Alienated by Trump, Europeans Finally Take Responsibility for Defense
Spurred by a hostile U.S. president, Europe struggles against stagnant economies to rearm.
There are downsides to insulting and threatening friends and acting like a Mafia don slapping around his goons. You risk turning them against you, for one thing. But if those friends have been freeloading off you for years, well, there are some upsides, too. We're seeing that as President Donald Trump's rough treatment of our European allies has driven them to huffily make steps to actually defend themselves rather than continue to rely on the American defense umbrella.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
There's No Incentive Like a Kick in the Rear
For years, Trump has pointed out that the prosperous nations of Western Europe have long free-loaded off of American military might to maintain their security—especially against Russia's threat from the East. He claims that, during his first term, he told NATO leaders if they didn't meet the alliance target of 2 percent of GDP on military spending per member, they'd be on their own. According to him:
One of the presidents of a big country stood up, said, "Well, sir, if we don't pay and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us?" I said, "You didn't pay. You're delinquent?" He said, "Yes, let's say that happened."
"No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. You got to pay. You got to pay your bills."
Those were rough words for supposed allies. They didn't stand alone. Since then, Trump has also threatened to acquire Greenland over the protests of Europeans, Denmark (which governs the island territory), and Greenlanders themselves. That's on top of his trade war antics which imperil the commerce that most effectively binds people together in peaceful relations. Such bullying has an impact.
"European governments and corporations are racing to reduce their exposure to U.S. technology, military hardware and energy resources as transatlantic relations sour," Politico's Nicholas Vinocur and Zoya Sheftalovich wrote last week. "At a weekend retreat in Zagreb, Croatia, conservative European leaders including [German Chancellor Friedrich] Merz said it was time for the bloc to beef up its homegrown mutual-defense clause, which binds EU countries to an agreement to defend any EU country that comes under attack."
"Military spending across the European Union is ramping up in what observers have noted is a significant and 'extraordinary' pivot from the comparatively placid postwar decades," Northeastern University's Tanner Stening observed last summer. "As part of the ReArm Europe plan, EU member states hope to mobilize up to 800 billion euros. In June, NATO leaders agreed to increase defense spending up to 5% of each country's gross domestic product by 2035."
'Enough Ammunition for Two Days of Battle'
Frankly, it's about time. In December 2023, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.K.—which is relatively well-armed for Europe—"has only around 150 deployable tanks and perhaps a dozen serviceable long-range artillery pieces" while "France, the next biggest spender, has fewer than 90 heavy artillery pieces, equivalent to what Russia loses roughly every month on the Ukraine battlefield." In worse shape was Germany, which "has enough ammunition for two days of battle."
To put this in context, the U.K., France, and Germany view Russia as their main security threat, yet all three countries are far more prosperous than Russia. Germany's economy alone is more than double that of the Russian Federation in GDP terms. There's no excuse for these countries' relative helplessness.
Making Progress on Self-Defense
But even before the Journal report and Trump's latest insults to Europe, our allies were—however grudgingly—taking steps to take on more of the load. In 2019, according to the NATO Secretary General's Annual Report, the U.S. share of the NATO alliance's collective GDP was 52 percent, but it made 70 percent of all NATO defense expenditures. By the latest report, for 2024, the U.S. share of NATO GDP was 53 percent, but its share of defense expenditures had declined to 64 percent. That's still a disproportionate burden for Americans, but an improvement over what went before.
"It goes without saying that this ramp-up is huge for Europe. It's always been a struggle reaching that 2% mark, and then to watch at the most recent NATO summit every nation with the exception of Spain promise 5% — it's just astounding," noted Northeastern political science professor Mai'a Cross.
Allied Defense Efforts Hobbled by Red Tape-Bound Economies
That said, there's still a problem built into those NATO numbers. Between 2019 and 2024, Americans' share of NATO defense expenditures fell. But our share of total GDP rose by one percent even as Finland and Sweden joined the alliance. The U.S. economy is fast outstripping the economies of our allies.
"In the period 2008-2023, EU GDP grew by 13.5% (from $16.37 trillion to $18.59 trillion) while U.S. GDP rose by 87% (from $14.77 to $27.72 trillion)," according to Tuft University's EconoFact. "Accounting for population, EU GDP per capita as a percentage of U.S. GDP per capita fell from 76.5% in 2008 to 50% in 2023."
Even America's hat, also a NATO member, suffers by comparison. "The productivity gap with the U.S. stands at about $20,000 per person a year, putting Canadians' wages roughly 8% below their U.S. counterparts," the Royal Bank of Canada cautioned in 2024. "Anyone who invested $1,000 in Canada's main stock index in 2000 would have $4,400 today; the same investment in the U.S. S&P 500 index would be worth $6000—a more than 35% difference."
Across the board, the main problem is that most of these countries have hobbled themselves with taxes and red tape. Utrecht University's Ricardo Martins wrote last September that "the EU increasingly embraces its role as a 'regulatory superpower,' exporting rules where it struggles to compete in innovation and economic dynamism." Many European officials recognize the challenge but struggle to get the state—or various states—out of the way. That means NATO nations other than the U.S. will continue to have problems assuming a larger share of the mutual defense burden.
But with the U.S. increasingly turning away from Europe, America's sometime allies on that continent have no choice but to take on more responsibility for defending themselves. It appears that, spurred by a brusque and hostile U.S. president, they're doing just that by spending more on their militaries. Their efforts would be even more effective if they accepted as much responsibility for creating the freedom that lets innovation and prosperity thrive and build the economic resources they need to be truly capable of self-defense.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Impotent question: And twat percentage of Europe and Canada's new military spending will have to be diverted, perverted, and pre-verted, in odor to protect and defend Greenland, from a certain egotistical orange bully, who wants to simply forcibly expand His Evil Empire, against the wills of the inhabitants of lands aggressed against?
0.
Next question?
Next question is where your "0" cums from. All fears here cum purely from the paranoid fever dreams of residents of Greenland, Denmark, and other cunt-cerned parties? They have absolutely NO reasons twatsoever, to fear Orange Creatures from Greedland?
And if so, twat is the basis of Your PervFected stance?
Your comments serve as a cautionary tale regarding the perils of alcohol abuse.
Fart-Hamster Guilty-Foul-Fowl... Your comments serve as a cautionary tale regarding the urgent need for brain-transplants for those lacking brains!
This is something fr worse than alcoholism. Incinerate it.
This is well past alcohol. Huffing turpentine maybe? Mainlining Sterno? Sucking on live 220V wiring?
Denmark owned the dope-smuggling Virgin Islands. Somehow (threat of asset-forfeiture?) Imperial Prohibitionist 'Murrica passed the Harrison Act and took all 346 sq km for its own in exchange for 3612 double eagles per sq km. At that rate, Greenland could be worth a little over 6.34 billion 1933 double eagles, which melts down to 212 million kilos of gold. At $162000 a kilo that comes out to enough folding money to probably interest the Danes in selling the entire subdivision. Has Trump offered $34 Trillion of other people's money for it?
There aren't 6.34 billion double eagles. The total number struck was about 174 million, and most were melted down in the 1930s.
Even though there aren't 6.34 billion double eagles, Dear Orange Leader (Bleeder of the peons) swill sell them to you anyway! Who is gonna impeach Him over this, or any other shit, anyway?
You’re not going to get anything coherent out of him. Hank is as senile as you are stupid.
If it's anything at all, then that would be convincing proof that Denmark is far from being any more "enlightened" as a society than West Texas or the Florida panhandle.
Diverting significant resources to "defend" an outpost of 60k people, 90% of whom who share no heritage with the native population of any of the European ethno-states and is located halfway around the world from some hypothetical "threat" which couldn't be resisted anyway if they devoted the entirety of the EU defensive effort to just holding the largest town on the island would be stupidity beyond even what Maxine Waters or AOC could dream up.
The primary reason why Denmark still "owns" Greenland is that until now, nobody else on the planet has seen any particular reason to want to take it. At least not enough to make any kind of issue of it. The alleged reasons why trump has claimed he wants it don't make a ton of sense as long as Denmark is an ally via NATO though; to the extent that it has strategic value, it would seem like the US would normally have been allowed to place whatever facilities are needed in the uninhabitable areas for the asking.
#libertarians4entanglingalliances
#libertarians4theMIC
Also,
Oh Noes!!!!
At some point, we might need to take out Western Europe's nuclear weapons capability, as we've done in other hostile Islamic countries.
Because that worked SO well for Ukraine? But bloviators gonna bloviate, I guess.
Did it work out well for Ukraine, whenObama and Biden sat back while Russia invaded?
There’s your problem.
"as we've done in other hostile Islamic countries."
No we haven't.
Ok fag.
The Libertarian Case for endless subsidies to foreign governments so they can pretend socialism works.
Uhhh .... what? He's pointing out the folly of subsidizing the EU. Who do you think is making any kind of case for continuing to subsidize them? The article has nothing to do with libertarianism either.
Right, so why is every instance of Trump pushing them to defense independence framed like he's malevolent for doing so? Sorry but TooSilly is so reflexively anti-Trump that he cannot help himself with the swipes even if the swipes detract from whatever point you think he was making.
So anything anti-Trump is somehow libertarian? Or is it anything pro-Trump?
Besides all that, the Trump bits are there to show why the EU has their panties in a twist. Trump is bullying the EU and making no bones about it. There aren't many Trump fanbois who object to it or deny it.
You've got TDS. It's a bipartisan affliction.
"So anything anti-Trump is somehow libertarian?"
Seems TDS causes reading comprehension issues.
Calling in a debt against a debtor is bullying?
So charge the debtor with fraud and throw them in jail? Would that be bullying?
Or as they decided to essentially void the agreement due to their default and have not shown any desire to back pay what they failed to pay previously, should the agreement be voided out and the parties involved simply walk away?
Being nice has failed, quit whining that the debtors abused the niceness and now need a massive kick in the ass.
So pushing your contractual partners to honor their part of the contract is now ‘bullying’?
It might be possible to do without the "bullying" tone, but whatever gets Europe to stop depending on us for their defense while also looking down on us for paying the cost of providing it.....
Now if we could just get the left to figure out that part of why our prescription meds cost so much is that we're getting gouged to subsidize other countries' price controls.
Social - it's not so much THAT he is pushing them to defense independence but HOW he is doing it. There are quite a number of things he could have done quietly to achieve the same end: pull out of NATO unilaterally; pull out of all other treaties with other nations; recall all of our Ambassadors and close all of our embassies and consulates around the world; stop sending foreign aid cash to the rest of the world; and stop attacking drug dealers and terrorists in the third world. Just for starters, I mean ...
Thanks maddow. At least you avoided holocaust references.
There is no way to end dependence except cut the source of dependence off retard.
Being nice has failed, quit whining that the debtors abused the niceness and now need a massive kick in the ass.
No, being nice has NOT failed. It was never tried. America has always enjoyed being Daddy Warbucks. Trump is NOT trying to cut Europe's umbilical cord, he's trying to negotiate a better deal and continue Europe's dependence on the United States. Stronger hegemony over Europe should not be the goal of the United States.
Calling bullshit, Obama tried being nice with his apology tour. Got him a Nobel prize and not much else.
Did he try to stop supporting Europe? I call bullshit back atcha.
So once again the issue is with th atyle, not the substance?
That's not what I said. I said if he wanted to wean Europe off the United States teat he was going about it the wrong way. But it's clear to me that he is NOT just trying to wean them off but, rather, trying to keep them dependent upon us with a better deal for us.
Yes, all of your suggestions are much ‘quieter’……….
Is a Marxist Venezuela technically still "third world"? Does the "second world"/Eastern Bloc still exist in any recognizable form?
Almost no Reason articles have anything to do with libertarianism
This is a nice quote.
Describes all bureaucracies to a T. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach (nonsense). Those who can't teach, export bureaucracy.
Regulatory blackmail becomes the virtual tariff
Being an asshole and causing military buildups is not a good thing.
Shut up asshole.
Walz +9
Thanks, 混蛋.
Having a massive centralized government power to project the asshole's authority and launch our military from is also not a good thing, yet millions of people just like you have been building that citadel brick by brick for decades, all with the BEST of intentions. Maybe you should look in the mirror occasionally instead hiding in your echo chamber.
You've just described Obama and Biden to a "T".
Fuck you you lying asshole.
Trump told them to pay what they are contractually obligated to pay, and what they agreed to pay.
Framing it any other way shows you are a lier, a retard, or both.
And why is the US subsidizing those loosers? They all hate the US why do we defend them?
Taking your rant seriously for the sake of argument (I'm playing devil's advocate here) we have been defending them to "protect the vital interests of the United States." Although this is a meaningless phrase which depends on quite a number of other false premises for its potency, the idea is that without Europe as a buffer against the eastern flank of our continent our security would be more difficult to maintain. Other fabricated props to this notion include securing our access to foreign oil, making the world safe for democracy and limiting nuclear proliferation. Once you see through the charade, it all falls apart.
So you played devils advocate while ignoring his entire argument. Amazing.
So why shouldn’t NATO members be forced to pay what they agreed to pay?
If we're going to continue to guarantee European security then they should be required to pay what they agreed to pay. How will you do that while continuing to subsidize their socialist societies? They will have to severely cut back their socialist programs in order to pay for their own defense at the same time as America will have to cut back our own social welfare programs and deficit spending.
"The U.S. economy is fast outstripping the economies of our allies"
But from reading reason, I have been told the US economy is the worst
Dude. It's obvious you don't actually read anything. This particular article is the author going on and on about the GOOD outcomes of a Trump policy, and you are still just pissing into the wind for no reason.
Correct, tuccile is going against the reason narrative. I'm wondering if jd reads the other people at reason.
Bitches and bitchers gonna bitch, bitch, bitch!!! If they have no reasons to do so, they will INVENT some!
Retard, we know you are incapable of reading about G3. Fuck off and die, asshole.
Is this rhetorical license? No Reason writer has said our economy is the worst. All of them to varying degrees have warned that our growth is being propped up by increasingly massive deficit spending. Each of them to varying degrees has pointed out that this is unsustainable and that we cannot know where the tipping point will be. Crashes are, by definition, sudden and without warning, usually precipitated by a general panic and sudden loss of faith in the currency. The only remedy for this unpredictability is to cut welfare spending, cut government size and regulatory scope, stop ALL deficit spending and divert less wasted government taxation from productive investments. Pointing out that Europe is even worse off in that swamp than we are is not a reassurance!
This is definitely something that Trump has done right. Combined with his desire to cut spending, I imagine we’ll see a decrease in the defense budget next year.
I don't want to see a decrease in the defense budget. I want the defense budget to go one hundred percent to the defense of the United States of America. I want to see a massive decrease in the other seventy-five percent of the socialist welfare spending.
Pretty sure the budget he submitted had all kinds of cuts, except military and immigration (naturally). Of course the GOPe and the Dems weren’t interested in that.
Didn't he basically ask for a 50% increase in defense spending, to $1.5Trillion?
'There are downsides to insulting and threatening friends and acting like a Mafia don slapping around his goons.'
Or maybe like an over-worked parent cutting off his free-loading kids and neighbors. You know, the ones always criticizing their benefactor.
"There are downsides to insulting and threatening friends and acting like a Mafia don slapping around his goons."
Wait, is this supposed to be a dig at Trump or at how European politicians have reacted to Trump?
"the commerce that most effectively binds people together in peaceful relations"
Although I do not buy Trump's premise for imposing tariffs on other nations, it is not true that this is a unilateral offense by the President. Europeans have been quietly abusing trade agreements by subsidizing their own socialist-style industries and imposing pseudo-tariffs in the form of quality and safety barriers for a very long time. When the US government responds by subsidizing our own industries, the Europeans have not been shy about taking us to the trade courts. More recently Europeans have been attempting to regulate our media platforms over free speech rights which, although certainly a grey area, was calculated to piss off the heavy hitters in American industry. So enough of the unwarranted sarcasm. You may not like his style of delivery, but pissing off Europe is not without merit. Obviously trade is preferable to war, but it's not anywhere near a sure thing, as Putin has massively demonstrated.
Europe is not finally taking responsibility for its own defense. They are not even taking step one on that. That would require that 'Europe' independently assess what the threat is and figure out approaches to deal with that. Right now they don't even have an institution within which they can talk about that and organize around it. Is it NATO? Is it the EU? Does 'Europe' even exist? If Europe exists does it have a foreign policy or does it just have a defense policy?
Instead they are just assuming the US has defined the threat correctly so the only option is simply to spend a ton of money and create a European MIC - as a vassal state of the US
If the whole Russia Ukraine war is fundamentally a truly European issue, then Europe will not start to have a defense policy until after they talk with Russia - without the US in the room
Is it the EU? Does 'Europe' even exist? If Europe exists does it have a foreign policy or does it just have a defense policy?
Speaking for the EU, it's not supposed to have a defense policy, military units or anything like that. It's "A Common Market" nothing more. NATO is the mechanism with which European countries who belong to NATO produce a defense policy. As far as a 'foreign policy' that's more vague, economic policy fits into the common market which intersects with trade policy etc.
War is the continuation of policy through different means. Institutionally, defense and foreign policy have to be linked.
NATO has no Europe. It requires domination by the US. That was its foundational purpose.
To give one example - there are now no arms control treaties that still exist. Those were all negotiated by the US and Soviets. For that region, any new arms control framework now needs to be negotiated by 'Europe' and Russia.
And Russia, literally, has no reason to negotiate anything as Russia OWNS the EU. They take away the oil and EU goes...well, even MORE dark than they already are.
Russia doesn't own the EU. They despise the USUK Atlanticist idea (not part of EU anymore anyway). They are suspicious/paranoid/manipulative about Western Europe. It is near impossible to know what they think long term about the former Warsaw Pact countries and the former Soviet Union except that those places cannot be hostile to Russia.
What is very clear is that as long as the EU submits to NATO's lead (which means the US lead), then there is no way 'Europe' can be seen as anything but the US poodle. If the risk is that 'Europe' has to play a balancing role in a bipolar area, well that's the risk they have to take anyway.
The US needs to accept being irrelevant if Europe is going to step forward into that vacuum. But Trump doesn't do 'irrelevant'. Which means HE is the one stoking Russia's anger toward Europe's poodle class.
Wa Trump gruff to the poor defenseless Euro trash, Yes but past Presidents being the acquiescent bitch for Euro trash wasn't getting anything done for a problem that was acknowledges for decades that Europe was not carrying its own weight. Being polite got us no where
False dichotomy. Continuing to subsidize European defense and socialist societies; or being rude, offensive, pugnacious and using a bluffing negotiating style are not the only options here. He could quietly go about DOING it as a third alternative, starting with notifying them that the US is withdrawing from NATO over the next year or so. The next step would be to "review" all existing foreign treaties with a view to phasing all of them out over the next year or so.
I could only imagine the pissing and moaning from all you brainwashed far left Democrat cultists if he did that. Face it, it does not matter how Trump did it, you would still be told to piss and whine.
Eurotrash meant nothing to the US until Teedy conquered Cubia an' th' dope-smoking Filipeens. Whin Teedy 'n Taft waterboarded the blackamoors and deported the chinee opium dealers, Imperial Qing dealers saw their chance, boycotted US trade and enlisted the NYC former Polis C'missioner as Wurrld opium Czar to stop Germany, UK 'n France from dumping morphine there and competing with Qing dope. Emboldened, the chinee fired their Imp'rer in time for the Balkan drug Wars to blossom into WW1. Euro loans then took on value measurable in dollars.
You call it bullying, you call Trump hostile and say he was slinging insults.
If the truth hurts so be it. Don't cry about the messenger for delivering the truth to those who have ignored it willfully for decades.
How many people are actually this nice to those whom have blatantly ripped them off, are in default of the agreements they made?
That would depend on what he is actually trying to achieve. If he wants to stop subsidizing European socialism and maintaining their military defense for them, all he has to do is STOP subsidizing Eureopean socialism and maintaining their military defense for them. He could notify them quietly behind the scenes that they have a year, for example, to figure out what they want to do without us, then pull the plug. On the other hand, if he is trying to "negotiate" a better deal for the US while we CONTINUE to subsidize their socialist societies and our military defense of their region, then his style has been "art of the deal" rude bluster and bluff and then back off. So which is it?
It would all be leaked by the EU leaders and Trump would be torn apart by the Marxist MSM. This way, Trump has some control over the narrative.
The MSM does not have the ability to tear anyone apart except for their own side in the culture wars. Control of the narrative is not important to anyone except him and his cheering section. Control of the narrative and $7.45 will get you a cup of bad coffee in Seattle. He has spent a huge amount of time and effort proving that no one can stop him from doing whatever he wants to do by Executive Order now that the Constitutional checks and balances are gone, only to back down whenever his "control of the narrative" fails to support him. Not impressed!
Good. Why should I pay for the defense of europe. They can afford their own defense.
After borrowing cash to beat The Accursed Hun, Eurotrash promptly sought to welch on the loans. Cal said nope, so they squeezed Germany and got paid in tonnes of paper marks. They then tried exporting dope directly to Dry America in submarines and floating hulks and that paid handsomely. But Bert Hoover forfeitures crushed the US economy. So Bert hired Harry Anslinger to get League Eurotrash to move in on Hun pharma. That generated WW2, so Uncle Sam was back in the lend-lease and loanshark business with the UN in NY, not Geneva.
The United States has been an ally towards Europe and Canada, however the prosperous Western European countries and Canada have not been allies toward the United States. They are been more like parasitic leaches.
While I've never been a Trump voter, he is correct about this. I do believe that he has been reacting hostility towards Western Europe and Canada, simply to light a fire underneath them. Ironically, Eastern European countries are more appreciative and pitch-in far more than the Western European countries do.
I'm not sure what Canada's problem, but it seems likely that it will fracture. Alberta is being taken advantage of economically in epic proportions and they are ideologically more aligned with the Western States below them than the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
If Alberta leaves Canada, then British Columbia might also follow as there are also more aligned with the Western States below them than the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
" the U.S. share of the NATO alliance's collective GDP was 52 percent, but it made 70 percent of all NATO defense expenditures."
That is because of the US military industrial complex.
No, it's because the Europeans weren't paying what they agreed to.
No, European countries just weren’t paying.
You really are a retarded fuck.
Amazing what happens when the U.S. stops agreeing to disagree with Europe.
So, Trump was successful. Thanks for the acknowledgment from Reason. I am surprised.
Now they have 6 dogsled teams in Greenland instead of 2, a 200% increase in defensive capability. Mainly to deter.... Trump.