Incompetence as the defining feature of Trump 2.0

16.4.25

Dear Partners in Thought, 

One should not feel good for being right so early on concerning matters like the multiple negative impact of Trump’s policies – if the term policies can still be used at all. It did not take a PhD degree in economics or being a master diplomat of the Kissinger or Brzezinski type to know that the overall Trump approach would be wrong for all parties involved from the outset. It is useful, however, to understand the key feature and sub-components of the Trump approach to managing American affairs: incompetence.

The incompetence can be found at two key inter-connected levels. The mode and type of decisions taken and who manages them. Decisions taken by a deluge of game-changing executive orders affected the world and America in no time as Trump 2.0 started – as seen with aggressive tariffs or strange foreign policy moves, not to mention the messy gradual destruction of the federal government infrastructure or, en route, the unusual and increasing attacks on the judiciary. A lot of emphasis was put on the stark news effect of such moves as the Panama Canal, Gulf of “America”, Greenland, Canada, Mexico while some other moves were very impactful in substance like with DOGE’s drastic developments or Ukraine and an odd rapprochement with Russia in the context of an elusive peace process – this whatever the grand anti-China strategic design behind it. The list of decisions impacting the world and America itself, including his own voters at the pocketbook and sheer job levels, became astounding. 

Unmanageable tariffs imposed at the same time on the whole world were a case in point, even if strong market reactions were to be expected, then also finally involving a rather passive business world to date. Back and forth decisions, as seen again with tariffs, that could be deemed “transactional”, thus very Trump-like, also reflected a desired chaos linked to an elusive but drastic clean-up (almost putting aside self-harm as secondary), all of this naturally creating a massive rebuke led by steep historical stock market and 401(k) declines in no time. And then tariff selectivity reminded us of latent corruption when supporters benefit from better treatments, at times leading to some back-and-forth moves again, showing mismanagement and late realisation of what does not fly in a still open and democratic society in 2025. As for illegal (and occasionally legal) immigrant deportations, and putting aside its costs to the economy, its challenging and unfocused management did not reflect the values and principles that made America. To be fair, Trump and his team can also be competent, like in destroying US higher education as seen with Harvard and Columbia, key historical pillars of US strength as if he held an old grudge against elite universities since his rather obscure college days at Wharton. It is hard to believe that Trump would be allowed to go forward with such crazy moves that could only create chaos while damaging America’s reputation but, unlike for his first term, there is no adult in the room – as he specifically wanted. 

Besides the incredibly harmful set of decisions seen since late January, his core team today is composed of “very average” professionals. Not stupid ones, but first known for their vocal and dissenting positions on their areas of focus in a fitting way to Trump’s own or even, for some, their strange behaviours. The US government, formally comprising Secretaries, is now populated by news anchors, podcasters, governors of small rural states, at times with weird personalities, some being anti-vaccine while others proud to have killed their dog or being mere conspiracy theorists. The usual, and needed, boring technocrats seem to be on permanent holiday. To be fair, the main adviser to Trump on tariffs, Peter Navarro, holds a PhD in economics from Harvard (his type of degree being a rarity among the top team) though he is also known to be weird and a convicted felon, which stresses a few other features and indeed a better team fit. One of the key weaknesses of Trump and his team is how they focus on the very short term, also in relation to domestic news impact, and not the range of consequences resulting from their policies – it is as if they were not mentally equipped to do so and are unable to work on scenario-management. Traditional American values and principles, or the sheer history of the country, are secondary to getting the president’s job done. Signalgate, however dreadful (even if almost funny) a national security blunder, unwittingly set the tone for poor top team quality and what incompetence really means with Trump 2.0. All participants in this highly confidential strike in Yemen kept their jobs while many tested professionals in the Pentagon and White House were losing theirs as not “belonging “, almost culturally, with the new times. The first Trump requirement in team selection today is cult following combined with obedience to the leader, so no challenging team oversight or control found in the first term can ever reappear. His team will always try to defend his and their moves as the right ones come what may and against sheer facts, this in ways that will make most rational people increasingly perplex as chaos keeps growing and the supposedly short-term pain endures. This basic assessment should not be a surprise to anyone.    

What we see is again the natural result of a populist movement (or indeed cult) focused on one man taking over the leadership of a country by winning an election in tactically focusing and capitalising on the natural anger of many voters (about illegal immigration, “woke” and, almost funnily today, inflation) though, even if enjoying a first term experience from which many would have learnt from, without having the requisite skills to run a country – especially a key one like the United States. Populist voters are generally sadly ill-equipped to understand much about “government” and are easy prey for populist leaders mainly focused on winning elections.  Populist leaders also target the elite or the old establishment that their voting base naturally see as depriving them of a good life. It is indeed a vicious circle as leaders secure power today through showbiz campaigns, often assisted by self-interested “influencing” podcasters like in the US, as if it were an end result with few skills or even interest in the chores associated with governing, even if they would never admit to this. And in the case of Trump himself, it is also a way to exist as if politics had been a natural follow-up phase to his The Apprentice TV show. Trump has treated American citizens as TV viewers who need to be kept awake, hence the deluge of strong news that he sees as defining his new presidency through “deep change”, this whatever happens later even if strangely, and perhaps sincerely, hoping for the best over time.      

The problem is that, once in power and, assuming some democratic features can stay in place, these populist leaders and their ill-equipped teams can stay in power for far too long a time, if only due to their term in office. Even assuming a likely 2026 mid-terms landslide against the hijacked or new Republican Party with a massive vote against the Trump chaos even if more so than one for the Democrats, about 21 months of Trump 2.0 could bring irremediable damages to the world and indeed America. In the meantime, however, the world may also likely react with a new geopolitical chessboard showing a much stronger China that will enjoy many more friends and a more unified and stronger Europe facing a much-weakened America domestically and globally, having erased in no time the benefits of having led the West and being the key world player for a century, as well as a champion of globalisation. These likely game-changing developments created by Trump’s policies would go much against his planned and simplistic end game. It will be interesting to see how the Trump team will explain where America is in two years’ time. And we will have the excruciating pleasure and likely associated damages nobody would want of seeing another physically and mentally declining president and his still obedient team trying hard to still exist, this in itself potentially bringing more bad scenarios for the world. 

Incompetence brought the world chaos and uncertainty, but we should all work gradually together to define a post-Trump era where the America we know finds itself anew – and the adults are back in the room (and the Oval Office).

Warmest regards,

Serge  

Trying to understand and cure the rise of populism across the West

8.4.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

As there is a global flood of much-needed pieces written about the Trump 2.0 chaotic developments and their expected negative impact on the world, I thought that it was useful to take a pause from the matter and instead, explore their root causes in the US but also across the West. Why have we seen such a rise in populism or essentially extreme-right programs and leaders across the West over the last 15 years with an acute focus today? 

Before the Trump era, especially from the 2.0 vintage, America never experienced populism, at least since the 20th century. If anything, America stood for democratic values and principles, both as leader and guarantor of what was known as the Free World. America greatly benefitted from its leadership at many cultural, political and economic levels. Europe was naturally deeply hurt by Hitler, Mussolini and Franco and others who led autocracies, at times not wholly rejected by their own populations (this leading to major wars and conflicts), while the Cold War ended with a victory for the West and democracy. The 1990s brought peace within the whole West including the whole of Europe as well as incremental globalisation linked to peace through trade; but gradually, while Russia operated a return of history, old and new extremist political platforms rebuilt their appeal among an increasing share of the Western populations. 

Trump’s MAGA base or indeed “cult”, a most successful populist gathering focused on one leader, who “represents” about 25% of the actively voting electorate and 50% of the Republican voters (as of early March, so just before the recent chaos), was a new development not seen since Charles Lindbergh and his America First in the 1930s. France’s National Rally is the child of the National Front created by Jean-Marie Le Pen (with former Vichy government and terrorist OAS partners) in the late 1960s and now led by his daughter Marine Le Pen – much in the news following her recent court conviction. While Reform UK may espouse some extremist views, and is led by Nigel Farage, an ill-fated Brexit-maker, a rapidly rising Alternative for Germany, led by Alice Weidel, with an unusual gay profile for far-right parties, also reflects its Prussian if not Soviet-controlled past given its core geographic base. And then we see the likes of Victor Orban, formerly a rather liberal politician, who seized upon autocratic features to help him keep securing his 15-year hold over Hungary, this with all the geopolitical implications we know. All those parties and individuals either secured power via elections, like with MAGA and Trump in the US (while hijacking a traditional party) or are in a position to win one like with Marine Le Pen in France, if not for her embezzlement conviction and ineligibility pre-mid-2026 appeal outcome. While the extreme right was always there and a medium to promote the career of its leaders, the political landscape of the West has drastically changed in recent years, now allowing them to win elections. It is good to attempt an understanding of why, and to see what could be done to reverse this trend. 

The political landscape has changed mainly as politics and elections, as well as society, have changed too. Winning elections today is increasingly a show business endeavour where party leaders, all the more coming from extremist and populist groups, need to appeal to voters who want simple solutions to complex issues and some degree of flamboyance. The desired simplicity is often driven by voters not being equipped to understand how societies and indeed governments are being managed, or how the world actually works. The lack of education for many is also mixed with a feeling of disgruntlement against an established elite that would have deprived them of many benefits they would have kept for themselves. This approach is often associated with a reading inability (the illiteracy rate in America is amazingly high even if not often mentioned) – this while traditional media readership is declining – and an excessive reliance on social media and podcasts that fit their desire to hear what they want. This fact is also often combined with an increased isolation rate and the inability to “exchange” on issues, especially among the younger generations, that worsens the drive for simple and game-changing solutions to their perceived problems. 

