'Trump will not struggle to find new ways to divide the Europeans'. Palazzo Chigi Press Office Handout
And so, farewell to the last of the trans-Atlantic US presidents. Donald Trump’s inauguration marks the end of an era: Zeitenwende as the Germans call it. And no, the Europeans won’t be alright.
Over the weekend I was re-reading The World of Yesterday, Stefan Zweig’s autobiography. In what turned out to be the Austrian writer’s last book, published in 1942, he contrasted life at the turn of the 20th century with that in the Thirties. The young people in the late Twenties and early Thirties, he noted, were obsessed with their newly acquired technical gadgets — radios and telephones, and for those who could afford them, cars and planes. They had less freedom though. Zweig noted that his own generation had lived “more cosmopolitan lives, the whole world was open to us. We could travel wherever we liked without a passport or a permit, no one examined us for our attitude, origin, race or religion.” He could be talking about today, and our dying age of globalisation and freedom of movement.
Few Europeans would accept the elegant precision of Zweig. Most are in denial. One of them is Friedrich Merz. He is the German opposition leader, in pole position to win next month’s German elections. And Merz said over the weekend that Donald Trump presented a great opportunity for Germany. He thinks he can entice Trump into agreeing a trade treaty. I wish him luck. Speaking at the same campaign event, Angela Merkel called for a joint European security policy. We would have had one today if only she had initiated it. She was Germany’s chancellor for 16 years.
There is much complacency and wishful thinking in Europe’s discourse about Trump. When he was first elected, the Europeans did not take him seriously. Then, when they realised he was serious, they bet, correctly as it turned out, that he would be defeated at the subsequent elections. But Trump’s defeat simply returned them to the same old complacency. They may be a little less delusional about the direction of US politics after the November elections. But they still don’t have a Trump strategy.
To see what lies in store for Europe, just take a look at who will be at today’s inauguration in Washington DC. Generally considered a domestic event, foreign states are usually represented by diplomats. But in a break with tradition, Trump has invited Giorgia Meloni — the only European head of state on the guest list. Nigel Farage will also be there, and Tino Chupralla, the co-leader of the Alternative for Germany. Éric Zemmour will come from France. Most of the European attendees are leaders of far-Right parties, with a few representatives of other political groups — mostly on the Right — and assorted ambassadors. Trump’s relationship with Europe is not one of a transatlantic alliance of countries, but of parties.
For the Italian Prime Minister, the election of Trump is a lucky break. EU leaders committed a big error when they side-lined her last summer to hand Ursula von der Leyen a second term as president of the European Commission. They did what they always do — formed a coalition among each other without thinking strategically. They had a nominal majority and did not need Meloni’s support. She was blindsided in the unedifying Brussels jobs carousel. In stark contrast, Trump, has called her a great leader and treats her with a respect she does not receive in the EU.
She also has a close relationship with Elon Musk. If she goes ahead buys into Musk’s Starlink satellite system for secure government communications it would be a significant blow for the EU, which is trying to develop its own competing system. I expect to see more bilateral deals with the US that will end up undermining common European projects.
Trump will not struggle to find other ways to divide the Europeans. Take selective tariffs, for example. He cannot single out individual countries, because the EU is a customs union. But he can pick sectors. If he goes after cars, naturally it will be the Germans who will be hit the hardest.
He didn’t start an all-out trade war during his first term. But this time, things are looking more threatening. American media recently reported that Trump and his economics team were considering declaring a state of economic emergency. While this might sound ridiculous, given the strong US growth rates, there is a legal basis for him to do so. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1977, allows US presidents to impose sanctions on countries to protect US national security interests. Carter used it in 1979, when he ordered the freeze of all Iranian government assets in the US after the Iranian hostage crisis. Joe Biden more recently used it to impose sanctions on Russia. But it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that Trump could use these sweeping powers in an unorthodox fashion: for tariffs, bypassing the traditional routes of US trade law. Yes, you can be a dictator, legally, and for more than a day.
