Photo: enovosty.com D. Trump
Now, as we know, he took great offense at the alliance for the fact that its other members did not want to participate in the Iranian scam, which Trump, at the instigation of Netanyahu, started without consulting his alliance partners, and when this war reached a stalemate, and the United States with all its power in it turned out to be untenable, Trump remembered the European members of NATO, which until then had been insulted and humiliated in every possible way, and urgently to take part in the war of meaning, the goals and objectives of which Trump still can not explain, writes Ukrainian edition enovosty.com.
Attention is drawn to the fact that after returning to the White House, Trump insisted on limiting the activities of the alliance and return to its original purpose – to ensure security in the Euro-Atlantic region. But as soon as the United States had problems with Iran, which problems Trump himself created, he began demanding that the Europeans get involved in the Iran War, which is taking place far away from the Euro-Atlantic space. In recent days, the rift in NATO between the U.S. and Europe has deepened.
First, Trump decided to divide NATO allies into “good” and “bad,” creating some preferential treatment for the former and penalizing the latter. The funny thing is that those who are considered “good” by Trump do not consider him as such, but express the growing opinion that there can be no trust in the States now, particularly in Poland. Then the media published a “leak” that the Trump administration allegedly intends to expel Spain from NATO, which, according to NATO, cannot be legitimately done.
In addition, in Washington to speculate on such a very painful for the UK issue as the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic, which are a British overseas territory claimed by Argentina. Characteristically, this became known on the eve of the visit of the British King Charles II to the U.S., and there are already calls in Great Britain to cancel the monarch’s trip across the ocean. All this, at first glance, jealous fuss of an elderly and inadequate infantile, which Trump has long been, is extremely dangerous from the point of view of shaking NATO, especially in the current conditions of aggravation of global contradictions.
But first things first…
Count on the “good” and “bad”!
Politico reported that Trump has compiled lists of “good” and “bad” NATO allies. The White House has developed a ranking of NATO members by level of U.S. support and defense spending. Countries face troop movements and restrictions on arms sales. It takes the form of a list of “naughty and nice” NATO countries as the Trump administration looks for ways to “punish” allies who refuse to support a war with Iran.
The plan, which officials were working on ahead of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s visit to Washington this month, includes reviewing member countries’ contributions to the alliance and tiering them. On the one hand, it is an implementation of Trump’s threats against NATO allies. On the other, it’s a way to put pressure on an increasingly frayed alliance. Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth voiced this general idea in December. “Model allies that are stepping up, such as Israel, South Korea, Poland, increasingly Germany, the Baltic states and others, will receive our special favor,” he said. – Allies who still fail to do their part in collective defense will face the consequences.”
The administration is withholding any details while planning options. “They don’t seem to have very concrete ideas … when it comes to punishing bad allies,” the European official said. – Moving troops is one option, but is that mainly punishing the U.S.?” The White House said it was disappointed with the allies. “While the United States has always stood by our so-called allies, the countries we protect with thousands of troops have not stood by us throughout Operation Epic Fury,” White House spokeswoman Anne Kelly said. – President Trump has been clear about his thoughts on this unfair dynamic, and as he said, the United States will remember.”
There are few other alternatives for withdrawing U.S. troops from Europe, so any potential plan would likely involve moving them from one country to another, though the transfer could prove expensive and time-consuming. It is unclear which countries fall into which category and whether NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is aware of the effort.
“But the Romanians and Poles could be among the biggest beneficiaries, as both countries remain in the president’s favor and would welcome more U.S. troops. The Polish government, which is one of the biggest spenders on defense among NATO member states, already pays almost all of the costs of the 10,000 U.S. troops stationed there. And Romania’s recently expanded Mihail Cogalniceanu Air Base, which the country has authorized the U.S. to use for the air war in Iran, has been given the ability to receive more U.S. troops,” the publication said.
Hegseth initially used the rhetoric of “model ally” in reference to NATO partners who have increased defense spending in line with the alliance’s 5 percent goals. This was also mentioned in the U.S. National Defense Strategy released in January. The Pentagon said in a statement that the U.S. Defense Department “will prioritize cooperation and engagement with exemplary allies who contribute to our collective defense, and by doing so, we will empower these allies, amid the ways in which they are strengthened in defense of our common interests, as well as strengthen incentives for other allies to contribute.”
According to two European officials familiar with the plan, the concept could give the U.S. the ability to forgo deploying troops, joint exercises or selling military equipment to what are perceived as “naughty” allies and hand them over to “good” ones. Hegseth has also used the term “model ally” in meetings with NATO members. This will give Trump more tools to distinguish members who have supported U.S. efforts against Iran, such as ending Tehran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and allowing the use of bases, from those who have not.
