Posts

“Billionaire Backlash” (Pepper Culpepper and Taeku Lee)

11.3.26

Dear Partners in Thought,

As we are flooded with news about the highly questionable Iran war and its many impacts, I thought that it would be healthy to give us a break and focus on something else, even if not always endearing. We live in times when values-flexible Big Tech mega-billionaires are changing our societies while increasing their huge wealth to unprecedented levels and supporting the likes of President Trump to secure a less-regulated environment for their business. This era made me want to read “Backlash Billionaires – The age of corporate scandal and how it could save democracy”, a great book that covers many business scandals over the ages while reviewing their impact on society. This book was written by two academics who have known each other for some years: Pepper Culpepper, who teaches government and public policy at Oxford’s Nuffield College and is a Vice-Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government and Taeku Lee, who is the Bae Professor and Faculty Dean of Dunster House at Harvard and former President of the American Political Science Association. In a differentiated flavour, they make the point that they are “an academic odd couple, prone to disagree on matters both trivial and significant” while, as I read, showing excellence in their joint findings. On a personal note, I once met the great Pepper in Prague as he was visiting my close friend Trev, who is the man dealing with all tech issues of this blog while ensuring all commas are where they should be (On a personal note, I am neither a techie nor a billionaire).      

As an introduction, the book goes back to the early 20th century and the first well-known corporate scandal dealing with the unhealthy dealings of the meat industry leading to a book that led to steep declines in meat sales and then drastic regulations for the “Beef Trust” (setting the stage for the US Food and Drug Administration, even if Upton Sinclair,  the then early socialist author was focused on the poor working conditions of the sector and not its products). We then read about names we almost forgot like Nelson Rockefeller (the first world billionaire in 1916, richer than Elon Musk today), Cornelius Vanderbilt, Leland Stanford (now we know the origin of the great university) and J.P. Morgan and their business empires while we discover the high level of corruption among American elected officials, who became wealthy by protecting them at a time when mainstream news media in their infancies were not providing any guardrails. Those few who exposed the business titans’ bad practices, likely at great risks for their lives and careers, were then known as the “muckrackers” and eventually led to political change. The authors stressed that they were the ones who helped save democracy in the early days. We then go into many corporate scandals in the 20th century and later that, while being quite bad for the markets and its consumers, led to healthy reactions that helped change things for the better.      

Activists matter when changes are badly needed and so are scandals to motivate them. The authors stress the impact of a few individuals, like a forgotten Ralph Nader, who in his 1960s campaigned so carmakers would finally introduce seat belts. They rightly point to the impact today of the digital revolution on business and political power while stressing the huge profits of the mega-banks, the lack of appetite of the oil industry for net zero and the domination of tech companies in our daily lives – all while governments seem unable to always correct any adverse societal developments (note that the EU is known to be keen on regulating Big Tech even if one could argue as it is also American). 

Without going into too many details so the book can be fully enjoyed, the authors bring us many examples of corporate scandals that led to change at many levels while others did not lead to much. While starting with the well-known Enron and WorldCom scandals, the latter many of us have forgotten but the former that was probably the most publicised scandal of the 21st century, also leading to the demise of then leading Big6 accounting firm Arthur Andersen in 2002, “Billionaire Backlash” offers very detailed accounts of  top corporate scandals involving Goldman Sachs pre-2008 financial crisis, Facebook and its users’ privacy, Cambridge Analytica (the then-famous Oxford Analytica may have disliked), Exxon, Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto FTX and Samsung among other incredible stories. Future likely scandals and reactions to them may be linked to Big Tech and now Artificial Intelligence and its adverse impacts on junior jobs and society, at large (starting with schoolwork at home or mere job applications) also heavily tainted by the amazing personalities involved and their eagerness to amass centi-billions. 

The authors finally stress that governments, that are de facto controlled by interest groups, also via their lobbyists, are now unable to deliver, this leading to current extremist populism and easy solutions to complex issues that now resonate well within the electorates of democracies. However, they stress that corporate scandals reveal an undervalued resource via latent opinion for good politics. They then offer an interesting and unusual approach to dealing with corporate greed and its societal harm by way of “Good Populism” which is almost funny at a time when populism is also known as a tool for largely incompetent extremist parties, usually of the hard right kind, to win elections regardless of what would really happen afterwards. However, the additional “Good” says clearly what they really mean and they broadly see as “a programme that makes politics more responsive without undermining the capacity of government to deliver on the things that are vital” while “attacking issues associated with corporate domination of democracy so as to respond to the populist impulses of today”. The innovative case they make, which is not an easy one, is worth thinking about.  “Billionaire Backlash” is a great book, requiring some focus given its many details reflecting the strong academic credentials of its authors. It stresses both key historical facts and potential plans for a better future in making sure corporate greed is fully controlled while consumer and indeed citizen needs are nicely met. A very fine book especially in our times of society-harming centi-billionaire Big Tech bros when Upton Sinclair would find a great opportunity to both leading needed regulations in a key sector for sound societal development and hopefully improving our naturally imperfect economic system. 

Warmest regards,

Serge 

Trying to understand the rising war in Iran 

3.3.26

Dear Partners in Thought,

While the news of the strikes on Iran is still very fresh with many ongoing developments by the day, it is useful to think about a few key issues behind them. 

The massive US and Israeli strikes in Iran were not expected at a time when negotiations, however challenging, were underway between the US and Iran in Geneva but appear to be in line with Trump’s unpredictable way of conducting international affairs. While very few will regret the unexpected passing of the Supreme Leader and many of his leadership (another amazing Venezuela-like result) many will not see how regime change, the noble excuse for the strikes, will take place without “boots on the ground” and a replication of the post-9-11 Iraq and Afghanistan wars that led to massive losses for US and allied troops and much upheaval in American politics and society. 

Why did Trump decide to go for these strikes? One could think that Netanyahu and his extremist team may have been behind convincing Trump, also as many moderate Israeli opposition figures were not opposed to them, giving an impression of sensible rationality to such a drastic project. The main war message was to create peace – through serious war – even if Trump has clearly wanted to be known to end wars to get the Nobel Prize for Peace. There might be some other reasons, which should surface in the coming weeks, like getting the American people’s focus away from the Epstein story and the likely closer association of the President with the man so many high-profile Americans and foreigners became too close to. 

It looks like the Iran war, also started without US Congressional review, will keep going for some time as Trump will do whatever it takes “to win in four to five weeks or even longer” – as he will also “not be bored”. Such a potentially endless war will naturally upset Trump’s MAGA base, many of its members having backed Trump as he was a clear isolationist and certainly not warmongering, this for a decade. The Middle East will become a region of intense war as seen with Iranian strikes on energy production facilities and US bases in many neighbouring countries like the increasingly key Gulf States, Saudi Arabia (also targeting the US embassy), Jordan, Iraq, or Qatar. Hezbollah has also started to use its diminished capabilities to strike Israel in a suicidal existential attempt. The price of oil will likely keep rising while the Strait of Hormuz, where 20% of oil trade has passed for decades, is no longer secure. 

While memories of Iraq and Afghanistan are still vivid for many Americans, Trump has started to mention the possible sending of troops on the ground, some military experts mentioning a potential despatch of 500,000 soldiers to ensure regime change. “Boots on the ground” are naturally the only way to ensure the possibility for regime change, which missile strikes would never deliver, even if seriously weakening the regime. 

