[squidbeak]

> Nato membership requires 2% of GDP to be spent on military.

No, actually it isn't a condition of NATO membership to spend 2% on defense. This is a myth.

> It's one thing if a democratically elected president who will be out in 2 years is something you hate on... but it's turned from that. It seems every European consintely berates us, from a fundamentally level now.

Do you think that having experienced this treatment from a nation previously trusted as a friend and ally that Europe can sensibly revert to its old confidence in the USA? Sure the Democrats might win power in 2028, or even a reformed and sensible Republican candidate. But who's to say the next populist Europhobic nutter isn't another 4 years behind them? This is the central problem for the US, that many of its citizens still won't confront: there are costs to unreliability, delinquency, bullying and threats.

> I won't defend trump, but what has threatening annexation of greenland done? Billions in additional military buildup, which is good for both our economies.

This is childishly fatuous. Europe, then, should be grateful to the US for threatening to invade it?