From tariffs to foreign policy, tensions between U.S. President Donald Trump and the United States' longtime North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies wereFrom tariffs to foreign policy, tensions between U.S. President Donald Trump and the United States' longtime North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies were

Trump’s 'erratic behavior' creating military peril for top ally

3 min read

From tariffs to foreign policy, tensions between U.S. President Donald Trump and the United States' longtime North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies were on full display in January during the 2026 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland — where his push for U.S. control of Greenland got a very cold reception. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, ultra-conservative Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and other European leaders are making it clear that bullying Greenland, a Danish territory, threatens NATO's wellbeing.

The tone in Davos wasn't one of anti-Americanism, but rather, frustration with a longtime ally they believe is becoming increasingly unreliable both politically and economically.

In the UK, that frustration is being expressed by Labour and Conservative officials alike. And the iPaper's Will Hazell, in an article published on February 3, reports that's Trump "erratic behavior" is creating a major headache for the UK militarily.

"When Donald Trump threatened to annex Greenland last month," Hazell explains, "he set alarm bells ringing in capitals all over Europe. While the U.S. president later toned down his threats — the option of using force appears to be off the table, at least for now — his brinkmanship deeply unnerved Europe. The erratic behavior of the most powerful man in the world has made America's allies question to a degree unprecedented since 1945 whether or not they can continue to trust and rely on the U.S."

Hazell continues, "It has led to calls for countries, including Britain, to diverge, decouple or 'de-risk' from America by severing links. And it's a message which appears to be falling on fertile ground in the UK."

But according to Hazell, a "decoupling" of the U.S. and the UK "would have huge ramifications across a host of areas, including for Britain's ultimate insurance policy against external threats: the nuclear deterrent."

"UK governments, both Conservative and Labour, have always stressed the 'independent' nature of our submarine-based Trident nuclear missile system," Hazell reports. "But while the day-to-day operation of Trident is independent and the prime minister has the authority to launch the missiles without external input, the reality is that the long-term management of the program is dependent on the U.S. Lord Ricketts, a former permanent secretary of the Foreign Office and ex-national security adviser, says that nuclear deterrence is one of the 'absolutely strategic areas' where the UK is 'deeply, deeply intertwined with the Americans.'"

The iPaper journalist continues, "Trident is a U.S.-built system, with the UK relying on America for scheduled maintenance of the missiles every few years, while some warhead components are also manufactured in the U.S. It means that if there was a complete severing of the UK's security relationship with America, we would not be able to keep Trident going indefinitely. ... But it is not just the nuclear deterrent which would suffer if Britain diverged from the U.S. The UK is also deeply intermeshed with the U.S. when it comes to intelligence and conventional defense."

  • george conway
  • noam chomsky
  • civil war
  • Kayleigh mcenany
  • Melania trump
  • drudge report
  • paul krugman
  • Lindsey graham
  • Lincoln project
  • al franken bill maher
  • People of praise
  • Ivanka trump
  • eric trump
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Tags:

You May Also Like

FCA komt in 2026 met aangepaste cryptoregels voor Britse markt

FCA komt in 2026 met aangepaste cryptoregels voor Britse markt

De Britse financiële waakhond, de FCA, komt in 2026 met nieuwe regels speciaal voor crypto bedrijven. Wat direct opvalt: de toezichthouder laat enkele klassieke financiële verplichtingen los om beter aan te sluiten op de snelle en grillige wereld van digitale activa. Tegelijkertijd wordt er extra nadruk gelegd op digitale beveiliging,... Het bericht FCA komt in 2026 met aangepaste cryptoregels voor Britse markt verscheen het eerst op Blockchain Stories.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 00:33
Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future

The post Cashing In On University Patents Means Giving Up On Our Innovation Future appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. “It’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress,” writes Pipes. Getty Images Washington is addicted to taxing success. Now, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is floating a plan to skim half the patent earnings from inventions developed at universities with federal funding. It’s being sold as a way to shore up programs like Social Security. In reality, it’s a raid on American innovation that would deliver pennies to the Treasury while kneecapping the very engine of our economic and medical progress. Yes, taxpayer dollars support early-stage research. But the real payoff comes later—in the jobs created, cures discovered, and industries launched when universities and private industry turn those discoveries into real products. By comparison, the sums at stake in patent licensing are trivial. Universities collectively earn only about $3.6 billion annually in patent income—less than the federal government spends on Social Security in a single day. Even confiscating half would barely register against a $6 trillion federal budget. And yet the damage from such a policy would be anything but trivial. The true return on taxpayer investment isn’t in licensing checks sent to Washington, but in the downstream economic activity that federally supported research unleashes. Thanks to the bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, universities and private industry have powerful incentives to translate early-stage discoveries into real-world products. Before Bayh-Dole, the government hoarded patents from federally funded research, and fewer than 5% were ever licensed. Once universities could own and license their own inventions, innovation exploded. The result has been one of the best returns on investment in government history. Since 1996, university research has added nearly $2 trillion to U.S. industrial output, supported 6.5 million jobs, and launched more than 19,000 startups. Those companies pay…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 03:26
Trump foe devises plan to starve him of what he 'craves' most

Trump foe devises plan to starve him of what he 'craves' most

A longtime adversary of President Donald Trump has a plan for a key group to take away what Trump craves the most — attention. EX-CNN journalist Jim Acosta, who
Share
Rawstory2026/02/04 01:19