Opinions #4/25

If political news possessed memory, farewell ceremonies would also retain the relevance they deserve. Goodbye, power, in this case American power. Meaning the president’s final farewell to the White House. Messages in a bottle that could be valuable clues for the analysts of today. Joe Biden said some important things in his last speech to Americans. Serious stuff. He denounced the emergence of a dangerous oligarchy on the political, economic, financial, and industrial scene of the country. That is, it is an unprecedented concentration of financial resources and tools to influence the needs, desires, and votes of the American people. This is about the super-rich who have found in Donald Trump a catalyst for a project that transcends national boundaries. But within those boundaries, he is reconstructing the very American democracy dear to Tocqueville’s apostles. A trajectory that, uniting Musk’s rockets and his X Platform, Zuckerberg’s Facebook, Bezos’s Amazon, and Thiel’s PayPal, creates a demiurgic reality that stands above any traditional intermediary body such as political parties. A primus, a populist president by definition – in his own view, “by God’s will” – and his entourage of distinguished individuals who have achieved outstanding success in all sectors of modern society. As we await the appearance of the star-spangled flag on Mars, as announced by Trump, his predecessor is warning his fellow citizens, and more. Biden points the finger at the oligarchical-populist drift that concentrates an unprecedented amount of power in the White House. The degree of convergence will be tested in the coming months. Of course, it’s obvious that there is no corner of the collective imagination today that hasn’t been overtaken by the intervention of a club set up in Trump’s inner circle. What this means for Americans, neighbouring countries, opposing governments, and especially allies is a matter of ongoing debate. Mexico and Canada can rightfully worry, not to mention Panama and Greenland (see: Danish). Trump’s ominous promises to expand the United States, voiced in his inaugural address, echo the worst provisions of the Monroe Doctrine (dated 1823). The words he uttered immediately after returning to the Oval Office regarding Russia and Ukraine seem to fall into the same hyperbolic category held dear by the tycoon. He said it was in Russia’s interest to end the war and that Putin should come to the negotiating table as soon as possible, which Zelensky was ready to join. Trump wants to be a “peacemaker” and is playing his game by sending mixed signals: by threatening and almost insulting Zelensky, to whom he no longer wants to supply billions and weapons, and putting pressure on Putin. Not even twenty-four hours later, the much-talked-about videoconference between Putin and Xi Jinping, held under the banner of strengthening mutual understanding between the Global South’s two leading allies, showed that the chess game had just begun. As did the matchup with Europe. Concerned about Musk’s ‘lictor arm’, the US withdrawal from climate agreements (so similar to Bush Jr’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol signed by Clinton), the abandonment of the World Health Organization, the technological backwardness compared to the Americans and the Chinese, and soon the Indians. And here, the “dictatorship of immediacy” (Macron’s copyright) is prompting European leaders to show concern and announce retaliatory measures. But which ones? Twenty-five years ago, the Galileo project envisioned a constellation of satellites that could become an alternative to the US GPS geolocation system. Two customers were ready by then: post-Soviet Russia and rapidly developing China. The inaction of governments and the voluntary restraint of the UK, which at the time was dead weight in the EU, caused the disaster. Behind, there was the American position (see Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s Brussels Commission warning) that did not recognize European autonomy in the field of dual-use technology. Today’s gestures by Von der Leyen and company come late in the day. Friend Biden has done the kind of damage to the European club that Trump is unlikely to be able to do. Doping American industry, exporting inflation to record levels, forcing the Europeans to reject cheap energy from Russia, pushing them to incorporate into the logic of war, right down to the masterpiece: encouraging them to rearm individually, detached from any community strategy. This is a very risky move that, combined with the nationalist resurgence seen in almost all European states, brings closer the worst danger for a continent that has seen two devastating world wars because of rearmament and nationalism. And then, if European leaders, having escaped the “dictatorship of immediacy,” could look back at the recent past, they would find different signals in the words of presidents on the threshold of exit. Like the one Dwight Eisenhower left three days before the end of his second term. In his last address to the nation, he warned Americans of the risks to democracy from the US military-industrial complex. It was the early 1960s, and democracy was under threat not only in the United States: the chronology of coups around the world says a lot about that. Conclusion? There is little new in Trumpian Newism. The tools available are getting more advanced, starting with Musk’s satellite galaxy, but the spirit of the New Frontier remains the same. Where TruMusk might go next is a matter of debate. Alessandro Politi’s analysis helps us determine his possible perimeter. And Heinz-Joachim Fischer takes us back to the long “reign” of Angela Merkel, author of an autobiography that the German historian and Vatican expert believes is too indulgent. Because, in his opinion, the problems of today’s Germany, and Europe likewise, originate in the years of the chancellorship of “Mutti”.