>you check on Umberto Eco's scale

I will freely admit I am not versed on that, however in my very very brief reading of the idea's I think there is a lot of subjectivity in application, and one it seems to me right now one would have to look at Trumps words in the most unfavorable understanding of them to achieve that score, you have to weak man his speeches and rhetoric to get there. You have to come into the speech looking for anything to justify the score.

I would have to research more to say more, but when most people hear fascism they think Nazi's... That is also what the US Media rhetoric was for 4 years. I however see non of that in the Trump presidency, nor do I see any policy positions that were wildly different that other presidents or even Biden today.

In fact some of the immigration policies that the media and others lambasted Trump for as "fascist" or "Nazi" have been continued and even expanded by Biden, others were carry overs from Obama so....

So while you may get that from Umberto Eco's scale, for which I am unfamiliar, I do not see it or accept that conclusion on a layman's view of fascism

>> EU countries would slowly have left NATO and concentrated on building a unified army.

Germany would love that, and that is one of the reasons UK left. If it happens the EU needs to reform under a more Federalist model like the US. Its current model it would be a disaster to form a single military

The EU either needs to reform its governance to a Federalist Republic like the US, or it needs to take over NATO like structure for is over arching military.

Attempting a single defense structure under the current European Union structure would never work

>It would be interesting to try and see where this discourse originates from.

Many many many things, on core one was the shipping and outsourcing of middle class jobs via unfavorable trade deals allowed by a government that supported globalism and global corporations over the needs of the citizens. That would be where the issue started. I would say it really kicked off in the 1990's when trade started to ramp way up with China.

But there are other examples, most recently Climate Change is a good example. US has improved and continues to drastically improve its carbon footprint, but no matter what we do it is never enough, no people want us to hamstring our economy, wants us to kill our economic output, and want us to lower our standard of living

While making exceptions for other economies for all manner of seemingly rational reasons. However rational they are the end result is the same, the sacrifice of US prosperity

Then of course you have the topic of expecting to be the world police and then called a bully if we take any action, The world wants us there to Stop Russia, but they expect us to do that with out thanks, with out having any input to their actions, their governance, or etc... Hell they want us to thank them for the privilege of being able to send our citizens to die for their nation....

>>So, if I understand correctly, you're basically agreeing with EU leaders that Trump's US was not a reliable ally? Perhaps not an ally at all?

I guess that would depend on what you mean by an "ally". If you mean trade partner and willing to come to the EU defense military if needed provided they at least tried to defend themselves... I think the US under Trump would make a fine ally under that definition

If you mean a EU doorstop, to provide the common defense of the EU, asking or expecting nothing in return, and allowing the EU to ignore our national interests on the world stage while they enjoy the protection we provide... then no Trump would not have made for a good Ally.. and the EU is used to the former, where I would prefer the former