He's not wrong though. A Europe that has to be responsible for its own defense either has to substantially reform its economy and society, or rely on France with its ASMPA doing the geopolitical equivalent of a drunk guy waving a knife around saying "stay away!".
He's not right either because he makes large vague claims. If we want to discuss it on clear subjects.
The "free" Europe has, and always will, thank the US for their help during WW2.
The US didn't protect us until now, because there was nothing they had to protect us from. US pulled it's allied NATO members into war in Iraq, if we're tallying things up.
With the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, both the EU and the US came to aid because a sovereign, close to EU, nation is invaded. No one was forced to do so. It's a matter of adhering to principles, that in theory are, shared by the "western" countries.
Realistically the US would have to jump to our aid if Russia's attempts outreach their Ukraine war. But that is because that's part of the deal we all made when becoming members of NATO.
And in terms of "subsidizing". That's the most outlandish claim, the US military industrial complex is so large for a reason. It's due to benefitting directly from the international government contracts, the technology it's building and selling (let's leave aside the shady and corrupt aspects of it for this topic)
The small amount of investment spent on military by European NATO members is a fair claim, but let's not kid ourselves, the grander scope of such spending will, and is going, towards US military tech. In a sense having higher spending is all about pushing more money to the US.
And if the US doesn't jump to your aid? If in 2028 Trump goes "you guys had six years to prepare and pissed it away, why should we bail you out?" what can Europe do? They could certainly try putting together a multinational European army and taking it into combat but I doubt there is much political will for that in France or Britain, who crucially possess a lot of the air and seapower.
Even without NATO, the EU countries already have a defensive pact.
Which as a sidenote is why the dismantlement of EU looks like appealing proposition to both Russia, and the US (for different reasons).
The US would make such a war easier, and fewer lives would be lost, given it's tech, and intelligence network. With or without the US, Russia would lose such a war.
Only way nukes play into it is if a shithead like Putin says "fuck it", seals himself in the bunker and hits the nukes. But then we are all cooked, whichever country does that, since mutual assured destruction comes into play.
In terms of political and societal effects, really interesting question worth pondering about. How would the other NATO member countries retaliate if the US wouldn't join in defense. That would be a big betrayal, so I hope that at the very least all US assets are seized, and US companies nationalized across the EU.
That is X propaganda. The U.S. actively prohibits additional EU states getting nuclear weapons and does not really want a super strong EU. The U.S. profits from the military strength and "protection" with an overvalued dollar and people irrationally buying U.S. bonds.
The EU spends at least three times as much on defense as Russia. But hey, perhaps it should spend EUR 1 trillion and get active in the Middle East again, after the U.S. has kicked it out in the Suez crisis.
