Antonio Navalón
After the publication of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” in 1867 and after he died in 1883, Friedrich Engels was responsible for editing and publishing the unfinished volumes of the work. Years before this happened, in 1848 to be precise, both had issued a warning – or rather a statement – in the Communist Manifesto about the influence that communist ideas were gaining on the continent under the phrase: “A specter is haunting Europe: the specter of communism.”
In Marx and Engels’ time, the bourgeoisie feared the advance of an ideology that promised to overthrow their rule. Today, the world is not being shaken by an ideological specter but by a political phenomenon disrupting the global order called Donald Trump.
It is difficult to determine to what extent President Trump and his government really understand what happened in Munich after the historic meeting between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler. At that time, Chamberlain returned to England with a piece of paper in his hand and proclaimed that he had achieved peace.
But history, rather than capricious, is often cruel and, at times, even ironically comical. Today, determined to repeat its ironies, it has chosen to do so in the definitive disengagement between Europe and the United States. The fact is that, once again, Munich has been the epicenter of a new stage that probably means the end — or at least a significant weakening — of years of cordiality, cooperation, and good relations between Europeans and North Americans.
Vice President J.D. Vance’s speech, which acknowledged the undeniable European crisis, reflects the same tensions and situations facing the United States. The crisis of leadership, institutional erosion, and questioning of the Western model are not exclusive to the old continent. However, what is relevant is not only the diagnosis but also the attitude of the US administration toward this new scenario.
Traditionally cemented in military and technological-economic power, the axis of relations between Europe and the United States is being redefined. What was once an unbreakable alliance based on shared values and common objectives is today in question. Washington seems to have decided that its priority is not to strengthen Europe but to ensure its hegemony without the ties of an alliance it increasingly considers unnecessary.
Trump has caused a profound shock that not only restructures power within the United States but also alters the international geopolitical landscape. We are surprised because we want to be surprised, and we prefer not to admit that none of this is unexpected. We must not forget or ignore that all this was previously announced, defended, sold, and, worse, legitimized by the decision of the American people themselves.
Despite its material and economic might, no society in the world faces an internal crisis as severe as the American one. It is as if something broke between the 1960s and the present.
What began as a tension between individual freedom and family cohesion became a far-reaching social crisis. The structure that once sustained community and identity fragmented until it was reduced to extreme individualism.
For decades, the United States has allocated unimaginable resources to failed conflicts, feeding a cycle in which military power is intertwined with the corruption of an elite that oscillates between the civil and military. It should not be forgotten that the last war Americans won was World War II, almost eighty years ago.
There is no exact figure for how much money the Americans have spent on these fruitless expeditions—although the figure would surely be in the trillions of dollars—but what is known is that, no matter how hard they have tried, they have not been able to become the great empire they once were.
Before handing over power to John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower warned: “In the councils of government, we must get protection against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” From that moment on, the military-industrial complex had become a threat not only to the United States but to the entire world.
However, the machinery of power has changed. It is no longer exclusively about the military-industrial complex but about absolute domination over the perception of the masses. The real battlefield is on the screens, in the ability to manipulate information through a device that has become an extension of the human being: the mobile phone. That is where the influence lies; that is where the money is, and from that device, the narrative is defined that the elites want us to believe so that their power equation continues to work.
The specter and earthquake that Marx and Engels spoke of are touring the world today with a new face: that of the United States struggling to regain its dominant and imperialist position. For decades, the United States was an indisputably powerful nation: economically strong, culturally creative, and, above all, a country built on the efforts of immigrants who, through their work, made the so-called American miracle possible. However, the current crisis lies in the loss of their self-confidence.
Today, the United States is undergoing a kind of collective therapy aimed at reaffirming its identity, recovering its self-esteem, and restoring faith in its role in the world. That said, it is not too wrong to say that fentanyl kills, but loneliness and social failure kill more.
In this context, Trump offers no alternatives. His strategy is clear and responds to a single certainty: the United States’ power continues to depend on its military strength. For this reason, the current US president has chosen to militarize his political discourse, erasing decades of social conventions and international agreements.
This is no longer a democratic debate. It is a pre-established program backed and endorsed by the American people themselves. It does not need consensus because it has a leader with a unique vision and followers spreading it worldwide. In this new logic of power, diplomacy has been reduced to threats, impositions, and pressures based on the interests of whoever occupies the Oval Office.
A long-held belief is coming to an end: the idea that the post-World War II order would remain in force indefinitely. This is no longer true. As was the case during Trump’s first term, his administration seems to understand, respect, and even admire the Kremlin strongman more than it does European democracies.
