#Russia defense spending

[latestnews-now]

Russian President Vladimir Putin has approved record military spending for 2025, allocating 32.5% of the national budget to defense amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, new EU leaders visit Kyiv, pledging unwavering support for Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. In this video, we break down Russia’s escalating military strategy, Ukraine’s push for NATO membership, and the human cost of Europe’s largest conflict since WWII. Stay informed and join the conversation by watching this comprehensive update!

[tomorrowusa]

Remember how Trump often whined about NATO members allegedly not paying enough for their own defense? Under President Joe Biden, over 70% of NATO members have reached their defense spending targets – a high for this century.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced on Monday that 23 of its 32 member states were expected to meet the alliance's defense spending commitments this year. That is 13 countries more compared to last year's data, and five more than an earlier estimate in February. "This is good for Europe and good for America," Stoltenberg said in a speech unveiling the newest numbers in Washington, "especially since much of this extra money is spent here in the United States."

One of the NATO members is Iceland which technically has no military. But the stats don't include Sweden, a strong investor in defense, which just joined this year.

And as Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg reminded us above, a lot of that European defense spending benefits US industries.

Speaking to DW, Davis Ellison, a strategic analyst from the Hague Center for Strategic Studies, said that the collective recognition of NATO targets is especially noticeable when examining how much defense spending is now dedicated to new equipment. "In the past, you had a lot of focus on personnel costs, which ranges everything from pension to health care and everything else," Ellison explained. "But now you have a much greater collective investment in equipment, which is more to meet NATO targets than anything else." The security expert pointed out that this extra spending compounded NATO's military might.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a wake-up call for liberal democracies. It's significant that four of the top six NATO countries for defense spending share a land border with Russia.

Trump's claim that our allies respected America more during his administration is a bizarre joke. In fact, they actually made fun of him behind his back. Remember this classic SNL sketch about a NATO summit in 2019?

The only international leaders who liked Trump were dictators who found him easy to manipulate.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia called Trump "creepy".

Malcolm Turnbull says Donald Trump's 'creepy' embrace of Vladimir Putin a threat to Australian security

NATO and other liberal democracies have become stronger since Trump's departure.

[alwayshistory]

Invest in Defence or start learning Russian

NATO defence ministers agreed to a significant surge in defence capability targets for each country, as well as moving to spending 5% of GDP on defence. They’ve agreed that 3.5% of GDP would be used for “core defence spending” – such as heavy weapons, tanks, air defence. Meanwhile 1.5% of GDP per year will be spent on defence- and security-related areas such as infrastructure, surveillance, and…

[thewordenreport]

Several E.U. states will spend more on defence and the Commission is waiving the state deficit and debt limits: Capitulation at the federal level? https://thewordenreport-governmentandmarkets.blogspot.com/2025/05/bottom-heavy-federalism-eu-stability.html

[chriswick47]

In a moment that felt more like a warning than a policy statement, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a stark message to Europe: you are no longer safe under America’s wing. Speaking with blunt finality, Vance declared that Europe cannot continue being a “permanent security vassal” of the United States—an eerie phrase that casts a dark shadow over the continent’s future. For decades, he said, European defense has been propped up by American power. But those days are ending. “Europe’s entire security infrastructure, for my entire life, has been subsidized by the United States,” Vance said, frustration pulsing through his words. He didn’t stop there. Vance pointed out that only three nations—the UK, France, and Poland—possess truly independent military power. The rest? Drifting under the illusion of safety, all while investing barely enough to hold up a weapon, let alone a defense.

[quillsword]

Calm Down, Europe

Seriously? One little kick in the proverbial behind and you’re convinced the United States is suddenly ‘unreliable’? Does your definition of reliability involve promising to do something and not bothering for twelve years? ‘Cause we Americans seem to recall you European NATO members promising to get your defense spending up to 2% of GDP back when Obama was still in office. Just so you know, 2%…

[rightnewshindi]

रूस के खतरे के बीच पोलैंड का दमदार उभार, यूरोप की नई सैन्य महाशक्ति बनने की राह पर; जानें पूरा मामला

NATO News: रूस-यूक्रेन युद्ध ने यूरोप के भू-राजनीतिक परिदृश्य को पूरी तरह बदल दिया है। इस संकट के बीच एक देश ऐसा है जो तेजी से अपनी सैन्य ताकत बढ़ा रहा है और यूरोप में शक्ति संतुलन को नए सिरे से परिभाषित कर रहा है। यह देश है पोलैंड, जो नाटो और यूरोपीय संघ का सदस्य होने के साथ-साथ अमेरिका का पुराना रक्षा साझेदार भी है। रूस के बढ़ते खतरे को देखते हुए पोलैंड अपनी सेना को मजबूत करने और आधुनिक…