In some way, the once peaceful Trump is re-introducing the means of war to achieve foreign political gains in the same way Putin did with Ukraine in an ill-fated way for now four years. One would also wonder if Putin may not be the real winner of the war starting with Iran due to its deflecting factor. It will also be interesting to see how Russia, a great user of Iranian drones, and especially a more careful China, will deal with Iran going forward.     

Iran will prepare itself or a long war so they can withstand attacks from a superpower like the US, which may not be forever but will not be easy to manage. In the meantime, the US, Israel and the world should get ready to face numerous non-conventional terrorist attacks as an easier way of retaliations against Trump’s move. And as time flies, the American support for Trump regarding Iran that is roughly at 40% (75% + among Republicans today) will dwindle as is always the case with such unpopular acts of wars, especially with no really critical US strategic rationale behind them apart from challenging nuclear discussions (Trump having terminated the Obama-engineered international agreement in his first term) and then today officially and “nobly” wanting to “create peace”. Rising oil prices will be felt at the pump as tariffs were and still are at the grocery store. Finally, the impact of such a war will likely and seriously increase the Republican downfall at the mid-terms in November, even if the GOP and its officials unsurprisingly still appear “formally” supportive of their leader today. It is hard to believe that such wars start in our times as we all know what they bring – including Trump and his team – but short-term priorities often blind leaders and their teams, especially when they are also known to be largely incompetent and supporting the leader at all costs. 

The three key words today are clearly “What comes next?” Only time will tell. As for Trump, one my very close friends reflecting on this new Iranian development was suggesting the concept of “Trumpmentia”, meaning a person with serious malignant and narcissistic tendencies combined with advanced senile dementia leading to poor political leadership and decision-making, so not fit for public office. Keeping a good sense of humour, even if this concept may ring a bell, is a key requirement in our new geopolitical times.    

Warmest regards,

Serge                 

The Triangle of Power (Alexander Stubb)

17.2.26

Dear Partners in Thought,

I thought I would keep my focus on Book Notes dealing with the nature of our new geopolitical times, so would like to cover a new book by Alexander Stubb: The Triangle of Power – Rebalancing the New World Order. Mark Carney, recently known as a driven leader of what the West should be, following his exchanges with Donald Trump and his memorable Davos speech, has been very keen on Stubb’s “values-based realism” shown in his book.  

Alexander Stubb is the Finnish President and one of the best leaders Europe can enjoy today in relation to leading his country and adjusting to our new geopolitical times. He draws on decades of experience in diplomacy with political, finance and academic positions that give him an unparalleled view of the world and the history of its order and disorder. His acumen also reflects the long frontier he shares with Russia, now as the leader of a recent NATO member. His book dealing with the current changes in our world order has been very well received by many foreign policy experts of all types like Jess Stoltenberg, Niall Ferguson, Timothy Garton Ash, Fiona Hill, Fareed Zakaria or Gideon Rachman. 

His long introduction section covers the key features of international affairs as we have known them since the end of WW2 with the uncontested American-led post-Cold War era through rules-based cooperative multilateralism fostered by a unified West. This world order was gradually followed by multipolarity defined as “an oligopoly of powers” and now the emergence of three global power groups in the West, East and South, hence the Triangle. It is clear that the driver of the book was Trump 2.0 and its dislocation of the world order we knew to go back to a 19th century approach of world power rivalry, also with defined controlled geographies. The end of the world order we knew, initially confirmed by Secretary of State Rubio arriving at the Munich Security conference this past weekend, was already felt by most European NATO allies with the Trump threats of invading Greenland so the US could “protect” it and benefit from its critical minerals. To be fair, Rubio, unlike Vance at the last Munich conference in February 2025, did not stress European decay while promoting needed far right populism, but stressed the need for a stronger Europe so the NATO alliance could work to its best. To the happy surprise of many attendees, Rubio also gave the audience, likely unwittingly, a back and forth feeling à la Trump’s TACO with tariffs, in stressing his “we belong together” US position to European “friends” and allies of decades. Sadly, his following meetings with Fico in Bratislava and Orban in Budapest clarified matters.   

Stubb meticulously covers the various periods the world went through since the end of WW2, with the ascent of the liberal world order following the Cold War and what became globalisation – or also peace through trade. He admits that multilateral cooperation is now gradually forgotten for multipolar rivalry and conflict, the Ukraine war being a clear and new example in Europe. Global norms that international organisations, led by the United Nations, set up are also eroding. He stresses that the need to search for a new global framework is made urgent as we live through a hinge moment of history, like in 1918, 1945 or 1989. A globalised world led by a UN spirit and clear rules agreed by most if not all countries in the world (whether they liked them or not) to contain self-interest is now indeed replaced by the three major power groups described in detail in distinct and very rich chapters, each covering politics, economics, technology and geopolitics and could be a book in itself. 

The three mega-world players are the still-leading and democratic Global West (in a potential phase of self-destruction with Trump policies), the autocratic Global East (combining an existentially-driven Russia and a pragmatic China not always on the same page, along with the challenging Iran, North Korea and a number of African and central American countries driven by regime preservation or old alliances) and the once-forgotten and at times controlled, if not colonised, Global South (led by India, Brazil or South Africa and even Saudi Arabia). The Global West and East are often engaged in a fierce competition led by bilateral deals and alliances while the Global South represents the once often-forgotten developing world, which will also be the great arbiter and determine whether the future tilts toward cooperation or fragmentation. The coming years will decide what the new order will be for the rest of the century, which also requires democratic and especially mid-sized European powers – hence the EU – to help reform institutions and give a new life to multilateralism.     

Stubb, who gives us a detailed course on the development of multilateral institutions and their historical benefits via discipline and not idealism (order requiring structure), is still very committed to its system, especially the United Nations. Recognising the weaknesses of such a system today (like the World Bank and IMF led by the West) and the veto-bound old-fashioned UN Security Council with its five permanent members selected in another age (even if many will like it), he quotes Winston Churchill’s famous line about democracy that “the UN was the worst form of governance, save all the others”. He feels that dismantling multilateralism will lead to chaos but it could be improved in its set-up, to ensure that the key Global South feels part of the decision-making and guarantees a sounder world order. 

Stubb sees rule-based globalisation after the Cold War as a resounding success with its quadrupling of GDP, six-fold trade expansion and a billion people away from starvation, even if inequality and power asymmetry hurt its clear success, as seen today with the rise of mega-billionaires and one per cent controlling half of the world’s wealth. 9/11 made security more important than freedom and affordability, while the global financial crisis of 2008 did not help, also at a time when Russia changed its approach to world affairs with its invasion of Georgia, and China became more assertive as a rising superpower. Today, Stubb sees our era as one where we do not know where we are, not helped by the blurring of war and peace and forgotten invasions like in Ukraine, all the more so in (so far) peaceful Europe. He sees the various features of our increasingly broken world, such as energy, technology, currency and information, also used as a form of coercion in international affairs.   