His priority, as his term begins, will to be reverse the offshoring of sectors he and his team deem critical to US national security, such as rare earths or batteries. While German cars may not be on that particular list, I expect he will give the Germans and the other Europeans a painful transactional choice: either suffer tariffs, or agree to offsetting purchases of US gas and military equipment. Both would be nails in the coffin of the German economic model. The first would lead to more offshoring, as German companies will shift production to the US. The second would make Germany reliant on ever more expensive energy. The forced purchase of US defence equipment, meanwhile, would come at the expense of domestic manufacturers, such as Rheinmetall. It would surely have made more sense for the Europeans to build their own defence industry, but that would have required a strategic foresight that Merkel lacked.
Germany offends Trump on so many levels: the trade surpluses; the low defence spending and the reliance on the US for security; the transition to Green energy and the abolition of nuclear power; immigration policies; and pretty much everything Merkel ever did. He will also certainly remember being laughed at by German diplomats at the UN when he correctly pointed out the geopolitical danger of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline connecting Russia and Germany. Trump was also right when he said the Germans build excellent machines, and yet their armed forces are an under-invested shambles. I think he is right, too, when he complains about Germany’s notorious trade surpluses, which are mistaken for economic strength. Germany was still considered a global economic power-house when Trump first came to office eight years ago. Today, he sees it as an economic basket case. He is not wrong.
Apart from forcing Germany to pay for its own defence, he will also tell them to take a leadership role in Ukraine. Germany won’t want to rise to the occasion, not even under a conservative leader such as Merz. But whether or not Trump succeeds in imposing a peace deal on Russia and Ukraine, it will be the Europeans, and the Germans especially, who will have to pay. The Germans have the strictest fiscal rules in the world, and the largest volume of unfunded projects. Despite what they say, they are not ready to plug the gap left by America.
For while Trump is not the cause of Germany’s weakness, he exposes it like nobody before. And Germany has only itself to blame for its weakness: it chose not to reform its economic models. And it chose not to invest in defence. You do not have to be a Trump supporter to conclude that on the specific bilateral disputes Trump had with Germany, Trump was right, and Germany was wrong.
But the biggest threat to Germany’s governing elites is Trump’s and Musk’s ongoing support for the AfD, a party that advocates a withdrawal from the EU and the euro, and a policy of reversing immigration flows. Musk’s endorsement of the party on X had an immediate effect on its polling. While the AfD is not about to win the elections, the presence of Trump and his continued support would give them a credible path to power.
Trump won’t destroy the EU in a formal sense. He won’t leave Nato either. But he is going to deconstruct the post-war European order in many subtle and not so subtle ways. And he will bring down the perma-coalition of Europe’s centrists which has been running the EU uninterrupted from its inception.
They are the people who are clinging on to their own World of Yesterday. They are the political establishment. They will not be alright.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeGreat piece. A couple of points of minor disagreement.
i. I think Trump is the very last of the trans-Atlantic US presidents, not Biden. He effectively constructs the bridgehead to what will come hereafter – new and much younger generations of American leaders (both Republican and Democrat) who will have no boomer-time reference points, let alone WWII ones. They will be much less Eurocentric because America is now compositionally much less European. And I agree – Europe, and the UK even more than Germany, is going to find that difficult and painful. Some harsh geo-realist lessons on the way – for everyone.
ii. Yes, Merkel is absolutely culpable in creating the current vulnerability of Germany’s economic model, by omission if nothing else. But Merkel was the best technocratic representative of a completely pervasive mode of thinking. If not her, it would have been someone else with exactly the same thinking but possibly worse execution. And my observation is that not just the transatlantic, but the global geopolitical delusion was hardly unique to Germany. France is at least as much culpable and is as vulnerable, as was Britain in spades (before Brexit), as is Spain, and Benelux, and the Nordics, and so on – it was a product of Europe wide consensus.