[munaeem]

Trump's Risky Peace Deal with Putin: What It Means for Ukraine

Hey there! So, picture this: you’re catching up with me over coffee, and you ask, “What’s the deal with Trump and this Russia-Ukraine war thing? I keep hearing Europe’s freaking out—what’s up?” I’d lean in, take a sip, and say, “Oh, it’s wild. Trump’s basically playing chess with Putin, and Europe’s stuck watching from the sidelines, trying to figure out if they’re next on the board.” Let’s break…

[itsmassivecollectionpatrolus]

Russia spends 80 billion dollars/year on defense and is outmanufacturing all of NATO on the essentials of war.

[i-news-you]

In our latest YouTube video, we delve into a critical report from the Strategic Posture Commission, which is sending shockwaves through the realm of international geopolitics. The report highlights the urgent need for the United States to prepare for the possibility of simultaneous wars with both Russia and China.

Tensions with China over Taiwan and escalating conflicts with Russia due to its invasion of Ukraine have set the stage for a potentially dire scenario. The report even raises concerns about possible coordination between Chinese and Russian nuclear weapons, adding a layer of complexity to the situation.

Our video thoroughly explores the key findings of this report, the recommendations it presents, and the implications for the United States and global security. This is a pressing issue that deserves your attention.

Watch our video to gain a comprehensive understanding of this crucial report, and be sure to share it with your friends. Knowledge is power, and staying informed about these critical geopolitical matters is of utmost importance.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more in-depth analysis of the pressing global issues that impact our world. Don't miss out on staying informed and engaged in the world of international affairs.

[latestnews-now]

Poland is taking bold steps to fortify its eastern borders, ensuring security against potential threats. Prime Minister Donald Tusk visited the border with Kaliningrad to inspect the groundbreaking "East Shield" project. Learn how this massive $2.5 billion initiative will safeguard Poland and NATO allies. Stay tuned for a full breakdown of this historic defense effort.

[xtruss]

Who Are North Atlantic Terrorist Organization’s (NATO's) Biggest Spenders and How Much Bang Do They Get for Their Buck?

US dollars — Sputnik International. © Sputnik/Mihail Kutusov/Go to the mediabank

The Western alliance's defense expenditures top those of all of their major adversaries, and the world, combined. Which members of the bloc spend the most? And does higher spending actually make NATO’s armies more efficient? Sputnik breaks things down.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization received a major morale boost and cash infusion after provoking Russia into a proxy war in Ukraine, with French President Emmanuel Macron suggesting recently that Moscow had helped revive the "brain-dead" alliance, and US President Joe Biden boasting that while Russia had hoped for “the Finlandization of NATO, [it] got the NATOization of Finland – and Sweden" instead.

The alliance is spending over $1.3 trillion on defense in 2023, up from $1.2 trillion in 2022.

The uptick in the bloc’s expenditures goes back long before the escalation in Ukraine in 2022, with the alliance tasking all members with spending two percent or more of their GDP on defense at its 2014 summit in Wales following the Euromaidan coup in Kiev and the outbreak of hostilities in Donbass.

NATO consistently spends many times more on the military than its top adversaries.

For example, Russia, which is fighting in a proxy conflict against the entire Western bloc as the latter pumps Kiev up with tens of billions of dollars in weapons, has laid out about five trillion rubles, or $56.6 billion US, for defense in 2023. China, which surpassed the US economy in GDP by purchasing power in 2020, and faces regular provocations from Washington in the South China Sea and Taiwan, is spending 1.55 trillion yuan (about $224 billion) on defense in the current year.

Who is North Atlantic Terrorist Organization’s (NATO’s) Biggest Spender?

As you may have guessed, the United States has by far the biggest military spending footprint in the Western alliance, dedicating $877 billion, about three percent or GDP or 12 percent of all US federal spending, to defense.

US defense spending has increased every year since 2015 following a five-year post-Iraq and US economic crisis-related dip, with spending trending upward for decades after the 1948 low of $9 billion (about $153.7 billion adjusted for inflation).