There can be no European Union without German support. I want to believe that the exhaustion of the old order results from the accumulation of various factors and not from a premeditated strategy. However, it cannot be ignored that the primary beneficiaries of this new geopolitical reconfiguration, of this new vision of Washington and Moscow, is the German neo-Nazi party.
The understanding between strongmen suggests that the solution to a war in Europe—which has already involved the allocation of more than 213 billion dollars in military aid from the United States and more than 134 billion dollars from the European Union—is to be agreed upon and arranged without the participation or voice of the country where the war has been waged or the participation of the European Union itself.
From the US perspective—and also from the Russian one—the reality is undeniable: Ukraine will not recover the territories that Russia took in 2014. The US sees no benefit in Ukraine’s accession to NATO and, consequently, considers its entry into the organization unfeasible. Most importantly, it has been decided to cut off the supply of weapons, and a deadline of 45 days has been set for peace to be achieved.
Global dynamics are changing. In times of crisis, people look for authoritarian leaders who embody the paternalistic authority they have lost. Undoubtedly, it is much worse not to have a father than to have a bad or dictatorial father. That said, the world is rediscovering a father figure in someone who, under the constant threat of the use of force, makes it clear to others that if they didn’t know what to do with their problems when they had the chance, now they are going to have to do what he tells them and think is the solution to their problems.
In that sense, we shouldn’t get our hopes up. The dialectic is military; the operation is military; diplomacy is military; everything is military. Today, decisions, strategies, and responses are all determined by a focus on confrontation and domination.
The CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC was, is, and will continue to be a key element and tool on the regional stage. Although it may seem unfavorable, it must be understood that the true purpose of the treaty is not only a commercial issue but that its ultimate objective is to guarantee the preservation and hegemony of the dollar.
The only way to maintain global financial control is by consolidating a strong internal market, and the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC is the ideal vehicle to achieve this. It is a mistake to confuse political gestures with the real structure of economic power. Without a doubt – and even more so considering recent events – the treaty will change and be reformulated with new rules, but what is a fact is that, whatever happens, it will not disappear.
In this new order, the instructions from the United States are direct and non-negotiable. Drug cartels will be classified as terrorist organizations. Attorney General Pam Bondi has been given a direct order by Donald Trump to eradicate these criminal organizations at any cost. All this is in addition to the US military presence in the region, which is increasing and will continue to do so significantly in the coming months and years. I doubt that – at least not officially – the Americans will go so far as to make direct incursions into Mexico’s airspace or territorial waters. However, the fact is that they will be close enough to monitor and supervise without any kind of restriction.
In these new times and with this apparently insatiable desire to become an empire again, for Donald Trump, securing the security booty comes first. Then, and only then, can the bilateral socioeconomic relationship be renegotiated. In the meantime, we can only wait and see what the next threat in the form of a concession will be.
Comments:
I approve of Trump’s policies more than the articles’ authors. I agree that Trump’s policies concerning Europe are quite different from those of prior administrations, but our past policy positions have not exactly been a success for the US either. The US provides two-thirds of NATO’s total budget, yet it can be argued that the US receives far less than two-thirds of the benefit. We have spent trillions of dollars fighting wars that did not directly affect us. We do have strategic interests in many of the NATO countries, but at what cost? We have a national debt of $36 trillion that requires annual interest payments of more than $1 trillion – more than we spend on our military. The country can and will go bankrupt if we don’t get our economic house in order. To add to the problem, we have tremendous waste and fraud that happens within our country. The 2024 Festivus Report (https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/FESTIVUS-WASTE-2024-ENJOY.pdf) identifies more than $1 Trillion in unnecessary and wasteful spending in one year!
There is no doubt that Trump is a disrupter, but we needed someone to change the direction of this country, and Trump may be our last great hope to accomplish that. I’m not a big fan of Donald Trump, but I don’t need to like him to approve his policies. He’s been in office less than a month, and so far he has:
- Secured $500 billion in private sector investment for the largest AI infrastructure project in history
- Saudi Arabia wants to invest $600 billion in the US over the next years
- Stellantis will restart an assembly plant in Illinois to build Dodge Durango
- Our borders are closed, and we are deporting criminal aliens
- Federal DEI requirements have been eliminated and replaced with meritocracy
- we are drilling for oil again and can become energy-independent
- Hamas is releasing prisoners
- Putin and Zelenskyy have agreed to talk about ending their war
More over, he is doing what he said he would do in his campaign. Promises made – Promises kept. We have been hiring politicians (except for Reagan) for my entire life and we ended up $36 trillion in debt. No business could survive that. Maybe it’s about time we elected a businessman. It seems clear to
me that it can’t get much worse.
R. Michael Logan
Further Reading: