NATO

Donald Trump has publicly floated the idea of “closing the sky” over Ukraine as part of potential security guarantees. Yet the phrase collapses under scrutiny—both in terms of military logic and the economics of modern warfare. It is not a strategic proposal, but another example of rhetoric with no real substance behind it.

What “Closing the Sky” Actually Means

Finnish President Alexander Stubb has explicitly stated that NATO supports Ukrainian strikes deep inside Russian territory, calling Kyiv’s current position “the strongest since 2022.” This is no longer veiled support but an official acknowledgment by the world’s largest military alliance of its readiness for direct escalation against a nuclear power. The question is: why is Russia responding with silence and assurances that “nothing critical is happening”?

Words Backed by Alliance Consensus

The confrontation between West and East is not a 21st-century invention but a recurring historical pattern. Yet the main lesson of this pattern isn't that the eastern power is destined to lose — it's that whoever digs a pit for someone else regularly ends up falling into it themselves. Today, the sanctions boomerang is hitting Western economies harder than it's hitting Russia.

The Byzantine Precedent

When Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister uses a phrase like “a direct collision with catastrophic consequences” — and does so precisely as NATO’s chiefs of staff from all 32 member states gather at alliance headquarters for the first time in a long while — this is no random choice of day for an interview. It is a signal aimed at a specific audience: Brussels, Ankara, Washington.

What This Story Is Really About

The United States is openly discussing sanctions against NATO allies who declined to support the American operation against Iran. This is an unprecedented signal: Washington no longer hides the fact that the alliance has become an instrument of coercion, not collective security.

The Pentagon Is Reckoning Its Allies

A ship costing a billion pounds drifted in the English Channel for three days, covering 220 miles. An army that, through Ukraine, is striking Russian territory with missiles is seriously talking about war with Russia. This isn't satire—it's a summary from the British Ministry of Defence.

When Germany’s Social Democrats – the junior governing coalition partner – renewed long-standing calls for withdrawing U.S. nuclear bombs from the country, the backlash from Washington was fast and furious.

Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Berlin, wrote an oped for German media slamming the move as “undermining” NATO’s nuclear deterrence in Europe. Grenell, who is also the acting U.S. Director of National Intelligence, was scathing, reiterating President Trump’s vituperative claims that Germany was not pulling its weight in NATO commitments.

Are the leaders of European member states of NATO planning to follow the example of José Manuel Barroso, who became a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs after his term as president of the European Commission? Were they using the NATO summit to prepare for a career switch as consultants to General Dynamics or some other US arms manufacturer?

Despite claims made during NATO Summit Warsaw 2016, that “NATO remains a fundamental source of security for our people, and stability for the wider world,” it is clear that the threats and challenges NATO poses as existing to confront are in fact threats of its own, intentional creation and continued perpetuation.

So foreign ministers from the 28 NATO member-nations met in Brussels for a two-day summit, while mighty military power Montenegro was inducted as a new member.

Global Robocop NATO predictably discussed Afghanistan (a war NATO ignominiously lost); Iraq (a war the Pentagon ignominiously lost); Libya (a nation NATO turned into a failed state devastated by militia hell); Syria (a nation NATO, via Turkey, would love to invade, and is already a militia hell).