The AfD victory in Saxony-Anhalt, even if not absolute, is a natural development of a trend seen across Europe for some years. The East-German past of this region can explain the AfD’s results as may be the case in other eastern German regions. It is, of course, amazing to many given the Nazi past of Germany and its efforts to put it away for decades – even if quite a few AfD supporters would appear to openly share some neo-Nazi feelings. This development should be good to focus on the forces behind this hard-right populist development across Europe and what is needed to stop it for good.
The far-right is doing very well in the polls in most key European countries. France may be the first country to generate a far-right presidential win with Marine Le Pen next April, creating a pan-European shock that would threaten the very existence of the EU. Her antisemitic father, Jean-Marie, who founded the National Front in the late 1960s with former Vichy officials and OAS de facto terrorists, would likely not believe that it could have happened. Britain was also experiencing a rising Reform UK leading in the polls even if ill-fated Brexit-surviving Nigel Farage’s questionable party funding made it slide substantially in recent months. Italy offered Europe a unique case of a far-right leader who, when in power, showed a better understanding of country governance and the need for moderation while belonging to the EU and not showing a pro-Russian stance – unlike Alice Weidel and her AfD. It would be interesting to understand why these parties are leading the polls at around 35 per cent today even if many voters would likely still vote “against” them and not really “for” anyone in the final electoral rounds across Europe.
Immigration, especially of the illegal kind, has been the key focus of all far-right parties across Europe. This focus helped grabbing votes based on genuine exasperation about too many illegals staying in European countries and often disrupting societies, at times violently , even if the cases did not involve most of them. While immigrants were needed to work in many areas where the locals did not wish to work anymore, the influx was at times too big (like with the Merkel open door policy of 2015). Immigration, illegal or not, was not the sole issue at stake and was hard to deal with for liberal governments given the potentially racist nature of the problem at stake. The issue of illegal immigration was also linked to the ethnic origin of the immigrants as they came from black African or Arabic countries, also with a Muslim religion that was not the one of Europe and was sadly tainted by wars and terrorism of all kinds in the 21st century. Liberal governments were simply not able to deal with the sensitive nature of illegal immigration as if still feeling guilty for colonialism and wanting to live in true liberalism in our modern days, thus opening the road for hard-right populist parties to control the topic and indeed eventually win elections on this key matter. Liberal governments did not want to focus on the rising issue of national identity that most of their citizens felt strongly about for fear of being seen as racist. Such a matter became increasingly too hard to manage after years of immigration and some areas being almost entirely populated by non-ethnic Europeans as seen in some suburbs of Paris. The preservation of national or continental identity was not a racist matter but was too hard to manage or even mention for traditional European governments, sadly giving a great podium to far-right parties.
While they can easily secure votes and even win elections across Europe today – indeed their main if only top skillset – far-right parties are not equipped to manage modern governments efficiently and indeed in a democratic manner. The only way for them to eventually stay in power after a while, as their countries and even voters would likely suffer in many ways, especially economically, would be to dismantle the democratic set-up of their countries. History repeats itself and shows us many lessons of that nature. When looking at all the far-right leaders, from Farage, to Le Pen, Bardella or Weidel, they are not equipped with the backgrounds and skills to efficiently manage Britain, France and Germany. They also do not have the teams of ministers and competent public officials that liberal governments usually enjoy, even if they could be used better. A far-right win would eventually create social, economic and political chaos in the key countries of Europe. Looking at the US today and while the Trump administration and “different” Republican party are not yet of a far-right nature (a topic that can be argued at length), it is clear that their country has changed (not to mention the world) and not for the better, including for their own citizens. A lesson to be learned.
Liberal democratic governments of a left or right flavour should clearly seize the topic of illegal immigration and deal with it in a forceful and legal way, no doubt leading to sending back individuals who should not be in their countries. It is a fact that illegal immigration involves many individuals coming from continents like Africa that have different ethnic and cultural features than Europe, making such deportation policies favoured by the far-right tainted with an element of racism. However, illegal immigration is indeed illegal, often accompanied by crime, and should be dealt with efficiently by any European governments, including the liberal democratic ones that still run European countries today. There will always be a clear desire from European populations to protect national and indeed continental identity, which should not be perceived as an expression of racism but a need to keep countries “what they have been for centuries”. Dealing with what is perceived as excessive immigration should also be focused on legality and dealing efficiently with crime that historically has come along with such a trend. Prisons should then be built to deal with crime instead of releasing many inmates as there is no space in current locations. Such policies would make the stay of legal immigrants, many of whom are fine individuals and needed by local economies, much better for all parties. By being tough on illegal immigration and associated crime, democratic politicians and governments will take away the one and at times only policy focus of far-right parties which will become naked and seen for what they are: nothing or bad, especially for managing the future of their countries beyond their strong and indeed key vote grabbing skills. It is time to wake up and stop avoiding focusing on what matters as it is at times too sensitive for the nice liberal mind. Democracy needs to be fought for and hard decisions taken to ensure its future. In this respect and given our times, increased spending on defence, security and sensible immigration management are also key.