Most populist party voters are not neo-Nazis, even if they can be found among them. Voters are often driven by topics that one can understand, even if the populist solutions on offer are not the best ones to achieve what they want and keep the essence of what is democracy – which in any case they may no longer understand nor value. Trump won in November 2024 on three key drivers that many voters supported. Beyond the obvious one of ensuring prices would stay low at the shopping centre (definitely not what is happening), the two other populist drivers were illegal immigration and the so-called “woke”. Illegal immigration as a political topic can be tainted with racism but also reflects cultural identity and making sure migrants are not criminals, something that residents of borders like in Texas, can be forgiven to want. “Woke,” which can also be known as DEI (diversity, equality and inclusion) which, while projecting sound values in essence, can also be too extreme in its promotion, especially within schools and companies, where “excellence” may not always have been seen of late as the key admission, recruitment or advancement driver. Once again, the problem is with “too much” immigration, in particular of the illegal kind, and too much “woke”, all the more in the face of those who behave according to traditional and tested values like excellence or common sense. Understanding these key points is key to ensuring sound immigration and diversity, while traditional parties and governments have often missed the point, appearing to live in what they saw as new times as a result, and hoping to gain votes in other segments of the voting population. In many ways, populists often win because traditional parties and mainstream governments miss what matters to the general population of voters, many of whom will try new and often wild avenues. Trump 2.0 is a case in point even if, in this unusual case, the harm to America and the world is found at all levels of domestic and foreign policies, going well beyond the three focus drivers of its unwittingly self-harmed voters. The hugely negative impact of Trump tariffs is only one very vivid example of what ill-thought-out populist policies can achieve in no time in the globalised world today.  

Populist parties or movements, often led by people who can today expertly sell and win an election, are too often (if not always) poorly equipped to govern in the ways most voters would expect, based on past experience with traditional parties. Even if these movements have successfully seized issues that have created resentment among disenfranchised voters, the end result can be chaotic. Trump 2.0 is again a vivid example of this inability to manage a government sensibly, both domestically and internationally, with all the chaos that can follow that their own voters may also pay for (all the more when adults are no longer in the room as they were in Trump 1.0). It is clear that the way to exclude easy populist salespeople from running governments in the future is to let them show their inabilities once in power, but the key problem is that they can then also create autocracies with no future elections in sight (will there really be US mid-terms in 2026?) or create wars and conflicts to change the electorate’s focus on what is not working (what about a war with China to make my voters forget the damages?) Having said this, it is also the duty of traditional parties to keep ensuring their programmes fit the needs of voters and their leadership teams are strong to soundly convince them, and then run governments efficiently and deal with issues that matter.   

The rise of populism can be repelled but only through focusing on ways to do so at many levels and not simply wishing for the best. Society and governing will never be ideal, and many issues will always remain, but preserving true democracy as we know it, for those countries that still enjoy it, is key. Populism and disgruntlement will never die but can be managed to avoid or minimize substantial harm to all parties, including populist voters who often are the first to feel the pain. If anything, the Trump 2.0 experiment, which will be harder to defend by its makers, is a case in point even if the cost of being right is too high.

One of the key decisions which traditional governments still in power should take, and working along democratic values and principles (like in most of the EU and hopefully later in the US in a post-Trump world if any) is to focus on “educating” their electorate by making them understand what is behind democracy, government and their electoral process. In addition, governments should explain what they do at the economic, social and foreign policy levels, this in concise information letters or via internet to all citizens. Education is key to changing the minds as to how democracy works, its benefits and key features. While not perfect, it would be a sound start. 

Going more deeply, a stronger focus on mandatory public education through expanded funding would also help children and young adults to think more carefully about the benefits of Western democracies while preparing them better for a happy and productive life, hopefully gradually away from phones and other screens. In many ways, especially for Europe, strengthening education and defence should be the two joint pillars of dealing efficiently with our new world and its threats. 

As to the impact on the younger generations of social media, abusive video games and not reading books or mainstream newspapers, it’s up to all of us – at a family level – to try to make children understand the benefits of sound thinking devoid of easy manipulations and avoid the hours spent in self-imposed jail-like bedroom isolation. It is the duty of our new times.       

Warmest regards,

Serge                                             

Assessing the impact and potential scenarios of Trump’s policies after two months

18.3.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

Two months into Trump 2.0 it is clear that the impact of his frenetic, erratic and poorly-managed policies is obvious as was expected. A small majority of Americans is now opposed to what they see unfolding, including many of his own voters, with only the MAGA cult base remaining largely faithful and hoping for the best. The US is also now led by a top team characterised by its combined incompetence for such secretary roles and blind obedience to the leader who wants no control this term, mirroring features often noticed in autocracies.  

Time has flown very fast since January 20. It is now useful to assess the impact of Trump’s policies and think of their potential developments that may occur in America and the world, all the more as it is likely that they were not seriously expected to be as game-changing as they fast became. Impacts can be seen at many levels, given the long list of decisions taken in a very short time, but the main ones are already clear. Potential developments or scenarios can be many and also far-reaching both for America and the world. 

At home, Trump and his team are destroying the Federal government, which has clear impacts in many areas like health and education across the country, including in red states where many of his voters are increasingly voicing great discontent. Many federal employees, including former Trump supporters, are also losing their jobs thanks to a quasi-rogue operating DOGE that is managed by the richest man in the world, who is also looking out for his own interests across the board and globally, not unlike his “Big Tech bros” that the MAGA base finds fine and not the “despicable urban elite” of the day. Trump is now going after personal enemies and the prosecutors who led the many legal actions against him during the Biden administration in ways that recall a bad Count of Monte Christo novel of our times. The appointment of highly questionable leaders of the FBI and National Intelligence known for their conspiracy theories combined with the sacking of experienced FBI and intelligence officers is not sound for sheer American security. Stopping incoming illegal immigration, always a liberal democratic weakness as seen in Europe, appears to be supported by a majority of Americans and perhaps the only Trump policy win, even if the incoherent use of tariffs to do so, not to mention unmanageable mass deportations, has created clear havoc. Republicans in Congress strangely turned against elite academia (and the educated ones?) by aiming at substantially raising taxes of top university endowments such as those of Harvard, Yale or Princeton while the Trump administration has started to cut off federal funding and grants to colleges, overall a core American competitive advantage with 72% of top universities worldwide (this while China is increasing them at home). Diversity and inclusion or DEI, even if admittedly excessive at times in their implementation ways, are being cancelled even by leading global businesses kowtowing to the Trump times (while students at military bases worldwide, of all places and people, resist the crackdown). The pardons of unacceptable January 6 insurrectionists and historical Trump supporters goes on even if helped by Joe Biden’s farewell take on his own son. Free speech is also endangered as shown with the treatment of traditional news media like the Associated Press or the plans to deport a pro-Palestinian former Columbia University student activist and Green Card resident. However, we can see today at least a backlash from the judicial branch that shows the US is still a democracy and the constitution is upheld – for now, even if federal court orders are also defied like with the deportation of 250 alleged members of a Venezuelan gang (all while the Trump-friendly Supreme Court had already taken the view that the US President was immune from any legal action regarding his decisions during his term).

Trump’s economic policies have already led to stark stock market declines in March with likely rising inflation that, as expected, results from announced tariffs and associated trade wars also linked to geopolitical aggression (French wine may become a luxury item soon but will not impact Musk & Co). Such declines are now sold as an expected “temporary pain” though with the word recession resurfacing – not a great development for all those who did not like Trump but voted for him essentially to ensure their economic well-being (making James Carville known for his 1992 “It’s the economy, stupid!” surely smile even if he must be distraught today). Consumer confidence already starts being eroded by uncertainty with less store and fast food chain visits across America. And then mass deportations of illegal but law obedient immigrants will substantially hurt some key sectors like agriculture as some Red State Republican elected officials seem to have woken up to. Traditional foreign investment is also likely to decline as a result of a sapped confidence in America. Trump’s national strategic reserve of Bitcoin is befuddling many but his odd move may also be linked to personal interests given his very recent family crypto projects. While the current negative economic developments are deemed by the Trump team to reflect a necessary “period of transition” or “detox period”, the mix of incoherence and unpredictability of policies ultimately aimed at deregulation and tax cuts is getting too strong not to sap both local investor (even a previously “Trump-flexible” Wall Street) and citizen confidence. At least Trump acting as a White House Tesla salesman tried to mitigate the downfall we see.

The Republican party and its officials in Congress are still (so far) following Trump, even if many of them dislike the president and his hurtful policies. Job preservation matters more than economic and political sanity, even if the 2026 mid-terms may prove damning to many. The Republican party has lost its historical essence in the Trump era, while the Democrats currently seem to struggle to form a productive opposition and need restructuring, all of this making for a very unproductive political environment.

In two months, Trump destroyed 80 years of US leadership of what was called the West or the Free World, threatening the invasion of close friends like Canada and Danish Greenland, or even leaving NATO. While putting the global climate change challenge aside, he also dismantled USAID which provided clear soft power to the US worldwide with many direct and indirect benefits at all levels, including its image as a good global power – not to mention dealing with so many issues like significant food shortages or health needs in the developing world. Key US-funded and managed pro-democracy media outlets like Voice of America, Radio Free Asia or the historical Cold War era Radio Free Europe reaching out to millions among autocracies worldwide are being gradually dismantled. His main driver and odd rationale, as America was the great beneficiary of such a leadership role, was that too many tax dollars were wasted and America had been taken advantage of for too long. Not realising the harm to America’s power, Trump focused on USAID savings that could then also lead, as with tariffs or federal funding cuts, to lower taxes for ordinary Americans, assuming the economic shocks we see be “temporary”, which is unlikely or at best a dangerous gambling approach.   

Some new and potential key geostrategic developments 

The new breath-taking approach of Trump 2.0 to international affairs has clear consequences globally, at times via wild and surprising announcements, from renaming the Gulf of Mexico, a new approach to South Africa and its white farmers or DC envoys, taking back control of the Panama Canal, raising doubts about the 1960 US-Japan defence treaty to making Gaza another Riviera. The list is very long and hard to follow, but there are some key actual and potential developments already affecting the world after only two months.     

It is clear that, while the US is unlikely to take drastic decisions to break the Western alliance, including NATO, further, Trump will see the world as a transactional geostrategic chessboard with direct US interests, as he sees them, being a primary policy driver. As such he has just launched massive and unilateral operations against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen in order to preserve US trade and shipping interests while stressing the global benefits of such a move.  

