088345759291438
Montenegro 1.5895562770562772
Romania 1.5885588558855885
Bulgaria 1.5152239376702836
Türkiye 1.4238890978453604
Albania 1.3974187805963507
Luxembourg 1.1804623365059663
North Macedonia 0.8818509387445477
Playing the Devil's Advocate, and as someone who has served multiple staff roles involving NATO, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, I may tick some people off.
NATO was conceived as a defensive alliance to deter the Soviets et al. Eisenhower's view was that U.S. forces would not be permanently stationed in Europe.
Two questions are not asked. The first reason is that once the reason for a defensive alliance disappeared in the 1990s, and being realistic, it wasn't much of a threat in the late 1980s, why didn't the alliance dissolve? The second, and more perplexing, question is why, despite the gentleman's handshakes and promises made to the Kremlin, Washington encouraged the alliance's eastward expansion? At that time, the Russian government was attempting to diplomatically and economically integrate with the West. Certainly, we cannot argue that the West did not invest heavily in the Russian market, particularly in the country's natural resources. I'm referring to the period before 2014. The period from 2014 to the present is another matter.
However, that brings the discussion to NATO in 2026, before Ankara, from my perspective, the strategic decisions to be on the table going forward are as follows:
First, the U.S. force posture in Europe. The answer to that will come once the current posture review is completed in a few months. However, we hope that the U.S. will retain the necessary infrastructure to support our interests in the Middle East and Africa.
Second, the discussion regarding containing Russia. NATO involvement in Ukraine is problematic. NATO is providing ISR and targeting data to Ukraine. It is providing military planning assistance and advanced weapons systems that require technical knowledge that is, in theory, restricted information. NATO continues to escalate the types of weapons deliveries that have crossed Russia's red lines. The fact that Russia has not responded militarily is not a weakness. It is a restraint; Russia does not want a confrontation with NATO. Nor does it want full control over Ukraine, which would threaten its internal security. Frankly, I agree with those analysts that Russia is running out of patience. That brings us to the United States.
For all intents and purposes, Washington has been and is NATO. Listen to the Coalition of the Willing, who say they cannot deploy "peacekeepers" on the ground in Ukraine without a U.S. backstop. The real NATO problem for D.C. policymakers is: What is the desired relationship with Russia? This is a geopolitical problem that extends well beyond NATO and Ukraine. The basic question is, do we continue down the current path and risk a war with Russia? Do we restrain the European NATO Pillar? Or do we want to restore relations with Moscow?
Lord Palmerston has been quoted as saying, "Countries have no permanent friends, only interests."
We should also remember the cautionary statement in Washington's Farewell Address, to "avoid entangling alliances."
Going into the Ankara summit, President Trump and the rest of the delegation should keep both in mind.