In this video, I discuss the new U.S. national security strategy, which, to put it mildly, is concerning for Europe. It's largely a document about how the Trump administration sees it as a requirement for continued transatlantic cooperation that MAGA movements come to power in European countries. Watch the video on the website or read the transcript below. Best, Anders * * * ### _Transcript:_ Last week, the Trump administration released the new U.S. National Security Strategy. This is a document that typically every new American administration will issue to outline how they see the world and the challenges for the United States. However, the message in this one was different and very dramatic. It outlines a new U.S. foreign policy that shakes the foundations of NATO. So let's talk about it. This national security strategy is special for several reasons. First, there is the form. It's quite short, and it's also very straightforward. It's written in a clear and easy to understand way, but it's also partisan in a way that is unusual for such documents in the United States. It's full of MAGA talking points and statements about how Donald Trump is awesome. It also includes a lot of criticism of the Biden administration. This is unusual because typically a national security strategy is crafted in a way that gives the impression of having the nation at the center and not the current president. But secondly, there is the message. Quite frankly, it represents a revolution in the way the US government views the role of the United States in the world and its strategic priorities. It breaks with basic principles that have guided American foreign policy since at least the Second World War. In many ways, it's a very honest document. It outlines how MAGA sees national security and the role of the United States in the world. And it does so without sugarcoating anything. If you've followed American politics over the last year, many of these things might not be totally surprising. When you've seen how Donald Trump has acted on the world stage, you could infer some of these things. But now it's clearly documented. And that's interesting. In a sense, it's liberating because, for example, in Europe, there are many people who have been eager to cling to the idea of the United States as it used to be, as the ally that we could always trust. That even though there might be disagreements among us, we can still trust the United States. But now, with this clearly outlined national security strategy, it's really hard for European countries to keep making excuses on behalf of Donald Trump. It's written clearly that he does not see Europe as allies or trusted partners, but rather as perhaps the biggest enemy of the United States on the world stage, and that it is official U.S. policy to work toward regime change in European countries and to weaken or even destroy the European Union. That is the kind of level we are on in this document. So what does MAGA security politics actually look like? They outline several priorities. The first is that, according to them, the era of mass migration is over. So there is something about migration there. And therefore, we need to close the borders and to limit the flows of people. Another priority is the issue of free speech, which they regard as very important. The way to understand this, I think, is that it's mostly a question about moderation on social media and that they don't like that. They see that as something that limits free speech. Another priority is the issue of burden sharing with allies. They are frustrated with allies that they feel are free-riding and taking advantage of the United States by not paying enough for defense. It's also a priority to gain control of supply chains and manufacturing for all the things that are necessary for the United States so that they're not depending on foreign powers. And they see tariffs as a way to ensure that they can rebuild an industrial base at home by incentivizing companies to establish production lines in the United States. So those are some of the principles that they outline. And then they go through different regions, and they explain how they view those regions and the interests of the United States in those regions. The biggest geographical priority is given to what they call the Western Hemisphere. I think we should, in broad terms, understand that as meaning North and South America, including Greenland. Here they want to return to what's called the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially states that North and South America are what we can call a sphere of influence of the United States, where they have a privileged position. All overseas powers, so that's powers not from North or South America, need to be kept away. They have nothing to do there. And they want to use a variety of tools, including both cooperation and coercion, towards other countries in the Western Hemisphere to ensure that they can achieve their goals. There will also be a significant change in the force posture of the United States, so the military will focus more on North and South America instead of other regions in the world. Asia and China are described mostly as economic challenges, with the biggest problem being how to achieve a more balanced trade relationship and limit the deficit. It's about developing economic ties with countries in East Asia. There's actually very little discussion about hardcore security politics and the military when it comes to Asia. They do mention Taiwan and the South China Sea. But the most significant development in terms of East Asia and security politics is actually that there seems to be a greater focus on burden sharing and the fact that they are dissatisfied with Japan and South Korea. There are also some passages about the Middle East and Africa. The most interesting point about that is perhaps what it says about what America will not do, which is to promote democracy and liberal values. This is seen as an internal issue for those countries, and it's not something that the United States should engage in. On the contrary, the United States is happy to do business and develop trade relations with these countries as they are. You might be wondering what the strategy says about Russia as a threat or a strategic competitor to the United States. It doesn't say anything. Russia is not mentioned in that context at all. It is mentioned a bit in the discussion about Europe and the U.S. role in brokering a peace deal in Ukraine, but nothing is said about Russia as a challenge or a potential enemy of the United States. So if we look at this document in terms of great power competition, then Russia is not described as a challenge at all. And China is primarily discussed as an challenge and in terms of trade politics. And that leads us to Europe, which is where we find America's true foreign policy challenge and potential enemy. The part about Europe is titled _Promoting European Greatness_. It describes how the Trump administration sees it as its task to correct the course in Europe and bring the continent back onto a path that can restore past greatness. The strategy describes how the real problem with Europe is not just insufficient military spending or economic stagnation, but also the prospect of civilizational erasure. The issues Europe faces are largely caused by activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine the liberty and the sovereignty of countries. They also point to things such as migration policies, democratic problems in Europe, censorship of free speech, and the suppression of political opposition. All these are issues that are really troublesome for Europe. And it leads to the loss of national identities in European countries and the lack of self-confidence. If Europe does not change course, then according to the U.S. government, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or maybe even less. This means that many European countries may not have the economy and the military that they need to remain reliable allies of the United States. The strategy expresses the view that Europe is important to the United States, but also a deep concern of the direction of Europe. So there is this kind of burning platform message in this that makes it necessary for the United States to do something to avoid the civilizational and democratic disaster that is unfolding in Europe. Interestingly, it's not actually a document that says what I think most people had expected, that if Europe does not contribute more to collective defense, then the United States is just going to leave and not be engaged in Europe anymore. Quite on the contrary, it's a document that expresses deep concern and a feeling of responsibility for Europe that requires the United States to engage actively in correcting the course in these European countries. The document then continues to talk about the war in Ukraine. And this is actually the only context in the whole document where Russia is really mentioned. The message is that many European countries today have a kind of hysterical relationship with Russia. There is this unfounded fear of Russian aggression, because overall, Europe has the military power to stand up to Russia if they only want to. So there's really nothing to be concerned about. But because of the lack of self-confidence in many European countries, there is this irrational fear of Russia. It is also described how many European officials have unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved in the war in Ukraine. This leads them to pursue a strategy of war rather than a strategy of peace. Basically, the viewpoint expressed here is that the obstacle to peace in Ukraine is actually the European countries that continue to support Ukraine, because if only the Europeans would stop doing that, then Ukraine would have to agree to a peace plan that the Americans have crafted together with the Russians. The national security strategy then describes how a large majority of the European populations actually want peace. But the politicians in power prevent this from being translated into policy because these governments suppress basic democratic processes. This is actually wrong. There is very strong popular support in Europe for continuing to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion. But the Trump administration seems keen on conveying the message that there is a small elite of European politicians in power who suppress the true will of the majority of the people. The strategy outlines how the Trump administration views its role in standing up for genuine democracy and freedom of expression so they can correct these wrongs. I think this should be understood to mean that basically there can be no rules or laws about moderation on social media. And essentially that Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg should just have free reign to do whatever they want. Then the strategy goes on to say that they see that their role is to cultivate resistance to Europe's current trajectory within European nations. This means, in essence, that the Trump administration is going to use the levers they have to support far-right movements in Europe. In other words, the United States sees it as a strategic priority in order to save the transatlantic relationship that MAGA movements come to power in Europe. And they intend to use the means they have to support such movements in the fight against the current centrist governments. So these are some very dramatic statements that have raised deep questions about whether there is any foundation for NATO to function going forward. If the United States sees it as a strategic priority to undermine the governments of other NATO countries and European institutions, such as the EU, then it's really hard to see how there can be an alliance anymore. The reality is that the views expressed in this US national security strategy are in many ways identical to the Russian viewpoints on Europe and the Russian goals of regime change in European countries. So to sum up, I think this national security strategy is interesting for several reasons. It moves away from the idea of a pivot to Asia that has been guiding American security politics for more than a decade. The idea was that Europe needed to take greater responsibility for European defense so that could free up resources that the United States could use in strategic competition with China. This does not seem to be the case anymore. If anything, there is now a pivot to America with a greater focus on North and South America. But the second biggest concern seems to be Europe rather than China. And secondly, I think it's hard not to see parallels to how Putin has ideas about great powers having spheres of influence over smaller states that they consider to be within their orbit. In Russia's case, that is a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. But it appears that the Trump administration has sort of similar ideas about an American sphere of influence in Western Europe, where they believe it's their role to oversee European politics and to correct the course if the Europeans get out of line. So there is no decline in interest from the United States in Europe. Quite the contrary. It's an issue that they clearly are passionate about. Europe means a lot to them. This is very different from the idea that most Europeans had, which was that the United States was becoming uninterested and would leave Europe alone. Quite the contrary. The national security strategy outlines how the United States is going to become more engaged in European politics to the extent that we're discussing regime change in Western European capitals so that they will become ideologically aligned with the MAGA government in Washington. And it seems clear that this ideological alignment from the Trump administration's point of view is seen as a requirement for saving and continuing the transatlantic corporation and for being an ally of the United States in the future. I will end it here. If you want to follow me on social media, I recommend Bluesky. That is my social media of choice. It's not perfect, but I think if you're European, then it is a national security priority to stop using X. If you want to support this channel, you can also get access to some bonus videos if you subscribe to my newsletter at www.logicofwar.com. Thank you very much for watching, and I will see you again next time.

