ukraine – Desperate Measures

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

5.2.26

Dear Partners in Thought,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warmest regards,

Serge

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 250^th 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