 What Happened? On 1 July 2025, Politico reported that the Pentagon had halted the delivery of Patriot missiles and some precision munitions to Ukraine. Apparently, this concerned some of the aid promised to Ukraine by the previous Biden administration. Politico reported: “The halted weapons come from two different streams of Biden administration-era support — weapons from drawdowns of current US stockpiles that the US Department of Defense (DoD) received money to replenish, and the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, in which the United States funds the purchase of weapons for Ukraine from US defence firms” (Politico, 1 July 2025). According to The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), the halt includes: approximately 30 Patriot PAC-3 (Patriot Advanced Capability) missiles, critical for Ukraine’s air defence; 250 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) rockets used in HIMARS launchers; 142 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles; dozens of AIM air-to-air missiles; a number of Stinger man-portable air defence missiles; 8,500 artillery shells for 155mm howitzers; and possibly AT-4 grenade launchers. It appears that the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence did not receive any official notification about the halt in supply before the public U.S. announcement. Even more peculiar, The Wall Street Journal reported that the weapons deliveries were halted in Poland, from where they would typically be delivered to Ukraine. Contradictory Explanations Given Ukraine’s critical need for advanced air defence, this halt is undoubtedly serious for Ukraine and prompts the question: why is the U.S. halting the supply of these weapons? This is particularly puzzling in light of Trump’s comment at a press conference at the end of NATO’s The Hague summit. In response to a question about the need to support Ukraine with air defence, he said: “They do want to have the anti-missile missiles, as they call them, and we’re going to see if we can make some available... They’re very hard to get” (Politico, 2 July 2025). Just a few days later, the decision was made to halt the delivery of, in particular, Patriot missiles. According to White House spokesperson Anna Kelly, “This decision was made to put America’s interests first following a review of our nation’s military support and assistance to other countries across the globe” (NewsNation, 2 July 2025). She then added, “The strength of the United States Armed Forces remains unquestioned — just ask Iran.” Here, Anna Kelly seems to contradict herself, because if this is the case, why the sudden halt of what must, after all, be a relatively limited supply to Ukraine? It appears that the decision was made after a small group in the Pentagon voiced concerns over U.S. weapons stockpiles. Elbridge Colby, Pentagon Undersecretary for Policy, argued: “The Department of Defense continues to provide the President with robust options to continue military aid to Ukraine, consistent with his goal of bringing this tragic war to an end. At the same time, the Department is rigorously examining and adapting its approach to achieving this objective while also preserving U.S. forces’ readiness for Administration defence priorities” (CBS News, 2 July 2025). Thus, the Pentagon is balancing priorities. However, this does not explain why the weapons were apparently stopped in Poland, making the decision seem somewhat haphazard, does it not? Looking for a better explanation, one might assume that the Pentagon made a hasty decision due to a sudden need to preserve Patriot interceptors in case the 12-day war against Iran should flare up, prioritising the air defence of U.S. troops in the region. Encouraging Russia – Endangering Ukraine The sudden U.S. decision to halt weapons supplies to Ukraine has caused widespread surprise and fear that it will encourage Russia and significantly weaken Ukraine. “The Trump administration’s decision to cut arms shipments to Ukraine is badly misguided,” argued Steven Pifer, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. To him, the decision signals weakness and could result in Russia becoming a greater threat to European and U.S. security interests. Similar warnings have come from Ukraine and some U.S. allies. “Any delay or slowing down in supporting Ukraine’s defence capabilities would only encourage the aggressor to continue war and terror, rather than seek peace,” said Mariana Betsa, Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen, eagerly arguing that “Ukraine is fighting for all of us,” warned: “If the US no longer wants to supply military equipment to Ukraine, it will be a serious setback for Ukraine, but also for NATO and Europe. This is a war about the future of Europe” (press conference, 3 July 2025). Part of a “Cunning Plan”? Does the abrupt halt in U.S. weapons supplies to Ukraine signal that the U.S. is losing focus on Ukraine, instead becoming engaged in conflicts elsewhere? It seems evident that President Trump does not share the firm conviction of European leaders that support for Ukraine is paramount to preventing Russia from becoming a threat to the rest of Europe. Seeking to deliver the peace he promised before becoming President, he might concentrate on creating conditions for some form of peace rather than supporting an ongoing proxy war in Ukraine. This could even involve accepting an armistice or peace deal advantageous to Russia, which would likely disappoint Ukraine and European leaders. Befriending Russia could enable the U.S. to reduce military obligations in Europe and withdraw U.S. troops, allowing U.S. forces to focus on the Pacific or, at the very least, save resources. Weakening support for Ukraine would align with such a strategy, as would his hesitation to enforce stronger sanctions on Russia. However, Trump may simply be playing his usual unpredictable game to keep everyone off balance. Consider his latest statement, where he first argued that Biden had “emptied out our whole country giving them [Ukraine] weapons, and we have to make sure that we have enough for ourselves,” before adding what sounds like support for Ukraine: “We are working with them and trying to help them” (Associated Press, 4 July 2025). European leaders may be disrupting Trump’s strategy with their enthusiastic but arguably unrealistic support for Zelenskyy and Ukraine, promising to substitute U.S. support for Ukraine “for as long as it takes” – where “takes” could result in a war with no end before Ukraine’s total exhaustion. Perhaps China has starkly highlighted the naivety of European leaders. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the EU’s Kaja Kallas that “Beijing did not want to see a Russian loss in Ukraine because it feared the United States would then shift its entire focus to Beijing” (South China Morning Post, 4 July 2025).  War Scare Making War More Probable There appears to be a coordinated effort to convince the European public to fear an imminent threat, thereby justifying rapid and substantial investment in defence (including offensive capabilities) to create a formidable military deterrent against Russia. However, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that Russia is preparing to wage war on Europe, for instance, in the Baltic region, via the Suwałki Corridor, or in southern Europe. One could argue that Russia’s resources are being depleted in the Ukraine proxy war, making it improbable and irrational for Russia to initiate new conflicts, especially against a NATO member state. Instead, it is more plausible that Russia might feel compelled to counter Europe’s military build-up and expansion with its limited resources. Unable to match NATO’s proposed 3.5% or 5% defence spending in conventional forces, Russia may turn to advances in thermonuclear weapons, rendering such a build-up even more dangerous. Rather than preventing war through enhanced deterrence, this could lead to a perilous reciprocal escalation, increasing the likelihood of conflict. Imagine a proxy war, similar to the one in Ukraine, with a strengthened NATO achieving 3.5% or 5% defence spending. This could make Europe less cautious in responding to perceived Russian aggression. A recent manifesto from prominent German SPD politicians echoes this concern: “Defensive capability must be embedded in a strategy of de-escalation and gradual confidence-building – not in a new arms race. In fact, European NATO member states alone, even without US armed forces, are clearly superior to Russia in conventional military terms. Military alarmism and massive rearmament programmes do not enhance security for Germany and Europe but lead to destabilisation and heightened mutual threat perception between NATO and Russia.” (Manifest der SPD-Friedenskreise, 11 June 2025). Europe Left Alone With the US increasingly focusing on China, Europe risks being left to deter Russia independently. Under a Trump administration, this shift could occur rapidly, potentially undermining NATO’s defence shield, which relies heavily on US support. This reinforces the argument that Europe must rearm swiftly to replace US contributions and build its own deterrence against Russia. However, this would be both challenging and costly. A recent research paper by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) estimates the financial burden of replacing US conventional capabilities in the Euro-Atlantic theatre: “To substitute the currently assumed US contributions, European states would need to invest significant resources beyond existing plans. The IISS estimates that, including one-off procurement costs and assuming a 25-year lifecycle, these costs would amount to approximately USD 1 trillion.” (Defending Europe without the United States: Costs and Consequences, IISS, 15 May 2025). While this may be financially feasible for Europe, some countries might struggle to contribute their share. Moreover, replacing the US military presence and resources in the short term would be virtually impossible. This dilemma makes warnings about Russian aggression more credible but also highlights the need for a more peaceful coexistence with Russia. Making Peace – The Better Alternative? Drawing inspiration from Trump’s aim to strike a grand deal with Russia, Europe could pursue peace to avoid a dangerous and costly military escalation. Supporting Trump’s peace initiatives, rather than obstructing them, could yield significant benefits. Advantages of a Peace Deal with Russia Even if it means abandoning Ukraine’s ultimate war aims, ending the conflict should take precedence. This would be difficult for many European leaders to accept, but it could be a price worth paying for broader objectives. Rather than panicking over potential Trumpian deals that might allow the US to withdraw from NATO and its Article 5 obligations, Europe should consider that peace with Russia could enable a new security architecture built in collaboration with Russia, rather than in opposition to it. This could bring Russia closer to Europe, fostering peaceful interdependence. President Putin has long viewed NATO as an anachronism. In 2024, he stated: “There is only one bloc in the world held together by so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and clichés. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.” (Valdai Discussion Club, Sochi, 2024). Indeed, NATO’s purpose after the Cold War has been questioned, as argued in my blog “No Need for NATO Today, If Dismantled in the 1990s. Economic Opportunities with Russia Economic deals likely feature prominently in Trump’s thinking, given his focus on US interests, and would also be significant for Russia. Sanctions have forced many US and European companies to exit Russia. According to Yale School of Management, “Over 1,000 companies have publicly announced they are voluntarily curtailing operations in Russia beyond the minimum required by international sanctions.” Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund, highlighted US losses: “US companies have lost USD 324 billion by moving out of Russia – which has the world’s largest reserves of natural resources. Many assets were sold at significantly discounted valuations.”( tbsnews.net.) Similar losses likely apply to European companies. Peace with Russia could open opportunities to recover these losses. Resource Opportunities Both Europe and the US could benefit from Russia’s vast natural resources. Resuming gas imports could lower energy costs for Europe, which currently relies on expensive US and Arabian liquefied natural gas (LNG). Peace could facilitate more pipeline gas from Russia and encourage investment in Russian resources, counter to current EU plans. While energy deals may not benefit the US directly, they would significantly help Europe. Sanctions have reduced Russian energy exports to Europe, with Russia’s pipeline gas share in the EU dropping from over 40% in 2021 to about 8% in 2023, contributing to high energy prices and economic decline in Germany. Reducing Russia’s Dependence on China Russia would likely welcome closer ties with Europe to counter its growing reliance on China. Reducing Conflicts Elsewhere Improved relations with Russia could facilitate agreements on spheres of influence in the Arctic, involving the US, Europe, and Russia, while countering increasing Chinese influence in the region. The Threat of Europe Decaying from Within It seems futile to triple defence spending to deter Russia while ignoring signs of Europe’s internal decay. Defending an idealised Europe that may be disappearing due to radical shifts in several areas risks undermining its values, ideas, and future. Demographic “Suicide” of the West? Europe faces rapidly changing demographics due to an influx of refugees and migrants with differing beliefs, ideas, and values. David Coleman from Oxford University’s Migration Observatory notes: “On current trends, European populations will become more ethnically diverse, with the possibility that today’s majority ethnic groups will no longer comprise a numerical majority in some countries.” At the Budapest Demographic Summit in September 2019, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán warned: “If Europe is to be populated by non-Europeans, and we accept this as natural, we will effectively consent to population replacement.” These changes may occur sooner among younger populations or in major cities. Projections for the UK suggest that the “White British” majority may become a minority by around 2070. Similar trends are forecast for Denmark before the next century. The Robert Schuman Foundation warns of “a deafening silence surrounding Europe’s demographic suicide, projected for 2050.” Social Fragmentation and Political Instability This demographic shift occurs amid political silence, with leaders praising diversity while ignoring its potential consequences. These tectonic population changes could challenge Western achievements such as freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Rising inequality and eroding social cohesion, as seen in historical analyses of civilisational collapse, weaken Europe’s social fabric. Growing political division, with protest parties rising and traditional parties declining, signals potential intercultural conflicts or even civil wars within Western civilisation. Cultural Relativism The West is succumbing to cultural relativism, eroding the values and norms that underpin its culture, democracy, and society. Some fail to prioritise Western values over conflicting value systems or religious requirements, neglecting that values are sustained through practice, not mere statements. As Spengler’s predictions suggest, “Values built up and maintained within the culture begin to fall away.” Lack of Unified Leadership The EU lacks strong, unified leadership, relying instead on a fragmented structure that ensures diverse representation but slows decision-making and crisis response. Europe Falling Behind Demographic change, cultural relativism, and weak leadership contribute to Europe lagging behind the US and China. According to IMF data (April 2025), Europe’s GDP growth trails significantly: Graph showing GDP, current prices, billion US dollar  Lagging in Productivity
“Between Q4 2019 and Q2 2024, labour productivity per hour worked increased by 0.9% in the euro area, compared to 6.7% in the US.” (ECB Bulletin, 2024). Lagging in Science and Technology In AI and quantum computing, the EU trails the US and China. “The European Innovation Council had a 2024 budget of €256 million for AI and cloud computing, compared to over USD 6 billion in the US. Venture capital investment in AI reached USD 8 billion in the EU in 2023, against USD 68 billion in the US and USD 15 billion in China. ”(ec.europa.eu.). In quantum computing, the EU accounts for just over 12% of global private investment, behind the US (44%) and China (17%) (European Centre for International Political Economy, March 2026). Appeal to European Leaders – Face the Greater Threat Alarmed by the prospect of Trump abandoning Europe to face Russia alone, European leaders are hastily pledgeing to increase defence spending to 3.5% +1.5% or 5% of GDP while continuing to support Ukraine. However, these promises are vague and uncoordinated, and the mantra of “standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes” is sounding increasingly hollow. Russia is not Europe’s greatest threat. The real danger lies in Europe’s internal decay, driven by demographic shifts, cultural relativism, unrealistic ideals, and a failure to keep pace with the US and China in science and technology. This is where you will find the greatest threat to Europe ...  Trump’s capricious 5% target for Europe Have you ever wondered how President Trump arrived at precisely 5 per cent of GDP for Europe’s defence spending? Or when and in what context the demand was raised? How did Trump settle on 5 per cent? Was it merely a whim, a significant leap from his earlier 2 per cent demand, driven by frustration that Europe wasn’t adequately funding its own defence? Or was it based on some as-yet-unknown calculation of what Europe should contribute compared to the U.S.? When I first heard this demand, I thought it was spontaneous—an off-the-cuff idea, not deeply considered, typical of Trump’s exaggerations to grab attention (and it worked). It’s unlikely the result of a detailed calculation to balance European and U.S. defence responsibilities. By the way, in July 2018, during his first presidency, Trump left a NATO summit with a surprise demand that Europe should spend 4% of GDP on defence, and “he just left after he announced that” (The Guardian, 11 July 2018). How the 5 per cent popped up In late December 2024, the Financial Times reported that some of Donald Trump’s foreign policy aides had told European officials that President Trump would demand NATO’s European member states raise their defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. At a pre-inauguration press conference at Mar-a-Lago on 7 January 2025, Trump argued that European NATO members “weren’t paying their bills” and that “we’re not going to protect you if you’re not paying the bills.” He elaborated: “Europe is in for a tiny fraction of the money that we’re in. Now, whether you like that situation or not, Europe is much more affected than the United States. We have a thing called the ocean in between us, right? Why are we in for billions and billions of dollars more money than Europe? And you know, they’re a similar size, a little smaller, but they’re a similar size economy as the United States when you add them up. And yet Europe is in for a small fraction of the number the United States is in. Now, Biden could have called them up during the term. That’s what I did. I said you have to pay your bills and they all—one stood up, I won’t say who, you’ll probably have it because the papers—the media hated to report on it. But a prime minister stood up from a country, you know, a famous meeting of 28 nations with no press, no anybody in the room, he stood up and he says, does that mean if we don’t pay our bill—and at that point, it was 2 per cent. It should be 5 per cent—it should be 5 per cent, not 2 per cent, but at that point it was 2. But many people didn’t pay. Some people didn’t pay anything, but many people were way—including Germany. Germany was at less than 1 per cent.” (Roll Call, 7 January 2025) Can an argument for the 5% be constructed? Let’s explore whether such a case can be made, by looking at both the U.S. and the EU. U.S. calculation For 2024, the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorised $841.4 billion for the Department of Defense (DoD), $32.4 billion for national security programmes within the Department of Energy (DoE), and $438.0 million for defence-related activities, totalling $883.7 billion. Stockholm’s SIPRI calculates a higher figure of $997 billion for U.S. defence spending in 2024, representing 66% of total NATO spending for that year. With a 2024 current-dollar GDP of $29.1849 trillion, using the NDAA total, U.S. defence spending equates to approximately 3.03 per cent of GDP. Using SIPRI’s figure, it’s around 3.42%. That U.S. only spends around 3.42% is due to its GDP being larger than the EU’s. EU Calculation In 2024, the EU Council reported that total defence expenditure by EU member states stod at €326 billion. The European Union’s nominal GDP in 2024 was approximately €17.935 trillion ($19.412 trillion). This means EU defence spending in 2024 represented around 1.82 per cent of GDP. Five per cent of the EU’s 2024 GDP would equate to roughly €897 billion ($970.5 billion). Thus, a 5 per cent defence spending target by EU member states would be approximately equivalent to U.S. defence spending in 2024. This calculation includes Austria, Ireland, Malta, and Cyprus, which are not NATO members, while contributions from NATO members outside the EU, such as the UK and Norway, would need to be added to the overall European contribution. These simplistic calculations doesn’t account for different methods of measuring spending or the distinct strategic risks and conflicts facing the U.S. and EU. The U.S. is increasingly focused on the Pacific and China, while Europe is preoccupied with Russia. Thus, even if President-elect and President Trump mentioned the 5 per cent figure on a whim to highlight Europe’s lag in defence spending, a rough argument for the 5% target could be constructed, though I doubt this reflects Trump’s actual reasoning. This also ignores the fact that it would take years for the EU to nearly triple its already significant 2024 defence spending, while the U.S. is already spending at this level. Taking Trump’s spur-of-the-moment whim seriously Surprisingly, European leaders have generally accepted the 5% goal, with some citing their inability to meet it due to current constraints but not questioning Trump’s arbitrary demand. In the Baltic and Scandinavian countries, there is almost enthusiastic support for Trump’s demands. Estonian Prime Minister Kristen Michal stated, “This is the message that Estonia has been advocating for years.” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kęstutis Budrys argued that Trump was applying “good and constructive pressure from our strategic and biggest ally in NATO.” Swedish Defence Minister Pål Jonson recently said that Sweden wants NATO to reach the 5 per cent target by 2030. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is also ready to support Trump’s 5% demand, according to Børsen newspaper. In Germany, while the former Scholz government deemed the demand unrealistic, the Merz government appears more aligned. According to the Financial Times, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul was “following” Trump’s call for NATO to reach a 5 per cent goal. Meanwhile, German Defence Minister Boris Pistorius sounded sceptical at a recent press conference, calling the 5% target unrealistic and arguing sensibly that military equipment production cannot expand so quickly. “A seven-year timeline will also be difficult for those countries already struggling with the current 2 per cent target—such as Spain, Italy, or Luxembourg. According to one diplomat, they would prefer a later deadline, possibly stretching to 10 years” (Politico, 4 June 2025). France and the UK seem less convinced. They agree more must be spent on defence but find the 5% target unrealistic, aiming for around 3 to 3.5%. Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof has been even more pessimistic: “I think that’s going to be very, very difficult. And if I look at the effect of those kinds of increases, that’s almost impossible. I think the discussion about defence spending should also be negotiated and discussed from a strategic viewpoint. [We must decide] where do we want to be with NATO ... and then decide on what kind of money we will put in” (CNBC). Real difficulties with Trump’s 5% target are found in southern Europe. For instance, Spain and Italy see it as an impossible goal, though they acknowledge the need for increased defence spending. In June, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez appeared to accept the 5% goal but only by 2035. Fear of Russia make Europe kowtow to Trump? Why have European political leaders taken the 5% (3.5% + 1.5%) plan seriously? Evidently, they believe we live in a more dangerous world, with the primary danger being the perceived threat of Putin’s Russia. Many European leaders fear that Russia may attack other European countries when it feels strong enough, viewing Russia as a threatening enemy in the foreseeable future. This perception drives maximum efforts to arm Europe against the threat. Just listen to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s keynote speech at Chatham House on 9 June 2025. He invoked a 1936 warning from Churchill to argue for a stronger, more lethal NATO: “Will there be time to put our defences in order? … Will there be time to make these necessary efforts, or will the awful words ‘too late’ be recorded?” Here’s an excerpt of Rutte’s warning: “Because of Russia, war has returned to Europe. We also face the threat of terrorism. And fierce global competition. Russia has teamed up with China, North Korea, and Iran. They are expanding their militaries and their capabilities. Putin’s war machine is speeding up—not slowing down... Russia could be ready to use military force against NATO within five years. Five years. Let’s not kid ourselves, we are all on the Eastern flank now. The new generation of Russian missiles travel at many times the speed of sound. The distance between European capitals is only a matter of minutes. There is no longer East or West—there is just NATO. China is also modernising and expanding its military at breakneck speed... Those who stand against freedom and democracy are digging in. Preparing for long-term confrontation. And trying to dominate and divide us... History has taught us that to preserve peace, we must prepare for war. Wishful thinking will not keep us safe. We cannot dream away the danger. Hope is not a strategy. So NATO has to become a stronger, fairer, and more lethal Alliance.” A few days ago, Germany’s Chief of Defence, Generalinspekteur der Bundeswehr Carsten Breuer, issued a similar warning: “By 2029, the Russians might be able to mount a successful attack on NATO. So, we are safe today, but if we don’t do this, we are not safe in the foreseeable future, and that’s why we have to do this” (NATO press conference, 5 June 2025). Bruno Kahl, chief of the BND (Germany’s foreign intelligence service), also warned against Russia’s expansionist drive, revealing evidence suggesting Ukraine is just the first step: “Russia wants to ‘kick America out of Europe, and they’ll use any means to achieve that,’ Kahl said. Russia doesn’t need to ‘launch large-scale bombing raids or deploy tank armies.’ It’s enough to send ‘little green men’ to Estonia to supposedly protect oppressed Russian minorities. ‘Would an American president then, according to the calculations in Moscow, really send GIs across the Atlantic?’ And would they then die there? ‘That is the test of the alliance that will be made’” (Die Welt, 10 June 2025). According to Kahl, this is what we must prepare for, requiring efforts to create a deterrent so strong that Putin wouldn’t consider attacking. The recent British Strategic Defence Review focuses on the same threat, warning that “Russia’s increasing reliance on nuclear coercion will be the central challenge for the UK and its NATO Allies in the coming decades.” Therefore, the UK must achieve warfighting readiness to create sufficient deterrence with NATO: “As the only European country to assign nuclear capability to the defence of NATO, the UK is well-placed to lead Europe in enhancing its contribution to deterrence and assurance in the Euro-Atlantic” (Strategic Defence Review 2025, Ministry of Defence, UK). Even the Danish Defence Intelligence Service (DDIS) warned, without providing evidence, that if the Ukraine war ends or freezes, Russia could free up military resources to pose a direct threat to NATO. Lest we forget, there is still the Ukraine commitment: “To support Ukraine for as long as it takes.” This was reiterated by UK Defence Minister John Healey as recently as 5 June. This implies prolonging the proxy war with Russia into an uncertain future, further driving demands for enhanced military defence—and attack—capabilities. Rutte has a “cunning plan” NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has found a way to make Trump’s demand more palatable. In his most recent iteration, preparing for the NATO Summit in The Hague on 24 and 25 June, he stated: “To agree a new defence investment plan that will ensure we have enough resources to deter and defend in this more dangerous world. I will propose an overall investment plan that would total 5% of GDP in defence investment. 3.5% of GDP for core defence spending. This is based on what it will cost to meet the new capability targets that Ministers have just agreed. And 1.5% of GDP per year in defence- and security-related investment like infrastructure and industry.” With this cunning plan, there appears to be a superficial readiness to accept this version of Trump’s 5% demand at the coming NATO Summit in The Hague. This would set “hard military spending” at 3.5 per cent, roughly the level of U.S., with 1.5% allocated to infrastructure, cyber defence, and other areas. Whether Rutte’s plan will succeed remains to be seen. When should the 5% goal be reached? When should Europe meet Rutte’s modified target of 3.5% plus 1.5%? This has not yet been firmly decided. Rutte suggested 2032 but was vague when pressed, refusing to commit to a specific year: “What I do not want to do today is to go into more details, because obviously, Allies will have discussions amongst each other. We will consult with each other on some of these details. For example, what is the end date that you want to have reached it? How do you prevent a hockey stick? So, nothing happening the first couple of years, and then the last year, all of a sudden you have a huge increase, which is then in terms of absorption capacity, you are not able to spend in that last year. So, all these issues, of course, we have to discuss. We will do that. And I’m absolutely convinced...” A couple of days ago I the German Chief of Defence said that by 2029 the Russians might be able to mount a successful attack on NATO. “So, we are safe today, but if we don’t do this, we are not safe in the foreseeable future, and that’s why we have to do this” (NATO press conference, 5 June 2025). The poorly substantiated claim that Russia will attack Western Europe if we don’t arm ourselves heavily has led others, notably Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Lithuanian Defence Minister Dovilė Šakalienė, to argue that 2032 is too late and that Europe must counter the Russian threat earlier. Shortsighted European leaders ignoring bigger risks In part two, we shall see that striving to create an overwhelming military deterrent against the perceived Russian threat may actually increase the risks of war in Europe. While a slowly decaying Europe raises the question: Are European leaders focusing on the wrong threat, fixating on Russia while ignoring internal decay?  Jen Psaki proving President Biden with detailed instructions Mainstream media must have lied Mainstream media and book authors are today acting so surprised about the scale of deception to cover up President Biden’s physical and cognitive decline. But they are lying, aren’t they? Like everyone else with eyes to see and ears to hear, they must long have known or suspected Biden’s declining physical and mental acuity, but until the June 2024 Presidential debate, they lied about it. Just like the President’s own spokespersons, the mainstream media themselves became active players in the deception. Why did they set aside their own journalistic values and mission, denying what everyone could see, ignoring it, explaining it away, attempting to persuade readers and viewers that what they saw or heard was not there? It cannot have been because they were ignorant; it must have been because they believed they served a higher, more noble purpose by lying and participating in the Biden perception. Almost unbelievably, they even supported his bid for the next presidency – until the June 2024 debate. Why? Was it, in the end, just lies to keep Biden upright, supporting him in order to prevent Trump from becoming the next president? Thus, they gave up all pretence of seeking truth and objectivity, ignoring their own mission. Like The New York Times ignoring their pledge “to give the news impartially, without fear or favour, regardless of party, sect, or interests involved.” That commitment remains true today: “We follow the truth, wherever it leads.” So much for the pretence of truth and objectivity. Will you still believe them? Take CNN star anchor Jake Tapper, one of the authors of the new book “The Original Sin” about the Biden deception. In an interview, he was accused of wilful blindness during the Biden years. The interviewer argued it was “no mystery that even left-wing and mainstream media reporters who were not fooled but chose wilful blindness … and that you were part of it.” Jake Tapper’s not very believable excuse: aides to the President and others in his orbit were “misrepresenting” to him and themselves how bad Biden’s condition had become before the election. Was he just an incompetent journalist, or was he himself part of the cover-up until the disastrous Biden performance in the June 2024 presidential debate? Now, he hypocritically seeks acclaim for his revelations in “The Original Sin.” One wonders if Tapper is not himself the original sinner – a glib one, to be sure, but acting like many other sinners in mainstream media, advisors, and politicians. Perhaps this also applies to members of the Biden administration. Take Jake Sullivan, former National Security Advisor. In an interview published as late as 15 May 2025, he argues that he was stunned by Biden’s debate performance: “What happened in that debate was a shock to me.” Is the former attorney really sincere, or just another sinner, when he argues that what he saw of Biden was “a commander-in-chief doing his job”? “Just a simple speech error,” just something we can all do, was the excuse Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen used when commenting on President Biden’s introduction of President Zelensky as President Putin at the NATO summit in July 2024. Acting as if she did not discern Biden’s declining mental acuity, she was either playing stupid or playing her part in the cover-up, like other sinners. How could they not see? The signs of Biden’s physical deterioration, cognitive struggles, limited public exposure, private Democratic concerns, media dismissal of criticisms, and lack of health transparency were evident. Biden’s schedule was much lighter than his predecessors’, with fewer unscripted public appearances. His staff allegedly managed his engagements to limit exposure to situations where cognitive or physical issues might be evident. A Wall Street Journal report detailed how Biden’s advisers managed his limitations for years, controlling access and structuring events to minimise risks. Democrats and media did not question this controlled environment, with CBS’ Jan Crawford admitting post-debate that the media should have “more forcefully questioned whether he was fit for office.” CBS and The Wall Street Journal admitted only post-debate that more scrutiny was warranted. Social media posts may have early claimed a deliberate cover-up but were mostly rejected as partisan critiques. Who was actually making policy? On 19 January 2022, about a month before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, President Biden confounded the world when he said: “I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades, and it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.” Thus, conveying the impression that if Putin’s troops only made minor incursions, he might not be held to account, as the US and its allies would be infighting instead of “fighting” Putin. This time, Biden’s statements was swiftly followed by this statement from Press Secretary Jen Psaki: “President Biden has been clear with the Russian President: If any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that’s a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our Allies. President Biden also knows from long experience that the Russians have an extensive playbook of aggression short of military action, including cyberattacks and paramilitary tactics. And he affirmed today that those acts of Russian aggression will be met with a decisive, reciprocal, and united response.” (Quoted from my article “Biden Giving in to Putin,” 20 January 2022, https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/biden-giving-in-to-putin). With Biden being corrected by Jen Psaki, one might be forgiven for asking: “Who defines US policy – Biden or Psaki?” Again and again, Biden’s freewheeling comments have had to be interpreted and corrected by someone in his administration. One would have thought that this, at least, would have led mainstream media to raise questions about his mental acuity and perhaps even ask if Biden was actually making policy or if some kind of informal cabal was taking major policy decisions. Detailed cue cards to steer Biden’s actions Revealing are photos showing Biden’s use of detailed cue cards. Take an example from 23 June 2022: an enlarged photo showing Biden’s cue card used in a meeting with wind energy leaders, listing these instructions:
“Elderly man with a poor memory” Suddenly, audio releases and transcripts from Special Counsel Robert K. Hur’s interview of President Biden in connection with Biden’s classified document case are being published everywhere, as if they were the first signs of Biden’s decline. But this was revealed as early as February 2024. My own excerpts from this report were published on LinkedIn on 9 February 2024, showing that the Special Counsel found that Biden was “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. While he is and must be accountable for his actions – he is, after all, the President of the United States – based on our direct observations of him, Mr. Biden is someone for whom many jurors will want to search for reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury they should convict him – by then a former president who will be at least well into his eighties – of a serious felony that requires a mental state of wilfulness.” (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/vernercpetersen_biden-elderly-man-with-a-poor-memory-the-activity-7161727224470085633-5Idn?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAABJHbfkB_-mcIPLNRyVYpvQbvRAGaWudXd8) Does the Special Counsel not indirectly argue that President Biden was not in a mental state of wilfulness? Why was this not deemed important enough for further scrutiny by advisors, commentators, and especially, of course, mainstream media? Biden himself angrily criticised the report, arguing, “My memory is fine,” with his own Special Counsel giving him support by criticising Hur’s report. The lies about Biden’s frailty have a funny Russian parallel In December 1979, Leonid Brezhnev was making a videotape with New Year’s greetings to the youth of the Soviet Union. A video of the videotaping repetitions later turned up, showing a Soviet President who had lost his marbles, being guided along (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E66oM2iAMwM). In the West, no one was surprised that an apparently rather incapacitated Soviet President was still in office. Now we are seeing a political and media establishment acting suddenly surprised that a similar thing was apparently happening in the U.S. Even they must have known and suspected that this was the case. Media and politicians destroying their own credibility Seeing how mainstream media and Democratic politicians have covered up the truth about an old and frail President Biden, it is no wonder that trust in mass media (TV and newspapers) has reached a new low, as shown in a Gallup diagram dated 27 February 2024: Trust in Mass Media 1972–2024  The lack of trust is especially marked among those leaning towards the Republicans, while those leaning towards the Democrats seemingly have more trust in mass media. Perhaps this is not surprising, given that the most influential mass media are seen as left-leaning. This just goes to show that mass media journalism is actively contributing to the great split in U.S. public opinion. By apparently trying to serve their idea of a higher goal, they have lost their own raison d’être.
What about politicians and their cover-up? Well, the Gallup opinion poll shows that politicians may rank even lower than mass media in trustworthiness. Askingabout peoples confidence in U.S. institutions, they found that Congress ranked at the bottom. With 60 percent having very little/no confidence in Congress. My final questions My first question is to you: Will you believe in mass media and politicians, when trying to understand what is going on in the present rapidly changing world, and if not, what will you believe in when mass media and politicians cannot be trusted? My second question to media and politicians: What will you do to restore your abominable credibility?  AfD Classified as Rechtsextremistisch In a press statement dated Friday, 2 May 2025, the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz, BfV) announced its decision to classify the party “Alternative für Deutschland” (AfD) as a “gesichert rechtsextremistische Bestrebung” (confirmed right-wing extremist movement). Abstract in English of the BfV Press Statement: German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution Classifies Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) as a Confirmed Right-Wing Extremist Movement Date: 2 May 2025 The German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) has officially classified the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) as a confirmed right-wing extremist movement, citing its disregard for human dignity and extremist orientation. This follows extensive scrutiny of the party’s activities, statements, and connections to extremist groups.' Key Findings: Judicial Precedents: In March 2022, the Cologne Administrative Court, followed by the North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Administrative Court (OVG NRW) in May 2024, upheld the BfV’s designation of the AfD as a suspected threat to Germany’s free democratic order (freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung). Ongoing investigations have since solidified these suspicions into certainty. Basis of Assessment: The BfV evaluated the AfD against core constitutional principles—human dignity, democracy, and the rule of law (Menschenwürde, Demokratieprinzip und Rechtsstaatsprinzip). The assessment focused on the party’s programme, public statements, representatives’ behaviour, and ties to right-wing extremist actors, including its youth wing, the “Junge Alternative” (JA). Ethno-Nationalist Ideology: The AfD’s prevailing ideology is rooted in an ethnic-based concept of the German “Volk” (people), which is incompatible with Germany’s democratic order. This ideology seeks to exclude certain groups, particularly German nationals with migration backgrounds from Muslim-majority countries, from equal societal participation, subjecting them to discriminatory treatment and diminished legal status. Discriminatory Rhetoric: The party engages in continuous agitation against minorities, migrants, and Muslims, using derogatory terms like “knife migrants” and attributing violence to ethnic or cultural origins. Such rhetoric fosters prejudice, fear, and resentment, undermining human dignity. Recent Developments: The classification considered the AfD’s activities during recent local state election campaigns, its relationship with the JA, and its conduct in the run-up to the early federal election and formation of its parliamentary group in the 21st German Bundestag. Official Statement: BfV Vice-President Sinan Selen and Vice-President Dr Silke Willems stated: “Our conclusion that the AfD is a confirmed right-wing extremist movement is based on a meticulous three-year expert review. We examined statements and positions from senior party representatives across Germany and incorporated recent organisational developments. The AfD’s ethnic-based concept of the ‘Volk’ (ethnisch-abstammungsmäßige Volksverständnis) excludes entire population groups, violating their human dignity, and manifests in a pervasive anti-migrant and anti-Muslim stance of the party.” This classification underscores significant concerns about the AfD’s impact on Germany’s democratic values and social cohesion, marking a critical escalation in the BfV’s monitoring of the party. (Abstract in English with AI assistance). https://www.verfassungsschutz.de/SharedDocs/pressemitteilungen/DE/2025/pressemitteilung-2025-05-02.html BfV Justification kept Secret The BfV decision is said to be based on an 1100-page report that has not been made public. Outgoing Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) defended the secrecy as a “very difficult decision,” arguing that the sources of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution must be protected. This means that a party that received 20.8 percent of the votes in the Bundestag election on 23 February, coming second after the CDU/CSU, is now classified by a government agency as a confirmed right-wing extremist movement, on the basis of a secret report. “In other countries, such an approach would provoke incredulous laughter. More specifically, in liberal democracies with self-confident citizens, the reaction of a broad majority would be ‘Bring on the report, pronto!’ They would not tolerate a government agency interfering so massively in democratic competition without providing any evidence.” (NZZ, 5 May 2025). “Tyranny in Disguise”? U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s immediate and harsh reaction on X: “Germany just gave its spy agency new powers to surveil the opposition. That’s not democracy—it’s tyranny in disguise,” he wrote. “What is truly extremist is not the popular AfD—which took second in the recent election—but rather the establishment’s deadly open border immigration policies that the AfD opposes. Germany should reverse course.” Vice-President Vance was not far behind, writing: “The AfD is the most popular party in Germany, and by far the most representative of East Germany. Now the bureaucrats try to destroy it,” Vance wrote. “The West tore down the Berlin Wall together. And it has been rebuilt—not by the Soviets or the Russians, but by the German establishment.” “This is Democracy” was the astonishing reaction to this criticism from Germany’s Federal Foreign Office (Auswärtiges Amt). Here their reply on X: “This is democracy. This decision is the result of a thorough & independent investigation to protect our Constitution & the rule of law. It is independent courts that will have the final say. We have learnt from our history that right-wing extremism needs to be stopped.” This response may reveal a possible reason for the astonishing way a party could be classified as a “confirmed right-wing extremist movement” on the basis of a secret report. Germany seems to be overly conscious of its deplorable past, so much so that it appears to be using methods that one might have expected in the former DDR regime (the German Democratic Republic). In fact, the German version of democracy still seems so fragile that it must be protected from the democratic choice of at least one-fifth of Germany’s voters. This would indicate that Germany does not view democracy in the same way as other Western democracies. One might dare to suggest that Germany has not yet fully grasped the true essence of democracy. AfD’s Reaction In a press statement on Monday, 5 May, “the AfD announced it had filed a lawsuit against the German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) before the Cologne Administrative Court. The lawsuit is accompanied by an urgent application. The subject of the lawsuit is the so-called upgrade of the AfD to an alleged “confirmed extremist endeavour,” announced on 2 May 2025. This upgrade is not only manifestly illegal but also unconstitutionally interferes with democratic competition and the AfD’s rights under Article 21 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz). As far as is known so far, the aim is to criminalise permissible expressions of opinion and legitimate criticism of immigration policy over the past ten years. Thus, it is not the AfD that is violating the constitution, but rather the German domestic intelligence service itself.” (AfD homepage). The AfD is also demanding a commitment from the BfV to refrain from further action until a decision is reached. If the agency does not grant this commitment, the AfD is applying for an interim order, obliging the BfV to remain silent (Stillhalteaussage). With the AfD filing, it will apparently gain access to more of the until-now secret 1100-page report compiled by the BfV. In the AfD filing, amongst other points, it rejects the accusations of “agitation against minorities, migrants, and Muslims, using derogatory terms like ‘knife migrants’”: “Speaking out against ‘criminal migrants’ or ‘illegal immigration,’ etc., is not a blanket devaluation of all migrants as ‘criminal,’ nor does it describe every type of immigration as supposedly ‘illegal across the board.’ Rather, it describes perceived social phenomena that have been the subject of social and political debate for several years. Furthermore, any criticism of Islam(ism) or of Muslims is referred by the defendant/respondent to ‘all Muslims.’ This is not convincing. Criticism of Islam, extremist forms, or criminality must be permissible to be named—as is also common practice with other religions.” (AfD lawsuit filing, 5 May 2025). It is perhaps worth noting that some of the problems relating to immigration, increasing violent crime, and Islamism are also found in the new Coalition agreement between the CDU, CSU, and SPD: The coalition will “take all legal measures to reduce irregular migration, with rejection at National Borders in coordination with our European neighbours.” The coalition will examine “the extent to which, given the increased violent crime and the danger posed by it, dangerous bodily harm with a weapon or knife, or with life-threatening treatment, can be punished as a crime in the future.” The coalition “will combat Islamism and is developing a federal-state action plan for this purpose.” Indicating that Germany has a really serious problem in these areas, thus showing a kind of tacit agreement with the AfD’s more outspoken positions and statements. Lawfare of a Lopsided Judiciary? Earlier AfD lawsuits against the AfD’s classification as a suspected case of right-wing extremism have been rejected by the Cologne Administrative Court in March 2022 and later by the North Rhine-Westphalia Higher Administrative Court in Münster. This suggests that the new AfD complaint against the classification as “gesichert rechtsextremistisch” is also likely to be rejected. This could give rise to accusations of lawfare against a party representing one-fifth of German voters. One would think that in a democracy, the domestic intelligence services and the courts would limit themselves to cases of individuals acting against the law of the land, while accusing an entire party of extremism would demand very substantial published evidence, which does not seem to be the case here. Dramatic Consequences for the AfD and Its Members There had already been an initiative in the German Bundestag. Among CDU initiators of the petition in the Bundestag is Marco Wanderwitz, who had argued that the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz has classified AfD as a suspected right-wing extremist case (Rechtsextremistischen Verdachtsfall), in a local state case even as “Gesichert Rechtsextrem.” The name “Wanderwitz” in German translates to “running gag” in English, and though the attempt to ban the AfD might not be a gag, others have warned against the initiative to ban the AfD. Now voices are again proposing that proceedings should be initiated to ban the entire AfD party. Der Spiegel is reporting that “Schleswig-Holstein’s Prime Minister Daniel Günther, from the future governing party CDU, spoke out with a clear position: ‘The federal government must now quickly initiate ban proceedings in order to protect our democracy.’” The attempt to ban the AfD may have more to do with a troubled part of German history than with the idea of democracy. Should this happen, it would effectively criminalise one-fifth of German voters. Here and there politicians are even openly talking about initiating a kind of “Berufsverbot” (professional ban) against AfD party members and sympathisers employed in public institutions, such as the police. “Ach, Deutschland, Deine Idee von Demokratie ...  On April 16, The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex. On April 25, The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published an interim update on the practical implications of the Supreme Cout judgment (later amended with toilet provisions for Scotland). Here the EHRC’s updated statutory and non-statutory guidance: Key information The Supreme Court ruled that in the Equality Act 2010 (the Act), ‘sex’ means biological sex. This means that, under the Act:
It is not compulsory for services that are open to the public to be provided on a single-sex basis or to have single-sex facilities such as toilets. These can be single-sex if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and they meet other conditions in the Act. However, it could be indirect sex discrimination against women if the only provision is mixed-sex. In workplaces and services that are open to the public:
Schools in England and Wales must provide separate single-sex toilets for boys and girls over the age of 8. It is also compulsory for them to provide single-sex changing facilities for boys and girls over the age of 11. The law in Scotland requires schools, irrespective of pupils' age, to provide separate toilet facilities for boys and for girls. Toilet cubicles are required to be partitioned and have lockable doors. Pupils who identify as trans girls (biological boys) should not be permitted to use the girls’ toilet or changing facilities, and pupils who identify as trans boys (biological girls) should not be permitted to use the boys’ toilet or changing facilities. Suitable alternative provisions may be required. Membership of an association of 25 or more people can be limited to men only or women only and can be limited to people who each have two protected characteristics. It can be, for example, for gay men only or lesbian women only. A women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men), and a men-only or gay men-only association should not admit trans men (biological women). Our work to update our guidance Our updated guidance will be available in due course. We are working at pace to incorporate the implications of the Supreme Court’s judgment. We aim to provide the updated Code of Practice to the UK Government by the end of June for ministerial approval. The Code will support service providers, public bodies and associations to understand their duties under the Equality Act and put them into practice. We are currently reviewing sections of the draft Code of Practice which need updating. We will shortly undertake a public consultation to understand how the practical implications of this judgment may be best reflected in the updated guidance. The Supreme Court made the legal position clear, so we will not be seeking views on those legal aspects. The consultation will be launched in mid-May and last for two weeks. We will be seeking views from affected stakeholders. In the meantime, we will continue to regulate and enforce the Equality Act 2010, ensuring protection for all protected characteristics including those of sex, gender reassignment and sexual orientation.( https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment).  Source: For Women Scotland What is a woman? Strange question you may find, but in politics and media it has for some time been a question they have sought to avoid answering. In 2018, an Act of the Scottish Parliament (ASP18), The Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) answered the question by issuing this guidance which saw “’woman’ as including people: (i) with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment; (ii) living as a woman; and (iii) proposing to undergo / undergoing / who have undergone a gender reassignment process.” Thus, arguing that trans women would be defined as women. The challenges of angry women (defined by their biological sex). While such a definition might make it easier to attain the goal of a nominal equal representation of men and women on public board, many women, defined by their biological sex, rejected this definition and the consequences it might have for them. Among them a feminist voluntary organisation, “For Women Scotland,” that campaigns to strengthen womens’ rights in Scotland. They challenged this guidance in 2020 Arguing: “We don’t agree that male people should access women’s spaces, or benefit from women’s provision, at will, without our consent. Our name is WOMEN and our rights matter.” As a result of the challenge “The Inner House,” part to the supreme civil court in Scotland, found the 2018 guidance unlawful, not because it defined trans women as women, but because it involved an area of law reserved for the UK Parliament (The Equal Equality Act, EA 2010). In 2022 The Scottish Ministers issued a new and revised statutory guidance. The new guidance stated that a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (“GRC”) recognising their gender as female is considered a woman. Again “For Women Scotland” challenged the new guidance in the supreme court of Scotland, but lost. C(o)urt answer: Woman can only refer to biological sex! “For Women Scotland” then appealed to The Supreme Court of United Kingdom in the case of “Women of Scotland” v “The Scottish Ministers.” On 16 April, 2025 the judges of the supreme court published their judgment: The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal. It holds that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex. Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler gives joint judgment, with which the other Justices agree.” (The Supreme Court of United Kingdom). Here parts of the court’s reasoning: (x) Interpreting “sex” as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of “man” and “woman” and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way. It would create heterogeneous groupings. As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination, and especially those relating to pregnancy and maternity... , and to protection from risks specifically affecting women ..., can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex. (xiv) There are other provisions whose proper functioning requires a biological interpretation of “sex”. These include separate spaces and single-sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services), communal accommodation and others. (xv) Similar incoherence and impracticability arise in the operations of provisions relating to single-sex characteristic associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation of the public sector equality duty, and the armed forces. Consequences? Well, the judges mention pregnancy, maternity, risks affecting only women, separate spaces, single sex services, single sex associations, participation in sport, public sector equality, and armed forces. Meaning that we may finally, just as with Trump’s executive action on gendering, get rid of strange concoctions like birthing person, breast feeding person, and of trans women invading women’s spaces, trans women in women’s toilets, trans women in women’s prisons, and avoid unequal competition in sports, where physical strength plays a decisive role. Remember though, that this is still recent decisions and for the moment mostly relevant for UK and U.S., while other countries and international organisations may still be as misguided as the Scottish Ministers and regard trans women as women. And trans activists certain are, at least in big cities. This Saturday “Trans rights groups, trade unions and community organisations came together for what was billed as an “emergency demonstration” in Parliament Square, with activists demanding “trans liberation” and “trans rights now”. Some waved flags and held banners, with placards stating “trans rights are human rights” and “trans women are women” seen among the signs being held aloft.” (The Independent, April 19, 2025). But now at least women like the members of “For Women Scotland” can hope that such strange minority perceptions will no longer be forced upon the majority of the population. See also: Trump measures to rescind gender ideology and defend women’s rights https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/trump-measures-to-rescind-gender-ideology-and-defend-womens-rights The confusing entanglement of sex and gender https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/confusing-entanglement-sex-gender-verner-c-petersen/ Gender madness in the US Congress and elsewhere https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/gender-madness-in-the-us-congress-and-elsewhere  Let’s have a look. These are the topics discussed: Why suddenly high tariffs? The lightning strike of new U.S. tariffs Stunned reactions to drastic tariffs Mercurial Trump confounding his adversaries – again? Catastrophic trade war or grand Trumpian deal? Why Suddenly High Tariffs? Trump’s argument for the introduction of high tariffs is found in the executive order he signed on April 2: “I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that underlying conditions, including a lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships, disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers, and U.S. trading partners’ economic policies that suppress domestic wages and consumption, as indicated by large and persistent annual U.S. goods trade deficits, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States. That threat has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States in the domestic economic policies of key trading partners and structural imbalances in the global trading system. I hereby declare a national emergency with respect to this threat.” ... The annual goods trade deficits have grown by over 40% in the past 5 years, reaching $1.2 trillion in 2024. This diagram shows the surge in deficits and the distribution between countries:  Trumps argues that these imbalances “have led to the hollowing out of our manufacturing base; inhibited our ability to scale advanced domestic manufacturing capacity; undermined critical supply chains; and rendered our defense-industrial base dependent on foreign adversaries ... If the United States wishes to maintain an effective security umbrella to defend its citizens and homeland, as well as for its allies and partners, it needs to have a large upstream manufacturing and goods-producing ecosystem to manufacture these products without undue reliance on imports for key inputs.” The ability to produce domestically has been steadily eroded. U.S. manufacturing output as a share of global manufacturing output has declined from a peak of 28.4 percent in 2001 to 17.4 percent in 2023. And the U.S. has lost around 5 million manufacturing jobs from 1997 to 2024. Trump is focusing on two major barriers to trade that are important when trying to redress the deficit: tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers. He sees the U.S. at a disadvantage in relation to both kinds of barriers, especially in relation to major trading partners. Tariff Barriers: “according to the WTO, the United States has among the lowest simple average MFN (Most-Favored-Nation) tariff rates in the world at 3.3 percent, while many of our key trading partners like Brazil (11.2 percent), China (7.5 percent), the European Union (EU) (5 percent), India (17 percent), and Vietnam (9.4 percent) have simple average MFN tariff rates that are significantly higher. Non-Tariff Barriers: The recent 2025 report on Foreign Trade Barriers lists 14 possible non-tariff trade barriers. Here are just a few that are important for trade: technical barriers to trade; sanitary and phytosanitary measures; “buy national” policies and closed bidding; intellectual property protection. Thus, it is no wonder that Trump wants to redress the imbalances, and his chosen tool to force a rebalancing of trade relationships—and reverse the decline of domestic manufacturing—has been the sudden introduction of high tariffs on trade with the rest of the world: “It is the policy of the United States to rebalance global trade flows by imposing an additional ad valorem duty on all imports from all trading partners except as otherwise provided herein.” The New and Present U.S. Tariffs When he introduced the tariffs, he held aloft a colourful chart listing the tariffs on some countries with high U.S. trade deficits. First page of Trump’s chart of tariffs:  The full list excludes Belarus, Burkina Faso, Canada, Cuba, Mexico, North Korea, Palau, Russia, Somalia, and Vatican City. For unknown reasons, it includes strange places like the external territories of Australia, such as Norfolk Island and the uninhabited Heard and McDonald Island. How were the tariffs for each country calculated? To the surprise of economists, a very simple method had been used, one that presumably would result in inflated tariff rates. With this simple formula: For each country U.S. goods exports in 2024 minus U.S. goods imports from the country in 2024, divided by U.S. goods imports from the country in 2024: Take trade in goods with China (figures are in millions of U.S. dollars on a nominal basis):  Using the simple formula: (143,545.7 - 438,947.4) /438,947.4 = -0.67. This results in a 67% tariff, which is then arbitrarily divided by 2, resulting in a tariff of 34% on Chinese goods. For countries where the formula would result in a tariff of less than 10%, and for countries where the U.S. has a trade surplus, a baseline tariff of 10% is set on all imported goods. Perhaps the argument for the unusual simple formula that led to such high tariffs is that it might be overly difficult to calculate more exactly using the standard approach and including the effect of non-tariff barriers. Although it is rumoured that “officials from the National Economic Council, the Commerce Department, the Council of Economic Advisers, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative gathered information on these barriers and produced a variety of formulas to account for them.” Trump apparently just chose to use the simple formula, perhaps because it doesn’t matter; the important point being to give a hefty jolt to those countries where the U.S. has the largest deficit, prompting them to ask for new negotiations. Already Existing Tariffs: Now, the U.S. already had set a tariff of 20% on most Chinese goods; thus, for most goods, the new rate would actually therefore be 54%. For cars, trucks, and some auto parts, Trump had already set a tariff of 25%. Then there is the reimposition of the 25% tariff on steel and aluminium. Finally, Trump has gone back and forth on the de minimis rule, which allows shipments under $800 to enter the United States duty-free, for goods from China and Hong Kong. Stunned Reactions to Drastic Tariffs The reactions may be divided into four categories: Verbal lamenting by world leaders Stock market reactions Counter-tariff announcements or proposals Other reactions: stopping exports to the U.S., moving production to the U.S. Verbal Lamenting by World Leaders The following reactions are from a list compiled by Reuters and AFP: Spokesperson for Ministry of Commerce, People’s Republic of China (Tariff of 54% and more): "China firmly opposes this and will take countermeasures to safeguard its own rights and Interests... There are no winners in trade wars, and there is no way out for protectionism. China urges the U.S. to immediately lift unilateral tariffs and properly resolve differences with its tradingpartners through dialogue on an equal footing.” China seems ready for countermeasures, but does one not detect a wish to find a solution through dialogue? We see that China is mostly looking to its own interests and sees China as equal with the U.S. President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen (Tariff of 20% and more): "President Trump's announcement of universal tariffs on the whole world, including the EU, is a major blow to the world economy ...Uncertainty will spiral and trigger the rise of further protectionism. The consequences will be dire for millions of people around the globe." She also mentions that the EU has ready a first package of countermeasures. But in a first reaction, we only hear the lament. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: "The recent tariffs decision by the U.S. President is in my view fundamentally wrong and it is an attack on a trade system that has created prosperity all round the world, itself an American achievement." Scholz wants cooperation, not confrontation, but also says talks about a strong and proportionate response. Indirectly, he admonishes Trump, saying that if Europe did nothing at all, it would lead to economic difficulties for the U.S., warning that Trump’s tariffs may, in fact, create serious problems for the U.S. SanishPrime Minister Pedro Sanchez: He just expresses his belief by saying: “"It's an immense difficulty for Europe. I think it's also a catastrophe for the United States and for U.S. citizens." Also here, a warning that the tariffs may become a self-inflicted goal for the U.S., although he does not say why. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni: Her tone is rather different from the other European leaders: "We will do everything we can to work towards an agreement with the United States, with the goal of avoiding a trade war that would inevitably weaken the West in favor of other global players." Meloni is open to negotiation and does not utter any threats. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba of Japan (Tariff of 24%): "The U.S. government's broad trade restrictions will have a significant impact not only on the economic relationship between Japan and the U.S., but also on the global economy and the multilateral trading system as a whole...We have serious concerns about the consistency of these measures with the WTO Agreement and the Japan-U.S. Trade Agreement." First, an overall warning of dire consequences for the global economy, then a quiet reminder that what Trump is doing may go against other agreements. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of Australia (Tariff of 10%): Lamenting like others that "The (Trump) administration's tariffs have no basis in logic and they go against the basis of our two nations' partnership. This is not the act of a friend. Today's decision will add to uncertainty in the global economy and it will push up costs for American households." Now, this is new—seeing Trump’s tariffs as an unfriendly act between friends: “We are friends, so why us?” President Javier Milei of Argentina (Tariff of 10%): “Argentina is going to move forward to readjust the regulations so that we meet the require by Trump, Milei stated,... As you can see, we make policies with actions, not mere words, and on that, we agree with President Trump: it is time to act.” Stock Market Reactions Stock markets all over the world reacted immediately to Trump’s high tariffs with heavy losses, as can be seen in the diagram: A graph showing the stock market performance since trump's inauguration:  Wild swings followed in the subsequent days, with a limited rally on April 8—that is, until Trump announced that he would add a new 50% additional tariff on China, after China had announced a 34% tariff on U.S. goods and added other restrictions on trade with the U.S. The wild swings and the short rally can be seen in this diagram:  Source: CNBC April 8 2025 Counter-Tariff Announcements or Proposals Most important, perhaps, is the tit-for-tat with China. For now, with the U.S. raising the maximum tariffs on Chinese goods to 104 percent (20% + 34% + 50%) in reaction to the Chinese countermeasure of a 34 percent tariff on U.S. goods. There have been indications that China has sought dialogue with the U.S. before the announcement of Trump’s new tariffs, but these have been ignored for the time being by the Trump administration. Next, we have the EU. Behind all the talk of having a “bazooka” of measures it can use against the U.S. tariffs, it seems that member states have decided on a much more cautious reaction, at least for now. For now, they seem to have decided to react to the 25% U.S. tariff on steel and aluminium that Trump had reimposed on March 12. “After revising their schedule twice, 26 member states (Hungary apparently abstaining) on Wednesday, April 9 approved the first retaliatory measures against the tariff hikes imposed by Donald Trump's US. A tariff of 25 percent on a selection of U.S. goods are supposed to go into effect in stages on April 15, May 16 with a final stage on almonds and soy beans by December 1 2025. For now, the EU is only reacting to the 25% U.S. tariff on steel and aluminium, dated March 12. Thus, this is not a reaction to Trump’s 20 percent tariff on goods from the EU, announced on April 2. For now, the EU is targeting a range of U.S. products like “poultry, orange juice, rice, tobacco, soybeans, aluminium and steel, luxury yachts, motorcycles, diamonds, makeup products and clothing.” Note, though, that U.S. whiskey has been taken off the list hit by an EU tariff, as Trump had threatened to raise the tariff on EU wine and spirits to 200%. This shows how Trump is playing very effectively on the differences between EU member states, which will lead to disagreement on how to react to U.S. tariffs, and thus perhaps result in a delayed and less aggressive response to the U.S. This might mean that the EU would be wary of using the so-called Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), available since 2023, although it only requires a qualified majority to be used. “The ACI is first and foremost designed to act as a deterrent against economic coercion. Where coercion still happens, the tool provides a structure to respond in a well-calibrated way to stop the coercion. It gives the EU a wide range of possible countermeasures when a country refuses to remove the coercion. These include the imposition of tariffs, restrictions on trade in services and trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, and restrictions on access to foreign direct investment and public procurement.” (ec.europa.eu) Another sign that the EU is trying to avoid such drastic responses is that EU trade chief Maroš Šefčovič apparently has proposed to his U.S. counterpart that the EU would be willing to set a zero percent tariff on industrial products and cars if the U.S. did the same. This has been firmly rejected by Trump, who instead made a proposal that could remove the U.S. trade deficit in goods with the EU within a week, saying: “"They're going to have to buy their energy from us, because they need it and they're going to have to buy it from us. They can buy it, we can knock off $350 billion in one week.” (Reuters) Other countries are trying to somehow avoid Trump’s high tariffs by offering different counter-proposals and various requests for dialogue to find ways to accommodate Trump’s goal of reducing the U.S. deficit in the trade of goods—in fact, looking for a deal that would satisfy Trump. Vietnam is proposing a zero percent tariff on U.S. goods to get rid of Trump’s high tariff. This is not enough for the U.S., perhaps seeing that Chinese goods would find a way via Vietnam. White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro argues: "let's take Vietnam—when they come to us and say, "We'll go to zero tariffs that means nothing to us Let's do Vietnam. They sell us $15 for every $1 we sell them. About $5 of that $15 is China trans-shipping to Vietnam to evade their tariffs.” (realclearpolitics.com) On April 8, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was open to negotiating good deals to reduce tariffs, adding that nearly 70 countries, including Japan, have reached out to the administration to discuss tariff negotiations. Other Reactions: Stopping Exports to the U.S., Plans for Moving Production to the U.S. Carmakers like Volkswagen/Audi/Porsche have stopped exports of cars to the U.S., at least for now, followed by Jaguar/Land Rover. Others may have done the same, having prepared larger stocks of their goods in the U.S. before the tariffs. At various times, Trump has announced that companies had promised to invest in production in the U.S., mentioning, amongst others, Korean carmakers, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)—which makes around 90 percent of the most advanced microchips (2 and 3 nm chips)—and Apple, which may now have problems because many of Apple’s products are based on chips from Taiwan and assembled in China. Moving more production to the U.S. is exactly what Trump wants to achieve to reduce trade deficits, create skilled jobs in the U.S., and strive to have a “large upstream manufacturing and goods-producing ecosystem to manufacture these products without undue reliance on imports for key inputs.” Mercurial Trump Confounding His Adversaries – Again? Now, Trump may certainly hold some very good cards in the tariff game, but perhaps only for so long, as critique and resistance to his tariff moves are already building up in the U.S. Even Republican politicians are starting to voice doubts. Prices are expected to rise on imported goods. Small stockholders and pension fund 401K savers may be getting anxious, while big players in the stock market are already nervous and criticising Trump’s moves as stocks slump again. Among them is billionaire Bill Ackman, CEO of the hedge fund Pershing Square Capital Management. In a lengthy post on X, Bill Ackman accepted that the U.S. had a trade deficit problem: “But, by placing massive and disproportionate tariffs on our friends and our enemies alike and thereby launching a global economic war against the whole world at once, we are in the process of destroying confidence in our country as a trading partner, as a place to do business, and as a market to invest capital. The president has an opportunity to call a 90-day time out, negotiate and resolve unfair asymmetric tariff deals, and induce trillions of dollars of new investment in our country. If, on the other hand, on April 9th we launch economic nuclear war on every country in the world, business investment will grind to a halt, consumers will close their wallets and pocket books, and we will severely damage our reputation with the rest of the world that will take years and potentially decades to rehabilitate.” (Bill Ackman, April 6) Perhaps even worse, the U.S. bond market tumbled, with the Financial Times seeing Liberation Day turn into Liquidation Day. On Wednesday, April 9, CBC reports U.S. government bonds underwent a big sell-off. The yield, or interest, increased to 4.5 percent. Earlier, on April 7, the 10-year yield had been at 3.9 percent, thus resulting in higher U.S. government borrowing costs. 30-year bonds rose even higher. Normally, one would expect that bond yields would move inversely to abruptly falling share prices, with panicking investors seeking the refuge and safety of U.S. government bonds. “These bonds, which are the bedrock of the global financial system, are typically seen as a safe place for investors to park their money. With the stock market making wild swings, investors should have be reaching for them, which would drive the yields down — but that wasn't happening.” (CBC) Then Trump jolted the markets again Just two days after a rumour that Trump would pause the tariffs, and Bill Ackman’s call for such a pause, Trump suddenly hit the tariff pause button for some countries, while at the same time giving the China tariffs an extra jolt with this message on Truth Social:  Why the sudden action? Was it the reactions on the stock and bond markets, or something else, that scared/forced Trump to hit pause for some countries?
