Trump's abrupt change of course away from Western allies and Ukraine has an even more fundamental unintended consequence: Washington's security guarantees, which underpin its arms exports, have become worthless.

"I'm not going to make security guarantees beyond very much," Trump said last week while trying to force Ukraine to sign a deal that the Kyiv Independent reported would give the United States 50 percent of revenues from Ukrainian state-owned natural resources. "We're going to have Europe do that," Trump added, because "Europe is the next-door neighbor."

But security guarantees are the unbeatable sweetener that Washington has historically used to clinch most deals. Many countries, including a large number in Europe, have bought U.S. weapons precisely because they came with U.S. security guarantees. The guarantees were not just the sweetener: They were at the core of the deal.

"When countries buy weapons, they consider the equipment, and thus the manufacturer, and thus the country, because these things matter with equipment that you use for many years, up to 40 years," Limmergard said. "And U.S. foreign military sales have depended a lot on America offering security guarantees."

In other words, buying U.S. weapons was a way of buying the United States' friendship and protection. After months of agonizing debate in 2021, still nonaligned Finland chose to buy U.S.-made F-35 fighter jets to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets, even though Gripens from Sweden"Finland's close friend and neighbor"would have been cheaper. Although the F-35s have undisputed capabilities, it was lost on nobody that the Finns' $9.4 billion deal also included U.S. benevolence and security guarantees. Indeed, the deal was managed through the U.S. government's Foreign Military Sales program.

But with Trump now openly appearing to side with Russia and President Vladimir Putin, even the most generous buyers of U.S. weapons can no longer be sure that their money will result in Washington's benevolence and protection.

This article is written by a member of the Atlantic Council, whose members (including warmonger Stephen Hadley) have tens of thousands of shares of stock in the defense industry. No conflict of interest there, right?
#3 | Posted by ExpectingReign

What conflict? An alleged warmonger (who was not the writer) owns stocks in the defense industry and is concerned that his US(?) stock shares are going down while European defense stocks are going up.

An imperfect analogy would be telling someone to pipe down about wanting fire department services while their house is going up in flames, because they are conflicted.

Good. War is dumb.
#10 | Posted by Brennnn

You should pass along your feedback to the Ukrainians. Maybe they haven't considered the upside of the alternative (surrendering to Putin and having Russian boots on their necks for the next 2 to 10 generations).