By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The EU’s new military program, projected to exceed $800 billion by 2030, prioritizes bolstering Europe’s defense industrial base through increased intra-European procurement. This initiative strategically excludes the U.K. while including South Korea and Japan as partners. The program’s impetus stems from a recognition of Russia as a threat and broader geopolitical concerns, including shifting American strategic focus. This shift reflects a desire for greater European autonomy in defense matters.
Read the original article here
Trump’s cozy relationship with Vladimir Putin has undeniably cost the United States a major defense deal, pushing Europe to increasingly shut the US out of crucial defense planning. This isn’t just about lost sales; it’s a significant blow to American influence and global standing.
The blunt truth is that years of unpredictable behavior and seemingly pro-Putin stances have eroded trust among America’s European allies. These allies now see a clear and present danger in relying on a nation whose leadership appears willing to prioritize its relationship with Russia over its commitment to its own allies. The once-unquestioned flow of billions of dollars in arms contracts to American defense contractors is drying up, replaced by a growing preference for alternative sources.
This shift isn’t simply a knee-jerk reaction; it’s a calculated decision based on a realistic assessment of the current political landscape. European nations are prioritizing their own security, and in doing so, they are actively reducing their dependence on the United States. This self-preservation instinct has far-reaching implications, beyond the immediate economic impact on American defense companies.
The financial consequences are staggering. For years, American arms manufacturers have profited handsomely from European defense contracts. Billions of dollars in sales, historically a significant portion of the EU’s defense budget, are now at risk. This financial loss reverberates through the US economy, impacting not only major defense corporations but also numerous smaller businesses throughout the supply chain.
Moreover, this loss goes beyond mere dollars and cents. The erosion of trust has damaged America’s soft power—its ability to exert influence through diplomacy and cooperation. This is a crucial element of foreign policy, and its erosion weakens America’s position in international affairs. The US is losing its ability to shape global events and decisions, and this loss can have long-term, potentially irreversible consequences.
The situation is particularly concerning considering the growing global uncertainty. Europe is increasingly reliant on its own capabilities and those of its allies. However, this development also represents an opportunity for the EU to forge its own path, strengthening its internal capabilities, and demonstrating an independence that was once unthinkable.
Some suggest that Trump’s actions might have been a calculated risk, a deliberate attempt to undermine American global influence to serve Russia’s interests. The consistent pattern of behavior, favorable to Putin, certainly lends itself to such interpretations. Whether this is a deliberate plan or merely a manifestation of profound political miscalculation is a question for historians to debate. The impact, however, is unequivocally negative.
The damage done is more than financial or political; it’s also reputational. America’s reliability as a security partner is now seriously questioned. This doubt isn’t easily repaired; it requires consistent effort and demonstrable commitment to rebuilding trust. But this could take years, even decades, and it might never be fully restored.
The impact extends beyond Europe as well. The precedent set—a major ally questioning America’s commitment and actively seeking alternatives—could embolden other nations to do the same, further weakening the United States’ global position. It is a turning point, not just in transatlantic relations, but in the global balance of power.
It’s a chilling reminder that foreign policy decisions have long-term ramifications. The assumption that America’s dominance in the global arms market is unassailable has proven to be dangerously naive. The consequences of prioritizing personal relationships over national interests and strategic alliances are now painfully apparent. The question remains whether this damage is repairable, and if so, at what cost. This is a crucial moment for the United States, demanding a reassessment of its foreign policy and a long-term commitment to rebuilding damaged trust.