There was One Statesman in the Oval Office Meeting

In comparison Trump looked like a small weak baby

I believe it is peace for our time
— Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain

Like Chamberlain, Trump’s interaction with Zelenskyy on Friday will go down as a small weak man trying to buy favor from a dictator (Putin), and failing on all counts.

On the flip side Zelenskyy chose the least bad option available to Ukraine. And he showed once again why he is the outstanding statesman in the world today. A man willing to face down both Putin & Trump allied together against him.

The Betrayal of Ukraine and Europe's Wake-Up Call

The recent confrontation between President Trump, Vice President Vance, and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office was a shocking display of diplomatic malpractice. The American leaders' berating of Zelensky, a wartime president fighting for his country's survival, was not only disrespectful but dangerously short-sighted.

While what Trump did was inexcusable, and arguably shows that he is owned by Putin,¹ there is a seismic shift in transatlantic relations that has been brewing for years. To understand how we arrived at this precarious juncture, we must examine the evolution of European defense since World War II.

In the aftermath of WWII, NATO emerged as the cornerstone of European security. This alliance was built on a fundamental bargain: the United States would provide the bulk of military might, while European nations would focus on economic recovery and integration. This arrangement suited both sides. America gained strategic influence in Europe, while European countries could invest in social welfare systems and economic growth rather than large military budgets.

In addition, there was a large degree of suspicion between the European countries. They did not trust each other. But they did trust the United States.²

This "peace dividend" allowed Europe to become an economic powerhouse while relying on American military supremacy. The U.S. accounted for about 70% of NATO's military capabilities and command structure. This imbalance persisted even after the Cold War, as Europe continued to prioritize social spending over defense.

The Arrival of Trump

When Trump first became president in 2017, his criticism of NATO and demands for increased European defense spending sent shockwaves through the continent. However, Europe struggled to adjust significantly for several reasons:

1. Institutional inertia: Decades of reliance on U.S. protection made it difficult to rapidly change course.

2. Economic constraints: Many European countries were still recovering from the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent Eurozone troubles.

3. Structural Fragmentation: NATO’s 30+ militaries operate incompatible equipment and lack unified command. A British-led exercise in Romania highlighted this disarray: without U.S. coordination, European forces struggled even in simulations.

4. Political fragmentation: Rising populism and disagreements between member states hindered a unified response.

5. Industrial limitations: Europe's defense industry had atrophied, making it challenging to quickly ramp up production.

Despite these obstacles, Europe must now confront an uncomfortable truth: it can no longer rely on any U.S. support. The stakes could not be higher. Ukraine's fight against Russian aggression is not just about one country's sovereignty; it's about the future of the European security order.

The outcome of the war in Ukraine will determine Europe’s future security landscape:

1. Preventing Russian Expansion: A Ukrainian defeat would embolden Vladimir Putin to target NATO’s eastern flank, potentially drawing Europe into direct conflict.

2. Defending Democratic Values: Supporting Ukraine is not just about territorial integrity; it is about upholding democracy against authoritarian aggression.

3. Strategic Stability: A strong Ukrainian resistance weakens Russia militarily and economically, reducing its capacity to threaten other nations.

4. Moral Collapse: Abandoning Ukraine signals autocracies like China that aggression pays. As German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned, “A Putin win is a green light for dictators everywhere”

European leaders recognize these stakes. French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have called for increased military aid to Ukraine, including the deployment of European troops as part of a broader deterrence strategy.

It’s On Europe Now

To prevent this catastrophic scenario, Europe must take several urgent steps:

1. Political Will: Europe must overcome internal divisions and commit to collective defense initiatives. This includes harmonizing military procurement, integrating command structures, and sharing intelligence more effectively.

2. Economic Investment: To close critical capability gaps—such as air defense, long-range strike systems, and logistics—Europe needs to increase defense spending significantly. Experts estimate that an additional €125–250 billion annually would be required in the short term.

3. Military Coordination: Europe currently lacks sufficient enablers like battlefield command systems and strategic airlift capabilities. These can be developed within five years if member states prioritize cooperation over national interests.

4. Nuclear Deterrence: Europe must address its “deterrence gap” by either expanding France’s nuclear umbrella or developing tactical nuclear capabilities to counterbalance Russia’s arsenal.

Fundamentally while each country can call it what they want, Europe needs to build a unified military. Maybe akin to the National Guard in the U.S. where each state supplies the guard battalions but they are all trained to operate as part of the national military.

Can Europe rise to this challenge?

The path toward a self-reliant European defense is fraught with challenges:

• Political Feasibility: Achieving consensus among 27 EU member states is difficult, particularly given differing threat perceptions between Western and Eastern Europe.

• Economic Constraints: While Europe has the financial resources to invest in defense, this would require reallocating funds from other priorities like social welfare.

• Time Pressure: Building independent capabilities will take years—time that Europe may not have if faced with immediate threats from Russia or other adversaries.

Despite these obstacles, Europe can achieve strategic autonomy if it acts decisively now. Poland’s rapid military expansion demonstrates that significant progress is possible when governments commit resources and political capital.

Conclusion

The crisis in Ukraine represents both a test and an opportunity for Europe. It tests whether the continent can break free from its reliance on American power and assume greater responsibility for its security. It offers an opportunity to forge a new model of collective defense, one rooted in shared values and mutual interests.

Failure to act decisively carries grave risks. A weakened Ukraine would embolden Russia and erode trust in multilateral institutions. Conversely, a united Europe standing firmly alongside Ukraine could inspire hope for a safer, more stable world.

Europeans must ask themselves a fundamental question: Are they ready to take charge of their destiny? The answer will shape not only the fate of Ukraine but the future of democracy itself.

I hope Europe has leaders that are of the caliber of Churchill & FDR. Because here in the U.S. we have a leader that’s of the caliber of Chamberlin, or possibly Hiss.

1. Or possibly worse

2. The purpose of the Alliance [NATO] was to keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down — Lord Ismay