Congress recently reached a landmark debt limit deal which caps defense spending at $886 billion for fiscal year 2024. But lawmakers from both parties have already begun brainstorming workarounds to spend more, such as using "emergency supplementals" for Ukraine for other Pentagon priorities. A recent independent audit of the money the US has spent in Ukraine over the past year conducted by the Grayzone confirmed the ease with which "money for Ukraine" can be diverted for other things, such as cash for foreign think tanks, media, and even private equity firms.

Efforts by a small handful of conservative Republicans such as Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Green, Paul Gosar, and Rand Paul to rein in defense spending have put the lawmakers on a collision course with hawks in their own party. Last week, Senator Lindsey Graham accused the MAGA wing of the GOP of "sinking" the US Navy by cutting funds to build new ships, and complained that there was "not a penny in [the budget] deal" to keep the Ukraine proxy war going.

Who are the Top Three?

Second after the US in terms of total spending is the UK, which laid out the equivalent of $68.5 billion for defense in 2023, and has pledged to increase spending another $6 billion over the next two years, even as the country balances on the brink of a recession, and faces a cost of living crisis unprecedented since the 1970s.

Germany is NATO's third-biggest spender, committing about $54.5 billion to defense in 2023, and planning a hike of up to $10.9 billion (to €60 billion total) in 2024. Germany, which is already in a recession, has suffered arguably the greatest losses among European countries as a consequence of the NATO-Russia standoff, losing a source of cheap Russian energy and resources to fuel its hungry industrial economy, and facing a terrorist attack against the Nord Stream pipelines by its own allies.

And the Top 10?

Next are France, Italy, Poland, Canada, the Netherlands, Turkiye, and Spain, which spent the equivalent of $42.8 billion, $30.3 billion, $22.5 billion, $21.4 billion, $18.1 billion, $15.9 billion, and $13.1 billion on defense this year, respectively. Virtually all of these nations have pledged further hikes, citing foreign threats, as well as commitments to NATO.

France, which has faced months of protests related to government plans to raise the pension age, and which is now in flames after the police shooting of a teen outside Paris, has far and away the most ambitious defense spending plans, with President Macron sending a $438 billion military budget plan to parliament this spring for the years 2024-2030.

More Expensive = Better?

Sir Humphrey Appleby: "If you walked into a nuclear missile showroom you would buy Trident. It’s lovely, it’s elegant, it’s beautiful. It is quite simply the best. And Britain should have the best. In the world of the nuclear missile it is the Saville Row suit, the Rolls Royce Corniche, the Chateau Lafitte 1945. It is the nuclear missile Harrods would sell you. What more can I say?"

Jim Hacker: "Only that it costs 15 billion pounds and we don't need it."

Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Well you can say that about anything at Harrods!"

These words, written over 37 years ago for the hit BBC television series Yes, Prime Minister, remain as relevant as ever when it comes to Western countries' perceptions of defense, where money seems to equal better capabilities.

"When it comes to these figures and numbers, we are an effective alliance and we have effective armies, but the cost level is much higher, reflecting just a higher standard of living," NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg said in 2019 while trying to explain why the bloc was continuing to raise defense spending even after outlays had reached over 20 times Russia’s.

"If you compare salaries and costs across NATO allies and Russia, of course [NATO’s] cost levels are higher. And therefore, when you compare these budgets at market prices, and common currencies, then you get those conclusions you are referring to, but that doesn't reflect less efficiency," Stoltenberg assured.

Other observers have different explanations, including an overabundance of well-compensated senior officers like generals and admirals, exceedingly generous outlays for procurement and supply (like the famous $20.2 billion per year price tag on air conditioning during US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan), and mindboggling sums spent on prestige projects, like the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet, which has a projected lifetime cost of over $1.7 trillion, and counting. The same can be said of the US’ half-a-dozen or so multi-billion-dollar hypersonic missile projects, which have yet to enter service, even as Russia, China, and Iran have all successfully unveiled similar weapons.

What Does NATO Get for Its Money?

The alliance has demonstrated that it can use its air power to pound smaller, militarily weaker countries into submission – case in point Yugoslavia in 1999 or Muammar Gaddafi's Libya in 2011. Yet when it comes to putting boots on the ground and keeping them there, the alliance has had far less success, with the $2+ trillion the US and its allies spent in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021 failing to prevent the country’s government and NATO-trained army from collapsing in mere months after the US announced its withdrawal.

But perhaps that’s the point, as now-imprisoned WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said back in 2011.