While not having fostered a MEGA movement, Trump has unwittingly cemented European unity and admittedly a much-needed and long-in-the making focus on its independent defence, this while assisting a UK-EU rapprochement, first on defence, that may lead to more concrete partnership steps in the next decade (would Trump be a Brexit killer?) In the same flavour, the EU is developing trade talks with both Mexico and Mercosur in Latin America (Would Trump not be an agent of the EU and not Russia after all?). And finally, a new and welcome Germany is also appearing as wanting to be a core player in European defence, shedding the weight of history and contributing at its strong level.  

Trump’s chaotic geostrategic approach may lead Europe to eventually getting closer to China in some strategic and mutually-fitting “safe” areas while Canada may become close to and possibly a formal partner of the EU, two examples of developments that would not support American global interests. 

While Trump gets too aligned with Russia (for many reasons, including personal ones) while not fully supporting Ukraine as a key ally should (with back-and-forth decisions on military and intelligence support that look like the tariffs approaches to Mexico and Canada), he may eventually help achieve a peace, even if it may not favour the aggressed country and indeed ally – not to mention NATO members. History may wrongly remember him as the solver of the Ukraine invasion and forget at what cost. One of the hidden drivers of this unbelievable approach is that Trump may want to get Russia against China as another example that Asia, and the great competition he sees against Beijing, means more than Europe today – all while likely forgetting Taiwan as long as semi-conductors are of course manufactured in the US.

While new developments will occur, it is likely that most, if not all, historical Western allies of the US, even if Trump has natural leverage over them (v traditional enemies), will work hard to keep a form of practical relationship with the Trump administration while America is unlikely to invade Greenland or force Canada into being the 51st state. The showbiz news appeal of President Trump is likely to erode over time as his aggressive announcement of policies and their back and forth will usually lead to nothing, or not much but aggravation, risking making America not being taken seriously and being seen as unreliable in international affairs.   

Potential developments in the US itself

While the economic shocks following Trump’s policies will affect prices of goods and services, many will suffer job losses unless an economic redirection takes place in the short term. If not, the Republican party will suffer an historical loss in the 2026 mid-terms, assuming the Democrats reshape themselves, find a new leadership, deal with excessive ‘woke’ issues and find the right candidates. This redirection would lead the path to a Democratic win in 2028 for a centrist Democratic candidate like Pete Buttigieg, Josh Shapiro or Gavin Newsom, all needing to take a more conservative turn on societal values. This, of course, would assume that the US Constitution would still hold and a form of mild autocracy were not reached as times become too challenging for the Trump administration. Such a return to normality would also lead to a reshaping of US foreign policy according to pre-Trump 2.0 norms that would be welcome by most of the world at large.    

The real domestic danger would be for many in the MAGA cult base to finally realise they have been duped by President Trump and his “Big Tech bros”, which could lead to a form of civil insurrection, if not war, that could involve some of the most Trump-loving red states against the rest of America, this time not along the natural North-South geographic division seen during the American civil war of 1861. Social media, extremist influencers and podcasters who have recently shaped American life may also play a key role in this previously unthinkable development fitting our new times. In many ways, this extraordinary scenario, not unlike the now credible one of the US potentially leaving NATO, would be the logical consequence for voters having blindly backed populist leaders and finding out that they cannot manage governments or make their lives better but can only create chaos. Many of these angry voters, however misplaced their support of extremist populist leaders, often fuelled by lack of formal education and excessive social media focus, may feel without normal recourse any longer. 

It is hard to predict the future, even if all could have seen the adverse effects of Trump’s frenetic economic and geopolitical policies without being a PhD in economics or a leading diplomat. However, given the drastic changes to the world we knew, it is quite key to try to see what the future may be at the personal, corporate or country levels, so we can assist our leaderships, and indeed our fellow citizens, in dealing efficiently with our uncertain times. 

Warmest regards,

Serge 

Understanding why Trump won last November and would lose today 

24-2-25

Dear Partners in Thought,

A good friend told me recently that I may have focused too much on the negative impacts of Trump on America and the world while not recognising that a majority of voters backed him in a democratic election. To be fair, I saw Trump’s impacts as more relevant to review so we could deal with them. However, I also recognise that it is interesting to understand why so many people (77 million) voted for Trump and elected him President without this time around the always strange but legal assistance of the Red States-favoured Electoral College. And in doing so, I also wanted to stress in all fairness and a positive note – even if irrelevant now – that he would not have won if his swift and destructive programme had been known by his voters beyond the showbiz flavour and drivers that allowed his win.   

So why did so many vote for Trump and what where some or all of their drivers?

  • A feeling of being left out and not mattering, often residing in rural areas or small cities, away from metropolises where decisions are taken for them.
  • A limited education and often no college degree of any sort, combined with increased loneliness for many, while relying on social media they want to hear (making them easier to manipulate).
  • A resentment against the “undeserving elite” and its set-up (like the DC policy establishment, Ivy League colleges, old money, the well-offs, the natural concentration of wealth in key cities like NYC, Chicago, Boston, San Fran) even if strangely not minding the likes of Musk, Thiel and now Bezos, Zuckerberg, most of Big Tech and many of the Wall Street crowd – indeed the real elite of the day – having pushed for Trump as they wanted fewer regulations, less taxation and fewer constraints of any sort.     
  • The cost of living felt at the supermarket for key goods (even if Biden’s policies had helped the US to fare better than any other major countries). 
  • A resentment against “Woke” and any kind of excessive diversity and how it was at times insanely applied in businesses and schools (this especially from young and not so young males).
  • A low understanding of, and interest in, international affairs seen as non-core to their lives and often a useless cost (USAID is a waste and seems corrupt according to my podcasters… And why do we need soft power?).  
  • A low understanding of economics (tariffs are great as foreigners pay – when they also will through inflation and their own purchases). 
  • The ability of Trump and any populist leaders (like in Europe) to “showbiz capitalise” on voters’ pain (real or imagined) while grabbing votes via easy solutions to deal with complex problems, often too costly to implement or unmanageable efficiently and with poor outcomes. 
  • A feeling that public sector bureaucracy is inherently wasteful and inefficient so let’s get rid of it and sack all the bureaucrats (hence a DOGE that is also questionable in many ways). 
  • A belief that immigration – even in a land that was built by it – is bad on many grounds and primarily affecting national identity as too ethnically and culturally differentiated, this combined with the inability of governments/bureaucracies to manage documented and undocumented flows, even if needed in some key economic sectors. (And in all fairness, immigration is also a European topic.)   

It is interesting to realise that the above drivers – not always the best and the brightest – led the vote of many, while Trump’s strange, if not downright unacceptable, personality and style combined with a shady history did not seem to matter. He was simply seen as the right medium for the angst of many voters, even if some would never want him as a buddy (putting aside the MAGA-hat and T-shirt wearing crowd in search for amusement or simply a need to exist). 

Voter frustration can be understood with regard to some matters that many governments usually do not manage well, both in the US and across Europe. Many Trump voters wanted strong and easy-to-grasp policy proposals that make sense on the surface and deal radically with their issues (or indeed grievances). It is clear that some of their drivers are fully understandable; liberal-democratic governments have always been bad at managing bureaucracy (even if an inherent feature), or immigration – often for fear of allegations of racism and given the need for more workers in unwanted jobs at home. It is also true that in most countries, voters do not care much about foreign policy and its substantial funding features unless they are under clear threat. We, and especially the US today, thanks to the rise of Trump a decade ago, live in an increasingly polarised world where discussions or compromises no longer matter, and views should only be fought for in what becomes a hostile political debate fuelled by partisan social media. Voters, usually ill-informed by design, are more “against” than “for” anything, which translates into strong views fuelled by exciting podcasted disinformation, leading them to backing populist politicians with extremist programmes that become more normal and expected in a gradually consensus-free world.    

As stated in earlier notes (notably “Getting the right take on Trump’s impact on America and the world” – February 19th), Trump’s deluge of executive orders (67 in one month, a record) and daily offensive announcements, creating both chaos and low understanding of what is happening even from his voters, was unexpected and very surprising, even from an individual like him. On a side note, his “deluge” with at least one breath-taking key news a day, makes it challenging to keep track of the man, with many of his decisions still seen as Trump’s and not as America’s by many observers, given their uniquely unusual and at times world game-changing nature. After hijacking a now servile GOP (look at the confirmation of weird secretary nominees), Trump is now hijacking America and its role in the world, after all feeling that he can as an elected President. Trump’s personal features clearly bear no similarities to those of any prior Presidents and reflect the change of the political debate in the US (and within Western democracies). Every day of his short tenure brings more bad and world order-shattering news as if “shock and awe” was the expected norm and radically new approaches now making the US a self-centred super-great power is right and sound. In this new era the form, usually violent, matters more than the substance and the policy impacts. Trump’s voters are bound to grow tired of this new approach after a while and will likely be the first to pay at home for his policies, while Europe (and indeed Ukraine) will suffer from his betrayal and their own complacency in having relied too much on American support, even if the latter also fully served America’s interests at many levels.   

A Washington Post-Ipsos poll released on February 20th showed that Americans are mixed-to-negative on Trump’s nascent second term while 57 per cent say he has exceeded his authority since taking office. Polls on Musk and his DOGE leadership show worse results, with some Republican legislators even worrying about the method and impact of the drastic Federal job and funding cuts. Even Fox News joined all key media networks to ask for a lift of the ban on Associated Press from attending White House briefings following their sticking to “Gulf of Mexico”. Over the last month, the S&P stock market index vastly underperformed the Stoxx Europe 600 index (1.7 per cent vs. 5.7 per cent) while US inflation has already started to rise in anticipation of tougher times. Trump would likely lose the Presidential election if held today as many American voters, including some driven by the above-stated features, would not be happy with his rapidly-engineered civilisational meltdown. The flood of self-destructive domestic and foreign policy executive orders and announcements we saw in his first month, that will eventually be felt at home very directly, has also triggered the redefinition of what America has stood for during almost a century. Even if not caring for international affairs and “protected by an ocean”, voters would not back the destruction of the Atlantic Alliance, making Trump in effect an agent of a very happily surprised Russia about what is increasingly seen, through the de facto validation of the Ukraine invasion, as a historical pivot of sinister proportions. Had they known what was really on offer, it is indeed highly unlikely that a majority of voters would have supported Trump, whose actual approach reflects only too well his unbalanced personality and style. However, even if Trump would have lost the November election based on what we see today, it is not clear that his majority in Congress would be defeated in 2026 as it likely should be if Team Trump was successful in gradually destroying the US Constitution and rules attached to it, like mid-terms every two years, which Americans have known since 1781. With Trump, anything is possible. 

