RUTHFULLY YOURS

BRUSSELS—European governments endorsed a plan aimed at building military cooperation so that the bloc could act alone, as pressure builds on the region to increase its own military spending with the election of Donald Trump.

European Union ministers decided Monday to move forward with a proposal to create a new planning organization to oversee training missions and to make greater use of its standing military crisis-response units.

But they made little progress on the more sweeping proposals from Brussels over the summer to build common military capabilities or tap EU funding for defense projects.

Expanding defense cooperation via the EU has long been controversial. Britain has blocked a number of proposals in the past, preferring to work to strengthen security through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization instead.

But the U.K.’s decision to leave the EU and, now, the election of Mr. Trump have given fresh impetus for efforts to build what officials call Europe’s “strategic autonomy,” an ability to act independently of other major powers. In his presidential campaign, Mr. Trump questioned the relevance of the NATO military alliance and suggested American military support could be conditional on European military spending.

According to a statement published after their meeting on Monday, the foreign and defense ministers said they were committed to strengthening the EU’s ability to act as a security provider.

“This will enhance its global strategic role and its capacity to act autonomously when and where necessary and with partners wherever possible,” they said.

Federica Mogherini, the EU foreign-policy chief called the agreement a “qualitative leap.” But even supporters of more cooperation, such as Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni, were more reserved, calling Monday’s decision a small step, albeit “in a very important strategic direction.”

Forging consensus in the EU is difficult, and divisions remain in the bloc over how to increase military spending or create new military capabilities. The agreements reached Monday fall far short of the military command-and-control headquarters some nations wanted, or an EU army, a proposal that never had wide support.

Member states are still considering options for some EU governments to enter into an agreement for a deeper defense cooperation, including working together to develop new weapons systems and military capabilities that Europe currently relies on the U.S. for. CONTINUE AT SITE

The European Union greeted Donald Trump’s election with gnashing of teeth and a typically chaotic “emergency summit” in Brussels over the weekend. Please, folks, get a grip.

This isn’t to say Europe doesn’t have cause for concern. The President-elect’s antitrade convictions could be economically and politically damaging on both sides of the Atlantic. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks between the U.S. and EU may suffer the same fate as the Pacific trade talks did last week.

Mr. Trump’s soft spot for Vladimir Putin could exacerbate divisions between EU hawks and doves on the bloc’s response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Mr. Trump also questioned America’s commitment to NATO, though he has since walked that back. One of his surrogates, Newt Gingrich, raised doubts about the U.S. commitment to smaller allies such as Estonia, which the former House Speaker described as a suburb of St. Petersburg.

But the EU bears some responsibility for alienating American voters who have trouble understanding the rationale for continued U.S. support for European security or free trade. One of Mr. Trump’s legitimate complaints about NATO is that only Estonia, Greece, Poland, the U.S. and U.K. meet the pact’s minimum requirement of spending 2% of GDP on defense.

In 2014 the newsweekly Der Spiegel noted that Germany, which spends about 1% of its gross domestic product on defense, would be able to deploy a grand total of 10 attack helicopters, 80 jet fighters and one submarine in a war. This in a country with a GDP of nearly $3.5 trillion. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump is the candidate who vowed to increase U.S. defense spending after years of declines under President Obama.

The EU also hasn’t covered itself in glory on trade. French and German politicians declared TTIP dead earlier this year even as the Obama Administration was trying to keep hopes for a deal alive. The EU did manage recently to conclude a free-trade deal with Canada, but only after barely overcoming a veto by Belgian dairy farmers. Decades of demagogy in Europe about the evils of all things American, from genetically modified foods to the “cowboy” instincts of U.S. foreign policy, haven’t exactly fostered a spirit of trans-Atlantic amity.

When will we see the emergence of a leader immune to the PC hectoring and abuse heaped on the US president-elect? Whenever that figure rises on our public stage, expect the same reaction we are seeing on the streets of the US: the impotent fury of the irrelevant left.
I still don’t believe it – Hillary Clinton is not POTUS. A ghost somewhat resembling Ronald Reagan is back in the saddle, the Clintons are relegated to history’s dustbin (and perhaps the penal system) and the Left, as usual, is both wrong and furious. I did not mention Ronald Reagan by mistake – the parallels are plentiful, especially in the vilification department.

There are more than enough post-mortems of the miraculously, marvelously upsetting and unexpected outcome of these elections, all featuring the allegedly wise heads who said a Trump triumph was impossible but who now, once again and undaunted, dispense their oracular wisdom about what the future will hold. In case you can’t guess, by their accounting it will be mostly terrible. I will not tell you why did Donald Trump won, except to note that, judging by the impotent fury of progressives and aggressives, various minorities and terminal idiots, the right person won the prize. The high-decibel rabble now protesting democracy and its result in America are livid that their countrymen — their lesser countrymen, as they would have it — dared to think for themselves, refused to do as they were told. How typical of the Left, which professes to love democracy but only until such time when the elections don’t go their way.

There is yet more comic relief from the ranks of the Republican elite, where we can observe an indecent haste to eat their words, uttered so recently with indignation and righteous fury when disowning their own candidate. Now the same scolds and naysayers are, pardon the pun, trumpling each other in a race to gather the crumbs of power from the table of the man they urged their fellow Americans to scorn in the voting booth. This is the same guy they maligned, undermined and betrayed at every turn. It is better to watch than a five-ring circus, albeit with more than the usual quota of clowns. To the extent that our political stage here in Australia is a sideshow beside the big top of US politics, the critics-turned-supplicants bring to mind our very own Malcolm Turnbull, PM, who bucketed Pauline Hanson in the run-up to the election and must now work with the very same woman he denigrated and reviled. You would have to be Niki Savva (or have a hubby working in the PM’s office) to see anything but an egomaniacal blowhard’s folly in that little prime ministerial outburst.

But I was talking about a US election, so let me observe that, as a long-term student of the American system, I can’t remember such fury after any other election which did not go the left’s way. Why such a strong feeling this time? I am mildly concerned that the combination of the left’s frustration and presumed moral superiority might prompt episodes of armed violence, as idiots consider it their right and obligation to resist “tyranny”. It is an impression enhanced by an internet meme doing the rounds as I type — a Facebook post allegedly authored by Hollywood scriptwriter Paul Schrader. It may be a hoax — I hope it is — but the currency of its instantly widespread circulation and endorsements is deeply unsettling. Here is the post that thousands of disgruntled leftists are “liking” (emphasis added):

I have spent the last five days meditating on Trump’s election. Upon consideration, I believe this is a call to violence. I felt the call to violence in the 60’s and I feel it now again. This attack on liberty and tolerance will not be solved by appeasement. Obama tried that for eight years. We should finance those who support violence resistance. We should be willing to take arms. Like Old John Brown, I am willing to battle with my children. Alt-right nut jobs swagger violence. It’s time to actualize that violence, Like by Civil War Michigan predecessors I choose to stand with the black, the brown and the oppressed.