Trump and the Europeans "play" each other. NATO wins.

After World War II, the United States sought through a series of mechanisms to bring about lasting peace, security, and prosperity for itself. And because European wars were inimical to these goals, it sought to bring about peace, security, and prosperity for Western Europe, as well.

The main mechanisms the U.S. established to promote these happy ends were the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Marshall Plan. The United Nations proved to be worse than worthless, and I have no educated opinion about the World Bank and the IMF.

However, NATO and the Marshall Plan were enormous successes. Together, they thwarted Joseph Stalin’s ambitions in Western Europe. NATO stymied Stalin militarily and continued to stymie the USSR for as long as it existed.

NATO helped produce a very long peace. From the end of World War II until 2022, there were no European wars between nations. I wonder whether there has ever been such a lengthy period of peace among European nations since the formation of nation-states.

The Marshall Plan, by assisting European economies, prevented Stalin from fulfilling his expansionist goals in Western Europe through non-military means. By helping to rebuild European economies, the Plan stymied pro-Soviet communist parties in Western Europe. In the absence of large-scale poverty, these parties never came to power.

The United States benefited enormously by leading stable, economically healthy, friendly partners. We also benefited from the containment of communism.

We know from Soviet archives that Stalin believed the U.S. and Europe could not sustain lasting alliances and partnerships. He believed, therefore, that once the Soviet Union obtained nuclear weapons capability, which it did within a few years after the war, communism would prevail in Europe.

Stalin’s view that the West could not form sustainable alliances was rooted in Marxist-Leninist doctrine. A firm believer in this ideology, Stalin was certain that capitalist nations were too greedy to cooperate with one another for long. Any alliance among them would falter because the parties inevitably would turn against each other out of jealousy and greed. Had Stalin needed something beyond Marxist-Leninist dogma to support his certainty, he could have cited Europe’s imperialist scramble for Africa in the late 19th century and World War I in the early 20th.

But two disastrous world wars had sobered Europe up. Far less doctrinaire than their Soviet adversaries, Europeans were able to judge situations empirically and to learn from their mistakes. Thus, Stalin’s assessment proved to be wildly off-the-mark.

However, in 2016, more than 60 years after Stalin’s death, the U.S. elected a president who, at least superficially, conformed to the blood-thirsty autocrat’s caricature of a capitalist. That president immediately proclaimed NATO, a “rip off.” (What would Trump have said about the great American giveaway that was the Marshall Plan? What would he have said about the decision to rebuild and remake our wartime enemies, Germany and Japan?)

On the plus side, Trump’s insistence that NATO’s “deadbeat” members increase their military spending has made NATO stronger. But his frequent shots at NATO members, his trade policy, and his stance on Russia’s war against Ukraine and on Vladimir Putin have divided the alliance in ways that would have warmed Stalin’s cold, cold heart.

But then came this week’s lovefest at the Hague:

President Donald Trump issued a full-throated endorsement of NATO and its defense mission after a summit of alliance leaders Wednesday, in his most forceful backing of a group he once threatened to abandon.

“These people really love their countries,” Trump told reporters. “It’s not a rip-off, and we’re here to help them.”

Why the about-face? Clearly, the commitment of NATO’s members to more than double their defense spending targets was a major factor — and a triumph for Trump and his negotiating tactics. It’s likely, though, that flattery also played a part:

Trump stayed overnight in a royal palace, received fawning messages from NATO’s secretary general and watched as one leader after another took the floor in a closed-door meeting to praise him for his leadership and his recent attack on Iran. At a summit tailor-made to please the U.S. president, Trump celebrated dual triumphs on Iran and the alliance’s agreement to boost military outlays to levels that many other members found outlandish eight years ago.

His time with Dutch royalty impressed Trump:

“I actually had breakfast today with a king and a queen who were beautiful, beautiful people. Central casting,” Trump told reporters Wednesday, referring to Dutch King Willem-Alexander and Queen Maxima.

So did the words of the assembled European leaders:

“I think we should choose the motto ‘Make NATO Great Again,’” Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said, explaining that Lithuania would be increasing its defense spending to 4 percent this year, and then would exceed 5 percent next year, as Trump called for. . . .

Other leaders in turn praised Trump’s efforts to boost European defense spending. Some endorsed his Iran strikes. Many embraced the flattery that they have learned is a highly effective way to Trump’s heart, the European officials said.

The outcome could hardly have been more positive. Trump received the commitment of our NATO partners to boost their defense spending to the levels he has demanded, albeit with some accounting tricks likely.

Our NATO partners received Trump’s commitment to come to their aid in the event of an attack. “We’re here to help them protect their countr[ies],” Trump affirmed. And Trump is now on record that the great alliance is not a “rip-off.”

Marxist-Leninist doctrine has been confounded once again — this time thanks to psychology, both Trump’s and the Europeans’.

Well played by both.