The last month was too full of unmanageably sad news. So, to conclude on a funny note, let’s rejoice that Canada just beat the US in the final of the 4 Nations hockey championship allowing Trudeau to deservedly needle Trump about his deranged 51st state offer threats.    

Warmest regards,

Serge      

Getting the right take on Trump’s impact on America and the world

19-2-25

Dear Partners in Thought,

In less than a month back at the Resolute Desk, there has been a flood of Trump’s executive orders that are changing America and the world as we knew it. While it is potentially mind-damaging given its extent, it would be useful to keep track of most, if not all, of the decisions taken by the US President and seeing their gradual impact when implemented or if they are just for show and transactional tactics. The list is indeed very long and reflects many points of the infamous Heritage Foundation “Project 2025” that the Trump team had worked hard to dismiss as not their programme during the electoral campaign. 

What is clear is that Trump is clearly now in a position where he is changing America and indeed the world we have known since WW2. It is also increasingly likely that he is an unwitting tool of powerful business interests, of which Big Tech is the leader, and possibly indirectly of the “great powers” he is fond of, such as Russia and an “imperialistic brother” like Putin. In some ways, it is a game where all parties are leaders and tools, holding each other by the goatee, as the French saying goes, in what makes a sinister and world-damaging club.  Weakening America, both at home and abroad, by his poor style and decisions, also hurts the world we know as well as, naturally, Europe. The picture is so large that it takes some time to realise the extent of the multi-faceted damage while, with all things Trumpian, we may dangerously get used to his craziness over time, like many of his supporters have, creating a dangerous feeling of normality.  

The damage to America itself, including its own voting base, will be seen rather quickly at different levels. The gradual destruction of the Federal Government and traditional public service will have a serious impact at state level, including the Red ones, as services will no longer be federally funded in too many areas like education or health. The various political firings of officials at the Department of Justice combined with the massive “buyouts” (not to use the word termination) of many civil servants, including at the CIA, will damage the reputation, efficiency and even security of the US and its administration. Some segments of the US economy, like agriculture, that rely on huge swaths of undocumented but law-abiding workers, will have a terrible impact that even Red State farmers start worrying about (perhaps showbiz-announced mass deportations will prove too challenging to implement, thus reducing their bad impact.) Tariffs, that may look strong and good when announced, will result in higher inflation, as already seen, as Americans keep buying foreign goods or businesses need foreign parts to manufacture their own products. It would also appear that Trump wants to reward his extremist supporter groups and fund the protection of Christianity in a country where more than two thirds of its citizens are Christian. And now we know that assaulting the Capitol and killing police officers will be forgiven (if you do it for the current President, of course), putting the basic concepts of right and wrong in serious jeopardy. So far, many executive orders, some at times even breaching the Constitution, have been fought and rejected by the courts, but with time nothing guarantees that judicial power will hold, potentially leading to the gradual replacement of usual Western-type democracy by a Venezuelan model (no tariffs involved). 

These drastic changes are going hand-in-hand with some decisions affecting US foreign policy and its very key interests worldwide. It is clear that there may be a majority of Americans who do not care much about international affairs and are more focused on what matters to them directly at home. America is not alone in this respect even if one could relate this to an educational problem and its costs in “the country of the free”, all the more when too many are living lonely existences and rely only on easy-to-hear social media. Killing USAID is destroying American soft power which had helped the US to assume world leadership since the JFK era. Dealing with Russia on Ukraine without the latter and Europe involved is only temporarily but wrongly strengthening an existentially lost former great power while killing the basic cement of the Western world that is reflected in the historical and cultural bonds between America and Europe. A US-Russia-only dialogue to end the war in Ukraine only strengthens Moscow’s underwhelming position in the conflict and overall geopolitical stance while weakening greatly Europe and the Atlantic Alliance, not to mention Ukraine and its leadership. Anti-corruption regulations will be dismissed making global trade and investments going back to Far West times, stressing again Trump’s inherent “tool” nature. Going after allies – if not friendly neighbours like Canada – by wanting to absorb them or threatening a NATO member by the seizure of Greenland on security reasons combined with mineral resources gains is not exactly what Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush would have ever dared in terms of American standing, values and principles. The fight against climate change globally seems something from the past while “drill, baby, drill”, has become the White House song of the day, pleasing both the US oil industry and, for once, some allies like Saudi Arabia. And let’s not talk about making Gaza a US-protected if not owned “Riviera” by displacing all its Palestinian residents, news that was received as expected even by some of the most Trump-flexible countries in the region. These developments sadly speak for themselves and do not require complex analytical soul searching to see their craziness.                   

While stating Trump’s decisions and their impact, it is also key to realise how we got there and why. Trump was a very rich kid, inheriting $400 million from his father – quite a social gap with some of his MAGA base – helping him to launch his real estate empire that proved to be very unsuccessful beyond the great Trump Tower-like names, while at times less than financially clean. It is clear that his transactional nature came from his rather unusual business life. And many, like Robert De Niro, rudely but honestly see him as a “jerk” and a “moron” as an individual. He also always enjoyed surrounding himself with shady characters (like the infamous Roy Cohn) or now very “obedient first” individuals, a feature we blatantly see in his current team of under-impressive secretaries like Peter Hegseth, Kristi Noem, Tulsi Gabbard or RFK Jr to name only a few. And his blatantly mixing family business interests with his presidency, as seen with his recent crypto initiative and the roles of his many relatives, is astonishing. Two recent examples speak for themselves: Melania Trump getting $40 million from Amazon’s Bezos, clearly a King’s courtier, for her “memoirs” or the appointment of the ex-convicted felon, father of his son-in-law Jared, as Ambassador to France, that could be a part of a great Hollywood movie script. There is however no doubt that he is a very gifted politician for our showbiz times, who has been a model for many populists in terms of style and messaging. And then, as a new development, Trump is also using the likes of Musk to do his bidding when it is easier, like when reshaping the public sector with a questionable and over-reaching DOGE and its team of subcontracted young tech bros or heavily dealing directly with German or British domestic politics (not that the flexible if not uber-opportunistic JD Vance, who will forever be remembered for his startling “threat from within” speech, did not meet the leader of the extreme right German AfD on the side of the Munich Security Conference, showing that MOs also evolve quite fast under Trump 2.0). 

Many observers of this developing drama feel that the 2026 mid-terms will correct things and see Congress in full control of the Democrats. For this, and in a normal scenario, the Democrats should wake up and think long and hard about their leadership and key programmes. Undocumented immigration, a bad thing which is often linked to cultural identity by its opponents, is never well-managed by liberal democrats the Western world over, given the sensitive feature attached to it, while diversity could also have been more sensibly supported and carried out in schools and businesses. The party also seems to be devoid of truly electable and inspiring leaders (Josh Shapiro needs to be followed) while the Republicans have had too many, even if the more acceptable ones by usual norms may be the likes of a rigid but highly professional Marco Rubio. The problem is that America’s new path does not prevent a constitutional crisis supported by a friendly Supreme Court when mid-terms suddenly become obsolete on the dubious grounds of enhanced efficiency (two years is a short time for any mandate as many, if not all, in the House of Representatives would agree.) Besides this sinister point, two years is enough to dismantle the architecture of US federal power and move away from America’s traditional leadership style with all the features we know. We may find ourselves by 2026 in a world where the US and China are both operating as great powers only, something the latter has worked hard to achieve for decades since Mao, while America nominally stays in the West but only in transactional ways. It is likely to be the next geopolitical picture of our world. Looking at the main great power rivalry to come, the US State Department last week removed the statement America did not support Taiwanese independence, an historical peace preserving stance, but it may simply be a “transactional” move reflecting our new times. 

Russia will keep being Russia, in search of its lost imperial past, combining aggressions when needed and high moral stances on the surface while working with lost states like Iran and North Korea no other key nations really want to deal with. Russia will always be an existential threat for Europe even if the former will increasingly be weak economically but also more dangerous as a result. In many ways, both China and Russia may to some extent be the winners of a short-sighted Trump 2.0 diplomacy as many countries, notably in Africa, Latin America or Asia if not eventually in some parts of Europe may eventually decide to switch strategic allegiance. (in some ways, the real winner of Trump 2.0 may become China if a smart Xi leadership decided to present a friendlier Beijing as a more viable strategic alternative to the US to many potential partners globally, this with Europe also reviewing that game-changing option in some areas.) It is also clear that some rising powers needing a feeling of protection from strong neighbours may also surprisingly adjust to Trump’s new transactional approach as recently seen with Modi’s India in DC regarding both combined trade and defence matters. Europe should see the Trump era also as a needed wake-up call and work on its key nature and especially on its defence in spite of all the natural divisions inherent to its national multiplicity and variety of strategic interests. There is no more excuse to hide behind history and feeling that American protection allows Europe and its nations to focus on the economy only. Defence is now a key feature of European existence, a new fact that many Europeans will have to learn how to live with and accept fully if they wish to survive as Europe or indeed as nations. Perhaps Trump 2.0 will prompt Britain and the EU to get more quickly closer to each other if not reunited at some point even if Trump is likely to work on dividing them by staying softer on London. 

