I am proud of Europe and the UK . As you said NATO. Is a defensive alliance, not part of trumps private army to order around as he wishes. Mark Carney is a strong leader and is showing the way for the rest of the world. America has thought it was top dog for far too long. It is time now to show it that it is no longer number one in the world. China and Japan, India and southern Korea are becoming the power houses of manufacturing in the world. Watching what is happening in Britain , I can see more and more Chinese made cars and few Fords. I look to other sites rather than use Amazon, I know Bezos will not miss the few hundred I used to spend on Amazon, but if more and more people do the same perhaps he might realise what is happening.
As a general rule, I shop very little on line as I like to support my local economy. Rarely do I shop Amazon because of Mr. Bezos support of Trump et al.
NATO was formed as a defensive alliance, one for all and all for one, not as an extension of American aggression in sandy places.
Trump may moan about NATO but NATO has given America a long-reach into the Middle East without flying vast distances in one go. Let Trump close their bases and withdraw their personnel, they pay zero rent or taxes to the host nation, yet they enjoy the infrastructure of said country.
The constitutional framing is the strategically important detail in this piece and I think its implications go further than the immediate Iran context.
When Italy cites parliamentary approval requirements and Spain invokes constitutional limits on offensive military cooperation, they've converted a political refusal into a legal one. That distinction matters enormously because political refusals can be reversed with pressure, incentives, or leadership changes. Legal refusals require constitutional amendments or court rulings to overturn. Europe hasnt just said no. Its built a legal architecture around the no that makes reversing it proceduraly difficult even if future governments wanted to cooperate.
The implicit NATO contract was always transactional even when it was framed as ideological. The real deal was: America provides security, Europe provides operational flexibility. That contract worked as long as the security guarantee was worth more to Europe than the operational costs of participation. What this episode reveals is that the calculation has flipped for several key allies. The political cost of supporting the Iran campaign domesticaly exceeds the value of the American security guarantee, especially when European populations increasingly question wether the security guarantee is reliable anyway given the last two years of NATO-skeptic rhetoric from Washington.
The US officials questioning "what value NATO even has" is the most revealing quote because it exposes the assumption that was always underneath the alliance structure. Washington saw NATO as a standing coalition available for deployment. The treaty says its a defensive alliance. Those two interpretations coexisted for 75 years because every conflict could be narratively framed as defensive. The Iran campaign broke that framing because there is no credible argument that Iran represents a defensive threat to NATO members, and the European publics know it.
Once allies discover they can refuse without immediate consequences the game theory changes permanantly. The first refusal is the hardest. Every subsequent one becomes easier because the precedent exists and the expected cost of saying no has been empiricaly established as low. This isnt a single episode. Its the beginning of a structural renegotiation of the transatlantic relationship that will play out over the next decade.
It is the US that wants to be transactional, that does not believe in past agreements and International Organizations so: no prior warning, no prior negotiations, no international mandate = no blanket access simply based on agreements or International Organizations the US no longer supports.
Still want to sell weapons to “allies” (former?), don’t stop shipments after they were contracted and paid for, approval and don’t try to claw them back after delivery, don’t deny updates and spare parts.
It is interesting that the big tough talk is about NATO countries but even the Gulf Allies of the US have restricted access to their bases and airspace but it is swept under the carpet.
Once allies begin wondering whether agreements, delivery contracts, software access, spare parts, or operational support could suddenly become political leverage…
they naturally start looking for ways to reduce dependency.
Not necessarily because they want confrontation.
Because governments hate vulnerability.
And you’re right that this extends beyond Europe.
The quieter story underneath all this is that multiple U.S.-aligned countries appear increasingly cautious about being pulled directly into conflicts...
that carry major domestic or regional consequences for them.
That caution itself tells you the geopolitical environment is changing.
The old “Washington decides, allies facilitate” model doesn’t appear as automatic as it once was.
The U.S. was in Europe to protect it from Russia as part of NATO. This was also for the U.S. to have a presence on the Russian border through all the years of the U.S./ Russia competition. However Russia has become a toothless tiger, unable to even conquer Ukraine after 4 years. The U.S. troops are no longer needed. Europe will be happy to see them go, eventually.
I honestly think most ordinary people on both sides still like each other far more than the internet makes it appear, Kalyrn.
What’s changing is government trust and strategic alignment...
not necessarily public affection.
Europe isn’t suddenly “anti-American.”
It’s becoming more skeptical of automatic obedience to U.S. foreign policy decisions.
And from the European perspective, many people feel the U.S. political system itself has become less predictable, more transactional, and more willing to pressure allies publicly.
So this feels less like...
“we hate each other”
…and more like...
“the relationship terms are being renegotiated in real time.”
I agree that this isn’t about people but rather about government.
