The US does not like European military autonomy

One of Trump's most sought-after goals, to convince European countries within the Atlantic Alliance to increase military spending, could be achieved, but with effects opposite to those desired by the American president. In his view of defending the West, the White House tenant has argued and supports a gradual decrease in the US commitment to greater European engagement. Trump has taken for granted two objectives: the first, in fact, a less direct commitment of the US armed force and the second a greater sale of arms manufactured in the United States. But the two things do not necessarily mean that they can be realized together: in fact the European Union is proceeding in its intention to form an autonomous military force, capable of developing its own weapons systems, both as a project and as a realization. Such a development would exclude the American war industry from a substantial market and could create significant problems also for the employment aspect, going to hit a substantial share of the president's electorate. The US grievances towards Brussels relate to the real risk of endangering integration and military cooperation, carried out within the Atlantic Alliance; but the question should not be posed in these terms, given that the solution of a European military autonomy is accelerated precisely because of the disengagement announced by Trump's will. In reality it is natural to think that the American president has not considered this eventuality and has taken his vision for granted, highlighting his poor ability to read foreign policy: the equation between greater spending on arms and strategic independence of the Europe was not included in the White House scheme. In the plans of the European Union there is the allocation of 13 billion euros for the development of 34 projects in the field of armaments for the period between 201 and 2027. The participation regulation also provides for the presence of non-EU companies, but without these being able to boast the intellectual property of the projects and with strict controls on the possibility of exporting the products produced, the participation in these projects will also include the unanimous vote of the 25 countries of the Union. It is clear that these restrictions can severely limit the activity of the American war industry and allow the departure of an autonomy of European forces, increasingly detached from the tactical and strategic monopoly of American weapons systems. In fact, the risk of duplication of military systems and even a possible decrease in the integration between the armed forces, due to different armament arrangements, seems concrete, however, masking the irritation for potential lost profits with tactical motivations does not seem to be consistent and consistent with the behavior of the American president, in particular, and with the need to create a European military autonomy, in general, due to the present historical phase. The threats of political and commercial retaliation that come from the United States signal the nervousness of the Washington government for not understanding the developments they themselves have caused and once again highlighting a bad management of foreign policy: US interests are not protected from impositions, especially towards allies, but they must take into account the costs and benefits induced generated by questionable decisions, to which we must add contingent facts such as the exit of the United Kingdom from the Union, which constitutes the loss of a strong ally towards Washington within Europe. On the other hand, Trump has tried to endanger European unity precisely by supporting Brexit. The defense argument threatens to push the two parties even further and worsen an already deeply deteriorated relationship, as well as turning into a personal defeat for Trump, whose effects must not be underestimated: if from a political point of view, even if between many difficulties, it is unthinkable to reach a break between the USA and Europe, this situation could favor even greater openings in Brussels towards China, especially in the economic and financial field, leading to a subtraction of American influence on the Union, with consequent increase in difficulties in the reports also on issues other than military.