At the very personal level, Trump 2.0 and its massively destructive changes hurt the French-born European I am as it kills what America always stood for in my life and helped me define myself. America was never perfect, but its values and principles helped me grow up as a child, thanks to the likes of John Wayne, Gary Cooper or Kirk Douglas, making me go there in my early twenties to helping me build over a few years who I became personally and professionally. It was a model of the idealised sort, but one that was strong and good. I want it back for all of us and the world. 

As already stated, Europe, while strengthening itself, will have to work with the growing American “opposition”-to-be to recreate the win-win community that is the Transatlantic Alliance based on shared historical and cultural values and principles. While the nightmare goes on, each of us in Europe should work hard with our many friends in America to help re-cementing our great partnership and make it even better. Trump should not last. Common sense needs to prevail.     

With warmest regards,

Serge 

The key damage for America under Trump  

32-1-25

Dear Partners in Thought,

Trump is quickly changing America in terms of foreign policy approach by threatening allies with new isolationist and “America First” strategic and economic policies, in what is seen (at best) as an expression of great power in transactional ways. Trump is clearly seen as no longer focusing on benevolent Western leadership that served his country very well for generations since WW2. In doing so, he risks harming the core interests of his country and citizens, the latter who may feel it when retail prices rise in supermarkets, and through the lack of manpower in key sectors like agriculture via general mass deportations. All while federalism is withdrawing at many funding and regulatory levels, focusing on ideology more than sheer impact. As is often the case in America, money will prevail – if not greed this time – as, while core MAGA voters will be gradually forgotten once key early populist decisions have been announced and potentially implemented, the real winners, probably of a short-term nature, will be Big Tech and the flexible Wall Street crowds. It is also possible that many educated Americans, keen on the old ways of their country, may decide to leave it to live somewhere else, like in Europe, which would remind them of better days. And as times go by and Trump and his team keep undermining institutions, democracy as we know it may gradually vanish, as is the case in rising autocracies still providing the cover of democratic tools that no longer apply. In many odd ways, Trump’s move may make the US closer in style to China and Russia while no longer offering the key differentiation that made America the great country it was.      

While Europeans, who share so much culturally with America, given the ancestry of the majority of its citizens, will feel abandoned by the once great Western leader, these new times may have positive and indeed needed consequences in making Europe more independent and also stronger in defence.  NATO may go on, as it should, even if more focused on transactions with the current White House resident. The decision to stop foreign aid as the leading world provider, mostly focused on the developing world which may save $60bn annually will hurt the relationships and standing of the US globally. One of the consequences of this mega (if not MAGA-induced) change or “aid-quake” will be for some developing countries to find China or even Russia and its few followers, even if harder for the latter, to be tangibly better strategic and tactical partners. 

The major Trump damage will be the destruction of the identity and image of America as the world knew it – especially, but not only, Europe and the West – with values and principles that many took for granted and representing the essence of the indispensable country. Pardoning violent “January 6” insurrectionists will forever set the tone of the start of a new era, also at home. America was never perfect but it led by showing what many countries wanted to see as a largely “civilized” modus operandi and indeed a model for all worldwide. It was also defined by going beyond the great power ways that better defined the Soviet Union or today’s China and that Russia tried to stick to in a quasi-existential move, as it kept declining, with the invasion of another country in 21st century Europe. In many ways Trump and his fast-developed but long-built policies are simply making America just another great power with no specific appeal in terms of values and principles. We may all pay a dear price for it, including and especially America itself.   

While one may hope that the 2026 mid-terms may change the course of events, it is still a feeling based on America functioning as we knew it. Relying on an electoral turning point like this, as we should, may also be the wrong approach as two years may create too much internal damage, even if we see some institutional and judicial resistance, also from some key American states. It is thus far better for the rest of the West – like Europe, Japan and their allies – to focus on being more independent and indeed much stronger in terms of defence and foreign policy – as always wanted by Trump for the former – and play the transactional game wanted by the new imperial President. We need to engage with Trump’s America and find the most productive partnership we can, hoping for the best and indeed a change in Washington at some point, this without being deluded by false hopes. We also need to support strongly those at home that want to restore the old American win-win ways. However, America today is no longer the America we knew. A new Mount McKinley in Alaska and its reminders of forgotten and different times is making Trump’s point in what matters today for the current US executive power.  

Warmest regards

Serge 

On Trump’s geopolitical “strategy” and how Europe should deal with it  

20-1-25

Dear Partners in Thought,

President Trump will always be strange to most rational people, all the more so due to his personality and style, combined with his likely feeling that he is now free to do whatever he wants without the executive and legislative guardrails of his first term. Both his obedience-first core team and all the Republican Senators and Representatives are now backing him without any doubt, reflecting his acumen in having changed the Republican Party and their expected human focus on preserving their own positions. Putting aside unforeseen issues that may have helped a Trump 2.0, such as “woke” and a weak Democratic leadership, America and the world are now in for a very different period of executive power in Washington that history and its books will make us remember for generations.   

The recent outlandish and unsettling Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal and Gulf of America statements we know were there with a potential transactional approach in mind, but also to appeal to the core MAGA base that needs America to be “strong” as they understand it – with benefits hopefully derived from this “long-needed” and “refreshing” approach for them.  Trump may also want to show them that it’s not only campaign-funding Big Tech and their deregulation needs that matter. It was interesting that Trump so far avoided any direct verbal attacks against key European countries. His focus was not totally devoid of a master plan, however dangerous for America and the new world it may foster.   

It is a now confirmed sign that, as expected, the post-Cold War and globalisation world may be changing, with Trump focusing on a narrower but stronger and more manageable core geographic area of American supremacy, also fitting a certain form of isolationism, which could be mostly centred on both Americas, this combined with expected tariff rises and an aggressive self-interest on trade and diplomacy globally. In that approach, he would likely be leaving China more or less in charge, to different extents, throughout Asia – apart from a far too big India – while Taiwan may remain on-and-off an issue of contention. A Trump 2.0 could leave Russia in control of Eurasia and gradually Eastern Europe, with players like Iran or North Korea being useful additions in its existential quest for revival. There is little doubt that both China and Russia will like the new US approach, all the more so given their own respective domestic challenges. Europe (Western and Central) is thus at great risk from a war-flavoured (economically and socially) Russia that may no longer be able to go back to old post-Cold War and globalisation ways. Given a new world that may arise, Europe should thus not rely any more for its security only on the US, whose values and principles (making the American Dream), together with its Western leadership nature, may de facto vanish. 

Trump is seen as a bully by most, even by his admirers who like it, but he could be a “transactional” one, even if this feature may be seen by potentially naïve old-fashioned foreign policy experts. We hear a lot that his “crazy” geopolitical statements, aimed at long-time allies of the US and not at its traditional enemies, are made to gain an edge on specific matters related to the potentially new primary American supremacy zone. In doing so, and while there might be a strange game plan in Trump’s mind that no close adviser will dare challenge, unlike in his first term given the “faithful first” team around him, Trump is not realising all the direct and indirect benefits that America gained since the end of WW2 – and even more so post-Cold War – in acting as the natural and beneficial leader of the West and, for long, most of the world. American leadership brought many benefits, not only politically but economically, also for the US private sector and its naturally globalised corporations. Foreign affairs and globalisation are obviously not topics that easily resonate with its core electoral base, even if it may usually be the case with most electorates in Western democracies for which the economy and their purchasing power matter first. The Trump isolationist or “withdrawing” approach, even if it might give the US a smaller but better focus, would cost America and his electorate dearly. Then the abandonment of the values and principles that made America strong and differentiated globally may also be very costly, as the US may become just another great power with the risk that many in the world might prefer China or Russia after all – this eventually with geopolitical realignments as Moscow and Beijing could also be very transactional, even with Europe. One of the side benefits of this American withdrawal (as we would see it in Europe) may be a much closer relationship with the UK and the EU since “being together” in such dire times would make eminent sense and might not be disrupted by the personal political ambitions of a few. On this latter point, it is amazing to think of the impact of key individuals (even if not really alone) on the world or their region, not to mention own country, thinking about Donald Trump or Boris Johnson.   

Post-election win, Trump has been strangely quiet on matters dealing with Russia or even China, the latter that was his arch-nemesis (arguably with a bipartisan mode) with Taiwan being the semi-conductor heaven and geopolitical sacred ground. Today he is not sure that he would ban China-rooted TikTok in the US, where 170 million people use it, even if the Supreme court, that he had re-engineered years back, was all for it. As for Russia, it is clear that his relationship with Putin matters, probably as he envies his executive style that is likely in his own mind more that of a true leader of a great power, this even if there ever were or not FSB files on his bad behaviour in a Moscow hotel. The statements that he would stop the Ukraine War in one day have not been heard recently, while the emphasis is on his being greatly instrumental in getting a cease-fire agreement between Hamas and Israel thanks to his own envoy, Secretary Blinken’s months of work having just been for show.          

One last point that is worth mentioning is the rise of the “tech industrial complex” oligarchy (or indeed ”broligarchy”) mentioned by Joe Biden in his farewell address. While there has been indeed a rise of an oligarchy that served US interests well at first given its tech focus, it is clear that many of its leaders wish to play a role that go well beyond their business remit. Musk openly exemplifies this mutation with his governmental role in making the US “more efficient” with DOGE, but he is now going well beyond this in promoting extremist political leaders in the UK and Germany while attacking allies on the way they run their own countries. It would be odd for Trump not to have been aware of Musk’s attacks on Starmer or the laudatory exchanges with the new and differentiated female leader of the AfD, this perhaps as it was an easier way to start a new foreign policy approach. We will note that Musk had nothing mean to say about Russia or of course China, which is the location of his largest Tesla factory. It is clear that Big Tech is keen on being close to a winning Trump to ensure his support on deregulation matters at home (see Zuckerberg and his new approach to Meta content), but crucially in relation to the EU where the likes of Commissioner Margrethe Vestager led the fight to regulate Big Tech, admittedly also as it was US-made. And then Peter Thiel, Musk’s Paypal partner and original Facebook funder, writes opinion pieces such as in the Financial Times recently about conspiracy theories and the end of the party of the Ancient Regime, leaving many scratching their heads. And Bezos rescued the Washington Post (notable, given our social media times) though it is not clear what the newspaper may become going forward as some articles have already suggested, even if it stayed neutral during the last election. Not all Big Tech is, of course, personified by individuals who may not be the most principled. Whatever his life style, Bill Gates, the model of what Big Tech should be and focus on, spent three hours with Trump which he found productive and were very acceptable given his historical innovation role (as a potential wink to Bezos, the Gates Foundation just gave $700,000 to the UK Independent Media Group to fund journalism in “under-reported” parts of the world).  

