1,499 words
On Friday, December 5, 2025, the European Commission issued its first-ever fine under the Digital Services Act (DSA), penalizing X with €120 million (approximately $140 million) for multiple breaches of obligations to protect users against deceptive practices and harmful content, including “disinformation” as defined by the Left.
Elon Musk’s reaction was swift and brutal. He claimed the fine was politically motivated censorship directed not just at X but at himself personally. Then he called for the abolition of the European Union: “The EU should be abolished and sovereignty returned to individual countries, so that governments can better represent their people.”
Musk also terminated the European Commission’s advertising account, accusing it of exploiting platform tools to amplify the fine announcement, because corporate censorship is fine, but government censorship isn’t.
Beyond that, Musk suggested that the US government take retaliatory measures against the EU and individual EU officials.
Unsurprisingly, the American Right was outraged, describing the fine as an assault on freedom of speech. President Donald Trump labeled the fine as “nasty” and issued a warning: “Europe has to be very careful. They’re doing a lot of things. We want to keep Europe Europe. Europe is going in some bad direction. It’s very bad, very bad for the people.” Vice President J.D. Vance also blasted the EU for violating free speech.
Frankly, I am all for framing this in terms of freedom of speech, because that is in the public interest. But Musk has gone beyond this. By asking the US government to sanction the EU and particular EU officials, Musk makes it easy to spin this as an American oligarch demanding the government exercise a bit of gunboat diplomacy to guard his private economic interests. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Senator Ted Cruz, and Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr framed the matter in terms of protecting US companies.
But this allows the EU to pivot away from the free speech issue to opposing US interference with its sovereignty and right to regulate foreign companies on its territory.
Musk’s stand for free speech and opposition to the EU were echoed by several prominent European nationalists, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD), France’s National Rally, and Austrian author and activist Martin Sellner, who backed Musk’s call to end the EU.
This prompted an essay by Irish author and activist Keith Woods, “Abolish the EU? Not So Fast!” Woods argues that abolishing the EU would be difficult and unpopular, thus it would be a waste of scarce political capital. He also argues that it is unnecessary, because migration policy is still set on the level of individual states. Beyond that, if European nationalists became powerful enough to abolish the EU, they would probably be powerful enough to reform it to their liking. I agree with these arguments.
The deeper problem with the idea of abolishing the EU is that it is premised on naïve assumptions on how power works. To appreciate this, let’s look at a concrete example of a country leaving the EU, namely Brexit. Proponents of Brexit believed that globalism was being imposed upon the UK by the EU. Thus, if the UK left the EU, it would pursue more nationalist policies. This turned out to be false, because the UK’s own elites—including the Tories—are just as globalist as the people in charge of the EU. Thus after Brexit, the UK continued reckless policies of globalization and open borders but lost the overall economic benefits of being part of the EU. Likewise, if Austria or Italy were to exit the EU, it would do them no good if they continued to be governed by globalists.
The primary battle is intellectual. As long as globalist ideas reign, it really doesn’t matter who is calling the shots. Thus our primary focus should be on overthrowing globalist ideas and replacing them with nationalist ones. The natural place to do this is in our own homelands, wherever they may be, and it is also right to start at home, for it is sovereign states that can say no to international bodies like the EU.
That’s what both Sellner and Woods are doing, because whether your long-term goal is abolishing or reforming the EU, we all have to do pretty much the same things in the short to medium terms. So there is really no basis for hard feelings or falling out.
Also on December 5, a US National Security Strategy document was released. This document explicitly discusses Europe’s demographic decline, warning that “certain NATO members will become majority non-European” and face “civilizational erasure” within 20 years due to immigration, declining birthrates, censorship, and loss of national identity. These changes will render Europe militarily and economically weak and less aligned with US interests.
This is a remarkable document. Basically, the Trump administration is claiming that Europe is destroying itself through the Great Replacement, which can only be solved through remigration. What is not mentioned is that, demographically speaking, the US is worse off than any country in Europe.
There is a disturbing pattern of jingoistic Americans deploring Europe’s demographic and civilizational decline, even though all these factors are far more advanced in America. So if Europe will be destroyed by white demographic decline, America will succumb first.