I was trying to highlight something else. Namely that when any country starts to disagree with or stand up to or defend their own interests against the US they are immediately labeled anti-American.
It’s frustrating because it’s the same thing Russia does. It’s effective at preventing real accountability and forces a defensive posture which derails the issue.
I am proud of Europe and the UK . As you said NATO. Is a defensive alliance, not part of trumps private army to order around as he wishes. Mark Carney is a strong leader and is showing the way for the rest of the world. America has thought it was top dog for far too long. It is time now to show it that it is no longer number one in the world. China and Japan, India and southern Korea are becoming the power houses of manufacturing in the world. Watching what is happening in Britain , I can see more and more Chinese made cars and few Fords. I look to other sites rather than use Amazon, I know Bezos will not miss the few hundred I used to spend on Amazon, but if more and more people do the same perhaps he might realise what is happening.
That’s the quiet shift I think a lot of people still underestimate, Penny.
This isn’t happening through speeches or protests anymore.
It’s happening through purchasing decisions, travel choices, supply chains, manufacturing contracts, and public patience running out.
People are slowly re-routing trust.
And once consumers, governments, and allies begin diversifying away from dependency…
it becomes very hard to reverse.
The interesting part is that America’s biggest advantage for decades wasn’t just military or economic power.
It was predictability.
That predictability is now cracking...
and the rest of the world is adapting accordingly.
As a general rule, I shop very little on line as I like to support my local economy. Rarely do I shop Amazon because of Mr. Bezos support of Trump et al.
NATO was formed as a defensive alliance, one for all and all for one, not as an extension of American aggression in sandy places.
Trump may moan about NATO but NATO has given America a long-reach into the Middle East without flying vast distances in one go. Let Trump close their bases and withdraw their personnel, they pay zero rent or taxes to the host nation, yet they enjoy the infrastructure of said country.
That’s the part many Americans don’t fully see, Mike.
Those bases were never just acts of generosity toward Europe.
They massively extended U.S. reach, logistics, refueling capability, intelligence coordination, and rapid deployment options across multiple regions.
That arrangement benefited both sides for decades.
But now the relationship is changing from...
“automatic alignment”
to
“show us why this serves our national interest.”
And honestly, that’s probably healthier.
Alliances work best when partners choose cooperation...
not when cooperation is assumed as an entitlement.
The constitutional framing is the strategically important detail in this piece and I think its implications go further than the immediate Iran context.
When Italy cites parliamentary approval requirements and Spain invokes constitutional limits on offensive military cooperation, they've converted a political refusal into a legal one. That distinction matters enormously because political refusals can be reversed with pressure, incentives, or leadership changes. Legal refusals require constitutional amendments or court rulings to overturn. Europe hasnt just said no. Its built a legal architecture around the no that makes reversing it proceduraly difficult even if future governments wanted to cooperate.
The implicit NATO contract was always transactional even when it was framed as ideological. The real deal was: America provides security, Europe provides operational flexibility. That contract worked as long as the security guarantee was worth more to Europe than the operational costs of participation. What this episode reveals is that the calculation has flipped for several key allies. The political cost of supporting the Iran campaign domesticaly exceeds the value of the American security guarantee, especially when European populations increasingly question wether the security guarantee is reliable anyway given the last two years of NATO-skeptic rhetoric from Washington.
The US officials questioning "what value NATO even has" is the most revealing quote because it exposes the assumption that was always underneath the alliance structure. Washington saw NATO as a standing coalition available for deployment. The treaty says its a defensive alliance. Those two interpretations coexisted for 75 years because every conflict could be narratively framed as defensive. The Iran campaign broke that framing because there is no credible argument that Iran represents a defensive threat to NATO members, and the European publics know it.
Once allies discover they can refuse without immediate consequences the game theory changes permanantly. The first refusal is the hardest. Every subsequent one becomes easier because the precedent exists and the expected cost of saying no has been empiricaly established as low. This isnt a single episode. Its the beginning of a structural renegotiation of the transatlantic relationship that will play out over the next decade.
That is one hell of an observation, Scenarica.
You nailed the difference between a temporary disagreement and a structural shift.
Political resistance can be negotiated away over dinner and handshakes.
Constitutional resistance is a different beast entirely because it transfers the argument out of personalities and into institutions.
That’s the real story here.
Europe appears to be slowly “locking in” sovereignty through legal process instead of emotional rhetoric. Quietly.
Procedurally. Almost bureaucratically.
Which ironically makes it far more durable.
Your point about the “implicit NATO contract” is also dead-on.
For decades, both sides benefited enough to avoid examining the contradiction too closely.
But once public trust weakens and domestic political costs rise, the hidden assumptions underneath alliances suddenly become visible.
And you’re right about precedent.
The first country to say “no” absorbs the psychological shock.
The second country discovers survival is possible.
