This is grossly oversimplified and frankly insulting.
The US has called upon its allies to help with it's military engagements the world over countless times. Every time, Denmark (for one) responded.
Our entire defence sector was converted for this purpose; special forces, light reactionary forces, multi purpose frigates, etc.
We didn't buy hundreds of tanks, because the needs the US (exclusively) asked of us were not tanks.
Because the need wasn't to defend Denmarks physical borders, the need was to go to Afghanistan and Iraq to help the US with your battles there. And remember just how short time ago we were all still in Iraq? In the context of changing an entire army, it was seconds ago.
Obviously all this took place expecting the NATO treaties (and others) to be honoured, to allow for this vulnerability to exist in the first place. And with an understanding that a small country like Denmark can't do both.
We could obviously have responded differently. We could have said "Nope, you have fun in the big sand box, we'd love to join, but we need to buy tanks and bunkers. But we do sympathise with your losses, too bad about 9/11. We wish you the best of luck."
If we had done that, your post wouldn't be remotely relevant because we would have prioritised our own defense.
But from a US point of view, would that have been any better, knowing that Denmark per capita suffered the same losses as the US did in those conflicts?
A substantial portion of our defense spendings were spent directly supporting the US in armed conflicts. Just as you now see us spending by far the most on supporting Ukraine directly (over 2% of our GDP).
Again, we could buy tanks and park them in garages, but they would only make a difference if we were invaded. Instead, we put our money where the need is.
Hopefully this illustrates why military alliances shouldn't be reduced to simple statements?
Don't get me wrong, the EU needs to, and is, stepping it up. And all things point to the defence strategically being anchored in the EU rather than NATO in the future. How this is a win for the US, I cannot see though?
Especially not when Trump managed to alienate essentially everyone, and thus essentially write the US out of the equation in what is likely the largest defense purchase of a high number of US allies all at the same time.
This could - in real terms, not just in Trumps head - have been a trillion dollar deal for the US easily. Many European countries bought US equipment (Denmark for example bought F16 and is replacing them with F35 currently being commissioned and deployed). But no European government can realistically suggest touching equipment that the US essentially controls with a ten foot pole now, if some alternative exists.
But of course, this - like many other things - is more of a biproduct. I simply felt your simplified post lacks taking a bunch of things into account.
