Donald Trump has done it again! In a dramatic twist Saturday, the U.S. President showered praise on British troops, following an uproar over his controversial remarks about NATO allies.

Thursday's jaw-dropping interview with Fox Business had Trump questioning NATO's support, hinting at allies keeping a "little off the front lines." Fury erupted, especially from families of the 457 British troops who died in Afghanistan.

In a sudden switch, Trump's Truth Social post hailed British soldiers as "among the greatest of all warriors." He praised the indestructible bond between U.S. and U.K. militaries, calling it "too strong to ever be broken."

British PM Keir Starmer didn't hold back, labeling Trump's earlier comments as “insulting and frankly appalling.” He urged Trump to apologize, which didn't happen.

Starmer and Trump discussed the matter over the phone, alongside talks on Ukraine and Arctic security, leaving Starmer pressing the need to honor sacrifices of joint forces in Afghanistan.

European leaders weren't impressed either. Italy and France slammed Trump's comments, calling them “unacceptable.” This diplomatic headache adds to the controversies swirling around the President.

With tensions simmering, what's next for Trump? Will NATO relations face more turbulence? Only time will tell, as Trump's words continue to ripple through political circles.

Key Takeaways:

• Trump's NATO remarks cause international uproar!

• British servicemen's sacrifices spotlighted in heated exchanges.

• European allies condemn Trump's controversial statements.

  

Adapted by ASEAN Now from AP 2026-01-23

 

 

View full article

Well Yanks !! you have messed up big time voting in this buffoon! America's most embarrassing president Yet!!

He was never referring to the Brits anyway.

It was fun to watch the sudden and fierce patriotism from the normally Brit hating Libs though. 😄

8 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Well Yanks !! you have messed up big time voting in this buffoon! America's most embarrassing president Yet!!

Most are Clones of Trump what he says the believe if but in the UK were not taken in with this Clown and as for his insults on our brave fallen troops we will not forget. Lets be honest Heros are given VCs Yanks are given the purple heart for turning up on parade on time without there LSD.

2 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Most are Clones of Trump what he says the believe if but in the UK were not taken in with this Clown and as for his insults on our brave fallen troops we will not forget. Lets be honest Heros are given VCs Yanks are given the purple heart for turning up on parade on time without there LSD.

might be right !! just trying to remember the last time the yanks won a modern war !! oh thats right !! never !!!!

3 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

might be right !! just trying to remember the last time the yanks won a modern war !! oh thats right !! never !!!!

Indeed. America's military is vastly overrated.

How many Special forces were sent to grab Maduro ? and how many Aircraft were flown in for 1 man ?

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

He was never referring to the Brits anyway.

It was fun to watch the sudden and fierce patriotism from the normally Brit hating Libs though. 😄

Trump remarked, “I’ve always said, ‘Will they (NATO allies) be there, if we ever needed them?’ And that’s really the ultimate test. And I’m not sure of that. I know that we would have been there, or we would be there, but will they be there?”

Does that statement exclude UK troops? No.

You seen willing to exempt Trump from any criticism no matter how odious his comments and actions, but I can only imagine what your self-righteous anger would be like if Von Der Leyen had made any criticism of the UK.

Seems like your own fierce patriotism only goes so far.

The Yanks poke there noses in other countrys then ask for back up usually British special forces or our military. To the maga fans on here jog our memories of how long you were in Vietnam ?. The British Army went over 7,000 miles to the Falklands and kicked the Argies out in 74 days. The yanks would probably complete it in 2-3 years and flattening Stanley.

3 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

might be right !! just trying to remember the last time the yanks won a modern war !! oh thats right !! never !!!!

Jeez, take a chill pill. Only 1/3 of public support Orange Julius (far too high a number, but what the hey). Majority of Americans like UK almost to the point of fawning. We even went to films like Dunkirk, which was prior to US bailing you out with vast amount of armaments. Should have entered that earlier, but... Still mad cuz we told UK to cut the crap on attacking over Suez?

US & friends kicked ass in Iraq/Kuwait mess (which US actually gave Saddam green light for that one, but picky picky). Kicked ass twice. With NATO help also finally got around to kicking Serbian ass.... genocide bothered us back in those days... Stomped Afghans later, with NATO help again (thanks Denmark).

Problem is that US is da <deleted>z when it comes to 'afterglow'... no or stupid plans on what to after the win. Cringe worthy at the least.

Take Venezuela: snatch Maduro.. and then what? VP takes over, US steals a couple tankers and then what? Even changed lies as to why our military went in.

Facts are that Trump is senile demented, does not know from minute to minute what he saying, like the insults to UK military.... View him as your crazy grandpa... he will be gone soon enough (yesterday is not soon enough, but you know...), and then hopefully this cancer will die off and the fundamental flaws in US government may get patched up.