While Spain and allies such as Britain and France either rejected or delayed U.S. requests for assistance, Romania and several smaller countries allowed the U.S. to use their air bases. Bulgaria also quietly supported U.S. logistics in the Middle East. Spain has already had trouble with the Trump administration for rejecting NATO’s 5% defense spending target at the alliance’s Hague summit last year. But officials praised Baltic countries such as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland for consistently ranking first in the bloc in military spending.
“President Trump has rightly made it clear that he expects allies and partners to step up and help secure this vital waterway in the Middle East”, Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby told NATO allies this month during a virtual meeting of defense ministers that Hegseth declined to attend.
But there is little precedent for such moves to punish allies, and such ideas already face resistance on Capitol Hill.
Some former officials doubt the Trump administration has enough resources to deal with another existential crisis in the alliance. “Trump and his team are busy trying to get out of a quagmire they created themselves,” said Joel Linnainmäki, a former Finnish official who worked on the country’s accession to NATO in 2023. – The administration probably doesn’t have the resources to open another hostile front with Europe while the war is going on.”
Interestingly, Poland, which Washington counts among its “good” partners, does not consider America “good.” Speaking about the possibility of Moscow’s aggression against European NATO countries, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk in an interview with The Financial Times expressed doubts that all alliance partners would be ready “in practice” to fulfill their collective defense obligations.
“The most important and crucial question” for the Polish prime minister and “for Europe is whether the United States is ready to be as loyal as it is stipulated” by the NATO treaty. Tusk also doubts the readiness of European countries to confront Russian aggression, judging by their attempts to “pretend that nothing special happened” when some 20 Russian drones flew into Poland in September 2025.
Ousting Spain and Spiting Britain
Following this, Reuters, citing an anonymous source, published the contents of an alleged Pentagon email exchange regarding the suspension of Spain’s NATO membership and other steps related to disagreements over the war with Iran. An internal Pentagon email describes options for punishing U.S. NATO allies who, in the department’s view, failed to support U.S. operations in the war with Iran, including suspending Spain’s membership in the alliance and reviewing the U.S. position on Britain’s claims to the Falkland Islands.
The policy options are detailed in a memo expressing frustration over the perceived reluctance or refusal of some allies to grant the United States access, basing rights, and overflight of Iran (known as ABO – Access, Basing, and Overflight) as part of the war with Iran. The email stated that ABO is merely the absolute baseline for NATO. One of the options mentioned in the email involves removing “problematic” countries from important or prestigious positions within NATO.
President Donald Trump harshly criticized NATO allies for failing to send their naval forces to assist in opening the Strait of Hormuz, which was closed to global shipping after the air war began on February 28. He also stated that he is considering the possibility of withdrawing from the alliance. “Wouldn’t you do the same if you were in my shoes?” Trump asked Reuters in an interview on April 1 in response to a question about the possibility of a U.S. exit from NATO. However, the email does not contain a call for the States to do exactly that, nor does it suggest closing bases in Europe.
It remains unknown whether the options under consideration included the widely expected reduction in U.S. troop levels in Europe. In response to a request for comment on the email, Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson stated: “As President Trump said, despite everything the United States has done for our NATO allies, they haven’t been there for us.” “The Department of Defense will provide the President with compelling options for action so that our allies stop being paper tigers and instead do their part. We have no further comment on any internal discussions on this matter,” Wilson said.
Analysts and diplomats note that the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran has raised serious questions about the future of the 76-year-old bloc and sparked unprecedented concern that the U.S. might not come to the aid of European allies in the event of an attack. Britain, France, and other countries maintain that joining the U.S. naval blockade would be tantamount to entering the war, but they are willing to help keep the strait open once a lasting ceasefire is established or the conflict ends.
However, Trump administration officials emphasized that NATO cannot be a one-way street. They expressed dissatisfaction with Spain’s actions, where the socialist leadership stated it would not allow its bases or airspace to be used for an attack on Iran. The United States has two important military bases in Spain: the Rota naval base and the Morón air base.
The policy options outlined in the email are intended to send a clear signal to NATO allies to “reduce the sense of entitlement on the part of Europeans.” The email argues that the option of suspending Spain’s membership in the alliance would have a limited impact on U.S. military operations but would have a significant symbolic effect.
“We don’t work via email. We work through official documents and positions of the government, in this case, the United States,” said Spanish Prime Minister Sánchez. Sánchez added that Spain supports “full cooperation with its allies, but always within the framework of international law.”
The memorandum also contains a proposal to consider reviewing U.S. diplomatic support for Britain’s long-standing European “imperial possessions,” such as the Falkland Islands, located near Argentina. The State Department website indicates that the islands are administered by the United Kingdom but are still claimed by Argentina, whose libertarian president, Javier Milei, is an ally of Trump. Trump has repeatedly insulted British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, calling him a coward for his reluctance to join the U.S. war with Iran, stating he is “no Winston Churchill” and calling British aircraft carriers “toys.”
