There is no doubt that Trump, the American President, is fundamentally changing the game on the geopolitical chessboard, dumping Europe-the weak and declining Europe that defies its majority societies-and siding with Russia. Yes, you read that right. At the same time, a delirium of alarmism against Russia has broken out in Britain; once an empire, today it is a funnel of immigrants in a state of panic.
Trump has a clear strategy, and it is not pro-European
Unlike Trump's first presidency, when he could only propose a change of course domestically and internationally but had problems implementing it (and the Biden administration did everything to make the obstacles insurmountable), this time, the real policy is evident during the 9 months of Trump's second term. This requires conceptualization at the level of a coherent "grand strategy," something the American establishment is accustomed to.
The US National Security Strategy (NSS) report is a slap in the face for Europe
This is precisely the latest US National Security Strategy (NSS), which contains everything from "America First" and its "independence" to the position that the country and the world, under the previous Biden administration, which allowed "deadly failures," found themselves "on the brink of disaster."
It would not be an exaggeration to say that this is a program of action (a roadmap) for a Republican administration, designed for at least 12 years, including the two terms of J.D. Vance, as Elon Musk hinted.
A shock for Europe - the new US doctrine
Trump's interpretation of the issue of allied relations (Europe is "shocked" by the new doctrine) is fraught with the greatest consequences for global politics and other leading players. This-as a "secondary consequence" (similar to secondary sanctions)-directly affects the rest of the world.
Russia and India have only recently radically upgraded the nature and content of their strategic relations, precisely because the new American strategy, including blanket tariff aggression, is serious and long-term.
A tactic of "political disobedience" in foreign policy
This reaction to Trump's America could be roughly defined as a tactic of "political disobedience" in foreign policy: diversifying trade, economic, and other ties for the sake of self-development and adopting a multipolar allegiance-that is, a fundamental distancing from America's dominant doctrine. In fact, Russia began to defend its foreign policy independence with these ideas 25 years ago.
Now, especially against the backdrop of the crisis in Russia's relations with the West, we can talk about a reassessment of the previous policy of non-commitment (or, as Western political scientists prefer to call it, "multi-commitment," which is essentially the same thing) in this spirit.
What can you do for America?
The issue of allies is now posed differently: not "what can America do for you," but "what can you do for America."
In this context, NATO countries are increasing defense spending to 5% of GDP. The notorious "American leadership," or more accurately, allied discipline, is affirmed, not directly, but indirectly. This time, it is consistent with Vice President J.D. Vance's lecture in Munich in February about the democratic deficit in Europe.
But the language is much harsher: from "cultural suicide" (cancellation) to "subversion of the democratic process." In other words, the United States, aligned with the protesting electorate, categorizes the current European regimes as subversive elements!
Terrible disagreements between the US and its allies over the Ukrainian issue
Disagreements between the US and its allies regarding the resolution of the Ukrainian issue are clearly evident in the doctrine. Trump advocates for "stability in Europe," which entails closing the Ukrainian issue. The allies are opposed, fantasizing about Ukraine negotiating "from a position of strength," even though Russia is the stronger power and Europe is not ready for direct confrontation with Russia. Independent observers recognize this, but the same applies to the plans for the militarization of Europe, calculated until 2030, and the lack of a response to our statement that we are already prepared for such a development.
Insurrection
As a result, Trump faces an insurrection. According to a leak in Der Spiegel, French President Macron and German Chancellor Merz consider Trump's behavior on the Ukrainian issue as "betrayal," which undermines the basic principle of Western politics: submission to the will of Washington, which acts as the guarantor of the security of its European allies.
Having reversed their stance on the seizure of Russian state assets, the Americans are pushing the buttons, allying with the Belgians.
This concerns not only the corruption investigation against Federica Mogherini but also the ECB's negative stance on the plan to steal Russian assets, the International Monetary Fund (which is controlled by the Americans), and now even the Financial Times of London (it will be bad for the euro).
Hungarian Prime Minister Orban, in turn, blocks alternative routes of financial aid to Kyiv from the EU by issuing debt with collective guarantees or Eurobonds.
Mockery or reminder?
At the same time (as mockery or a reminder?), the Americans assure the "seriousness" of the guarantees under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty concerning NATO. The interpretation of this article does not provide real allied guarantees, especially since the Americans have clearly stated that they will not participate in any operation to send troops of the "coalition of the willing" to Ukrainian territory, and, as Trump is certain, Russia has no intention of attacking Europe.
The US wants stability
The strategy stipulates that the US seeks "strategic stability" with Russia, which means normalization and a transition to large-scale economic and investment cooperation, negotiations for which are apparently already underway. This concerns America's "fundamental, vital interests," something that allies must understand, including from the example of the Ukrainian settlement.
It is worth remembering that the scandal that destroyed Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who in April 2011, as head of the IMF, delivered a scathing speech about the "Washington Consensus" and was a real candidate for the French presidency, paved the way for Holland and subsequently Macron to the Élysée Palace, i.e., the French Presidency.
