Every president after Clinton, and maybe him as well, (yes, including Obama) said that Europe had to become responsible for its defense. During that same time, Europe has insisted that it knows better than the US cowboys. And, Europe certainly doesn't like US global power projection.

So, why does Europe need/want the US in NATO?

It can't be resources - Europe is rich. More to the point, Europe has almost 10x Russia's GDP and about 2.5x the population.

So, unless Europe is worried about Germany, it can handle its defense.

Show the US how it's done.

It's about the nukes. Europe doesn't want a world where a lot of countries have nukes so the role of the US in Nato was to provide Europe with a nuclear umbrella.

I'm a Swede and something is going on between France and Sweden related to nuclear weapons. Not sure if it's about placing French Rafael fighter jets with French nukes or some type of collaboration about Gripen fighter jets with Swedish nukes.

Should be noted that not all of the locals have always wanted the foreign military stationed there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenham_Common_Women%27s_Peac...

It is probably time for the Cold War relics to leave. It doesn't help their case that the US and Coalition spent much of the past 25 years since 9/11 engaged in an ultimately fruitless war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nobody really wants to look at the Ukraine war in Western Europe. It's very apparent that the degree of caring depends on how far east a country is; Poland are talking about getting the Bomb. The UK has provided significant technical assistance and missiles but the war really is not in the public conversation, and attempts to increase military spending or even fix the Ajax have gone nowhere. Everyone is of course obsessed with refugees, but not at looking where they have come from or what they are fleeing.

The situation got even worse with the new Iran war. Is that going to be a ten or twenty year event? Is the US finally going to get the ground invasion of Iran it has wanted since the Carter administration?

We cannot build a security architecture by looking backwards. We have to look forwards. But I'd settle for looking out of the window at the world as it is today.

Yes, the USA said that, but the damage was done. For many decades any inclinations for EU defense contracts to favor EU arms, were greatly frowned upon. France was derided for having made the right decision from go.

Post-WWII USA would give you Pax Americana, as long as you had no domestic defence industry.

The US paid for its alliances, hegemony, and safe shipping lanes by providing a comprehensive nuclear and conventional security umbrella via NATO.

Framing calculated realpolitik as an act of charity that the people of Europe should be grateful for is pretty cynical. It's always been a trade-off. The president has always complained publicly about the cost, precisely because admitting that reality doesn't win votes at home, but narratives about European leeches taking advantage of the US does.

If you want to see what it will look like after the US stops paying the bill for its incredibly privileged position, you can read about how much fun the process was for Britain in the 1950s.

> So, why does Europe need/want the US in NATO?

There's is no NATO without the US, it would need to be something else and function differently. That takes years because there's too many countries involved. We would likely get two military unions in EU - North and South, North on helping Ukraine and South trying to distance itself. Furthermore the time is running out until this grows into a bigger conflict, this is just from couple of days ago: "Alarm in Denmark after Russian ship fires at military helicopter"

https://www.politico.eu/article/russian-frigate-fires/

In my opinion it's because of:

- nuclear deterrence - like other commenters said, no one really wants a nuclear arms race, but I think it's bound to happen. Poland, the Baltics, Sweden/Norway will probably need to develop their own nuclear deterrence, and obviously Ukraine.

- the US for the most part has been a good friend and ally, and has a lot of weight, and above all it helped to create the EU and wanted the EU to succeed.

- Europe has had a lot of conflicts, and a lot of parties funded by foreign states are seeking to bring EU down, including the US administration. It would be nice for Europeans if it wasn't like that.

Then why did the USA sabotaged every attempt at a European army?

The answer is because you twist American President words: they want Europe to "invest" more in its defense, but stay subversient to the US, not take more "responsibility" as you wrote. Which means, in plain terms: "buy more American weapons". There has never been any honest wish for Europe to shoulder its defense, it is a pure money grabbing scheme.

You just have to see the hissy fit they throw every time Europeans put "buy European" conditions to any rearmament program.

Europe would be fully military autonomous if Europeans listened to the French. The countries that blocked and sabotaged French initiatives and European procurement all have a "special relationship" with the US: the UK first and foremost.

>It can't be resources - Europe is rich.

Oh, suddenly we are not "Europoors" anymore. Funny, that.

> During that same time, Europe has insisted that it knows better than the US cowboys.

Uh, weren't we right? I mean, isn't "no more foreign wars" a big rallying cry of a certain president and especially vice-president that resonated with a lot of the American electorate? On what grounds are you snarky here, exactly?

(We also saw from the beginning Trump was a liar, a conman and an idiot, but I guess you will reproach us with that too)