In September 1987, a young American real estate developer paid for full-page ads in three major US newspapers (New York Times, Boston Globe and Washington Post). Out of the blue, out of his own pocket, at a cost of $94,801. That’s $270,000 with inflation.

Two months earlier, he had been on a KGB-organized trip to the Soviet Union, with his Czechoslovak wife. His name was Donald J. Trump.

Trump, witting or unwitting Kremlin agent?

Why this sudden interest in world politics?

The ads mostly complained about US military aid to Japan, and by extension, to other US allies, accused of “taking advantage” of the United States. Of course, US allies could start strengthening their own militaries. But if they don’t, and the US withdraws its troops or support without waiting for them to be ready, our common enemies end up advantaged.

Some allege Trump was hired as a KGB agent, or somehow compromised (Kompromat) during this trip, which during Cold War times was evidently highly supervised by them. A simpler explanation is that the naive but ambitious young man was manipulated by clever KGB agents without being aware of it. Maybe they mocked America for helping greedy, ungrateful US allies. Maybe they arranged it for him to “overhear” some conversation, or someone to “candidly” make the right comment at the right time to influence his views.

Or maybe they flattered Trump’s ego, Trump being presumptuous enough to think that no one else had considered and rejected that angle in four decades. Whatever the reason, he came back with a Soviet, anti-American, anti-Western agenda, claiming it’s in US interests to weaken US influence.

Of course, it was too early for Europe to know that Trump would one day be a two-time president of the United States, let alone act on it and ramp up military production.

Fast-forward to 2026: Europe is being invaded by Russia, in the largest European land war since World War II, on the orders of a KGB agent who dreams of rebuilding the Soviet Union. We are dependent on the US for our defense, and the US has been reluctant to help. Obama and Biden were weak, not daring to annoy Putin too much; now Trump is worse, actively bending over to please the war criminal and pressuring us to give him whatever he wants. The Alaska Fiasco was an embarrassment hard to ignore. Trump has since then doubled down by inviting Putin to the FIFA 2026 World Cup, even to Budapest, where he should normally be arrested. Both Biden and Trump (in both his terms) have restricted how Ukraine can use the weapons it needs to defend its people against the genocidal invasion.

The post-war world order

The current America-led world order began 80 years ago, after World War II. After being dragged by us silly Europeans into two world wars, the US decided it’s better to prevent than to cure: to keep troops in Europe, and to formalize an alliance through NATO. Not an unreasonable decision. And no, the US couldn’t have avoided getting into World War II, as today’s revisionists love to claim. For one, it was Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan that declared war on the US for the former, and launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor for the latter. Second, Hitler was winning the war, dreaming of bombing New York, and on his way to getting nukes first. This is not a nice alternate history.

The US didn’t have much choice at that late point of the terrible war, but it could have done more to prevent World War II earlier. If we’re doing counterfactuals, if we’re imagining alternate histories as if we had a time machine, this one is certainly more interesting than the one with a Nazi victory, a thousand-year Reich, a deadly war and genocides. The whole idea behind NATO was to act on that knowledge to prevent a potentially even deadlier World War III through NATO and a continuous American presence and strength on the world stage.

Should the Europeans have weaned themselves off this dependence at some point, become equal partners to the US in this new world order that lasted eight decades? Yes, absolutely. Is now a good time to have this conversation, and is it being had in good faith today? Now that Europe is already being invaded by a genocidal, expansionist, Eurasian power? No, absolutely not.

The “America First” isolationists are pushing for the complete opposite of that world order, which was precisely America First: America as the one and only superpower, with the most advanced weaponry, with the largest military spending, making the whole world safe for US interests.

The real costs

Of course the Pax Americana didn’t come free, but there is no need to exaggerate.

Trump regularly lies about how the US is helping Ukraine more than Europe. Zelenskyy had to defend his friends on this, leading to the infamous White House spat with JD Vance.

