> By scaring Europe into re-militarizing, that is bad for Russia.
Any anti-Russian benefit that has is dwarfed by the pro-Russian benefit of having a wedge driven between the US and Europe, which is what is happening. Even a Europe that invests more heavily is defense is far less scary to Russia than the threat of US military power, especially in the short to medium term. The US has military capability that will be difficult for anyone to recreate, even advanced economies like those of Germany, simply because of scale and long experience.
The best outcome for the US/European alliance would be a more militarily capable Europe still strongly allied with the US. Maybe that was the 4D chess goal, but if so Trump appears to have way overshot it.
The problem I see is that while Europe is waking up to the fact that they need to invest more in defense, they haven't realized yet that they need to build a military that can actually project power if they want to replace/augment the US. That's a different beast. And you are right, no single country in Europe could do that, and it would indeed be very bad if they would try. What has to happen is that Europe, ideally including the UK, comes together to form such a military.
Any anti-Russian benefit that has is dwarfed by the pro-Russian benefit of having a wedge driven between the US and Europe, which is what is happening. Even a Europe that invests more heavily is defense is far less scary to Russia than the threat of US military power, especially in the short to medium term. The US has military capability that will be difficult for anyone to recreate, even advanced economies like those of Germany, simply because of scale and long experience.
The best outcome for the US/European alliance would be a more militarily capable Europe still strongly allied with the US. Maybe that was the 4D chess goal, but if so Trump appears to have way overshot it.