I note that JD did not make a single reference either to the structure of NATO or to the delinquency of NATO members on their 2% contributions. Rather the entirety of his speech was focused on immigration and the failure of politicians to adhere to their constituents desires because those desires could not be made manifest due to suppression of free speech and opinion.
The issue of delinquency by NATO members is not new, indeed it has been subject of complaints by American presidents for several cycles now. Even Trump's more strident demands have not resulted in murmurings by NATO members that they might break the treaty. Nothing from Germany the champion among European nations in their outspoken emniity toward America.
Therefore to the degree that the article cites payment of dues as the real causus Belli among the NATO nations, I think it misleads us.
On the other hand, Vice President Vance's allegations concerning suppression of speech and opinion by the member nations drew a furious response. This came on the heels of the gauntlet Vance had thrown down only a few days before in Paris at the AI Summit in which he declared that the United States would not be subject to unfair regulations or even prohibitions done in Europe that purported to affect America's corporations or America's individuals exercising American understanding of free speech.
Vance was not fastidious nor diplomatic in either speech. It was clearly a demarche and was accepted as such by the elitists in these halls who heard them. Some say that the rank-and-file of Germans and Europeans who do not qualify as "elitists" found much to support in the speeches.
I believe Trump and Vance were saying that if Europe is to continue on its path of unbridled immigration and totalitarian suppression of opinion and speech, a line will soon be crossed beyond which the United States will not be willing to guarantee the security of NATO. At that point Europe will not be worth defending.
I believe the European elitists understood this as well. Neither side explicitly drew that line in the sand but it is, I think, the real root of the problem and the bitterness. I think those elitist were offended because it strikes at the very basis of their power.
Let us assume for sake of analysis that matters have got to the point that Europe is actually considering its own security setup.
They may daydream but they will not come close to effectuating any realistic military force. They will not pay for it, they will not submit to it, they will not agree to be commanded by a supreme Commander. Without the United States such an undertaking is virtually hopeless.
Therefore, I expect a lot of moral outrage and even perhaps a sham of a European armed force to be created but no effective agency capable of defending Europe. There will be talk but in the end Europe must submit to the leadership of the USA or leave itself vulnerable to the Bear, now aligned with China.
So the question becomes, how far will Trump push Europe on these issues that I believe are at the root of the problem?
