The sobering reality is that 99% of the world is against the Trump administration's territorial expansionist goals. Folks consuming news in a silo are likely only hearing a small version of the details about the current geopolitical relevance between the USA and NATO.
We need NATO more than they need the US
Yes, this will blow the minds of many people out there — even the military brass. Hence, I'll break it down "Barney Style" to ensure those in the back understand it thusly. The USA is the largest superpower in the world because we have many powerful and some weaker, yet strategically and geographically placed, allies. If you control the choke points, you control the world by denying freedom of movement to your adversaries.
The USA has by far the largest military in the world, but we are already stretched thin. If you don't believe me, ask any of the Sailors who had overextended deployments — me included. Sure, NATO does have some problems and a lot of room for improvement. So does the USA, because the battlespace is dynamic — things keep changing, and the enemy "gets a vote" because we have to adjust to their ever-shifting doctrines. Notice I did not say the enemy has "improved doctrines." And I said "adjust," not "react." Words matter in geopolitics and strategic mission planning.
When I used to train Sailors and Officers about allies, I used this analogy: Let's say that you have a dog who has a stomach bug, but you cannot take a day off work. Your commute is ~65 minutes away one way (over 2 hours round trip), making it impossible for you to go on your lunch break. But your neighbor works from home. You kindly ask him to check on your dog a few times a day to ensure he does not soil your house and that he is okay. This saves you time and money — just by the mere fact your neighbor's physical location is at a place that is convenient for you both — hence, he is able to assist. Hence you don't burn that bridge.
Translate that to geopolitics: we are a literal ocean away from all but one NATO allied country. NATO's role is defense, not offense. Not every country has a blue-water Navy. Mainly because having such a Navy is extremely expensive and, quite frankly, they don't need one if their role is to deny freedom of movement to invaders coming to their doorstep. Conversely, the USA needs a strong Navy because we have a global presence, and this presence expands to all other US military services. Having NATO allies saves the USA insane amounts of taxpayer dollars because we have logistic hubs all over the world that are friendly to us — a relationship that is now alarmingly deteriorating.
Let's talk numbers & Logistics
Wars are not won by weapons; they are won by supply. Think of it like a fistfight between a couple of dudes of comparable size and strength. The one who gets tired first will likely miscalculate and start a downward spiral. The only thing a warship can do on its own is rust. It needs people — and people have basic necessities that are more than just food and water. Ships and aircraft also need fuel and ammunition. That stuff runs out.
Back when I was in the Navy, I was talking with a dude who was arguing with me — scoffing at what I mentioned above and smugly saying: "You're forgetting that we have the Military Sealift Command and we have supply ships all over the place." To which I responded with a checkmate: Where do you think they bring those supplies from? Host countries — even if these are warehouses to get some food that comes from America. But if you've been deployed onboard warships — which are meant for this blue-water power projection — like I have, then you'll know that sometimes supplies do run low based on operational commitments. It is simple arithmetic.
Even when we replenish at sea, we have to ensure not only that our schedules match to receive fuel, food, and whatever else we are getting — but also that it matches the supplies' schedule. I'm oversimplifying because this puzzle is insanely more complex; but understand that feeding a single DDG is incredibly expensive; a Carrier Strike Group is exponentially more costly.
In other words, "invading" is very easy — holding on to the territory is a whole other issue. And the reason why the USA was so prominent is because — at least in principle (cough Iraq) — we were defending other countries from being invaded. It is also worth mentioning that the USA has won a total of zero wars without allies since World War II. The Gulf War in the late 80s did not stabilize the region despite the "initial success," and Iraq is still a mess. But sure, a few people made a lot of money — despite all the savage blood-spill.
It is also worth mentioning that most of our top flag officers were probably infants during Vietnam (if they were born at all) — or were still fairly junior during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Neither of which was won. Afghanistan, after 19 years of fighting the Taliban, is governed with an iron fist today by — gasp — the Taliban. How did it go for Libya? Same quagmire. What saves our white-picket-fence life in the suburbs is the fact that we are geographically removed from the hot zone. But a NATO war would collapse the care-free lifestyle of even the most comfortable American who thinks they can afford to look away.
There is a reason why hockey fans are told to keep an eye on the puck: because it can whack them in the face if they don't pay attention.
The world considers the US an adversary
It pains me to write this because as an American citizen and US Veteran, I love America. But unless you're living under a rock or only consume siloed information, the rest of the world is making contingency plans for when the USA starts invading other countries. They consider this not a matter of "if," but "when." World leaders like Macron from France have already said they will go to war with the USA if Trump invades Greenland.