Stubb sees multilateralism as projecting and guaranteeing order, while self-interested multipolarity creates disorder and eventually conflict while pushing aside the small and medium-sized countries which had a say in the era of multilateralism. As such, he would like a more engaged Global South and a better-balanced Security Council. One of the main challenges facing multilateralism is distrust from many citizens living in democracies regarding their institutions that leads to an appealing extremist populism that also rejects international cooperation that is deemed as serving the interests of the elites and attacks national sovereignty. He believes that key features like dignity, dialogue and institutional reform should restore the legitimacy of international cooperation in an era of strong disinformation, economic insecurity and identity politics.  Stubb addresses in different chapters the three dynamics of power as “competition” that may lead, if unhealthy, to “conflict” (also notably with hybrid warfare when not conventional) while it should promote “cooperation” on key issues like climate change, trade and security – in a rules-based world order suitably reshaped so all three groups feel heard.   

“Values-based realism”, that Stubb promotes, is a compromise between naive idealism and cynical realpolitik. It is “a set of universal values based on freedom, fundamental rights and international rules that reflect the world’s global diversity, culture and history”.  Stubb sees it as a tool to keep liberal values alive while engaging with those who do not share them. As such, he thinks middle-power diplomacy (reflecting Europe) should show leadership by example while also being principled without being preachy, pragmatic without being amoral and clearly led by dignity – all while avoiding moral lecturing. Stubb believes that free and democratic societies are the basis for national success while regional cooperation should be strengthened, reflecting his strong EU adherence. Lastly, Stubb, as he told the UN general Assembly in 2024, would want to expand the UN Security Council with five additional permanent members to welcome Latin America, African and Asian nations while eliminating single-state veto power and – key – suspending the voting rights of any Security Council member that violates the UN charter. Such an approach would have the benefits of the Global South adhering more easily to principles often shaped by the Global West, while the latter could point to China real-world evidence of the benefits that Western-fashioned liberal markets, capitalism and free trade brought to Beijing and its ample workforce. Russia, lost in its past, is clearly a challenging party to deal with but relationships could be restored or actually created once the Ukraine war stops, its responsibility admitted and international rules and order committed to – clearly still a rather hard if not unreachable objective today.    

On a lighter note, and thinking about Stubb’s cultural background, we should realise that the Finns are the happiest people on earth according to the World Happiness Report. Perhaps we should all take Stubb’s recipe to deal with our drastically changing times: “Stay calm. Be a Finn. Take an ice bath, visit a sauna and reflect”. All without forgetting our values and principles and facing the world as it is but addressing its issues in the right and sensible way. On the same light note, Stubb is silent about the Trump-led Board of Peace with a logo that amusingly only shows the Western hemisphere unlike that of the UN with its full globe.  

“The Triangle of Power” is definitely a rare book that could be multiplied in many more given all the topics it covers, going back to the roots of a world order we knew and is now endangered. It is a must-read to understand the issues we are facing today and what could be done to ensure an organised and peaceful world, hopefully also dealing with the governing features that are necessary. We should hope that a cooperation-driven Global West happily endures, all the more so given its freedom and democratic essence, even if it will never be perfect in its management, as no system could ever be.

Warmest regards,

Serge

“Deaths at Davos 3.0” (Thierry Malleret)

9-2-26

Dear Partners in Thought,

I felt that it would be a nice break to stay away a little bit from writing about the intense geopolitical landscape of our times, so decided to go back to Book Notes after a break of 18 months post-Anne Applebaum’s Autocracy Inc. In doing so and (unsurprisingly if I may be facetious) I decided to cover a combined thriller and spy novel that would take us to a place I recently covered in my pieces: Davos, the location of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the supreme gathering of the world leaders in all sectors since 1971.

There is a great thriller-spy novel just published by a 30+ year friend and former colleague/partner of mine, whom I met at the EBRD as he was in the Chief Economist Office while I was making direct investments in the CEE financial sector in the 1990s. Thierry Malleret went on to work as a top organiser of the World Economic Forum in Davos in the 2000s, making his last novel very relevant, while he launched his own mini-Davos annual event in Chamonix and kept providing thorough world views with his Monthly Barometer since the early 2010s (while co-authoring two books with the WEF founder Klaus Schwab in recent times). We also worked together in the late 2010s as lead investors in a small cybersecurity start-up focused on protecting supply chains. 

Deaths at Davos 3.0 is actually the third opus of a great story that started with two previous and shorter books (Deaths at Davos and Deaths at Davos 2.0) covering the 2024 and 2025 Annual Meetings of the Circle (a different name for the WEF gathering) led by a different leader nicknamed the Don (no links to The Godfather). Deaths at Davos 3.0 is focused on the last Annual Meeting that took place in January 2026. While one should read the first two volumes, also to know better the main characters like Olena, a fierce Ukrainian lady patriot, and Philip, a very experienced British intelligence officer, it is also very possible to read only the third volume as it is where the core story takes place and unfolds. On a side note, the books describe in detail the well-known Davos event and its culture but also its location and Chamonix, which provide for an unsurprisingly beautiful geographical background. I will keep the plot under wraps so it is more enjoyable but will stress a few of its key features.   

The book, which covers the last Davos “Circle” event in January 2026, involves many characters who are well known, such as President Trump and many actual business and other leaders, at times introduced by their first names but who are highly recognisable. The dual plot, which I will keep confidential, involves on one hand the MAGA leadership desire to take over the Davos Circle – helped by some of its soul-losing organisers focused on luring Trump at all costs – as well as a Russian intelligence op driven by an unforeseen closer US-Russia relationship, involving all the acronyms which we know (FSB, GRU, SVR), but also those lesser known of the Ukrainian services (GUR, SBU). It is clear that Malleret’s exposure to the Davos world and many of its participants, including the many intelligence services roaming around, was very helpful in crafting a great plot for Davos 3.0.

Malleret’s description of Trump’s mannerisms and usual speaking style is simply amazing as is the depiction of the Big Tech Bros, whom I often cover, stressing so well their sycophancy clearly aimed at total support for their businesses. A few characters, like a young and colourful very well-born New York Upper East Side Thomas, a “would be” Trump nephew, gives us a sad but accurate description of some of the American elite who are close to the president and how he, like others, got to be a Special Envoy (Thomas for Europe in Geneva in the novel) – without any clear competence for it, but for some blood line or past business association as seen with those working on self-serving peace in the Middle East or Ukraine. 

This novel touches on the key features of a new and harsh world we see developing.  At some point, some key Trump “Free Speech – first Amendment” supporters, strong libertarians and pragmatically converted and anti-regulation Big Tech leaders gather in a hotel (not yet all invited to the Circle’s Annual Meeting) trying to promote the “MAGAfication” of Europe while finding Russia a natural partner, also given its image as the deemed last true Christian nation on Earth. We see an alliance of techno-libertarians and a religious hard right that also reshapes geopolitics, driven by a bond against globalism, feminism, multiculturalism and secular liberalism with an increasingly hostile stance against a “corrupt” Ukraine and decaying LGBTQ and woke-diseased Western Europe. While a novel, Death at Davos makes one think about the latest geopolitical developments with an increasingly autocratic and more Putin-tolerant, if not yet friendly, Trump 2.0 – even allowing Moscow to push for a Molotov-Ribbentrop deal in Ukraine while offering economic deals to America in 2026 (also to save itself from drowning), so the two nations could get closer and indeed reshape geopolitics.         

