Yes, but he said that in the context of buying American products. He wanted the American economy to benefit from arms sales, not a more independent Europe.

Source please, that seems totally made up.

He has been clear about NATO %'s, very little room for your confusion.

Almost every time he talks about it you’ll see some detail like this link shared by someone else:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-13/trump-tel...

EU is being threatened with tariffs because we’re not buying „enough” things from the US, including among others arms. The „suggestion” has always been to spend that money in the USA.

Historically, an independent Europe has meant continental war after continental war, and Europe is again pushing for a continental war.

This isn’t “Europe” pushing for a war, that’s solely Russia. That’s also why this policy reversal is so shocking: until recently, pretty much everyone accepted the post-WWII consensus that the United States helping to stabilize Europe was better for everyone. Trump throwing in with Russia is not only a betrayal of our allies but also dramatically increasing the risk of war since it tells Russia and anyone else so inclined that wars of aggression are viable as long as you make it financially rewarding for him.

No, it’s Europe. Ukraine decided not to join the EU and the West supported a coup via the Maidan Revolution. The extent of that support? I don’t know, but at the very least we were verbally encouraging the violent overthrow of their government.

What are you talking about? Isn't it Russia that's pushing for a continental war, not Europe?

Yeah, but EU countries donated weapons like the F-16, which were bought from the US in the first place. So now we have to use another source for those weapon systems and the revenue/jobs won't end up in the US.

Is this really what the US wants?

That's US's problem. Which is very minor compared to Ukraine's or Europe's problems with this war.

What exactly was Europe’s problem? Did they not invite war by promising to provide only ineffective assistance to Ukraine? Which European nation does not have nukes? Which cannot flatten Moscow? Yet none even implied a willingness to do what it would take to prevent an invasion. Either win or lose. There is no honor in sending millions of young men to die.

Most European nations don't have nukes.

If Russia overruns Ukraine (which, I really hope, they won't be able to), their next targets are Moldova, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia.

Will Europe start a nuclear war over any of these countries being invaded? Doubt it.

I’m talking about rhetoric and deterrence and values. When Putin was building up for war, the US was saying we’d provide money and “defensive” weapons. That’s basically an invitation. It’s saying we won’t do what it takes to win. That’s fine. If we don’t care enough to prevent it, then we can own that and let it happen without millions dying. Or, if we really won’t let that happen, then we can make that the reality and again save millions of lives.

I don’t understand how Europe seems to think that a world war among nuclear powers is the least-risky approach. If we keep fighting someone is going to start using them anyway.

Yes. To buy more American weapons.