The BBC has issued new training guidelines around antisemitism and they are every bit as woeful as you might suspect.

The OpenRail Association provides a neutral space for collaborative development of Open Source software in the railway sector. It is incorporated as a non-profit organisation according to Belgian law as AISBL.

With apologies to Dorothy Thompson, whose 1941 essay in Harper’s, “Who Goes Nazi?” remains a worthwhile read on the cultural archetypes of who is drawn to fascism, and who would never go down such …

Edsger Dijkstra had this to say about Beginner’s All Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code: It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC; as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration. I’m sure he was exaggerating here

A city traffic engineer credits the success to lower speed limits and smarter design.

: Under oath in French Senate, exec says it would be compelled – however unlikely – to pass local customer info to US admin

När han sade: ”Ryska krigsskepp, dra åt helvete!” var han övertygad om att han skulle dö. Men Roman Hrybov överlevde. Framför allt överlevde hans ord. Läs Anna-Lena Lauréns och Daniel Costantinis intervju med Hrybov. https://www.dn.se/varlden/han-bad-det-ryska-krigsskeppet-att-dra-at-helvete-vi-forstod-att-vi-skulle-do-sa-vi-beslot-att-ge/

Surveillance Watch is an interactive map revealing the intricate connections between surveillance companies, their funding sources and affiliations.