One of the interesting features of the novel is how some Western intelligence agencies (at times not yet in close touch with their own governments) will undertake missions focused on Trump associates, also given the official change of the US approach to Europe and NATO and the radical key staff changes experienced at the CIA and the like. In many ways, it is as if Malleret was able to produce a great novel as the Greenland story unfolded and European trust in America was lost while Trump’s Washington would want to get closer to Moscow while retreating from its continental roots, this also driven by Trump’s admiration for the Russian leader. And unsurprisingly, the book shows the never stopping Russian intelligence drive to export their expert disinformation and hybrid warfare across Europe as if it were existential and a core escalation duty for a gradually war-weakened Russia as opposed to working sensibly between nations. Deaths at Davos 3.0 is a great novel reflecting our new times and, in many ways, making us also realise that Europe needs to be more in charge of its future, all the more on the defence front.  

I will let you enjoy a great and enjoyable story which is also full of often new geostrategic features, many depressing for those who liked globalisation and the old American leader of the Free World. You can order it or, for an even better read, all three volumes of the trilogy, on Amazon (and also help the likely declining brand in Europe if, again, I may be facetious). 

Warmest regards,

Serge

Getting a better grasp of Trump’s wide range of destructive policies 

5.2.26

Dear Partners in Thought,

It has been hard not to write about the impact of Trump 2.0 on the world and America itself over the last 12 months. There were too many hard-to-follow policies at too many levels, usually with no clear ideology but a need for action; this, it would appear, without a proper understanding of their impact nor the need for any careful management. It is clear that the senior team around President Trump, be they White House advisers or key US Secretaries, are also far from being “The Best and the Brightest” to borrow from David Halberstam’s book on the JFK team. It was hard to follow what was happening, even if it became clear that these multiple policies were destructive at all levels and erratic in nature, though reflecting a gradually ageing, hyper-sensitive and mean leader of what was the Western or Free World. 

It is hard for many of us, who liked America very much for its values and principles, to manage happily this descent into hell. It is clear that not supporting and being critical of Trump is not being anti-American as the international reactions to the likely mid-terms results, if they are not cancelled or “managed”, will show in eight months as the slide will continue. It is also true that not all of Trump’s decisions to deal with some key issues were fundamentally wrong, even if usually badly managed. A case in point would be the fight against crime also linked to illegal or uncontrolled immigration (the latter itself associated for many with a disappearing national identity), a dual matter always hard to manage by more traditional governments, also in Europe, that explains the steep rise of hard right, not very government-competent, populist parties. 

I think it is useful to take a non-emotional pause to carefully review the whole picture of Trump’s policies that are destroying the world order as we knew it and America itself. Here is a list of key policies and developments (in no specific order as it goes), which, combined together over one year, offers a drastic picture one tends to miss as a whole, particularly given their never-ending deployments:

  1. Tariffs led the world trade destruction from day one and were also used as a tool to obtain political gains, this even if the new TACO acronym stressed the unbelievable back and forth of huge tariff strikes aimed at trading partners. All while such a policy would end up being paid by many of the Trump voters at the shopping mall. And as many US brands see a steep decline in sales in Europe that is not yet widely reported. 
  2. The unusually aggressive stances with allies, like NATO members, as seen with the plan to get Greenland away from Denmark against its will, led to the gradual downfall of the Western alliance with Europe now being more responsible for its future (not a bad thing) but weakening trust among key allies while heavily damaging the West.
  3. The drive to achieve peace at all costs (motivated by the Nobel Prize?) while not often caring for the interests of the clearly aggressed and being unbelievably too nice with the aggressor, as seen with Ukraine and Russia (even if coercing India via tariff decreases not to buy crude oil from Russia).
  4. The unseen, so far, use of the National Guard in DC or an untrained ICE in various cities, usually run by the Democrats, with a very driven deportation agenda, the latter with no constraints and sheer violence while the Homeland Security leadership would lie without reservation as to why all was fine, like after clear murders of largely peaceful protestors in Minneapolis, with the White House forced to finally react. All while hurting the US economy by depriving it overnight of key respectable workers like in the agriculture or retail sectors, all the more in red states.  
  5. The announced firings of up to three hundred thousand federal employees (many having already left) in key departments that would result in lesser key services across the country that would hurt Americans, this without any clear financial gains to justify reaching such a bad situation in an already expensive country when dealing with health and other costs. And the attacks against the Federal Reserve’s independence, as seen with the unusual targeting of chairman Jerome Powell.  
  6. The destruction of key foundations and art centres like the renaming of the Trump Kennedy Center while finally deciding to close it down for two years, also as many artists would cancel their performances in protest, at times being sued by Trump. Similarly, the destruction of the East Wing of the White House to make a new ballroom funded by sycophantic supporters, many converted from the Big Tech world. And now a new ego-driven monument to supposedly celebrate the country’s 250th anniversary that would be higher than the Lincoln Memorial, not to mention a statue of Christopher Columbus as “the original American hero” outside the White House, apparently to gain the good graces of Italian-American voters.   
  7. The personal family enrichment of the Trump family (USD 4bn according to the New York Times) and friends like the Witkoffs, all while Jared Kushner does deals with Saudi Arabia as he and Steven Witkoff negotiate peace in the Middle East. All of this while astutely promoting cryptocurrency at the federal level (also making Trump’s 19-year-old son Barron USD 180mn richer). And Melania receiving at least USD 28mn for her documentary funded by Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, a practical friend of the family. 
  8. The incessant attacks against top world-ranked universities like Harvard or Columbia with the former just being sued by Trump for USD 1bn in damages, probably to please his anti-elite and remote MAGA base. It is amusing that Yale went unscathed so far – not for being the cradle of the CIA, but perhaps as Mr JD and Ms UB Vance were its law school graduates. Through these attacks, often using campus antisemitism as a strange and unfounded driver, Trump is gradually destroying one of the key tenets of American leadership.    
  9. The pardons of most, if not all, of the “January 6” offenders who, supporting a then-defeated Trump, stormed the Capitol, leading to nearly 200 police injuries and contributing to the death of five police officers in 2020, as well as many financial fraudsters, some naturally including cryptocurrency founders who broke many laws in creating a new and questionable financial asset while enriching themselves without control. 
  10. The termination of American support of various international agreements (like the Paris climate change COP 15), stopping of foreign aid (like with the withdrawal from the World Health Organisation or the dismantling of USAID), the end of promoting democracy in key geographies (like with the defunding of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) or hurting international institutions that helped manage the world for 80 years like the United Nations (with the so-called Board of Peace to manage Gaza where questionable countries like Russia were also invited as members). Trump 2.0 definitely put a stop to the post-WW2 international organisation system and its many development institutions that was so sound to keep a peaceful and growing world.     
  11. The unusual high-level lawsuits from Trump against American media companies and today even financial institutions and their leaders that would have shown no respect to him. Various US newspapers of the first order were massively sued while the BBC was also on the receiving end of a USD 5bn lawsuit and Jaimie Dimon, head of J.P. Morgan (who might have also been a bit too honest in his exchanges with The Economist’s Editor-in-Chief Zanny Minton Beddoes at Davos in January) is being unexpectedly sued for another USD 5bn, Trump arguing he would always donate the money gained in any of these trials. It is clear that such an approach may result in an even more passive business establishment, which may explain the Trump drive.   
  12. A rising desire from Trump to intervene abroad, like in Venezuela, where an admittedly bad leader was captured in what was a James Bond-type operation but one that is not usually conducted by international law-respectful powers. While Trump’s MAGA base was always keen on making sure America would no longer go into “foreign wars”, it is not clear if some might not change their mind as big wins might help doing so. The Caracas operation should clearly worry Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei and Middle Eastern peace today, all the more as the US fleet is waiting for a potential green light. 
  13. One of the last strange policies of note, even if minor in relative terms, was to require foreigners visiting the US to show a five-year history of social media to ensure that no critics of America, even Europeans, would enter the new Trump Kingdom. It is amusing to think that this measure might have affected the likes of then South African Elon Musk and German Peter Thiel as they should impact many Indian natives going to make Silicon Valley stronger – but we know that the Big Tech Bros would find a way for their staff to bypass these harsh rules. Clearly, I would likely not make it to my beloved Virginia under this new rule. Until 2027 maybe.        

