Not every gripe that Europeans have with Donald Trump stems from his bluntness when he tells them the truth--Danish people aren't wrong when they say Trump is being rude to demand that they hand over Greenland to the US, even if Trump believes that the Danes can't defend the strategically-located territory. Still, the hatred for Trump has nothing to do with tariffs or bullying. 

European leaders hate him because he will tell them hard truths they desperately want to deny. German diplomats literally laughed when Trump warned them that they were too dependent on Russian gas, but after the invasion of Ukraine and the bombing of the Nord Stream pipeline (conducted by Ukraine with the assistance of the United States' Joe Biden!) they were not laughing. 

Early in his first term, Trump began pushing NATO countries to at least honor their treaty obligations to increase defense spending to the 2% of GDP minimum. This demand was beyond the pale. An outrage! It was Trump breaking a sacred trust, even if that sacred trust was being broken daily and had been for decades by the Europeans themselves. 

How could Trump point out, quite rudely, that Europe wasn't doing what it was both legally and morally obligated to do?! 

Sacre bleu!

Dovile Sakaliene, Lithuania’s defence minister, was said to have told her counterparts: “Russia has 800,000 [troops]. Let me tell you this, if we can’t even raise 64,000 that doesn’t look weak — it is weak.”

— Larisa Brown (@larisamlbrown) April 29, 2025

There is a lot of angst about Trump's lack of enthusiasm for continuing the war in Ukraine until all Ukrainians of fighting age are dead or wounded, but his pressure to have Russia and Ukraine come to the peace table has exposed for all the world to see that he is right that Europe is a paper tiger and contributes almost little, aside from bases, to NATO defense. The Ukraine war has been mainly funded by the United States, which also provided the logistics and intelligence that kept Ukraine in the fight. 

Aside from Ukraine, of course, which has contributed the most in blood and treasure. The Poles have contributed much, compared to their economic capability and the size of their military, but for the most part, European contributions to the war effort have been symbolic or tangential to the military fight. 

Without the US, the war would have been lost. In fact, without the weapons that DONALD TRUMP gave Ukraine in his first term--Obama had refused to provide weapons to the country--Kiev would likely have been taken in weeks. 

Now that Trump is refusing to put boots on the ground, a "coalition of the willing" in Europe is trying to scrape together a peacekeeping force to be based there once the fighting ceases. 

And it sure looks like it's an impossible task. And that task is impossible because, as is too often the case, Donald Trump was right when he said European military power is a joke with a pathetic punchline. 

Europe would struggle to collectively muster 25,000 troops to be part of a “deterrence” force in Ukraine because its armies are undermanned and underfunded, sources have disclosed.

The Times was given a rare insight into conversations between Europe’s defence ministers and military chiefs as they thrashed out plans for a “coalition of the willing” force.

Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, the British chief of the defence staff, is said to have asked his counterparts on the Continent if they could put together a 64,000-strong force to send to the country in the event of a peace deal.

He said Britain would be willing to send up to 10,000 personnel in a meeting earlier this month, it is understood.

However, in subsequent meetings, defence ministers across Europe said there was “no chance” they could reach that number and that even 25,000 would “be a push for a joint effort”, a source privy to discussions in Brussels said.

The potential commitment to the defense of Ukraine--a commitment meant only to deter Russia, not engage in long-term combat--of 64,000 troops from countries that together have a population greater than the United States--is pretty pathetic. To put that in perspective, the United States has 84,000 troops permanently based in Europe today. During the Cold War we had about 350,000 troops there. 

Europe has the potential to be a serious military power, and certainly outmatches Russia in military potential. It has a population 3x that of Russia's and an economy 10x the size, but even against a power that the EU declares is an existential threat, they can't muster enough troops to provide more than a speed bump to the Russian military. 

Pathetic.

That isn't just my--or Donald Trump's--judgment. Ask the Lithuanians who depend on NATO for their defense against the Russian Bear. 

The Times revealed last week that Britain and France are now more likely to send training troops to western Ukraine instead of a multinational ground force to protect key cities and critical infrastructure amid concerns about the risk involved.

Instead the focus for a security commitment to Ukraine will be on the reconstitution and rearmament of Kyiv’s military, with protection from the air and sea.

Defence ministers are understood to have raised concerns about Britain’s ambition for a force of 64,000 in a meeting of the “coalition of the willing” on April 10. Discussions then continued in Brussels with a smaller group of defence ministers after the coalition meeting, where allies were more frank.

Close allies made their doubts clear to John Healey, the defence secretary, and pointed out that a force of that size would require a total of 256,000 troops on the ground over two years, accounting for rotations.

Dovile Sakaliene, Lithuania’s defence minister, was said to have told her counterparts: “Russia has 800,000 [troops]. Let me tell you this, if we can’t even raise 64,000 that doesn’t look weak — it is weak.”

As angry as the Europeans are that Trump is drawing a line in the sand and saying "this far and no farther" with regard to their demands that we defend Ukraine and the entire continent, they really have no leg to stand on. They have chosen to be weak and defenseless, and now they are whining that we must protect them because they are weak and defenseless. 

They are the children on trial for killing their parents, who are demanding mercy because they are orphans. Yeah, well, you did that. 

To the extent that Russia genuinely threatens Europe militarily--I actually don't think they want to take any NATO territory, but obviously NATO countries do think so--it is the Europeans' fault that they have to worry about that. If a region can't muster enough military power to deter a much smaller and poorer adversary, it is purely its own fault. 

The source pointed out that the British Army, which is steadily shrinking, was also suffering from an artillery shortage and problems with “enablers”, such as supply trucks and other equipment they would normally receive from America.

The reluctance among European countries to send ground troops to protect Ukraine is understood to have led to a shift in thinking about what the force would look like should there be a peace deal. There are also concerns about what the rules of engagement would be should Russia attack.

Under the most likely plans, British and French military trainers would be sent to western Ukraine, fulfilling a commitment to put forces inside the country. However, they would not be near the front line, guard key installations or be there to protect Ukrainian troops.

2025 is not 1985, 1961, or 1957. There is no world-historical struggle between communism and liberalism. Russian ambitions are national, not global, and the Ukraine war is a territorial dispute, not a land grab for Poland or East Germany, no less Paris. Vladimir Putin may be a bad guy and an autocrat, but he is not bent on world domination. Practically speaking, Iran presents a greater threat to Europe than Russia. 

Whatever. Europeans' misunderstanding of the strategic playing field is hardly their biggest problem. Their inability to respond to any serious threat is. 

Trump has been warning them of this for years, and their resentment stems from his telling them the truth and demanding that they get their act together. They are no more in the right than an addict who complains that their enabler is no longer funneling them cash to feed their habit. Of course, they resent the tough love. 

But tough love is what they need.