<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Trumping NATO	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://globalsecurityreview.com/trumping-nato/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://globalsecurityreview.com/trumping-nato/</link>
	<description>A division of the National Institute for Deterrence Studies (NIDS)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 23:52:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: David Styvaert		</title>
		<link>https://globalsecurityreview.com/trumping-nato/#comment-5149</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David Styvaert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 23:52:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://globalsecurityreview.com/?p=32629#comment-5149</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This article leaves a major question unaswered - what exactly is the benefit to the U.S. of continued participation in NATO? The author assumes that NATO stands as a deterrent to the &quot;CRINKs&quot;, but current events absolutely show this is 80&#039;s warhawk type thinking. NATO members not named U.S.A. have no military capability to even defend themselves so this deterrence is really just the U.S. being able to use European bases to engage Russia. And in that, who cares? Let Russia take over the EU. A strong Western Hempisphere and a calm Pacific Rim is all that is important, from a U.S. perspective.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This article leaves a major question unaswered &#8211; what exactly is the benefit to the U.S. of continued participation in NATO? The author assumes that NATO stands as a deterrent to the &#8220;CRINKs&#8221;, but current events absolutely show this is 80&#8217;s warhawk type thinking. NATO members not named U.S.A. have no military capability to even defend themselves so this deterrence is really just the U.S. being able to use European bases to engage Russia. And in that, who cares? Let Russia take over the EU. A strong Western Hempisphere and a calm Pacific Rim is all that is important, from a U.S. perspective.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
