France has always been kind of contrarian. For example, they are NATO members but unbelievably they were also selling Russia a couple of Mistral landing platform docks.
Tons of high profile people have been talking about how it is not tolerable that the US is unilaterally forcing embargoes using the $US and tech as a weapon. Development of alternatives take time, but this has already started.
The goal is not to replace the US with China. Not only things are not reducible to a single dimension, but even if they were, it does not make the need to enforce our own sovereignty disappear.
No one in NATO trusts France (especially former communist countries).
France left once, and came back. They used to pander to communist regime during the Cold War.
During the NATO bombing during the Yugoslavian dissolution, a French General was caught giving out the bombing plans to the enemy.
No wonder nobody likes their foreign policy, and Macron is puzzled why the other EU countries don’t follow France in creating a Common EU military force.
The other countries know when push comes to shove, the US is a reliable partner, while France is not.
Not even all Americans align with certain US policies, and certainly foreign nations do not necessarily. Most Allied countries comply with current administration due to pressure, not because of some misguided loyalty to America.
Governance and diplomacy is not a short term venture. Trump will not be president forever and you cannot undo the act of siding against the US in favor of China.
There are a lot of decision-making processes in governance that involves a lot more than 'we don't like the current president'.
Interests can be short-term. US having no problem siding with China still takes into account the long-term interests. Generally Western world members do the same, even if that goes against the short-term interests.
Ah, the time old argument of “two wrongs make a right!”
China is systemically stealing IP from European companies, research from European universities, and forcing labor into a race to the bottom. Europeans would be wise to stand with Trump on this.
There is nothing wise about "standing with Trump" on any issue. His impact on allies is a kin of a moped doing figure 8s on a pigsty.
And no country stands with Trump on anything. At most they stand with the current US administration, which happens to be presided by Trump. Trump the citizen is repellent and has no redeeming qualities.
And by the way, Europe has its best interests in mind, and the current US administration already made it quite clear that the US under the Trump administration is a highly unreliable ally, and even a potential liability that's compromised by Europe's current biggest threat.
That's your high bar on Trump's reliability with regard to EU's vital interests.
I don't need to explain the sheer idiocy of complaining about the EU's... skeptical attitude towards the Trump administration in general, and Trump specifically.
I think you’re confused - NATO isn’t an alliance if the US is the only one putting in any effort. Trumps specific complaint is (from your own article):
> complained about the defence spending of European allies who committed less than the agreed 2% to defence, particularly Germany
The US wants the alliance, it’s the Europeans who feel they don’t need it (since they aren’t fulfilling their obligations).
Netherlands is a founding NATO member. It boggles my mind how this is even a question to anyone.