The Trump administration's foreign policy gambits can be baffling: Why rename the Gulf of Mexico? What is this fixation on annexing Greenland? Does anybody really want to find out what happens if we add Canadians to the U.S. Senate? But the president is right that allies have been allowed to shift the costs of their defense to the United States for decades, and they've relied on the U.S. to resolve what are largely European problems. With the U.S. government spending far beyond its means, it's time for our NATO allies to step up, as U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently suggested.

Blunt Word for Europe

"The United States remains committed to the NATO alliance and to the defense partnership with Europe, full stop," Hegseth, who served as an infantry officer in Afghanistan and Iraq before taking high-profile roles with Fox News and then with the Trump administration, commented last week at a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group held in Brussels. "But the United States will no longer tolerate an imbalanced relationship which encourages dependency."

Hegseth went on to say that any security guarantees negotiated for Ukraine after almost three long years of war between that country and invading Russian forces "must be backed by capable European and non-European troops," but only "as part of a non-NATO mission….To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine."

But what really brought the message home for attendees was when the U.S. defense secretary emphasized that America has security obligations throughout the world, particularly regarding China. That means, with NATO, the U.S. would focus on "empowering Europe to own responsibility for its own security." To that end, Hegseth urged U.S. allies to exceed the 2-percent-of-GDP target for defense spending set by the alliance—which most fail to meet—and to aim for 5 percent.

Hegseth's speech threw "the world's biggest military alliance into disarray," according to the A.P. But the message wasn't unanticipated, nor was the reality of competing demands on American resources entirely unappreciated. France's President Emmanuel Macron quickly called a meeting of European leaders "to discuss European security." NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte agreed Europe and Canada "have not paid enough over the last 40 years…. The U.S. is rightly asking for a rebalancing of that."

Poland, which has historical reasons to fears Moscow's intentions, is already near the 5 percent target for defense. Last March, Poland's President Andrzej Duda praised the U.S. role in defending Europe and supporting Ukraine, but asked other NATO countries to join his country in building military capability.

Unequal Commitments to Defense

At least since the end of the Cold War, most European countries have skated by on minimal military expenditures, counting on the United States to handle any threats that might emerge. That situation continued even after Russian troops poured into Ukraine.

"The British military—the leading U.S. military ally and Europe's biggest defense spender—has only around 150 deployable tanks and perhaps a dozen serviceable long-range artillery pieces," The Wall Street Journal reported in December 2023. "France, the next biggest spender, has fewer than 90 heavy artillery pieces, equivalent to what Russia loses roughly every month on the Ukraine battlefield. Denmark has no heavy artillery, submarines or air-defense systems. Germany's army has enough ammunition for two days of battle."

NATO's last annual report revealed the U.S. represents 53 percent of the GDP of all countries in the alliance. But the U.S. makes 67 percent of alliance defense expenditures. NATO sets a goal for members to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Even with rising tensions, only 11 of the alliance's 32 members hit that benchmark in that report (the next report should show more meeting the goal).

Among the countries not hitting the 2 percent mark are Canada, France, and Germany—all wealthy countries that could significantly contribute to the alliance's defense. Germany claims to have hit the 2 percent target in its latest budget. But Canada's government reportedly told NATO that it "will never" hit the target. Writing about that admission, The Washington Post's Amanda Coletta noted that "nearly all of Canada's 78 Leopard II tanks 'require extensive maintenance and lack spare parts.'"

In supporting Ukraine, European countries gave somewhat more than the U.S. But Europe emphasized financial and humanitarian aid, so the U.S. has offered slightly more military assistance at €64 billion ($67.1 billion U.S.) compared to Europe's €62 billion ($65 billion U.S.), according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economy.

The U.S. Can't Afford To Continue as Europe's Protector

As Hegseth emphasized in Brussels, the U.S. has security concerns around the world, especially in the Pacific with China, while European worries are more regional. But the U.S. has another big concern: The federal government spends far too much. After entitlements, defense spending is a major recipient of tax dollars—or, more accurately, of money borrowed from the future given the massive deficit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "the federal budget deficit in fiscal year 2025 is $1.9 trillion. Adjusted to exclude the effects of shifts in the timing of certain payments, the deficit grows to $2.7 trillion by 2035." Debt will also soar if the gap between spending and receipts continues.

Last year, the Cato Institute broke down federal spending, showing that Medicare, Medicaid, and other health entitlements make up 28 percent of the federal budget, Social Security is 22 percent, defense and income security account for 13 percent each, and net interest on the debt is 11 percent. Everything else makes up the remaining 13 percent. It's going to be very difficult to balance the federal government's books without addressing entitlements and defense spending.

Undoubtedly, with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) turning its attention to the Pentagon, loads of waste, fraud, and abuse will be uncovered. But it's impossible that so much financial mismanagement will be uncovered as to make up for trillions in deficits all by itself. Some priorities will have to be rejiggered to get spending controlled.

So, Hegseth's blunt reminder to Europeans that their continent is their responsibility to defend is justified. Countries that together almost equal U.S. GDP and are mostly clustered together should be making more serious arrangements for their own defense.

Not all Trump administration pronouncements were so well-considered. The U.S. reportedly plans to meet with Russian envoys to discuss Ukraine's future—without inviting Ukraine or European allies. That's presumptuous and runs the risk that Ukraine just won't stop fighting if it doesn't like the terms.

In response, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for the creation of an "armed forces of Europe" to defend the continent. French President Macron's security meeting suggests Europeans are thinking along similar lines.

