Handy rule of thumb: Nobody plays 4d chess. Especially with Trump, what you see is what you get. He does not have a complex ulterior motive. He is capitulating to Russia because he thinks it will be better for himself personally.
> But what Trump is betting on is that it could be the US + EU + Russia vs China.
This makes no sense when put up against reality. The US is alienating the EU, throwing Ukraine under the bus, alienating NATO (major military alliance) and Five Eyes (major intelligence alliance) just so they can bring Russia in to the fold with the US and EU? How, the US won't be partnered with the EU at this rate.
The bet would be that in the long run (talking 5-10 years down the road after the EU has built their defense), the EU would still be more likely to ally with the US then China.
The current administration perhaps thinks that alienating them in the short run is the only way to get them to actually get serious about building military.
In the EU, right-wing parties continue to grow. AfD, National Front, and others have all recently scored their highest levels of support. It is not impossible to imagine that they will eventually cross the threshold to actually governing, and at that point, the EU and Trump will be much more aligned.
That's what Trump is betting on, and I'm not sure he will lose (as much as I would like him to lose).
> In the EU, right-wing parties continue to grow. AfD, National Front, and others have all recently scored their highest levels of support. It is not impossible to imagine that they will eventually cross the threshold to actually governing, and at that point, the EU and Trump will be much more aligned.
Thing about nationalist parties, the defining characteristic, is they're interested in their own nation first, not spreading nationalism as a global ideology.
If all of Europe elected nationalist parties, none of them are going to be aligned with the USA — nor, for that matter, each other — except by coincidence, and then on small and limited domains.
The bet would be that in the long run (talking 5-10 years down the road after the EU has built their defense), the EU would still be more likely to ally with the US than China.
The current administration perhaps thinks that alienating them in the short run is the only way to get them to actually get serious about building military.
The reason why the EU never "got serious" about building military after WW2 was mainly due to US interference.
The EU actually spends quite a lot in defense, but does so very inadequately. Each country has their own army, so there's a lot of overlap in spending. I actually think that now that the US is essentially an enemy nation, EU will be forced to integrate more, as that's the only way it can pose a meaningful response. That can only be a good thing.
Also, I think you are underestimating how much the US is alienating EU in this, and how badly it is damaging relations. Trust is something you earn in droplets but lose in buckets.
Right now, it's basically the US vs Russia and China.
But what Trump is betting on is that it could be the US + EU + Russia vs China.
In order for this to happen though, the EU must build their own military.
The EU could and should be a superpower, but they're not. Instead they're living off the US military.
The US has been gently trying to get EU to boost its own spending. This goes as far back as Obama, and maybe even further back.
The difference is that Obama was somewhat passive aggressive with his approach. Whereas Trump is tearing off the band aid.
The public belligerence and positioning against the EU is an effort to kick them out of the parents' basement and get their act together.
Now, what is he doing regarding Canada and Mexico? That I have 0 clue. And his current stance honestly seems stupid.