The Truth of the Matter (Part II)

I wrote about tariffs in my last post and want to make one more point: The U.S. did not start a “Tariff War.” The U.S. only put tariffs on goods being imported from trading partners who had already placed tariffs on U.S. imports. If anyone started a war it was our trading partners who decided to engage in protectionism and taxed U.S. imports. The U.S. action must be seen solely as a response to years of unequal trade practices and the tariffs themselves are minor compared to the tariffs of those trading partners who now claim the U.S. fired the first shot in the war. One of my commenters mentioned that it was a hardship for U.S. buyers not to be able to purchase foreign goods. My answer is to find out why we aren’t producing the same product in the U.S. and encourage investment in new companies that will manufacture that product providing jobs in-country and supply chain security.

Now, let’s talk about some other unequal situations that exist for the U.S. in foreign affairs.

NATO countries are upset that they might have to defend themselves rather than counting on an overwhelming number of U.S. troops to repel a Russian invasion. This is a difficult proposition because without the U.S. as a central player, well, have you ever known the Germans and French to agree on anything? It isn’t just that the U.S. would be the major combatant in any NATO conflict it is a U.S. imperative that has held the alliance together regardless of who was Secretary General of the Organization. Now the European Union is involved. This is a wannabe United States of Europe wishing for one army, air force and navy but that isn’t going to happen because the politicians in each of the countries aren’t going to give up their power and their ability to enforce that power, to a bunch of bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg. In fact, while there are twenty-eight members of the EU only eighteen use the common EU currency so it is unlikely there will ever be one EU fighting force. That said, it is up to NATO to coordinate the defense of Europe and unless the combined forces are as capable as those of Russia then any defense will be doomed from the start. Additionally, there has never been an actual emergency where NATO forces have been called upon to perform combat as a cohesive entity under one command structure. Yes, there are exercises but all the plans and practice in the world never survive the first contact with the enemy, say many astute scholars in the aftermath of wars.

This U.S. administration, once again, has chosen the truth to inveigle NATO countries to act. The truth is NATO countries have not been meeting their obligations under the treaty regarding expenditures for their military forces nor for the size of forces required to repel a million man army. Historically, the U.S. arrived twice in the twentieth century to pull Europe’s chestnuts out of the fire and that sort of became the accepted position of the leadership of NATO countries. Let the U.S. keep a 100,000 troops in Europe and they’ll bear the brunt of the thrust of any Russian invasion. To that end, some of the NATO countries forego rent on land and other facilities used by those U.S. forces and that is their contribution to the continued presence of U.S. forces in Europe. Still, the U.S. taxpayer must pay to rehabilitate and maintain the buildings and properties where it’s forces are kept as well as the facilities for storing, repairing and using military equipment. The U.S. purchases utilities from local sources including jet fuel and gasoline. Also, because families are allowed to accompany the troops and cost of living is higher in Europe than in the U.S. the allowances for living on the local economies are higher for U.S. forces in Europe. Most observers will tell you that Europe only contributes about a third or what it costs to keep U.S. forces near the anticipated foe but in truth it’s far less than that and most of it is in kind instead of actual funds and the U.S. contributes much more to the local economies of the areas around the military installations. So much so that local mayors are extremely concerned about U.S. forces being withdrawn.

The U.S. and NATO have an extremely complicated relationship, but each year, as time moves on and we become further removed from 1918 and 1945, there are more differences than similarities between European countries and the U.S. Most of the populations of the countries wherein the U.S. has a presence are disdainful of the U.S. forces in particular and the U.S. in general. Let’s go back to the Canadian trade example, “The U.S. has declared a trade war on Canada” says the Canadian Prime Minister but we know that isn’t the truth. It was Canada’s tariffs that caused the $43 Billion trade deficit in 2024. The U.S. tariffs are minor compared to those imposed by Canada. Some economists will spin the information in a salad slinger but in the end lettuce is lettuce no matter how many times you swing it around. The “Truth” is Canada does not offer a level playing field for the game. When they have the ball it’s all downhill, when the U.S. has the ball they’re running up hill. People keep wanting to compare this tariff to that tariff but the actual determining factor is in dollars and with Canada that is $43 Billion/year.