I wish US had parliament so a no confidence vote could be had

3 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Most are Clones of Trump what he says the believe if but in the UK were not taken in with this Clown and as for his insults on our brave fallen troops we will not forget. Lets be honest Heros are given VCs Yanks are given the purple heart for turning up on parade on time without there LSD.

You got that one right!

But don't forget the breakfast of mega-burgers with a mountain of chips (fries for the semi-literate), and enough Coke or Pepsi to float a small battleship. And that's for the supposedly ultra-fit but inaccurately named Special Forces ...

3 hours ago, MikeandDow said:

might be right !! just trying to remember the last time the yanks won a modern war !! oh thats right !! never !!!!

Their last 'war' on their poor old own-io (except they strong-armed a number of other Caribbean countries to help - they can never fight on their own) was against the mighty island of Grenada (pop. approx 175,000) in 1983 - weren't they so brave not to ask NATO countries to hold their 'ickle hands?

But at least they weren't 2 and 3 years late for that one ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Grenada

One problem the British or should i say a coalition fighting with the American infantry is not just fighting at the front we have to watch our backs ie Blue on Blue or friendy fire from the Yanks.

2 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

One problem the British or should i say a coalition fighting with the American infantry is not just fighting at the front we have to watch our backs ie Blue on Blue or friendy fire from the Yanks.

I don't have the figures to hand, but I think there were more Brits and other countries forces killed by Yanks in blue on blue incidents than by any other country.

Prove me wrong.

32 minutes ago, Mister Fixit said:

I don't have the figures to hand, but I think there were more Brits and other countries forces killed by Yanks in blue on blue incidents than by any other country.

Prove me wrong.

You are correct Mister. It got that bad we had to paint our armoured vehicles with a brit flag so the gung ho American pilots could identify friends from foe.

You can always rely on yanks hitting the tatget!! even if its the wrong one !!!

The main problem and this not so much a criticism is that the US has so much almost unlimited firepower that they tend to use it whenever they can.

An analogy might be they tend to use a sledgehammer when a scalpel would be more appropriate.

3 hours ago, Emdog said:

I wish US had parliament so a no confidence vote could be had

The nub of the problem.

Another TACO after his ridiculous erratic speach in Davos! 😅

Bunch of imbeciles - sorry. I have never understood what British or German soldiers under the NATO flag are doing in the dunes of the Middle East, Afghanistan etc.

In addition to that, the Germans are by law not allowed to be involved in military activities except defense of their own borders. I must have slept properly in geography lessons as I cannot recall Iraq, Afghanistan and other beautiful places bordering Germany ......

Trump proclaimed that the US entered the WW2 European theatre to liberate Denmark from the Germans; absolute nonsense. The US got caught with their knickers down on 7 December 1941 in Pearl Harbour. The ultimate involvement in Europe did not serve Denmark or any other European country - the US simply wanted to stop the Western expansion by the Soviets under Stalin. Latter would not have happened anyway but it gave the US the reason to activate the Jewish typewriter relating to war compensation payments by European states.

And for all those, who think America is such a friendly peace keeper and police guard of the planet, the enclosed list (incomplete) shows their unilateral attacks in military invasions since WW2:

■ Japan: 6. und 9. August 1945

■ Korea and China: 1950–1953 (Korea war)

■ Guatemala: 1954, 1960, 1967–1969

■ Indonesia: 1958

■ Cuba: 1959–1961

■ Congo: 1964

■ Laos: 1964–1973

■ Vietnam: 1961–1973

■ Cambodia: 1969–1970

■ Granada: 1983

■ Lebanon: 1983, 1984 (attacks on Syria and Lebanon)

■ Libya: 1986, 2011, 2015

■ El Salvador: 1980

■ Nicaragua: 1980

■ Iran: 1987, 2025

■ Panama: 1989

■ Iraq: 1991 (golf war), 1991–2003 (american invasion), 2003–2015

■ Kuwait: 1991

■ Somalia: 1993, 2007–2008, 2011

■ Bosnia: 1994, 1995

■ Sudan: 1998

■ Afghanistan: 1998, 2001–2015

■ Yugoslavia: 1999

■ Yemen: 2002, 2009, 2011, 2024, 2025

■ Pakistan: 2007–2015

■ Syria: 2014–2015

■ Venezuela 2026

More to come until the US either reasons up or implodes on its trade and monetary policies with the petrodollar ;-)

20 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

The Yanks poke there noses in other countrys then ask for back up usually British special forces or our military. To the maga fans on here jog our memories of how long you were in Vietnam ?. The British Army went over 7,000 miles to the Falklands and kicked the Argies out in 74 days. The yanks would probably complete it in 2-3 years and flattening Stanley.

