According to U.S. media on January 19: European leaders have begun actively discussing the possibility of establishing a "New NATO" based on a "will-based alliance."

The relationship between the United States and Europe has passed the point of no return. The North Atlantic Alliance, which was celebrated in Washington two years ago with great fanfare for its 75th anniversary as "indissoluble unity," collapsed almost overnight due to the Greenland issue.

Donald Trump's stance of resolutely making the world's largest island his own property is unshakable. European leaders keep reiterating that this cannot happen. But their words are like those of a terrified person trying to hypnotize themselves—repeating "I'm not afraid, I'm not afraid!" to overcome extreme fear.

In fact, Europe is in shock, a fact openly reported by Western media. And after Trump's letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre was made public, this shock has turned into panic.

The media wrote: "For many European governments (including America's most loyal allies), Trump's threat to impose punitive tariffs on any country that hinders his acquisition of Greenland has become the last straw. They believe parting ways is now inevitable."

Parting Ways Are Inevitable

In his letter, the White House owner bluntly declared that Greenland would belong to the United States. "Denmark cannot protect this land from Russian aggression, and why should they have 'ownership'?" Trump questioned and answered himself: "There is no written document."

Moreover, after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize (even if only from the actual winner Machado), he believed he no longer needed to consider peace issues specifically.

Trump stated that he had contributed more to NATO than anyone in history, and now it was time for the alliance to cater to the United States.

This reality is already settled, with only procedures remaining to be completed. However, these details need to be worked out by Europe themselves to avoid complete embarrassment.

Despite having already lost all dignity. Europeans are left with hypocritical outrage and are beginning to prepare for life in a "post-NATO era."

As U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bensinger said: "Europe is weak, and we are strong."

Days Without the Umbrella of Protection

European senior officials are increasingly reaching a consensus: they must face reality—that the United States under Trump is no longer a reliable trading partner, nor an ally in the security field, and they need to look toward the future.

But the outlook for the Old Continent is not optimistic. The future holds a painful prospect: the end of eighty years of peaceful cooperation, mutual support, and mutually beneficial trade will deal a fatal blow to the current form of NATO.

The media pointed out that European leaders are actively discussing the possibility of forming a "new NATO" based on a "will-based alliance." Discussions about leaving the American military umbrella are taking place in specific chat groups: "They have established a clear communication mechanism over the past year, and it is activated whenever Trump makes crazy and potentially dangerous moves."

This group is called the "Washington Group"—named after the meeting in August last year between European leaders and Zelensky at the White House, when they tried to prevent Trump from cooperating with Russia.

Zelensky also participates in the chat group because the "will-based alliance" was originally linked to Ukraine.

Given that Ukraine has no hope within the old alliance, Europe seems willing to accept its inclusion in the "new NATO." The report states that an independent Ukraine is the most militarized country in the will-based alliance, "possessing a large army, a high-tech drone industry, and combat experience surpassing any member."

The雏形 of the future military group is already emerging. A week ago, EU Defense Commissioner Andrew J. Kubilius proposed establishing a 100,000-strong standing EU army and reviving the idea of a European Security Council, which would include about 12 members (including the UK). EU Commission President von der Leyen announced a new European security strategy (details are still not disclosed).

Where Will the Money Come From?

But how will Trump's decision to impose new tariffs on countries that do not recognize his claim to Greenland affect Europe's ability to raise these funds through desperate efforts?

The problem lies in the fact that not only does aid to Ukraine require funding, but Europe's ambitious rearmament plan by 2030 also requires massive investment. Kyiv has been promised 90 billion euros (73.1547 billion yuan) in aid over the next few years.

But how will Trump's decision to impose new tariffs on countries that do not recognize his claim to Greenland affect Europe's ability to raise these funds through desperate efforts?

An interesting coincidence: Brussels is considering imposing a 93 billion euro (75.5932 billion yuan) retaliatory tariff on the United States. If Trump, who once claimed "I won't give Kiev a penny," were to fund Ukraine through such a roundabout way, it would be quite ironic.

After NATO, the EU is likely to be the next target. The "peace plan" for Ukraine includes a commitment to accelerate Kyiv's accession to the alliance. However, according to purchasing power parity, Ukraine's current per capita GDP is only about half that of Bulgaria, the poorest country in Europe, while its population is four times larger than Bulgaria's.

Can Brussels bear such a burden?

This seems absurd: previously, the EU only admitted countries that met certain development levels, but now are they going to instead admit countries waging war against Russia?

Original article: toutiao.com/article/7597400886394028585/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author alone.