What made sanctions work, historically speaking, it was the belief that they reflected a consistent position. That they carried weight beyond economic leverage. Once you waive them when oil prices are inconvenient, the instrument changes. In this case, It loses power, the next time, and the time after that. And the NATO is really complex in a way that the "paper tiger". Trump isn't entirely wrong that European members of the alliance have been spotty contributors. But there's a deep difference between "you have to spend more on defense" and "you failed my test" and at the same time promising to annex part of Denmark. Those two things cannot co-exist credibly. You cannot expect people to be loyal to you if you have actively undermined them. Europe, to their credit, seems to be processing this in a way that's actually probably healthier long term. They're building out. Germany is the fourth largest spender for the military now. EU defense budget receiving serious allocations. The conversation has truly changed from "how do we keep the US engaged" to "what does a no-America scenario require". What is the logic in claiming territory from an ally? Politically, what does it mean when the architect of the rules exempts itself from them? Probably they do not disappear. They just get hollowed out and turn into a kind of rhetorical form that powerful states reference when doing whatever they were going to do anyway. Which, again, is not completely new. But the performance of rule-following was also valuable. It caused friction, slowed things down, provided the smaller states with at least the argument if not always the outcome.
What made sanctions work, historically speaking, it was the belief that they reflected a consistent position. That they carried weight beyond economic leverage. Once you waive them when oil prices are inconvenient, the instrument changes. In this case, It loses power, the next time, and the time after that. And the NATO is really complex in a way that the "paper tiger". Trump isn't entirely wrong that European members of the alliance have been spotty contributors. But there's a deep difference between "you have to spend more on defense" and "you failed my test" and at the same time promising to annex part of Denmark. Those two things cannot co-exist credibly. You cannot expect people to be loyal to you if you have actively undermined them. Europe, to their credit, seems to be processing this in a way that's actually probably healthier long term. They're building out. Germany is the fourth largest spender for the military now. EU defense budget receiving serious allocations. The conversation has truly changed from "how do we keep the US engaged" to "what does a no-America scenario require". What is the logic in claiming territory from an ally? Politically, what does it mean when the architect of the rules exempts itself from them? Probably they do not disappear. They just get hollowed out and turn into a kind of rhetorical form that powerful states reference when doing whatever they were going to do anyway. Which, again, is not completely new. But the performance of rule-following was also valuable. It caused friction, slowed things down, provided the smaller states with at least the argument if not always the outcome.

What made sanctions work, historically speaking, it was the belief that they reflected a consistent position. That they carried weight beyond economic leverage. Once you waive them when oil prices are inconvenient, the instrument changes. In this case, It loses power, the next time, and the time after that. And the NATO is really complex in a way that the "paper tiger". Trump isn't entirely wrong that European members of the alliance have been spotty contributors. But there's a deep difference between "you have to spend more on defense" and "you failed my test" and at the same time promising to annex part of Denmark. Those two things cannot co-exist credibly. You cannot expect people to be loyal to you if you have actively undermined them. Europe, to their credit, seems to be processing this in a way that's actually probably healthier long term. They're building out. Germany is the fourth largest spender for the military now. EU defense budget receiving serious allocations. The conversation has truly changed from "how do we keep the US engaged" to "what does a no-America scenario require". What is the logic in claiming territory from an ally? Politically, what does it mean when the architect of the rules exempts itself from them? Probably they do not disappear. They just get hollowed out and turn into a kind of rhetorical form that powerful states reference when doing whatever they were going to do anyway. Which, again, is not completely new. But the performance of rule-following was also valuable. It caused friction, slowed things down, provided the smaller states with at least the argument if not always the outcome.

What made sanctions work, historically speaking, it was the belief that they reflected a consistent position. That they carried weight beyond economic leverage. Once you waive them when oil prices are inconvenient, the instrument changes. In this case, It loses power, the next time, and the time after that. And the NATO is really complex in a way that the "paper tiger". Trump isn't entirely wrong that European members of the alliance have been spotty contributors. But there's a deep difference between "you have to spend more on defense" and "you failed my test" and at the same time promising to annex part of Denmark. Those two things cannot co-exist credibly. You cannot expect people to be loyal to you if you have actively undermined them. Europe, to their credit, seems to be processing this in a way that's actually probably healthier long term. They're building out. Germany is the fourth largest spender for the military now. EU defense budget receiving serious allocations. The conversation has truly changed from "how do we keep the US engaged" to "what does a no-America scenario require". What is the logic in claiming territory from an ally? Politically, what does it mean when the architect of the rules exempts itself from them? Probably they do not disappear. They just get hollowed out and turn into a kind of rhetorical form that powerful states reference when doing whatever they were going to do anyway. Which, again, is not completely new. But the performance of rule-following was also valuable. It caused friction, slowed things down, provided the smaller states with at least the argument if not always the outcome.