Lutte had just arrived at the White House when Trump immediately put on a stern face, blurting out, "I'm very disappointed in you."

Recently, NATO Secretary General Lutte visited the United States to hold talks with Trump. However, as soon as Trump saw him, he bluntly expressed disappointment toward NATO member states.

Trump said this: In fact, the U.S. didn’t need any help in fighting Iran, and the U.S. military had already defeated Iran within the first week. But if, at that time, NATO members had simply said to the U.S., "We are willing to offer assistance," it would have been much better.

Faced with Trump’s criticism, Lutte looked extremely awkward. Later, blushing deeply, he tried to defend himself by stating that European allies had indeed been providing support all along.

Lutte explained that during the U.S.-Iran war, between 4,000 and 5,000 U.S. military sorties had taken off from European bases to carry out missions—evidence enough that European allies were coordinating closely with the U.S.

In fact, Lutte even used two charts to illustrate his point, attempting to show Trump the progress NATO countries had made in increasing defense spending since he first took office as President in 2017.

But none of his efforts earned Trump’s approval. Trump even stated outright that if the position of NATO Secretary General were held by someone else, he might not even have met with the U.S. today.

In reality, Trump’s remarks were essentially a test of loyalty from allies.

After the U.S. jointly with Israel launched air strikes against Iran, Trump immediately demanded that NATO lead the formation of a strait escort task force and cooperate in enforcing an embargo on Iran, trying to frame America’s unilateral confrontation with Iran as a collective NATO military operation. Once NATO joined, the U.S. could share military risks, distribute defense costs, and obscure the lack of UN authorization for its unilateral use of force. When allies collectively refused to cooperate, it disrupted the long-standing inertia of the U.S. commanding NATO’s global actions, which greatly frustrated Trump.

The concerns on NATO’s side are also understandable. Europe is still grappling with immense defense pressure from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and lacks the capacity to sustain two high-intensity confrontations simultaneously—East Europe and the Middle East. Troop levels, ammunition reserves, and defense budgets are all under severe strain. Under such circumstances, each member state naturally prioritizes its own national interests.

It is certain that, under these conflicting ideologies, future tensions between the U.S. and NATO will only grow deeper.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1868934640294912/

Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.