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               

What is Russia and where is it going today?

23.7.25

Dear Partners in Thought,

Given the Russian developments we experienced over the last three decades and the clear peak represented by the old and almost forgotten style invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, I thought it would make sense to understand better what Russia really is today.

Russia’s economy is one of war today, with its key strengths based on oil and gas resources only liked by China and India. It is hard to see where Russia’s real strengths are today. Its inflation rate at 10% (deemed to be well understated) and central bank policy rate of 20% would nearly kill any government in the Western world. It is indeed a war economy with 7% of its GDP spent on defence, a figure that would make Trump happy if Russia were part of NATO. Its population is also shrinking, and its birth rate rapidly decreasing.

Many ultra-conservatives, as well as plenty of those from the MAGA base, who see themselves as true Christians, see Putin as the leader of Christendom in a world void of values and principles that the Russian leader would keep embodying. Russia is being seen by many extremist Christians as the real frontline against an ever-terroristic Islam, a secular and rising China and all that represents Woke and perceived extremist diversity today. For many of its few Western admirers, Russia is simply the Europe of the 1950s.

Russia today is another form of Soviet Union, impelled by an historical imperial need and drive that also gives Putin a reason to exist. It is far more corrupt than the Soviet Union, even if the world got used to an oligarchic model which, even if not right, is accepted for what is Russia. Russia today is not driven by ideology, even if for practical purposes, as was the case in the Soviet era, but by a need to count as the superpower it has no longer been since the late 1980s.

Russia is not like any other country today, being close to marginalised states like Iran or North Korea (as seen with a recent pact passed between the Kremlin and Kim Jong Un). Russia is also the sole state that has recognised Afghanistan, and indeed the women-erasing Taliban, a move that would incidentally make Leonid Brezhnev and his immediate successors also turn in their graves. Russia is not liked by many African states today, barring those who recently left the old French orbit and are helped by the Wagner successor mercenary platform. Russia needs to be “pragmatic” as few countries would willingly side with it today.

Russia’s strategic strengths are not many, as seen in its inability to defeat Ukraine after nearly three and a half years while losing one million soldiers. Only one area where it is shining is in opaque and intelligence-driven disinformation and wild acts of destabilisation across the West, even if some, like Trump, would disagree since the US presidential elections of 2016.

One of Russia’s rare strengths, linked to its autocratic style and a population largely muzzled or in any case historically and understandably silent (but for one million of its citizens, usually well-qualified professionals, who left due to the last war, creating serious shortcomings for its economy) is that it plays, even if unduly, a very long-term card strategically, like in Ukraine, thinking that the West will get tired as all democracies do.

Many populist leaders across Europe, including in its central and eastern parts for historical reasons, are liking Putin, who is indeed seen and promoted as defending key civilisational values and principles, key features also used to artfully grab votes. Andrej Babiš, the Czech EU scandal-ridden billionaire, who may return as Premier in Prague later this year, is keen on stressing he works first for Czech citizens and their social needs (which voter would not want to hear this?) making it clear that the new NATO 5% of GDP on defence is not warranted, all while he is known to be “soft” on Putin, even if not of Slovakia’s Fico or Hungary’s Orban kind. Babis was just turning 13 when the Russians invaded Prague in 1968 and, as a Prague resident, I wish I could take him by the hand to show him the Red Army tank left near my house for the sake of memory.

The AfD in Germany, very strong in the former Prussia or Eastern Germany, is quite keen on Putin and very understanding of his Ukrainian adventure. To be fair, other softer populist leaders, like Giorgia Meloni in Italy or Marine Le Pen in France (even if she was funded by a Russian bank in the 2010s) or her junior, Jordan Bardella, are not known to be pro-Russian, as it would still be a bridge too far in their own countries. As for Britain, while Farage is a true populist and does not seem to suffer yet from the Brexit debacle he co-led, it could never be a Putin aficionado based on history, values and principles. As for Central Europe, Poland is clearly a leader in getting Europe ready to oppose Russia in new attempts to recreate a new Soviet Union or Empire starting by absorbing the NATO Baltic state members.

Russia is facing a real problem, as it has no viable way to what Putin would see as clear victory, be it in Ukraine or in making Russia the power it once was – notwithstanding that it still oddly commands a seat at the UN Security Council, even if Trump made sure the world order was in any case changing. The world gradually witnessed a downfall of an internationalist post-Cold War Russia since the invasion of part of Georgia in August 2008. Who remembers Putin, a former lieutenant of liberal St. Petersburg Mayor Anatoly Sobchak, singing “Blueberry Hills” with Hollywood stars at an event benefitting children with cancer? While no excuse, it is likely that Putin grew impatient with Russia’s progress and the perceived Western post-Cold War condescendence combined with his country’s gradual subservience to Western interests – be they political or economic – this even if Muscovites always enjoyed eating at McDonald’s.

Russia is positioning itself on a road where it cannot come back unless it enjoys a total but de facto impossible victory at all levels. This situation may prompt the Kremlin to go too far, eventually leading to a state of world war that would be devastating for all parties involved and indeed the whole world. However, the only way to avoid such a bad, but not impossible, scenario, is for the West to rearm and for Europe to understand what matters for its own survival. In the face of a Russia that Trump may seem to understand better of late, it is key that the new America also gets that the real threat to world peace is not China but Russia and its closest allies and that Europe would be the epicentre of World War 3 and not Taiwan, even if the latter should not be neglected nor the wrong signs given to an opportunistic Beijing.

While being ready for the worst, it would also be best for the West and the world to try influencing change in Russia so it comes back to what we all hoped it would be in the early 1990s, where a new world started, also helped by a nascent globalisation and peace through trade. Vladimir Putin will not lead Russia forever, and many forces within the country could make change happen – this for the benefit of all Russians and the world at large. Russians would also deserve for once to enjoy the benefits of true democracy and a peaceful home, while Europe would benefit from a strong and mutually beneficial partnership. It is a case where “trying harder” is a key modus operandi, all the more so today.

With warmest regards,

Serge