Looking at where we are, and putting aside Trump’s “differentiated” personality, management style and strategy, it is clear that the key word going forward when dealing with Washington will be “transactional”, and that Europe will have to show expertise, cunning and resolve. While we should do our best to engage with the US and keep NATO working, we will need to increase even further our own commitments to defence, hoping our various populations will understand what is at play and is required in terms of funding and organisational changes in this return of History. We can also hope that America wakes up, of course (maybe the 2026 mid-terms?), but this does not change the fact that Europe has been too reliant on Washington for too long, even if the latter wanted to be the august Western leader it indeed was. Defence will now be key and European resolve should be seen through a strong commitment to its own capabilities – as if there were no NATO – while working with it fully. In doing so, all key countries will also need to meaningfully contribute funding and avoid complacency, while no longer hiding behind any historical guilt, to focus more easily on business and economic matters. Those times are behind us.         

Populists of whatever flavour and geography may hurt democracy – as we have seen in recent decades, but especially today. They are now great at combining spectacular showbiz and easy vote-grabbing, as if it were a needed recipe, taking advantage of the always-usual resentment of many that form a core base – this today worryingly amplified with loneliness and social media, especially with younger generations. And then they rarely deliver unless they adjust to reality, like recently in Italy while elections, when they still exist, become a sham like in Venezuela. As a Transatlantic European who believed in, and enjoyed, the “American Dream” I felt hurt by the recent American political developments and their impact on the world, also knowing the past decades had been great for Americans. However, this new populist development in the US had some benefits that perhaps were also needed. In an unexpected turn of events, and even if we should always hope for a return to a globalised world and the Western leadership we knew, Trump’s strange initiative may not help the US, but it could make a much stronger EU (and also Europe) with old friends getting back together anew, all while focusing on the tools of independence like enhanced defence and efficient coordination. All while hoping for America to return to its better ways, then also enjoying the benefits of a better-balanced alliance – this for all involved. Trump is not the America we need – something all my sound American friends would agree with.  

Warmest regards,

Serge

About the potential demise of the world we knew

11–12–24

Dear Partners in Thought, 

Like many, it took me two weeks to be able to watch news from the US, so shocked had I been by the Trump election victory I did not think possible, given the man and his style. I would now like to share my thoughts on why it might have happened and what this drastic development means for America and the world we knew, something we can already see. 

America was first and foremost known since its creation for its values and principles, even if at rare times not always followed by its leaders and key players. Given his personal history, Trump has no clear values nor principles, which he likely sees as too rigid and thus useless features. Trump 2.0 will then likely be the end of the America we all knew, and with dire consequences, especially for the Western world. At best, he will be compared to Andrew Jackson, the Southern Democratic populist of his day and at that time an “outsider”. Another clearly non-liberal Republican like Ronald Reagan would not recognize his own party today or a leader and indeed a twice-elected President like Trump. It is clear that most Republican elected officials did not see the new age that led to the gradual and stark high-jacking of their party since 2015 coming, but they went with it as, like many might, they enjoy their jobs after all. The wild Trump nominations, that stress obvious need for loyalty (if not, in some cases, retribution) far more than any required competence, already speak for themselves. And then we now also have the announced Day One pardon of all those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.   

While Trump was to some extent “controlled” by experienced professionals in his first term, it is unlikely he will be in his second, particularly as he clearly found it “annoying”. Hence loyalty first today. Tulsi Gabbard, the choice for Director of National Intelligence, who would oversee 18 intelligence agencies, while a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army reserve, is also a known pro-Putin individual as shown in her public statements, who also thought Bashar Al-Assad could in no way ever be an enemy of America. Kristi Noem, the Governor of South Dakota and choice for Secretary of Homeland Security, is mostly known for her recent memoirs and her strange killing of her annoying dog, this to expected public uproar. Pete Hegseth, another unknown individual but for his Fox News role, a choice for Secretary of Defense, is a military veteran though also known for his fondness of sexual triangles and a more than serious alcohol consumption style. Kash Patel, the nominee to head the FBI, even if a former federal prosecutor in his younger days, is a QAnon promoter and conspiracy theorist while now being known for his mission to go after Trump’s enemies. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is definitely a “weird” choice for Health Secretary, based on his own visible state of health and anti-vaccine stances (I often wonder what the great Bob would say). As for Matt Gaetz, the self-withdrawn nominee for Attorney General, he could have created a club with Pete Hegseth while also dealing with substance abuse, making his choice almost a Machiavellian one knowing he would not be approved even by a Republican Senate, this making it easier for other doubtful nominees to be. And on top of this, nepotism unsurprisingly comes in with the future Ambassador to France and the Middle East Special Envoy being both fathers-in law of the Trump daughters Ivanka and Tiffany, the former even being a convicted felon. We had already seen that Lara, his daughter-in-law, had secured the co-chairmanship of the Republican National Committee, ahead of the presidential election. It is hard not to laugh and feel it is part of a Hollywood comic movie. But then it is not a bad dream and shows what a Trump 2.0 will be, even if, sadly, people get used to his ways and too many seem not to mind as time goes by.

Trump 2.0 may be a return to another era where globalization or also peace through trade no longer matters. Generations come and go and history often repeats itself as people in charge have no direct memory. We are moving back to the equivalent of the 1930s where isolationism prevailed with the direct impact we saw, while today is also a withdrawal from a post-Cold War era where nations were more directly involved with each other. This gradual move is often the result of a few personal key agenda-led individuals or spokesmen-leaders, like Trump in America, as the majority of Britons would today agree when having a dispassionate take on the now old and indeed bold Brexit move and its impact. 

How we came to that sad point is worth reviewing. Looking at American history, no President looked like Trump. He is basically a well-known and failed real estate mega-investor, having initially inherited about USD 400m from his father to build an eventually collapsing empire once represented by the Trump Tower. His TV career and “The Apprentice” show helped Trump to salvage his reputation while remaking some of its wealth and eventually considering a new political avenue. He was likely the original populist who made it via elections in 2016. His approach was to gradually focus on the resentments of those who felt that society had not given them a fair deal – a recipe now seen across democracies, all the more in Europe – this even if hugely remote from them socially, something that did not seem to be an issue for anyone. This focus on his core base of resentful voters’ anger did not prevent Trump (at times the curious alliance of interests not really noticed by them) to artfully seek the backing of many Wall Street and Silicon Valley billionaires, who were driven by their needs for less regulations and happy to fund Trump’s campaign to huge levels as Elon Musk and others did. Trump was also naturally helped by the historical rise of social media and their contents with known goals of satisfying what their listeners would want to hear more than providing true unbiased food for thought. The problem with populists like Trump (Meloni In Italy possibly being the only exception today) is that they are usually good at grabbing vote these days but terrible at managing governments, not being really trained or naturally gifted for that role. And then populists are naturally fond of “loyalty first” teams of individuals, as in dictatorships, leading to the kind selected by Trump 2.0 as secretary nominees. 

While quite a few on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley are also flexible in terms of values and principles as long as their interests are preserved, it is also fair to say that all the “common” Trump voters are not devoid of them, even if many beyond the MAGA-hat wearing crowd feel an existential drive fueled by perceived resentment and unfairness combined with an anti-elite sentiment. Some of these voters, especially non-college educated men, even including young ones, did not like where they felt America had been sliding into, this also promoted by quite a few in the Democratic Party. Combined by what they felt as the impact of too much “internationalism” and its societally-induced weaknesses (historically an Anglo-American cultural fear of a quasi-satanic conspiracy dating back from the Reformation) their main anger, which can be understood, may be summed up in one word: “Woke” or an extremist and forced push for what is seen as diversity. Even corporate America is indeed going through times when employees stressing that intelligence and excellence should prevail in role and job selection during corporate meetings can be sent for two months of online diversity education. In some ways, this big trend that started in the late 2010s is the grandson (or grand-daughter!) of the affirmative action where black (sorry – African American) individuals were accepted in top colleges before some Asian students (not white ones yet) with higher grades. Many in the Democratic Party lost sight of the societal impact of woke on sheer American values and principles, mainly focusing on what they perceived as societal fairness the way they saw it. And now, through this excessive approach, they pay a tough price – like we might all do as a result and what it brought us with Trump. While stressing that latter point and somewhat with stupefaction, it is hard to see that Trump was also able to woo many African-American and Asian males, also young, to send him back to the White House, showing the fine actor and persuader he is. Last but not least it would seem, that while many Republican party members were known and kept taking the stage to promote their views, very few Democratic counterparts were seen or even known by the general public, perhaps as President Biden kept the party focus on himself during his term, which can happen with one’s party when being the White House resident.   

The problem we have today is now that Trump is back, his focus cannot be on his show business campaigning ways anymore. His core program combining mass deportation and tariffs, will be highly challenging to put in place, with potentially dire consequences even for his own electorate when they are in the shopping mall or cannot find workers for their crops. As for the world, isolationism often combines economic and diplomatic facets that can only hurt American leadership (assuming it still matters at the White House) as well as the Western world and its multifaceted set of alliances, NATO being only a key one, all the more as we experience new wars and unstable developments globally today.

I hear many complaining that Covid or the July Pennsylvania shooter could have spared the world from a Trump 2.0, which is factually true. However, I would still hope that common sense prevails, also thanks to the hopefully more reasonable and experienced US Senate that should concentrate on true American interests and ensure that our world keeps going without a dire but almost natural return of history if Trump is left unhinged. And in true American tradition, let’s also hope for the best and that the Trump “transactional” approach, that may or not redefine US foreign policy, works for all parties including what we called the West and naturally Europe. In the meantime, risk management is becoming an increasingly key feature if I may say with a wink.  