While not yet a policy, we also hear that Trump would now like to change how Americans vote at the booth or from a distance as he apparently feels that too many immigrants abuse the system, which may seem odd to those who know how voting works. He would also want a national federal-controlled system of voting that would bypass some states and districts which the public is gradually discovering. This, after redistricting attempts, is the latest move Trump tried to mitigate the likely bad results of the November 2026 mid-terms. It looks so preposterous that such a sudden pre-election change would seem hard to enact – in normal times.       

To be fair, Trump’s team and supporters would point to rising financial markets as seen with the Dow Jones index in 2025 even if stock markets are fuelled by short term gains, moving back and forth depending on the news of the day while AI was a major performance booster so far – until a potential crash. As for US inflation, it would seem that statistics can be used to defend any good or bad theory, while it seems to have held firm at about 2.7% while job unemployment climbed to +4.6% also due to federal jobs being cancelled. As for US GDP growth, we saw a roller coaster likely due to the impact of trade policies with a growth of 4.3%. One would need a PhD in economics to be able to assess the quality of the statistics describing the health of the US economy today, all the more given the political environment.        

Even if it may seem daunting, it is hard not to feel a gradual descent into, so far, a mild autocracy In America at the federal level even if many states and their judges are fighting back case after case. It could also be the start of a new form of civil war involving blue states against red states though more likely a Trump-led federal administration against nearly all states as even many Red ones start seeing the light.    

Who wins from such a descent into hell for the world and America? As stated before, a pragmatic China is a clear winner also as the likes of Europe will try to deepen ties with Beijing but also New Delhi as seen with the unforeseen EU-India trade pact. And finally, Russia to some extent, given the wedge created with Europe and as America is less directly anti-Russian, especially when it comes to its historical imperial needs in the now (and hopefully not post-Trump) White House-forgotten continent of its own roots. What Trump does not see is that Europe may also become stronger by sheer necessity and more unified (with Britain being closer to the EU or eventually re-joining it). It is hard to see how America will benefit from this range of policies, that would also limit its true sphere of influence to its own Southern hemisphere as seemingly wanted by a 1930s Trump. The only good news is that this long list of amazingly bad policies is very likely to lead American voters to stop the nightmare in November 2026 even if Trump should still have two years in the White House, even as a diminished President. The unexpected results of a state Senate election in a strong Texas red district in early February should show the way. History will tell.

Warmest regards,

Serge                

Trump, the world destroyer

23.1.26

Dear Partners in Thought,

It is hard to believe that one year into Trump 2.0 we are in a situation where the future of the Western world, including America itself, and globalisation is looking very bad. Trump was always a dangerous, but very few would have predicted the insane unfolding scenario we witness on a daily basis. There are so many features of Trump’s destructive policies that affect all parties globally that they are at times hard to follow, which may be a tactical approach in itself. 

Trump’s ever deal-making and at times punishing tariffs approach has hurt all parties, including the US and its very voting base in terms of affordability, all while breaking trust between trading partners. Globalisation, or peace through trade, have been affected to a degree that the White House and its advisers do not realise yet. The anti-immigration drive, with its awful deportations often involving honest people who contributed to the US economy and its tragic developments, like in Minneapolis, has now created the grounds for a quasi-civil war in the making. While Trump was going as usual back and forth with his threats, seizing control of an allied sovereign territory, like Greenland, which cooperated with America for decades, would have been the unbelievable end of NATO and the Western alliance – not to mention a potential massive conflict in the making. In the end, a framework agreement with NATO to strongly enhance Arctic security changed Trump’s approach within hours at the World Economic Forum in Davos. While all of Trump’s policies are not always bad, these are only a few key examples of a massively destructive drive of the Trump administration, with the latter being the most worrying for our world as it weakened the needed trust between key historical allies, even if a workable solution was finally found.

It is hard to believe that those voters who backed Trump in November 2024 would all rejoice at what we see today. Some still do. While Trump’s poll ratings have declined massively after one year, there are still some Americans – a clear minority – who think all is fine and we should all wear MAGA hats and sing his praises. It is today a combination of deeply disgruntled individuals who think America and the world did not treat them well at the personal level while hating Democrats who went too far on issues like diversity, that did not help them either. Many Trump voters are by-and-large uneducated or with very few degrees, often passport-less and living in marginalised and increasingly empty states, while they hate the traditional and often urban elite they also resent as having stolen their future. There are naturally some highly pragmatic educated ones who feel that their interest is to follow the supreme leader as it is best in the short-term for their career or financial interests – this including among others all the officials working directly or indirectly for the Trump administration, many elected Republican officials or Big Tech Bros and their teams and followers. The Trump support base is a strange and diverse one, all the more so today. Such a group will dwindle over time, but perhaps not before domestic and global chaos may prevail.

Even if the outline of an agreement with NATO was finally and unexpectedly found at Davos, the end of the Western military alliance linked to the threat of a military seizure of a sovereign Greenland or, as a latest Trump option, its forceful control “of a piece of ice”, would have definitely meant the end of the Western world as we have known it since WW2. A world where the US assumed a clear and highly beneficial leadership at all levels while Europeans naturally relied too much on the big American brother for its defence. The end of NATO would de facto have been a victory for Putin’s Russia, confirming the many views that Trump always liked Putin too much (as seen with peace attempts on Ukraine), as if he was working for him, willingly or not. In many ways, seizing Greenland would have been for Trump what Ukraine has been for Putin in a return or, more aptly, the acceptance of 21st century superpower supremacy and its associated means. As Trump’s aggressive approach over weeks created deep angst and broke the trust Europeans need in the key transatlantic alliance, such a move, in spite of a last-minute likely agreement with NATO, should make China stronger and Europe closer to it as previously stressed and now agreed by many leading foreign policy experts and media. It is now clear that quite a few Republican US Senators will be gradually waking up to the fact that Trump’s moves may serve the interests of their nation’s old foes while weakening its core alliance and America itself. 

It may be time to realise that Trump is losing his mind as gradually seen by his long and rambling aggressive speeches where sentences are never finished. His key speech in Davos (funnily the emblem of globalisation) stressed Trump’s wild and dangerous incoherence, all the more regarding what he really wanted to do or not with Greenland, also oblivious to his MAGA base’s key rejections. Trump is clearly no longer “there” while nobody in his team will stand up to him as they would have in his first term. His core team of Secretaries are not equipped to do their jobs – stating their names is no longer required – while too obedient to say anything, job preservation being their key driver. While a deranged individual is running the White House and the leading country in the world, there is no safeguard to put him in check, even at the US Supreme Court level with its clear obedient majority. It is as if Trump could do anything he wanted, whatever the outcome for America and the world while enriching himself and his family and friends without any societal backlash.  

