NATO Meeting Turns Awkward After Allies Challenge Trump—Exchange Goes Viral

If you haven't seen it already, we are in the midst of very challenging times,

challenging politically, challenging socially, and challenging economically.

And we are told that we shouldn't feel how we're feeling. We're told by our government that it's

all good even though the job numbers and those reports are horrendous. And then we have the likes

of the liberal media who tried out on a CBC and say, no, baby, it's all good. It's really

Donald Trump's fault. We're discussing that today. But the big story of the hour that caught my eye

was the US allies saying they're not willing to help secure the straight-of-form moves and telling

Trump to screw right off, which on the face, you could expect something like that was going to

happen. However, I think it signals something way more sinister and we need to be ready and

buckle up for a very different looking world, or as Mark Carney likes to say, a different

international order. Welcome to the Elevator Report. I'm your host Josh,

if you get any value from today's episode, take the time to like, share, and subscribe. It helps

us to grow. It helps us to get to new audiences and helps people see there's something different

than what the main stream media has to offer. And now it's going to first story, shall we?

From NBC News, quote-unquote, not our war. US allies bulk at Trump's straight-of-form moves

demands. Many European governments express reservations Monday about providing military support

to reopen the crucial waterway. This is not our war. We have not started at German defense

minister Boris Pistorius, told reporters Monday. That appeared to sum up the mood among US allies

with leaders from Berlin to London expressing reservations about Trump's demands and indicating

they had no immediate plans to provide military support to reopen the crucial waterway.

Iran effectively closed the trade route in response to the American Israeli assault

launched last month. This sent global oil prices surging and threatened an international

economic shock. Something economists had warned about before the war began. Trump called upon

countries of the world that receive oil through the home road straight to take care of that passage

as he put it in his post Sunday on Truth Social. In an interview with the financial times that same day,

he went further, warning that NATO would have a very bad future if its members did not help

free up the strait. It was a bit rich for Trump to be asking help from countries he had previously

insulted former Estonian president Thomas Hundrick. Ilves told NBC News in a telephone interview Monday.

Earlier, Estonian foreign minister Marcus Checkna called on Trump to provide more information.

Europe needed to provide Trump's strategic goals, what will be the plan he asked.

Though often wary of risking the president's eye, many European governments have been reluctant

to be pulled into a war with Tehran. Some such as the leftist government of Spain outright refused

the Hormuz demand. Spain will never accept any stopgap measures to keep the strait open,

defense minister of margarita or robole said because objective must be for the war to end and

for it to end now. Countries across Europe are not very interested in helping Donald Trump reopen

the strait of Hormuz. And well, because we're starting to see that tension happen,

where US acted along or acted with Israel to begin bombing Iran. And as time has gone on,

the NATO allies essentially have said we don't want to get involved in this and we have no

interested in getting involved in this. And this is where we're starting to see that tension

that we've talked about that's been happening for months. People are going to point towards

coronary's Davos speech as the middle powers uniting to say no to the US. And this is where I come

in and this is where I start analyzing from my perspective and my lens. Is this is more of an

indicator that of what we thought was going to happen is starting to happen and what we've seen

taking place for quite some time. There are people out there that have made the argument that

NATO is passed its expiry date. It's not as useful as it once was. This is the issue Donald

Trump had brought up with the alliance with NATO for quite some time. Was that US provides also

security for everybody and everyone else just stopped building up their militaries. Stop

taking care of business on their end and just simply look to extract from the United States

instead of have a reciprocal relationship, at least in trade. That's where all this has come from.

As many countries including Canada here have had tariffs on the United States to protect our

industry. I'm rightfully so understand why there's some people who feel a specific way of the

certain industries we choose to protect versus others, but I'm not going to get into that at the

moment. However, Canada has put tariffs in place with the United States over decades to protect

specific industries. And Donald Trump has come along and said, we're kind of done with that. We're

done providing your security with you not contributing anything to your NATO targets. We're done

doing these trade deals where it feels lopsided to the United States. So we're going to put tariffs

on you until we can have a conversation, but is a reciprocal relationship and we're just going to

now be the leaders and you're going to follow. That was the ad who Donald Trump has approached

his second term with. And we said this was going to be the risk. Was that with that type of

pressure on your allies, you run the risk of completely nuking NATO. And this from my perspective

is that exactly happening. We're starting to see the fractures and the cracking in NATO as we speak.

And people will blame Donald Trump for that. However, it's gone over history.

It's just the difference is Donald Trump is the first president to do something about it.