As we experience a new world “disorder” of sorts, I thought it would be useful to really see what is happening in today’s world while focusing in a sober manner on two of its key disturbers, who clearly are Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. When looking at their strategies and tactics, these should lead to realising a few key potential facts that are not always mentioned.
In less than two years of his second term, Trump has changed the world we knew as well as America for the much worse, even if its enlightened MAGA hat-wearing supporters at home are taking some time to realise it. On the domestic front, the tragic ICE episodes, White House ballroom project, mail-in voting changes, renaming of the Kennedy Center, planned face on the Dollar bill or his and his constant family self-enrichment showed a consistent careless and egocentric approach unseen in any US presidency in modern history. He was fortunate that the Big Tech and AI-led booming stock market helped him take some easy domestic credit while the sealed Southern border secured his unwavering MAGA support. On the foreign front, he has weakened the Western Alliance with his Greenland offensive and various attacks against European NATO members, even if the latter’s increased autonomy and defence spending was needed. His departure from assisting Ukraine seemed un-American based on post-WW2 and Cold War history, whilst hurting the image of America’s values and principles at the same time. His Iran war and Hollywood-sounding Operation Epic Fury, when he wanted an unlikely regime change by the air and did not take account of the Iranian control of the Straight of Ormuz, showed incompetence and, as always, child-like obstinacy in its management. His renewed tariff attacks against trading partners and close allies like Canada, showed little understanding of the need for a good neighbourhood and the benefits of globalisation and world trade at so many levels, including ensuring a peaceful world. The very long list of his inept domestic and foreign policy moves, flavoured with his back-and-forth approaches, made it impossible to follow them, which gave him some degree of comfort as he could always go forward unchecked while many got used to his erratic and destructive style. After less than two years, his polling rate has gone down to very low levels due to the impact on American pocketbooks. It is then useful to note “who benefits from the crime” as the French would say, which few of us think about, so staggered are we all by all the policies developed by Trump and his career preservation-focused, mostly incompetent and clearly obedient team. Whether for real or not and as I stressed for some time, Trump has de facto acted as a Russian agent or at least a key asset, as Luke Harding recently wrote in the Guardian. This is a fact, regardless of whether or not the Kremlin has a devastating file against him based on his pre-White House Moscow trips, as mentioned years ago. This may sound odd but the main beneficiary of Trump’s domestic and foreign policy today is indeed Russia.
Putin, who was welcome as a new, sober and more stable leader of Russia 26 years ago, has shown an unexpected and gradual development into revanchist and aggressive imperialism since 2008 in Georgia and then 2014 in Ukraine, this culminating with a full-scale invasion of the latter in February 2022. Russia is clearly not winning the war that could last forever, even if now a drone-stronger Ukraine would struggle to win. This forever war is impacting both the Russian economy and society, even if the latter has been historically captured and kept quiet by the Kremlin. Putin could not care less that his war would take years so persuaded is he that Ukraine is Russian (even if Kyiv was indeed historically its imperial cradle) and the number of deaths of now well-paid Russian soldiers or quasi-mercenaries, especially from rural areas when not prisons, is not a Kremlin issue. He could clearly rejoice at the Trump administration’s lack of support to Kyiv (hence the above “asset” point) and the focus on the Iran war that lowers the world attention on his own invasion. The problem the world, and especially Europe, faces is that Putin at his increasingly late stage in power (and indeed age) has nothing to lose and would likely resort to any means to finally win, like using tactical nuclear weapons and/or invading small Baltic neighbours, which are all part of NATO. The danger with Putin, as we are in the fifth year of his war from another century, is that he may feel that the overall costs are getting too high for his country while gradually losing his mind dealing with such a challenging situation of his own making, thus leading him to yet unseen war developments and potentially WW3.
The purpose of this short Interlude was to make us step back and take some unusual lateral thinking about two key individuals of our challenging times and their actual and potentially future impacts on the world. On a last point, the real winner of the erratic policies of these two men and countries is China, the rising super-power. Beijing, for all its geopolitical flaws, is still a globalist and trade-focused power on the gradual road to a potential world supremacy. On the good side (with the historical weight of Taiwan put aside), China does not naturally resort to wars à la Putin or tariffs à la Trump, which led many countries (indeed like Canada) to have sought to be closer to it economically in recent times as a reaction to what the world had become. We can hope that America will come back to what we knew, not after the mid-terms, even if the Trump camp loses whole or part of the US Congress this November, but in November 2028 at the next presidential election. As for an increasingly unhappy Russia and given its historical power structure, it looks sadly unlikely that things could change for the better, short of an oligarchic coup driven by wealth preservation with strategic benefits for their country and indeed the world. Time will tell.