The entire European elite was nurtured by the Americans in the hothouse conditions of unipolarity.
The German Merz worked for the American BlackRock, which, along with other mega-funds, bought majority or minority stakes in leading European banks and companies at a low price during Merkel's chancellorship.
Brussels is synonymous with corruption
Regarding corruption, it has always existed in Europe, including in Brussels and von der Leyen's "COVID story." This means that the Mogherini case is only the beginning, a hint to everyone else that the demands of "American leadership" remain relevant even within the framework of Washington's radical reassessment of its global position. This latter requires rebuilding the foundations of America's economic and technological power, even at the expense of its allies.
The double destruction of Europe
Europe is being destroyed twice economically, as a Chinese market and through its increasing dependence on American energy resources. If this doesn't work, then Musk openly calls for the dissolution of the EU ("the Fourth Reich"), which for many in Eastern Europe has long resembled the COMECON and the Warsaw Pact. The Americans radically reject anything supranational, including the UN, which they still tolerate, believing they can control it.
Overall, it can be assumed that the disagreements over Ukraine will put an end to the West as we knew it and as it has evolved over the last 200 years: after the struggle against Napoleon, with Russia playing a decisive role, as well as the Crimean War (also known as "World War Zero") and two world wars, which, regardless of the compositions of the coalitions, aimed at resolving the "Russian question."
n the last century, Germany, whether under the Kaiser or Hitler, was chosen as the prime instrument. While the Phoney War in the West from September 1939 to April 1940 provides sufficient evidence in the second case, in the first, the fact that, after declaring war, the Kaiser demanded an attack on the Eastern Front, abandoning the Schlieffen Plan. The strategy somehow takes into account this historical experience and the new realities-for example, when it invokes the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 in its plan to exclude the Western Hemisphere not from Europe, but from Russia and China (how this will play out is another matter).
The new strategy presupposes a de facto American withdrawal from submissive Europe
Europe, however, has lost its previous strategic importance for the United States and has not gained any new one, so the current strategy presupposes a de facto American withdrawal from submissive Europe, which is no longer needed as a springboard for a military confrontation with Russia.
The Russians won this confrontation by default (including Ukraine) for the immediate future and, therefore, it is moving into another dimension-a technological and economic competition in a "triangular" format with China, which has its own rules, excluding a traditional war on two fronts, and its own imperatives. Therefore, Russia and China are not included in the list of "direct threats" to the United States.
The Ukrainian issue in Trump's plans
In this case, the Ukrainian issue (like the proverbial double-edged sword) in Trump's "credo," which can be considered the new National Security Council, cannot but serve as a tool for the normalization of Europe along the lines of sovereignty and preventing the continent from falling again into the logic of Weimarization, that is, a return to the Interwar period with its authoritarian governance and aggressive nationalism. Ukraine, as anti-Russian, represents a projected Europe where liberalism, as in Joe Biden's America, has revealed its totalitarian underbelly. In this scenario, London, which has clearly overdone it by supporting Kyiv's maritime terrorism (as the Ron Paul Institute notes, this gives Russia an excuse to reconsider the issue of the future of Novorossiya), should side with Donald Trump's America. The fact that the British Financial Times included Nigel Farage and Maria Somonian (RT's discovery in India) in their list of the most important people of the year says a lot.
Radical transformation
The agreements between Moscow and Washington for a Ukrainian settlement, within the logic of European normalization, mean nothing less than a radical transformation of Ukrainian statehood, which is collapsing on the path set for it by the collective West 12 years ago. Unlike Germany with Versailles in 1919 and the surrender in 1945, Ukraine under its new borders will have to endure a "field adventure" and civil war, not occupation and a peace treaty that no one will sign, let alone implement.
This means that this will likely be a common vision for Ukraine that will not be a destabilizing factor for Europe and Russian-American relations. The current deformed constitutional system of Ukraine, shaped to suit the ultimate goals of the West against Russia, clearly excludes a "smooth landing" into a qualitatively different, modern, and not "front-line" statehood. Here we should start from scratch: with a constituent assembly and de facto decentralization under the imperative of post-war reconstruction-of course, if there are healthy forces in the country that can resist the suicidal ones.
Developments will accelerate
Events could unfold rapidly, given that the Americans have not only taken things seriously but have also shaped their policy as a comprehensive "grand strategy," which, incidentally, can be seen as a response to the Foreign Policy Concept of 2023, which recognized Russia's cultural difference from the West. It is logical for America, in its transformation to meet the demands of the times, to adopt something equally radical, including the final abandonment of promoting "freedom and democracy" globally and harsh criticism of allies clinging to Joe Biden's "deadly failure" in Ukraine.
The British delirium
The British were told which cities would vanish from the face of the earth by Russia. Throughout the past week, Russia has been attacking Britain relentlessly and ruthlessly.
