Whitaker’s 5% Demand: Doing Putin’s Bidding
- john raymond
- Jun 4
- 3 min read
In normal times, Matthew G. Whitaker would be seen for what he is: a third-rate political operative with a track record of corruption and no meaningful qualifications for international diplomacy. But these are not normal times. And so we find ourselves in a moment of geopolitical crisis, with Whitaker — disgraced former acting Attorney General and now U.S. Ambassador to NATO — standing at a podium in Brussels, barking out demands designed not to strengthen the alliance, but to break it.
His latest stunt? An ultimatum to every NATO member: commit to spending 5% of GDP on defense within three weeks — or risk the ire of the United States. Let’s be clear: this is not a serious proposal. It is a set-up, a trap. And it is being laid by a man whose own record makes a mockery of the very values NATO was built to defend.
A Proven Fraud with a Platform
Matthew Whitaker should never have been anywhere near international diplomacy. Before being elevated by Donald Trump, he was best known for his role in World Patent Marketing, a fraudulent invention promotion company that scammed would-be inventors out of millions. He sat on their advisory board, leveraged his credentials as a former U.S. Attorney to silence complaints, and did nothing while vulnerable Americans were robbed.
That’s not speculation — that’s what the Federal Trade Commission concluded when it shut the company down.
Yet Trump, always drawn to the ethically compromised, made Whitaker Acting Attorney General — not because of his legal brilliance, but because of his loyalty. Whitaker had publicly trashed the Mueller investigation and was willing to act as a shield for Trump at a time of political exposure. His reward? A plum ambassadorship at NATO — where the stakes are now no longer just legal, but civilizational.
The 5% Sham
Demanding that every NATO country spend 5% of its GDP on defense is not just economically delusional — it is diplomatically incendiary. The current NATO guideline is 2%, and even that is a stretch for many European nations still recovering from austerity, pandemic costs, and inflation. The United States itself — for all its military spending — hovers just above 3.5%.
The idea that a sudden jump to 5% is reasonable — or that it must be committed to within three weeks — is not a call to arms. It is a declaration of sabotage.
No serious diplomat believes such a demand is tenable. But that’s the point. Whitaker, on Trump’s behalf, isn’t trying to improve NATO — he’s trying to delegitimize it. When allies inevitably balk, the administration will claim vindication: “Europe won’t pay its fair share,” they’ll say. “Why should we defend them?”
It’s the same game Trump has played since 2016: transactional loyalty, bully diplomacy, and strategic dereliction. Except now it’s far more dangerous — because the stakes are war, not just words.
A Gift-Wrapped Victory for Putin
This isn’t just reckless — it’s strategically aligned with Vladimir Putin’s most treasured goal: the weakening of NATO from within. The Kremlin doesn’t need to defeat the alliance militarily if it can be splintered politically. Trump and Whitaker, by manufacturing distrust, pressuring allies, and openly questioning collective defense, are doing what no Russian general ever could.
Putin thrives on division. Whitaker delivers it on demand.
Beyond the Pale
Even for this administration, the 5% ultimatum is grotesque. It is not merely a policy overreach — it is an act of ideological vandalism. It perverts the concept of collective security into a pay-to-play racket. It cheapens the shared sacrifice that NATO represents. And it confirms what many feared: that Trump’s second term would not be a reversion to norms, but a scorched-earth acceleration of his worst instincts.
Whitaker, the fraudster turned statesman, is the perfect vessel for this corruption. He believes in little except power. And like his patron, he is more interested in breaking systems than building them.
The Real Threat
The most dangerous threats to NATO may no longer come from missiles or tanks. They may come from inside the house — from leaders who see alliances as burdens, values as obstacles, and truth as a tool to be bent. Whitaker’s 5% demand is not just a diplomatic failure. It is an attack on the West masquerading as its defense.
And we should say so — before the damage becomes irreversible.
Comentarios