Trump's Formula

Donald Trump is not the first time saying that the US allies in various parts of the world are not paying enough for their security. Thus, the majority of NATO countries spend on defense needs less than 2% of GDP required by the alliance's charter. European countries, Gulf monarchies, Japan and South Korea enjoy the protection of the United States, but pay only 30% to 50% of the cost of maintaining American military bases in their territories. All of these countries can also always count on the support of 11 US carrier strike forces, but they have not posted a single cent for this protection over the entire post-war history.

And now the White House master came up with a fair (in his opinion) compensation scheme for, so to speak, the provision of allied security services. According to the new formula, which has become known thanks to the sources of The Washington Post, the countries on whose territory American servicemen are serving will have to pay 150% of the cost of their stay in a foreign land. That is, the above services will be provided with a margin of 50%.

If you believe The Washington Post, this news "shocked" Germany, Japan and South Korea. The publication also reported that the use of the new formula will force some of the allies of the United States to increase their spending on the maintenance of American bases on their land by 4-5 times.

“Shock” and indignation of the US defendants can be understood. Well, do they do this with friends, partners in a single block (strictly speaking, several different blocks) and co-founders of the once indestructible Pax Americana? Uncle Sam promised to be a world policeman, serving the citizens of the “free world” and protecting them, and not at all a chopovt who can inflate prices for his work at any time.

Washington hawks also didn’t like another evidence of Trump’s destructive policies. Then he declares NATO obsolete, then "declares his love to the enemies of the West" (various leaders fall under this definition - from Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi to Erdogan and Kim Jong-un), or even promises to "return American soldiers home." The next demarche of Donald will be regarded by his enemies in the United States just as another “gift to Putin,” well, or to the heads of other states, who, in the opinion of foreign policy “gurus,” need to be restrained.

One can also understand the critics of Washington. For them, the presence of the US military bases around the globe is a visible indication of America’s global dominance and imposing its will on other countries.

From the point of view of these critics (and they are right in many respects), neither the NATO countries, nor Japan, nor South Korea are at all allies of the White House. They are his satellites. The United States Army has built outposts all over the Earth, and their fleet patrols the entire World Ocean. If anything Trump wants with his formula, it is to ensure greater involvement of the controlled powers in suppressing the last centers of resistance of American hegemony.

There is a third point of view. Donald Trump, of course, seeks to make a lucrative deal for US taxpayers, but his efforts are unlikely to be crowned with decisive success. And they will definitely not lead to the fact that America will cease to be a world policeman, will return the soldier home and stop carrying democracy on the wings of her strike aircraft.

The formula “100% + 50%” is only the initial bid at the auctions, which are designed to make Europeans, oil sheiks and Asian tigers pay a little more for the so-called collective security and buy more American goods.

But the dispute about the distribution of costs for the maintenance of the “global military-political bloc of the United States” has a deeper underlying reason. She, as a rule, is overlooked (unwittingly or deliberately) by both Washington hawks and accusers of American hegemony. However, like the "realists" who consider Trump's demarche a tactical move in a long game with the allies.

The fact is that back in the days of the Cold War, when Germany and other NATO members honestly spent 2% of GDP on defense and even more when Japan, South Korea, Gulf monarchies and other US allies were ready to execute any order from Washington, an economic scheme that has become one of the main pillars of the global world order. And the same scheme predetermined the emergence of a broad anti-globalization movement, which today is called national-populism.

Its essence is as follows. The United States bought the loyalty of its allies by providing them with access (usually practically duty-free) to their market, the most voluminous and the richest. In exactly the same way, communist China was cut off from the Soviet Union, and from the 1970s began to turn into a world factory of things. Over time, both Vietnam and other countries of Indochina and the APR followed the same path.

This was called “free trade,” but there was little freedom in it. Unless for transnational corporations that sell goods in one place, produce them in another, keep money in the third, and pay taxes in the fourth.

In addition, European countries, the growing economies of Asia and the dictatorships of the Middle East were allowed to pursue protectionist policies. So, until recently, the markets of Japan and China were among the most closed in the world. From all participants in the global project, only two things were required: to keep the main reserve currencies afloat and to stay in the wake of the “free world”.

As a result, there was a huge US trade deficit and a giant American national debt. To continue the banquet, the Allies were asked to keep their government surplus in the debt obligations of the United States. Only at first glance it seems that this only met the interests of Washington. In fact, the EU, China and other export-oriented economies were able to continue to stimulate the production of goods for which there was a guaranteed demand. In addition, due to the presence of record-breaking currency reserves, the PRC was able to make the yuan convertible, and its UnionPay card payment system - international.

The debt of the United States grew by leaps and bounds. Already in the 1980s, it became clear that Washington would never pay its creditors. But the bankruptcy of the main capitalist power of the world would lead to a crisis in comparison with which the Great Depression would seem to be an insignificant embarrassment. Therefore, the pyramid of American debt continued to grow. Investments in US government obligations were justified for the “people of the free world” by the fact that Uncle Sam protected them from the Soviet threat. That is, America got into debt to ensure the loyalty of the allies, and the allies lent her money to guarantee their protection. And all together they continued to inflate the global economy bubble.

It should be noted that the military component of the US national debt is greatly exaggerated. Even if tomorrow America completely stopped spending money on its armed forces, its budget would have remained scarce. So, she would continue to borrow money. Washington’s military “umbrella” has long been just an excuse for the current financial and economic scheme that suits the global elite, but less and less satisfied with Western voters who lose their jobs, are forced to put up with a reduction in real income and get into personal debts.

After the fall of the Iron Curtain, European countries (the ones that were "shocked" by Trump's formula) significantly reduced their military spending, channeling some of the funds that were freed up to social programs. The United States did not have such an opportunity. Washington’s transition to a “peaceful track” would mean the collapse of the global economic pyramid.

So when world terrorism "did not justify" the hopes that had been placed to become a full-fledged enemy of the "free world", the West remembered old proven opponents. First of all, about Russia.

However, it is possible that China will soon be counted among the enemies.

The problem, however, is that both Moscow and Beijing themselves are contributors to the American pyramid. In addition, the "feed base" of globalization is almost exhausted. So, there are no more opportunities to export production to countries with lower wages. Today, even in North Korea, there are consumer goods factories for the global market. But even fewer people in the “developed world” can afford this consumer goods.

Here, as in the old Soviet joke about plumbing: the whole system needs to be changed. At this Trump and rests since the days of the election campaign. In fact, speaking of the “100% + 50%” scheme, it shocks the allies not by offering them to pay for protection (from Russia, China, Iran - it doesn’t matter), but by hinting at the determination sooner or later break the backbone of globalization. After all, if there is no need to give America a debt (since everyone pays for their own defense), then the financial scheme developed by the global authorities is the end.

It can happen that Donald will fail. Let's say he was impeached or not reelected in 2020. Or he will break and spit on everything. But voters in Europe and the United States (as well as India, Turkey, Brazil, etc.) are no longer ready to dance to the tune of the global bosses. That is why the world today is in a state of severe transformation.

The point is not what will happen when Germany or Japan starts paying 150% of the cost of maintaining American bases (they most likely will not start), but what happens when the transformation comes to its logical end.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.