So true, but currently, the UK government is not going to find a more remote USA particularly difficult or painful, because we have the last trans channel PM, but it won’t last for long: and when it turns sour, it will surprise them!
Who else but a total incompetent would want to team up with Brussels?
When it comes to our German friends, I think of what Albert Einstein said: “Insanity’s definition is to repeat an action many times, while expecting different results each time.”
I’ll note that a good leader tries different things to achieve different results, per this quote, and a good manager looks ahead, being proactive in his management, not reactive. The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, the next best time is today.
These are things which our German friends should bear in mind …
The insanity quote is repeatedly (!) attributed to Einstein, but he never said it. It appears to date back to just 1983 – see Misattributed Quotes – Business Insider
Never let the truth spoil a good quote that’s what I say. 🙂
I’m going to quote that from you but mis attribute it to ghandhi
Se non e vero, e ben trovato
Trump makes deals.
He does like good deals and he’s pretty tired of paying to defend Europe.
But you don’t have to guess at what he wants just ask him.
And I won’t tear up over the current establishment being disestablished.
Just what does the USA defend Europe from? Obviously Russia is not going to invade other European countries; it hasn’t tha ability to do so, as has been proved in Ukraine. Probably the Soviet Union couldn’t have done it either.
China is rather a long way away…
The defence “card” must surely have been played too often to have any more value.
Your question (and logic) says that there is no need for Nato and the U.S. is foolish to pay the lion’s share of Nato. Therefore Trump’s potential exit from Nato shouldn’t be an issue for Europe.
Precisely right! Europe should look after itself, with the appropriate military resources which it will have to pay for from its own funds.
Excellent piece.
The only grumble I have about it is that I think it overestimates Trump’s/Musk’s effect on the AfD.
Their continued popularity has less to do with what the new POTUS and his First Bro say about it and more to do with the ongoing failures of the establishment parties and their unwillingness to admit and try to reverse past mistakes.
True. Trump and Musk are stars that happen to align with a seismic shift in German politics, but they did not cause it, are not required for its continuation, and in fact could do little to stop it in the unlikely event they ever need to try.
I remember Frau Merkel snatching German flags out of people’s hands and throwing them on the floor.
Disestablishment of the church of politicians is long overdue. Avoiding apres moi le deluge nihilism or worse is the risk. 4th turning hits apogee in 2028 with resolution to new order in 2032.
I expect historians will come to view the times since WW II as a sort of fever dream. Many good things were achieved but many worthwhile things were lost along the way.
And despite all the conspiracy theories there was no secretive Elite directing travel. Almost all the political leaders flocked together in a vast murmuration. But now the trailing birds are being picked off. The EU, and therefore Germany, flap harder to try and be at the front of the murmuration – not yet realising that the flock is shattering into many smaller units.
Quite poetic.
Well put. That said, to reject the existence of a cabal – such as, for example an old money European and US aristocratic cabal that long since decoupled from the soil upon which they once stood (or now stand) – is just as naive as the Illuminati proposition. As always, the truth is more complex and nuanced.
History teaches that political leaders murmurate, not because they have an innocent love of flying in formation, but because there are incentives to do so. And the (dominant) incentives are always the same: money and power; power and money.
But it is, broadly speaking, a truism that populations get the leadership they deserve. Somewhere along the way, likely after the 50’s, the citizens of Europe started telling themselves new and exciting stories about how they had “cast off the surly bonds of human nature”. The world had to hear about how the tribes of Europe, now “united as one”, would show the rest of mankind how to save …well…everything, really: the soul of human “civilization”, culture, art, the planet (I could go on). And this blend of hubris, navel gazing and magical thinking created just the room needed for more pragmatic, realism-driven cultures to reposition and ultimately marginalize Europe and its peoples: strategically, economically, technologically, and politically.
Only now these self-proclaimed Shepherds of Man have woken up, and are looking for their lost scapegoats up and down the Via Dolorosa.
