NATO on Its Knees: Pledging Loyalty to Trump While Held Hostage by His Threats

NATO On Its Knees

By Don Terry & Mary Jones | Sunday, June 29, 2025 | 5 min read

Donald Trump’s arrival in The Hague for the NATO summit was less of a diplomatic visit and more of a royal procession. He spent the night in a Dutch palace adorned with chandeliers and golden mirrors, hosted by King Willem-Alexander and Queen Máxima, whom he later described in characteristically grand terms: “great people, big, beautiful heart.” But beneath the surface of pageantry and politeness, the summit had one defining theme—deference. Not to unity or shared defense, but to Trump himself.

In the days leading up to the meeting, the entire structure of the summit had been refitted to suit him. The agenda was condensed to less than a full day. Meetings were tight, rehearsed, and carefully timed. The goal wasn’t strategic alignment—it was appeasement. Diplomats whispered about “damage control” and “avoiding flare-ups,” as though preparing for a volatile houseguest more than an allied partner. At the center of it all stood NATO’s new Secretary General, Mark Rutte, once known for his pragmatism, now seemingly recast as a kind of self-appointed Trump handler.

Rutte privately sent Trump a message so effusive that the former president couldn’t resist publicizing it. “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done,” it read. “Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.” When Rutte was asked whether comparing Trump to a father figure disciplining wayward children was going too far, he bristled. “Doesn’t he deserve some praise?” he asked. It wasn’t a question—it was a plea.

This wasn’t diplomacy. It was a performance. A theater of forced smiles and preemptive flattery, all in hopes that Trump wouldn’t pull the plug on the alliance. But the price for appeasement was high. Trump demanded what he called a “quantum leap” in defense spending—five percent of GDP from all member states. That’s more than double the current NATO guideline of two percent. It’s a number that many economists argue is not just difficult—it’s absurd.

Spain immediately said no. Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez explained that such a spike was “incompatible with our welfare state.” That didn’t go over well with Trump. “They’ll end up paying double,” he warned, threatening economic retaliation through trade restrictions. For the UK, which is already burdened by mounting debt and economic stagnation, the pledge would mean finding an extra £30 billion each year—enough to fund the entire education budget. In total, European Union nations would need to scrape together nearly €900 billion to meet Trump’s demands. That money would almost certainly come from slashed social programs, pension cuts, and public service rollbacks.

Mein Kampf Trump Now On AMAZON
Mein Kampf Trump Now On AMAZON

Some countries may try to game the system. France is already considering including rural police budgets as part of its “defense” spending. Others will rely on creative accounting, hoping to appear compliant without touching the core of their economies. One senior European diplomat, speaking candidly and off the record, admitted what many are thinking but few will say aloud: “These targets will not be met. Not really. Not without pretending.”

Meanwhile, the real issues—like Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine—were barely addressed. The final joint statement from the summit was a meager five paragraphs long, sanitized of any direct language about Russian aggression. There was no mention of Ukraine’s future within NATO. Even President Zelenskyy was kept at a polite distance. He was invited to a dinner the night before, but avoided at the main event. The optics were unmistakable: Ukraine had become a political inconvenience.

And then there was Trump’s ongoing ambiguity about the very foundation of the alliance—Article 5, the mutual defense clause. When asked, he gave a noncommittal answer, saying there were “many definitions” of it. Only later, after diplomatic pressure, did he offer a tepid statement: “I stand with it.” It felt less like reassurance and more like a line fed through clenched teeth.

Despite all of this, Trump emerged jubilant. He called the summit a “monumental win” and praised NATO members as “leaders who really love their countries.” On camera, everyone clapped and smiled. But the celebration masked an uncomfortable reality. NATO had avoided a breakdown—not through unity or principle—but by catering to a single man’s ego.

In the quiet hallways outside the media rooms, the mood was different. There was no consensus on how to afford Trump’s demands. No real clarity on Ukraine. No plan for what happens if Trump wins again—and decides to abandon the alliance anyway. Rutte’s flattery may have bought a moment of peace, but it came at the cost of long-term trust and coherence.

In the end, NATO didn’t reaffirm its strength—it exposed its vulnerability. The summit wasn’t about building strategy. It was about survival. And for all the declarations and flag-waving, one truth lingered in the background: when a military alliance spends more time managing one of its own than confronting its enemies, something fundamental has cracked.

Trump may have left the stage smiling, but the performance he orchestrated will echo long after he’s gone. For NATO, the applause may already be fading. What remains is a question that no summit communique can answer—what happens when loyalty becomes a condition for protection?

Copyright 2025 FN, NewsRoom.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!