Charen: Yeah.
Siegel: Mona?
Charen: So, E.J., there’s a long list of Trump’s insults and threats toward Europe, toward NATO. You forgot to mention Greenland, where the president basically did something that was inconceivable. When we were contemplating a second Trump term, none of us, I think, anticipated that he would actually threaten a fellow NATO member with an American invasion. And yet, that is where we were a few short months ago. And then, regarding this war, there was no consultation. He did not inform our allies. He simply acted in a way that affects them far more than it affects us, because they are more dependent on oil, fertilizer and other things that go through that part of the world.
But, in addition, he then insulted the Prime Minister of Great Britain, who at one point in early March was saying he might send two British aircraft carriers. And Trump, proving that he is the greatest boor to serve in the White House, said, oh, no, we don’t need any help from people who are just trying to get in on the war after it’s already been won.
A few days later, Trump was reduced to begging the Europeans for help opening the Strait of Hormuz. So yes, the strain is immense, but I think the Europeans have no choice but to attempt, however they can, with string and glue, whatever it takes to keep this alliance together, because of the huge role that the United States plays.
Siegel: I was forced to, thinking about the state of the alliance, to think back on pretty big crises that NATO has weathered. And it may be a more durable alliance than we’d think. In the 1950s, Dwight D. Eisenhower, over the Suez Canal crisis, told the Brits and the French that they couldn’t have the Suez Canal back. It was a big crisis. NATO got over it. In the 1960s, Charles de Gaulle threw NATO out of France — NATO was in France until 1966. He withdrew French troops from the integrated NATO command. It was a crisis. NATO somehow survived and got over it. So, perhaps this was, at least in the past, a pretty durable institution.
Charen: Well, it depended for its durability on the strength of its premier member, and that was the United States. And, in this, Trump had a part of a point. The U.S. spends 10 times more on defense than the next closest EU member. Plus, the U.S. provides the nuclear umbrella. And so, the Europeans are now having to think about possibly looking for friendlier climes, looking for people who do agree with them about democracy, about the rule of law, about international law, and all of those things where Trump seems far less like a traditional American and more Putin-esque. And yet, still the challenge, the actual just physical challenge of Europe, the idea that they’re going to be able to replace the American contribution defense-wise, is very tough.