One would hope that many Republican elected officials in the US House of Representatives and Senate will wake up and finally focus on the interests of their country and indeed those of the world. It is not too late, but nine months before the mid-terms, when Trump could become a lame duck, is a long time, all the more if further Greenland invasion-like developments bring Western chaos and might be an easy reason to suspend elections too. Crazy scenarios for sure, but we live in Trump times where everything, especially awful developments are possible.

Once again, it is not being anti-American to wish for Trump’s demise (some even waiting for a new Lee Harvey Oswald, all the more in the NRA-friendly and mass shooting America), which could lead to a more reasonable approach to the strategic management of the leader of the Free World. It is clear that one should hope for a gradual and stronger rise of the institutions that made America (as happily seen with so many judges across the land) to stop this massive and, so far, historically unseen drift in governance that will hurt itself and our world. One major benefit for Europe of Trump’s erratic and aggressive approach to the key transatlantic relationship is that it should make it stronger and more independent. Trump may indeed have been the unwitting unifier of Europe. We should naturally all support changes that will bring America back to its roots, values and principles while ensuring a sound leadership and partnership of our Western world.

Warmest regards,

Serge                

Food for thought on the potential impacts of the Donroe doctrine

13.1.26

Dear Partners in Thought,

As much is written about the amazing post-Venezuela “James Bond” operation and the Donroe doctrine (I like to facetiously call the Duckroe doctrine), I thought it was interesting to think about what could be its impacts in terms of geostrategy, especially for Europe, as we potentially enter a new and challenging era.    

Europe has relied on America for its defence for 80 years since the end of WW2 that ensured a clear Western leadership for the US, bringing it massive benefits, even if easily forgotten by the current White House. It is clear that Europe needs now to strengthen its own defence, as it will do, while working on maintaining the best possible Transatlantic alliance through NATO, even if dealing with the occasional strategic American moves from another age at least until their mid-terms in November. However, it is useful to see what could happen, also from a European standpoint, with impacts on the US, if Washington were to keep going down the globally dangerous and self-hurting path it showed in the last few months. 

It is clear that America’s move against the Maduro regime, while being imperialistic in nature due to the nature of regime change, set a precedent for America (even if the Grenada and Panama operations are remembered). Putting aside the wide agreement that Maduro was a dictator also involved in very bad activities and the main oil reason for the drastic move, it is clear that such an operation puts the US in a different light as a country that upheld and promoted the vanishing international legal principles that mostly drove our world or indeed the West for decades. So, while the Donroe doctrine is clear about America “controlling” its Southern Hemisphere, at times enlarged up North, it creates serious potential conflicts, also with traditional allies like Europe. The desire to annex Greenland for security purposes could be a start of a new “America First” superpower and the end of the strongest alliance the West has ever known. In some ways, it would show that Trump and Putin are moved by the same imperialistic flavour, also not thinking about the costs to their own people, which may be a sad and unexpected reality for them too.           

Europe is now waking up to a new world and will gradually strengthen itself in defence and related sectors as its populations will gradually see the dangers they could face with a return of history. Some education and sound messaging will naturally be needed so the new world, away from social media and video games, is fully understood before it is too late. History will tell. It is useful to think about the impact of an America First approach to Europe and what would happen in terms of strategic repositioning. 

A key impact of Trump’s America First policy could be for Europe to focus on creating a sounder partnership with China. Even if China is not a Western style democracy, Xi is first and foremost a pragmatic leader, all the more in their relatively challenging economic times. While there are always invasion noises about Taiwan and the West should put the right pressure on Beijing, Xi has nothing to gain from pursuing an existential and historical quest that would only would bring havoc. It is also clear that protecting Taiwan could be a tool for cementing a partnership with China, the upside being more important for Beijing than rewriting history going back to 1949. Such a European move, that would be seen as extreme in nature, would only parallel the America First one if it lasted.    

A second facet of Europe’s strategic repositioning would be to work with Britain on doing a sound Brexit reset as the Starmer government would like, this even if it is a complex and hard issue, also given the current political polls. It is clear that a majority of Britons see today the 2016 referendum as a mistake that was fuelled by the personal ambitions of a few politicians. The EU has never been a perfect body and will always need to adjust its rules and ways to be more efficient and fit the evolving times, but it is a sheer fact that Europeans will be stronger “together”, also if an America First era were to keep going. It is clear that a populist Trump may actually have hurt the position of Reform’s Farage via his imperialistic drives which makes a lonely Britain more at risk. On a funny note, Brussels in reset discussions with London, would want a “Farage clause” involving a pay-out provision (on both sides) to ensure that a party, that would leave a new agreement, would face – this with the 2029 parliamentary elections in mind and a potential Farage PM, even if populist parties may be weaker even across Europe by then.   

A third impact of the America First Trump policies may be that the first political parties to gradually be weakened will indeed be the European populist parties as their own voters may wake up to a changing world led by a leading populist. The main strength of these parties is the hard messaging and their abilities to win votes from disgruntled individuals who are fed up with traditional democratically-minded politicians and slow-moving sound policies. The likely shocks of Trump policies at all levels, but mainly in terms of their own costs of living, might bring some old-fashioned and forgotten realism into their thinking and indeed voting. 

A fourth facet of the impact of an America First could be for some countries, including those in the Trump imperial America in Central and South America, to get closer to Europe. It is clear that Mexico would be open to it while the Mercosur agreement with the EU, which took decades to be signed, but was concluded in a matter of recent weeks (even if not all EU countries, like France, were totally happy) shows an unmissable sign that countries, that may not oppose the US frontally, are reacting through astute diversification drives as seen with Latin America even if many will argue about this, all the more in Washington. Clearly Canada, which is close to the EU, has already taken that European road, with a clever PM who used to manage the UK’s central bank and was very clear with Washington about what mattered.  

These are only a few examples of what could and will happen if an America First era were to last and destroy many features of the “old world” order, like globalisation or NATO. Some countries will potentially be more at risk than others, like Ukraine (that will clearly be supported by Europe if only for its own defence) while others, like Russia, would enjoy the new era allowing them to keep existing as the US would keep withdrawing from Europe. It is of course hard to understand why the Trump administration does not grasp the dangers of an America First policy, which may be linked to the mediocre executive leadership all can see today but it is a fact that requires action, all the more from the part of Europe. It is indeed sad to be where we are as America reaches its 250th anniversary and it forgets its roots.                         

It should be clear that I take no pleasure in stressing these potential impacts and passing for anti-American, which I never was. This country helped me become who I am in my twenties with its values and principles that were always sound. America was never perfect (too many guns at home, a clear focus on money first, a high cost of education) but was overall a great country, which its movies with the likes of John Wayne and Gary Cooper had shaped my childhood. I would therefore wish for the Trump administration to see the light (as more and more Republican officials now do) and naturally lose the mid-terms in November, so we can gradually go back to sound Western sanity – all while Europe keeps being more autonomous and a better partner in defence.    

