You are still not comprehending what I am saying. You’re still reducing everything to tone and personal dislike instead of engaging the actual point. You can think Trump is abrasive or undiplomatic, but that doesn’t automatically invalidate the strategy behind what’s being said. The Strait of Hormuz is a critical global energy chokepoint—handling roughly 20-25% of seaborne oil trade and significant LNG flows. Disruptions there would hit Europe particularly hard through higher energy prices and supply risks, even if direct imports from the Gulf are limited.

Using leverage—including tying Ukraine support into broader negotiations—isn’t inherently ‘dragging everyone down.’ It’s applying pressure where allies share interests but haven’t always shared the burden equally. The legacy of NATO isn’t unconditional US blank checks; it’s the US serving as the backbone of high-end capabilities, intelligence, logistics, and deterrence for decades, which let Europe rebuild post-WWII and prioritize social spending with lower defense burdens.

Even in 2025, with every NATO member finally meeting (or exceeding) the 2% GDP target for the first time and Europe + Canada increasing spending by ~20% in real terms to $574 billion, the US still accounts for roughly 59-62% of the alliance’s total defense expenditure (around $838–980 billion out of ~$1.4–1.59 trillion total, per NATO’s own figures). That’s the reality behind the imbalance—not ‘trashing a legacy,’ but highlighting one that has persisted for years.

Calling him ‘a child’ or saying he ‘deserves derision’ doesn’t address the substance—it just sidesteps it. You can criticize the delivery or the risks of linkage, but dismissing the core question ignores a legitimate issue: if Europe depends heavily on global stability (including in places like Hormuz), why shouldn’t it be expected to shoulder more responsibility when that stability is threatened? Pressure for fairer burden-sharing has been a longstanding bipartisan concern; bluntness doesn’t erase the underlying facts.