Given the challenging geopolitical times we know, there is a new book that all should read. “Ten steps to prevent World War Three” has a clear focus in its title and was written by a man who was UK foreign minister, Defence Minister, Chair of the House of Commons Defence Committee and an officer in the Royal Green Jackets. Tobias Ellwood knows very directly about the matter at hand. The timing of his book reflects a new era of substantial wars led by Trump’s America and Putin’s Russia but also the aggressive Chinese approach to Taiwan and many major (but at times forgotten) conflicts such as Sudan. Existential and revanchist imperialism (with Putin) or the need to bring the focus on other matters (with Trump) are often the conflict drivers and do not result in clear and quick victories but in never-ending wars often with wider regional if not global impacts at all levels. A review of past major regional wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan share the same long waging and unclear outcomes, especially for the West and often for local populations as many in Kabul would secretly concur. More than eighty years after World War Two, many of us in the West have no memory, direct or indirect, of a global war as we now gradually realise the key always-forgotten fact that history can easily repeat itself.
As a senior British politician and geopolitical expert having served in several conservative governments, Ellwood provides us with a real experience and analysis of the impact of these key conflicts to the world and how we – or our Western governments – should deal with them to prevent a descent into what would be World War Three. He sees us in a multi-facetted Cold War of sorts that could slide into a global conflict we have known in the 20th century. Ten steps are then offered over 400 pages to manage and then prevent that potential descent into hell.
In his preface, Ellwood covers three past and future periods such as “a golden age of complacency” (1991–2025), “a world conditioned by insecurity” (2025–2040) and “a new dark age” starting in 2040. He wrote his book as global coordination weakened and instability rose also as the result of a withdrawing Trump 2.0 America that its allies could no longer trust and the rise of a pragmatic but assertive China many countries turned to. His preface showing a gradual descent to hell is not a forecast but a caution about a future that can be avoided if we learn from the past and apply the right steps to prevent the worst future. His subsequent introduction keeps stressing that the global order and indeed globalisation created post-Cold War has gradually weakened (if not yet totally collapsed), recreating a 1930s atmosphere but without a Churchill in the waiting. As Blaise Metreweli, the head of MI6, stressed a few months ago, Britain “is in a space between peace and war” as is the West as a whole. Ellwood’s bleak analysis of our times and the Western slide we all know makes it imperative to raise our game, which his recipe could help achieve.
The ten steps with their sharp headings (“our” and “we” referring to Britain but also the West) are as follows:
Step 1: Stand for something
We need to know what we believe in and are willing to stand for.
Step 2: Know your enemies
We need to understand the goals, fears and resentments of our enemies.
Step 3: Stop repeating history
We need to learn from wars won and lost.
Step 4: Spot the new battlefields
We need to understand where conflicts will grow and how they will be fought.
Step 5: Regroup with our allies
We need to back old friends and make new ones.
Step 6: Get stronger and smarter
We need to rebuild our soft and hard power.
Step 7: Move to a war footing
We need to align security and defence strategy while preparing society.
Step 8: Put our house in order
We need to strengthen democracy at home to counter growing authoritarianism abroad.
Step 9: Build the off-ramps
We need to halt the slide toward conflict and create conditions for co-existence.
Step 10: Reassert statecraft
We need to lead or we will drift into conflict.
This very rich book is drawn from Ellwood’s experience, but also from the accumulated wisdom from many historians, strategists, legislators, diplomats and scholars. It provides a journey into history and the many big wars the world has known for centuries, trying to draw lessons as to how they erupted and what to do to avoid them in the future. The focus is naturally on getting ready for war and its new features like cyber space and trade and information, as rivalries and regional wars will still occur – but also ensuring that overall peace prevails, based on a rejuvenation of the old global order we knew built on the ashes of WW2 with pillars of security, trade, law, and development to prevent a return to chaos.
International institutions like the United Nations and others helped deal with many problems the world faced in the past. Such a global order was never perfect, but avoided major conflicts, all while countries were interacting on key issues, usually in a productive way. There is now a need to update, strengthen and rebalance the world order we enjoyed and which was built on centuries of hard-won experience and too many conflicts. Similarly, Ellwood stresses that the existential danger is not war itself but the unbounded escalation leading to it in a less globalised world. Stability strengthens the positive aspects of world development based on agreed norms, rules and institutions. To Ellwood, the choice is not between peace and conflict but between shaping the next order or inheriting one imposed by others.
While I stressed the ten steps on offer and as the devil is in the detail, I recommend you read the book and enjoy the highly detailed analysis and Ellwood’s very pertinent suggestions to ensure that global peace, even if never very quiet, keeps going and we avoid his “new dark age” in 2040 after years of irresponsible and easier passivity.
