The Atlantic Protection Racket

Munich heard nice words about shared values. No one mentioned the $2 trillion invoice.

Grüezi!

In Munich this February, two speeches from outsiders defined Europe’s Atlantic relationship. Marco Rubio reminded Europeans – in case they hadn’t realised – that they were part of Western civilisation. He might also have been reminding his boss. He received a standing ovation. Britain’s Keir Starmer told his neighbours they needed to stand on their own feet and got a smattering of applause.

Neither speech mentioned the substance underpinning the relationship. The deal that Europe and the US signed seven months ago at a Scottish golf course owned by Donald Trump.

Picking up the ‘Turnberry tab’ requires Europe to spend $750bn on American energy, invest $600bn in the US economy, and buy hundreds of billions in American weapons – whilst its exporters are hit with a tariff rate ten times higher than they were paying in January 2025.

Both speeches were awkward attempts to revive relationships. Rubio’s was an attempt to mollify a Munich audience still recovering from being mugged by JD Vance. Starmer’s was an appeal to a closer post-Brexit brotherhood through arms.

What follows is a cost-benefit analysis of European rearmament that neither the hawks nor the doves want to hear – because it suggests that the threat is genuine, the spending is necessary, and the primary beneficiary of both is the United States.