In a recent broadcast, Brannon Howse played a clip of President Donald Trump reiterating his provocative stance on NATO, declaring that he would not defend member countries failing to meet their financial commitments. Joined by national security expert David Pyne, Howse explored the ramifications of Trump’s position, alongside developments in Ukraine and the potential for Chinese military involvement. This discussion, rooted in Trump’s recorded remarks, highlights a possible reorientation of America’s global role. Here’s a closer look at these unfolding dynamics.

Trump’s NATO Gambit: A Transactional Approach

During the clip aired by Howse, President Trump addressed a question about making it U.S. policy to withhold defense from NATO countries that don’t pay their share. “If they don’t pay, I’m not going to defend them,” Trump stated unequivocally, framing it as “common sense.” He recalled the backlash from his earlier criticisms of NATO, saying, “I got into a lot of heat when I said that… they said, ‘Oh, he’s violating NATO.’” Trump questioned the alliance’s reciprocity, doubting whether countries like France would aid the U.S. in a crisis. “Do you think they’re going to come and protect us? I’m not so sure,” he remarked.

He extended this critique to other alliances, pointing to Japan as an example of an uneven deal. “We have to protect Japan… but they don’t have to protect us,” Trump noted, highlighting Japan’s economic gains from the U.S. without mutual defense obligations. This transactional worldview remains a cornerstone of Trump’s foreign policy, prioritizing American self-interest over traditional multilateral commitments.

David Pyne, president of the EMP Task Force and a frequent commentator, joined Howse to unpack Trump’s stance. “President Trump is exactly right in realizing that alliances don’t make the U.S. stronger—they put us at greater risk,” Pyne argued. He labeled NATO a “millstone around America’s neck,” asserting that the U.S. pledges to defend allies unlikely to reciprocate in scenarios like an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack or invasion. Pyne emphasized Trump’s push for NATO members to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense, noting that only a bare majority meet this threshold. For those who don’t, Trump’s message—echoed in the clip—is resolute: no payment, no protection.

Ukraine and NATO: A Proxy War Dilemma

Howse transitioned to Ukraine, citing Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s proposal to offer NATO-like security guarantees without full membership—a concept Zelensky floated in 2022. “How is that going to set with Putin?” Howse asked Pyne. “This is exactly what Zelensky said… he wants security guarantees that are Article V-like, but not under the name of NATO,” Pyne replied, referencing NATO’s collective defense clause. He doubted its viability, pointing out that despite pacts with 28 countries—including a 10-year U.S. agreement and a century-long British commitment—such assurances depend on U.S. support, which Trump’s clip suggests may waver.

Howse then introduced French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent remarks, warning that Russia’s actions in Ukraine have globalized the conflict. Macron cited North Korean troops and Iranian equipment, claiming, “Russia has become… a threat to France and to Europe.” He accused Putin of cyberattacks, election meddling, and territorial violations, advocating a sustained proxy war to weaken Russia. By 2030, Macron predicted, Russia could add 300,000 troops, 3,000 ships, and 300 aircraft if unchecked.

Pyne pushed back, arguing that NATO’s expansion into Ukraine—particularly in 2021—triggered Russia’s invasion. “If NATO had never expanded… Russia never would have invaded,” he contended, blaming the 2014 coup against Ukraine’s pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych. Rather than weakening Russia, Pyne said, the war has strengthened it, with military production at Soviet-era levels and its GDP rising from sixth to fourth globally.

China’s Potential Role: Escalation on the Horizon?

A striking revelation emerged when Howse raised reports from Ukrainian intelligence suggesting China might send a division-sized force to Ukraine for combat experience. “Is this a true report?” he asked. “I think it’s a true report,” Pyne confirmed, though he noted it depends on the failure of Trump’s anticipated peace talks. China, already supplying Russia with significant military-industrial aid—comparable to U.S. Lend-Lease in World War II—could escalate further if negotiations collapse. “It’s going to take a lot for us to pry them away from China,” Pyne said, tying success to a peace deal and U.S. troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe.

Trump’s Reset: A Reverse Kissinger Strategy

Pyne interpreted Trump’s approach—evident in the clip—as a “transformational reset” with Russia, akin to Nixon and Kissinger’s China strategy but inverted. Trump seeks a strategic partnership with Russia to weaken its alliance with China, potentially pulling Russia and India from BRICS. This could involve economic cooperation, U.S. investment in Russia, and a joint missile defense shield. Reports also suggest Trump may cede NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander role—U.S.-held for over 75 years—to the UK or France, followed by a phased withdrawal of American troops from Europe, signaling a retreat from NATO’s forefront.

Zelensky’s Fate and Ukraine’s Future

Howse highlighted breaking news: four senior Trump officials are interviewing Ukrainian opposition leaders to replace Zelensky, including Yulia Tymoshenko and Kyiv’s mayor. Pyne dismissed General Valerii Zaluzhnyi, calling Zelensky “more of a new Hitler” for leading Ukraine toward “national suicide.” He urged Zelensky’s swift ouster. Meanwhile, a U.S. delegation, possibly led by Marco Rubio, will meet Ukrainians in Riyadh next week, though Pyne questioned its value without prior Russian agreement on peace terms.

Conclusion: A New American Calculus

Trump’s NATO skepticism, captured in the clip Howse aired, alongside his push for a Russian reset and potential Ukraine disengagement, marks a seismic shift in U.S. policy. Critics may call it isolationism, but Pyne sees it as pragmatic—shedding costly alliances to counter threats like China. Yet, the risks are steep. If peace talks fail, China’s entry into Ukraine could ignite a wider conflict, testing Trump’s deal-making on a global stage. As Pyne concluded, “It starts with this peace deal.” The world awaits the outcome.