Ten years after the Brexit referendum, a clear majority of British citizens regrets its outcome and what it did not bring or indeed brought their country at many economic and social levels, even if many (about 30% so far, broadly reflecting the Farage-led Reform UK party polling, compared with the winning 52% referendum vote) still feel, mostly emotionally, that it was the right move. All public data show today that the UK is worse off economically and socially than it was in 2016 with an estimated GDP decline of 6% to 8% making it the worst-off G7 economy while the much heralded “Singapore-on-Thames” never happened and its global goods exports have seriously declined. Immigration, that was naturally a key feature of Brexit, even surprisingly experienced a major boost during the premiership of Boris Johnson, one of its key architects. Brexit did not help British political leadership and its stability either as seen with the seventh Prime minister arriving at Number Ten in ten years. Emotions put aside and while the EU may be too bureaucratic at times and not enjoying the best of voting rules, which created unanimity havoc too many times, the main EU rationale today, which Britain would agree to, is to be “stronger together”, especially in uncertain Trump geopolitical times and with an existentially driven and lost imperialistic Russia.
While it might make sense for all for Britain to rejoin the EU, this process would be still too arduous and cause painful disagreements at too many levels today both in the UK and many of the EU member states. While the British return could eventually take place in a few years from now as it would make sense and younger voting generations will increasingly support it, it would make more sense for the UK and the EU to work together on sensible partnerships in key areas, defence being an obvious and natural one given our new challenging times created by a more nationalistic America First under Trump 2.0 and its erratic developments.
Many European countries have clearly neglected a focus on defence as the US was providing both the leadership and tools to make them less active in ensuring their own defence through NATO since 1949. The habit perdured following the Cold War as the years went by, also as the threat of Russian aggression was limited until the mid-2010s. The invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, following “the little grey men” raids in the Donbass in 2014, changed the cards. Germany, the leading EU country economically had clearly withdrawn from shaping any defence agenda outside a US-led and powered NATO given its own challenging past. Within continental Europe only France, given its historical roots developed its own defence capabilities and industry even if not the way a superpower or aggressively existential country like Russia would. Britain, due to its history and imperial days, had also developed a strong defence infrastructure post-WW2, which gradually declined in terms of power in the 21st century even if it was able some years ago to lead a victorious and far-away conflict against Argentina in the Malvinas or indeed Falklands – as the World Cup recently reminded us. Today Europe is faced with the clear need to be more independent from the US following the many Trump 2.0 attempts at weakening NATO with a strange and not fully forgotten (clearly on both sides) plan to take over Greenland. While Europe needs to take control of its future with a more independent defence, it is also clear that it should work with London to ensure a sound and powerful coordinated partnership in defence. Such a move would also cement a rapprochement that could eventually lead to a return of Britain into the EU, a step that, even if natural and sensible ten years after a failed Brexit, would again be too challenging to make happening today, both for Britain and the EU.
To make a defence partnership viable and a win-win, Britain will need to focus on redeveloping its defence and related funding, the latter that was not a key matter for too long while other social needs were targeted by various British governments. British defence, while always a quality sector in terms of its leadership and capabilities, is not what it used to be decades ago even if legendary initialisms like SAS and its “who dares wins” motto still resonate well. Britain is currently suffering from an unusual “military unpreparedness” that led its well-respected defence secretary, John Healey, to resign recently as he felt that both Number Ten and the Treasury in Starmer times had not been focused on giving Britain the appropriate defence funding the Strategic Defence Review and our new times required. Defence budgets were continuously delayed despite the gradually approaching NATO summit in Ankara in early July while the military leadership stressed a budget equipment shortfall of GBP28bn (USD 38bn) until 2030. While a new Germany and even Poland would now spend between nearly 3.5% and 5% of GDP on defence, the once powerful British military that used to lead the NATO league table on defence spending, would only reach 2.7% of GDP by 2030, representing an annual increase of 0.08% by 2027, this despite a bold but hard to believe pledge to reach 3.5% by 2035.
As of today, the British forces need to secure modern armoured vehicles, replace their old navy (once the symbol of British power as Admiral Horatio Nelson would agree) with new frigates and destroyers that will no longer be docked for repairs while the RAF should be in a position to get its needed F-35A nuclear fighter jets and finally implement its Global Combat Air Programme with Japan and Italy. Many leading strategists share the view that a defence rethink needs to be taken, also in the context of the defence of Europe and knowing that Russia may be able to attack it by 2028 even if still a low probability. The Russian threat and Trump’s relative abandonment of its allies have created the need for a renewed British defence focus that has also stressed a governmental lack of funding abilities. Investments and a budget refocus will be needed, especially given the new faces of warfare and its drone capacity and technology, which would also support a close cooperation with battle-tested Ukraine. It was good news that Keir Starmer tried to focus on the highly sensitive and long-delayed British ten-year defence plan as a key project before he left Number Ten, hoping that a new Burnham administration could finalise it even if they may have different views on its set-up.