Warmest regards,

Serge 

A new and stronger Europe in the making 

16.12.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

2025 will be remembered as a year of drastic change in terms of the world which we knew, all the more so in relation to the post-WW2 transatlantic alliance, which kept us away from war, and then brought us many features of a peace through trade in a globalised world. Trump 2.0 and its autocratic and nationalistic 1930s America First approach is gradually destroying the sound Western world we knew, while America is rejecting the benefits of its leadership as seen with the new US National Security Strategy. While not making America stronger, as it will keep paying for the erratic and self-harming Trump policies, the new era that Europe is abruptly faced with should not be seen as the decline of a continent which once led the world. Trump, while destroying a civilisation, is in fact giving the opportunity to Europe to be more unified and stronger by taking sound political, economic and defence directions.

The US National Security Strategy is critical of a weak Europe that relied upon the US for its defence while not focusing on being militarily independent enough, preferring to devote funding to economic and social matters. There is no doubt that Europe, before and after the EU, chose to give America the leadership of the Western world, including its own defence, even if some countries like France and the UK developed serious military forces on their own. The weight of the WW2 tragedy was deeply felt across the continent and the desire of a strong America to take the Western defence leadership, also for its many geostrategic and economic benefits, strengthened with the 1949 creation of NATO as the Cold War took off, were serious drivers. European countries did indeed follow the clear US lead on defence matters while participating as much as they could, given their relative strengths and abilities. The European approach to its own defence is now seen as unacceptable and cheap complacency by today’s America as that view also fits the America First nationalistic agenda and focus on its own Southern hemisphere. However, this unexpected change in a key 80-year policy should lead Europe to reshape its own approach to geostrategic and related priorities. 

It is now time for Europe to be in charge of its defence while keeping working with the US as part of NATO. It is likely that the Trump era will be seen as a strategic mistake, also by America at the polls, given the impact on their own society. On a personal note, and having grown up shaped by the old American values and principles we all knew while having many American friends who are like me, there is no doubt that the US will eventually come back to the sound country and Western leader it was. A strong majority of Americans will realise that the Trump adventure is self-destroying at too many levels, even if some key Trump topics, like immigration and its key link to national identity, should be better managed, also in the whole West. While we should all hope that the Americans will wake up in the mid-terms and later in 2028, it does not change the fact that Europe needs to show more resolve regarding its own future at the level of the EU – Europe today and tomorrow – in terms of decision-making and notably defence. 

The clearest show of independence for Europe will be to devote more funding to its defence, and indeed technology sectors, in focusing on the right segments and develop start-ups that will be instrumental in developing Europe’s strength and independence – again in partnership with an America which should gradually find itself again. A new balance in the US-European relationship is needed. This new focus on defence will also need to be done in real partnership among EU members and in ways that need to be fully understood by the European populations that are Europe. There will also be a need to change EU decision-making and avoid being stopped by one or a few member states that happen to have geostrategic links to the obvious threat that is represented by an aggressive Russia once again searching for its lost existence. Europe and the EU have the financial means to ensure its future (ten times Russia’s GDP) but need to redefine the proper mechanisms to achieve sound and time-efficient decisions. While improving its decision mechanisms, now should be a time on both sides of the Channel to welcome back Britain as a key member of the EU as we are simply stronger together, this regardless of the fact that working in a group, however sensible, is not always as easy as staying alone. It is time to forget the mistakes Brexit caused, often led by personal political ambitions, and are seen by many in the UK today, including increasingly in government and legislative circles. We are simply stronger together, all the more so in a divisive and unproductive Trump world.   

One of the main European challenges in the short term will be to manage the current poll rise of the hard-right populist parties, some of its leaders – but not all – of whom find Russia not the threat that it is. However, and while Europe and its key countries like Britain, France and Germany should be better off with experienced mainstream parties at their lead, it is clear that hard right populist parties’ foreign policy programmes have meaningfully evolved, as seen with Giorgia Meloni in power in Italy even if the German AfD still shows its young age and inexperience. There are indeed critical matters that should get all Europeans to want to be more united and stronger in defence.      

The road is clear and we should hope for the right focus to prevail, and soon. There is no other choice for Europe to exist and indeed build a great future for its new generations. 

Warmest regards,

Serge               

On the changing nature of the Western democratic landscape

24.11.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

While being a gifted amateur on matters of political science, all the more when they touch the essence of domestic politics in the Western democratic world, it is hard not to notice both in the US and across Europe a real shift of the political landscape. Adults living in the second half of the 20th century would find it hard to relate to political forces opposing each other today at the electoral booth, in the streets and at the dinner tables. 

The world evolves as we see with Big Tech (and now, even more so, AI), bringing drastic changes that supporters explain is akin to previous industrial revolutions. It is a fact, even if a dauting one, all the more for those who will be AI-jobless while the mega-tech billionaires will keep thriving. It would appear that our political landscape has gradually changed too over recent decades. There is no more of the usual fight between the once traditional right and left as they have actually also changed in nature and the left-right terminology no longer fully applies. Today some would argue that the divide is more between pro-democracy parties and mild autocracy ones. Others would see the divide between traditional centrist parties against hard right parties, the old social democratic left having been marginalised (like Mitterrand’s once powerful Socialist Party in France) if not taking a hard but unsuccessful version of its former self. Polarisation has also become the word of the day. And it is clear that many voters increasingly dissatisfied by traditional democratic parties in power have shifted their votes to hard right ones that have also gradually and smartly moderated their stances when closer to power, looking at the rare but so far highly practical and effective Meloni example in Italy. 

It is clear that old right-wing parties like the Republican Party in the US under Trump have had to deal with a combination of White House autocratic leadership flavour with endless executive orders and retribution lawsuits against opponents, while experiencing an unexpected and odd left-wing protectionist shift against free trade that was a key historical tenet of the Grand Old Party. It is clear that Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush would be rather perplexed when looking at their own party today, even if many elected officials may gradually refocus on their core values as Trump’s poll rating keeps going down (35% post recent elections) – and they follow their natural job preservation mantra as already seen. The Democratic Party also went more left in a country where the word did not really exist, in order to accommodate at times the cultural and societal needs of its big urban centre voters, losing some of its centrism appeal on the way and paying for it dearly nationwide. 

Unwanted immigration, regardless of any criminal feature and as it was perceived by many as altering national identity (even in a country of immigrants like the US), became a key factor in changing the Western political landscape. Fifteen years ago, the economy and “affordability” were the key issues for many voters (it still is as we see with Trump) but immigration waves, at times welcome by the likes of Angela Merkel due to the need to boost the national economy, brought many issues that gradually focused the voters’ minds and gave rise to hard-right parties, often led by good marketers, to increase their share of the vote. Today, they lead in the polls in the UK, France or even Germany (some even arguing, not crazily, that they even won in the US, historically the first democracy in the world). 

As an aside, and even if potentially seen as a far-fetched point by some (if not many), one could argue that Osama bin Laden won in the end. While 9-11 was a horrible tragedy, it led to various US military operations in the Middle East that many felt warranted but led, years later, to the Arab Spring and a total dislocation of some of the regimes and countries in the region that fostered mass immigration waves with societal impacts, like security-related ones, that we keep seeing today. (Even the UK Labour government is now dealing with a change in its refugee asylum policy.) The current upheaval in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, following the retreat of the former French colonial power and its replacement by the new Wagner Group (interestingly named Africa Corps), allowed for regional Jihadists to be on the verge of seizing control of these countries, which might lead to another wave of immigration towards Europe as the horrific civil war in Sudan and the horrific Tanzanian developments easily could – and strengthen its far-right parties. As already stated, these far-right parties, that offer easy solutions to complex issues, provide new avenues for many easily swayed voters. These voters are frustrated by the often-slow pace and absence of clear results of democratic European governments that are also culturally attached to values and principles like human rights and a natural aversion to racism, making them struggle with managing issues like mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East, illegal or not, in the 21st century.  In some ways, and while American agriculture experiences strong labour shortages, the Trump team combined the fight against unwanted immigration with that against crime but also the drug trade, this also leading to drastic geostrategic and military developments as seen in Venezuela.  

