I've been musing about the varying attitudes Europeans and North Americans bring to the NATO meeting now happening in Brussels. Americans, in particular, view the European unwillingness to spend for their own defense as "free riding" on the U.S. taxpayer, a sort of "let Uncle Sam provide our defense, since he's rich and willing" view.
Europeans take the attitude that, had they not spent lavishly on social programs in the post-war years, their populaces very likely would have gone Communist. This with the result the Soviets would have won the Cold War.
In the immediate post-war years of the Marshall Plan, their view was likely true. Has it been true at any time since 1965? I think not. Meaning they've spent the last 50 years being dependent on our military to keep the Russian bear at bay, spending their resources instead on "free" this and that for their people.
Another argument you hear from Europeans, more formerly than currently, is that when they had real military strength they used it to kill each other wholesale, concluding with two world wars. By relying on the U.S. they've been too weak to do each other any harm and have therefore remained at peace. And because they've been at peace, we have been too at least in Europe, for over 70 years - maybe a record.
Still, for rich countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, and perhaps France, there is little excuse for their failure to contribute robustly to NATO. The days when the unofficial motto of NATO was "keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down" are over. Today's German military is a laughingstock.
Trump has announced a new day for NATO and, described by someone as a "mercantilist," he's looking for a deal that feels fair to our side. If Germany doesn't want to stand up a meaningful defense force (which they don't currently have), they need to pay the full, amortized cost of our defending them, to include the eventual pensions for our career soldiers. I believe they'd find the bill staggering. I know we do.