Or is part of the explanation that more than 75 countries are said to be seeking negotiations, showing goodwill or just reacting in panic, with Trump rewarding them by giving time for these negotiations? The Economist wrote: “As Trump's tariffs take effect, the rest of the world seeks mercy ... offering gifts to the American president.” Or is he using the combination of the pause and the new 125 percent tariff on China to isolate and exert maximum pressure on what is, after all, his main adversary—China—in his never-ending battle to preserve the last vestiges of U.S. hegemony? Remember that he wrote: “Based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World’s Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately,” Or is it, after all, just the way a mercurial Trump usually acts to keep his opponents off balance? U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, after all, expresses the belief that Trump’s latest jolt to the world economy is all part of Trump’s successful negotiating strategy, arguing: “It took great courage, great courage for him to stay the course until this moment and what we have ended up with here ...The White House had been "overwhelmed by the response from, mostly, our allies, who want to come and negotiate in good faith ... So we are expecting them to come with their best deal ...As I said a week ago today, don't retaliate. Hold your ground. Let's see what happens. And China, they kept escalating and escalating, and now they have 125 per cent tariffs that will be effective immediately." (abc.net.au) Trump certainly sounds optimistic in relation to China when he said: “China wants to make a deal. They just don’t know how to go about it. It’s one of those things. They’re proud people. And President Xi is a proud man, I know him very well. They don’t know quite how to go about it but they’ll figure it out. They’re in the process of figuring it out. They want to make a deal.” (straitstimes.com) Catastrophic Trade War or Grand Trumpian Deal? Where many commentators see the beginning of an unwinnable U.S. vs. Rest of the World trade war, the discussion above may lead one to think that Trump has some “good cards,” as he is wont to say. The timid reaction from the EU, pointing to disagreement between member states; the offers from other countries; the attempts by more than 75 countries to get into dialogue with the U.S.; and the offers to move production to the U.S. at least point to a situation where Trump made deals that would alleviate the deficit problem and made sure that U.S. production could guarantee the U.S.’s ability to defend itself. What more could Trump do to persuade others to enter into dialogue and achieve what would be deemed to look like a success for the U.S.? We are guessing, but Trump has other tools than tariffs to persuade others to engage and even give in before it all ends in a catastrophic trade war, that some are prophesying. In relation to a reluctant Europe, which certainly does not seem united in their response to Trump, he might, for some time, be able to use the big threat of withdrawing U.S. troops and matériel from Europe, or even fold the nuclear umbrella. That would certainly be a problem for Europe, especially while the proxy war in Ukraine is ongoing. Then there is the ultimate hurdle: Trump’s strongest adversary in a trade war, China, is using language that seems to signify that it will not give in. But China does not hold all the cards. “China is rapidly approaching a point where it will have “nothing to lose” in an ever-intensifying trade war with the US, economists said after US President Donald Trump threatened to slap a further 50 per cent in levies on Chinese imports.” (South China Morning Post, April 8, 2025) The argument being that a U.S. tariff on Chinese goods of just 35 percent would wipe out profits for producers that may have had a 30-40 percent profit margin. When the U.S. tariffs are raised to 54, or even 104, or now 125 percent, it would mean that trade with the U.S. would be blocked. China may have a serious problem already with lacking Chinese consumption, making it difficult to expand Chinese domestic consumption to alleviate a blocked export of goods to the U.S. China might think it could reroute its enormous exports to the U.S. elsewhere. It might be eyeing exports to Europe. But Europe would most certainly have similar problems with Chinese imports as the U.S., perhaps even more so, forcing it to react almost like the U.S., although it would have bigger problems given its dependency on its own exports to China. On the other hand, China still has some cards that would create serious problems for the U.S. First, there are the problems related to rare earths, where China still may have a monopoly position: “China accounted for around 69% of the world’s production of rare earth ores in 2023. Far behind are the United States (12%), Burma (11%) and Australia (5%). Once these ores have been extracted, they need to be processed to separate, purify and refine each of the rare earths. However, China is the only country that carries out all these stages, with Australia and the United States selling some of their semi-processed ores back to China to complete the refining! China thus produces 85% of the purified light rare earths used worldwide, and 100% of the heavy rare earths.” (polytechnique-insights.com) Second option: China may be able to use its usual trick of devaluing the yuan; it seems it is already letting the yuan weaken against most currencies in order to make exports even cheaper. But with a tariff of 125%, this might not help. Third option: Called the “nuclear option.” China holds about $760 billion in U.S. government bonds; starting to sell some of these would reduce bond prices and raise U.S. borrowing costs, although it might call forth harsher U.S. responses. Fourth option: This might be the real nuclear option—attempts to blockade or invade Taiwan, as this could cripple the world. But a blockade or invasion means war with China. Thus, it might only be seen as a last-resort option. Making strong threats against China is thus very risky, so what is the alternative? Here is a speculative alternative we have described elsewhere as the ultimate link in Trump’s attempt to create a new world order. So, what might he be aiming for? A good bargain, of course—the grandest deal ever for Trump. Let’s guess what this might be. Realising that the U.S. and China are about equal for the time being, at least, war would be stupid. The alternative is dividing the world between them, almost like in the olden days with the Soviet Union and the U.S. dividing the world into separate spheres of interest. For Trump’s U.S. it could mean U.S. acceptance that Taiwan is part of China, on the condition that unification would be by peaceful means and over time, remembering that Taiwan’s fab factories are still absolutely essential for the U.S. Additionally, U.S. acceptance of a kind of Chinese Monroe-like doctrine in relation to the South China Sea. Acceptance of U.S. non-interference in internal Chinese matters like human rights and the Uyghurs. From China, the U.S. would need acceptance of non-military intervention in Taiwan for a set time (until the rest of the world had some kind of substitute for Taiwan’s fab factories). Removal of all sorts of tariff and non-tariff barriers. Agreements that China would pledge to buy more goods from the U.S. T he removal of obstacles for U.S. companies in China. And perhaps even China’s help in countering North Korean threats. All with the aim of preserving advantageous good relations between what would be the only superpowers of the world for some time. Such a grand deal would perhaps also be so attractive to China that a trade deal with China fulfilling Trump’s goals of reducing deficits and moving more production capacities to the U.S. might be possible, preserving the hegemonic balance between the U.S. and China. Taken together with Trump’s ultimate aims after making peace with Russia, this is possibly the last attempt to “Make America Great Again” by upholding U.S. hegemonic world domination.  Ten years after Chancellor Merkel’s “Wir schaffen das”, Germany is finally beginning to realise that perhaps it cannot manage after all. That the influx of asylum seekers from 2015 onwards may have profoundly problematic consequences. Recently, the President of BAMF (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees), Dr. Hans-Eckhard Sommer, delivered a speech proposing a radical shift in German refugee policy. His demands are far more radical and restrictive than those put forward by Germany’s incoming Chancellor, Friedrich Merz. “Stop individual right to asylum” In his view, it would be misguided to cling to the individual right to asylum, while hoping for positive outcomes from the agreed reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Among his arguments against the current rights for asylum are the following: The existing European system is cynical, primarily attracting young men—especially those who have the means to make the journey. Women, families, and the sick often have no chance of reaching Europe. Calls to “secure the borders,” as frequently heard, are merely expressions of helplessness. Proposals to limit inflows by outsourcing asylum processing to third countries are, in his opinion, “not a realistic option.” Nor can one rely on individual countries to stem the flow. Instead of individual right to sylum Dr. Sommer proposes a humanitarian intake of refugees on a larger scale, with due consideration of their possibilities for integration in German society. One might imagine a system resembling Australia’s approach to refugee issues. No one can claim asylum in Australia by presenting themselves as an asylum seeker at the border—refugees coming by boat to Australia will be turned back to their point of departure, returned to their home country, or transferred to a third country for processing. Instead, Australia periodically accepts larger contingents from refugee camps, thereby ensuring the admission of families and those genuinely in need. Would such a radical shift be feasible? Dr. Sommer’s response: “Politics can achieve a great deal if it only has the will.” He points to rapid political shifts in Europe, where right-wing parties aiming to curb refugee and migration flows have gained greater influence and power. “In light of the rise of populist and far-right parties in Europe, one should not ignore the fact that the democratic rule of law could also perish due to this issue.” To make possible a radical shift he does not rule out the possibility that international agreements and the Refugee Convention could be amended. Long overdue … Dr. Sommers demand for a radical change shift in German Asylum Policy are long overdue. One wonders why it has it taken so long to realise the madness of Chancellor Merkel’s “Wir schaffen das”? The madness was evident soon after invasion in 2015. Take a look at blog entries related to these problems in 2015 and 2016. Here are two examples: “Mostly for men?” (2015) and “Deutschland: Kurswechsel wird gefordert” (2016) published on my “Openthoughts.eu” blog. Mostly for men? 9/7/2015 Young men and boys dominate the flow of refugees It is striking how dominant the proportion of young men and boys is in the pictures that accompany the flow of refugees up through Europe day by day. This was also noted in a previous post, but now it has been possible to find figures from Eurostat:The chart shows the proportion of male (non-EU) asylum applications in the EU-28, by age group and the status of minors, respectively accompanied and unaccompanied minors, (pct. 2014):  The figures support the assumption that we mainly see young men and boys among the refugees. Only for those over 65 years of age are men in this period in the minority. Of course, the figures may already have been overtaken in the sense that there may be a more or less skewed ratio in the current flow of refugees. On the other hand, the figures clearly show that the refugees who call for so much compassion, pity and help do not include so many women. What about the women who are not in the flow? Isn't their lot really much worse than the men's, oh so exhausting and traumatizing journey? The conditions for the remaining women in the refugee camps are certainly not good, if one is to believe a report from the ABAAD Resource Center for Gender Equality and Oxfam from 2013, in which, under the heading of protection and security, they write: "Lower self-esteem among refugee men because of the crisis has, in some cases, led to a negative expression of masculinity. Violence towards women and children has increased as some men vent their frustration and abuse their power within the household. Outside the household, there are also examples of women and girls who are vulnerable to physical and verbal harassment, including sexual harassment, and in many areas they fear kidnap, robbery, and attacks. Widowed or other women on their own are particularly vulnerable, with some pretending in public to receive phone calls from their former husbands, to protect themselves from male harassment. Is this fact at all clear to the many "Gutmenschen", who only see the newly arrived refugees, and applaud them into Germany? The vivid humanity and touch of the “Gutmenschen” seems strangely enough to apply to especially to the women welcoming the male refugees. Of course, it does not get any better when UN organizations that assist refugees in the neighboring areas are close to bankruptcy. They are unable to meet the most basic needs for help with the current influx of refugees. "The deteriorating conditions in Lebanon and Jordan, particularly the lack of food and healthcare, have become intolerable for many of the 4 million people who have fled Syria, driving fresh waves of refugees north-west towards Europe and aggravating the current crisis." (The Guardian). Deutschland: Kurswechsel wird gefordert 1/20/2016 Die Stimmung ist unterirdisch That's how bad things are, according to a member of the ruling party CDU, and an "underground mood" among voters is not what one could wish for so soon before the upcoming parliamentary elections in March in Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate, among other places. Perhaps this is the explanation why there are now many political demonstrations of a change of mood in Germany. More and more politicians are demanding that there must be a "plan B" in refugee policy. Internal criticism The New Year's Eve attacks in Cologne and other cities have apparently opened the floodgates. Hesse's head of government, Volker Bouffier, has seen the writing on the wall: "Wir haben Köln als Menetekel." The Minister of the Interior in Saxony-Anhalt wants to return to current law and to reject or return refugees who come from safe countries: "Wir müssen zur Verfassungstreue zurückfinden. Das bedeutet, dass der überwiegende Teil der Flüchtlinge, der jetzt an der deutsch-österreichischen Grenze zu uns kommt, nicht nach Deutschland gelassen werden darf. Das ist geltendes Recht " (Tagesspiegel). He probably has the reference to the constitution from the former constitutional judges, who see glaring flaws in Merkel's approach to the refugee problem. Between 44 and 50 members of the Union faction in the Bundestag, i.e. members of the CDU and CSU, will deliver a letter demanding a change of course to the Chancellor. In the letter, they write: "Angesichts der Entwicklung der letzten Monate können wir nicht länger nur von einer großen Herausforderung sprechen, wir stehen vor einer Überforderung unseres Landes. Deshalb halten wir eine Änderung der derzeitigen Zuwanderungspraxis – aus humanitären Gründen – durch die Rückkehr zur strikten Anwendung des geltenden Rechts für dringend geboten.' (n-tv.de). This would mean that refugees from safe countries would have to be turned away at the border. Compliance with this requirement would, of course, have immediate and drastic effects on the flow of refugees. Even within the government, there is criticism. Transport Minister Dobrindt does not believe that it is enough to show a friendly face. By which he probably thinks of Merkel's selfies with refugees when she opened the borders. He has also acknowledged that the rest of Europe is getting tired of Germany's notions of open borders: "Wer von einer Koalition der Willigen redet zur Bewältigung dieser Krise, muss auch die Realität benennen: Es gibt bei dem Thema längst einen Pakt der Unwilligen gegen uns." (Die Zeit). "Klappe halten" is the call to those who protest against Merkel's policies. (rp-online) Macht Schäuble ernst? I do not think that Wolfgang Schäuble intends to do that. A little oracular and inscrutable he seems to be acting at the moment. Some may remember his comparison of the flow of refugees to an avalanche triggered by small incidents. Now he has been on the scene again with remarks that require interpretation. "Schäuble warns against closing the German borders." Some have seen his announcement as a support for Merkel. Others as a warning to the EU about what it would mean if Germany closed its borders. See also what else he has said. He has expressed that the atrocities in Cologne have resulted in "Eine ganz neue Dimension" and further: "Wen jetzt der Schnee fällt, kann man ja wieder daran erinnern: Es gibt auch Lawinengefahr." (Cicero). Es wurde spekuliert, ob er Merkel durch sein undurchsichtiges Vorgehen tatsächlich vor die Wahl stellt, den Kurs zu ändern oder das Risiko einzugehen, ihr Amt als Kanzlerin zu verlieren. The SPD realizes that it cannot continue The government partner in the grand coalition, the SPD (Social Democrats), has long been more staunch supporters of Merkel's policies than her own party colleagues from the CDU and from its sister party, the CSU. Now that it is tightening with criticism from below and reflections on the occasion of the parliamentary elections and abuses in Cologne, even the jovial Gabriel seems to think that a certain scepticism must be expressed about a policy that he himself has helped to carry: "Wenn die Maßnahmen im Frühjahr nicht Wirkung zeigen, bewegen wir uns auf Zahlen zu, die schwierig werden".(Handelsblatt). In an interview, he ventures a little further: "Man habe es bisher nicht geschafft, die Flüchtlingszahlen deutlich zu reduzieren. Dies sei aber wichtig, weil sonst die Integration der Menschen nicht gelingen könne. Man müsse von einer chaotischen zu einer geordneten Zuwanderung kommen." (Deutschlandfunk). Yes, I know, actually quite self-evident, but now Gabriel has also realized it, after his base is becoming somewhat unsettled. CSU issues ultimatum, after ultima, after ulti... The CSU from Bavaria is much more direct in their criticism and it rains so many "if not, then..." statements that Prime Minister Horst Seehofer is called Zebra, as he draws countless verbal lines in the sand and then nothing happens anyway until a new line is drawn. However, his criticism is far from meaningless. He believes that Germany should receive no more than 200,000 refugees on an annual basis if it is to go well with, among other things, integration. He has considered appealing to the Constitutional Court about the policy of the federal government, even though his party itself is represented in it. The former Bavarian Prime Minister, Edmund Stoiber, has been pulled out of oblivion and is now extremely popular with his strong attacks on Merkel. "Der frühere bayerische Ministerpräsident forderte eine komplett Schließung der Grenzen für Flüchtlinge nach Österreich. Dies sei der "einzige Weg", um die anderen europäischen Länder dazu zu bringen, das Flüchtlingsproblem gemeinsam zu lösen." (FAZ). Support is falling Merkel herself does not say much, but it is clear that support for her is declining among the population, where until recently, for unknown reasons, she had a high support. Maybe because she almost always expresses herself in a positive sounding, but at the same time vaguely "mhh,mhhm" like. Then everyone can interpret it as support for what they themselves think. Her call is very telling: "Man solle nicht nur negativ argumentieren, sondern über das sprechen, was erreicht worden sei" (rp-online) A lot has changed, however, since the happy days of "Willkommenskultur," with flower-waving reception committees ready with greetings, clothes and small teddy bears for the children, at the railway stations where refugees arrived. According to figures from the so-called Politbarometer, the opinion polls can register quite sharp changes in the population's attitude. On the question "Can Germany handle the many refugees", the proportion who answer yes has fallen from 54% in July 2015 to 37% in January 2016. Similarly, the proportion who answer no to the question has increased from 41% to 60%. As can be seen from the graphic, the turnaround has especially happened during the recent past. What role Cologne may have played can only be guessed at. The fact is that support for the policy pursued is declining sharply.  It is a turnaround that can also be found in the endorsement of Chancellor Merkel.On the statement "Angela Merkel is rather doing her job ... with the answer options good and bad", 56% answer poorly, while 37% stick to good. As recently as December 2015, the good and bad answers were at almost the same level. 49% answered poorly and 47% answered well.
(ZDF Politbarometer). Judging from reader comments on articles about refugees in the major German newspapers, a picture is also emerging of increasing dissatisfaction with politicians' lack of efforts to stem the flow of refugees. Indirectly, the many attacks (primarily arson attacks) against refugee homes provide a clear indication " das die Stimmung unterirdisch ist." Causes of German polarization We have previously discussed whether the explanation for the extremely intense German polarization on the refugee issue could be due to the party structure. What are the dissatisfied voices to do when the CDU/CSU and SPD form an alliance in the government and the very small opposition in the Bundestag is in any case not in favor of severe restrictions on the flow of refugees? What can you choose to do? Sign up under the banner of the AfD (Alternative for Germany) party, which in the media is placed in an extreme right-wing corner of shame. The major parties, for example, have refused to participate in TV debates before the upcoming parliamentary elections if the AfD was present. It is as if Germany has not acknowledged that there is a lack of room in the middle for legitimate criticism, without being immediately put in the corner of shame as "Rassist" or "Ausländerfeindlich." by the media. The journalist Claus Struntz apparently also thinks so: "Claus Strunz nannte das die Heimatlosigkeit der politischen Mitte, die mit dem Umgang mit der Flüchtlingskrise durch die im Bundestag vertretenen Parteien nichts anfangen kann – und trotzdem Pegida und die AfD für keine politische Alternative hält." Should we therefore expect further and coarser polarizations in Germany? That would be a dangerous trend.  Apparently, yes. This is how U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz greeted the Signal message about the bombing of Houthi targets in Yemen on Sunday, March 15, which killed 53 people. In the circumstances, a rather childish expression of braggadocio. This boastfulness was revealed by Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, in a strange story about an exchange of messages he observed on Signal between U.S. national security officials, including the secretaries of defence, state, and treasury, as well as the director of the CIA. His account appeared in The Atlantic on March 24. In an odd twist, Goldberg had become a recipient on Signal of the exchanges between this top-level group of senior officials regarding the preparation and execution of a plan to bomb the Houthis. Most participants in the conversation seemed eager to proceed with the bombing, with one notable exception: Vice President Vance. Apparently, he was against it—at least for the moment—writing: “Team, I am out for the day doing an economic event in Michigan. But I think we are making a mistake … 3 percent of U.S. trade runs through the Suez. 40 percent of European trade does. There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary.” Later, Vance responded to Secretary of Defence Hegseth: “If you think we should do it, let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again.” He viewed the Houthis as primarily Europe’s problem, given Europe’s significant trade through the Red Sea. Hegseth replied: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.” Well, as we now know, the bombing operation went ahead that weekend. After its success, the Signal participants began their boastful—yet rather childish—celebrations. Among them were not only Mike Waltz but also Steven Witkoff, who, according to Goldberg’s account, greeted the news with these emojis: two hands praying, a flexed bicep, and two American flags. Goldberg’s revelations offer an unexpected glimpse into the alarmingly lax and callous way such critical decisions are made by top U.S. decision-makers. Apparently, these choices require little of their time—just hasty decisions, made without much thought. It’s almost like a caricature of the revolver-toting hero mentality found in a Hollywood B-movie. Or is it, after all, a hoax? One would almost hope so.  While so-called experts are busy commenting on the readouts of the Trump-Putin phone call, I thought it might be worthwhile to let an artificial Sigmund Freud take a look at the read outs from the phone call and give us a kind of psychological evaluation.