Initially, Britain denied the U.S. the use of two British airbases for attacks on Iran but later agreed to it. Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the war with Iran “has made many things clear,” noting that Iran’s longer-range missiles cannot hit the United States but can reach Europe.
“We are facing questions, obstacles, or hesitation… You won’t have a lasting alliance if there are countries that are unwilling to support you when necessary,” Hegseth said.
But, as a NATO representative told the BBC, the alliance’s charter lacks provisions allowing member states to be suspended or expelled from the alliance. In turn, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer insists that more active involvement in the war or the current U.S. blockade of Iranian ports is not in Britain’s interest. Britain has allowed the U.S. to use British bases to strike Iranian targets located in the Strait of Hormuz area, and Royal Air Force aircraft have participated in the fight against Iranian drones.
Britain, France, and other countries have expressed their readiness to keep the Strait of Hormuz — a global oil transportation route — open after a lasting truce or the end of the war. On Friday, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth again lashed out at European allies at a press conference for not helping Washington in the war against Iran.
“We aren’t counting on Europe, but they need the Strait of Hormuz much more than we do, and they might want to talk less and hold fewer pompous conferences in Europe and instead get themselves a ship. This is more their fight than ours,” Hegseth said. “Europe and Asia have enjoyed our protection for decades, but the time of the free ride is over,” he added.
To recap, Trump previously stated that he has always considered the 32-nation NATO defense alliance a “one-way street.” “We’ll protect them, but they won’t do anything for us,” Trump wrote, and he lied… He lied in that the only time in NATO history when the famous Article 5 of the treaty was unconditionally invoked by all members of the alliance was the terrorist attack on the U.S. in September 2001, after which NATO and alliance members participated in the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, and many NATO servicemen were killed or wounded there. That the Afghan epic ended in failure and a shameful flight is another story, and the Americans themselves are primarily to blame for that.
Commenting on the “leak” of Pentagon correspondence by Reuters, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni urged NATO allies to remain united, stating that the alliance is a “source of strength.” “We must work on strengthening the European pillar of NATO… which must clearly complement the American one,” she told reporters at an EU summit in Cyprus. A German government spokesperson stated that the issue of Spain’s membership is not in question. “Spain is a member of NATO. And I see no reason why that should change,” a spokesperson in Berlin said.
Hot British Passions Over Distant Islands
In response to the Reuters “leak,” 10 Downing Street—the UK government—stated that sovereignty over the Falkland Islands belongs to their country, the BBC reports. It is known that the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean, remain the subject of a sovereignty dispute between Britain and Argentina.
The Falkland Islands, known in Argentina as the Malvinas, are about 8,000 miles (12,875 km) from Britain and about 300 miles from the Argentine mainland. Argentina has long claimed sovereignty over these islands, which are a British overseas territory in the southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Following an invasion of the islands by Argentine troops in 1982, a war broke out between the two countries over the issue.
In response to a question about the Reuters publication, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister’s Office stated: “The Falkland Islands overwhelmingly voted to remain a UK overseas territory, and we have always supported the islanders’ right to self-determination and the fact that sovereignty resides with the United Kingdom.” He continued: “We have clearly and consistently stated this position to successive U.S. administrations on many occasions, and nothing will change that.”
Previous U.S. administrations officially recognized Britain’s de facto administration of the islands but did not take an official position on sovereignty. “The Falkland Islands are fully confident in the UK government’s commitment to maintaining and protecting our right to self-determination,” the islands’ government said in a statement. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called reports of the U.S. position on the Falkland Islands “total nonsense,” adding: “We must ensure we are supporting the Falkland Islands. They are British territory.”
Reform UK representative Nigel Farage stated: “This is absolutely non-negotiable. We’re not even going to discuss sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.” He also stated that he would raise the issue at a meeting with Argentine President Javier Milei later this year. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey once again called for the cancellation of the King’s upcoming visit to the U.S.
“This unreliable and harmful president cannot continue to insult our country,” Sir Ed said.
The report appeared three days before a planned trip by King Charles and Queen Camilla to the U.S. to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House. While the White House has yet to comment on the report, it could become another point of contention between the U.S. and Britain during a period of diplomatic tension.
The Falkland Islands have been under British rule since 1833, but Argentina has historically claimed its rights to them on the grounds that they were inherited from the Spanish crown and due to the islands’ proximity to the South American mainland. In 1982, a ten-week conflict between Britain and Argentina over the islands was triggered when the latter’s military dictator, Leopoldo Galtieri, ordered his country’s troops to invade the islands.