Other presidents and political figures have expressed issue with the lopsided nature of the

relationship with the US and the rest of NATO. And they've just said something about it, but

it haven't acted on it and kind of glad it continue to happen. Now we have someone who's in,

who's a bowl of china shop, does not care what you think, does not care how you feel,

and we'll just do what he feels is best in the greater American interest. You can disagree,

you can dislike that. However, that's what we're witnessing. And now we're starting to see those

stress fractures from that relationship and those actions begin to take place where we may be seeing

the destruction and end of NATO. That might be alarmist to you. You may disagree. However,

the more I see things like this happen where much of the western world is reliant on the

straight of our moves to open up. So things don't pop off. They're saying, no, we're not going

to help reopen it. We don't we disagree with the war. We disagree with what you've done. We disagree,

have treated us. We don't like that you've called this out. So we're not going to help you with this.

So my next question is where do we go from here? When I look at this, the natural conclusion I

see these things happen is either cooler heads prevail and they figure out an end goal and how to

figure this all out. Or this is just one more pebble of sand on the heap that really ends up

breaking the camel's back. I think that's kind of where we're getting to. That's where we're at.

And some people will say, I'm exaggerating that no, this is all Donald Trump and this is the only

time that this has ever happened in our history. And I'd say no, let's pull up some receipts

shall we? Eisenhower mentioned this where he saw that the US commitment to Europe was simply just a

temporary stopgamp to help Europe recover from World War II. But then he was caught saying

in private that he lamented that European allies were close to making a sucker out of Uncle Sam

by prioritizing their own social programs while the US paid for their defense. That was Eisenhower.

Then John F. Kennedy in the 60s said he was deeply concerned with the balance of payments crisis.

The idea of the US was draining its gold reserves to keep troops in Europe while European

economies were booming. Then we have Richard Nixon in the late 60s early 70s where he felt the US

could no longer afford to be the world's policeman without more help, which was driven by the

economic shocks during that time. Then he had Jimmy Carter in the late 70s early 80s who was able

to codify NATO members spending 3% of their annual spending went towards their defense. And this

was a direct response to the administration's insistence that the US could not continue to

shoulder the burden of dealing with the Soviet Union alone. Then the most recent one was Barack

Obama before Donald Trump, who was a little less direct, but more so academic in his approach,

but was critical of the relationship between NATO and the United States where he famously referred

to NATO allies as free riders in an Atlantic interview back in 2016. And then was that the 2014

whale summit where the 2% GDP spending goal was established. So there's a little history for you

of how US different US presidents have addressed this tension that has always existed since

after World War II in the formation of NATO from the get-go this has been a problem and it's been

a source of tension. Now here we are all these years later. As I said, Donald Trump is just the

right candidate, the right bull in the China shop to blow it all up. And now we're witnessing

the result of those relationships. The trade deficits, the trade wars, the spending targets,

NATO allies allowing their militaries to just kind of be depleted and just rely on the United

States has been a story as old as time. This is not a Donald Trump issue. It's not just a

Republican problem. This has been an issue in a source of tension across both parties in the United

States across different presidents. And now this president is just taking it a step further that

people are not comfortable with. And I feel like this is now the natural conclusion of NATO,

which was already a delicate ally ship in the first place. Now we're just seeing it play out

in real time. And this is why what we're seeing with Canada and our politics and just blame me

don't Trump for everything just shows our lack of maturity shows our lack of understanding with what's

happened in history, especially the history with our greatest ally and our greatest trading

partner in the United States. Yes, has Donald Trump been a little provocative? Yes. Has he made some

comments that can get people offended? Yes. But the source of the tension that he's addressing

is incredibly old and Canadians need to realize where it is coming from. And if it's not Donald

Trump, it's going to be another president. This is not going away. It just might get suppressed for

a time, but it always comes back up. Always does. It has since the fifties because we have the

likes on param politics today where they had their show on Friday to address the terrible job numbers

that need to have liberal strategist Greg McEckron who had the audacity to say yes, the numbers are

bad, but it is Donald Trump's fault. Watch this. This was this caught a lot of people by surprise

today. And if you look back at a number of months, it could be inflation, it could be the job numbers.

I'm looking forward to peer Armstrong's newsletter on Monday because there's been a lot, he explains

things for pretty people like myself, but there's been a lot of months where the expectation was going

to be very negative and it was instead very positive. This was a time where we thought it was going

to be, we were told it'd be positive and it's very negative. You mentioned the job losses in the

United States. If you look at the US coverage today and it's pretty negative towards President

Trump. If you look at the polling, whether it's around affordability or the Iran war, it's very

negative. And if the president has done this foray into Iran for distraction reasons, it's causing

a lot of Americans to look at the price of gas. So I do think that I'm not trying to pivot to

the United States, but the United States is the cause of a lot of the challenges we have right now.