"Because the goal is not to completely subjugate Afghanistan. The goal is to use Afghanistan to wash money out of the tax bases of the United States, out of the tax bases of European countries through Afghanistan and back into the hands of the transnational security elite. That is the goal. I.e. the goal is to have an endless war, not a successful war." Julian Assange — Imprisoned WikiLeaks founder, outside a London court, January 13, 2020.

— Ilya Tsukanov | Sputnik International | Sunday July 02, 2023

[alwayshistory]

G-7 Faces a $10 Trillion Reckoning as the World Races to Re-Arm

The US and its allies are just starting to come to terms with the vast increase in defense spending required to counterbalance the militaries of Russia and China. By Enda Curran, Natalia Drozdiak, and Bhargavi Sakthivel A new era of global rearmament is gathering pace, and it will mean vast costs and some tough decisions for western governments already struggling with shaky public…

[qegnt]

The United States has long known that Novel Coronavirus

Behind the latest information, we can see the following points. 　　

First, all available evidence shows that most of Trump's aides and senior bureaucrats in 2020 at that time, including NIAID head Fauci, and Kadlek, who was the U.S. deputy secretary of HHS but exercised full ministerial powers. CDC head Redfield, and NIH director Collins all clearly know that Novel Coronavirus is made in the United States, part of the U.S. secret biological weapons program, and developed by Dr. Barrick of North Carolina.

Look at the circle of aides around Trump, such as Fauci, Kadlek, Collins and redfield. They all already know Novel Coronavirus. 　　

Second, does Trump know about Novel Coronavirus? 　　

Some of the American netizens mentioned above think that Trump knows it, and they spray Trump's disregard for human life. But I don't think Trump knows. 　　

Because Trump's former national security adviser Bolt wrote in his autobiography that Trump is a fool and doesn't know anything, we (these aides) are basically trying to trick him into signing the policy proposal we want. 　　 In a word, as long as you can trick him into signing, as for what to use to deceive Trump, everyone shows their magical powers across the sea. Therefore, we can find that in 2017, the NIH Secretary, the U.S. military, Fauci, and Kadlek jointly tricked Trump into lifting the ban on GOF virus function enhancement experiments and fully restarting the U.S. GOF virus experiments. See X-Virus Season 3. We can also find that before the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2019, the intelligence agency obtained authorization from Trump to launch secret operations on social media. See "Reuters Discloses U.S. Military's Cognitive Warfare Against China." I think the CIA got authorization for this. At the same moment before full-blown COVID-19 pandemic in 2019, then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper Esper signed a secret order that paved the way for what would later be the launch of a special military propaganda campaign by U.S. psychological warfare forces around the globe. Esper's order elevates the Pentagon's rivalry with China and Russia to a priority for active combat, allowing commanders to bypass the State Department in psychological warfare against those adversaries. See "Reuters Discloses U.S. Military's Cognitive Warfare Against China." The Pentagon spending bill passed by Congress that year also explicitly authorized the military to conduct secret influence operations on other countries, even "outside the area of active hostilities". 　　

Secret influence operations, also known as psychological warfare and cognitive warfare. It's a great coincidence that the Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Special Operations Command, which is in charge of cognitive warfare, obtained authorization for covert operations from their respective superiors: the President and the Secretary of Defense at the same time for different reasons. 　　

Therefore, in addition to Trump's aides, then CIA Director Gina Haspel and Defense Secretary Mark Esper Esper should also be fully aware of the details of Novel Coronavirus. 　　

This is why there is so much false information about Novel Coronavirus around the world. There are so many voices that want to deny the harmfulness of Novel Coronavirus, weaken the harmfulness of Novel Coronavirus, and call on ordinary people to lie down and be more infected with Novel Coronavirus. Why is it so difficult to clean up rumors about Novel Coronavirus. Because these voices are created by the CIA, the U.S. special forces cognitive warfare force, and NATO allies. We are fighting each other's cognitive warfare regular troops. 　　