That could work out for everybody except the Russians. If Europeans assume greater responsibility for defending their continent and for supporting Ukraine, Washington, D.C. would likely be very happy.

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT

Trump administration's mixed messaging on foreign policy leaves world guessing

A cracked windscreen forced US Secretary of State Marco Rubio into a rapid U-turn as his plane, en route to the Munich Security Conference, had to turn back an hour into the flight.

America's top diplomat, his senior officials and the travelling press returned to Andrews Air Force Base near Washington DC on Thursday night.

But despite the mid-air scare the news was already firmly elsewhere. In Europe, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had stunned America's allies with a speech setting out what many saw as a series of concessions Ukraine would have to make to sign any peace deal with Russia brokered by President Trump.

Hegseth said it was "unrealistic" to think Ukraine could win back its sovereign territory occupied by Russia, as was its demand for Nato membership, adding it was up to European and not US troops to keep the peace.

Critics, including some Republicans in Washington, castigated the speech, saying it gave away all of Ukraine's leverage ahead of any negotiations. It was, they argued, a US capitulation to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"It's certainly an innovative approach to a negotiation to make very major concessions even before they have started," said former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt, who co-chairs the European Council on Foreign Relation, a think tank.

The following day, Hegseth wound back some of what he had said. He clarified that all options were in fact still on the table for Trump to use as leverage between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

"What he decides to allow or not allow is at the purview of the leader of the free world, President Trump," said Hegseth. However he added he had been "simply pointing out realism" and rejected the idea he had offered any undue concessions to Moscow.

As for Rubio, the broken-down plane delayed his arrival in Munich, where his officials were briefing about his own priorities for the trip.

The United States would work for a "just and lasting peace" in which European countries would take the lead in creating a "durable security framework", they said.

European leaders are expected to meet in Paris on Monday for urgent talks aimed at ensuring that their countries are fully involved in any Ukraine peace negotiations.

The US secretary of state's position contained no trace of laying out limits for Ukraine in the way the defence secretary had done. Then, also in the German city, Vice-President JD Vance said the US could use "military tools of leverage" to compel Russia to do a deal, appearing to contradict Hegseth who had said no US troops would be deployed to Ukraine.

Later in the Oval Office, the fallout from Hegseth's speech was put to President Trump - along with the commentary of a Republican senator who described it as a "rookie mistake", like something a pro-Putin pundit could have written.

Had Trump been aware of what Hegseth was going to say? "Generally speaking, yeah, generally speaking I was," said the president. "I'll speak to Pete, I'll find out," he added.

The three days of to and fro gave some of the first major insights into Trump's evolving position on one of the most consequential issues he faces - Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and his vow to end the war - and also into how his administration is formulating and messaging its foreign policy.

On the substance, Hegseth's speech – alongside Trump's lengthy statement about an apparently warm phone call with Putin aimed at starting negotiations with Ukraine - sent shockwaves through European capitals, despite Hegseth's attempts to row back.

"Any quick fix is a dirty deal," said the European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas of the prospect of a US-led deal with Russia that might leave Ukraine's voice on the sidelines.

Then there is the question of the way US foreign policy under Trump was being communicated. What happened in Munich seemed to be partly an attempt by his senior officials to interpret and relay Trump's positions, but that effort resulted in sometimes explosive and often contradictory statements - some of which were then partly diluted or reversed.

It is not yet clear how much this is the result of a new but ill-coordinated administration still clarifying its lines to take internally, as opposed to a deliberate feature of a presidency less concerned about officials freelancing with rhetoric, even if it sows some confusion, so long as they remain loyal to his final word.

Trump's first term saw a series of high-profile sackings or resignations of top officials who contradicted or disagreed with him, including three national security advisers, two defence secretaries and a secretary of state.

This time around, his appointments have been characterised more frequently by a willingness to show loyalty. Pete Hegseth, who had no previous experience running a military or government or agency, was a Fox News weekend presenter and former National Guard major who aligns strongly with Trump's thinking and agenda.

His appointment was highly contested and scraped through its confirmation process with three Republican senators voting against him, seeing the result tied 50-50 with JD Vance casting the tie-breaking vote.

As Trump said himself this week he was "OK" with the idea of taking Ukraine joining Nato off the negotiating table, calling it "not practical".

Hegseth's comments were hardly out of line with the president's position - rather they were an amplification of it to an audience anxious to shore up Ukraine's negotiating position not weaken it.

The challenge for those affected is that the precise position of US foreign policy is having to be defined. One of its features is uncertainty. This may well be deliberate - Donald Trump using the "madman" theory of foreign relations - often attributed to former Republican President Richard Nixon.

This suggests that being powerful but unpredictable is a way to make allies stay close while coercing adversaries. It would also explain a sense of his own officials going rogue but within the parameters of Trump's broadly known positions.

But as this theory's name suggests, it also carries considerable risks of mistakes or miscalculation in an already violent and uncertain world.

Trump's recent proposals for Gaza – emptying it of its Palestinian population to build the "Riviera of the Middle East" under US ownership - were similarly permeated with confusion and contradiction.

While his officials appeared to try to correct some of what he set out – as only "temporary relocation" for example –Trump later doubled down saying it would in fact be "permanent" with no right of return.

As for Rubio - who wants the state department to be the most influential government agency when it comes to Trump's decision-making - his colleagues' comments at Munich were already overshadowing his own.

His smaller, replacement plane finally landed in Europe – windscreen intact but without the press pool on board, while most of the headlines were also going elsewhere.

https://www.amazon.com/Africircle-AfriPrime/dp/B0D2M3F2JT