Russia-Ukraine War (continuing)

True, but Europe has still benefited as a side effect from US perceived self interest.

The world today is not the world of eighty years ago, it is not even the world ofthe fall of the Berlin Wall thirty years ago. Should US priorities change as a result, Europe cannot then complain about the net negative effect from the loss of something which was never primarily for their benefit in the first place.

Yet the reaction to this change of priority has been illuminating. The only reason the US pivot to the Pacific is being panicked about as destabilizing in Europe (have Taipei, Manilla, Singapore or Tokyo complained about this at all?) is precisely because Europe has taken what was to a large extent a beneficial side effect for granted (And then mocked the US for it).

The officially stated policy of the US is now, and has been for most of a decade, to reverse this, leveraging partner nations. Europe can take care of its own region, and should do it for its own interests. A peaceful, prosperous Europe then will have a beneficial side effect in which US interests are furthered.

The reason that Trump has that level of disproportionate influence in Ukraine is that Europe has ceded that influence to him and his predecessors. Everyone's panicking (reasonably enough given the potential consequences) about if the US ceases its intelligence support, or if no further arms come from the US, yet it's because the European forces don't have that same capacity… even though they could have had. Even if, had the West had the backbone to do it, and troops would have been put on the ground in Ukraine to stop this whole thing years ago, it would still have been a requirement for the US to partake, and it has little to do with NATO agreements. Europe couldn't even handle Libya without US assistance.

So we're here now, with the US still having what I would consider disproportionate influence over three years into the war, but because for most of those three years the US had a more mature person in charge. And with that person in charge, it was business as usual so little reason for Europe to change. It seems to have taken someone with the maturity of a toddler to actually get some attention paid to the fact. The only reason he's still undermining Europe is because if Europe had the capacity to matter enough, the Europeans wouldn't care, and Ukraine wouldn't need to worry about, the antics of Trump with regards Ukraine. This is likely the example of the broken clock syndrome, Trump chaos does seem to be the one thing which is doing good for European self-determination. The previous three decades certainly haven't.

I agree there is no need for the disrespect, and the whole Greenland thing is idiocy of the highest order. But this thread is about the Ukraine war in specific, and I would assume ramifications on European defence in general. Note though that even Trump has not said he is abandoning Europe entirely, but that he is no longer willing to provide a disproportionate share of defence. From yesterday: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-could-withdraw-troops-europe-050000809.html?guccounter=1

The rest of the post seems to indicate a lack of knowledge of what the US military is doing. What on Earth makes you think the US military and Ukrainians aren't working together on lessons learned just as the Danes are? Just go to the CALL website and look at the unclassified stuff the US has published, let alone wonder what's on the secure side. To my immediate knowledge, only one NATO country has fielded hard-kill counter-drone systems. Not ordered, like Skyranger, actually placed into unit service because they started putting money and effort into it years ago. Where is the German equivalent to MLIDS? The British equivalent to Sgt Stout? What sort of a fight and in what theater have announcements about future US military procurement been aimed towards?

I think the cult of the lightfighter is a little strong in the Army right now, but here's an assessment of the reprioritisation of military budgeting from a professional on the subject. The Asian pivot is very definitely being implemented in practice as well as in talk.

The argument of the US having bases in Europe for its own interest works both ways as well. European nations allowed it because they perceived it as being in their own best interests. Germany complained when the US started closing bases. Poland and Lithuania specifically requested permanent US bases. The US didn't put a gun to European heads to force them to buy F-35 or Patriot instead of Rafale or ASTER, they were purchased because the European nations felt it was a better deal for themselves. Poland in the last couple of years has bought a heck of a lot of Korean and US stuff because (a) they have been forced to or (b) they didn't like the European offerings. Not that Poland won't buy European when it feels it's a better deal (Sweden and Slovakia have both benefitted, for example), but for the major end items? Poland has the largest active Leopard fleet in Europe… being replaced by M1s and K2s.

Has goodwill been needlessly lost? Yes. Again, I refer to the Greenland thing (and Canada) as idiocy of the highest order. But goodwill or not, Europeans should still act in their own best interests and I would presume that a more…. diplomatic successor to Trump will go a reasonable way towards facilitating that.

I don't disagree with your conclusion at all (except for the 4D chess comment, I doubt anyone is playing that except probably China), but just that the 'slash and burn' isn't as negative as all that given that the 'softly' approach has done very little. This may be a 2024/Trump-II-era revelation for much of Europe, but maybe that's because they haven't been reading things like Biden's 2022 National Defense Strategy which says things like "The 2022 NDS advances a strategy focused on the PRC" while "NATO Allies seek to bolster their conventional warfighting capabilities" or Trump's own 2018 equivalent which equally made headlines for focusing on China. The US military reconfiguring itself for the China fight pre-dates Biden, the Marine Corps started it under the previous Trump administration.

Re the "quiet word" - you are grasping at straws, looking for some positive angle.

Current European political leadership, and certainly not the military leaders serving under them, are not going to comment on what is going on in public.

Not a straw, they are actually saying it. You are correct that they're not going to comment in public, but Chatham House rules are a thing, you'll have to take my word for it. Give it the sniff test: True or false, the commander of a European military is likely to be pleased with the actions of someone which results in his organisation being given more attention from his own government.