I know we have bad job numbers, but it's the United States fault. That's just the default answer.

As I know, the job numbers are bad and nothing's improved and things actually, things got worse

since Mark Carney's gotten to power, but it's all in Trump's fault. We are so elementary in our

understanding of politics, our understanding of geopolitics that you have individuals like Greg

McKeckron who have graduated from the likes of St. affects and have been involved in while he's

liberal circles who gets to be on our national broadcaster and spew nonsense like that gets paid

for it too. This is why there's such a disconnect between our political establishment and the people.

It was fascinating. I was just listening to AM radio for kicks and giggles today. And the host

was put it out to the public. What are your thoughts on Mark Carney? He's been in power for a year.

What are your what's your assessment? And again, we're living in liberal Nova Scotia liberal

Halifax, the place that voted in Mark Carney except for one riding that then turned liberal because

of floor crossing, but for the most part in the majority, this province voted Carney in.

What's your take on what he's done so far? Again, this is anecdotal, but every response was

negative. He hasn't been doing enough and anytime the host pressed saying, well, what are your thoughts

on the tariffs and what's happening economically there? What's your take on that? And then

immediately every person said, well, I understand it's tough because we don't know what Donald Trump's

going to do. But everyone's first reaction on this show was that he's doing a bad job. And so

is the host pushed back with the same old BS narrative. Oh, yeah, I understand. I get it, you know,

but still not good enough. I know the humming and hot of Nova Scotia is how it always goes.

But everybody knows it in their heart of hearts that this prime minister unequivocally,

absolutely, quite frankly, sucks. They know it in their hearts, but the propaganda keeps pushing

on them saying, no, it's not that bad. No, it's not that bad. You have to think differently about

this. Even in liberal Nova Scotia, they know it in their hearts that this is horrendous and give

it a couple more months of negative job decline. And it will continue to take place where people

will start getting more frustrated. Why do you think the, as I said before, the by-elections are

happening when they're happening because you have the likes of Abacus data, which at this point is

proven is just another extension of the liberal government. And I always want, I've reached out to

David Coletto who runs Abacus data multiple times. Never got a response from him. And I wondered

why I thought I was fairly cordial. I would love to have him come on and explain in general what his

processes, how it goes about doing pulling. I wanted essentially want to frame it as helping

people restore their faith in pulling. I wanted to be framed that way purposely to help him out.

I was like, hey, I thought at the time I thought he was doing great work. I was like, hey, I would

love for you to come on. And let's talk about pulling. And when he can trust it, when he can't

never got a response. Shortly after, he took his pivot and it made it very clear he's partisan,

and that he's supporting the liberal party. And now every pull that comes out, you can read the

bias in it, it's clear as day. Like here, the question was the direction of the country.

Generally speaking, do you think things are headed in the right direction or they off on the wrong

track? What's the big, great number here, folks? 42% of the Canadians think it's going in the right

direction. And that's exactly how he framed his tweet, his post. Public mood in Canada is shifting.

42% say the country is heading in the right direction. While pessimism about the rest of

the world remains overwhelming, that framing is so incredibly dishonest. We look at the numbers.

43% think it's on the wrong track though. It's almost in dead heat at the moment. People feel

that it's going in the wrong direction versus those who think it's going in the right direction.

But we're going to highlight, make it really positive, dress it up in a certain way.

This is my user experience design background, baby. This is how it works. This is how you introduce

bias. This is how you bias the user. This is how you bias the reader. To let them know, oh no, it is

everyone thinks that Karnie's great. No, 42% think it's going in the right direction. 43% say it's

on the wrong track. With 15% or unsure. That's a pretty big unsure, if I'm being quite frank with you.

And if you go down here, the federal vote intention, if 43% of people think it's going in the wrong

direction, but 46% people say they'd vote liberal. Well, that's a question you need to have here.

There's something weird about this. And then we go on to this, which is even more eye opening.

40% believe liberals deserve re-election. 25% feel like there's no good alternative. So there's

people that you can change their mind of. Okay, and that's why we're seeing what Pierre Paulier

is doing is what he's doing right now. But then the 36% think it's time for a change and there's

a good alternative. The story I read here is there's a very big middle ground in its

growing because of the negative press Pierre Paulier have received. They know they can't

continue on with this carny government because it's only getting worse. They know in their heart

it's going getting worse. But Pierre Paulier is so bad, he's like Trump. And that's why I see

Pierre Paulier fighting an uphill battle. He's going in the right direction. He's bringing

up the right things as Reg brought up on Friday. There is more he can do. I think there's

something to talk about there. But anyways, those are the numbers. Let me know what you think.

Have a good one. Ah, man.