[April 24, 2026] Victor Davis Hanson just dropped a brutal truth bomb on Europe, and it’s about time someone did. Europe has lost the ball on being a reliable ally; a sad departure from their past bravery and willingness to go toe-to-toe with enemies of the West. The question now: Is NATO dead weight?
In Operation Epic Fury, the U.S. launched a massive air campaign to smash Iran’s terror machine and nuclear dreams. We didn’t beg for troops or cash. All we asked for was basic access: flyover rights, refueling stops, and use of a few NATO bases. Simple alliance stuff. The response?
Spain refused American planes using its bases and airspace. France said no. Italy refused landing rights at Sigonella. Others waffled or hid behind “neutrality.” Only Greece stepped up. That’s it. Out of all those wealthy, “civilized” nations with 450 million people and a combined GDP over $22 trillion, almost nobody helped. They left America to handle it alone.
Hanson nails the hypocrisy. These are the same Europeans who scream for U.S. protection every time trouble brews. We’ve bailed them out repeatedly.
In the Falklands, Reagan gave Britain intelligence, fuel, and missiles so they could retake those islands. Not our fight, but we backed a NATO ally. France wanted help in Chad against Islamists; we delivered. Kosovo, Libya, Serbia: America carried the load while Europe talked tough. Ukraine? U.S. weapons and logistics kept them in the game far more than Brussels ever did.
Yet when it’s our turn to strike a regime threatening the world, including Europe, which sits well within Iranian missile range, they suddenly discover principles. “Not our war,” they claim. Spare me. Iranian missiles don’t care about EU borders. A nuclear Iran would blackmail the continent first. But no, they’d rather virtue-signal and freeload.
Europe’s weakness is self-inflicted and pathetic. Birth rates have cratered. Many countries have less than 1.5 kids per woman. They’re dying off demographically. Green Deal fantasies killed cheap energy; now they shiver and import Russian gas or beg America anyway. Open borders brought unassimilated millions, crime spikes, and no-go zones.
They lecture America on climate while their industries flee and militaries rust. Armies? Most couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag without U.S. airpower and logistics.
NATO was supposed to be a shield. Instead, it became a one-way welfare check. America foots the bill for defense while Europeans slash budgets, mock our culture, and block our operations. Hanson calls it straight: if you wanted to wreck the alliance, this is how. Europeans didn’t just sit out, they actively sabotaged by denying airspace. That’s not neutrality. That’s betrayal with a smile.
The U.S. pulled off Epic Fury anyway. Precision strikes crippled Iran’s capabilities with minimal losses. It proved American airpower doesn’t need Europe’s permission. We can act unilaterally when it counts. President Trump saw the moment and seized it. No endless debates in Brussels. No veto from Paris.
This episode exposes the rot. Europe talks big about “strategic autonomy” but delivers nothing but excuses. They expect America to defend them forever while contributing squat. Low fertility, energy suicide, military hollowing, it’s a slow-motion collapse.
Time to face facts. NATO is dead weight. The U.S. should rethink the whole setup. Bilateral deals with reliable partners only. Cut the freeloaders loose. Let Europe defend itself for once. Maybe the shock will wake them up. Or maybe they’ll keep shrinking into irrelevance while America focuses on real threats like China, Russia, and Iran.
Hanson’s point lands like a sledge hammer: We’ve enabled this weakness too long. Europe made its bed of luxury beliefs and demographic decline. Now lie in it. America doesn’t need deadbeat allies who won’t even open the sky. We’ve got the strength to go it alone. Epic Fury proved it.
The lesson is clear and harsh. Stop carrying Europe. They refused basic help against a shared enemy. Fine. From now on, they can handle their own messes. The era of one-sided “alliance” is over. America First means exactly that. No more blank checks for ingrates.
Like Victor Davis Hansom suggests, maybe we should become the Canada of NATO; respected, worthless, but exceptionally good at moral virtue signaling to the world.
————
Please read my books:
It is high time Washington reassessed these outdated arrangements and pursued more pragmatic bilateral partnerships based on genuine reciprocity rather than sentimental loyalty to a Cold War relic.
The article asks whether NATO has become dead weight for the United States. It points out that many European countries refused to let American planes use their bases during a recent strike on Iran called Operation Epic Fury. Gen. Satterfield uses examples from past conflicts to show how the U.S. has often helped Europe while getting little help in return. He also talks about problems in Europe such as low birth rates, weak militaries, and energy troubles. The piece ends by suggesting America should focus on its own interests and work only with reliable partners instead of carrying the whole alliance. Overall, it gives a clear but one-sided view of why the alliance might need big changes. This makes readers think about the real costs and benefits of NATO today.
Gen. Satterfield’s article delivers a refreshingly candid and incisive critique of NATO’s contemporary relevance in an era of shifting global threats. He weaves historical examples—from the Falklands to Kosovo—with the recent Operation Epic Fury to illustrate a pattern of European free-riding that has persisted for decades. By grounding the argument in Victor Davis Hanson’s sharp observations, the piece elevates what could have been mere polemic into a compelling call for strategic realism. The discussion of Europe’s self-inflicted vulnerabilities, including demographic decline and energy policy missteps, adds intellectual depth and underscores how internal weaknesses erode alliance value. Particularly effective is the contrast between American unilateral success in precision strikes and the bureaucratic paralysis of Brussels-based decision-making. The prose strikes a balance between blunt frustration and forward-looking prescription, advocating bilateral partnerships over outdated multilateral commitments. One admires Gen. Satterfield’s ability to humanize abstract policy failures through vivid imagery, such as European militaries unable to “fight their way out of a paper bag” without U.S. logistics. This rhetorical strength makes complex geopolitical dynamics accessible without sacrificing analytical rigor. Overall, the essay serves as a timely provocation for policymakers and citizens alike to reassess burden-sharing in transatlantic defense. It challenges readers to move beyond sentimental attachment to alliances and toward pragmatic assessments of national interest. In doing so, it contributes meaningfully to ongoing debates about American primacy in the 21st century.
Good points, Neat Man. Thanks. We are also BTW, huge fans of Gen. Satterfield too.
VDH is a great thinker.