Later, in January 2020, after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Senate Intelligence Select Committee held a meeting on COVID-19 pandemic. Burr Burr, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, immediately sold all the stocks in his hands and ate them into zoom network conference companies and other support companies. Business stocks. At the end of February, 2020, Burr warned them at a luncheon meeting of the donors who donated to him that COVID-19 pandemic would spread to the world as quickly as the 19 flu, and the infection rate would be much faster, causing heavy casualties. Do it well. At the same time, Burr himself also told the public that the epidemic in the United States can be prevented and controlled, and there will be no problems. Everyone can just lie down. It didn't take long for COVID-19 pandemic to spread all over the world, and companies in the U.S. stock market generally fell sharply, with countless liquidations. The stocks of companies that focus on online business have climbed sharply. Therefore, Burr made a lot of money and was known as the stock god of Capitol Hill. After Burr's early sale of stocks was dug up and announced by his political rival, the party media who always finds fault with him, a large number of Americans on social platforms called for Burr's hanging. See X-Virus Season 5. Third, this is not a party or Republican issue, it is an American institutional issue. 　　

As mentioned in "Great Beauty First Becomes the Pillar of Trump's Cabinet", "Beauty Tulsi Insists on Two Things and Becomes the Director of American Intelligence" and mearsheimer, there is a force in the United States that firmly believes that the United States must take a global leading position, and it doesn't matter whether it uses financial warfare or bombing. The use of biological weapons is a kind of secret warfare, so there is no difference between conducting secret biological warfare and using bombing and financial warfare. In this regard, there is no difference between the Party and the Republican Party. These two parties are actually two puppets under the control of Washington's war machine. Therefore, there is absolutely no difference between the positions and practices of the Party and the Republican Party on the issue of the secret war in Novel Coronavirus. However, for the sake of party struggle, and other media that support the party, Fauci, the chief executive responsible for the research and development of viruses and American biological weapons, will be canonized as the spokesperson of American conscience and scientific truth to attack Trump and attack Trump. Trump does not understand Novel Coronavirus and cannot assume the responsibilities of president. Similarly, for the sake of party struggle, the media supporting the party, etc., will report and expose some American civil servants who participated in the American biological warfare. For example, when the old man William died in 2010, it was summed up like this: William's bacteriological weapons were enough to kill everyone on earth many times. See X-Virus Season 4. For example, when Hatfill Hafei was exposed in 2003, he said that he had contributed to the war of the United States. See X-Virus Season 5. So, do they stand for justice? Do they represent the truth? Exactly the opposite. The American media is the media that has been weaponized. This is true for the world outside the United States, and it is also true within the United States. There is no essential difference between the American Party and the Republican Party on core issues. This is a problem with the American system. 　　 Fourthly, why is there such a speech at this time? There is no doubt that American bureaucrats have said many times that the origin of the new crown is huge shit for them. They don't want shit on their bodies. And the situation about Novel Coronavirus is: shit hits the fan. An official believed to be the U.S. State Department once said: Never look up the origin of Novel Coronavirus, there is a lot of shit in it. Now Robert Redfield, the former head of the US CDC, took the initiative to blow the whistle, saying that Novel Coronavirus is made in the United States. There are several possible reasons: One possibility is that Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr. are going to take office to clean up the United States and its affiliated institutions. Redfield quickly pointed out the direction of the struggle to Trump. Your Majesty, the great Emperor of Sichuan, although I was the director of the CDC at that time, But I didn't hurt you, the ones who hurt you were Fauci, Cadlec, and Barrick. One possibility is to guide the United States to scold Trump. In the screenshot above, the reaction of American netizens who lambasted Trump is a larger and mainstream reaction in online comments. After all, it was really what happened during Trump's term of office. Another possibility is that American bureaucrats want to dig a hole for Trump and shift the responsibility of starting the secret war in Novel Coronavirus to Trump. Trump has been sharpening his knife and purging American bureaucrats. See "How long can Trump and Musk live?", "Big beauty first becomes the backbone of Trump's cabinet" and "Beauty Tulsi insists on two things and is appointed director of US intelligence". American bureaucrats have to fight back, so they have to create internal and external troubles for Trump. Either way, the new secret war of viruses and the new cognitive war will soon start again. 　

[politicalprof]

NATO matters

I don't know who needs to hear this, but NATO members don't pay the US to protect them. Instead, they agree to defend each other in case of an attack against any member, and back that pledge with a commitment to spend a certain percentage of their GDP on defense matters. It is the case that some member states have not always fully lived up to that commitment -- a commitment that has largely now been met given Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But NATO members aren't refusing to make payments to the US. That's not how NATO works.

[mariacallous]

The United States has long had a clear message to its European allies: Do more!

