New 'European NATO' Proposal Is Earning a Lot of Mockery

The NATO allies in Europe have had peace and security for decades because of the United States.

We provided a shield to protect them for years. But for years, they weren't taking their defense commitments seriously. NATO member states agreed in 2006 to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP.

When President Donald Trump came in, in his first term, he had to push them to comply. Prior presidents hadn't held their feet to the fire. Meanwhile, they were spending on social programs, with some deriding us for not doing the same spending. On top of that, the EU was importing a lot of oil from Russia, while having us defend them from Russia and asking for more money to help defend Ukraine. It was an unhinged approach. Trump managed to finally get some of them to pay that fair share they agreed to, to defend themselves.

But the relationship hit another rocky patch when some of the allies wouldn't even let us have overflight rights to cross their territory or use our bases in their countries for Operation Epic Fury against Iran. Why do we have bases there, if they aren't even going to let us use them? As Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, they were acting like this relationship was a one-way street: we provide for them, while they fail to come through for us.

As a consequence, President Donald Trump is considering various options, including moving bases to more amenable nations. While the law prevents him from withdrawing without Congressional approval, he can take a variety of actions, like that to make a point and ensuring that America's interests are protected.

Report: The Plan Being Considered to Punish Those Feckless NATO Allies

Now, a former Secretary General has a new proposal to address the obvious issues that have arisen, and it's receiving some well-deserved mockery.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the organization's secretary-general from 2009 - 2014, is proposing that Britain and France lead a new European NATO-like alliance to take responsibility for Europe's defense, without help from the United States.

Mr Rasmussen has suggested expanding the Coalition of the Willing - an alliance of 35 countries set up to defend Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire - so it can take over Europe's conventional defence role.
He identified France and Britain as the leading members of an expanded alliance, citing their nuclear capabilities as a key factor.

The most common response to this from Americans on X was what Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said: "Your terms are acceptable."

Europe:

Your terms are acceptable https://t.co/QcGq8rxuwy
— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) April 25, 2026

They should be looking out for their own defense.

Rasmussen is not actually saying they should get rid of NATO; he's proposing they have both this idea and NATO.

The other thing is that the assertion about the U.K. and France is pretty laughable.

The British Navy, once upon a time, was a world power. Now, with what's going on with Iran, more of a spotlight was put on how far they have fallen. Their "navy" - what's left of it - has been termed "weak" and "embarrassing" by some. And let's not even get into France, known more for surrendering than fighting.

If they were capable, they would have been able to respond immediately to deal with the Strait of Hormuz. Instead, they waffled and wouldn't put themselves out there. Even now, this week, they were clapping themselves on the back that they "talked" about what they might do to help in the Strait, after all the fighting was over.

🚨 BREAKING: Keir Starmer says the UK will lead a defensive military mission with France to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz pic.twitter.com/QUPKaywjou
— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) April 17, 2026

So incredibly weak. That's what Rasmussen is talking about?

Well, then, they'd better brush up on their Russian, because if I were European, I wouldn't trust these characters to even carry a picnic basket. Plus, they'd all have to pay more money, and they've shown they have issues with that.

Bottom line? Even Rasmussen knows they can't survive without the U.S. involved; that's why he doesn't want to get rid of NATO. We saw that as they bent the knee to President Donald Trump in the G7 environment meetings this week, not talking about climate change, allegedly because Trump didn't want to.

We’ll know when they create a new logo. pic.twitter.com/mAT3rabH4S
— AmishDude (@TheAmishDude) April 25, 2026

Britain and France couldn't lead a thirsty horse to water. https://t.co/TTEjOqwEsX pic.twitter.com/z7XSiXqKuP
— R T (@RDog861) April 25, 2026

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.