“….either suffer tariffs, or agree to offsetting purchases of US gas and military equipment”. That won’t be an entirely bad thing. Germany (and the rest of Europe) will need to significantly increase their military spending to prepare for the inevitable war with Russia.
The WEF is meeting in Davos this week, have they yet realised it should be a wake for their view of the world? Countries in Africa, South America, the Middle East, China and Russia don’t agree with them, USA will put their interests at the forefront of their actions, European countries including UK need to catch up and get real.
The WEF can console themselves with having destroyed Ireland.
Come friendly bombs and fall on Davos
I chuckled a bit when I realized the author argues Europe is clinging to yesterday and then goes on explaining how the world is going to be a lot like yesterday. The danger is of course that the 21st century will indeed by a postmodern reenactment of the early 20th century. After all, a lot of the postwar measures and institutes were born out of trauma, to prevent world wars from happening again. That also goes for the German reluctance to build a strong army, which is not just decadence but still part of the Keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down doctrine. Nevertheless, in my opinion, the erosion of the postwar order already started in the 70s, when the Bretton Woods system was de facto abolished.
Many in US thought we fought the wrong enemy in WWII. There’s been relative peace for 80 yrs. But so much unfinished business from 1940s. Unvanquished, winning with an extemely weak hand Russia, and too smart by half communist China did what Mao (I think) said of the west and got us to give them the weapons of wests defeat.
Hard to see how we get Rusdia and China where we want them without much blood being spilled.
Let’s be honest pre Trump Germany had gotten a free ride on defence for prior quarter of a century. They weren’t the only ones – non NATO ones in Western Europe have always had it.
The point about not taking him seriously because key people took his contradictory positions and words literally all of the time, is still apt today.
His cabinet is like an All Star Apprentice line up of disruptors, conflict and designed in the most unusual way to be creative and innovative.
In Germanys defense, let’s all remember the three legged stool of NATO; keep Russia out, US in, and Germany down. Typical of Teutonic efficiency, it’s succeeded too well in staying down.
Let’s all hope the good ship SS Deutschland can turn soon, and stand up.
I’m so relieved he won. We need liberal globalism to be taken out and shot in the back of the head asap before it destroys the west completely.
President Trump might just be the tonic Europe, and the UK need to start some necessary changes.
I remember the Germany delegation at the UN laughing at Trump when he called them out for their reliance on Russian energy. Who is laughing now?
When Germany (Merkle) welcomed Syrian refuges in 2015, who noticed that a majority where fighting age single men? Perhaps it’s time to pull the welcome mat out good and hard, after all Assad is safely in Russia.
I support arming Ukraine and would like to see those countries closer to Ukraine contribute more to its defense. Imagine in the next US defense budget hearing, European Defense Ministers came into to testify how much their countries are spending and how much they want from the US. Then we have the vote.
In the UK I am concerned about where the Starmer government is heading with speech policing (over say, regular policing and dealing with grooming gangs). Many the UK is moving towards illiberal democracy.
Let’s hope for the best.
As long as Europe blames everyone but failing leadership, it will continue to flail. Failure shared, is not failure mitigated, it is only spread.
For a western world that claims to seek truth, it sure does run from it. Trump won’t let them, so every revelation will be because he turned over the rock, not because something rotten was under it.
What comes to us today is less an emperor than a new tailor. But first, the admitted nakedness. It’s cold out there, and embarrassing. Time for a change of style.
Good.
European leaders since WW II have made some truly terrible decisions. Unlimited immigration, “green energy,” the forcible punishment of national pride and even national character in the name of stamping out “fascism” – all of these things are proving to have consequences far worse than the original conditions. The correct question is not whether Trump will abandon Europe or damage Europe. The correct question is: Will Europe survive at all?
“Most of the European attendees are leaders of far-Right parties”
Oh dear. I almost stopped reading there. But curiosity got the better of me… and I am pleased it did. Nothing else in the article caused me a problem. Vote Reform.