There is no doubt that many initiatives, some inconclusive, were developed in Britain in recent times like with the European Rearmament Bank, a project led by General Sir Nick Carter, a former Chief of the Defence Staff, strategic thinkers and even former senior representatives of multilateral financial institutions like my old EBRD. Other projects that were seen starting in Britain migrated to Canada like the DSRB or Defence, Security and Resilience Bank, much funded by leading banks including many Canadian institutions, this reflecting the new times the country is also facing with its Southern neighbour and formerly forever strategic partner. Even specific defence partnerships between Britain and the EU or among key European countries have not been easy to implement as seen with the recent Paris drive to exclude London from Safe, the EU rearmament fund or, even within the EU, Berlin’s rejection of cooperating with Paris on a key joint fighter jet project. Nothing is easy in this field but the imperative is to still work together for Europe to be stronger, regardless of its often sensitive institutions and their complex operational rules.
As the well-known Oxford scholar, Timothy Garton-Arsh recently published, “the Europeanisation of Nato is ever more important”, this also involving Britain working with the EU – 23 countries also belonging to both organisations – on making us “stronger together”. While I would personally prefer Britain back into the unperfect but improvable EU, I realise it is not the right time. Today a new strategic and clear focus on key British military segments that need both time-efficient improvements and funding is needed. The strategic UK-EU alliance would then provide the required momentum for all parties to focus on the best directions to cement a viable collective defence in the right spirit, especially in our challenging geopolitical times. This could be the natural start of a new relationship that could grow over time into a more structured partnership or even membership.
I was recently watching Chris Murphy, the US Democratic Senator from Connecticut, presenting his new book “Crisis of the Common Good” and thought it was a very timely development given our new era. I always found Chris Murphy not ego-centric and flavoured with common sense, so was delighted he had written a book about the key issues that could potentially destroy America – the focus of his book, but also our world and which I have covered many times since Trump 2.0. In his book, aimed at American voters ahead of the November mid-terms and 2028 presidential race, Murphy promotes finding again the Common Good while stressing the ill-fated cults of profit, “everywhere”, technology, credentialism, consumption and corruption in American society, all furthered by Trump 2.0. Murphy, being a very good communicator, says it all in a useful summary in the first 25 pages with detailed chapters then covering each of the cults with many personal anecdotes.
America, a great country, which was naturally never perfect, has changed in no time much for the worse under Trump 2.0, making it a quasi-combined autocracy-kleptocracy where money and obedience to the leader matter first. The combination of horrific developments under Trump are simply unbelievable and of the never-seen-before-in-a-US-presidential kind. The list is very long, from a billion-dollar ballroom, destruction of the White House East Wing, renaming of key institutions like the Kennedy Center (now soundly rejected by a judge giving America some institutional hope), building of 280-foot-high pharaonic monuments, self-dealing and insider trading (investing prior to enacting key policy decisions) at times driven by a never seen but now very open family enrichment. All while many government officials, who in the main have been selected for their obedience rather than their competence, are often very rich individuals, if not a billionaire club with American policy and personal business naturally combined. The club membership is rather long, with peace deal-maker Steve Witkoff, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum or even the billionaire US Ambassador to Italy who is just doing a mega-deal … for himself. And let’s not forget Jared Kushner’s business father, a former jailed felon, as US Ambassador to France.
And then, as one should not stop given the lack of real opposition, a now abandoned $1.8bn fund that would compensate Trump’s political allies as well as January 6 US Capitol rioters (In fact, $1776m to nicely match the 250th American anniversary which would infuriate my ancestors at Yorktown.) The list of democratic deviations and issues with political sanity under Trump 2.0 cover all aspects of American life as seen with ICE in Minnesota as well as the various gerrymandering efforts and attempts to change the mail-in electoral process. It should be noted that some moves can be funny, like having his face on a $250 bill (Treasury Bessent found it publicly fine), this during his lifetime unlike clear statesmen such as Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant as well as Franklin and Hamilton. One of the key Trump strengths is that there are too many insane decisions taken at the same time at too many levels, making it too hard to follow them. And sheer incompetence is obviously also seen at the geopolitical level. Undermining the Western Alliance and NATO (even if Europeans should be more involved in their defence as they now will) while having threatened to take over Greenland (like he de facto did Canada) or starting an ill-devised Iranian regime change from the air leading Teheran to realise their key advantage in the world-affecting Strait of Hormuz says a lot about the changing times in America and the loss of its sound leadership. And now we enjoy a never ending and always unclear Iranian war peace process (now clearly focused on minimizing the unexpected war costs to American voters ahead of the mid-terms) that shows Trump going back and forth on what it means and even lying to our faces as to its actual conclusion and the fact it stresses a defeat of sorts for America in terms of war aims. This insane flood of developments is also linked to the loss of “common good” that historically defined America, even if never perfect in nature, hence the good timing of Chris Murphy’s book.