Did we invoke Article 5 after an attack on the sovereign territory of a NATO member. Nope, just got the job done.

20 hours ago, Emdog said:

which was prior to US bailing you out with vast amount of armaments

Correct, but you missed the fact that it was all repaid, with interest. The final repayment was made in 2006 ish.

Britain bankrupted itself to protect democracy from fascism.

USA is bankrupting democracy to benefit some fascists.

Trump should just shut his mouth about any military history. He avoided military service. Mocks the military, even the US vets.

He is not

.00005% the man Winston Churchill was.

Winston believe " lead from the front not the rear"

Trump dad excuse for a human being.

On 1/25/2026 at 8:35 AM, JonnyF said:

He was never referring to the Brits anyway.

It was fun to watch the sudden and fierce patriotism from the normally Brit hating Libs though. 😄

Yes he did. You're making up stories now, just as he does. He referred to NATO allies as being not on the front line and the reason Brits, Danes, French and all the others were in Afghanistan is because USA invoked article 5 of the NATO treaty. You also confuse hate with decency - people of any political colour can, and usually are decent. You also confuse arrogance with patriotism - it's quite possible to be patriotic without being arrogant an hateful - Trump, and you have yet to find that out.

Interestingly, when UK territory was invaded by a foreign power in 1982, the USA sat on its hands and even tried to obstruct the British armed forces. And the USA had to be dragged into both WWs long after. But Trump (and perhaps you too?) is so ignorant of history and even current affairs he wouldn't know. (Don't get me wrong here though - I think Trump is right in most policy areas - but he is ignorant, arrogant and a total <deleted> in the way he speaks and acts which causes division and chaos.)

26 minutes ago, animalmagic said:

Correct, but you missed the fact that it was all repaid, with interest. The final repayment was made in 2006 ish.

Britain bankrupted itself to protect democracy from fascism.

USA is bankrupting democracy to benefit some fascists.

Neat little jingle but you've destroyed your point by misuse of "fascists". There is nothing current that is comparable with the Nazi facists unless you want to minimise the horrors of their acts.

22 hours ago, RayC said:

Trump remarked, “I’ve always said, ‘Will they (NATO allies) be there, if we ever needed them?’ And that’s really the ultimate test. And I’m not sure of that. I know that we would have been there, or we would be there, but will they be there?”

Does that statement exclude UK troops? No.

You seen willing to exempt Trump from any criticism no matter how odious his comments and actions, but I can only imagine what your self-righteous anger would be like if Von Der Leyen had made any criticism of the UK.

Seems like your own fierce patriotism only goes so far.

He never specifically referred to Brits.

If von der leyen criticized us you'd cream your pants.

38 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

He never specifically referred to Brits.

If von der leyen criticized us you'd cream your pants.

Nor did Trump say, "NATO allies with the obvious exception of UK ...", but, of course, you know that's what he meant.

No surprise that you see no reason to let facts get in the way of your devotion to Trump.

"Interesting" fetish you've got there: Daydreaming about others ejaculating to words spoken by political figures. Each to their own, I suppose.

On 1/25/2026 at 8:27 AM, MikeandDow said:

Well Yanks !! you have messed up big time voting in this buffoon! America's most embarrassing president Yet!!

Agree with trump being a giant embarrassment but do please note trump was elected by a minority of Americans. Outcome disastrous but, as n American, I accept no responsibility as I voted and remain in firm opposition.

I will post this for all to read, some guys may have just forgot the problems we faced in Afghanistan (age does that) but sadly many just hate Trump and are being either very disingenuous or intentionally misleading.

In 2006, the senior British military commander who prominently complained about restrictions on support from allies in Afghanistan was Lieutenant General David Richards (later Lord Richards), who served as the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Key details from 2006 regarding this situation include:

Complaints about Restrictions ("Caveats"): As head of ISAF, Gen. Richards faced difficulties in securing necessary reinforcements and logistical support from other NATO nations. Many countries imposed strict "caveats" on their troops, restricting them from engaging in combat operations, particularly in the dangerous southern region of Helmand where British forces were heavily involved.

"Close to Anarchy" Warning: In July 2006, Gen. Richards warned that the security situation was "close to anarchy," noting that forces were short of essential equipment and "running out of time" to fulfill the mission.

Under-resourced Mission: Reports at the time indicated that British commanders were struggling to get NATO allies to lift restrictions, with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer pleading with governments to remove these, describing the lack of support as a major problem.

Operational Context: British troops, under Brigadier Ed Butler in 2006, were initially deployed to Helmand for reconstruction but quickly faced intense fighting, leading to demands for more, unrestricted support from international partners.

