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 past week has been the bleakest in Europe since the fall of the Iron Curtain,” reads the article. “Ukraine is being sold out, Russia is being rehabilitated and, under Donald Trump, America can no longer be counted on to come to Europe’s aid in wartime.”
But maybe Europe should never have become so reliant on America in the first place. America sits on the other side of the world and issued a resounding declaration in November against the leftist ideology embraced across Europe. America also contributes vastly more to defense than most European NATO countries, with which the U.S. shares less and less in common.
The Economist did point out some of Europe’s weaknesses: “It is an indebted, ageing continent that is barely growing and cannot defend itself or project hard power.” So instead of blaming Trump, perhaps Europe should look in the mirror.
The Decline
NATO members are encouraged to allocate two percent of GDP to defense spending. According to NATO’s 2023 secretary general report, the U.S. spent more than three percent of its GDP on defense and accounted for 67 percent of NATO’s total defense spending that year. According to the report, most other NATO members spend smaller shares of their GDP on defense than the U.S., and many have not even reached two percent.
When European countries make low commitments to defense, they should not be shocked when America — across the Atlantic Ocean, thousands of miles away — suggests reducing its involvement in Europe and asks them to increase defense contributions to five percent of GDP, as Trump did recently in Davos, Switzerland.
The Economist essentially admits Europe doesn’t know how to “wield hard power” — then almost immediately complains “[i]ts leaders have been excluded from peace talks between the White House and the Kremlin.”
With many European countries barely contributing two percent or under two percent of their GDP to defense, why are they now complaining about not getting a seat at the negotiating table?
The illustration for The Economist’s article rings true, but not in the way apparently intended. It shows Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin left alone at a large table, surrounded by vacant seats. If NATO members contributed to their own defense as much as America has — or took meaningful steps to help end the Russia-Ukraine conflict — perhaps they would be sitting at the negotiating table instead of the kids’ table.
Even if Putin declared war on the rest of Europe, these nations face such immediate threats that there may soon be no Europe left to protect.
The Economist slammed Vice President J.D. Vance for calling Europe “decadent and undemocratic.” As The Federalist previously reported, while speaking in Munich, Vance warned Europeans of “the threat from within.” Vance clarified this threat to be “the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.”
European leaders have ushered waves of third-world migrants into the continent, overwhelming its native people. And just this week, Scottish police arrested a pro-life grandmother holding a sign outside a hospital under an abortion “buffer zone” law. The continent finds itself clearly oppressed by bad government.
Even Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, hailed as a hero for opposing Putin, is a de-facto dictator — he declared martial law, enabling him to hold office past the five-year term limit which ended in May 2024. Zelensky’s government has also targeted the Ukrainian Orthodox Church which has historical ties to Russia. Still, Trump caught flak for calling Zelensky a “dictator,” and, as The Federalist’s CEO Sean Davis noted on X, this so-called “smear” has “resulted in a Category 5 neocon meltdown.”
“If Zelensky, who cancelled elections and banned opposition political parties and media, is a dictator (and by all definitions of that word, he clearly is), then he must be removed from power, according to the one-dimensional neocon framework for understanding international affairs,” Davis wrote. “But they don’t want Zelensky removed from power, which means he can’t be a dictator.”
Still, many European countries have firmly affixed their allegiance to Ukraine — despite their low fiscal commitment, the pressing needs of their own people, and the historical complexity of the war.
The Economist blamed Trump for rejecting globalism and seeking America’s interests first.
“The problem is not that Uncle Sam’s priorities lie in Asia. The problem is that if Europe comes under Russian attack and seeks American help, Mr Trump’s first and deepest instinct will be to ask what is in it for him,” reads the Economist.
The European mind apparently cannot comprehend Trump’s “America First” agenda. Americans elected Trump so he would ask “what is in it” for his people, but European countries’ obsession with “geopolitics” and interventionism leaves no room for this question.
The Path Forward
The Economist — perhaps unwittingly — describes a path forward for Europeans centered around regional interest. The outlet blamed Trump and Putin for creating a “nightmare” that could “force Europe to change how it organises itself.”
“[Europe] is trapped in an obsolete worldview of multilateral treaties and shared values,” reads the article. “Europe’s urgent task is to relearn how to acquire and wield power; it must be prepared to confront adversaries and sometimes friends, including America, which will still be there after Mr Trump.”
The article said Europeans must assume “American support is not guaranteed.” Consequently, it said funding “rearmament” will require a “fiscal revolution” including “deregulation” and steps to “cut welfare.”
This sounds better for both Americans and Europeans alike. If European governments stop siphoning resources from the United States, they will be forced to provide for the interests of their own people. Should they go even further than The Economist — and actually place national, rather than regional, interests first — perhaps they can once again begin to find some sort of common ground with America.
Logan Washburn is a staff writer covering election integrity. He is a spring 2025 fellow of The College Fix. 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 is from Central Oregon but now lives in rural Michigan.
Jesus Christ is King