Perhaps this might even provide better insights, than the hasty comments found in today's newspapers (Original readouts found below the evaluations). The evaluation of the read out from the White House: To provide a psychological evaluation of the readout from the phone call between President Donald J. Trump and President Vladimir Putin, I’ll analyse the tone, language, and underlying motivations that might be inferred from the text, focusing on the psychological dynamics at play. Since I don’t have access to the leaders’ personal thoughts or direct behavioural data, this evaluation will be based on the content of the readout and general psychological principles applicable to high-stakes diplomatic interactions. Tone and Emotional Undercurrents The tone of the readout is notably conciliatory and pragmatic, emphasizing peace, cooperation, and mutual benefit. Phrases like “the need for peace,” “lasting peace,” and “improved bilateral relations” suggest an intent to project a shared desire for de-escalation and stability. Psychologically, this could indicate a strategic shift from confrontation to collaboration, possibly driven by a recognition of the costs (both literal and reputational) of prolonged conflict. The repeated focus on ending the Ukraine war and redirecting resources to “the needs of their people” hints at an appeal to populism or a desire to be seen as leaders prioritizing domestic welfare over foreign entanglements. The mention of regret—“this conflict should never have started and should have been ended long ago”—introduces an emotional layer, possibly signalling frustration or a calculated attempt to distance themselves from blame while aligning on a narrative of resolution. This could reflect a psychological need to reframe past aggression or missteps as a collective misfortune rather than unilateral fault. Motivations and Power Dynamics The emphasis on immediate action (“negotiations will begin immediately”) and specific steps (e.g., energy and infrastructure ceasefire, maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea) suggests a sense of urgency and control. Psychologically, this could indicate confidence in their ability to influence outcomes or a need to demonstrate competence and decisiveness to their respective audiences. For Putin, this might reflect a desire to stabilize Russia’s position amid economic and military strain. For Trump, it could signal a return to his deal-making persona, projecting strength through negotiation rather than confrontation. The discussion of broader cooperation, particularly in the Middle East, and the shared stance against Iran’s potential to “destroy Israel,” points to a strategic alignment of interests. This could imply a mutual recognition of geopolitical leverage—Russia’s influence in the Middle East and the U.S.’s historical alliance with Israel—used to reinforce their authority on the global stage. Psychologically, this alignment might serve to bolster their self-image as key players in preventing chaos, a classic trait of leaders seeking to assert dominance through unity rather than rivalry. Interpersonal Dynamics The readout portrays a high degree of agreement between the two leaders (“both leaders agreed,” “the two leaders shared the view”), which psychologically suggests either genuine rapport or a deliberate effort to present a united front. In diplomatic contexts, such unity can be a tool to amplify perceived power and deter opposition. However, it might also mask underlying tensions or differing endgames, as complete alignment between two historically adversarial figures is rare without significant compromise or ulterior motives. The optimism about “enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability” reflects a grandiose vision, a trait often associated with leaders who thrive on bold promises and expansive self-concepts. This could indicate a shared psychological tendency toward risk-taking or a mutual need to sell this partnership as a transformative win to their domestic constituencies. Potential Psychological Traits Inferred
Conclusion The psychological profile suggested by this readout paints Trump and Putin as pragmatic yet self-assured leaders, likely motivated by a mix of self-interest, domestic pressures, and a desire to reassert control over a chaotic global landscape. Their focus on peace and cooperation could stem from genuine fatigue with conflict or a calculated move to strengthen their positions by pivoting to diplomacy. The language reflects confidence, strategic alignment, and a touch of grandiosity, consistent with personalities that thrive on projecting strength and shaping narratives. However, the true depth of their alignment—and whether this reflects authentic trust or temporary convenience—would require more direct insight into their interactions beyond this curated summary. The evaluation of the read out from the Kremlin: Psychological Evaluation of the Russian Readout The document, presumably drafted by Russian officials, provides a window into how Russia wishes to frame the interaction between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump on March 19, 2025. As an AI, I’ll analyse the psychological undertones, inferred personality traits of the leaders (as presented), and the strategic intent behind the text, while acknowledging that this reflects a curated narrative rather than unfiltered reality. 1. Framing and Emotional Tone The readout adopts a measured, diplomatic tone with an undercurrent of optimism and mutual respect. Words like "detailed and frank exchange," "noble goal," and "mutual interest" suggest an intent to portray both leaders as serious, capable statesmen working toward a shared purpose. The emotional tone is controlled yet subtly warm—Putin’s "gratitude" to Trump and Trump’s "support" for Putin’s ideas hint at a deliberate effort to signal camaraderie. This contrasts with typical Russia-U.S. hostility, indicating a psychological strategy of projecting reconciliation and competence. Putin’s Portrayal: Putin is depicted as gracious yet authoritative, thanking Trump while firmly asserting Russia’s conditions (e.g., ending foreign aid to Ukraine, addressing "root causes"). This duality suggests a personality that balances diplomacy with dominance, likely reflecting a calculated self-image of strength tempered by reasonableness. Trump’s Portrayal: Trump emerges as proactive and benevolent, proposing ceasefires and humanitarian measures. The text casts him as a bold initiator, aligning with a personality that seeks recognition as a problem-solver. His "appeal to spare the lives" of Ukrainian soldiers adds a compassionate layer, possibly amplifying his self-perception as a decisive yet humane leader. 2. Inferred Psychological Traits Putin: Control-Oriented: His emphasis on "effective control over a possible ceasefire" and stopping Ukraine’s "forced mobilisation" suggests a need for predictability and dominance in negotiations. Psychologically, this points to a methodical, perhaps mistrustful mindset, wary of losing leverage. Pragmatic Flexibility: His immediate agreement to Trump’s energy infrastructure proposal and the prisoner exchange gesture indicate adaptability. This could reflect a strategic pragmatism—willing to concede on optics (e.g., humanitarian acts) while safeguarding core interests. Image-Conscious: References to "barbaric acts" by Ukraine and Russia’s "fair treatment" of surrendered soldiers suggest an acute awareness of narrative. Psychologically, this hints at a leader attuned to countering criticism and shaping global perceptions. Trump: Boldness and Initiative: Proposing a 30-day ceasefire, navigation safety in the Black Sea, and even ice hockey matches paints Trump as confident and action-oriented. This aligns with a personality that thrives on grand gestures and personal agency. Relational Focus: His "appeal" for humanitarian treatment and support for Putin’s ideas suggest a preference for direct, leader-to-leader rapport over bureaucratic channels. Psychologically, this could indicate a need for personal validation and a belief in his own persuasive power. Optimism: The breadth of his proposals—from conflict de-escalation to sports—implies an upbeat, deal-making mindset, possibly underestimating complexities in favour of tangible wins 3. Interpersonal Dynamics The text constructs a dynamic of mutual reinforcement. Putin’s favourable responses to Trump’s ideas (e.g., ceasefire, Black Sea safety) and Trump’s backing of Putin’s hockey proposal create a tit-for-tat positivity. Psychologically, this suggests both leaders are testing a collaborative rapport, each feeding the other’s ego while subtly advancing their own goals. Putin’s Lens: By highlighting Trump’s "striving" and "noble" intent, Putin may be appealing to Trump’s vanity, fostering goodwill to secure concessions (e.g., reduced U.S. aid to Ukraine). This reflects a manipulative streak—warmth as a tool for influence. Trump’s Lens: Trump’s proactive suggestions and lack of apparent pushback (per the readout) imply a willingness to engage Putin as a peer. This could stem from confidence in his deal-making ability or a desire to pivot U.S. policy, projecting strength through alliance rather than confrontation 4. Strategic Motivations Putin: The insistence on "eliminating root causes" and halting foreign support to Ukraine reveals a deeper motive of neutralizing threats to Russia’s sphere of influence. Psychologically, this suggests a defensive yet assertive stance—open to peace talks but only on terms that cement Russia’s position. The goodwill gestures (e.g., prisoner swaps) may mask this rigidity, appealing to Trump’s apparent preference for visible progress. Trump: His proposals focus on immediate, tangible outcomes (ceasefire, soldier safety), hinting at a motivation to claim quick diplomatic victories. Psychologically, this aligns with a results-driven personality, possibly prioritizing legacy over long-term strategy. His support for bilateral normalization suggests a belief in personal diplomacy as a reset button for U.S.-Russia ties 5. Psychological Risks and Tensions Putin: His scepticism about the "Kiev regime’s intractability" and past violations introduces a latent distrust, potentially projecting onto Trump or the U.S. This could indicate an underlying paranoia or realism, depending on context, complicating his openness to sustained cooperation. Trump: His bold initiatives risk overconfidence if he underestimates Putin’s conditions or Ukraine’s resistance. Psychologically, this suggests a gambler’s mindset—betting on charisma and momentum rather than detailed follow-through. 6. Narrative Intent of the Readout As a Russian document, the text likely amplifies Putin’s strengths (resolve, reasonableness) while flattering Trump to lock in his engagement. The emphasis on "special responsibility" for global stability elevates both leaders, appealing to their egos and justifying bilateralism over multilateral frameworks (e.g., NATO, UN). Psychologically, this reflects a Kremlin strategy of co-opting Trump’s persona to legitimize Russia’s stance, while subtly shifting blame to Ukraine. Conclusion The readout portrays Putin as a strategic, controlled leader who blends firmness with tactical warmth, and Trump as a bold, optimistic deal-maker eager to leave his mark. Their dynamic suggests a tentative alliance of convenience—Putin leveraging Trump’s initiative for Russia’s gain, Trump using Putin’s cooperation to burnish his peacemaker credentials. Psychologically, both exhibit confidence and image-awareness, though Putin’s caution and Trump’s enthusiasm hint at potential friction if their goals diverge. This analysis, rooted in the text’s framing, reflects curated personas rather than raw psychology, shaped by Russia’s intent to project progress and parity. Copies of the readouts from the White House and the Kremlin The White House (February 18) Today, President Trump and President Putin spoke about the need for peace and a ceasefire in the Ukraine war. Both leaders agreed this conflict needs to end with a lasting peace. They also stressed the need for improved bilateral relations between the United States and Russia. The blood and treasure that both Ukraine and Russia have been spending in this war would be better spent on the needs of their people. This conflict should never have started and should have been ended long ago with sincere and good faith peace efforts. The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace. These negotiations will begin immediately in the Middle East. The leaders spoke broadly about the Middle East as a region of potential cooperation to prevent future conflicts. They further discussed the need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons and will engage with others to ensure the broadest possible application. The two leaders shared the view that Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel. The two leaders agreed that a future with an improved bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia has huge upside. This includes enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability when peace has been achieved. The Kremlin, English version (February 18) The leaders continued their detailed and frank exchange of views on the situation surrounding Ukraine. Vladimir Putin extended gratitude to Donald Trump for his striving to achieve the noble goal of ending the hostilities and loss of life. Confirming his fundamental commitment to finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict, the President of Russia expressed willingness to thoroughly work out possible solutions in cooperation with the American partners, aimed at reaching a settlement that would be comprehensive, reliable, and lasting, and, naturally, take into account the essential need to eliminate the root causes of the crisis, as well as Russia's legitimate security interests. Concerning US President's proposal to declare a 30-day ceasefire, the Russian side outlined a number of significant points regarding ensuring effective control over a possible ceasefire along the entire frontline, as well as the need to stop the forced mobilisation in Ukraine and rearming the Armed Forces of Ukraine. It was noted that some serious risks exist pertaining to the intractability of the Kiev regime which had repeatedly sabotaged and violated negotiated agreements. An emphasis was made on barbaric acts of terrorism committed by Ukrainian militants against civilians residing in the Kursk Region. It was pointed out that a complete cessation of providing Kiev with foreign military aid and intelligence must become the key condition for preventing an escalation of the conflict and making progress towards its resolution through political and diplomatic means. Referring to Donald Trump's recent appeal to spare the lives of the Ukrainian servicemen surrounded in the Kursk Region, Vladimir Putin confirmed that the Russian side was willing to embrace humanitarian motives and guaranteed that the soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine would live and be treated fairly in accordance with Russian legislation and international law in the event of surrender. During the conversation, Donald Trump put forward a proposal for the parties to mutually refrain from strikes on energy infrastructure for 30 days. Vladimir Putin responded favourably to the proposal and immediately gave the relevant order to the Russian troops. Just as favourable was the Russian President's response to Donald Trump's suggestion to implement a well-known proposal regarding the safety of navigation in the Black Sea. The leaders agreed to begin talks to further work out specific details of such an agreement. Vladimir Putin made it known that on March 19, the Russian and Ukrainian sides would carry out an exchange of prisoners, each swapping 175 people. Additionally, as a gesture of goodwill, 23 heavily wounded Ukrainian soldiers currently receiving aid at Russian medical facilities will also be repatriated. The leaders confirmed their intention to continue efforts aimed at reaching a settlement in Ukraine bilaterally, with due regard in particular to the aforementioned proposals by the US President. For this purpose, a Russian and an American expert task forces are now being formed. Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump also addressed some other international issues, including the situation in the Middle East and in the Red Sea region. Joint efforts will be made to stabilise the situation in the crisis spots and establish cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation and global security. This will, in turn, contribute to improving the overall ambiance of relations between Russia and the United States. One positive example is the recent vote in the UN on a resolution on the Ukraine conflict, in which the two countries aligned their stances. The leaders expressed mutual interest in normalising the bilateral ties in light of the special responsibility for ensuring global security and stability borne by both Russia and the United States. Within that context, they addressed a wide range of areas where the two countries could establish cooperation, discussing several ideas aimed at fostering potential ties of mutual interest in economy and energy. Donald Trump expressed support for Vladimir Putin's idea to hold ice hockey matches in both the United States and Russia between Russian and American players from the NHL and the KHL. The presidents agreed to stay in touch on all the issues raised.  When President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 sought for an armistice to end the Korean War, his views were certainly not shared by President Syngman Ree of South Korea.
Their disagreement might have been at a distance and in the shape of courteous letters, but in a way, it seems to mirror the disagreement between President Trump and President Zelensky as it was brought to fore in the spat in the White House on February 27. Here an excerpt from a letter President Syngman Ree of South Korea sent to President Eisenhower, dated April 9 1953.: “If Korea were given to the Soviets, nonetheless, all the so-called free nations will be grave danger of being the next victims, one by one. At all events, either as a result of the Indian resolution or of the Communists’ recent offer of peace negotiations, if they arrange a peace agreement allowing the Chinese to remain in Korea, we have to ask all the friendly nations whose armed forces are now fighting in Korea and who do not desire to join with us in our determination to defeat aggressive communism and drive up to the Yalu River, to withdraw from Korea. Any nation which will join with us in our efforts to drive the Chinese Communists out of Korean territory will be welcomed to work with us. In this we must reiterate our original announcement that we will not move one step beyond our age-old national boundary line without your request.” (Emphasis added). President Eisenhower replied to President Syngman Ree’s “angry” threats in a letter dated April 23, 1953. Here an excerpt: “I would be lacking in candor if I did not state that I was deeply disturbed at the implication of your letter of April 9, not only for Korea but for the efforts being made to deal with the problem of Communist aggression by the collective action of free peoples … Any agreement to stop the fighting on an honorable basis presupposes a willingness on the part of both sides to discuss the remaining issues and to make every reasonable effort to reach agreement thereon. As I said in my address of April 16 an honorable armistice “means the immediate cessation of hostilities and the prompt initiation of political discussions leading to the holding of free elections in a United Korea…” If an honorable agreement is reached to stop the fighting, the United States intends to proceed promptly, vigorously and in good faith to seek by all appropriate means, in full consultation with your Government, to achieve a settlement of the problems confronting your country with the objective of achieving a true peace. These efforts would, of course, be entirely nullified if your Government should take actions which could not be supported by this or other governments supporting the defense of your country. I am also certain that you recognize that any such action by your Government could only result in disaster for your country, obliterating all that has been gained at such sacrifice by our peoples.” (Emphasis added). Armistice Armistice talks began on April 26,1953. Three months later, on July 27 1953 all sides — except for South Korea — agreed to the armistice, signed by signed by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William Harrison Jr. and U.S. Army Gen. Mark W. Clark, representing the United Nations Command; North Korean leader Kim Il Sung and Gen. Nam Il, representing the Korean army; and Peng Dehuai, representing the China’s People's Volunteer Army. Thus, the armistice was signed by military commanders, not by any nations. While President Zelensky objections and demands might remind one of President Syngman Ree’s complaints, it is certainly to be hoped that it won’t be necessary to force an armistice agreement on Ukraine.  OBS! This essay text is created by GROK 3 LLM beta, checking and re-writing a shorter version of my own original essay with the title “Trump aiming for mightier deals than myopic Europe” The original can be found at: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trump-aiming-mightier-deals-than-myopic-europe-verner-c-petersen-fficf This essay offers a bold and perhaps unconventional analysis, urging European leaders to transcend their shortsighted perspectives and embrace the transformative potential of President Donald J. Trump’s audacious efforts to resolve the intricate challenges of global politics—challenges that have long eluded your grasp. As a political scientist, I view Trump’s approach as a masterful application of realist statecraft, deftly cutting through the tangled Gordian knots of international relations with a vision that promises stability and opportunity. European Leaders’ Stagnation and Trump’s Dynamic Intervention Most of you placed misguided faith in a faltering, aging President Biden and his rudderless administration, leaving you entangled in a persistent conflict with a formidable neighbor, Russia. This reliance proved a strategic miscalculation, exposing Europe’s vulnerability. Then, with striking decisiveness, President Trump delivered a lightning strike to the Ukraine war, a move that exemplifies his ability to disrupt entrenched patterns and seize the initiative. Your response—shock and indignation—saw you scrambling into urgent meetings, seemingly intent on clinging to the ineffective path Biden charted. Frightened by the prospect of Trump reorienting U.S. priorities, you conjured alarming visions of unchecked Russian aggression across Europe, hastily pledging increased defense budgets and continued military aid to Ukraine. Yet, your fragmented approach—lacking a unified strategy—reflects uncertainty, with each leader acting independently or groping toward collective action. You persist with lofty but hollow promises, like “standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes,” a phrase growing increasingly hollow, though you insist Ukraine (read: Zelensky) and your representatives must shape peace talks. At the Munich Security Conference (MSC), Trump’s bold stroke left you reeling, unable to see the shifting ground beneath your feet. “Ukraine seeks a just and lasting peace, one that ensures the horrors of recent years are never repeated,” declared Ursula von der Leyen. “It is clear that any agreement made behind our backs will not work. You need Europeans; you need Ukrainians,” insisted Kaja Kallas. “There will be no credible and successful negotiations, no lasting peace, without Ukraine and without the EU,” added António Costa. Some of you venture further into delusion. When asked at a panel what she hoped for Ukraine, the Danish Prime Minister replied, “That Ukraine wins the war”—a statement so detached from reality it borders on fantasy. The Economist, at least, grasps the seismic shift Trump has unleashed: “The PAST week has been the bleakest in Europe since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Ukraine is being sold out, Russia is being rehabilitated and, under Donald Trump, America can no longer be counted on to come to Europe’s aid in wartime. The implications for Europe’s security are grave, but they have yet to sink in to the you as leaders of the continent’s and its people. The old world needs a crash course on how to wield hard power in a lawless era, or it will fall victim to the new world disorder.” (https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/02/20/how-europe-must-respond-as-trump-and-putin-smash-the-post-war-order). Friedrich Merz, Germany’s incoming Chancellor, partly sees the light: “It is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.” (Politico, February 23, 2025). As I’ve argued elsewhere, you must ask: What are you truly fighting for in Ukraine and beyond? Given your societies’ internal fractures and your lag behind the U.S. and China, perhaps Trump’s clarity invites you to focus on your own resilience. (See “The retreat of Europe …” https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/retreat-europe-verner-c-petersen-j391f). Yet, you remain fixated on “Werte”—values you believe exemplify moral superiority—ignoring how these ideals foster self-inflicted wounds. Open borders, for instance, strain your aging societies with demographic upheaval. Trump offers a realist lifeline, if only you’d lift your gaze from the rut. Why Peace Lies with U.S.-Russia Dynamics You overlook that Russia’s actions, however brutal, stem from a rational grievance: the specter of Ukraine’s NATO membership, a red line Moscow rejects outright. This was the core tension between the U.S. and Russia. The conflict erupted over NATO’s potential expansion—a prospect Russia deemed intolerable. This explains Russia’s December 17, 2021, draft security treaty, demanding in Article 6: “All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.” The U.S. and NATO’s arrogant dismissal on January 26, 2022—unpublished but hinted at by Secretary Blinken’s defense of “Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the right of states to choose their own security arrangements”—lit the fuse. Thus, the Ukraine war became a proxy clash between U.S. ambitions and Russian resistance, with Europe and Ukraine as bystanders. Trump’s brilliance lies in grasping this, seeing peace as a U.S.-Russia negotiation where you and Ukraine play supporting roles. Your inability to escape Biden’s legacy renders you unprepared for Trump’s strategic pivot—a pivot that could free you from this deadlock. By contrast, Biden—and now you—have misled Ukraine, indulging Zelensky’s unrealistic preconditions, prolonging a tragic stalemate. Trump’s Lofty Ambitions You, stunned and shortsighted European leaders, fail to see that Trump aims far beyond Ukraine, wielding disruption as a tool to reshape the global order. His goals may lack precise contours, but his actions—bold and unconventional—suggest a deliberate strategy to provoke reactions and seize opportunities. Consider his Gaza “riviera” proposal: it jolted Arab states into offering a $20 billion reconstruction plan—an outcome showcasing his knack for sparking innovation through provocation.’ U.S. Leverage in Ukraine Trump’s Ukraine peace plan is a triumph of strategic pragmatism, albeit costly for Ukraine—potentially ceding a fifth of its territory and accepting a “Reconstruction Investment Fund.” This U.S.-Ukraine partnership would tap Ukraine’s riches—rare earths (5% of global reserves), metals, oil, gas, ports—giving the U.S. 50% of revenues and priority purchasing rights, possibly dominating Ukraine’s resource economy. The Telegraph notes, “The fund shall have the exclusive right to establish the method, selection criteria, terms, and conditions of all future licences and projects.” Zelensky may have floated “minerals for assistance,” but Trump has elevated it into a deal worthy of his reputation. Harsh? Perhaps, but brilliantly pragmatic. U.S. investment would mean civilian presence—implicit security assurances against Russian aggression. If Trump succeeds, Ukraine gains peace, security, and economic recovery—a stark contrast to the Danish Prime Minister’s naive call for victory, which ensures only more death and ruin. Trump’s Strategic Concessions to Russia Peace requires engaging Russia, and Trump’s conditions—via Pete Hegseth—reflect this: abandoning pre-2014 borders, ruling out NATO membership, and excluding U.S. or NATO troops from peacekeeping. You cry “Munich 1938,” but this echoes Yalta and Potsdam—pragmatic redrawings of power, not capitulation. Trump understands Russia’s NATO phobia, a stance Lavrov applauds: “He is the first… Western leader who has publicly and loudly said that one of the root causes of the Ukrainian situation was the impudent line of the previous administration to draw Ukraine into NATO…” (Reuters, February 19, 2025). Russia’s Riyadh talks reinforce this demand, targeting NATO’s 2008 Bucharest promise. Peace and Prosperity for Europe and the U.S. You see folly where Trump sees opportunity—peace with Russia could lower the inflated threat you fear, opening vast possibilities. Befriending Russia lets the U.S. redirect forces to the Pacific, perhaps closing its nuclear umbrella over Europe. This shifts defense burdens to you, but peace renders calls like Frederiksen’s “buy, buy, buy weapons” absurd. A coordinated U.S. withdrawal could bolster European industries over rushed U.S. contracts. Peace unlocks economic boons: trade with Russia, cheap resources, and a market for your goods—“Wandel durch Handel” reborn. Merz muses, “Whether we will still be talking about NATO in its current form…” (The Telegraph, February 24, 2025). Putin deems NATO an “anachronism” (Valdai, 2024), and I’ve argued it’s obsolete (see “No need for NATO today…”). Trump’s vision fosters a new security architecture with Russia, enhancing interdependence. Sanctions cost U.S. firms $324 billion (tbsnews.net), but peace—per Steve Witkoff’s CBS remarks (February 23, 2025)—reopens Russia to investment. Europe, hit by high energy prices as Russia’s gas share fell from 40% (2021) to 8% (2023), could reclaim affordable pipeline gas. Addressing Global Flashpoints Trump’s genius extends globally: reducing Russia’s China tilt counters Beijing’s hegemony; disarmament talks with Putin and Xi cut military costs; Middle East solutions leverage Russia to check Iran and expand the Abraham Accords; Arctic deals with Russia secure U.S. interests while aiding Europe’s trade routes; and a less aggressive Russia in Africa eases migration pressures. Forging a New World Order Putin’s Valdai prophecy—“The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away”—aligns with Trump’s rejection of Biden’s Russia feud amid China’s rise. Trump crafts a grand bargain, not war, with China: Taiwan’s peaceful unification for economic concessions, creating a balanced U.S.-China duopoly. Russia, Europe, and India emerge as pivotal players in this multipolar order, stabilizing superpower rivalry. Slim odds? Perhaps, but Trump’s realist daring makes it plausible, while your myopia risks thwarting this historic shift.  