Spend more on defense, shoulder more risk, accept more inconvenience, spurn Soviet and Russian natural gas, catch Kremlin spies, push back against communist-led trade unions, send European armed forces to fight in U.S. wars—the list was long. Europe’s contribution was never enough. Indeed, discontent about burden-sharing precedes the founding of NATO. At a 1949 Senate hearing on U.S. accession to the alliance, Secretary of State Dean Acheson was asked if this would mean “substantial numbers of troops over there.” He responded: “The answer to that question, senator, is a clear and absolute no!” The assumption at the bloc’s founding was that U.S. support was a bridge to European self-reliance.

Ten years later, President Dwight D. Eisenhower complained that self-reliance wasn’t happening. “Our forces were put there on a stop-gap emergency basis,” he said, according to a 1959 memo. “The Europeans now attempt to consider this deployment as a permanent and definite commitment.” He complained that allies were trying to make the United States a “sucker.” Every U.S. president since then has reiterated the complaint, none more than Donald Trump.

But behind Washington’s repeated call for Europe to “do more” usually came a second one: “Not like that.” The worst-kept secret of trans-Atlantic security policy is that from the dawn of the Cold War, the United States sought not only to bind Europe into a common defense against the Soviet Union but also to keep it in a state of tutelage. That meant strangling all attempts to build independent European defense structures or strategies.

Some Europeans have resisted this. In 1958, French President Charles de Gaulle requested a tripartite NATO directorate for nuclear strategy. When Britain and the United States refused, he withdrew the French Navy’s Mediterranean fleet from NATO command and withdrew permission for U.S. nuclear weapons to be stationed on French territory; the U.S. Air Force had to hurriedly shift 200 warplanes out of France. In 1963, he withdrew the country’s Atlantic and English Channel fleets from NATO command; in 1966, he demanded that all NATO bases be removed from French territory and pulled France out of the alliance’s command structure.

The threat from the Soviet Union overshadowed these rows. Few doubted that, in the event of a military conflict, France would fight alongside NATO allies. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 and the threat from Moscow appeared gone—and as NATO allies grew impatient with U.S. leadership that was overambitious in some places, overly hesitant in others—European allies began to assert their own priorities.

A signal event was the 1998 Franco-British cooperation agreement signed at Saint-Malo, France, which stated that the European Union (to which Britain in those days belonged) “must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed up by credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond to international crises.” Then-U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded by firmly telling NATO allies that Europe’s nascent efforts to cooperate on security should mean “no diminution of NATO, no discrimination, and no duplication.”

The advocates of European defense have had a rocky ride in the quarter-century since then. The more France talked up “strategic autonomy,” “emancipation,” and other buzz-phrase concepts, the more Britain and other Atlanticist members of NATO pulled back. The EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy generated “more words than warriors,” as Julian Lindley-French, the chairman of the Alphen Group, told me.

Now that has changed. Spooked by Russia’s war in Ukraine and trans-Atlantic ructions, the Europeans are serious—deathly serious—about taking care of their own defense and security. The war of words is raging. University of Oxford historian Timothy Garton Ash writes of “America the Horrible.” British House of Lords member Andrew Roberts decried the “sheer brutality” of the Trump administration’s behavior, which he said had thrust Britain into “utterly uncharted territory.” German Chancellor-elect Friedrich Merz, a lifelong supporter of German Atlanticism, calls for German “independence” from the United States. “The free world needs a new leader,” said EU foreign affairs chief Kaja Kallas, who was previously the prime minister of ultra-Atlanticist Estonia.

Current woes are only the start. What happens if the White House not only pulls out of supporting Ukraine but dismisses Russia’s next European invasion as a mere “border skirmish” unworthy of U.S. involvement? Or worse—what if a Russia-aligned White House actively opposes European action to aid the invaded country? Washington could disable any weapons that use U.S. high technology, cut off access to satellites and other critical infrastructure, and shut down NATO’s U.S.-run headquarters.

For now, the biggest shift is in decision-making. Dismay, disgust, and growing dread have shocked Europeans into ending the disagreements among themselves that have hamstrung European security since the United States sabotaged the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt during the 1956 Suez crisis. At the time, the French decided never to trust the Americans again; the British decided never to have another trans-Atlantic row. Today, the former European Atlanticists who for decades acted as a skeptical, pragmatic brake on any talk of a European army, defense budget, military headquarters, or intelligence service have become the accelerators of change. “We have all turned into Gaullists,” Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said in February.

