Arguably, if Europe is a bunch of dependents reliant on the US for their defense, we gain considerable leverage over them and can induce them to favor US interests. Yet the better arrangement obviously is that they pay their share of defense costs.
“and can induce them to favor US interests.”
That would be nice, but we never do it. We always seem to forego our interests in favor of everyone else, even our enemies.
A couple things there.
First, one must remember the context of Trump’s original statement. He had called for the delinquent NATO countries to ante up, and they had just snickered at him. Live, on camera. Trump haters were yuckking it up, with their “no global respect for Trump” argument.
Also, a pretty good guess would be that the leader Trump was talking about would be from one of the biggest slackers, Germany being biggest / the worst example. (Big, powerful economy, wealthy, down around 1.3% of GDP for defense...) But Germany (or almost any other probable target of Trump’s ire) has other countries between it and Russia who DO pay more for defense. Germany, Spain, etc., are / were highly unlikely to be attacked by Russia. So, Trump’s threat was just bluster and rhetoric, and not even very good bluster and rhetoric. Germany in particular was a huge partner of Russia — “do what they want” would not include an attack by Russia in the 1st place.
The other point I keep making here on FR, is that NATO continues to be set up for the USA to be the big dog for a reason few like to or are honest enough to discuss publicly. In a disrupted, lack-of-security environment, a fracturing or fractured Europe armed up heavily (and probably arming even further as things deteriorate) becomes, imo, the most dangerous place on Earth. Granted that most of Europe would have to follow for some time the example currently being provided by the Poles, to get to such a point. But history suggests that at some point such a swing is likely. And fear can be a great motivator, if the US bows out of the scene...