“Far- right” seems to have become a sort of lazy shorthand for anti-establishment. There are simply too many levels of nuance to explore every time the term “far-right” is employed, and no substitute has been found yet. Even “anti-establishment” is problematic. We’ll see how anti-establishment the likes of Meloni, Kickl, and Weidl are in the not too distant future. I’m giving the author the benefit of the doubt for now. I’m quite sure he’s aware of all the arguments against the use of the “far-right” smear.
What do German leaders actually want? It can’t simply be to ride on freebies from America, can it?
Europe better step up quick. Else it will find itself changed from US client/buffer to the geographic reality of it becoming an appendage of autocratic Asia. (At most its a sub-continent, whatever that is.)
There’s an ugly reality Euros need to recognize this is 1900 and they aren’t the great powers.
There was a reason that the European powers of the 19th century were busy planting a flag on every piece of land they could, Europe doesnt have enough resources. Then when the empires were surrendered in the 20th century so too went the European ability to dictate world affairs. They continued along on momentum and the fact that they were the proxy battlefield between 2 world powers that had an interest in keeping them bribed and happy but that time is at an end and unfortunately for the Europeans they didn’t end up doing what needed to be done to retain relevance.
The fact of the matter is that the future now belongs to continent sized, super populous nations they are the only ones with the ability to compete. The EU all together barely has parity with the US in terms of size and geography, so how could any individual nation or even handful of nations within the EU expect to complete with the likes of China or Russia.
Unfortunately they only shot the Europeans had was to forge a pan-European identity to establish the idea of a united Europe. Unfortunately the technocrats that got put in charge of that problem seemed intent on doing everything they could to drive the popularity of nationalist identities within the EU putting a nail in that coffin for the next generation or two. Added to that the Europeans are doing everything they can to drive away the driven, intelligent, successful and ambitious from their shores and to other players and the European continent is quickly moving to resemble South America in the 19th century than the Mediterranean during the 1st.
So Europe is left with a choice they can throw their lot in with the US and the west or prostate themselves at the feet of the authoritarian east. Just remember when the 2 sides were busy trying to desperately claim the continent in preparation for the WW2 post show one side was raping, massacring and committing unspeakable violations of humanity on one side, whereas people were doing everything within their power to find a way to surrender to the side led by the Stars and stripes.
But hey I’m sure China will be much better it’s not like they’re rounding up ethnic and religious minorities into camps and harvesting their organs.
“There was a reason that the European powers of the 19th century were busy planting a flag on every piece of land they could”
Except the most successful ‘flag planters’, the British, had plenty of the main resources of the age – coal and iron.
The reason Europeans were so successful in the 19th century was because in the preceeding centuries they had developed the best economic, political, military and technological systems.
Whoever wins the upcoming struggle between the US and China will need to be better than the other in those same things.
This author is proving to be a valuable contributor to UnHerd, but like many Europeans, the lingering worship of the US remains evident. Are we even living in the same reality?
Germany, once home to some of the greatest minds of our civilization, was crippled, wounded, and ultimately convinced—like anyone who has ever been in an abusive relationship—that it was inherently bad and must be “taken care of” for the rest of its existence. What a shame. The defeated Germany, or what was left of it, had no choice but to submit.
What is perplexing, however, is the lack of growth—both spiritually and rationally—since then. I would place much of the blame on the belief that the EU is another paternal figure (Merkel was the fearful mother), responsible for looking after the wounded children of Europe.
Europe consists of many distinct nations, each with its own interests and needs. This is why so-called “right-wing” movements (a term that needs serious reconsideration—I prefer to call them alternative wings) are gaining prominence. Yet, instead of acknowledging their concerns, the establishment frames them as a resurgence of Hitler. But no, Hitler is not back—what is happening is that critical thinkers are waking up to the reality of a destabilized, deindustrialized, and deeply depressed society.