Speaking of Canada and NATO: Does Canada ever thank the U.S. for the protection of the nuclear umbrella the U.S. provides and the cost thereof? And as for defending itself the Canadian Armed forces number 69,000 with another 25,000 in reserve. If China chose to invade Canada from the Pacific, Canada would need the U.S. armed forces from the first instant. Canada has a fleet of 65 aging F/A-18s to protect the entire country. China has four aircraft carriers capable of carrying that many J-15 ( a variant of the Russian Sukhoi-33) fighters into combat. The J-15 has some characteristics that make it slightly superior to the F/A-18A/B but it is far inferior to the US F-35 and F-22. Canada had ordered F-35s but is now making noises about switching to Euro fighters because of the “Trade War.”

Canada belongs to the North American Aerospace Defense Organization NORAD a joint undertaking with the United States but, when forces and capabilities are considered, by far the major part of the mechanism is provided by the United States and paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.

The point I’m making is the U.S. does quite a bit more for NATO than NATO does for the United States. The same with NORAD and Canada, and let’s not even get started with the United Nations. But we have to borrow money to do these things. We’re approaching a $40 Trillion unpaid debt but we continue borrowing money to keep providing the bulk of defense for Western Europe and Canada, among thousands of other projects. Yet, when it comes to trade, none of this is taken into consideration by our so-called trading partners.

As for Ukraine we run into the problem of U.S. largesse and our outdated empathy for the underdog in a fight (although dog fighting is to be abhorred and I certainly do detest it and anyone who would treat animals so dastardly.) Simply put, we can’t afford to continue to fund Ukraine with billions of dollars we’ve borrowed from China and other purchasers of U.S. Treasury securities. For President Zelensky to assume we’re simply giving him something and expecting nothing in return is the height of hubris. Yes, the Western world would like to see Putin taken down a notch or three but the financial security of the United States is more important than whether a probably still corrupt bureaucracy in Ukraine pushes out the forces of a corrupt Russia.

There are those who will speak of duty and moral obligation to defend the aggressed upon from the aggressor, but such defense should not be at the expense of the very being of our nation. Besides, how do we know that Ukraine won’t revert to its old, corrupt, practices. We have only Zelensky’s assurances and his actions of late make him look more like an autocrat than the leader of a democratic republic.

Here’s the truth:

Europe and most Europeans don’t really find common ground with the United States or its citizens/culture. This is not surprising since the United States cannot find common ground within its own borders thanks to disruptive internal forces.

For seventy-six years (today is the anniversary) the United States has borne the majority of the cost of defending Europe and Canada against first, the Soviet Union/ Warsaw Pact and now Russia. The cost to the U.S. taxpayer is significantly higher than it is for the average European citizen. Because of mismanagement of funds by the stewards of government in the United States much of the money put into this defense comes from borrowing against U.S. Treasury securities which have significant accruals of interest that must be paid each year.

The cost of defending Europe and, for that matter, other places like aid to Israel and payments to multiple United Nations organizations, is never taken into consideration when the U.S. is trading with the constituent nations of NATO, NORAD, the U.N. or a multiplicity of other undertakings where the United States is far and away the largest contributor.

If something isn’t done to reverse the outflow of borrowed money the U.S. economy will, in the lifetime of some now living, collapse and with it the nation that once was the beacon of capitalism and democracy to the world. Chaos will ensue, followed by anarchy and from anarchy will arise an authoritarian government.

That’s the Truth of the situation and here’s the Truth of the cause of the situation.

U.S. politicians get elected and stay in office by giving things to people who vote for them and they are assisted in their efforts by a large government bureaucracy that has grown exponentially since the beginning of World War II. The things they give out have become addicting for those voters who expect more and more with each election. The programs, goods, access to provisions, transportation, cell phones, medical care, access to education and such are now viewed not just as temporary measures to assist people to become part of the work force but rather as “RIGHTS” and you’ll hear people asserting their right to this and their right to that. The right to a house, a car, a cell phone, internet, food, education, medical care. All provided by a government that must go into debt to provide such items. Just the “Right” to medical care takes forty percent of the annual budget of the United State.

The same occurs with foreign nations; over the past seventy years it has become the expectation that the United States would defend Europe because of the commonality of culture. It’s a business as usual approach that is helping to drive the United States government further in debt to foreign nations snapping up U.S. Treasury instrumentalities. Such an arrangement is not in the best interests of the US or its citizens and something must be done to readjust the balance. It appears the current U.S. administration has realized this gordian knot and, like Alexander, choose to solve the problem by slashing through the knot with a sword. Decisive action as opposed to long-term diplomacy where little if anything is ever really decided.

In the end business as usual results in the demise of the USA. Aggressive action to correct inequality may be able to return the sovereignty of the US to its citizens and not to the holders of the notes of credit. Think about it. Kind of like ripping the band aid off or for those more fashionable, getting a Brazilian wax for that back hair.