A Donald Trump worthy of the Capone played by Robert De Niro who, backed by his deputy, a friend of German neo-Nazis, shouts at Zelensky ‘you’re all talk and badges’. This is what we saw live from the Oval Office of the White House.

The US has now gone from being champions of the free world to cut-throats, extortionists of its own allies. Everything for Trump has an economic counterpart, and if it doesn’t, it’s not worth considering. Here is that ending the war in the Gaza Strip is only worthwhile if it then puts that Palestinian territory under US control, complete with ethnic cleansing. Here is that the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the war that Putin has unleashed become the best assist in cutting down the Ukrainian people, trying to despoil them of their raw materials with the threat of putting the country into Putin’s hands; here is that while the European Union considers the money spent to help the Ukrainian resistance to be an investment in security, for the US president the billions of dollars spent must be returned. And so a loop of “pay back!”, “pay up!” also addressed to NATO member European allies.

What would Trump demand of Italy?

And what would Trump demand in return for what he ‘lent’ to Italy? Perhaps the Colosseum and the Uffizi to be razed to make way for a couple of kitschy Trump Towers? Maybe a dozen statues as golden as his hair to adorn Italy’s major squares like not even the best Saddam Hussein?

But are we really sure that the US can claim so much credit with its European allies? Let us try to understand, following Trumpian logic, who has spent and who has benefited in the US-European relationship.

The costs of NATO: who really pays?

Take, for example, the costs of NATO membership, which would seem to be to the total disadvantage of the US and to the total advantage of a Europe painted as a parasite living off the backs of its American ally. Well, shall we say once and for all that since 1949 the only country belonging to the Atlantic alliance that has invoked the famous Article 5, the one that commits all allies to intervene in support of an attacked country, was the USA in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks? Shall we consider how much was spent by the European allies because of the activation of that device? How much did participation in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cost, how much did we spend on logistical support, on coping with the ensuing waves of migration and, last but not least, on coping with the returning terrorist phenomenon that bloodied Europe while the Americans – to quote Trump – were and are quiet at home?

Who really has a claim to make?

Do we want to tell that bully sitting in the White House that if anyone should claim credit, not only in economic terms, it is Europe? Shall we tell him that it is precisely membership of NATO that has allowed the United States to hegemonise the European market and culture, enriching itself and assuming a dominant position in almost every sector?

What would happen if someone, again following Trumpian ‘logic’, started to say that more than seventy years of American weapons stockpiling in European countries has a cost and that the bill must be paid by the American ally? What would happen if a European head of state or government woke up and started requisitioning American nuclear weapons on its territory in return for what it had ‘lent’ to the United States, thus becoming, in defiance of international law and the principle of legality of which Trump daily makes paper towels, a nuclear power?

Time for a change of attitude

The good Sandro Pertini used to say ‘a brigand, brigand and a half’. Perhaps, dear European Union, it is time to start treating brigands as such, without too many qualms, also because overseas they have now decided to trample on history, international law and even common sense.