The government of then-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sent a naval task force to return the islands to British control. An important circumstance was that due to crisis phenomena in Britain, Thatcher’s Conservative power was then severely shaken, and this “relatively small and relatively victorious war” was very timely for Thatcher.
Argentine troops surrendered, but the country still claims sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which it calls the Malvinas and which are located about 483 km east of Argentina. During the conflict, 649 Argentine and 255 British servicemen died, as well as three Falkland Islands residents. Recently, Falkland Islanders have overwhelmingly expressed a desire to remain a British territory.
In a 2013 referendum conducted among 1,672 eligible islanders, all but three voted to maintain their status as an overseas territory, with a turnout of over 90%. Successive British governments have long argued that the island’s population has the right to self-determination under international law established by the UN Charter. In April 2024, Milei stated he would present a “roadmap” for including the islands into Argentina, adding that this would only be achieved through diplomatic means.
A month later, in an interview with the BBC, Milei stated that he recognizes that the Falkland Islands are currently “in the hands of Britain” and that there is “no immediate solution” to change their status. The far-right leader, who is a close ally of Trump, also stated that resolving the dispute would take decades and criticized Argentine politicians who “beat their chests demanding sovereignty over the islands, but to no avail.”
The BBC also notes that the Falkland Islands are a vulnerable point for Britain, and the U.S. knows it. It is noted that since the issue of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, known in Argentina as Las Malvinas, became relevant, the official U.S. position has been one of neutrality while recognizing de facto British rule. However, unofficially, the States offered Britain diplomatic and sometimes military support. This was most clearly seen in the events surrounding the 1982 Argentine invasion, which resulted in the deaths of 255 British servicemen, three islanders, and 649 Argentine servicemen.
The initial U.S. reaction was an attempt at shuttle diplomacy. When that failed, they offered the British intelligence support as well as modern missiles. In a 2002 BBC documentary, Richard Perle, then Assistant Secretary of Defense, said: “Britain probably would have lost the war without American help. That’s how important it was.” However, the decision to side with Britain was never simple. Many in the U.S. feel an instinctive hostility toward what they see as a remnant of a colonial past and seek to maintain their influence in Latin America.
A declassified CIA report from the time said support for Britain could mean that “U.S. relations with a number of countries (in Latin America) are likely to be cool for several years.” But the same report also discussed what was called the “special nature of historical U.S. ties with Britain.” Much has changed since then. Those ties have undergone an unprecedented test, with U.S. President Trump openly hostile toward Sir Keir Starmer after his reluctance to join the war in Iran. At the same time, Donald Trump has found a geopolitical kindred spirit in Argentine President Milei. Both politicians speak warmly of each other, sharing ideological views and personal style.
“If the U.S. were to change its position and support Argentina’s claims to the islands, it would be a pretty significant development,” says Ed Arnold of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). “Because it could encourage other countries to follow suit.” “It’s quite possible that Argentina will push for UN intervention, and the U.S. might support that or simply not actively obstruct it,” he said. According to James Rogers of the Council on Geostrategy, “U.S. diplomats constantly soften or block resolutions aimed at protecting Argentine sovereignty” at both the UN and the Organization of American States.
The Falkland Islands are considered by the UN to be a “non-self-governing territory” and are the subject of ongoing discussions within the “Special Committee on Decolonization,” which encourages dialogue between Britain and Argentina. The British have long resisted this, considering the islands sovereign territory. This position is supported by the islanders themselves, who voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to remain part of Britain.
Speaking at a UN event dedicated to decolonization, Phyl Rendell of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly noted that “when the Falkland Islands were first settled in the mid-1750s, they really were a colony; just as neighboring Chile, Argentina, and Brazil were settled by settlers from Europe and other parts of the world.” In short, for the islanders, this is a dispute between two post-colonial states.
In the view of Ed Arnold of RUSI, it’s important to watch in what form, if at all, the U.S. position changes.
“If it happens at Trump’s initiative, it will make headlines, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the American state apparatus will start to change,” Arnold argues.
Despite the unprecedented level of control the president establishes over individual parts of the government, it won’t necessarily reflect in the minutiae of policy. Many bureaucratic structures are still likely to want to maintain the previous order of things.
According to Arnold, a single presidential decree is not enough to change the situation because “given everything else happening in the U.S., this won’t be a priority for the president.” Undoubtedly, this story will cause much more resonance in Britain than in the U.S., and in the end, perhaps that was exactly what was intended. President Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his desire to use diplomatic methods to exert pressure on both allies and adversaries. He understands that the Falkland Islands are a pressure point for Britain but have no relevance to the U.S., which for him represents an opportunity for leverage.
In conclusion, we note that the “leak” of Pentagon correspondence by Reuters not only shakes NATO but also deepens the contradictions between Britain and the U.S., which for long decades before Trump remained the closest of allies.