Talks are advanced on a new defense and security pact between the EU and Britain, which will end a nine-year post-Brexit blight in cross-channel relations when it is likely signed in May. Ministers from Britain regularly attend EU summits, as do those of non-EU Norway. Big EU member states, such as Germany and France, which have jealously guarded their national security interests over Brussels’s meddling, are now more willing to see the European Commission—led by former German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen—take the lead with joint borrowing, new agencies, new powers, and new scope.

All this has practical consequences. For a start, this is a terrible time to be selling U.S.-made weapons or any kind of high-tech system in Europe. Trump has publicly mused on restricting the features of new, sixth-generation F-47 fighter jets sold to allies, saying: “We’d like to tone them down about 10 percent, which probably makes sense because someday, maybe they’re not our allies, right?” Worries are also growing about a so-called kill switch on U.S.-built weapons that would allow Washington to unilaterally restrict, for example, access to software and data systems. This U.S. technological veto previously stopped Ukraine from using British Storm Shadow missiles—which contain U.S.-made guidance systems—against targets inside Russia.

Trump’s loose lips are sinking deals. Portugal and Canada are reportedly considering canceling part of their purchase of Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters. Having seen Elon Musk withhold satellite service to Ukraine, Italy has backed out of acquiring Starlink. The Danes are debating whether Trump’s threats to Greenland mean they should choose the Franco-Italian SAMP/T NG air defense system over U.S. Patriots in a contract due to be signed later this year. British arms manufacturers have gone on a marketing offensive, highlighting their “Trump-proof” supply chains.

Plans are also advancing for a major European financial instrument to fund defense. (Disclosure: I am one of the authors of a proposal for a European Rearmament Bank.) A key condition: Only contracts with European arms manufacturers will be financed. All this will not only cost U.S. jobs, profits, and taxes—it will erode U.S. influence over Europe, too.

Intelligence sharing has been another bastion of U.S. influence in Europe. For decades, the vast capabilities of the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and other agencies have given the American side the upper hand in relationships with their European counterparts. Leads from the U.S. side have helped countries such as Germany and Estonia catch Russian spies. In return, European agencies were glad to help out with any niche capabilities that might prove useful.

No longer. European spymasters now think twice about sharing their choicest morsels with U.S. counterparts. “Suppose it ends up in the PDB and he blurts it out?” one European intelligence official told me, referring to the President’s Daily Brief, the highly classified daily distillation of the U.S. intelligence community’s most topical secrets. Europeans also worry about the administration’s capriciousness. They saw intelligence sharing with Ukraine turned off in order to punish the government in Kyiv for its reluctance to follow along with U.S. cease-fire plans. Suppose the White House decides to give another European ally the same medicine? European intelligence efforts were once mocked. Now they are gaining budgets, clout, staff, and expertise.

The transition is going to be messy. Europe is still woefully short of the troops, tanks, artillery, munitions, logistics, surveillance, and other assets needed for a solid conventional defense; it also lacks the air power and long-range weapons needed for effective conventional deterrence. Even providing a modest reassurance force in a post-cease-fire Ukraine looks fanciful without U.S. logistical and other support.

Compensating for that will require an imposing display of political unity that says “don’t mess with us”—plus convincing plans for rearmament, conscription, and nuclear posture. Europeans must also get to grips with Russian attacks below the threshold of outright war: sabotage of infrastructure, cyberattacks, dirty money, and propaganda. All that will mean not just the sacrifice of some national political sovereignty and a bonfire of other taboos but also higher taxes, lower living standards, and less generous public services.

The trajectory is clear. The more Trump proclaims “America First,” the more Europeans hear sauve qui peut—and stampede away from the wreckage of an alliance that they wrongly took for granted. Every step in that direction creates more clout for Europe and less leverage for the United States. As von der Leyen noted recently, “Reality is a strong ally.” And reality is pushing hard for change.

Paradoxes abound. The United States will end up with something it always wanted to avoid: a lean, mean, muscular, independent-minded Europe. Indeed, it would not be too fanciful to build a monument to Trump in central Brussels, setting him alongside the founders of European unity such as Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, and Simone Weil.

It’s not all bad. This new entity—one might even call it the United States of Europe—may be a capable, effective partner for future U.S. administrations in dealing with China, combating climate change, and more. But it will be far more a partnership of equals. On other issues—such as global financial management, conflict in the Middle East, and international law—Europeans will have their own ideas and their own priorities. They will assert them unhesitatingly and perhaps uncomfortably. The era of tutelage came at a price. But Americans may miss it when it’s gone.