In his introduction, Murphy, being on many hockey game journeys with his fourteen-year-old son, tells us about youth sports and how it has been maximised for profit by organisers in recent years making it far away from what it was in his own youth and reflecting our new and sadder times. His book is focused on the crises that American (and to some extent Western) society fell into in developing various bad cults focused on profit, “everywhere”, technology, consumption, credentialism and corruption leading him to hope for a renewed cult of Common Good that made America, even if never perfect, what it was. As a US Senator and a Democrat, Murphy also focuses on the six bad cults naturally being enhanced by the Trump era given the unusual nature and persona of the last US president. To him the 1980s started to reflect a new era of greed, leaving old American values behind, that were personified by the then shockingly grandiose Manhattan Trump Tower in 1983 and Gordon Gekko in the movie “Wall Street” in 1987. TV shows like Dallas or Dynasty glamourised wealth at the highest level. To Murphy, that period, which also saw America becoming wealthier, reflected a shift from the common good to a me-first individualism in most spheres of society. The new era marked a retreat from shared prosperity, social contracts and strong communities with a new focus on profit, efficiency, consumer culture, technology, elite credentialism and corrupt politics leading to many Americans feeling adrift, alone and hopeless; and driving them eventually after short decades to elect a “megalomaniacal con man peddling division and empty promises” if not more.
The Cult of Profit is a natural development of the greed era that most of us could see and feel in many areas of life and business, even if America was an entrepreneurial nation with “climbers and doers” that made a difference, also for the common good. Murphy feels, not wrongly, that the drive for wealth changed the nature of the social contract focused on broad prosperity – as seen with the Big Tech mega-billionaires, which are the obvious leading example of this American demise. At the same time, governments stood aside while corporations grew stronger and unions weaker, ensuring a transfer of power with capitalism being mainly if not only focused on maximising profit. It is clear that Murphy’s take on the cult of profit would fit the approach of European socialists and even centrists (the former I have also grown closer to due to this drastic change in capitalism, a step which is odd for a member of a Gaullist family, very involved with Chirac’s party and its national youth team in the early 1980s when my boss was a mid-twenties Nicolas, who unexpectedly then would become President of France.)
The Cult of Everywhere, linked to that of profit, reflects a strong feeling of repulsion against the adverse impact of globalisation that many of us saw as a good thing, also in terms of ensuring global peace indeed through trade. This cult naturally hurt local businesses throughout America, especially in states that were dependant on very local activities for jobs and customers where owners abandoned their moral obligations to local “workers”. Globalisation, which started 25 years ago, was aimed at promising a golden age without actual borders when everybody would benefit as technology and trade would build a more integrated and better world. While this ambitious development never fully and happily happened, this cult led to a loss of national and local identity while jobs were lost, especially in remote American areas while a rising and once forgotten China took advantage of a new manufacturing era.
The Cult of Technology led by strong business leaders brought smartphones, social media and now AI which strongly impacted human relations and likely job prospects for the latter. Americans stopped socialising very fast with friends and started to isolate themselves (a global feature we can all thank Big Tech for), all the more for teenagers (It would not be likely that the Big Tech-captured US administration would pass legislation to keep teenagers away from social media as in the visionary Australia and soon Britain and France.) Murphy also stressed that technology led to a decline of attendance in institutions like churches, unions and civic clubs that once cemented sound collective purposes and shared societal values. While he sees that technology brought many life improvements, he finds this cult as having led the Great Withdrawal also hurting humanity while furthering loneliness and fulfilment at a time when the US was too lax on regulations, a latter feature we can find enhanced by Big Tech’s de facto capture of Trump 2.0 through massive donations and political support.
The Cult of Consumption is exemplified, perhaps unfairly, by George W Bush telling his citizens after 9-11 to go down to Disney World in Florida, this stressing enhanced market participation to deal with huge societal issues if not nightmares at the time. It is clear that this example is targeting a leading GOP man, which might be seen as overly partisan, all the more as George W Bush, while not a perfect leader for many, is not a Trump friend and carries values and principles of US leadership that we always saw in the past (seeing him with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama at the latter’s presidential centre inauguration in Chicago last week made me easily feel that there was another, sounder American leadership at some point not so long ago.) Murphy also stresses the change of contactless “buying” with local retailers being forgotten for the likes of Amazon and Walmart while creating huge fortunes for its leaders. He stressed the depersonalisation of commerce with the rise of tens of millions of “influencers”, all while consumption became stratified with the wealthy buying into preferred, easier and faster ways of buying goods and services, this creating a deepening of societal resentment.
The Cult of Credentialism is focused according to Murphy on the divide between those with college degrees and those without, as society increasingly rewarded the former while neglecting the latter. A degree has become essential to achieve societal well-being and has become challenging to secure at many levels. According to him, the promise of sharing education costs is one that has been gradually broken as tuition became very expensive in all colleges and especially the top names we know, all while government became disinterested in higher education. To worsen the poor picture, many colleges, also among the top ones, favoured donors (ask Harvard graduate Jared Kushner) and alumni over applicants from modest backgrounds resulting in a monopolisation of access to enrolment opportunity. As a funny side note, I wonder what Murphy’s neighbour, Yale, would think of his approach – even if I agree with him (On a more positive note, let’s not forget that US colleges also introduced “affirmative actions in the 1970s to help minorities access higher education – a policy Trump supporters clearly never liked.) On an additional thought, one can also wonder what the future of higher education will become a few years from now with the rise of AI, which may make Murphy’s points historical in nature or no longer relevant but we should hope that universities keep going in spite of this self-enriching Big Tech-led AI invasion that is changing our world in uncontrollable and potentially terrible ways at too many levels.