Meanwhile, the US has far greater domestic turmoil and China at his heel to contend with than worrying about “poor Germans” lamenting their inability to manufacture the modern gasoline-powered car they actually invented—or better yet, to move forward with electric vehicles, which are now the standard if not very near future!
Trump will inherit a declining nation. He will have to battle de-dollarization, the loss of geopolitical influence, and possibly some former colonies slipping away. Germany, I hope, will be the first to say “no” to continued dependence on the U.S. The saber-rattling from Washington—whether in the form of tariffs or absurd claims over Greenland—seems more like fear tactics aimed at provoking a reactive, rather than autonomous action, European response. It’s a game—one that Russia and China are watching from a distance, laughing, because they know.
This is what I predict: Donald Trump—maybe not today or tomorrow, but eventually—will nationalize all military equipment manufacturing. My prediction is based on his erratic foreign policy, his disregard for allies (he simply doesn’t care), and—more importantly—the way all the tech billionaires are circling around him like peasants at court. This suggests he is deliberately isolating weapons manufacturing from telecommunications.
It is becoming clear that, since at least World War II, the U.S. military has been structured for covert operations, relying on private contractors to fight proxy wars. However, with the real possibility of direct confrontation with China and Russia—both of whom have centralized, state-controlled militaries—the U.S. finds itself at a disadvantage (basic art of war). Unlike in World War II, when the U.S. had a cohesive wartime industry, today’s military-industrial complex is fragmented, with multiple private owners competing for profits rather than serving the interests of the nation and its people.
The U.S. still has a strong military—but primarily when facing much weaker adversaries. In a confrontation with a near-peer power, a fractured industry led by competing billionaires is not a strategic advantage; it’s a liability. Military production should have a single owner: the state—not a handful of oligarchs prioritizing profit over national defense.
He is going to pull an FDR-style move that will shock the West but ultimately realign its ideologies from its stupor!
Military procurement in the US already suffers from weird, wasteful requirements from our Congress. The sure and certain consequences of making it a state enterprise will be vast employment of hosts of unaccountable employees, focus on powerful legislators’ constituents’ economic interests, and effective, economical weapons systems last.
I think military procurement in the U.S. is, as you said, very complex. However, the growing conflict between it and the office of the presidency is coming to the forefront (i.e Ukraine etc). The military-industrial complex operates largely outside direct state control, wielding significant power through influence and lobbying.
From Trump’s perspective, the key question would be: why are they independent from the executive branch, and who do they ultimately answer to? He actually raised these questions during his campaign, but because he wasn’t explicit or forceful in his stance, they weren’t widely amplified. Ideologies mean nothing to him; he is practical!
To understand Trump, you have to put yourself in his shoes (which is very difficult lol but doable because he often asks “but why”). His underlying goal is to consolidate power for decisive actions, but deep down, I don’t think he is a war leader. In fact, I believe he wants to push out the profiteers so that U.S. military can be used for maintenance of the country – different strategy (though I’m open to being proven wrong). He seems to aspire to a model similar to Putin’s—where oligarchs come to him and seek his favor, rather than using their existing power to obstruct his agenda.
If you think like Trump, you might argue that the President should have ultimate authority over the military-industrial complex. Some might see this as an emergency measure—but that may be exactly what he intends to do to leave his mark.
Mmm. I’m afraid I disagree with your view of reality, but hey, here’s mine:
The US is the only country on the planet that could, if really necessary, operate in isolation. (it’s economy is self-sufficent in energy, natural resouces and size of population). Sure, it’s debt levels are sky high. (so are others). But that doesn’t really matter in a world where every other democracy is competing for debt finance. The US only needs to be the least ugly girl at the Bond Market ball. Right now all the debt money in the world is flowing into the US. That’s not just because it’s the world reserve currency, but because given a choice where else would you risk your money to get a decent return ? (the EU? -dead, China?-too risky, UK?- too poorly managed). Naw, America’s ability to innovate and generate wealth totally outstrips everyone else.