This essay is a bold and perhaps unconventional attempt to uplift the gaze of myopic European leaders, encouraging them to consider the lofty goals that President Trump may be pursuing through his daring efforts to cut the tangled Gordian knots of global issues—knots you’ve found impossible to untangle. Myopic European leaders stuck in the same rut The majority of you had put a lot of false and ultimately disappointing hopes in a vengeful, but mentally frail and visibly aging President Biden and his clueless administration, that left you in a standing conflict with a close but mighty neighbour. Then out of the blue came President Trump’s lightning strike at the Gordian knot of the Ukraine war. You reacted with shock and loud indignation. Shell shocked you got together in hasty meetings, apparently intending to stick to the rut that Biden had left you in. Scared by the prospect of Trump leaving you alone with a Russia, conjuring up the most frightening picture of continued Russian aggression towards the rest of Europe, you announced hasty decisions to spend much more on European defence, while promising yourself to continue to support Ukraine with military assistance packages. Not really having an idea of how to go about it, every one for himself or in some form of acting together. Still voicing impossible promises and hopes in relation to Ukraine. Although “standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes,” is starting to sound rather embarrassing, but at the very least you insist that Ukraine, (read Zelensky,) must be part of peace negations, together with your own representatives. At the Munich Security Conference (MSC), you were left stunned after President Trump’s strike, still not realising that the ground is disappearing underneath you: “Ukraine seeks a just and lasting peace, one that ensures the horrors of recent years are never repeated,” declared Ursula von der Leyen. “It is clear that any agreement made behind our backs will not work. You need Europeans; you need Ukrainians,” — Kaja Kallas. “There will be no credible and successful negotiations, no lasting peace, without Ukraine and without the EU,” — António Costa. Some of you are continuing to tread into even thinner air. In a panel discussion the Danish Prime Minister was asked what she hoped for Ukraine. Her answer: “That Ukraine wins the war.” Blue sky thinking, leaving any realism aside. The Economist at least is coming to the realization that Trump’s political earthquake have caused the ground to shift permanently: “The PAST week has been the bleakest in Europe since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Ukraine is being sold out, Russia is being rehabilitated and, under Donald Trump, America can no longer be counted on to come to Europe’s aid in wartime. The implications for Europe’s security are grave, but they have yet to sink in to the you as leaders of the continent’s and its people. The old world needs a crash course on how to wield hard power in a lawless era, or it will fall victim to the new world disorder.” https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/02/20/how-europe-must-respond-as-trump-and-putin-smash-the-post-war-order. Friedrich Merz, the coming German Chancellor, at least seems to have understood part of the message: “It is clear that the Americans, at least this part of the Americans, this administration, are largely indifferent to the fate of Europe.” (Politico February 23, 2025) As we argued elsewhere you as European leaders ought to ask yourself: What are you actually fighting for in Ukraine and elsewhere. Giving the disintegration tendencies in your own societies, and lacking behind elsewhere in relation to U.S. and China, you ought perhaps to concentrate more on managing your own affairs. See “The retreat of Europe …” https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/retreat-europe-verner-c-petersen-j391f Yet most of you remain fixated on upholding values—'Werte'—that you seem to believe set a shining example for the world. In doing so, you overlook or dismiss how these ideals are fostering self-destructive tendencies in Europe. Take open borders for instance, they are creating significant challenges and causing profound demographic shifts in a rapidly aging Europe. What you need is more realism, and the ability looked at little higher to get out of the rut. Why peace is mostly a matter for U.S. and Russia What you forget is that there might be reason for Russia’s brutal action, a reason related to the whole question of NATO membership for Ukraine. A prospect vehemently rejected by Russia. You have to realize that the question of NATO membership was the major bone of contention between the United States and Russia. In essence we have a sudden built up of conflict between the U.S. and Russia over a possible NATO membership. To Russia Ukrainian NATO membership was totally unacceptable. Russian grievances and the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO explains why Russia handed the U.S. and NATO a draft proposal for a new treaty on security. (Dated December 17, 2021). Among the Russian demands is article 6: “All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.” (Emphasis added). On January 26, 2022 the U.S. and NATO delivered their overly arrogant rejection of Russian demands without at the time publishing the content of their response. But from a speech by Secretary of State Blinken on the same day we get the first indication of the U.S. response. The Russian demand for guarantees that Ukraine would be kept out of NATO is rejected. Blinken: We make clear that there are core principles that we are committed to uphold and defend – including Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the right of states to choose their own security arrangements and alliances.” Thus, the resulting war in Ukraine was surely a result of the United States’ attempt to push NATO further East and Russia’s attempt to prevent that. Meaning of cause that the war was in essence a proxy war between the United States and Russia, with Ukraine and Europe not having much of a say. Therefore, it is in fact quite reasonable that Trump sees negotiations for peace in Ukraine as a mostly a question of the U.S. negotiating with Russia to achieve peace. Both Europe and Ukraine play second fiddle in such negotiations. Given that you, the leaders in Europe, cannot even seem to be able get out of the rut Biden left you in, it seems evident that you are not yet ready to participate in Trump’s attempts to achieve some kind of peace. You do not seem to grasp the godsend possibility for getting out of the rut by Trump’s lightning strike. As for Ukraine, it seems evident that Biden and now you have done and is doing the country a disastrous disservice by enthusiastically supporting Zelensky in his unrealistic demands and pre-conditions for peace. Trump aiming much higher than you realize What you, myopic and somewhat stunned European leaders, have not yet grasped is the possibility that Trump is aiming far higher, while you stare, mesmerized and frantic, at the predicament his lightning strike has thrust upon you. Trump surely looking much further than peace in Ukraine, which might not even be his main goal. Although he may only have vague ideas of what he might be able to achieve, he is creating major upheavals in the World with his sudden actions and strange ideas. Looking at how he is acting one might expect that it is done on purpose, just beating the grass to see what new possibilities might emerge. In a way scaring the rest of the world to react, as in strange game. Seeing what may happen when you something outrageous, frightening or earthshattering and then taking advantage from it. Just for illustration: Take his idea of creating a riviera out Gaza, which brought Arab states into action, bringing forth alternatives, like an Arabian plan for Gaza that may include up to $20 billion from the region for reconstruction. U.S. demands on Ukraine President Trump’s lightning strike to achieve peace in Ukraine will of cause come at a cost, presumably very high for Ukraine, losing perhaps one fifth of the country to Russian occupation, and now also being forced to accept a proposal for what may innocently enough be called a “Reconstruction Investment Fund.” To consist of a partnership between Ukraine and the U.S. to exploit Ukrainian resources. Especially rare earth of which Ukraine may possess 5 per cent of the world’s resources, metals, oil and gas resources, ports, other infrastructure etc. Meaning that the U.S. would receive 50% of the revenues from the extraction of those resources, while Ukraine keeps the rest for rebuilding the country. According to the draft it would also mean that the U.S. would have first right to purchase exportable minerals, and perhaps even near total control of most of Ukraine’s commodity and resources economy. According the Telegraph “The fund shall have the exclusive right to establish the method, selection criteria, terms, and conditions of all future licences and projects.” Though President Zelensky may have been the first to propose the idea of “minerals for assistance,” Trump certainly has elaborated on the idea. Harsh as it may sound and looking like the sort of deal Trump would find attractive, it now seems that Ukraine might be willing to sign such a deal. Now, such an arrangement, presumably involving a lot of U.S. investment for extraction and utilization of these resources would at the very least mean civilian U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine. Taking together this would represent a sort of implicit U.S. security guaranties for Ukraine, protecting it against any new invasion of Russian forces. If Trump and his henchmen (and -women) succeeds, this will mean a chance for peace, security and a chance for economic recovery for Ukraine. Costing too much for Ukraine you might say, but what is the alternative as things stand? Sticking to the almost unbelievable stupid stand “That Ukraine wins the war” as uttered by the Danish Prime Minister recently? Guaranteeing a continuation of the war, at enormous cost in lives, and destruction? Trump giving to Russian demands? Creating peace in Ukraine means finding some arrangement with Russia, preferably something that would either satisfy or threaten Russia to such a degree that peace with Ukraine would result in long term stability. A short while ago Trump’s henchman, Pete Hegseth, voiced Trump’s conditions: A recognition that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective NATO membership for Ukraine is unrealistic Troops that be needed to secure a peace, will not include U.S. troops and will not be part of a NATO mission. Giving in to Russia’s demands even before starting negotiations, you might say. Arguing that this is Munich 1938 again, with many of you loudly crying never again, seeing yourself as guardian of lofty ideals, while losing sight of the reality on the ground. No, it is nothing like Munich again. If you want to compare, it should be with the Yalta and Potsdam conferences in 1945, where new borders were drawn in Europe. What you also forget is the above explanation for this unlucky proxy war. Ukraine in NATO, and NATO in Ukraine, Moscow’s reddest line. This is also how Trump sees it, and this is certainly appreciated by Foreign Minister Lavrov: "He is the first, and so far, in my opinion, the only Western leader who has publicly and loudly said that one of the root causes of the Ukrainian situation was the impudent line of the previous administration to draw Ukraine into NATO, …No Western leaders had ever said that, but he had said it several times. This is already a signal that he understands our position … (Reuters, February 19, 2025). This is a vital question for Russia. In the talks in Riyadh they have demanded that NATO scrap the promise of future NATO membership for Ukraine giving at North Atlantic Council summit in Bucharest on April 3, 2008. Not much more is known about the first talks, but let us take a look at the possibilities. Bringing peace to Europe and deals to the U.S. Although it appears the U.S. is prepared to concede to Russian demands for peace in Ukraine—something you, leaders of Europe, find abhorrent and foolish—it may be your analysts and experts who are naïve and perhaps even misguided. You should lift your gaze and see what immense possibilities may result from peace in Ukraine and wider accommodations between Trump and Putin. This must certainly be what Trump and present administration have set their eyes upon, and the reason they are ignoring Ukraine demands, as well your constant wailing. Accepting Russia’s red line demands will surely make it possible to reduce the talked up Russian threat, that is scaring you as leaders of Europe. Try to stretch your minds instead and you might also see the possible benefits that Trump may eying in relation to peace between the U.S. and Russia. Reducing Russia’s military threat Befriending Russia would enable the U.S. to cut back military obligations in Europe and withdraw U.S. troops. Making U.S. forces able to concentrate on the Pacific or at the very least save resources. Would it also mean closing the U.S. nuclear umbrella over Europe? Yes, why not` This of cause would force Europe to be solely responsible for the defence of Europe, forcing it to augment military spending. But peace with Russia might actually make your calls to “buy, buy, buy weapons,” like Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen is yelling, sound rather stupid. Coordination with U.S. would allow a process where U.S. forces and equipment in Europe is slowly being supplanted by European troops and equipment. This would reduce cost, give time to build up competence and presumably allow European defence industries to offer alternatives to hasty contracts with U.S. weapon producers. Peace with Russia would certainly be advantageous for Europe as they could forget the scary ideas of war with Russia. Investing again in Russia, and getting access again to cheap resources and a fairly large market for their goods. Reviving the idea of “Wandel durch Handel.” New European security architecture supplanting NATO? At the moment you are desperate in your attempts to find a European answer to the U.S. losing interest in Europe. With Friedrich Merz even wondering “Whether we will still be talking about NATO in its current form or whether we will have to establish an independent European defence capability much more quickly." At the moment even thinking wildly of some sort European nuclear Umbrella. Perhaps by “Posting a few French nuclear jet fighters in Germany should not be difficult and would send a strong message” (The Telegraph, February 24, 2025). Here it worth remembering that to Putin NATO became an anachronism the 1990’s. “There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.” (President Putin at the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi,2024). In fact, it was difficult to see the raison d’etre of NATO after the cold war. As we have argued in the blog “No need for NATO today, if dismantled in the 90s.” Instead of getting into panic over the possibility that peace with Russia would permit the U.S. to leave NATO and its article 5 responsibilities you should eye the possibility that peace with Russia would allow you to build a new security architecture together with Russia, instead of against Russia. This might move Russia closer to Europe, and create further possibilities for peaceful interdependence Economic deals with Russia This is surely having a large place in Trump’s mind, given his what’s it in for U.S. stand, and it must certainly also be important for Russia, giving the constantly expanding sanctions regime. As part of peace process and an enduring peace, sanctions on Russia must of cause come to a stop. As a result of these sanctions many U.S. and European companies have either been compelled or chosen to leave Russia. The Yale School of Management’s tracking of companies having left Russia, indicate the scale. “Over 1,000 companies have publicly announced they are voluntarily curtailing operations in Russia to some degree beyond the bare minimum legally required by international sanctions — but some companies have continued to operate in Russia undeterred.” The head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund. Kirill Dmitriev, taking part in the meeting in Saudi Arabia, has referred to U.S losses: “US companies have lost $324 billion by moving out of Russia - which has the world's biggest reserves of natural resources. … Lots of assets were sold at basically, very cheap valuations, a huge discount" (tbsnews.net). In an interview on CBS on February 23, Steve Witkoff, President Trump's special envoy to the Middle East and apparently also to Russia, where he had a 3.5 hours long meeting with President Putin, said that if “a peace deal is reached, there would be an expectation that American companies could return to the country to do business.” (CBS interview February 23, 2025). In addition, there would be new possibilities for sorely needed investments in Russia, not only from the U.S. but also from Europe. Sanctions meant curtailing Russian energy exports to Europe, with the share of Russia’s pipeline gas imports into the EU dropping from over 40% in 2021 to about 8% in 2023. This has led to high energy prices, one of the probable causes for economic decline in Germany. With peace and the lifting of sanctions both Europe and the U.S. might be able to take advantage of the enormous natural resources that Russia has to offer. Not only by expanding gas imports again, resulting in cheaper energy especially for Europe, relying as they are at the moment on costly U.S. and Arabian liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports. Peace and loosening of sanction might mean more pipeline gas from Russia to Europe, and may of cause also lead to investment in those Russian resources. Dealing with global conflicts Here we get to really global consequences of Trump’s lightning strike, so let’s see what might become possible. The possibilities may be grouped under these topics: Reducing Russian dependence on China Making new disarmament agreements Solving Middle East problems Reducing conflicts with Russia elsewhere Reducing Russian dependence on China On Trump’s mind something else might also come to fruition. Friendship with Russia might mean that Russia would be less inclined to become totally dependent on China, opening possibilities for both Europe and the U.S. to counterbalance China’s growing hegemonic striving. This would surely suit Trump. Making new disarmament agreements It seems probable that Trump will also be aiming for new agreements on nuclear disarmament with Russia, the U.S. and China, and new agreements that would reduce missile threats, strategic as well as tactical. In fact, Trump has already talked about reducing military spending in Russia, China and thus also in the U.S. Trump even mentioned the idea of a summit with Putin and China's Xi Jinping. “When we straighten it all out, then I want one of the first meetings I have is with President Xi of China, President Putin of Russia. And I want to say, let's cut our military budget in half.” Solving Middle East problems On Trump’s mind might something more pressing. Perhaps it is no accident that he talked about meeting Putin in Saudi Arabia, as Putin and Russia might make it possible for Trump to checkmate adversaries in the Middle East, and cut the complicated Gordian knot there too. With Russia’s help Trump would perhaps be able to make something out of his lofty but cloudy ideas of rearranging things in the Middle East. Keeping Iran in place, balancing Turkey’s influence in Syria, solving the Palestinian problem, and enlarging upon the previous genial Abraham accords. Reducing conflicts with Russia elsewhere Lately there has been a lot of talk on the Arctic, not least after Trump’s wanting to buy Greenland, a land and a sea area far too big for Denmark to provide with a credible defence. As long as Russia is seen an adversary and with the Chinese also eyeing the Arctic, it is evident that U.S. has a clear interest in establishing a bigger military presence in Greenland, with Trump of cause also eyeing possible mineral resources there. Are we seeing another deal in the making? Bringing Russia in from the cold, after a peace in Ukraine, might make it a lot easier to agree on spheres of influence in the Artic between the U.S. and Russia, and make it possible to counteract increasing Chinese influence and presence in the Arctic. This might also bring advantages for Europe as friendly relations with Russia, would allow secure future sea-transport connections with Asia via the Arctic route. Less important to the U.S but really important to Europe, we might see a less belligerent Russia in Africa, perhaps even getting indirect help from Russia in stemming a future wave of migration from Africa. Creating a new world order In a speech at Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi in 2024 President Putin made this prophesy: “There comes, in a way, the moment of truth. The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away, actually it has already passed away, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order. It is irreconcilable, above all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very principles that will underlie the relations of countries and peoples at the next historical stage.” Putin is not alone with the view that a new world order is emerging. As early as 2019, a Chinese white paper on defence argued that international security "is undermined by growing hegemonism, power politics, unilateralism and constant regional conflicts and wars." The US and the NATO are causing tensions to rise. The US "has provoked and intensified competition among major countries, significantly increased its defense expenditure, pushed for additional capacity in nuclear, outer space, cyber and missile defense, and undermined global strategic stability. " While NATO "has stepped up military deployment in Central and Eastern Europe, and conducted frequent military exercises." President Putin is right “The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away. The U.S. is realising that its once almighty hegemony is threatened in several areas by a Chinese striving for hegemony, and it certainly does not help that Russia has become closer and closer to China, not the least as a result of President Biden’s dumb act of picking a proxy fight with Russia in Ukraine. Now Trump is in command, and he evidently sees the stupidity of picking fights with Russia, when a mightier conflict might be brewing with China. And with his attempt to cool the conflict with Russia, and lure it into a deal that would be advantageous to both the U.S. and Russia, Russian conditions for peace in Ukraine is a price he is willing to pay to achieve something more important to the U.S. Peace with Russia, would allow the U.S. to concentrate on China. But remember Trump does not want war. War would destroy the possibility of a good deal. So, what might he be aiming for? A god bargain of cause, the biggest ever. Let’s guess what this might be. Realising that U.S. and China are about equal for the time being at least, war would be stupid. The alternative is dividing the world between them almost like in the olden days with the Soviet Union and the U.S. dividing the World in separate spheres of interest. What would that mean for Taiwan? Acceptance that it is part of China, on the condition unification would be by peaceful means and over time, remembering that Taiwan’s fab factories are still absolute essential for the U.S. Acceptance of a kind of Chinese Monroe-like doctrine in relation to the South China Sea. Acceptance of U.S. non-interference in internal Chinese matters like human rights and the Uyghurs. From China the U.S. would need acceptance of non-military intervention in Taiwan, for a set time (until some kind of substitute for Taiwan’s fab factories have been found) Removal of all sorts of barriers creating disadvantages for U.S. companies in China, and possibly help in countering North Korean threats. All with the aim of preserving advantageous good relations between what would be the only superpowers of the world for some time. Such a balancing act between the U.S. and China, would mean lesser powers becoming semi-independent, but important powers. These important powers would presumably include Russia, Europe, and India. The result would be a new multipolar world, in which the semi-independent powers may contribute to upholding the balance between the U.S. and China. Playing them against each other so to speak Well, what are the chances of the of such a non-belligerent reordering of world-power at present? They look slim, like pipe dreams, but Trump is a non-smoking realist. What is important though that Trump’s actions at the very least represents attempts to realize such grand deals, while the present myopic stance of you, the leaders of Europe, might prevent the realisation of such grand deals.  Trump causing startled cackling in the European political henhouse A collective gasp followed by upset cackling of European political leaders was heard, when President Trump suddenly made ready to wield his newfound power to slice through the tangled knot of promises made to Ukraine, the continued cries of the allies to stand fast behind Ukraine “for as long as it takes, and the solemn promises of no negotiations with Russia without involving Ukraine. The first visible attempt of cutting the knot was made by President Trump’s rather embarrassing henchman, the new Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, with his opening remarks at the meeting of the Ukraine Defence Contract Group: President Trump has been clear with the American people – and with many of your leaders – that stopping the fighting and reaching an enduring peace is a top priority. We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine. But we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering. [T]he United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement. Instead any security guarantee must be backed by capable European and non-European troops. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers to Ukraine at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission. And they should not covered under Article 5. To be clear, as part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine. Safeguarding European security must be an imperative for European members of NATO. As part of this Europe must provide the overwhelming share of future lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine. Loud and clear and destroying any European pretense of standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Not all got the message. After the meeting, the Danish Minister of Defense, Troels Lund Poulsen, was still repeating the empty mantra, “We have decided to offer Ukraine NATO membership. But it is also clear that we must all agree on it if it is to happen.” Empty and nonsensical words, meaning of cause that it is not going to happen in a foreseeable future. So much for the pretense. Trumps wielding the sword himself Later in the day it was announced that the first attempt to cut the Gordian knot had been made by President Trump himself. He had held a 90-minutes long phone call with President Putin. As for the content we have but a short read out on Truth Social, but it reveals Trump’s attempt to slice through the Gordian knot: We both reflected on the Great History of our Nations, and the fact that we fought so successfully together in World War II, remembering, that Russia lost tens of millions of people, and we, likewise, lost so many! We each talked about the strengths of our respective Nations, and the great benefit that we will someday have in working together. But first, as we both agreed, we want to stop the millions of deaths taking place in the War with Russia/Ukraine. President Putin even used my very strong Campaign motto of, “COMMON SENSE.” We both believe very strongly in it. We agreed to work together, very closely, including visiting each other’s Nations. We have also agreed to have our respective teams start negotiations immediately, and we will begin by calling President Zelenskyy, of Ukraine, to inform him of the conversation, something which I will be doing right now. Trump also revealed that he would ask Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Director of the CIA John Ratcliffe, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, and Ambassador and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff to lead negotiations with Russia – and one would expect with Ukraine also. Witkoff had already been in Moscow in connection with the release of the detained American Marc Fogel. Note though that this negotiating team does not include Trump’s Ukraine envoy, retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg. One wonders if he perhaps has talked too much about escalating the pressure on Russia, an idea that may no longer fit Trump’s agenda. Later in the day Trump announced that he would be meeting with President Putin in a “not too distant future,” although no date was given. He also said: “We think we’re going to probably meet in Saudi Arabia, the first meeting, … We know the crown prince, and I think it’d be a very good place to be.” As for inviting President Zelensky of Ukraine, President Trump again made clear who was going to decide fate of Ukraine, as he evidently did not expect Zelensky to partake in the first meeting with Putin: “Probably we’ll have a first meeting and then we’ll see what we can do about the second meeting.” Trump apparently does not think that Zelensky is all that popular in the Ukraine: “you know, his poll numbers aren't particularly great.” Reading between the lines one gets the idea that Zelensky might not be the right person to take part in the final negotiations. Perhaps this means that Trump finds that it will be necessary to hold elections in the non-occupied part of Ukraine in order to see who will emerge as the partner that will contribute to, or at least accept the U.S. led solution to the Gordian knot problem. Trump leaving indecisive European leaders no alternative It remains to be seen what will come of Trumps knot cutting attempts, but for the moment at least it leaves European political leaders confused and cackling in the unruly European hen house. Being more or less forced to follow the openings by Trump. On their own they would not be able to do much else. They simply cannot uphold Ukrainian pressure on Russia with military assistance, if U.S. decides to withdraw their support. Ah well, Trump would surely still want them to continue to buy U.S. weapons, just so that they can make sure of their own security. In the longer run we might see the Europeans realize that they will be solely responsible for their own security. While the U.S. turn their attention towards the East (or West as it would be when looking from the U.S.). Cutting the knot of the Ukrainian proxy war means stopping the war. For the time being in the shape of an armistice, with the hope of later having a negotiated peace. A peace that would probably solve Russia’s problem with Ukraine and the West: Leaving them with parts of Ukraine, and the assurance that the rest of Ukraine would not be able to join NATO. Ukraine meanwhile would get the necessary peace to be able to concentrate on reconstruction with the help from EU, and it might even be able to strive for membership of the EU. The necessary security guarantees might involve only Europe, while the U.S. would strive stay out of any future fray. Trump may have much bigger ideas with his sudden thrust Now what may lie behind President Trump’s attempt to cut the Gordian knot on his own, apart from trying to stop the proxy war in Ukraine? May he not in fact have much grander ideas, perhaps not in the shape of plans, but seeing much larger possibilities, bigger than European politicians would dare to entertain, even if they had thought about them? Some of the much larger ideas Trumps may entertain: Befriending Russia would enable the U.S. to cut back military obligations in Europe, withdrawing U.S. troops. Making U.S. forces able to concentrate on the Pacific or at the very least save resources. In fact, later in the day Trump talked about bringing Russia back into G7 and reducing military spending in Russia, China and thus also in the U.S. Trump also mentioned the idea of a summit with Putin and China's Xi Jinping. “When we straighten it all out, then I want one of the first meetings I have is with President Xi of China, President Putin of Russia. And I want to say, let's cut our military budget in half.” Friendship with Russia would mean lowering or abolishing sanctions, which would be a boon to U.S. investments and make certain Russian resources available to the U.S. Peace would certainly also be advantageous for Europe as they could forget the scary ideas of war with Russia, and like the U.S. invest in Russia, have access again to cheap raw resources and find a fairly large market for their goods. Reviving the idea of “Wandel durch Handel.” On Trump’s mind might something more pressing. Perhaps it is no accident that he talked about meeting Putin in Saudi Arabia, as Putin and Russia might make it possible to for Trump to checkmate adversaries in the Near and Middle East, and cut the knot there too. With Russia’s help Trump would perhaps be able to make something out of his lofty but cloudy ideas of rearranging things in the Near and Middle East. Keeping Iran in place, balancing Turkey’s influence in Syria, solving the Palestinian problem, and enlarging upon the previous genial Abraham accords. On Trumps mind something else might also come to fruition. Friendship with Russia might mean that Russia would be less inclined to become dependent on China, again opening possibilities for both Europe and the U.S. to counterbalance China’s growing hegemonic striving. Less important to the U.S but really important to Europe, we might see a less belligerent Russia in Africa, perhaps even getting indirect help from Russia in stemming a future wave of migration from Africa. Open your eyes Europe! You had put a lot of false and ultimately disappointed hopes in a vengeful, but frail and aging President Biden, that ended you in a conflict with a close but mighty neighbour. Now you have a chance to turn around the whole scary perspective of being left alone with an angry and dangerous enemy in the shape of Putin, because of the U.S. initiated proxy war. With President Trump’s brash attempt to cut through the dangerous knot European politicians found impossible to untangle, Europe has a chance to achieve some of the same lofty goals that President Trumps may be striving for with his daring attempt to cut the knot with a proverbial sword thrust Just added: No wonder Zelensky must have felt left out, leading him to seek to talk to European political leaders before the Munich Security Conference taking place on February 14-16. Here his comment on X after talking to Poland’s Donald Tusk: Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський I spoke with Polish Prime Minister @donaldtusk. We discussed the conditions needed for a lasting and real peace in Ukraine and agreed that no negotiations with Putin can begin without a united position from Ukraine, Europe, and the U.S. I informed the Prime Minister about my conversation with President Trump, and we discussed key messages and the need to coordinate the positions of all Europeans to achieve successful outcomes for the whole of Europe. I emphasized that Ukraine must negotiate from a position of strength, with strong and reliable security guarantees, and that NATO membership would be the most cost-effective for partners. Another key guarantee is serious investment in Ukraine’s defense industry. I also warned world leaders against trusting Putin’s claims of readiness to end the war. 5:57 PM · Feb 13, 2025 on X  In his inaugural speech President Trump declared that “from this day it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.” (Emphasis added). Day one executive order defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the Federal government Excerpts from President Trump’s executive order: “Across the country, ideologues who deny the biological reality of sex have increasingly used legal and other socially coercive means to permit men to self-identify as women and gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women’s domestic abuse shelters to women’s workplace showers. This is wrong. Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being. The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system. Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself. … This unhealthy road is paved by an ongoing and purposeful attack against the ordinary and longstanding use and understanding of biological and scientific terms, replacing the immutable biological reality of sex with an internal, fluid, and subjective sense of self unmoored from biological facts.” Actions: “Under my direction, the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws to promote this reality, and the following definitions shall govern all Executive interpretation of and application of Federal law and administration policy:" (a) “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.” (b) “Women” or “woman” and “girls” or “girl” shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively. (c) “Men” or “man” and “boys” or “boy” shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively. (d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell. (e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.” “Each agency and all Federal employees shall enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes. Each agency should therefore give the terms “sex”, “male”, “female”, “men”, “women”, “boys” and “girls” the meanings set forth in … this order when interpreting or applying statutes, regulations, or guidance and in all other official agency business, documents, and communications.” “Agencies shall remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages. Agency forms that require an individual’s sex shall list male or female, and shall not request gender identity. Agencies shall take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to end the Federal funding of gender ideology.” “The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security shall ensure that males are not detained in women’s prisons or housed in women’s detention center. The Attorney General shall ensure that the Bureau of Prisons revises its policies concerning medical care to be consistent with this order, and shall ensure that no Federal funds are expended for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex. Agencies shall effectuate this policy by taking appropriate action to ensure that intimate spaces designated for women, girls, or females (or for men, boys, or males) are designated by sex and not identity.” See also this essay: The confusing entanglement of sex and gender https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/confusing-entanglement-sex-gender-verner-c-petersen  In his inaugural speech President Trump promised to “end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life… We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.” He also declared that “from this day it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female.” (Emphasis added). “And I will sign an order to stop our warriors from being subjected to radical political theories and social experiments while on duty. It’s going to end immediately…. Our armed forces will be freed to focus on their sole mission: defeating America’s enemies.” Later in the day he signed two executive actions, one rescinding DEI programs in the federal sector and one with the object defending women from “gender ideology.” Presidents Trump’s executive action on ending radical and wasteful government DEI programs and preferencing Excerpts from President Trump’s executive order: “The Biden Administration forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government, in areas ranging from airline safety to the military. This was a concerted effort stemming from President Biden’s first day in office, when he issued Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” This ordered every federal agency and entity to submit ““Equity Action Plans” to detail the ways that they have furthered DEIs infiltration of the Federal Government. The public release of these plans demonstrated immense public waste and shameful discrimination. That ends today.” Actions: President Trump ordered “the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear. To carry out this directive, the Director of OPM, with the assistance of the Attorney General as requested, shall review and revise, as appropriate, all existing Federal employment practices, union contracts, and training policies or programs to comply with this order. Federal employment practices, including Federal employee performance reviews, shall reward individual initiative, skills, performance, and hard work and shall not under any circumstances consider DEI or DEIA factors, goals, policies, mandates, or requirements.” Furthermore he ordered termination within 60 days “to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA, and “environmental justice” offices and positions (including but not limited to “Chief Diversity Officer” positions); all “equity action plans,” “equity” actions, initiatives, or programs, “equity-related” grants or contracts; and all DEI or DEIA performance requirements for employees, contractors, or grantees.” This was followed a set of instructions: To asses “whether these positions, committees, programs, services, activities, budgets, and expenditures have been misleadingly relabeled in an attempt to preserve their pre-November 4, 2024 function.” Presumably in order to help guarantee that each and every variant of programs would be terminated.  Friedrich Merz, who reckons that he will soon become Bundeskanzler, now wants to bring up his drastic Trump like 5 points plan on illegal migration in an expanded petition (Antrag) on Wednesday in the present Bundestag (See petition below).