The Cult of Corruption is focused on the gradual rise of money in politics which a Supreme Court 2010 Citizens United decision probably unwittingly created by seeing political donations as free speech, which led to a flood of corporate and billionaire cash into campaigns. These donations have had an impact on election results and the legislative process while the common citizen was gradually de facto left on the side and powerless. Over the years, Americans got used to this development that Donald Trump exemplified at many levels including for him and his family’s self-enrichment while in power (How many billions since his second term?). The extent of monetization of political power and the US presidency via the stock market or dealings with business leaders or even foreign countries seeking US support is a clear first in American history.
Having described the five cults and the gradual move from communitarianism to me-first individualism that started in the1980s, Murphy explains how Trump exploited the spiritually disgruntled many and their nostalgia for better times to get into the White House and then worsened the very six cults. Trump tapped into “memories of a time before globalized markets, profit fundamentalism, addictive technologies and corporate-captured government”. He built a new MAGA community for those longing for gatherings and social interactions while tariffs were meant to punish globalization while promoting nationalism first. He stressed that outsiders like immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ individuals and the traditional elites stole communities from “true Americans” implying that diversity was not compatible with common-good America. He promised to “drain that swamp” to get back to the old America. However, Trump did not curb corporate power or profit-worship nor did he rein in technological excesses while he cut corporate taxes and deregulated industries, also as he was supported by the likes of society-destructive Big Tech. And instead of “draining the swamp” as he had promised his MAGA base, he used it to enrich himself and his family through a long list of avenues from cryptocurrency, Middle Eastern investments to government contracts in ways that had been unseen so far with any US President. In many ways, Trump exemplified the six cults (even if one would argue that he was not an easy friend of globalisation with his never-ending tariff wars).
While his core base does not fully grasp – or does not want to see what he has done, his popularity is clearly and expectedly in great decline today, this regardless of any polls. Were he able to run, he would not win the presidency in 2028, but he and his team are still there for two and half years, even if he does seem to care for what his policies and the state of the GOP are today and is clearly keener on his posterity. This short decline was sadly accompanied by a physical decline as easily seen with his erratic speeches full of words never heard from a US leader. His MAGA base support, largely opposed to wars abroad, appears to still support him “come what may” even with the strategic Iranian disaster as they prefer to follow the leader, while their clout, as a shrinking minority usually not equipped to understand policy impacts, is also declining (all while they are the first to pay for war-related oil and other goods).
Murphy’s book provides the reader with many detailed chapters on each of the six cults while hoping for a challenging return to a sensible sense of communitarianism in US society, if ever possible given the damages done, when Trump and his allies would be gone. Murphy is promoting a dedication to an economy and society focused on dignity and meaning for everyone, this not only via sheer politics but through government reform, corporate accountability and stronger communities, the latter being a key feature also away from technological isolation. As a key side note, non-US readers would sadly easily notice that the book focuses very little on Trump’s destruction of the Western alliance or poor foreign policy developments as these matters are not the prime focus of the American voter unless there is a cost involved.
Chris Murphy would be a great presidential candidate given his sensibly moderate style and the dearth of leading and appealing figures among Democrats today, Governors Gavin Newsom and Abigael Spangerger (the latter a sound potential VC choice) excepted. The other Democratic party leaders are either too old, like US Senate party leader Chuck Schumer, or lacking the persona or profile that would fit a majority of voters (I will avoid stressing names out of courtesy). The Democrats are struggling to find the candidate who could win and be a great President and hopefully be a badly needed old style leader of a returning, post-Trump, Western world we are all missing. It is also clear that Democrats should tactically rethink their strong and at times excessive focus on diversity, that opponents call “woke”, as it also helped Trump and his willingly highjacked GOP (now much less happy) to seize power a second time in 2024 in a scenario few would have thought possible post-Trump 1.0.
As of today, Murphy is not yet seen as a top presidential candidate (even if on the list), though his focus on key societal matters should say a lot to the American electorate as we would hope. In his conclusion, Murphy provides us with no less than 30 proposals for reversing what he sees as a spiritual American decline and focused on dealing with the six cults to go back to a forgotten era of the Common Good. Amusingly, his last chapter starts with the famous Reagan line about America being “the shining city on the hill” that was borrowed from John Winthrop, the first Governor of Massachusetts, making us realise that American politics should not be about partisanship but indeed focused on the Common Good with great leaders that even the world can benefit from.
As there is expectedly a news flood about the ill-fated and poorly managed Iran war, I wanted to review a major but rather uncovered feature related to the changing geopolitical world gradually unfolding as the result of the Trump 2.0 unusual and erratic geostrategic policies. As such, I decided to focus on Canada, a country that was never a key geopolitical actor due to its North American location and powerful free world leader neighbour and security partner.