The new political landscape is linked to the fact that elections are a game today where the hard-right has shown uncanny excellence. Ideology matters less than dealing with some issues like immigration and affordability – at least in words, usually strong. The problem with hard-right parties, even if they can win elections, is that they are usually ill-equipped to manage governments efficiently while their programmes create strong, if not always violent, opposition, changing the very nature of life in some countries. An additional feature of some far-right parties, especially in Europe, is their closeness to Russia, which is today the natural enemy of democratic Western governments in the context of the Ukraine war and multiple daily disruptions led by Russian intelligence. It is clear that the rising AfD in Germany, Fico in Slovakia, Orbán in Hungary or some unexpected and unfit Babiš coalition partners in Czechia are not anti-Russian (to say the least), at times on energy grounds, even if Nigel Farage in the UK, Marine Le Pen in France (in spite of her 2017 campaign previously funded by a Prague-based Russian bank) and clearly Meloni in power in Italy took their distance from Moscow, all the more as they know where their voters stand on the matter. 

We live in a Western world where winning elections is the end game while governing has to be done but is often mismanaged, notably by hard-right leaders, with back and forth moves à la TACO as seen with Trump in less than one year. At least, we still benefit from a democratic environment and set-up which at times can put a stop to the overreach of some of the hard-right leaders as seen in America – but for how long? It is clear that it is key for increased voter participation in elections, as long as they are free and fair, especially from the younger generations who should focus more on their own future and manage their love of social media, if not video games, in a better self-preserving way. On the same note and as Erdoğan’s opposition leader and Mayor of Istanbul, now facing “2000 years” in jail for running a criminal organisation (real democracy in Istanbul?), said, it is key to “communicate” with everybody of all ages and political inclinations to foster dialogue and better understanding of what matters. As Ekrem İmamoğlu stressed in a great way all should remember: “People-ism against populism”.      

Warmest regards,

Serge                                         

Envisaging the likely scenarios post-hard right populism collapse in the West 

10.11.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

I took a writing break these past two months as covering the ceaseless Trump developments, which many do across the pond, was becoming very toxic as an endless act of democratic despair. I decided to take up my pen again after telling some of my Financial Times writer friends what I thought the post-Trump era could bring, a topic that we see starting being covered as the tide may have turned following recent elections in the US. In doing so, I will focus on rational developments, short of revolutions while assuming democracy would still endure in our old West. This topic may not relate only to the US but also to quite a few key European countries like Britain, France and even Germany.

The Trump era is one of an abandonment of traditional values and principles that made America since 1776 and a rise of a form of – so far – mild autocracy seen with the exercise of executive powers that even a Trump-friendly US Supreme Court starts reviewing and questioning (for example with the implementation of systemic tariffs). As I covered at length and well beyond trade, the Trump administration pursued unusual policies such as deploying troops in large Democrat-led cities, attacking leading universities that paradoxically have “made America great”, mass-deporting immigrants at a time when they are needed by the US economy, all while making elitism a bad word so as to please a voting base of often non-college educated which is  usually based in rural areas and states where the current Republican Party enjoys an already excessive representation set-up. Today Trump’s support stands at 37-39% after ten months. In Europe, populist parties lead the polls in Britain, Germany and France while at times disrupting the governmental process even if elections are not “planned” in the short term – for now. However, hard-right populists can win votes in responding to voters’ disappointment with the traditional parties by offering easy solutions to complex issues – their main strength – but they usually are ill-equipped to manage governments efficiently, often leading to the demise of coalitions in the short term, as recently seen in the Netherlands after only two years.     

While hard-right populists increasingly win, as many voters are disappointed by the slow pace and perceived mismanagement of key issues – like, indeed, immigration – by liberal democracy and their traditional parties, they are often now supported by ultra-wealthy business leaders as seen with the “Big Tech Bros” in the US with Trump. While they often change their previously liberal essence to gain favour from Trump and the like, these business types help form an unusual leadership set-up that combines extremist politics and business (in the case of tech, also fostered by social media platforms those leaders helped create). The rise of the mega-billionaires under the Trump era is also a reflection of the demise of traditional capitalism, when ultra-money has become a leading value or objective of a tiny few at the expense of many, including those voters who supported the Trump rise and populist parties aspiring to gain power (see Elon Musk and the AfD in Germany, also his “market”). Money has become an excessive feature of modern society even among those who seemed to care about the “people” when realising that even Nancy Pelosi and her husband made USD 130 million in stock profit since 1988 when she was a member and then leader of the House of Representatives, a key public role.

It would appear that Gen Z and many young voters are now shifting leftwards as seen during the recent US elections as well as many Hispanics and Black Americans who had supported Trump in the 2024 elections, the latter that had created an odd coalition with the disgruntled and vastly white nationalist MAGA base. It would also not be surprising for many in the MAGA base to desperately shift their disgruntled extremism from a hard-right stance to a hard-left one, all the more after they deeply suffer economically from Trump’s policies while seeing the clear rise of the mega-billionaires who also keep reducing staff and indeed their jobs as seen with Amazon. While the younger generations are shifting leftwards both in the US and Europe, also in rejection of Big Money and its impact on society, it is possible that disappointed hard-right voters keen on extremist societal approaches, could join them and help creating a new seismic political shift.    

Although it was not foreseen a few weeks ago, it is now possible that Trump could become a “lame duck” following the 2026 mid-terms if he keeps delivering his senseless policies with no sound advisory control from his top team that was clearly not selected for this role. While hard right nationalists are likely to fail while in power, it is not yet clear whether a soft version of socialism, as shown with a gifted and charismatic Mamdani even if in an admittedly differentiated New York City, or a harder-left version would prevail. It is possible that a younger and less civil Bernie Sanders might win the Presidency in 2028 if the Trump slide goes on or a more moderate and centrist Californian Gavin Newsom could prevail, also as he would fit the American political essence, as seen with the recent strong victories of the Democrats in his California as well as for the Virginia and New Jersey governorships. What is clear is that the Democrats will need to focus on issues of affordability and stay away from extreme cultural issues if they want to win in one and then three years. Europe, which is more extremist than America in nature (at least until the Trump era), may find it harder to find another centrist solution à la Macron to replace an eventually likely failing Nigel Farage or Marine Le Pen (Bardella) government if they were to happen – but future history will tell. At the same time, current and potential hard-left leaders do not seem today or in the near future likely inhabitants of Number Ten or the Elysée Palace. 

We also live in a different world, with a new and gradually changing order since 1945, which makes it crucial to think about its likely scenarios so that individuals and businesses can adjust best and keep thriving. For this there is a need to manage risks, old and new, while ensuring that rules are clear and ethics prevail from the boardroom to the family dining table.      

Warmest regards,

Serge