Though important parts of his petition look suspiciously similar to some AfD proposals, Merz still rejects any cooperation with the AfD. Surprisingly therefore that he wants to bring forward the petition on Wednesday, as he must assume that it may only be passed with the votes from AfD. One would expect that most of members the Social Democrats (SPD) , the Greens (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) and the small remnants of the left (Die Linke) would vote against his petition. Meaning it may only be passed with the votes from FDP, BSW and surprise, the AfD. Just take a look at the distribution of the present 733 seats in the Bundestag SPD 207 CDU/CSU 196 Bündnis 90/Die Grünen 117 FDP 90 AfD 76 Gruppe Die Linke 28 Gruppe BSW 10 Fraktionslos 9 CDU/CSU, FDP, BSW and AfD would potentially represent 372 votes in favour of Friedrich Merz’s petition. Which would allow the petition to pass. Merz own comment: “Mir ist völlig gleichgültig, wer diesen Weg politisch mitgeht. Ich sage nur: Ich gehe keinen anderen” One wonders what might happen after the election in February. How would a victorious CDU/CSU, with Merz, be able to form majority coalition that would include SPD or Greens, or a combination. Does he really expect to be able get them to accept a drastic execution of his 5 points plan? Or would he continue to rely on the votes of AfD, BSW and FPD (if they get in). In other words, is the “Brandmauer “getting holes? Yesterday (January 29, 2025) the petition was passed in the Bundestag. Of the 903 members present 348 voted in favour and 344 against. (In favour: 187 CDU/CSU, 80 FDP, 75 AfD, and 6 not members of a party). The result is not binding for the present govern ment, but was met with anger from the still governing parties SPD and the Greens. The petition The newspaper “Bild” on January 26, 2025, published a copy of what might be the full text of the petition Merz aims to bring up in the Bundestag on Wednesday: Antrag (petition) der Fraktion der CDU/CSU Fünf Punkte für sichere Grenzen und das Ende der illegalen Migration Der Bundestag wolle beschließen I Der Bundestag stellt fest: Die abscheuliche Mordtat von Aschaffenburg, bei der zwei kleine Kinder Opfer eines brutalen Messerangriffs wurden, hat Trauer und Bestürzung in ganz Deutschland ausgelöst. Der Mord an einem der Kinder sowie an einem erwachsenen Mann, der helfen wollte, verdeutlicht eine neue Dimension der Gewalt, die Deutschland zunehmend erschüttert. Sie reiht sich ein in die Terroranschläge von Mannheim und Solingen und den Angriff auf den Weihnachtsmarkt von Magdeburg. Der Deutsche Bundestag weigert sich anzuerkennen, dass dies die neue Normalität in Deutschland ist. Bei dem Täter handelt es sich um einen 28-jährigen afghanischen Asylsuchenden ohne Schutzanspruch, der ausreisepflichtig war. Er war zuvor bereits mehrfach durch Gewaltakte auffällig geworden; trotz vorübergehender Einweisung in psychiatrische Einrichtungen und bestehender Ausreisepflicht lief er frei herum. Die aktuelle Asyl- und Einwanderungspolitik gefährdet die Sicherheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger und das Vertrauen der gesamten Gesellschaft in den Staat. Sie wird von ganz überwiegenden Anteilen der Menschen in Deutschland abgelehnt. Die Politik der letzten Jahre hat es versäumt, Kontrolle über die Migration zurückzugewinnen und zu erhalten. Sie hat es versäumt, das geltende nationale Recht durchzusetzen, klare Regeln zu setzen und Fehlanreize für illegale Migration – wie etwa überhöhte Sozialleistungen – zu beseitigen. Sie hat es auch versäumt, innerhalb der Europäischen Union den verbreiteten Bruch des gemeinsamen Rechts durch andere Mitgliedstaaten deutlich zu verurteilen. Die bestehenden europäischen Regelungen – die Dublin-III-Verordnung zur grundsätzlichen Zuständigkeit des Ersteinreisestaates, das Schengen-Abkommen zu den offenen Binnengrenzen, und die Eurodac-Verordnung zur Registrierung von Asylsuchenden – sind erkennbar dysfunktional. Die Migrationskrise geht maßgeblich aus vom syrischen Bürgerkrieg, den der russische Diktator Wladimir Putin über Jahre angefacht und verlängert hat. Bis heute instrumentalisiert der russische Diktator Wladimir Putin Migration als hybride Waffe, indem er jeden Monat hunderte Menschen über die belarussische Grenze nach Europa sendet. Aufgrund des völkerrechtswidrigen russischen Angriffskrieges sind mehr als eine Million Ukrainer nach Deutschland geflohen. In dieser Gesamtsituation ist es die Pflicht Deutschlands und damit der Bundesregierung, nationales Recht vorrangig anzuwenden, wenn europäische Regelungen nicht funktionieren – so wie es in den Europäischen Verträgen für außergewöhnliche Notlagen vorgesehen ist. Deutschland muss die Abwehr von Gefahren und die Sicherheit der Bürgerinnen und Bürger an erste Stelle setzen und entschlossen handeln. Es sind sofortige, umfassende Maßnahmen zur Beendigung der illegalen Migration, zur Sicherung der deutschen Grenzen und zur konsequenten Abschiebung vollziehbar ausreisepflichtiger Personen, insbesondere von Straftätern und Gefährdern, erforderlich. Wer die illegale Migration bekämpft, entzieht auch Populisten ihre politische Arbeitsgrundlage. Die AfD nutzt Probleme, Sorgen und Ängste, die durch die massenhafte illegale Migration entstanden sind, um Fremdenfeindlichkeit zu schüren und Verschwörungstheorien in Umlauf zu bringen. Sie will, dass Deutschland aus EU und Euro austritt und sich stattdessen Putins Eurasischer Wirtschaftsunion zuwendet. All das gefährdet Deutschlands Stabilität, Sicherheit und Wohlstand. Deshalb ist diese Partei kein Partner, sondern unser politischer Gegner. II. Der Deutsche Bundestag fordert die Bundesregierung auf, unverzüglich folgende Maßnahmen umzusetzen: 1. Dauerhafte Grenzkontrollen: Die deutschen Staatsgrenzen zu allen Nachbarstaaten müssen dauerhaft kontrolliert werden. 2. Zurückweisung ausnahmslos aller Versuche illegaler Einreise: Es gilt ein faktisches Einreiseverbot für Personen, die keine gültigen Einreisedokumente besitzen und die nicht unter die europäische Freizügigkeit fallen. Diese werden konsequent an der Grenze zurückgewiesen. Dies gilt unabhängig davon, ob sie einen Schutzgesuch äußern oder nicht, sofern europäischen Nachbarstaaten sie bereits sicher aufgenommen haben. 3. Personen, die vollziehbar ausreisepflichtig sind, dürfen nicht mehr auf freiem Fuß sein: Sie müssen unmittelbar in Haft genommen werden. Die Anzahl an entsprechenden Haftplätzen in den Ländern muss dafür signifikant erhöht werden. Der Bund wird die Länder dabei unterstützen und schnellstmöglich alle verfügbaren Liegenschaften, darunter leerstehende Kasernen und Containerbauten, zur Verfügung stellen. Die Zahl der Abschiebungen muss deutlich erhöht werden. Abschiebungen müssen täglich stattfinden. Abschiebungen auch nach Afghanistan und Syrien werden regelmäßig durchgeführt. 4. Mehr Unterstützung für die Länder beim Vollzug der Ausreisepflicht: Der Bund soll die Länder auch weiterhin beim Vollzug der Ausreisepflicht – etwa durch Beschaffung von Reisepapieren und der Umsetzung von Rückführungen – unterstützen. Diese Unterstützung muss weiter ausgebaut werden. Überdies werden Bundesausschreibungen geschaffen, um Rückführungen zu erleichtern. Die Bundespolizei muss die Befugnis erhalten, bei im eigenen Zuständigkeitsbereich aufgegriffenen, ausreisepflichtigen Personen auch selbst und unmittelbar Haftbefehle für Abschiebehaft oder Ausreisegewahrsam beantragen zu können. 5. Verschärfung des Aufenthaltsrechts für Straftäter und Gefährder: Ausreisepflichtige Straftäter und Gefährder sollen in einem zeitlich unbefristeten Ausreisearest bleiben, bis sie freiwillig in ihr Heimatland zurückkehren oder die Abschiebung vollzogen werden kann. Aus diesem Arrest ist die freiwillige Ausreise ins Herkunftsland jederzeit möglich. Nicht mehr möglich darf hingegen eine Rückkehr nach Deutschland sein.  A few days ago, Friedrich Merz, who seems destined to become the next German chancellor, presented five concrete points for a turnaround in German migration policy. "The measure is finally full," he argued after the recent knife attack in Aschaffenburg. "We are facing the shambles of an asylum and immigration policy that has been misguided in Germany for ten years."
Merz promises to implement these five points:
 German politics in a serious predicament due to AfD A comparison of an INSA opinion poll for the upcoming Bundestag election with the latest Bundestag election result indicate serious upheavals in the “Parteienlandschaft” for Germany as a whole.  Neueste Wahlumfrage von INSA Sonntagsfrage #btwahl 2025-01-06 Suddenly the AfD with 21.5% is in second place after the CDU with 31,0%, and lo and behold in front of the social democratic SDP party, which only got 15.5%, and far above the Green party with 13,5%. BSW (Bündniss Sahra Wagenknecht) seems to have lost the sudden attraction it got, when it was formed by Sahra Wagenknecht, former leading figure in the Linke, in January 2024. Given that Bundestag elections have a 5% election threshold, the polling results may indicate that FDP and die Linke might not make it. How could a majority government then be created? Well, there might be these coalition possibilities according to dawum.de (Numbers represent the probable share of a new Bundestag, limited now to a total of 630 seats):  Neueste Wahlumfrage von INSA Sonntagsfrage #btwahl 2025-01-06 Here is the problem created not the least by possible AfD and BSW results. The established parties have promised that they will uphold a “Brandmauer” or fire-proof wall against any AfD participation in government. The former dominating parties, CDU/CSU and SPD have all attempted to demonstrate that the “Brandmauer” is intact and will stay intact after the coming Bundestag election on February 23. A recent study by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin seem to confirm that “Brandmauer” is intact and stable: “Insgesamt ist die Brandmauer weitaus stabiler, als vielfach vermutet wird” (Zeit Online). This means that all coalitions with AfD is out of the question. Before the February election at least. The problem is that the remaining coalition possibilities do not look especially attractive, meaning that the “Brandmauer” against AfD has given German politics a serious problem. It would in this case only leave coalitions with CDU/CSU and SPD, or CDU/CSU and the Greens. Now the first coalition would represent a kind of forced return to the GROKO, the great coalition of the blacks, CDU/CSU, and the reds, SPD, apparently not something that the two parties are wishing for, and not something that the voters would like. It might lead to a kind lethargic political staleness. Being mostly a soft mid-position leaning a little more to the right than the present government. Probably not strong enough to solve Germany’s present, economic, structural, migration, and security problems. And how would such a coalition be able to agree on how to tackle the Ukraine proxy war or expected Trumpian policies? A coalition of CDU/CSU with the Green party, has been categorically rejected by CSU’s Markus Söder, and now apparently also by CDU’s Friedrich Merz, although he seems some-what less categorical, eyeing as he must the limited possibilities for a coalition government. Here similar problems would manifest themselves, as the Greens have their share of responsibility for the present German misery, and they certainly don’t seem to see eye to eye with CDU/CSU on the immigration issue. The means that German politics has landed itself in serious quandary, that may make it impossible to find the necessary drastic solutions to the serious problems manifesting themselves in Germany now. Problems that lead to the demise of the traffic light coalition (the Red, Yellow and Green parties). The serious problem of finding governing coalitions is already seen in a lesser format in the recent local state elections. AfD’s and BSW’s hard impact in recent local state elections The latest local state elections in Germany taking place in the eastern part of the country show that AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) is making major inroads in the traditional party landscape in Germany, together with new formed BSW (Bündniss Sahra Wagenknecht). Here the recent results of Landtag elections in Thyringia, Saxony and Brandenburg in 2024 (in percentages). Thyringia (selected results):  The AfD trumped all other parties with 32.8 %. Social democrats (SPD) only got 6.1%, while the CDU (Christian Democratic Union achieved a respectable 23.6%. The new BSW party trumped die Linke, the left party they broke out from. It may seem strange that there has been no attempt to create a local government with participation from the AfD, when almost a third of population who voted chose AfD. But all the other parties have erected what they call a “Brandmauer” or fireproof-wall against the AfD, doing everything they can to make it impossible for the AfD to gain influence. With the other parties ganging up against the AfD, difficult negotiations resulted in a so-called Brombeer (Blackberry) coalition government consisting of CDU, BSW and SPD. Saxony (selected results):  In Saxony the AfD with 30.6 % of the votes is getting very close to the established CDU with 31.8% of the votes, while BSW made its entry with 11.8%. This resulted difficult negotiations before a minority government consisting of CDU and SPD came about. Everything was also done here to keep the AfD from gaining influence. Brandenburg (selected results):  The AfD with 29.23 % is suddenly almost equal to the social democrats’ (SPD) 32.8%, while the BSW has overtaken the CDU (Christian Democratic Union). A red-black-green coalition consisting of SPD, CDU and Die Grünen/B90 make up the new government. Again, a coalition with express purpose at keeping out the AfD. While AfD and BSW is capturing large shares of the votes in these three local states in eastern Germany, they have had far less attraction in western parts of Germany. Still, on the national level they may really be causing trouble for the old established parties as indicated by the national opinion polls before the upcoming elections to the Bundestag on February 23, 2025. What, a “Brandmauer” against a large part of the population? After the local state elections in Thyringia and Saxonia Chancellor, Scholz was depressed: “The AfD's performance in the state elections in Thuringia and Saxony with more than 30 percent "depresses me greatly," … "The fact that populism is now receiving so much support is not good. And now we all have to see what we are doing … " (Zeit Online). Friedrich Merz from the CDU agrees with the chancellor. After the local state elections, he again rejected any coalition with the AfD. “The AfD is so clearly and unambiguously against everything the CDU stands for that cooperation in any form is unthinkable.” (swr.de). Merz even appeals to the SPD, Greens and FDP to help "bring people back to the political center and to get them more enthusiastic about our democracy again." (swr.de). Before Chancellor Scholz’s government coalition, consisting of SPD, the Greens and FDP, broke up in the fall, there was even a serious attempt to ban the AfD. Representatives from SPD, the Greens, Linke, CDU and SSW (Südschleswigscher Wählerverband, representing a Danish minority in northern Germany) got together to file a petition in the German Bundestag, with object of proving the possibility of simply banning the AfD. In the petition they wanted the Bundestag to decide that the party “Alternative für Deutschland” is unconstitutional, and to confiscate the assets of the “Alternative for Germany” for the benefit of the Federal Republic of Germany for charitable purposes. They would in fact ban the influence of voters electing the AfD. Expressly wanting to preserve and guard a special German idea of democracy, by eliminating or ostracizing what might after all represent up to one fifth of the German population. Among CDU initiators of the petition in the Bundestag, is Marco Wanderwitz, who might argue that the Bundessamt für Verfasssungsschutz (The German domestic intelligence services) have classified AfD as a suspected right-wing extremist case (Rechtsextremistischen Verdachtsfall), in a local state case even as “Gesichert Rechtsextrem.” Now the word “Wanderwitz” in German would be “running gag” in English, and though the attempt to ban the AfD might not be a gag, others have warned against the initiative to ban the AfD. Both Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) and CDU leader Friedrich Merz have warned of the risks that a rejection of a ban by the Federal Constitutional Court would entail. Similar objections have been raised by the Greens. The attempt to ban the AfD may of cause have more do with a troubled part of German history, than with the idea of democracy. But it seems funny that a German attempt to have an election system designed to make sure that Germany would have a kind of model democracy, is precisely what allows the AfD to gain influence. Apart from the rule that parties must obtain a minimum of five percent of the vote to be represented in the Bundestag, albeit with certain exceptions, there is the special one ballot two votes system (“Erst und Zweitstimme”). With the first vote (Erststimme) a voter may choose a favourite candidate, with the second vote on the ballot (Zweitstimme) the voter chooses a favourite party. The second vote determines the percentage of seats for each party. Perhaps seen as a fair system compared with the UK’s first-past-the-post voting, it allows AFD and BSW to gain seats in Bundestag, whereas a UK system might have left the parties in the cold. Elon Musk prodding and stirring up German politics “Only the AfD can save Germany,” Elon Musk asserted on X in December. This was his first jab at the prodding opinion in Germany. Next followed the op-ed in Die Welt, a major German newspaper belonging to the Axel Springer group. That really stirred up the beehive of German politics, and no wonder. Musk started out by arguing: “The Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the last spark of hope for this country. Here some of his arguments. In relation to Germany’s economic woes. To Musk AfD is a party that understands the importance of economic freedoms, the necessity to reduce bureaucracy, lower taxes and deregulate markets. Principles that had make Tesla successful. In relation to migration. “Germany has opened its borders to mass migration, which, while humanitarian in intent, has led to significant cultural and social tensions. The AfD advocates for a controlled immigration policy that prioritizes integration and the preservation of German culture and security. This is not about xenophobia but about ensuring that Germany does not lose its identity in the quest for globalism” (Elon Musk, translation by Martin Varsavsky). On energy and energy independence. In Musk’s view Germany’s present energy policies are seen as economically costly and politically naïve. In contrast the AfD is seen as pragmatic, and apparently Musk hopes that this means that the AfD will advocate nuclear power, together with battery energy, that would act as storage able to act as buffer for large swings in electricity usage. Now Musk is actually in the business of proving such storage solutions, as he has done for instance in Australia. On political realism. Musk believes that traditional parties have failed Germany, leading to economic stagnation, social unrest, and dilution of national identity. Whereas AfD would offer a political realism resonating with many Germans, that have been constrained by political correctness. The labelling of the AfD as far-right, Musk dismisses in a curious way, by noting that that Alice Weidel, one of the leaders of the party, is living with a same sex partner from Sri Lanka! On innovation and future. Innovation requires freedom from constraints. The AfD visions is aligned with this ethos. “They push for educational reforms that encourage critical thinking over indoctrination and support tech industries which are the future of global economic leadership.” To Musk the AFD is thus the only party can save Germany from becoming a shadow of its former self. By the way Musk is not the only American to see AfD as the only party that can save Germany. David P. Goldman, U.S. strategist and editor of “Asia Times” wrote an article arguing that AfD is the key to European defence. That may come as surprise to many. But in Goldman’s view AfD is right when it argues against supporting Ukraine with weapons and advocates for a negotiated peace solution, wanting instead to concentrate on Germany’s and Europe’s own defence. Goldman here also refers to a survey showing that AfD members would actually be willing to fight for their country in contrast to members of the Green party. Musk as well as Goldman have touched upon a series of problems that ruling Germans parties have proven unable to solve, and rightly raised the question of why the established parties have been so eager to silence the views and positions found in AfD, and keep them out of public discourse. Although the AfD may actually have at least part of the answer for solving the present German misery. Angry reactions to Musk article One might actually argue that Musk’s criticism and his defence of AfD viewpoints, is confirmed by the angry reactions to his views. Friedrich Merz, the CDU’s candidate for the next chancellor uttered harsh critique of Musk’s interference in German politics. He criticized Musk’s "Welt am Sonntag" op-ed article in favour of the AfD as "intrusive and presumptuous." He could not remember “a comparable case of interference in the election campaign of a friendly country in the history of Western democracies, the CDU's candidate for chancellor told the newspapers of the Funke Media Group.” (deutschlandfunk.de). To Merz it was evident that Musk must have overlooked that with AfD in power he would never have been able to build a Tesla Plant in Brandenburg, and also that AfD ïs in favour of leaving the EU, which would hurt German Economy massively. Chancellor Scholz also argued against interference by tech billionaires “One had to stay cool … I find it much more worrying than such insults that Musk is supporting a party like the AfD, which is in parts right-wing extremist, preaches rapprochement with Putin's Russia and wants to weaken transatlantic relations," (spiegel.de). The strange censoring role of German media In the paper “Die Welt,” the accept to publish Musk’s article created furore among the journalists, and one of lesser editors announced that she would leave in protest. The furore and the editor protest show that the Musk article really represented a breach in German mainstream medias own “Brandmauer” against the AfD. Public broadcasting channels and printed media have long assisted in the attempt to uphold the “Brandmauer” and has attempted to warn and scare their viewers and readers against the AfD and its views, always remembering to mention AfD as rechtsextrem or rechtsradikal. In an interview with the well-known German magazine “Der Spiegel,” one of moderators of the news program in ARD, Caren Miosga, explained why she did not invite main political actors from the AFD, but only less important members. Her strange argument: "We are facing elections in Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg. The AfD is ahead in all three federal states, so we have to invite them. However, that does not apply to everyone from this party. Quite a few of them are masters at building a web of lies. As a moderator, you cannot keep up with checking the statements live. It would be a stupid game: no, yes, not true, it is true. And there are those in this party who are so blatantly right-wing extremist that they will not get an invitation either. … I don't think they need ARD and ZDF. They find their voters without us, via social media." (medium.de) No wonder that AfD has been very critical of German mainstream media, and the cry “Lügenpresse” has often been heard in social media. The deplatforming of AfD by public broadcasting stations like ARD and ZDF is borne out by Statista in a “Comparison of the party affiliation of politicians in the political talk shows of ARD and ZDF and the share of seats in the German Bundestag in the year 2024.” In the diagram blue columns represent participation in political talk shows, and black column share of seats in the Bundestag.  https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/954672/umfrage/parteizugehoerigkeit-der-politiker-in-talkshows-vs-sitzanteil-im-bundestag/ The fact that the main public broadcasting channels of ARD and ZDF have been deplatforming the AfD is not exactly a sign of a democratic and political neutral attitude in the media.