Warmest regards,

Serge                    

The main challenges of democracy today and how to manage them

10/10/24

Dear Partners in Thought,

Democracy is the main issue of the day, given its fragile state, as shown with the various books on the topic from the great Anne Applebaum’s “Autocracy, Inc.” to Yale historian Timothy Snyder’s new “On Freedom” in line with his earlier famed “On Tyranny”.  With that in mind, I wanted to deal concisely with the key matter of ensuring democracy’s survival. In doing so, I decided to explore the main causes of Western democracy’s fragility in the 2020s while stressing the best ways to ensure its future. 

Democracy, which most of us in the West took for granted, is a very recent political system in the history of the world. We can all agree that the number of centuries where some form of democracy we can relate to appeared is very short. While we can be grateful to America and its founding fathers for giving us the roots of modern democracy in the 1770s, that great country is today experiencing some upheaval that would make the great Republican President Ronald Reagan, not known for his liberalism, turn many times in his grave when looking at what became of his “Grand Old Party”.

In a strange way, autocracies, including those with fake elections, have little hope for eventual democracy – not that it would ever be the goal of their leaderships – unless a coup happens or a strong leader suddenly and unexpectedly dies (a sad but crucial point for Russians and North Koreans with their very personalised power at the top). Autocracies, so well described by Applebaum, are not the main threat, short of war, to democracy as we know it in the West. The tactical advantage of autocracies over democracies is that they are easier to manage as there is no counterweight to the absolute leadership – and as such they can last for long. The key question today is whether democracies can last, given the odd ways they have operated over recent years. 

Democracies are always complex to manage. Their main challenge today is actually “within”. Democracies have slid into show business at election time and well before, mirroring Taylor Swift concerts, though often without the singing and performing excellence. Too many voters no longer focus on policies but like the fight and opportunity to express strong feelings – at times in a very necessary existential way as seen with MAGA hat wearers. Democracy is now often a forum for the easiest but wrong solutions to the most complex issues promoted by vote-grabbing populists, usually targeting electorates not always equipped to understand what really matters. 

To be fair, traditional parties of the centre left and centre right have not helped the democratic resolve in refusing to tackle valid societal problems that were often difficult culturally, like immigration, leaving open doors for populist parties and leaders in the US and across Europe. Tackling problems like immigration, a matter that angers many voters due to the resurgence of a once-forgotten national identity, is challenging for governments also dealing with the economy that often requires not necessarily cheaper but sometimes much-needed labour for the whole society to keep growing. And immigration can be a strange mix of illegal and usually perfectly legal individuals, while pet dogs happily keep going without being actually eaten as lately discovered in Ohio. 

The main challenge of Western democracy is the rising frustration and anger of many citizens at issues that have not been well-managed by traditional government parties, a trend fostered by the bad side of tech via social media that have gradually hurt independent thinking. Many voters started to follow social media that targeted the established old-fashioned elite, hoping that anti-elite populist newcomers were the answer, however untested and by and large unequipped to govern properly, lacking as they do the right tools and formation. One of the obvious threats posed by populists if they win key elections is clearly whether these will be the last ones, all the more given their closeness to or benign understanding of autocrats – as we see so often these days with populist leaders and the way they relate to Putin. However, and in some unexpected way, Italy’s Georgia Meloni became a rare example of a hard-right leader deciding to adopt a moderate and democratic stance at many levels once in power.     

The fact is that our democracies will always need a highly educated elite to give guidance to the wider and diverse electorate – or we should hope so. Hence both high education and proper selection are key and the way to ensure our old West can go on and thrive for its people on the basis it always has done. Even if a scary word for many, elitism is good in essence in a David Halberstam “The Best and the Brightest” kind of way, when he described the JFK team (I agree the historical point can be argued too). Elitism based on education and providing competence is not a shame, even if that elite will always be small in nature – as long as it represents and defends the interests of democratic voters. Elitism based on education, the latter that should be as well-spread as possible within society, also to drive for common sense in the political debate, should be welcome by all. 

There is also a need for traditional parties to acknowledge issues that are easily seized by the populists and start managing them more forcefully with results in mind, this including immigration, while knowing the complexity of such endeavours. Lastly, society with the assistance of governments should ensure that social media use by minors is controlled (including phones in primary and secondary schools), this via a multiple legal and parental approach, also to avoid teenagers being lost for hours in their rooms or walking the streets while watching their phones, making them easy prey for cheap populism later. One of the key features of democratic survival is to ensure younger generations are traditionally educated and can think on their own, even if enjoying the pleasures tech can provide. Common sense should be the driver of such policies, not ideology.     

There is no easy nor black and white solution to managing and strengthening democracy, but a suitable leadership and a focus on traditional education for the whole society, while avoiding the current pitfalls provided by social media, are among the best recipes for democratic success and happiness over the long term. 

Warmest regards

Serge          

“Autocracy, Inc.” (Anne Applebaum)

16-8-24

Dear Partners in Thought,

As most of us are keen on defending democracy in our challenging times – as we have to – I thought it would be good to cover “Autocracy, Inc.”, the new book by Anne Applebaum, an expert on the subject of the slide into dictatorship as experienced in Central & Eastern Europe following WW2. Anne Applebaum is a Pulitzer Prize winner for “Gulag: A History,” renowned for her “Iron Curtain” opus and currently a senior Fellow at Johns Hopkins in DC and a key writer at The Atlantic. While a scholar and writer, Applebaum also knows politics and its challenges very directly, being married to Radek Sikorski, the current Polish foreign minister and right-hand man to PM Donald Tusk, both having come back to lead Poland following the hard-right and EU-unfriendly rule of the Law and Justice party since 2015.

One of the great features of the book is that it shows the nature of autocracy, which has evolved over the ages, especially since Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy. Autocracy today is no longer a one man show (or at times woman show like with Sheikh Hasina in Bangladesh) but an intricate set-up involving the police, military, intelligence, domestic disinformation and the whole financial structure of countries. Autocracies may not be clear dictatorships but can also be fake democracies where controlled elections happen. Autocracies today may also be systems where leaders do not care to be called as such and trample very clearly for all to see on the rights of their own people. Independent judiciaries and free press are not acceptable to autocracies as they tend to endanger their rule. A key feature of autocracies is kleptocracy which is a natural, almost human, attribute of such an unruly political system.  

One of the key geopolitical realizations one makes is that true democracies are in a tiny minority group globally these days, even if usually Western-based, thus making us feel that all is well – this being also problematic as autocracies, even if at times not formally allied, usually team up against the democratic West or when it matters to them depending on the core issue at hand. Russia, China, Iran or North Korea while being the obvious members of Autocracy, Inc. are also mirrored by the likes of Venezuela, Cuba, Myanmar, Syria or Zimbabwe, which the West notices less, apart for their endemic subsistence problems, as presenting less direct massive risks, even if at times theaters of geopolitical tragedies. And then there are illiberal democracies like Turkey, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan even if at times enjoying some fragile degrees of democratic transition, as happened in the Philippines, Taiwan, South Africa, South Korea and Mexico. A notable trend I felt has been the increased bullishness of established autocracies while some key democracies, admittedly not of the Western type like Modi’s India, have been less democratic as years went by. 

Applebaum goes back to the Western drive, especially of a German flavor, that was focused on peace through trade, starting at first during the late 1960s with gas pipelines to link the Soviet Union to the West in a peaceful way. This approach that Germany led and most of Europe enjoyed, also given energy needs, lasted for decades as seen with Chancellor Merkel in the 2010s. The same approach with China since the early 1980s supported the concept that trade would bring democracy to the rising key country. There was an assumption in the West that an inter-connected world through trade would bring liberal ideas and democracy to an autocratic world where in fact the opposite surprisingly happened as seen today with autocracy and illiberalism being spread to the democratic world instead, as seen in recent elections across Europe.    

One of the main leaders of the anti-democracy and anti-West move is naturally Russia, which made history return in Europe with its invasion of Ukraine, however failed a project. While Russia’s past shows a historical liking for autocracy of different flavors, nothing was pre-ordained after the Soviet Union and its system collapsed. Applebaum goes in detail through Glasnost in the 1980s in Russia to stress that democracy as we know it was also sought after. It was not a given that Putin’s Russia would be what it became, even if its early roots were to be found in St. Petersburg when the future leader was oddly Deputy Mayor to Anatoly Sobchak, the most liberal Russian mayor ever and would have started what became a national kleptocratic scheme later. As Applebaum describes it, Russia became the poster-child, if not hard to reach model, for a mix of autocracy and kleptocracy or a mafia-state managed with the officially main hidden goal of enriching its leaders. The successful ones were not the entrepreneurs building leading businesses, but individuals benefitting from favors granted by or stolen from the Russian state. As she says: “Nobody became rich by building a better mousetrap.” Russia never became a competitive market for success, but one where obedience to the leader was the only driver while the system was mutually sustainable and beneficial for the leader and its oligarchic subjects, making it, in my own view, unclear who was at the top, if not an inter-linked “system” in itself. Applebaum stresses the key successful combination of Russian autocratic kleptocracy, to be initially found in the KGB’s terrorist group-funding money laundering expertise and some sad expedient features of international finance that helped hide great wealth outside Russia.  It should be stressed that Putin and the obedient oligarchs were also empowered by Western banks, lawyers and even regulators that benefited from the scheme, not making that autocracy-kleptocracy model wholly-Russian in essence, and stressing that capitalism needs to be regulated closely on such matters. And as we know, some highly flexible countries, like the UAE, welcomed perfectly legally many sanctioned Russians who invested there, to the point that some jokingly would say that Russian is the first language in Dubai. Applebaum gives many examples of Russian, but also Nigerian or even Jordanian money, being hidden in the West in real estate or other assets in the most anonymous way (one in five purchasers of Trump properties were anonymous through shell companies often concealing a Russian origin, Trump Tower in New York being always well known for its Russian condo owners). Applebaum, who shares amazing personal British-related Russian purchase experiences like in Hampshire, stresses that anonymously-owned shell companies based in well-known leading tax heavens represent today 10% of global GDP, not that all would be linked to autocracies but likely many. One of the key features stressed in the book is the double standards of Western democracies preaching liberal values but helping build illiberal regimes as it made financial sense for many of its own economic actors.                  

Applebaum then takes us to Venezuela, once the leading, oil-rich, country in Latin America while focusing on Hugo Chavez, who seized power in 1998 and held it until his death in 2013. While a revolutionary at heart, Chavez, who became known for his anti-Americanism, neo-Marxism and flamboyant populism decided to opt for a kleptocratic and corruption-flavored country with domestic institutions such as press, courts, civil service slowly broken, in order to manage it better and stay in power while stressing his formal attachment to democracy. Many of the US$ 800bn in oil revenues during Chavez’s tenure went into private bank accounts around the world. The story of currency exchange manipulation also involving young Venezuelan students, supposedly for many studying abroad, provides another chapter in what some called the “democratization of kleptocracy.” All in all, estimates put the Chavez regime steal in 2013, when he died, at USD 300bn, much of it seen in empty brand-new apartment buildings in Caracas but also in Florida. It is notable that, while the Chavez regime pursued its corrupted course, the official emphasis was that the Bolivarian socialist revolution was good for ordinary people even if corruption eventually brought down the whole economy as its key state oil company floundered.  As Chavez had disappeared and demonstrations rippled the country, Autocracy, Inc. came to the rescue, also to deal with sanctions. Drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, and gasoline smuggling could not be enough to put the country on a fragile, if illicit, road to survival, so Russian companies stepped in with the likes of Rosneft, Gazprom, Lukoil even the odd TNK-BP. Subsidized Russian grain exports flew in as did arms and armament, not to mention crowd control equipment. China replaced wary Western lenders with loans without conditions, while enabling the Maduro regime to keep going until the country was broke, and what had once been the richest country in Latin America became the poorest. Cuba stepped in too, driven by the similar anti-American agenda as Putin’s Russia and then Xi’s China, even providing trustworthy soldiers, police officers and security and intelligence experts to Caracas. Turkey, even if a NATO member, also supported Maduro based on the close relationship of its two leaders, while Iran, with no common features with Venezuela, provided food and gas for gold as of 2000. Recent elections, not covered by the book due to their timing, showed us the extent of Maduro’s blatant violations of civil rights and the electoral process, all while displaying a laughable adherence to an obviously fake democratic cover story for his regime.

We then go to Zimbabwe, once known as Rhodesia, and see as a vivid example a picture of a leading local show-business-type preacher, who sells ways to become rich to locals willing to pay a fee – also someone involved in gold-smuggling and formally a Special Ambassador for Harare. Zimbabwe is an interesting case reflecting African post-colonial developments where many countries, initially democracies at their independence, gradually became autocracies to different degrees, and naturally kleptocracies for their elites. This August, Paul Kagame just started his fourth five-year term as leader of Rwanda on the official basis of having won 99% of the votes – underlining a new autocratic trend covered by Applebaum that there is no limit to lies in autocracies. And in a classical scheme, many of these fake democracies were helped by some Western institutions not keen on mixing morality and business while anti-Western countries (and at times Western ones for practical geopolitical purposes) would support them. The case of Mali or Burkina Faso in the Sahel being an example as seen with ex-Wagner Group mercenaries, but also China’s inroads via the Belt and Road Initiative and weapons delivery, or Putin’s Russia support as Zimbabwe backed it at the UN following the invasion of Ukraine. Kyrgyzstan, a former part of the Soviet Union is covered by Applebaum as another good example where autocracy occurred post-Soviet days, de facto keeping the country on its longstanding historical course.    

One of the key features for autocracies is “controlling the narrative.” As the West hoped that trade could democratize dictatorships and build world peace, it also thought technology would ensure that democratization would happen across the world. More than two decades before the Xi era, China thought the opposite, believing that using the internet would enhance control of its people, all the more after the 1989 Tiananmen uprising and at a time where Central & Eastern Europe was entering a new democratic phase viewed as potentially contagious. Applebaum goes to great lengths in describing the many ways tech was used through all sorts of tools to control populations in autocracies and illiberal democracies. In the case of China, its government was even initially assisted by great Western names like Facebook, Google or Cisco (we would hope not fully aware of the end use of their products) that agreed to adjust to the demands of the Chinese leadership as a new big market was opening up – this before leaving or being banned a few years later (even TikTok, recently much criticized in the US, is not allowed to operate in its place of birth). 

Applebaum goes through the many ways and tools – a long list of examples – countries like Russia ensured tailored information was disseminated domestically while disinforming about the “declining West” and massively ensuring fake news were spread in the West where it was strategically required. Lies, however great, no longer mattered as seen in the anti-democratic world on all continents – as if the more outrageous the better for their makers, who would never spend time defending them. The main goal in autocratic domestic messaging is not to bother with politics and enjoy their lives, whatever those might be, while knowing their government cares for them. Words like “Tiananmen” or “democracy” were simply eliminated from the internet in China while too-free-thinking journalists were pursued ceaselessly, combining old-fashioned repression with the new tools of the tech era. “Safe city technology”, another name for tools of control, were also sold by China’s Huawei on the back of their domestic successes to Pakistan, Brazil, Mexico, Serbia, South Africa and Turkey. Western democracies also started using spyware tools to fight both crime and terrorism, making it sadly easier for autocracies to escape criticism even if the end goals would be vastly different. Hacking of Western targets and countries became a national sport for Russia, all the more at election times (the 2016 US elections being a classic case today) and since the invasion of Ukraine, which Russians were told every day through various channels (an average of 18 times a day for some tools) was to save them from an imminent NATO offensive.

Applebaum stresses that many in targeted countries, especially in the developing world, would also sadly fall for the exported disinformation from autocracies like Russia. It is hard to give enough credit in a short Book Note to Applebaum’s deep dive into how autocracies “control the narrative”, hence a direct reading being the best way to “enjoy” it (if I may say). Applebaum gives us the best lessons on dark topics few of us know and we all need to take. On a positive note, and as recently stressed by Alec Russell in the Financial Times, enduring autocracies can also end as seen with the rushed chopper exit in Bangladesh due to the pandemic of incumbency fatigue that sweeps the world, even if staying in power is naturally easier for strong rulers as long as the army is on their side. Similarly, leaders of “strong” African democracies like Kenya or Nigeria were recently reminded that victory at the ballot box, all the more if elections are “controlled” to some extent, is no longer a free pass. However, what matters is how people feel, and in some countries like China and India where 1.1bn people were lifted above the international poverty line in recent years, matters of autocracy or democracy may be not the primary focus. Autocracies have different ways to survive like totalitarianism plus isolation for North Korea, or a release valve-porous border with South Africa that needs workers for Zimbabwe.        

As Applebaum stresses, Autocracy, Inc. (especially China and Russia as its key leaders) is not simply about destroying democracy, which is a challenging task, but to rewrite the rules of the world order as set since the end of WW2. “Human rights,” which was the key focus, needs to be replaced by “Sovereignty,” which means that countries should behave as they want as independent world actors, this validating all aspects of autocracy at home. Another key autocratic driver today is creating a “win-win cooperation” whereby every country does what it wants, but they can still work together – in other words, to each its own political order. The Russians on that matter stress their desire to foster “multi-polarity” that stands for refusing an American-hegemonic world. With this in mind, Putin hosted on August 13 the Moscow International Conference for Security to address delegates of 70 countries – some likely non-aligned if not all autocracies – and give his version of geopolitics focused on Western neo-colonialism, the need for military cooperation, Russia’s new pivot to Asia (to counter the recent AUKUS alliance) and a required new world order. It is also amazing to see how autocracies articulate existential and governing ways with no regards for the well-being of their own people, underlining the low priority they represent. Applebaum then gives us detailed accounts of elections in Venezuela in 2016 (2024 would have been an even clearer case as time moved on) and in Belarus in 2020, which we all likely recall. In her epilogue, she focuses on the key move that would be to prevent the otherwise legal work of Western banks, lawyers and other advisers from advising autocrats and their followers by making transnational kleptocracy less easy. She gives us another detailed recipe to undermine the information war led by autocracies that have had so much impact on Western populations. And finally, she stresses the need to ensure “Democrats United” (also smiling about that easy heading) to find the right ways to protect and indeed promote needed democratic values and principles across the world today.  

Autocracy, Inc. is a great book that needs to be read, all the more so today. Applebaum makes us think about the precarious position of democracy as we know it on the global chessboard and how easy it could be for it to disappear as a simple, and indeed short chapter of world history. The biggest threats today are, on one hand the apathy of many of our voters in our established democracies as to what democracy means, while too many others get bamboozled by cheap populist parties and their usual “show business” leaders taking advantage of issues that need solving, but incompetent at managing governments, especially (but not only) in Europe. The upswing populist trend experienced throughout Europe may also strengthen illiberal EU leaders like a Hungarian control-focused Viktor Orban, or let Georgia Meloni shift back to old approaches dear to her Brothers of Italy, as seen with recent news of her dealings with journalists. Autocracy, Inc. critically reminds us that our democratic world also has clear geopolitical enemies wishing very actively and increasingly our demise, not stopping at any means and using the latest tools, like social media and tech developments, to achieve their goals. Autocracy, Inc. is a wake-up call as to what matters and what we should do if we keep wishing for people to be in charge of their destinies, this requiring active involvement in preserving our democracies and working together, also globally at government level. While strongmen rulers are not immune to the pandemic of incumbency fatigue, as rightly stated by Alec Russel in the Financial Times, we should do more. Perhaps a good initiative would be to establish the democracy-focused equivalent of NATO globally.

And on a funny final note, one should notice that the leading medal winners at the Paris Olympics were all old-fashioned democracies by a long shot (putting China aside of course).

Warmest regards,

Serge