Another common talking point is exaggerating US military spending (3.4% GDP), or aid to Ukraine (0.25% of GDP), or downplaying Europe’s military spending (1.9% GDP). Pretending for instance that Europe can only afford its “lavish” welfare state thanks to the US “subsidizing” our defense.

For example, Newsweek pushed the absurdity that “How Much Has NATO Cost the US Over the Past 75 Years?”, and that it was $22 trillion. That’s of course the whole US defense spending over that time, whereas US contribution to NATO itself is around a mere $750 million per year.

Yes, US spending on defense is a bit higher at 3.4% GDP than EU spending at 1.9% GDP. That’s a 1.5 percentage point difference. No more, no less. Yes, Europe should spend a bit more. No, that does not explain Europe having more of a welfare state than the US. Government spending is around 35% of GDP in the US and almost 50% of GDP for Europe, a 15 percentage points difference. Europe has simply higher taxes.

Be careful what you wish for

Yes, Europe should be spending more on defense given the current situation. Yes, Europe should absolutely stop financing the Russian war machine invading us by purchasing blood-soaked Russian gas. Yes, with a population practically double that of the US and a GDP close to the US one, Europe absolutely can and should catch up militarily with the US.

On the other hand, it’s disingenuous to pretend that the US military spending is some sort of charity or donation. Most of the spending is in the US, on US equipment, on US troops, on US jobs. Even US aid to Ukraine is 90% spent in the US, on refilling with newer equipment, creating US jobs, perfecting US craft, tech and know-how. US equipment being used in active conflicts like Ukraine also provides valuable real-world feedback.

Alienating Europeans and shattering a long alliance is good for neither of us. There are already differences and tensions. Would Trump be threatening Greenland if Europe were already as powerful as the US? Be careful what you wish for. Having a huge military dominance means a lot of power, it means European dependence on US weapons, profitable military contracts. For America, it means peace and safety.

Trump ending those 80 years of America First policy while selling it as “America First” is certainly interesting. Europeans have no choice but to act accordingly now, but it will take time. Meanwhile, Americans should certainly be asking whether Trump’s abandoning of Ukraine and threatening Europe over Greenland is really in their interest. Who gave Trump this strange idea, anyway? Who really stands to gain from a divided West, except our common enemies?

Everyone needs to help Ukraine, urgently

Of course Europe should be doing more for European defense, which includes defending Ukraine. But it’s absurd to pretend there’s no US interest at stake, long-term, geopolitical, military, political, economic. With Alaska, Russia is much closer than many seem to think, and Russia is not hiding how it would love to get it back.

China is obviously watching the response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and it would be harder for the US to squeeze out of its obligations to defend Taiwan, the Philippines, and Japan than abandoning Ukraine and pretending the Budapest Memorandum didn’t happen.

Trump and his administration complain about paying for Europe — and yet, when Europe helps Ukraine on its own, they protest. Even when Europeans offered to pay for US weapons to give to Ukraine, Trump initially refused, sneering and mocking Zelenskyy for “always trying to purchase missiles”. Trump doesn’t seem to be happy either when Europeans do pick up the bill, or help Ukraine directly. Now Trump is “generously” allowing us to pay, but restricting how Ukraine can use the weapons.

Europeans are also already reconsidering their purchases of US military equipment. If Trump’s attitude continues, Europe will have to adjust. Will it be good for Europe in the long run? Maybe. It will take time, but we’ll get there. But is that good for America? America might yet regret its loss of global influence, soft power, military contracts, lack of a competing superpower.

The price of stopping a dictator always goes up. — Garry Kasparov

And meanwhile, while we’re quibbling over who foots the bill (which again is a tiny part of GDP, less than 1%, whether it’s for the US or for Europe) for defeating a common, deadly enemy, Ukrainians are the ones fighting and being bombed and tortured every day. And no matter how safe and far from the fighting we think we are, the price of stopping expansionist, genocidal dictatorships always goes up, and it will keep rising, for everyone.

Enough. Both Europe and the US need to do more, instead of endlessly throwing the blame at each other.