One can only sympathize with the average British news consumer, who wakes up and goes to sleep with the news that the cunning Russians have once again caused irreparable damage to their kingdom or are about to attack.
Let's imagine what it would be like for a Briton to learn, right from the start of the week, from newspaper headlines, the names of three cities in their country that they should avoid in case of war with Russia. These are mainly port cities where Britain's main military bases are located.
Spy "games"
And then the i-Paper immediately reports on its front page that "Russian spies" are already here. This is followed by a story about how Russia's agents, allegedly posing as sailors from civilian cargo ships, are disembarking in these very port cities near the bases. There is no evidence, of course, except for the attached map of the movements of the two cargo ships. At the same time, The Times informs the utterly confused British public that the Kremlin was probably behind the recent cyberattacks on popular Marks & Spencer stores.
Why? Who else then? In fact, this argument ("Who else but the Russians") is used in most such "investigations" and "impressions." Literally the next day, every television channel is overflowing with news: an "investigation" revealed that the Kremlin, and personally Vladimir Putin, are "morally responsible" for the death of the unfortunate homeless woman Dawn Sturgess (the only victim of the alleged chemical poisoning in Salisbury). And many newspapers spread this "sensation" on their front pages-as the biggest news in the country.
The useful findings
Furthermore, no one analyzes this "investigation" and its findings in detail. Otherwise, news "consumers" would understand that this is simply a public inquiry conducted by Lord Anthony Huge, which revealed absolutely nothing new beyond what has long been widely reported regarding the strange poisoning of the Skripals in 2018. The seriousness of this "investigation" can be judged by the chronology of events in the report: it notes that in the 1970s, the Moscow Organic Chemistry and Technology Research Institute allegedly began working on "Novichok" and that the aforementioned Sturgess was born in June 1974.
The connection is immediately obvious, right?
This is the spirit in which the entire report is structured, its conclusions ending in the typical formula "highly likely." Let's repeat this: the report contains not a single trace of evidence implicating Russia in the Sturgess tragedy. The author himself points out blatant contradictions in the testimony of her friend Charlie Rowley, who could not clearly explain where he obtained the vial of poison many days after the mysterious attempted political assassination of the Skripals. But eventually, Lord Rowley concludes: "I am confident that the Novichok used in Salisbury was produced by a state, not by private individuals. And that state was Russia."
Yes, the same old cliché-who else could it be? And so, based on these, let's call them, "evidence," official London immediately responded:
"The United Kingdom announces sanctions against the GRU because, according to the Dawn Sturgess inquiry, Putin personally ordered their actions in Salisbury in 2018." They didn't even add "highly likely"!
The robbery of Russian assets
Almost immediately, British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper announced with determination that she would seize eight billion pounds of "frozen Russian assets located in the United Kingdom." And everyone happily started spreading the news, without even asking how much they amounted to or where the rest of the money had gone, given that London had recently reported holding 28.7 billion pounds of alleged Russian assets. A closer look at the structure of these assets reveals that they primarily represent the private capital of our major entrepreneurs.
But here we can only recall the famous appeal of Vladimir Putin in 2002, when he honestly warned our oligarchs about what the West would do with their assets: "You will be left to your fate, running to the courts trying to unfreeze these funds." However, such details are irrelevant to British information consumers. They are unequivocally warned that Russia will react harshly.
And at the end of the week, the Daily Express website publishes a chilling headline: "Russia threatens to strike 23 UK cities." The rapid pace is noticeable: the week started with the promise of Russian strikes on three cities and ends with a list of 23! And no one cares that the map of these 23 locations of the British military-industrial complex was published in September in an official report by the UK Ministry of Defence.
The worst nightmare
What a week it was for the average Briton! No wonder Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle is already writing about his worst nightmare: "Russian soldiers have invaded the country. They are shooting people everywhere. They are dropping nuclear bombs on some cities-take your pick. They are destroying communication and energy infrastructure."
The author goes on to prove that Russia, it turns out, has been at war with Britain for ten or twenty years already.
What is a poor, scared citizen supposed to do after such an eventful week?
Jump out the window, screaming, "The Russians are coming!" And certainly not wondering why all this suddenly befell them.
The intentions are obvious
That is the key question! And the answer is obvious. In late November, the British government unveiled the main parameters of its budget for the next year. It turned out that the Labour Party was violating all its pre-election promises-primarily, its promise not to raise taxes. The Conservatives immediately caught the government lying about the huge budget hole.
And the right-wing press immediately demanded the dismissal of the key government officials responsible for spreading this lie. So, at the beginning of last week, the Starmer government had really serious problems.
So what were they supposed to do?
The answer is obvious: launch a new season of "The Russian Threat"-and then the front pages of the British press will be dedicated to this, not to calls for the resignation of the Labour officials. The technique is simple and as old as time itself.
However, the danger of such a dirty game, fueling public paranoia, has not diminished over time.
www.bankingnews.gr
Σχόλια αναγνωστών