While Gen. Richards was the main NATO commander highlighting the structural failings of allied support, other British officers, such as those under 3 Para, also raised concerns during this period regarding the immediate availability of air support and equipment.

In 2009, British commanders and officials expressed significant frustration regarding the lack of support and operational restrictions placed on them by NATO allies in Afghanistan.

John Hutton's Criticism: In January 2009, then-Defence Secretary John Hutton sharply criticized European NATO members for not providing sufficient troops and support, arguing that it was "not an alliance" but "one-way traffic" where Americans were doing all the "heavy lifting".

"National Caveats": Throughout 2009, British forces operated in the dangerous Helmand province, while some other NATO countries maintained strict "national caveats" that limited their troops' involvement in combat operations.

Operational Strain: Senior British commanders in 2009, including Brigadier John Lorimer, noted the strain of being stretched thin in Helmand, with some comparing the operational tempo to "mowing the lawn"—constantly clearing areas only for the Taliban to return.

Resource Shortages: In July 2009, during a period of high casualties, there were intense political rows regarding shortages of helicopters and armored vehicles, despite assurances from officials that commanders had not been turned down for equipment.

Support from US Surge: While allies were criticized, the arrival of US Marines in Helmand during this period was seen as crucial support to supplement the stretched British forces.

Every fecking year we had the same problems with Certain NATO countries war fighting perticipation “restrictions”

I think there may be too many people drinking the same liberal propaganda simply because of a lack of clarity and blunt nature in the Donald J. Trump comment !!

1 hour ago, roo860 said:

I will post this for all to read, some guys may have just forgot the problems we faced in Afghanistan (age does that) but sadly many just hate Trump and are being either very disingenuous or intentionally misleading.

In 2006, the senior British military commander who prominently complained about restrictions on support from allies in Afghanistan was Lieutenant General David Richards (later Lord Richards), who served as the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Key details from 2006 regarding this situation include:

Complaints about Restrictions ("Caveats"): As head of ISAF, Gen. Richards faced difficulties in securing necessary reinforcements and logistical support from other NATO nations. Many countries imposed strict "caveats" on their troops, restricting them from engaging in combat operations, particularly in the dangerous southern region of Helmand where British forces were heavily involved.

"Close to Anarchy" Warning: In July 2006, Gen. Richards warned that the security situation was "close to anarchy," noting that forces were short of essential equipment and "running out of time" to fulfill the mission.

Under-resourced Mission: Reports at the time indicated that British commanders were struggling to get NATO allies to lift restrictions, with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer pleading with governments to remove these, describing the lack of support as a major problem.

Operational Context: British troops, under Brigadier Ed Butler in 2006, were initially deployed to Helmand for reconstruction but quickly faced intense fighting, leading to demands for more, unrestricted support from international partners.

While Gen. Richards was the main NATO commander highlighting the structural failings of allied support, other British officers, such as those under 3 Para, also raised concerns during this period regarding the immediate availability of air support and equipment.

In 2009, British commanders and officials expressed significant frustration regarding the lack of support and operational restrictions placed on them by NATO allies in Afghanistan.

John Hutton's Criticism: In January 2009, then-Defence Secretary John Hutton sharply criticized European NATO members for not providing sufficient troops and support, arguing that it was "not an alliance" but "one-way traffic" where Americans were doing all the "heavy lifting".

"National Caveats": Throughout 2009, British forces operated in the dangerous Helmand province, while some other NATO countries maintained strict "national caveats" that limited their troops' involvement in combat operations.

Operational Strain: Senior British commanders in 2009, including Brigadier John Lorimer, noted the strain of being stretched thin in Helmand, with some comparing the operational tempo to "mowing the lawn"—constantly clearing areas only for the Taliban to return.

Resource Shortages: In July 2009, during a period of high casualties, there were intense political rows regarding shortages of helicopters and armored vehicles, despite assurances from officials that commanders had not been turned down for equipment.

Support from US Surge: While allies were criticized, the arrival of US Marines in Helmand during this period was seen as crucial support to supplement the stretched British forces.

Every fecking year we had the same problems with Certain NATO countries war fighting perticipation “restrictions”

I think there may be too many people drinking the same liberal propaganda simply because of a lack of clarity and blunt nature in the Donald J. Trump comment !!

I dare say that there have been operational problems in every conflict which has ever taken place; there are plenty of examples of the US criticising the British military and vice versa during WW2.

However, that and "liberal propaganda" in no way excuses the comments which Trump made about NATO allies.

The fact remains - which Trump apologists apparently refuse to acknowledge - is that personnel from many countries (not just NATO) were present in Afghanistan to support the US, and Trump insults them all by attempting to undermine the contribution which they made to the effort.