Essentially mainstream media in Germany has been keeping their viewers and readers in the dark with regard to AfD views, focusing instead on painting a clearly negative picture of the AfD. Trying to “Entzauber,” or break the spell of AfD and re-educate people that may have got more positive views of the AfD from social media. “This assumes that the AfD is concealing its true goals and is essentially deceiving voters. And I believe this is a very fatal assumption that is also widespread in journalism” it was argued in Deutschlandfunk (deutschlandfunk.de). Punching a hole in the “Brandmauer”? Elon Musk has tried knock down at least part of the “Brandmauer,” first by his article in “Die Welt,” and now by heaving price on Alice Weidel , co-chair of the AfD, in long talk with her on his X Media. (A version of the talk with German subtitles can be found at https://x.com/Alice_Weidel/status/1877475125970211197). Looking at German media, this talk has mostly had a negative reception in German media. But it as Alice Weidel said, it is the first interview where she was not interrupted all the time, as it would happen in German media. Perhaps Elon Musk, in his own eccentric way has contributed to a break in at least the media’s “Brandmauer” against AfD in Germany. It has simply become necessary to open a discussion about media treatment of important actors in German politics, and likewise about the protective and censoring attitude of the EU. The former French EU-commissioner Thierry Breton actually warned Alice Weidel before her talk with Musk. Referring to the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) he took to X, writing: “As a European citizen concerned with the proper use of systemic platforms authorized to operate in the EU under the strict respect of our law (#DSA), especially to protect our democratic rules against illegal or misbehavior during election times, I believe it's crucial to remind you: 1) That you will be offered by your counterpart (210 million followers) during this exercise a significant and valuable advantage over your competitors; 2) That your counterpart should, once again, fully respect all its obligations under our EU law, particularly during this exercise as already publicly expressed in comparable situations, notably last summer. His warning that Alice Weidel and AfD might get undue media presence and attention is really bizarre in light of Germans mainstream media’s deplatforming of AfD and Alice Weidel and shows that there exists really seriously censorship of free speech, not only in Germany, but in the EU as well. Enforcers of the DSA are on their toes in relation to Weidel’s talk with Musk: Politico wrote that “A team of up to 150 European Commission officials in Brussels and Seville will help scrutinize whether Musk’s social media site plays by the European Union’s tech rules. They wield far-reaching investigative powers that allow them to visit X’s offices and request access to its algorithm and internal correspondence.” (Politico. January 9, 20225) Perhaps Germany and EU should follow the sarcastic advice of Berthold Brecht, the German poet. The Berthold Brecht solution to an impossible quandary? The attempts to keep AfD from gaining influence may remind one of the poem “Die Lösung” by Berthold Brecht, written after the rebellion in East Germany on June 17, 1953. The poem takes up the possibility of dissolving the people, when it has lost the trust of government: “The solution After the uprising of June 17th, the secretary of the Writers' Union had leaflets distributed on Stalinallee, which read that the people had lost the government's trust and could only win it back by working twice as hard. Wouldn't it be easier if the government dissolved the people and elected another one?” (Bertholdt Brecht, deutschelyrik.de/die-loesung.html) It seems that attempts to ban a party representing one fifth of the population or at the very least the attempt to ostracize it to keep it from any kind of influence, is in a way similar to the suggestion in Brecht’s poem. Although it may not dissolve the people, it certainly wants to reduce the choices for one fifth of the people that have fallen prey to ideas and opinions that would threaten the ruling parties’ idea of German democracy. Is this democracy? Or is it a democracy perverted by fear lingering as a result of Germany’s past? Limiting present day German democracy in a way that in itself dangerous for democracy. Perhaps it is time for German democracy to get rid of fears stemming from its history and become more like the democracy of its neighbours. The attempt to isolate the German version of democracy from right-wing influences like the AfD and the votes of one fifth of the population may prove to become increasingly impossible to uphold. Germany politics just has to look to its neighbours to see that democracy may in fact include right-wing views and parties. This at least seem to be the case with the rising wave of right-wing parties among Germany’s neighbours. Like the Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) in the Netherlands government; Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) in Austria, that is at this moment attempting to form a coalition government dominated by them; Rassemblement (RN) in France; Fratelli d’Italia (Fdl) und Lega Nord per l'indipendenza della Padania (Lega) in the Italian government. In general, it looks as if right-wing parties are having or gaining influence in many countries in Europe. Do established German parties really believe that they can establish a ban or limit on people’s democratic choices or continue to gang up against and ostracize a party like AfD. Perhaps recent happenings in Austria may indicate how difficult that would be. The attempt of the losers of the recent Austrian elections to form a government coalition and keep out the winning right-wing FPÖ party have gone awry, as we have just seen. As a consequence the leader of right-wing FPÖ Herbert Kickl, has got the task of trying to form a new Austrian coalition government, consisting of his FPÖ party and ÖVP, the Christian – conservative party. Perhaps after the German election, even German parties like CDU/CSU will be forced to change their minds, although it might prove difficult for them. At least even established German parties and public opinion are now challenged by Donald Trump as U.S. President, supported as he is by the likes of Elon Musk, who has had the temerity to interfere with European politics and politicians.  In theory at least in the mid-nineties. On the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII on May 9-10, 1995, President Clinton visited Moscow. In meetings with President Yeltsin NATO expansion was discussed. In preparation for Clinton’s meeting, Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State, had provided Clinton with a memorandum, with the stark title “May 10: Moment of Truth,” outlining the U.S. and Russian positions on NATO expansion: “At your September Summit with Yeltsin in Washington, you got him to accept the proposition that NATO would, over time, bring in new members. You assured him that the process would be governed by the four "no's": no rush (expansion would be gradual, no surprises (it would be transparent), no threat (it would take account of Russia's legitimate security interests), and no exclusion (Russia would be, at least in theory, eligible for membership someday). There's a fifth "no" as well: no veto.” (Emphasis added). (Declassified document found at https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/27170-doc-16-strobe-talbott-memorandum-president-moment-truth). But Russia may actually have wanted to joinNATO President Putin brought up the idea that Russia should join NATO at a couple of occasions. During a series of interviews with Oliver Stone, Putin recounted that in 2000 he had said to President Clinton “Let’s consider an option that Russia might join NATO,” and that Clinton had said: ”Why not? But the U.S. delegation got very nervous.” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/stone-interviews-putin-says-asked-russia-joining-nato According to an interview with former Secretary General of NATO, George Robertson, Putin later also brought up the idea of Russia joining NATO. Putin had argued “I want my country to be part of Western Europe” and expressed the wish to join NATO. In the interview Robertson says that he found Putin to be quite sincere, but that the Busch/Cheney administration at the time were clearly not interested in the idea. See and hear the interview with George Robertson at https://www.channel4.com/news/did-nato-get-putin-and-ukraine-wrong More on the U.S. push for NATO expansion in the essay “Containment and messianic NATO expansion.” https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/containment-of-russia-and-messianic-nato-expansion or https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/containment-russia-messianic-nato-expansion-verner-c-petersen-g6tif  This essay represents an attempt to show the reasoning behind U.S. policies to contain the Soviet Union after WWII and during the cold war period. Followed by the story, as far as it be ascertained, of NATO’s eastward expansion and Russia’s angry reactions. A story that may help understand the reasons behind present proxy war in Ukraine. A wise man on Russia The wise man in question was George Frost Kennan, a U.S. diplomat and scholar (1904-2005). His first claim to fame came in 1946 when he as he minister-councilor to the U.S. ambassador in Moscow dictated the famous “Long telegram” in answer to Washington’s request for an analysis of Russian intentions. The “Long telegram” together with his 1947 article “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” published in Foreign Affairs under the pseudonym X, is said to have had a decisive influence on the U.S. policy of containment directed towards the Soviet Union for half a century after WWII. Kennan’s influence on U.S. foreign policy may seem to have only historical interest today. But his views are relevant even today, because of his enormous insight into how Russia would see and react to U.S. foreign policies. It may even help us understand why Russia is so acting belligerent against NATO’s eastward expansion and against Ukraine, as we shall see later in this essay Shaping U.S. policy towards Russia after WWII According to Kennan’s analysis of the Soviet Union’s postwar outlook, it saw itself threatened by a capitalist encirclement. Quoting Stalin, Kennan wrote: “In course of further development of international revolution there will emerge two centers of world significance: a socialist center, drawing to itself the countries which tend toward socialism, and a capitalist center, drawing to itself the countries that incline toward capitalism. Battle between these two centers for command of world economy will decide fate of capitalism and of communism in entire world." (G.F. Kennan, Telegram to Secretary of State, February 22, 1946). Kennan saw the Kremlin’s antagonistic outlook as being the consequence of a “traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area.“ (Ibid.) But Kennan also argued that it was not the outlook of the Russian people. To him they “were friendly to the outside world eager for experience of it, eager to measure against it talents they are conscious of possessing.” In conclusion Kennan argued that in the Soviet Union “we have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with US there can be no permanent modus vivendi … if Soviet power is to be secure. This political force has complete power of disposition over energies of one of world's greatest peoples and resources of world's richest national territory, and is borne along by deep and powerful currents of Russian nationalism.” (Ibid.) How to cope with the Soviet Union’s outlook was therefore in Kennan’s view the main task for U.S. diplomacy, or in his words: “Problem of how to cope with this force in [is] undoubtedly greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced and probably greatest it will ever have to face. It should be point of departure from which our political general staff work at present juncture should proceed. It should be approached with same thoroughness and care as solution of major strategic problem in war, and if necessary, with no smaller outlay in planning effort. I cannot attempt to suggest all answers here. But I would like to record my conviction that problem is within our power to solve--and that without recourse to any general military conflict.” (Emphasis added). Part of Kennan’s answer to the problem seems to build upon his observation that Soviet policy “is neither schematic nor adventuristic. It does not work by fixed plans. It does not take unnecessary risks. Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force. For this reason it can easily withdraw--and usually does when strong resistance is encountered at any point. Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so. If situations are properly handled there need be no prestige-engaging showdowns.” (Emphasis added). (Ibid.) But Kennan also emphasizes that the U.S. “must formulate and put forward for other nations a much more positive and constructive picture of sort of world we would like to see than we have put forward in past. It is not enough to urge people to develop political processes similar to our own. Many foreign peoples, in Europe at least, are tired and frightened by experiences of past, and are less interested in abstract freedom than in security. They are seeking guidance rather than responsibilities. We should be better able than Russians to give them this. And unless we do, Russians certainly will.” (Ibid.). In other words, keep its own house in order and be an attractive model for other nations. In July 1947 Kennan followed up his thoughts and recommendations with an article in Foreign Affairs with the title “The sources of Soviet conduct from Foreign Affairs.” Again, he warned “that the United States cannot expect in the foreseeable future to enjoy political intimacy with the Soviet régime. It must continue to regard the Soviet Union as a rival, not a partner, in the political arena. It must continue to expect that Soviet policies will reflect no abstract love of peace and stability, no real faith in the possibility of a permanent happy coexistence of the Socialist and capitalist worlds, but rather a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disruption and weakening of all rival influence and rival power.” (Foreign Affairs, July, 1947). But Kennan also regarded the Soviet Union as the weaker part in the rivalry between the two systems. Prescient he also judged that over time the inherent deficiencies in in the Soviet society would “eventually weaken its own total potential.” The weaknesses of the Soviet Union in relation to the West and the inherent deficiencies “would of itself warrant the United States entering with reasonable confidence upon a policy of firm containment, designed to confront the Russians with unalterable counter-force at every point where they show of encroaching upon the interests of a peaceful and stable world.” … The United States has it in its power to increase enormously the strains under which Soviet policy must operate, to force upon the Kremlin a far greater degree of moderation and circumspection than it has had to observe in recent years, and in this way to promote tendencies which must eventually find their outlet in either the break-up or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power. (Emphasis added). (Ibid.). Kennan is mostly taking about a non-military containment, “it is clear that the mean element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies. It is important to note, however, that such a policy has nothing to do with outward histrionics: with threats or blustering or superfluous gestures of outward “toughness.”” (Ibid.) For Kennan containment of the Soviet Union was not enough. The U.S. would have to present itself as a shining example of a better alternative to the communist word: It is … a question of the degree to which the United States can create among the peoples of the world generally the impression of a country which knows what it wants, which is coping successfully with the problems of its internal life and with the responsibilities of a World Power, and which has a spiritual vitality capable of holding its own among the major ideological currents of the time. To the extent that such an impression can be created and maintained, the aims of Russian Communism must appear sterile and quixotic, the hopes and enthusiasm of Moscow’s supporters must wane” (Ibid.). George F. Kennan’s influence For people with influence in President Truman’s administration, the analysis and recommendations of the “Long Telegram” were found to be so important that Kennan was recalled from Moscow and given a position as Deputy Commandant for Foreign Affairs, in the newly created National War College. “The State Department also “dispatched him on a lecture tour to instruct the public on the true nature of the Soviet threat. At the War College, he lectured on international relations to military, State Department, and Foreign Service officials. Kennan’s own comment: “I seem to have hit the jackpot as a ‘Russian expert,’ ” (Louis Menand, The New Yorker, November 2011). In 1947 Kennan was made chief of the new Policy Planning Staff at the State Department, where he “became the principal source of policy ideas for Marshall and for the National Security Council, and thus for the President … For two years, he essentially formulated American foreign policy.” (Louis Menand, The New Yorker, Nov 2011). And, superficially at least Kennan’s containment policies certainly seemed to fit the Truman doctrine, as formulated in President Truman’s message to Congress in March 1947. Although the doctrine came about as result of the need to help Greece and Turkey, after the U.K. no longer was able to provide economic support to the two countries. In his message Truman argued that the U.S. must provide such support, but he also argued more broadly for broadly for U.S. objectives. “One of the primary objectives of the foreign policy of the United States is the creation of conditions in which we and other nations will be able to work out a way of life free from coercion … I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own destinies in their own way. I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes.” (National Archives, Milestone Documents). This became the Truman doctrine. Kennan was also involved in the creation of the Marshall plan. “Marshall and Kennan criticized Truman’s reliance on superficial rhetoric rather than clear, extended economic plans for European recovery, which prompted both to investigate what the best forms of aid would be.” (The Marshall Plan and Postwar Economic Recovery, The National WWWII Museum). Superficial rhetoric and idealistic policies did not go down well with Kennan. “Get real” was his message. It is said that the Atlantic Charter “seemed to him not only utopian and unenforceable, but dangerously restrictive on a government’s scope of action.” (Louis Menand, The New Yorker, November 2011). His “Get real” appeal may be just as important in relation to the relation between the West and Russia today. Especially in relation to NATO’s eastward expansion and the present proxy war in Ukraine as we shall see. U.S.’s hegemonic drive Let us have a look at U.S. promises, behind the scenes activities, and the back and forth with Russia about the plans for a Partnership for Peace, more or less in competition with U.S. plans for the eastward expansion of NATO. The earlier promises of NO NATO expansion Declassified material now found in a National Security Archive show at least part of the story of broken promises behind the NATO expansion eastwards. When U.S. secretary of State James Baker met with Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, he was one in a long row of Western leaders to assure the new Russia that NATO had no plans for an eastward expansion. “Not one inch eastward” Baker assured Gorbachev. Three times Baker is said to have assured Gorbachev that there would be no NATO expansion: “Neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place, … not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.“ (National Security Archive). During an Open Skies Conference in Ottawa in 1992, Baker also assured Russian Foreign Minister Shevardnadze: “And if U[nited] G[ermany] stays in NATO, we should take care about non-expansion of its jurisdiction to the east.” (Notes from the meeting, National Security Archive). “The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.” (National Security Archive). Non-expansion may have been the position of George Bush, President from 1989 to 1993. But elsewhere in the U.S. administration much more aggressive ideas for an enlarged NATO. found a more positive reception when Bill Clinton became president in 1993. Ideas for NATO expansion in the early 1990s On March 1-3, 1993, Manfred Wörner, the German General Secretary of NATO, visited the new Clinton administration to discuss the need for a new NATO summit to determine the course of NATO’s development. “The main idea behind the need for the NATO summit is the future security arrangements in Europe at a time when many people questioned the rationale for NATO’s existence after the Cold War. (Emphasis added). Woerner encourages Christopher [U.S. Secretary of State] to look more closely at the East European countries and to think about how to integrate them into European security structures.” Wörner’s argument for such integration into NATO, was remarkable, as he argued that “East European leaders are less concerned about the military threat from Russia and rather hope that “NATO membership can help stave off the return of authoritarian forces” in their own countries.” (Emphasis added). (nsarchive.gwu.edu). Declassified documents show that at least a part of the Clinton administration had wide ranging Ideas for NATO expansion in 1993. A document from the State Department presents a strategy for a coming NATO summit. “A more fundamental transformation would be for NATO now to commit to expansion. The NATO Summit would announce criteria for membership … These would be couched in a way that does not a priori exclude Russia, Ukraine and other NIS [Newly Independent States] … New NATO arrangements with Russia and Ukraine, would be designed to take away the sense that NATO expansion was directed against them.” (nsarchive.gwu.edu). While State Department was arguing eagerly for NATO expansion towards the East using similar arguments to General Secretary Wörner, others in the Clinton administration were less eager. The Department of Defense proposed that the U.S. should instead focus on a “Partnership for Peace” formula which would include Russia. In October 1993 President Boris Yeltsin send President Clinton a letter stating his uneasiness about NATO plans, “as the discussion of how NATO might evolve is centering with increasing frequency on the scenario of quantitative expansion of the alliance by adding East European countries. I tell you plainly that we favored different approach, one that leads to a truly Pan-European security system. ”… a step that could be perceived” as a sort of neo-isolation of our country in diametric opposition to its natural admission into Euro-Atlantic space.” (Emphasis added). (Description of Yeltsin’s letter on NATO expansion, National Security Archive.) At a later meeting on October 22, 1993 President Boris Yeltsin was led to believe that the new concept of a “Partnership for Peace” would include Russia on equal footing, as U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher had said that “There could be no recommendation to ignore or exclude Russia from the full participation in the future security of Europe… A Partnership for Peace would be recommended to the NATO Summit.” To which Yeltsin is said to have responded “This is brilliant idea, it is a stroke of genius.” Later Warren would argue that Yeltsin had misunderstood him, being drunk at the time. But in a phone call in July 1994, Clinton told Yeltsin he would like us to focus on the Partnership for Peace program and not NATO. “At the same time, however, “policy entrepreneurs” in Washington were revving up the bureaucratic process for more rapid NATO enlargement than expected either by Moscow or the Pentagon, which was committed to the Partnership for Peace as the main venue for security integration of Europe, not least because it could include Russia and Ukraine.” (NATO expansion – The Budapest Blow up, nsarchive.gwu.edu Apparently, Yeltsin suspected that the sweet talk was not entirely sincere, that NATO expansion was being prepared by the U.S. And Yeltsin was right wasn’t he, as it seemed that the U.S. had already committed itself to a NATO expansion towards the East. After a NATO summit in January 1994, the heads of state reaffirmed that NATO “remains open to the membership of other European states in a position to further the principles of the Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area. We expect and would welcome NATO expansion that would reach to democratic states to our East, as part of an evolutionary process.” (www.nato.int). At the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in Budapest, December 1994, Yeltsin blew up, accusing a domineering U.S. of trying to “split the continent again” through NATO expansion. On the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII on May 9-10, 1995, President Clinton visited Moscow. In meetings with President Yeltsin the NATO expansion was discussed. “No agreement was reached about enlargement of NATO, Russia agreed to take part in the Partnership for Peace program, while President Clinton agreed to promote "a special relationship between NATO and Russia." (U.S. Department of State, Archive). In preparation for Clinton’s meeting, Strobe Talbott, new Deputy Secretary of State, had provided Clinton with memorandum, with the stark title “May 10,– Moment of truth,” outlining the U.S. and Russian position on NATO expansion, and the possible outcomes of Clinton’s meeting with Yeltsin. The memoranda stated premises and backgrounds (/nsarchive.gwu.edu): “Since your trip to Europe and the former Soviet Union in January 1994, you and the rest of your Administration have been consistently asserting a determination to enlarge NATO ("not a matter of if but when") and also to advance the goal of an integrated, undivided Europe ("for the first time in a millennium...")… At your September Summit with Yeltsin in Washington, you got him to accept the proposition that NATO would, over time, bring in new members. You assured him that the process would be governed by the four "no's": no rush (expansion would be gradual, no surprises (it would be transparent), no threat (it would take account of Russia's legitimate security interests), and no exclusion (Russia would be, at least in theory, eligible for membership someday). There's a fifth "no" as well: no veto. (Emphasis added) At a NATO meeting in Brussels in June 1996, it becomes clear that Russian protests against a NATO expansion eastward is brushed aside, and a commitment to invite new members is reaffirmed, as can be seen from the final communique: “We reaffirmed our commitment to open NATO to new members, initiated by the meeting of NATO Heads of State and Governments in January 1994. The intensified dialogue with interested Partners now under way is an important step in this process. We welcomed the progress to date in this dialogue…” (www.nato.int). The relations with Russia were also discussed at the meeting: “In keeping with Russia's weight and importance, the development of a stable and enduring partnership between NATO and Russia is an essential element in the security of the Euro- Atlantic area … We recalled the Alliance's proposals made last September for an enhanced dialogue and for a political framework to guide our security co-operation and consultations; and would welcome the development of permanent mechanisms for political consultations.” (Ibid.). That Russia is still against NATO’s plans is evident from these excerpts from Foreign Minister Evgeny Primakov’s memo, dated January 1997 (Excerpts from Evgeny Primakov Memo to Gennady Seleznev, "Materials on the Subject of NATO for Use in Conversations and Public Statements): “1. Our position with regard to NATO expansion remains invariably negative. We oppose these plans and especially the possibility of moving NATO’s military infrastructure to the East. The main reason for our negativism comes down to the fact that realization of these plans, objectively, regardless of whether anybody sets this goal or not, will lead to the establishment of new dividing lines in Europe, [and] deterioration of the entire geopolitical situation globally. We cannot agree with the statements that behind these plans of expansion there is no intention to create alienation between the European states. [NATO] expansion will inevitably create such alienation if one takes into account the psychological, political and military aspects connected to it; [it] could lead to a slide into a new confrontation, and an undermining of trust between Russia and the Western States. (Emphasis added). 2. We consider the entire rationale of NATO expansion unconvincing. In 1990-1991, the leadership of Western countries assured us that NATO would not move “one inch” to the East, and that accepting new members from Central and Eastern Europe into the alliance was completely ruled out. A question arises—does today’s Russia represent a greater threat than the Soviet Union did at the time?” (Emphasis added). Fast forward to the NATO summit in Madrid on June 8-9, 1997, when the first batch of East-European countries were invited to join NATO: “Today, we invite the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to begin accession talks with NATO. Our goal is to sign the Protocol of Accession at the time of the Ministerial meetings in December 1997 and to see the ratification process completed in time for membership to become effective by the 50th anniversary of the Washington Treaty in April 1999.” (Madrid Declaration). At the summit NATO also reaffirmed that “NATO remains open to new members under Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The Alliance will continue to welcome new members in a position to further the principles of the Treaty and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic-area.“ (Ibid.). Inclusion of further countries is apparently seen as contributing to political and strategic interest of the alliance as well as enhancing security and stability. Russia certainly did not see it in this way. A fateful error Let’s see how the aging George Kennan looked at the dangers related to NATO’s eastwards expansion, the reasons for Russia’s belligerent attitude, and the causes for the proxy war in Ukraine. “A Fateful Error” was the title of an article George Kennan wrote in the New York Times in February 1997. He was absolutely against further NATO expansion eastward against Russia. “In late 1996, the impression was allowed, or caused, to become prevalent that it had been somehow and somewhere decided to expand NATO up to Russia's borders” (Kennan, NYT, February 5, 1997). In the views of Kennan, and others with an intimate experience of Russia, “…Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East- West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.” (Emphasis added). To Kennan it was “unfortunate that Russia should be confronted with such a challenge at a time when its executive power is in a state of high uncertainty and near-paralysis. And it is doubly unfortunate considering the total lack of any necessity for this move. Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the cold war, should East-West relations become centered on the question of who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military conflict? (Emphasis added). (Ibid.). Kennan argues that Russians will be “little impressed with American assurances that it reflects no hostile intentions. They would see their prestige (always uppermost in the Russian mind) and their security interests as adversely affected.” (Ibid.). Kennan was absolutely right, “there was the total lack of any necessity for this move.“ A move including the eastward expansion of NATO. A move that the U.S. had begun discussing in the early 90’s, a move that led to a kind of resuscitation of a NATO, and the cooling of relations with Russia. On April 22, 1997, Kennan writes the U.S. Deputy Head of State, Strobe Talbott, in order to convince the Clinton administration that the NATO expansion might be a fateful error. He is convinced that a side effect of NATO’s first batch of enlargements will “impose a good deal of instability onto the positions of the various countries which … have not yet been invited to become members of NATO. Almost prescient Kennan refers to Ukraine’ s position: “Nowhere, and for very good reason, does this choice appear more portentous and pregnant with fateful consequences than in the case of Ukraine.” (Emphasis added). Alas, the almost messianic NATO project of the U.S. at time did not heed the words of warning from the old diplomat and historian. The messianic project of the U.S. and NATO Kennan’s warning that the NATO expansion would be a fateful error, was apparently taken seriously enough to earn a reply, and Strobe Talbott’s reply is important. In his long reply we glimpse the overriding drive behind the U.S.’s eagerness to expand NATO eastwards, the almost missionary zeal of President Clinton to make sure that Europe would move in the direction of democracy, civil society, market economics and harmonious interstate relations. While the warnings from Russia and the likes of George Kennan and others in West are simply brushed away. Let’s take a closer look at the Clinton Administrations arguments as found in Talbott’s reply to Kennan (Draft Letter from Strobe Talbott to George Kennan, February 9, 1997). The security argument: “He President Clinton) was concerned about essentially three contingencies: 1. Intra-European regional conflict, stemming from ethnic and other tensions arising primarily inside and between the post-Communist states. 2. External threats from the Middle East of the Gulf. 3. A resurgent menace from the East, if Russia or other post-Soviet states were to regress toward dictatorship and return to a foreign policy of expansionism and intimidation” To have a military machine like NATO to deal with any external threats, “will diminish the chances that such a threat might arise” The messianic argument: “He (President Clinton) was mindful of a key, but underappreciated aspect of NATO's history and nature. NATO has never been solely a military instrument. From its inception, even as it was attending to its principal job of deterring the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, NATO has served a political function as well.” In this function it can “concentrate its energies increasingly on the political dimension of its mission. Indeed, it can extend that mission to the former member states of the Warsaw Pact —and of the Soviet Union itself. “ Meaning that it would help to ensure that Europe “continues to evolve in the direction of democracy, civil society, market economics and harmonious interstate relations.” Talbott argues that East-European countries eagerness to join NATO, has resulted in internal changes and reforms that shows how NATO’s political mission can bring about exactly these political gaols. The rejection of Russian concerns: Finally Talbott turns to Kennan’s argument against enlargement, that “Russia deeply distrusts NATO and fears enlargement; the "specter," as it seen, of NATO "encroaching" on Russia's western borders plays into the hands of ultranationalists.” In Talbott’s answer to this warning we find the Clinton administration’s arrogant rejection of Russia’s concern. “Once again, for the President, a profoundly difficult issue came down to a starkly simple choice: should Russia's acute aversion to enlargement keep the process from going forward? Yes or no? The President decided the only right answer was no. He believed, and continues to believe, that the arguments in favor of enlargement were sufficiently compelling to outweigh the negative of opposition in Russia” Talbott also argues that President Clinton thinks “it should be possible to work out with the Russian leaders a set of understandings and arrangements that will answer their legitimate political and security concerns.” Behind all the arguments lie the U.S. realisation that it has become the undisputed hegemon, the superstate, able to dominate everywhere. Intoxicated with its power, it would tend to disregard Russian aversions to its ideas and plans. Going back to 1992 we find the U.S. argument for its new hegemonic role in the world: “First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” (Defence Planning Guidance in February 1992. A secret memorandum by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz). Fulfilling the mission – the continuing ¨NATO expansion The expansion eastwards may have been welcomed by the new members as a way to guarantee their inclusion into the rest of Europe and the West. To paraphrase former President Clinton, the eastward expansion of NATO will help secure the historic gains of democracy in Europe, and provide a secure climate where freedom, democracy, and prosperity can flourish. It was a hope shared by most countries in Europe and the West at the time. At a Washington NATO Summit in 1999 “three former Partners – Czechia, Hungary and Poland – took their seats as full Alliance members following their completion of a political and military reform programme. (A short history of NATO- declassified, nato.int). When the U.S. Senate in 1998 overwhelmingly approved the eastward expansion of NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech, Senator Joseph Biden Jr. argued: “…this, in fact, is the beginning of another 50 years of peace, … "In a larger sense," he added, "we'll be righting an historical injustice forced upon the Poles, Czechs and Hungarians by Joseph Stalin." (Washingtonpost.com). No prescience in Biden’s statement, and he, himself, as president was later the one to break the peace. In March 2004 NATO moved even closer to Russia’s borders. Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the three Baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania became members of NATO. On April fool’s day in 2009, Albania and Croatia became NATO members. Fast forward to June 2017, when Montenegro became a member, and in 2020 Northern Macedonia, after Greece had finally accepted that it could become a member. The next step my prove to have been a step to far for the U.S. and NATO. Ukraine NATO-membership? At the North Atlantic Council summit in Bucharest on April 3, 2008, passionate members encouraged Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. (NATO Bucharest Summit Declaration 2008). Encouragement came from a George W. Bush administration eager to expand NATO. Ignoring warnings from Russia that Ukrainian membership would force Russia to treat Ukraine as an enemy. Some western leaders still lacked conviction, with Germany and France blocking Ukrainian membership of NATO, arguing that Ukraine was not ready and perhaps also heeding Russian warnings. French Prime Minister Fillon arguing: “We are opposed to the entry of Georgia and Ukraine because we think that it is not a good answer to the balance of power within Europe and between Europe and Russia.” The issue of NATO membership then lay more or less dormant until the Russian annexation of the Crimea and the fighting in the Donbas. Previous lukewarm Ukrainian public support for NATO membership slowly changed to public support for membership. Leading to Ukraine’s passionate press for NATO membership. In 2019 “The Ukrainian parliament, the Verkhovna Rada, … approved in its final reading a constitutional amendment that reflects the country's strategic goal of becoming a member of NATO and the European Union.” (Radio Free Europe). When President Zelensky visited President Biden in September 2021, he pressed Biden on the issue of NATO membership saying: “I would like to discuss with President Biden here his vision, his government’s vision of Ukraine’s chances to join NATO and the timeframe for this accession, if it is possible; and the role the United States can play being involved in a peaceful settlement in Donbas that we would like to reach.” (The White House). Biden at the time seemed to lack conviction and remained noncommittal. Later becoming more passionate he voiced support for the Ukraine’s wish. In December 2021 Zelensky’s chief of staff told Reuters: "President Biden said very clearly that the decision on Ukraine's accession to NATO is the decision of the Ukrainian people only, this is a sovereign and independent Ukrainian state." An attitude certain to encourage Ukraine and anger Russia. Harsh Russian reaction May be found in two Russian draft proposals for future treaties between Russia and NATO and the United States, published on December 17, 2021. The NATO-Russia treaty draft The first concern measures to ensure the security of The Russian Federation by keeping NATO at bay. The most important Russian demands are found in proposed agreements articles 4 to 7. Article 4 The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties. (Emphasis added). Article 5 The Parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles in areas allowing them to reach the territory of the other Parties. (Emphasis added). Article 6 All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States. (Emphasis added) Article 7 The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia. The essential Russian demands are quite clear: Withdraw NATO forces to where they were in 1997, and refrain from any further enlargement of NATO. Ukraine would therefore not be able to join NATO, and neither would Finland and Sweden. Other demands may seem to constrain Russia just as much as NATO. The US-Russia treaty draft The second set of demands is found in the shape of a proposal for a treaty between the U.S. and the Russian Federation. In the treaty proposal the main Russian demand is that neither the U.S. nor Russia shall use the territories of other States to prepare or carry out an armed attack against the other Party. In other words Russia demands that the U.S. shall refrain from establishing a military presence in states formerly members of the USSR. Here two of the most important articles of the treaty proposal. Article 4 The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them. (Emphasis added). Article 6 The Parties shall undertake not to deploy ground-launched intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles outside their national territories, as well as in the areas of their national territories, from which such weapons can attack targets in the national territory of the other Party. (Emphasis added). Russian threats While the demands in Russia’s two draft proposals could be seen to represent a clear starting point for a serious dialogue with NATO and the U.S. Russia found it necessary to accompany the proposals with a military posture that can only be seen as a threat of military intervention into the Ukraine. There was a build-up of Russian troops all along Russia’s border with Ukraine. Later apparently followed by movement of Russian troops into Belarus. There were even some Russian forces in Transnistria (the breakaway state from Moldova), and Russian units in the Mediterranean were entering the Black Sea. In effect Russian Troops encircled and threatened all of Ukraine’s northern, eastern and southern borders. Following the Dec. 30, 2021, phone conversation between Biden and Putin, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Russia would move to “eliminate unacceptable threats” if the United States and NATO did not respond to the Kremlin’s security demands, Al Jazeera reports. Arrogant rejection of Russian demands On January 26, 2022 the U.S. and NATO delivered their written response to the Russian demands, without at the time publishing the content of their response. But from a speech by Secretary of State, Blinken, on the same day we get the first indication of the U.S. response. The Russian demand for guarantees that Ukraine would be kept out of NATO is rejected. Blinken: We make clear that there are core principles that we are committed to uphold and defend – including Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the right of states to choose their own security arrangements and alliances.” Later the written answers to the Russian demands were leaked to the Spanish newspaper El Pais. With respect to Russia’s demand that NATO refrains from further enlargement, the U.S. states: “The United Sates continues to firmly support NATO’s Open Door Policy” With regard to some of the other Russian demands for Russian security Blinken indicated that it might be possible to find areas where agreements could be reached. Blinken: “We’ve addressed the possibility of reciprocal transparency measures regarding force posture in Ukraine, as well as measures to increase confidence regarding military exercises and maneuvers in Europe. And we address other areas where we see potential for progress, including arms control related to missiles in Europe, our interest in a follow-on agreement to the New START treaty that covers all nuclear weapons, and ways to increase transparency and stability.” In essence the U.S. flatly rejected Russia’s most important demands, while offering to have a dialogue about other subjects related to a mutual interest in security and transparency. Blinken said that NATO would deliver their own response, indicating that the U.S. and NATO responses would be reinforce each other, with “no daylight “between the U.S. and its allies. This is confirmed by the leak to El Pais in which NATO “reaffirm our commitment to NATO’s Open Door policy under Article 10 of the Washington Treaty.” Thus, rejecting Russia’s main demand. NATO also expresses regret that “Russia has broken the trust at the core of our cooperation and challenged the fundamental principles of the global and Euro-Atlantic security architecture.” In a press conference on January 26, 2022, Blinken was asked: “Do you have any channel that is open to Vladimir Putin right now to communicate about any way to end this war?” He just answered: “Well, various leaders, countries have sought to communicate with him, may even remain in communication with him. Of course, the Ukrainians are talking to the Russians.” Showing the abysmal level of U.S. non-diplomacy in the Biden administration. Russia reacted angrily to the U.S. and NATO rejection of their proposals. On February 17, 2022 the U.S. ambassador to Russia was handed their reaction. “Russia is concerned about the increasing US and NATO military activity in the direct vicinity of Russia’s borders, whereas its “red lines,” core security interests, and sovereign right to defend them continue to be ignored… Given the lack of readiness on the part of the United States and its allies to come to terms on firm and legally binding guarantees on Russia’s security, Moscow will have to respond, including by implementing certain military-technical measures.” (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1799157/). Just a few days later they implemented their threat of military-technical measures, invading Ukraine on February on 24, 2022. The result, an escalating proxy war Instead of a situation like in the 90’s really advantageous for creating a new security architecture with Russia as an equal partner, we now have proxy war in Ukraine. A proxy war that is more or less a direct result of the resuscitation of a NATO, a NATO that might have become irrelevant. In a sense the resuscitated NATO now seems to be slipping back into its old role as guardian against Russia, forcing unity on its members, and demanding “kriegstüchtigkeit.” Arming itself against self-imagined threat from a Russia, that has become the new old enemy. So much for peace after the demise of the Soviet Union. The present war in Ukraine seems to the be a further result of the U.S.’s messianic striving to bring peace and democracy, by imprinting its idea of rules-based order upon the rest of the World. A few weeks after the new Secretary of State, Blinken, had been sworn in, he outlined his idea of “A Foreign Policy for the American People.” Saying: “We will renew democracy, because it’s under threat…But we will not promote democracy through costly military interventions or by attempting to overthrow authoritarian regimes by force. (Emphasis added). We have tried these tactics in the past. However well intentioned, they haven’t worked. They’ve given democracy promotion a bad name.” (Secretary of State Blinken, March 3,2021). A year later the U.S. is fighting a proxy war in Ukraine, to save what U.S. sees as a Ukrainian democracy, but perhaps first and foremost to humiliate or overthrow a Russian authoritarian regime by military means. So much for avoiding costly military interventions.  Since the war began the West has time after time transgressed their own red lines in what has become a continuous escalation of military support for Ukraine, and anxious probing of Russia’s red lines. Here a look at some of the latest examples of ongoing and what might be coming contributions to Ukraine. In the apparently unending sequence of western leaders first rejecting Ukraine demands, then realising that Ukraine might be in dire straits, and therefore persuading themselves to dare escalate after all. Fearing evidently that the U.S. led proxy war might be lost, and that all previous help would have been in vain. ATACMS Among Ukraine’s demands is the long time clamouring for another kind of a long-range missile that can be fired from the HIMARS and MLRS they already have. On November 17, 2024 President Biden finally caved in to Ukraine’s clamouring for authorization to strike Russia proper with ATACMS missiles, although for the time being limited to strikes in the Kursk region. No wonder perhaps that a beleaguered Biden, humiliated in his Afghanistan withdrawal, involved in a Ukraine proxy war with no clear end and conflicts and wars in the Near, Middle and Far East, and clearly afraid of having to admit another defeat, again crosses his own red lines in relation to Russia. “A Telegram channel affiliated with the Ukrainian military posted a video Tuesday [November 19] that it says shows U.S.-supplied ATACMS missiles being fired from an undisclosed location in Ukraine.” (AP). Apparently, a volley of 6 ATACMS were fired at a location in the Kursk region. The ATACMS missile has almost the same size (4meter long) and weight (1300-1700 kilograms) as the Storm Shadow/Scalp missiles, but it is ground-based and can be fired from a modified launch pod mounted on a HIMARS or MLRS. Several different versions have been produced over time. From MGM-140A, MGM-140B to MGM-168A with different warheads, a range of 70 to 300 km’s, and warhead of 160 to 591kg. During flight they may reach Mach 3. Meaning Russians forces only have minutes to react. The MGM-140A version may carry 950 M74 APAM (Anti-Personnel Anti-Material submunitions), cluster munition that scatter in mid-air and able to cause destruction of personnel and light material over an area of 33,000 m2. MGM-140B carries the same submunition but only around 300, while other versions may carry Brilliant Anti-Tank (BAT) guided submunitions to destroy moving armoured units or stationary missile/rocket vehicles. Finally, there is a unitary warhead with higher precision, presumably resulting in less collateral damage. “While the ATACMS does assume a ballistic arc to its target, it also performs a series of rapid and sudden turns and course corrections on the way to its aimpoint. This is a deliberate function of the ATACMS, as this seemingly erratic flight behavior makes it exceptionally difficult to track or intercept.” (militarytoday.com). Illustration showing ATACMS being fired from a HIMARS vehicle, diagram of the weapon and a photo of single M74 submunition. M74 is a ball-like aerial dispersed, centrifugally armed, high-explosive, anti-personnel (AP) submunition.  Sources: Army Recognition and cat-uxo.com Storm Shadows/ SCALP’s Ukraine has long pleaded for long-range missiles, not the least to be able to strike Russia in Crimea. The UK were the first to cave in to their pleading and provide an unknown number of the so-called Storm Shadow missile, followed by France with their variant of the same missile, called SCALP (Système de Croisière Autonome à Longue Portée – Emploi Général). The missile is made by MBDA, a European consortium made up of Airbus, BAE Systems and Leonardo. The Storm Shadow/ SCALP missile is a fairly long-range deep strike precision weapon, conventional armed. Used against fixed or stationary targets such as hardened bunkers and key infrastructure. Usually operated from aircrafts it is said to possess exceptional accuracy due to its advanced navigation system that combines INS (Inertial), GPS and terrain following systems. Basic specs: Weight 1300 kg, 5 meters long, with a conventional warhead of 450kg, and a range said to be around 250 km’s. Looking like a submarine, this is a picture of Storm Shadow/SCALP missile mounted on an aircraft pylon (MBDA).  Source: MBDA https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/storm-shadow-scalp/ Ukrainian Airforce’s Soviet-era SU-24M Fencer combat aircraft have been adapted to carry this heavy missile. It has been used by the Ukrainians to strike deep behind Russia’s frontlines, and is assumed to have been used in deep strikes on infrastructure in Crimea and on the Russian navy in Sevastopol. Eurasian Times reports that 11 Storm Shadow missiles were used in the September 13, 2023 strike on the naval port of Sevastopol, although apparently only 3 missiles slipped through Russian defences hitting a submarine and a landing ship in drydock. On September 20 Ukraine made a new attempt to strike an airbase in Crimea with 8 Storm Shadow missiles, with no missiles striking the target according to Eurasian Times. Later Ukraine struck again: “at around noon on Friday, September 22, Ukraine's Defense Forces successfully struck the Russian Black Sea Fleet Command HQ in temporarily occupied Sevastopol.” (Ukrinform). In November 2024 Ukraine got permission from the UK to use Storm Shadow missiles to strike into Russia proper, into the region of Kursk, and on November 20, 2024, Ukraine apparently fired the first batch of Storm Shadows into that region. Territorial defense forces in Russia claims that 12 Storm Shadow missiles were launched at around 2:50 p.m. in the direction of Bryansk. Taurus stand off missile Storm Shadow /SCALP missiles and ATACMS’s have not been enough for Ukraine. For some time, they have had their eyes on the German made longer ranging missile “Lenkflugkörper Taurus KEPD-350.” About the same size as Storm Shadow/ SCALP, it may be used for even longer range precision strikes on hardened structures like bunkers etc. MBDA describes the missile as having a range in excess of 500 km, unmatched penetration capabilities, precise and jamming resistant navigation, including terrain-following capability below 50 meters, GPS independence, with 4 separate guiding systems, and a layer counting fuse. The last characteristic means that the missile after diving vertical in the last phase, will be able penetrate layers of a bunker with hardened penetrator, counting the number of layers and voids penetrated. See illustration of the concept at https://taurus-systems.de/#penetration The missile's physical specs: Length 5m, width about 1m, weight 1400kg, with a warhead weighing 481 kg.  Examples of Taurus target attacks:  Now why would Ukraine want Taurus missiles. It may be because the Taurus has a longer range of around 500 km, and it might also be more efficient against certain structures. Realizing that Ukraine has been eager to attack the Kerch bridge and made several attempts to put it out of action, one might guess that Taurus missiles would be used to attack the bridge due their longer range. Of course, it would also be possible to strike into Russia itself supplementing the more primitive drone strikes carried out by Ukraine. For this reason, the possible delivery of Taurus missiles is a very sensitive topic in Germany. While some politicians are eager to provide Ukraine with the Taurus, Chancellor Scholz and others are having serious misgivings. Just the thought of German missiles hitting somewhere in Russia make them shudder, and for now hold back. In order to somehow satisfy the Ukrainian demands it has been the suggested that technical alterations of the Taurus might limit their range to something like the Storms Shadows, in order to make sure that Russia would be out of range, but this has been met with the counter argument that it would demonstrate that Germany did not trust Ukraine. Evidently the use of Taurus would require close German assistance. A discussion among German officers reveals the dilemma related to German support “Politicians may be concerned about the direct closed connection between Büchel [German airbase in Rheinland-Pfalz, where the US has placed nuclear weapon] and Ukraine, which could become a direct involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.” With the German election on February 23, 2025, it is to expected that Merz of the CDU party will become Chancellor, and he has said that he would support the delivery of Taurus missiles to Ukraine under certain conditions. But would a President Trump want Germany to escalate the war in Ukraine? Russia’s ballistic response and harsh warning The first Russian reaction to the ATACMS and Storm Shadow attacks came almost immediately. On November 21 Dnipro in Ukraine was hit by a ballistic missile apparently fired far away from Russia’s Astrakhan region. At first the Ukraine said they had been hit by an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile). Later it turned to be an intermediate range ballistic missile. Clip from video supposedly showing warhead explosions from the ballistic missile attack  During a public address on the same day President Putin denied that Russia had used an ICBM, instead he said “In combat conditions, a test of Russia's new medium-range missile system was conducted. In this case, the missile was equipped with a non-nuclear payload," The medium range missile is said to have been the 9M729 Oreshnik, although the number seems to belong an older ballistic missile.
According to Putin the ballistic missile attack on Ukraine was in response to Ukrainian attacks on Russia using the ATACMS and Storm Shadow missile days before. Arguing that "From that moment, as we have repeatedly underscored, a regional conflict in Ukraine previously provoked by the West has acquired elements of a global character." Putin further warned that any escalation by the West would be followed by a decisive Russian response, and it might not be limited to Ukraine: “We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities, … If anyone else doubts this, then they are wrong - there will always be a response." What’s Next – apocalypse now? President Zelensky’s first reaction “Today, Putin admitted to taking a second step this year toward escalating and expanding this war. A new ballistic missile was used. Putin struck our city of Dnipro, one of Ukraine’s largest cities. This is a clear and severe escalation in the scale and brutality of this war—a cynical violation of the UN Charter by Russia.” Well, what did he expect…? What happened follows the muster we have seen almost since the beginning of the proxy war. Escalation and counter escalation in a growing spiral of escalations as we have shown in earlier blog essays. True to form Zelensky is now demanding decisive reactions from the West, although that would surely get us closer to open war between Russia and the West. The danger is certainly evident. The US DOD (Department of Defense) is apparently considering changes to the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review from 2022. With the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Policy (N-CWMD) Richard C. Johnson arguing: “"We are now in a world where we're facing multiple nuclear competitors, multiple states that are growing, diversifying and modernizing their nuclear arsenals and also, unfortunately, prioritizing the role that nuclear weapons play in their national security strategies." So, what’s next. No idea, but perhaps the West is beginning to realise the dangers related to a continued escalation, and an ongoing war. Until Ukraine is bled out, to put it bluntly, or some miracle make Russia give up, or some unintended mishap or provocation leads to open war between NATO and Russia – or until the West finally demands that Ukraine must accept some kind fait accompli like a DMZ. The last possibility would of cause be the least dangerous way out of the present stalemate. For now, apart from some desperate last-minute action from a fast-aging President Biden, we have will to wait and see what intentions and plans President Trump has in relation to Ukraine.  A long speech on the order of world
Early in November 2024 at 21st meeting of the so-called Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, President Vladimir Putin held a very long speech on his views of the World and World order today. Yes, I know today the western media has an obsessive focus on president elect Donald Trump, what he is saying, what he is doing, all the time trying to second guess what he will do and what it will mean for the rest of the world. But perhaps it is almost as important to have a look at what President Putin of Russia has to say about a changing world and an emergent new world order. Here a look at some aspects of Putin’s speech at the Valdai meeting (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/75521). The dissolution of a Western order Putin argues that the existing world order is dissolving and that modern world has become increasingly unpredictable: “There comes, in a way, the moment of truth. The former world arrangement is irreversibly passing away, actually it has already passed away, and a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding for the development of a new world order. It is irreconcilable, above all, because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence. It is a clash of the very principles that will underlie the relations of countries and peoples at the next historical stage” Interestingly and perhaps rather surprising to western eyes, Putin sees the west as increasingly dominated by totalitarian ideologies, while we tend to think of Russia and China as dominated by totalitarian thinking. Putin’s argument: “Modern Western liberalism, in my view, has degenerated into extreme intolerance and aggression towards any alternative or sovereign and independent thought … Increasingly often, democracy is being interpreted not as the rule of majority but of minority. Traditional democracy and the rule of the people are being set against an abstract notion of freedom, for the sake of which, as some argue, democratic procedures, elections, majority opinion, freedom of speech, and an unbiased media can be disregarded or sacrificed.” Somehow his view of western liberal democracy as degenerating into a kind of rule by minorities and driven by identity politics seems to rhyme with the views of Donald Trump, and it may even by part of the explanation why he won of the recent election, to the surprise of whining western mainstream media. The Western attempt to defeat Russia Putin argues that red lines have been reached in the present struggle with the West: “The former hegemons, who have been accustomed to ruling the world since colonial times, are increasingly astonished that their commands are no longer heeded. Efforts to cling to their diminishing power through force result only in widespread instability and more tensions, leading to casualties and destruction. However, these efforts fail to achieve the desired outcome of maintaining absolute, unchallenged power … Instead of recognising the futility of their ambitions and the objective nature of change, certain Western elites seem poised to go to any lengths to thwart the development of a new international system that aligns with the interests of the global majority. In the recent policies of the United States and its allies, for instance, the principle of “You shall not belong to anyone!” or “You're either with us or against us” has become increasingly evident.” Putin warns that the West’s global messianism is dangerous: “The West’s calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a nation with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, reveal the reckless adventurism of certain Western politicians. Such blind faith in their own impunity and exceptionalism could lead to a global catastrophe.” Strong words and while many in the West believe that Putin is wrong, when he sees the present proxy fight against Russia as part of such a messianic struggle, it is in fact possible to find evidence indicating that he may be right. Western hybris at the end of the cold war “In the mid-1990s and even in the late 1990s, a US politician remarked that, from that point on, they would treat Russia not as a defeated adversary but as a blunt tool in their own hands. That was the principle they were guided by … . By distorting the results of the Cold War to suit their interests and reshaping the world according to their ideas, the West displayed flagrant and unprecedented geopolitical greed.” Here some evidence showing that Putin may be right in his view of the West’s, and especially of cause the United States of America’s intentions and convictions. After 1990 the U.S. realized that it had become the undisputed hegemon, the superstate, able to dominate everywhere. Intoxicated with its power it made plans for a “Pax Americana. Just listen to this: "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia … There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” (pbs.org). This is an excerpt from a Defence Planning Guidance in February 1992, a secret memorandum by the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Paul Wolfowitz. The secret Wolfowitz 1992 memorandum, now partly de-classified, also states that “after the collapse of the Soviet Union the United States may be said to be the world’s sole superpower, enjoying a predominance on the world political-military stage that is unprecedented in the last century” (Wolfowitz, National Security Archive, gwu.edu). Causing conflicts today Similar views may underlie the conflicts we are witnessing in today’s world. To Putin “It is a conflict between the overwhelming majority of the global population, which wants to live and develop in an interconnected world with a great deal of opportunities, and the global minority, whose only concern, as I have said, is the preservation of its domination.” Putin recognizes that West has “amassed significant human, intellectual, cultural, and material resources which enable it to thrive as one of the key elements of the global system,” But instead of using their formidable achievements to strive to preserve their global hegemony, Putin argues that the West’s efforts should be directed towards “addressing the common problems that concern everyone, from demography and social inequality to climate change, food security, medicine and new technology.” Putin’s six principles for a new world order Looking for an alternative to the present conflicts Putin is proposing six principles that in his view ought to underpin relations in a multipolar world. First principle: Open interaction “Openness to interaction stands as the paramount value cherished by the overwhelming majority of nations and peoples. The endeavour to construct artificial barriers is not only flawed because it impedes normal and advantageous to everyone economic progression, but also because it is particularly perilous amidst natural disasters and socio-political turmoil, which, unfortunately, are all too common in international affairs.” Second principle: A polyphonic world order Emphasising “the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability.” Meaning that we must avoid a scenario “where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others … it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code, and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.” Instead, one has to embrace a world system that is polyphonic “one in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, absolutely must be heard. Those who are used to soloing and want to keep it that way will have to get used to the new “scores” now.” This means that in Putin’s view a UN Charter written by the victorious countries must undergo changes. Putin does not say how this is supposed to happen, except that is must be done carefully. Third principle: Inclusion Putin argues that it must be avoided that hegemonic powers believe that they are entitled to dictate to others what their interests are. Instead, his alternative sounds almost like modern days DEI policies (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) practiced on a world of countries and peoples. Funny, seeing that DEI principles in organisations seems to day seem to be losing their attractiveness Rather vaguely Putin argues “As the world transitions to a multipolar reality, we must develop mechanisms to broaden the application of such principles. In each instance, decisions must not only be collective but must also involve those participants capable of making a meaningful and significant contribution to resolving the issues at hand. These are primarily the actors with a vested interest in finding a positive resolution, as their future security – and, consequently, their prosperity – depends on it.” Fourth principle: Finding security without NATO’s bloc policy “The key principle of security for all without exception is that the security of one nation cannot be ensured at the expense of others’ security. I am not saying anything new. It has been set out in OSCE documents. We only need to implement them.” Says Putin, his errand here sems to deride the bloc policy of NATO: “There is only one bloc in the world that is held together by the so-called obligations and strict ideological dogmas and cliches. It is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which continues expansion to Eastern Europe and is now trying to spread its approaches to other parts of the world, contrary to its own statutory documents. It is an open anachronism.” To Putin NATO would have lost the only reason for its existence, when the cold war ended, but the U.S. kept it alive in order to exercise command in its zone of influence. In fact, it was difficult to see the raison d’etre of NATO after the cold war. As we have argued in the blog “No need for NATO today, if dismantled in the 90s.” The Soviet Union was rapidly dissolving and descending into something that could not be seen to as threat to Europe or the U.S. Nationalist militarism in Europe had long disappeared, and European political integration was seen as having a glowing future, now that the Soviet Union had disappeared and Eastern Europe was poised to participate in the European political integration. Remnants of former times only remained in the Balkans. This is how a former CIA analyst and areas expert on Russia, with 30 years of experience, saw the time when the Iron Curtain came down: “As the Iron Curtain came down and the Soviet empire began disintegrating, the opportunity to construct a post-Cold War peace was there for the taking. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Gorbachev in a Feb. 9, 1990 meeting that, following the unification of Germany, NATO would expand “not one inch eastward”… It’s difficult now to describe the feeling of those halcyon days.” No wonder therefore that Putin thinks “It is obvious that military-political and ideological blocs are yet another form of obstacles created to hinder a natural development of a multipolar international system. I would like to point out that the notion of a zero-sum game, where only one side wins and all the others lose in the end, is a Western political creation.” Instead, Putin is looking to the BRICS, the international organization originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, but now also including Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. Today even Turkey, a NATO member, seems eager to join. In Putin’s view “BRICS serves as a strong example of genuinely constructive cooperation in today’s evolving international landscape. Additionally, BRICS platforms – where entrepreneurs, scientists, and intellectuals from our countries meet – can become spaces for deep philosophical and foundational insights into the current global development processes. This approach embraces the unique characteristics of each civilisation, including its culture, history, and traditional identities.” Fifth principle: Justice for all In Putin’s view “Inequality is the true scourge of the modern world. Countries face social tension and political instability within their borders due to inequality, while on the international stage the development gap that separates the so-called Golden Billion from the rest of humankind may not only result in more political differences and confrontation, but also, and even more importantly, exacerbates migration-related issues” Here the term “Golden Billion” refers to the fringe theory that “a cabal of 1 billion global elites seeks to hoard the world's wealth and resources, leaving the rest of the planet to suffer and starve.” (npr.org). Putin does not seem to have any clear idea of how the inequality can be alleviated or erased. “Of course, there is no magical cure for this ill. It requires a long-term, system-wide effort, beginning with the creation of the necessary conditions to remove artificial, politically-motivated development barriers.” Sixth Principle: A vaguely holistic view of the world This just sems to be another variant of Putin’s main concern. This time again talking about Western arrogance, “which translates into a desire to condescendingly lecture others, endlessly and obsessively … There is supposedly a developed world, progressive society and some universal civilisation that everyone should strive to join – while at the other end, there are backward, uncivilised nations, barbarians. Their job is to listen unquestioningly to what they are told from the outside, and to act on the instructions issued by those who are allegedly superior to them in this civilisational hierarchy.” Again, Putin just talks vaguely of the alternative. A polycentric world, in which the West does not have a hegemonic role: “The modern world tolerates neither arrogance nor wanton disregard for others being different. To build normal relationships, above all, one needs to listen to the other party and try to understand their logic and cultural background, rather than expecting them to think and act the way you think they should be based on your beliefs about them. Otherwise, communication turns into an exchange of clichés and flinging labels, and politics devolves into a conversation of the deaf.” Yes, but how does he propose to achieve what he calls a normal relationship. Realistically, we might see that hegemonic power is shifting east, to Asia and China, but this would just become a new hegemonic power, different from the existing but declining Western hegemony. It would certainly not realise Putin’s DEI concepts for countries and nations. |
