The Economist, a London-based publication, ran an article this week fear-mongering that President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are” smash]ing ] the post-war order” and urged Europe “must respond”. But the publication , failed to mention how Europe placed itself in this position in the first place.
The article states that” the past year has been the worst in Europe since the Iron Curtain’s drop.” “Ukraine is being sold out, Russia is being rehabilitated and, under Donald Trump, America can no longer get counted on to come to Europe’s support in wartime”.
But perhaps Europe should have never grown therefore dependent on America in the first place. America, which is located on the other side of the globe, issued a strong statement in November to oppose the communist philosophy that is prevalent in all of Europe. Additionally, America contributes a lot more to safeguard than the majority of the NATO member nations, with whom the United States has less and less in common.
The Economist did point out some of Europe’s weaknesses:” It is an obliged, ageing peninsula that is rarely growing and may defend itself or work hard energy”. Therefore, probably Europe may reflect on itself rather than blaming Trump.  ,
The Decline
NATO individuals are urged to dedicate two percent of GDP to safeguard expenditures. According to NATO’s 2023 director public statement, the U. S. spent more than , three percent , of its GDP on security and accounted for , 67 percent , of NATO’s complete defence spending that time. The majority of NATO members, according to the report, spend less of their GDP on defense than the United States, and many have never yet reached their two percent.
When European nations have low defense commitments, they shouldn’t be surprised when America, across the Atlantic Ocean, thousands of miles away, suggests reducing their involvement in Europe and requests that they increase defense contributions to 5 % of GDP, as Trump did recently in Davos, Switzerland.
The Economist about immediately complains that “ts officials have been excluded from peace talks between the White House and the Kremlin” before basically admitting that Europe doesn’t know how to “wield painful power.”
Why are they now complaining about not getting a seat at the table when some European nations only contribute 2 % or less of their GDP to security?
The picture for The Entrepreneur’s article bands true, but not in the way evidently intended. It depicts Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, and Trump only at a large table surrounded by empty seats. If NATO members made significant contributions to their own security like America has, or if they put in significant effort to put an end to the Russia-Ukraine issue, they might be sitting at the table of negotiations rather than the children’s table.
These countries are in such fast danger that there may soon be no more Europe to defend, even if Putin launched war against the rest of Europe.
The Economist slammed Vice President J. D. Vance for calling Europe “decadent and undemocratic”. As The Federalist recently reported, while speaking in Munich, Vance warned Europeans of” the hazard from within”. Vance made it clear that this threat was” the surrender of Europe from some of its most basic values, principles shared with the United States of America.”
Western leaders have ushered ripples of third-world migrants into the globe, overwhelming its local people. And just this year, Scottish authorities detained a pro-life mother who was reportedly holding a sign outside a hospital as a result of a “buffer zone” law for abortion. The continent is evidently oppressed by terrible government.
Yet Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, hailed as a warrior for opposing Putin, is a de-facto tyrant — he declared martial law, enabling him to keep company past the , five-year word limit , which ended in May 2024. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has traditional ties to Russia, is also being targeted by Zellensky’s authorities. However, Trump caught backlash for calling Zelensky a “dictator“, and, as The Federalist’s CEO Sean Davis noted on X, this so-called” slander” has “resulted in a Category 5 neocon collapse”.
According to Davis,” the one-dimensional neocon framework for understanding foreign affairs requires that Zelensky be removed from power, then he must be removed from power,” he wrote.” If by all interpretations of that phrase, he plainly is, and he must be removed from power.” ” But they don’t like Zelensky removed from power, which means he didn’t get a dictator”.
Despite their low governmental responsibility, the pressing demands of their own citizens, and the war’s traditional difficulty, some European nations have steadfastly affixed their allegiance to Ukraine.
Trump rejected internationalism and put America’s interests first, according to The Economist.  ,
The issue is not that Uncle Sam’s objectives are in Asia. The issue is that Mr. Trump’s first and most pressing inclination will be to ask what is in it for him if Europe is attacked by Russia and requests British assistance, according to the Economist.
The Western mind evidently never understand Trump’s” America First” plan. Americans elected Trump so he would question “what is in it” for his citizens, but Western countries ‘ obsession with “geopolitics” and meddling leaves no room for this problem.
The Path Forward
Accidently, The Economist offers a plan for Europe that is centered on local interests. The store claimed that Trump and Putin were to blame for creating a “nightmare” that might “force Europe to transform how it organizes itself.”
” ]Europe ] is trapped in an obsolete worldview of multilateral treaties and shared values”, reads the article. ” Europe’s essential work is to relearn how to gain and exert power, it must be prepared to confront opponents and often friends, including America, which will still be there after Mr Trump”.
According to the content, Europeans should accept the notion that” American aid is not guaranteed.” Thus, it said funding “rearmament” may need a “fiscal trend” including “deregulation” and steps to” cut security”.
This sounds better for both Americans and Europeans everywhere. If Western governments prevent stealing money from the United States, they will be forced to serve the needs of their own citizens. If they go further than The Economist and really put national, rather than local, interests first, they might be able to once more begin to find some sort of common floor with America.
Logan Washburn is a staff writer who writes about election ethics. He is a The College Fix spring 2025 fellow. He graduated from Hillsdale College, served as Christopher Rufo’s editorial assistant, and has bylines in The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. Logan grew up in rural Michigan and is from Central Oregon.