By the third or fourth refusal, the entire power dynamic starts changing because compliance is no longer automatic behaviour...
it becomes a negotiated choice.
That’s why this moment feels bigger than Iran.
It looks less like a policy dispute…
and more like the early stages of a long-term rebalancing.
Bravo, Europe! So gratifying to see Uncle Sam get his dick slapped, HARD! 🤣🖕
A lot of people are reacting emotionally Marc because, for once, the pressure campaign didn’t produce automatic compliance.
What stood out to me wasn’t the chest-thumping though.
It was how calm the refusals were.
No dramatic anti-American speeches.
No alliance collapse.
Just governments saying:
“Our laws don’t allow this.”
That’s a very different kind of pushback...
and probably a far more effective one long term.
As you described, governments come and go, but a refusal to commit to an illegal war which is rooted in law, is a more durable "no".
Great article, Fred.
It is the US that wants to be transactional, that does not believe in past agreements and International Organizations so: no prior warning, no prior negotiations, no international mandate = no blanket access simply based on agreements or International Organizations the US no longer supports.
Still want to sell weapons to “allies” (former?), don’t stop shipments after they were contracted and paid for, approval and don’t try to claw them back after delivery, don’t deny updates and spare parts.
It is interesting that the big tough talk is about NATO countries but even the Gulf Allies of the US have restricted access to their bases and airspace but it is swept under the carpet.
That’s an important point, Luc.
Trust is cumulative... but so is uncertainty.
Once allies begin wondering whether agreements, delivery contracts, software access, spare parts, or operational support could suddenly become political leverage…
they naturally start looking for ways to reduce dependency.
Not necessarily because they want confrontation.
Because governments hate vulnerability.
And you’re right that this extends beyond Europe.
The quieter story underneath all this is that multiple U.S.-aligned countries appear increasingly cautious about being pulled directly into conflicts...
that carry major domestic or regional consequences for them.
That caution itself tells you the geopolitical environment is changing.
The old “Washington decides, allies facilitate” model doesn’t appear as automatic as it once was.
The U.S. was in Europe to protect it from Russia as part of NATO. This was also for the U.S. to have a presence on the Russian border through all the years of the U.S./ Russia competition. However Russia has become a toothless tiger, unable to even conquer Ukraine after 4 years. The U.S. troops are no longer needed. Europe will be happy to see them go, eventually.
I think a lot of Europeans are reassessing the original purpose of the arrangement, Jim.
During the Cold War, the logic was straightforward...
Soviet expansion was viewed as a real continental threat, and the U.S. military umbrella brought both deterrence and stability.
But alliances built for one era often struggle when the geopolitical landscape changes.
That said, I’d be cautious about completely underestimating Russia.
Even when military performance exposes weaknesses, nuclear powers still shape strategic decisions simply because instability itself becomes dangerous.
What does seem to be changing though is Europe’s appetite for automatic dependency.
More countries appear to want...
greater domestic defense capability
more independent supply chains
more strategic flexibility
and fewer situations where they feel locked into someone else’s escalation ladder
That’s a very different mindset than the post-Cold War period.
Is Europe anti-American or is America anti-Europe.
I honestly think most ordinary people on both sides still like each other far more than the internet makes it appear, Kalyrn.
What’s changing is government trust and strategic alignment...
not necessarily public affection.
Europe isn’t suddenly “anti-American.”
It’s becoming more skeptical of automatic obedience to U.S. foreign policy decisions.
And from the European perspective, many people feel the U.S. political system itself has become less predictable, more transactional, and more willing to pressure allies publicly.
So this feels less like...
“we hate each other”
…and more like...
“the relationship terms are being renegotiated in real time.”
I agree that this isn’t about people but rather about government.
I was trying to highlight something else. Namely that when any country starts to disagree with or stand up to or defend their own interests against the US they are immediately labeled anti-American.
It’s frustrating because it’s the same thing Russia does. It’s effective at preventing real accountability and forces a defensive posture which derails the issue.
Great post Fred!!! Good to see Europe standing up to the orange bully!
What stood out to me most, Patsy, was how measured the response was.
No dramatic “anti-American” speeches.
No alliance meltdown.
Just governments calmly saying...
“This falls outside the agreement… and outside our legal framework.”
That kind of resistance is much harder to attack publicly because it sounds grounded in law and sovereignty rather than emotion.
Precisely Fred! No debate, no questions, no arguments, just....NO!
Thank you Fred, again great article 💯💯💯🇨🇦💪🏻
Appreciate that, Don... thank you.
What fascinates me most right now isn’t the loud headlines.
It’s the quiet behavioural shifts happening underneath them...
alliances recalculating, countries diversifying, consumers changing habits, governments testing independence.
Those slow shifts usually matter more than the daily political theatre.