The administration used the term "Conquer Greenland" — despite the fact that neither Denmark nor Greenland has ever denied any request from the USA. In their own words, the leaders from Denmark and Greenland who left the White House in haste after a very tense meeting explained that the people in Greenland are not a commodity that can be bought and sold. This was in response to the Trump administration talking about giving $500K to each person on the island to become Americans.
By the way — Trump was supposed to give $2,000 to every American based on the dividends from the tariffs, and $5,000 from DOGE savings. Instead, he gave $1,776 to the troops. To pay for the optics of a one-time check, the administration also slashed vital Research and Development (R&D) coffers and reduced HUD's housing assistance by nearly 44%.
When asked, Trump denied remembering ever offering the $2,000 to Americans. I wasn't holding my breath he would disburse any of that money, but I digress — the point is that the people in Greenland do not believe him either. They — like many functional adults — pay attention to what goes on worldwide. They also have a lot better subsidies, especially for healthcare, coming from Denmark. It is known worldwide that the health premiums in the USA skyrocketed because of that "Big Beautiful Bill." For these and many other reasons, they want to remain autonomous. That choice belongs to Greenland alone.
Newsflash, the Trump administration is willing to send your sons and daughters to fight against the entire world — turning from "America First" to America alone, financially and morally bankrupted — even if his enablers don't understand why. If you think you're safe because you're not wearing a uniform right now, a war with NATO could include a military draft. But that is the problem: people who live in silos are not going to understand the intricacies and unintended consequences of geopolitics. It is like trying to understand the rules of baseball if you don't know the difference between a ball and a bat. That is why people need to exit the silos before they can understand the complex intricacies that affect their very lives — especially if they offer blind support to a cause with uninformed bravado.
NATO does not want to fight the USA
Article 1 of NATO, in essence, states that any differences between the allied nations have to be resolved diplomatically through dialogue to de-escalate any conflict. There are a lot more layers of instability around the world — and as long as this article is, it would take hours if not days to go over each flashpoint occurring worldwide. The obvious question is: Who wins from all this US-NATO animosity?
The answer is primarily Russia — since destroying NATO (to include the USA) has been their objective since 1949. Thanks to the Trump administration's willingness to start a military conflict with a NATO ally, this will likely fragment NATO itself. I would assess some minority of NATO will be more deferential to join the USA under Trump, such as Hungary and Italy... and maybe Turkey — based on their own governments' deference to the Kremlin, even if unwitting. But most of the European Union, to include essentially all other NATO countries, would be fighting on a lot of different fronts, destroying the relative peace established since NATO was founded in 1949. And yes, the USA and Denmark were original signatories. There are no winners in such a conflict — except for Russia. This is preventable - if we respect other countries sovereignty as international law stipulated and maintained our alliance!
My final question is to the military brass: How will you be remembered when you had the watch, and instead of speaking truth to power, you were in the driver's seat when a preventable conflict that will negatively impact the world forever occurred under your command? Complex question, but easy answer if you answer correctly. I tell you what I would have done if I was in uniform — what military senior members are required to do: speak truth to power. Why? Because nothing in the history humanity has aged well when "good-idea-Fairies" were surrounded by "yes men." I dare you: give me any example where an authoritarian regime was intrinsically sustainable? I'll save you the time: it does not exist. They cling to power because they know that if they lose it, all their crimes will come to haunt them.
But people can die and evade the law, but they can never escape themselves — or their legacy. Winning by cheating is still losing. Being feared is very different than being respected. The former is imposed; the latter is earned daily. Dragging others into conflict is not only illegal — it is just evil. Final words — any US-NATO conflict is preventable, should those in the driver's seat have the fortitude of character or testicular fortitude to speak up — NOW! BZV
About the Author: J. Marcelo "BeeZee" Baqueroalvarez
🔗 Connect & Learn More: Visit Marcelo's comprehensive landing page for his extended bio, social links, consulting form, and more.
J. Marcelo "BeeZee" Baqueroalvarez is the Founder of Half Life Crisis™, a unique father-daughter collaboration dedicated to the relentless pursuit of intellectual honesty, critical thinking, geopolitical strategy, and meaningful art. Marcelo is the recognized author of the essential reads, Authoritarianism & Propaganda and Woke & Proud, driving challenging conversations worldwide. When not publishing, Marcelo utilizes his strategic insight in technology and business as the founder of BeeZee Vision, LLC™, which includes BZVweb™ Automated Web Services and Info in Context™ strategic consulting.
Continue the Conversation
We encourage intellectual debate! To maintain a clean, focused reading experience, comments have been disabled on this article. Share your insights, counterarguments, or continue the discussion on your preferred social platform:
