XPost: alt.tv.pol-incorrect, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics
XPost: alt.politics.usa

Former U.S. President Donald J. Trump's threat to let lapsed NATO countries fend for themselves has exposed political elites as more incensed by populist rhetoric than by the results of their own longstanding failures.

Proving that point, NATO leaders vowed to retaliate by doing what they should have been doing for 75 years: raising military spending.

They call it the "Trump containment strategy."

Trump calls it mission accomplished.

Every U.S. president since George Walker Bush (No. 43) has engaged in "constructive dialogue" over Europe’s lackluster defense spending, only to be met with promises as hollow as the barrels of the machine guns they never bought.

The sophisticated economies of the West, with their GDPs bloated from peace dividends, seem inherently incapable of pulling their own weight, no matter
how dark the shadows grow on their borders.

Trump's "bad cop, worse cop" routine, derided by many, is perhaps the only language the lethargic behemoth of NATO understands.

My only frustration is that those words _should have come from President Joe Biden_.

They would be even more effective, as evidenced by how welcoming NATO allies were of Obama's reassurances about Russia back in 2012.

Trump's unorthodox methods have previously forced issues like border security and the risks of energy dependence on Russia — and trade dependence on China
— to the forefront of global dialogue.

His approach, unencumbered by the niceties of diplomacy, has a way of
embedding truths into the collective consciousness that, over time, even his fiercest detractors find difficult to ignore.

Smothered by the screams of outraged elites lies an undeniable truth: Trump’s doctrine, in many ways, has forced a reassessment of longstanding policies
that left the West vulnerable, which decades of polite diplomacy could not.

Jens Stoltenberg, the pacifist long asleep at the helm of NATO, denounced Trump’s comments, but not a Europe that has lost the will to defend itself, having trouble keeping within the lines of NATO’s paint-by-the-numbers
security strategy.

The reliance on Article 5 as Europe’s first line of defense is as misguided
as it is dangerous, not just for NATO but for global security.

With a GDP eleven times that of Russia, European leaders should rightfully be called out for their lack of civilizational values, by ignoring their defense commitments and the crippling opportunity cost of the continent’s outlandish indulgence in environmental and social welfare policies.

The question Europeans should be asking is not whether the US leaders would defend them, but whether their own leaders would.

The notion that Europe's defense policy is reckless is not an understatement.

Recent events, such as the failure of the UK's flagship aircraft carrier
during a major NATO exercise and the German Army's training with broomsticks due to equipment shortages, highlight the laughable readiness of its make- believe military forces.

The lack of enthusiasm for military careers has prompted countries like
Latvia, Croatia, and even the UK to reconsider conscription.

The haphazard approach to Europe's defense strategy extends well beyond military unreadiness.

Sweden recently decided to join NATO on a whim, Dutch defense contractors are being dragged through courts, Ireland is flirting with ending its neutrality, and Poland is openly considering the acquisition of nuclear weapons — moves that significantly increase the continent's security concerns.

Within this context, it becomes evident that Trump's message was not aimed at NATO’s eastern border allies, which, with the exception of Bulgaria, all meet the 2% GDP defense spending threshold.

It is also evident that Putin wouldn’t bypass these nations to target the "freeloaders" like Italy or Spain.

France and the UK, equipped with substantial nuclear deterrents, presumably possess the capability to retaliate against Moscow in the event of an attack.

Therefore, Trump's message seems to be particularly focused on Germany, the continent's industrial titan and NATO’s most notable freeloader.

The problem is that NATO was created, in part, to prevent a remilitarized Germany.

And from personnel shortages to acute deindustrialization, enhancing
Germany’s defense capabilities seems to be an insurmountable task. Recently, the country's leading defense contractor indicated that it could take up to a decade to replenish just the ammunition expended in Ukraine.

NATO has afforded the United States unparalleled benefits in terms of
security and trade.

However, it was established at a time when the U.S. accounted for 50% of the global economy, whereas now it accounts for less than 25%.

For years, the U.S. establishment has been content with the status quo within NATO, recognizing that a self-sufficient Europe might dilute American
influence on the continent.

Criticism of Trump's NATO doctrine, which dismisses it as an isolationist provocation offering nothing new or beneficial for U.S. policy, overlooks the results his unorthodox methods have achieved in spurring significant policy revisions in other areas.

Trump is not signaling that the U.S. will be less militarily reliable in the future.

On the contrary, urging Europe to assume greater responsibility for its
defense is the best way to ensure improved readiness and enhanced deterrence
to meet the complex geopolitical challenges of this century.

Decades of an "international rules-based order" have failed to encourage Germany and others to rise to that task.

With Putin dragging the world closer to World War III, that failure was
exposed as the greatest threat to the future of mankind.

Trump may inadvertently serve as the catalyst Europe needs to break its
defense lethargy and ensure a safer, more sustainable, and viable future.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)