STRIKE THE TRUTH

With America’s long-term loyalty increasingly in question, and more countries forming defense agreements outside of NATO, a pressing question arises: Is Europe beginning to build its own alternative to NATO? Should it? Or is sticking with NATO still the smartest move for European security?  Over the past few years, shifts in U.S. foreign policy and rising global instability have led many European leaders to rethink their reliance on NATO as the cornerstone of their defense. At the same time, new regional alliances and military collaborations are emerging—some quietly, others more openly—raising questions about whether Europe is preparing for a future where NATO no longer plays the central role. In this blog post, we’ll explore whether NATO still holds up—and whether Europe might need a better option.   THE ROOTS OF NATO NATO was founded in 1949, at a time when much of Europe was still recovering from the devastation of World War II and facing a new threat: the rising influence...

The title may sound controversial, but it raises a critical question: How much can we truly trust the United States under Donald Trump’s leadership? This question is especially important given that much of the Western world order still revolves around America’s actions, influence, and alliances. Since the end of World War II, the United States has been Europe’s most important ally. But with Trump’s return to the political spotlight—and potentially to the presidency—it’s worth asking: Will America remain a reliable partner? In this blog post, I want to explore just how much Europe can depend on Trump’s America, and why many European leaders seem to be courting his favor. Is this diplomatic outreach necessary, or is it a dangerous gamble? WAS THE IRAN STRIKE JUSTIFIED?   The first reason I question whether we can truly trust Trump is how he publicly dismissed Tulsi Gabbard when she expressed doubts about Iran’s proximity to developing a nuclear bomb. Gabbard argued, based on availabl...

The NATO summit is just around the corner, and it will be interesting to see how things play out. Reportedly, the meeting has been shortened to just 2,5 hours—supposedly to accommodate Donald Trump’s notoriously short attention span. Still, shorter doesn’t necessarily mean worse. It might just be the ideal length to keep him focused. In this blog post, I want to take a closer look at the 2% defense spending target—what it has actually achieved—and then explore the case for increasing that to 5%, and why that figure might be more realistic than it seems. Yes, countries are navigating a great deal of economic uncertainty right now, but investing in defense remains crucial. Let’s explore why.   NO TARGET, THEN 2% TARGET   For much of its history, NATO didn’t operate with a formal defense spending benchmark. Contributions were more of a gentleman’s agreement—everyone was expected to chip in, but how much and how seriously was left vague. Predictably, that led to imbalances. A hand...

Since last week, global attention has been gripped by the rapidly escalating crisis in the Middle East. Israel’s unprecedented strike on Iranian nuclear facilities has raised urgent questions: Will this conflict spiral into a broader regional war? Will the United States be drawn in? And what role might Russia play, given its close ties with Tehran? But in this blog post, I want to shift the focus. Rather than speculate on what may unfold in the Middle East, I want to examine how this development could impact the ongoing war in Ukraine. For those of us in Europe, it's crucial that we don’t lose sight of the conflict unfolding on our doorstep—even as new crises emerge elsewhere. THE EVENTS IN IRAN We discussed this briefly in our last post on asymmetric warfare. Basically, on 13th June 2025, 61 days after Trump's ultimatum to Iran to come to the negotiating table, Israel launched Operation "Rising Lion". This was a large-scale, coordinated Israeli military operation tar...

In this post, we take a closer look at AUKUS — the ambitious security pact between Australia, the UK, and the US. Designed to boost military power, create jobs, and counter China’s influence in the Indo-Pacific, AUKUS has been hailed as a once-in-a-generation strategic win for the United States. So why is President Trump now putting it under review? With billions at stake and one of America’s closest allies in the balance, the decision to question AUKUS is raising eyebrows across the globe. Is this a shift in strategy — or something bigger? WHAT IS AUKUS?   AUKUS is a trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, announced in 2021 with the goal of reshaping the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. At its core, the deal enables Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, marking a significant leap in its naval capabilities. But AUKUS goes beyond submarines — it includes cooperation on advanced technologies like cyber security, artificia...

These days, wars are waged both conventionally and unconventionally. Major powers often target smaller nations in efforts to assert dominance. Yet, smaller countries today hold a significant edge compared to just a few decades ago. With the rise of hybrid warfare, cyber operations, drones, and other technological tools, asymmetrical warfare has become a realistic and effective strategy for underdogs facing much larger foes. In this blog post, we’ll explore what asymmetrical warfare entails and examine some current real-world examples. Finally, we’ll consider whether this approach is a smart strategy for less advantaged nations—and why. WHAT IS ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE? Asymmetrical warfare refers to conflict between groups or nations with vastly different military capabilities or strategies. Instead of meeting larger, more advanced forces head-on, the weaker side uses unconventional tactics to exploit vulnerabilities. These can include guerrilla warfare, cyber attacks, misinformation campa...