The relations between America and Canada have become less than friendly since the beginning of Trump 2.0 and his aggressive tariff offensives on the world and its closest Western allies. While many of the less enlightened ones within the MAGA base may have enjoyed Trump’s tough rhetoric about the 51st state to be, Ottawa, especially under Mark Carney, took the view that it was time for more strategic independence and operational autonomy, especially in defence, as did all European NATO allies. One can still wonder what would drive Trump to make such aggressive statements, but the erratic and ill-thought-out Iran war made those almost irrelevant. It is clear, however, that both Canada as well as Europe (Britain and the EU) decided that it was ample time to be more autonomous and independent from the US, especially in terms of defence, while still ensuring that NATO perdures in its challenging times.
Given its proximity to the US, Canada naturally relied historically on its powerful neighbour for its defence. Many did not even realise that Canada was part of NATO, often and justifiably perceived as a defence organisation focused on Europe with Russia as its main potential foe. (Canada has indeed forces in Latvia.) While many European NATO members were driven to reach a 5% GDP target committed to defence as the US justifiably felt their commitment, a fortiori for the defence of Europe, was not enough, Canada, at 1.45% in 2024, was still well below the formally required 2%. This changed under Mark Carney when it finally achieved the 2% goal in 2025, five years ahead of schedule given the challenging times we know. Over 2025-26, CAD 63 billion were committed to the various features of Canada’s defence forces. This investment drive in key military assets, building its industry and dual-use investing are putting Canada on track to meet the new 5% GDP investment by 2035, its biggest military build-up since WW2. Its defence industry provides CAD10 billion to its GDP while supporting 80,000 jobs with expected strong sector growth. Canada will now rebuild, rearm and reinvest in its armed forces in a move to assert its own independence, also as a reliable Western partner. Over the next decade, Canada will commit CAD 500 billion in defence investments via different programmes and investment vehicles.
It should be clear to all that Mark Carney, who used to be Governor of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020 and Canadian Prime Minister since 2025, is the man his country needed and, in many ways, the Canadian de Gaulle of our times. His English and Canadian leadership also lends him to be the ideal leader to strengthen his country’s commitment to defence and partnership with Europe to allow the West to be stronger while making sure NATO could go on despite erratic US withdrawal threats. Mark Carney saw the need to focus on defence and increase his country’s commitment, which will lead to massive investments from both the public and private sectors, also internationally. Canadian defence sector projects covering multi-billion dollars will be developed over the next few years via different instruments, including investment funds that will also attract international investors. Many institutional investors are now ready to commit to a segment that once was sensitive in nature but is now a key investment sector where tangible returns will also be seen, both strategically and financially with positive impacts across Western economies and societies.
Many Canadian “defence” companies benefitted from the drastic geostrategic change. Infrastructure giant Atkins Réalis’s share price more than doubled while MDA Space’s more than tripled since 2024. Local companies were to receive 70% of the nation’s military spending, boosting their revenues by more than CAD 3.7 billion a year while creating opportunities for many SMEs. One of Ottawa’s goals will be to bring many suppliers into an end-system integrator like those of Lockheed, Northrop or BAE. In March, Mark Carney announced funding for three “forward operating bases” and other upgrades for the country’s Arctic zone (40% of Canadian land mass with only 150,000 people). Such policy change will have an impact on Canada’s budget deficit that is deemed acceptable given the primary need for security, strength and independence.
When at Davos last January, Mark Carney’s speech heralded new times in stressing “the rupture of the rules-based international order” caused by the new US leadership and the need for middle powers to unite. As such, one of the expected Canadian responses to Trump 2.0’s odd statements and policies was to start shifting away from US arms manufacturers, then representing 80% of Canadian arms procurement funding, many of which focused on fighter jet purchases (also an issue that European countries would like to follow even if challenging given decades of comfortable habits). In February, Carney also stated Canada’s plan to develop “a new, ambitious and comprehensive security partnership with the UK and the EU” as well securing collaborations with partners in Asia-Pacific. This strong declaration came after agreements to increase security cooperation already signed with the UK and the EU in June and May 2025 that reflected an increased unease with the declining US relationship (In May 2025, the UK signed a similar agreement with the EU as the first post-Brexit actual rapprochement).
This new defence drive will ensure that Canada’s Northern/Arctic hemisphere and proximity to strategically sensitive Greenland are better protected while its military autonomy and independence as well as NATO membership are strengthened. Such a transformational move will also provide unique opportunities for workers, businesses and institutional investors at home and abroad. In some ways, Canada and the West should thank a sadly game-changing Trump 2.0 for creating an opportunity to be stronger and more independent, this even if NATO should remain a much-needed Western alliance and one of the most historically successful defence pacts globally (A latter point that the US mid-terms may also start helping with meaningfully.)
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.
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.
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.
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).
Desperate Measures 
You must be logged in to post a comment.