Who knows ,maybe the EU will surprise us, disband Brussells commission, unwind the Euro, and return the EU back to when it actually worked -the Eurpean Economic Community based on free trade. And then we here in Britain could revert back to doing what we always do: remain totally incompetent, but smugly wagging our finger at everyone saying “I told you so!..”.
While wearing unfashionable corduroy trousers. In the rain.
I love a good argument, but I think you are overlooking the fact that the U.S. is not actually self-reliant or self-sufficient. Simply put, they don’t have everything needed for modern technology. Maybe they were self-sufficient in 1945, but today, that is no longer the case. They can produce all the oil in the world, but with the technology we have now, they still need resources from other countries. To say that any country is fully self-sufficient in today’s world is impossible. A hundred years ago, it might have been different.
That’s my point number one.
Point number two: If America were to nationalize its military, the president would have more direct power. That’s the angle I was going for (thinking of Trump), rather than focusing on the owners and profiteers of military contracts who also influence wars. As I said, if America goes up against Russia and China, it would need a more decisive way of waging war rather than relying on deception, which the U.S. has mastered. This deception includes terrorism, covert operations, and psychological warfare—they are all already happening.
But US never actually faced a real threat of nuclear carrier country! That is where free market may die on arrival!
But if a real confrontation arises, America can’t have five different billionaires making decisions and demands based on their own interests. That model is no longer viable for today’s world with another equal adversary!
Like I said, it’s good to have a well-rounded discussion, and we are probably all correct in one way or another. However, America is no longer self-sufficient, and its power does not come from self-sufficiency. It comes from two things: its reserve currency and its military strength – which both under threat from adversity more or less equal to them!
Now, if America truly became self-sufficient, would it even need such a powerful military? You might actually be arguing against your own point.
Us europeans have allowed our continent to slide into this down hill for past 17 years with zero growht, net zero rules that will kill industries and BAR new ones. Catastrofical energy decisions and more. ECB (european central bank) will intro together with UK & Norway central bank digital currency this year. Real purpose is to muddle and hide inflation AND to gain control. Yes it will become programable hence gov & “independent” bank will decide what, where, when and how much each user can get, go or do ! All while USA will steal our jobs and industry and will rejoin the freedom – no to net zero!
We have weak & bought political class. Change must happen but we need real leaders. Please listen to Liz Trust interview online. She spells it all as to why thigs are as they are in UK but same principals apply to all western Eu members. Some eastern counties have two generations of people who have lived under “socialist” rule so they still have living memory and will resist and be labelled in main media news.
Great! Bring it on
Well, yes. Trump’s great advantage is that he has not been bought and paid for by the globalist elites best exemplified by the WEF. He is no genius, but he is a sharp businessman and very crafty and because he is not merely propagating someone else’s narrative he tends to look for first principles, and ask “Why?” a lot So, he sees what the European elites miss, even about themselves.
I do think Trump is Atlanticist at heart, but he is a realist who sees that Europe as currently run is just not a worthy partner. And he will give priority to his own country over others, because that is what a national leader is supposed to do.
It’s not Trump’s fault that Europeans are governed by a bunch of dull-normal apparatchiks, and he should not be condemned for taking advantage of that.
I write from Chicago, and like many Americans I would like a Europe that could be a real partner in preserving a secure world and a democratic order among those who want it. Unfortunately, Europe as currently led is not that partner, not in terms of economic vitality, nor social cohesion, nor military capability, nor, sad to say, preserving basic political rights such as free expression. The word is thrown around far too much, but I cannot help but see Europe’s leaders as crypto-fascist in economics and domestic politics, but fascists who see their nations as inherently bad, not superior; fascism without nationalism.
Germany “invested” (wasted) billions on the energy transition, thereby crippling its manufacturing base. A two-for-one of huge expense with damaging consequences. Just stop it!
“(Buying more fuel from the US) would make Germany reliant on ever more expensive energy.”
It’s hard to imagine an energy source more expensive, broadly understood, than Putin’s Russia.
Great article.