US to EU - You want defence? Pay us!

The European Union is an enemy, the US President said. And in order not to think that he was mistaken, he repeated the statement. Moreover, this is just one of the critical and bold statements he has addressed to the EU last week. These statements are followed by the economic war announced by the EU this year. They are compatible with each other and with actions. If the United States had a single policy, internal or external, Trump's statements could be said to reflect US policy towards the EU. And then we could ask ourselves whether this policy is new or is only a new term given to it by Trump.

source: US-EU

Let us first look at the political theater of the last days, the peak of which was the meeting of Trump and Putin. On the one hand, Trump was performing either genuinely impassioned or used shocking crudeness in order to confuse his enemies. On the other hand, in the role of EU leaders, there were delicate, sterile and colorless characters, which are mostly driven by people's repulsion and mockery.

They tried to tell Trump that they were allies and friends, and that they should appreciate and treat them with kindness. We would like to discuss the growth of "Iliberalism", the Russian threat, the attempts to break the EU (of course not from the US side), to strengthen the combat readiness of "the largest military alliance" NATO, and Trump has come for money - nothing more sophisticated than a person full of drama from some American mafia movie.

source: Socrates-Quote

If you want our protection, pay! For defense, you will give 4 percent of GDP (from the pockets of European taxpayers to US military industrial enterprises accounts)! Russian oil and gas are a means of political influence of Moscow, so you will buy more expensive American fuel, not theirs! No negotiations. No verification of the incorrect data to support any statements. No talk about democracy and Western values. What counts is what counts.

This is not banalizing the US President and his relations with the EU. It is, of course, a departure from a ritualized Euro-American policy. The free market, not on the ideological and rhetorical, but on a realistic political level, is no longer a fundamental regulatory mechanism. If you are less and less economically competitive, but you still have a lot of army, you still can take foreign wealth out of their hand.

source: Defense spending

source: Defense Spending as a Percent of GDP

All the brutality of American politics and the misery of the European politics are shown. If Western Europe had been under American supremacy since the end of the Second World War, on what basis can the most sophisticated set - or the generation - of European politicians, expect hegemon to be treated as equal partners? As long as the US military is stationed in Europe, under any pretension or with any justification, it is absurd to think that the Americans will set their policies to the needs and desires of Europeans.

That's how it's been seventy years. It is becoming more and more evident now that the power relations in the world are changing. The post-war regime in general, and in particular the post-war constitution of Western Europe, was of American interest. Certain political forces in Europe have lived out of it and have either gained or become corrupt. The less democratic legitimacy and credibility they have, the less it is now for them to change. But the order that ruled in Europe after the Second World War dictated and shaped the US in its own interest, not European "Atlantis". Western Europe was of strategic importance in the US Cold War against the Soviet Union. But this European privilege cost America well. The Cold War economically exhausted not only the Soviet Union, but also the United States. The policy that the US took over after the Second World War, the ideological forms and the political and economic structures built during the Cold War, and their malignant growth after the fall of the Soviet Union led the country into a dead end. While the US military is active in all parts of the world, while on an average every hour, for almost twenty years, five American bombs explode. While their country... implodes.

It seems that maintenance of cold-war infrastructure is becoming unsustainable. While Trump is forcing European countries to pay for US military services, if they want to use them. they retaliate America's retrograde forces as "the core of the American-led liberal world." This liberal world under the American command was more or less well described as "globalization". Globalization always had two hands. One was the "invisible hand" of economic theology, a metaphor for the free market. And the other was a weapon. If the invisible hand gets weaker, than the stronger hand becomes fully armed.
It seems that we have reached the point where an armed hand costs more than an invisible one brings. There are no economic calculations over the level of selected corporations. This will continue until the winners have enough political power and influence. If they will succeed, it's "very likely" we will be in war. The defence of the "America-led liberal world" is leading to World War

Eurocrats cling to the NATO alliance as a drunk people cling to the fence. Without this military alliance, they will fall. Trump's attack on European nations has a bright platform: the continuing existence of NATO is questioned. The dismantling of such cold-like structures, which became the infrastructure of globalization, would be some kind of beneficial. The problem with Trump is that it does not distinguish between the structures of globalization and institutions of international order and he destroys both of them.