But the authors of this report are surely better educated than “Europe has fallen!” retards on X. Thus they must be aware that everything wrong with Europe is wrong with America. Moreover, they must be aware that everything that will fix Europe will fix America.
Thus my conclusion is that the Trump administration’s plan for America is to reverse white demographic decline. White Nationalists have been saying this for years. The only way to Make America Great Again is to Make America White Again.
A leaked, extended draft of the same US National Security Strategy document analyzed by Defense One outlines a “Make Europe Great Again” initiative to encourage the breakup of the EU. The report names Austria, Hungary, Italy, and Poland, which already have right-leaning governments, as countries to “work more with . . . with the goal of pulling them away from the [EU].” The report also claims that the US should “support parties, movements, and intellectual and cultural figures who seek sovereignty and preservation/restoration of traditional European ways of life . . . while remaining pro-American.”
The White House has denied the draft’s authenticity, but European liberals are shrieking in horror about the prospect of a “white Europe” under US domination—as opposed to a browning, dying Europe, also under US domination.
Listing only Poland, Hungary, Austria, and Italy is odd. What about Czechia and Slovakia, which are part of the Visegrad Group with Hungary and Poland? Bringing in Czechia and Slovakia would mean an alliance extending from the Baltic to the Adriatic. So why not include Slovenia and Croatia and the Baltic states as well? And why not extend this alliance to the Black Sea by incorporating Romania and Bulgaria? In short, why not build Intermarium? The Intermarium — meaning the space between the Baltic and Black Seas — was an interwar Polish geopolitical concept of an alliance that would serve as a cordon sanitaire to contain Bolshevism. I recommend that you all carefully review Emile Durand’s pivotal Counter-Currents article “Toward a Baltic-Black Sea Union: ‘Intermarium’ as a Viable Model for White Revival” from October 19, 2015, which explains how a revived Intermarium can secure the culturally and racially healthiest parts of Central and Eastern Europe from Russian imperialism as well as the imperialism of Washington and Brussels.
It would be interesting if the Trump administration were to help birth the Intermarium, but the great sticking point will be Russia and more specifically the Ukraine War. Practically every Intermarium country has experienced Communism imposed from Moscow. Any American-instigated realignment in the region that doesn’t acknowledge realistic security concerns about Russia will be a dead letter. Trump’s delusional meme-based Russia policy might fly in some circles in Budapest and Bratislava but nowhere else.
I agree, however, with Martin Sellner that the best thing America can do for Europe is just guarantee freedom of speech on America social media platforms, which would allow Europeans to sort everything out on their own.
Over the past weeks, Musk has continued to make extremely encouraging statements on anti-whitenes. For example, he has criticized the woke judiciary which coddles violent (usually black) criminals while throwing the book at whites. And on December 2, he posted “If current trends continue, Whites will go from being a small minority of world population today to virtually extinct!” in response to a 2016 era meme showing blacks outnumbering and whites on a world map. On December 8, Musk posted, “Children should be proud that Whites in the West ended slavery worldwide, which had existed for thousands of years” and “Slavery was standard practice throughout human history until it was ended by White people,” countering a perennial White guilt narrative. On December 9, Musk labeled a headline about a “Whiteness Pandemic” in education as “Racism in extremis.” On December 9, Musk also posted “No more white guilt.” On December 11, Elon stated: “They’re openly advocating White genocide” in response to a clip of anti-white statements.
Their courses may be erratic, but overall, Trump and Musk are moving in the Right direction.
32 comments
The EU was OK, when it was the EEC , i.e. an economical community only, and consisted of five genuinely European states: Germany (West), France, and BeNeLux.
The problem with the EU is it gives the multiracial elites space to obfuscate their direct hand in the Great Replacement. What the western elites love doing is pretending replacement migration is some primordial force beyond anyone’s control, and the very idea of border control is farcical and fanciful. The ECHR is their primary vehicle for this, as soon as western governments start shifting in the right direction, they come in and end nationalist policies. But even if the EU was dissolved, those same elites would just find local ways to obfuscate the Great Replacement, as Greg said, they’d try more open lawfare and court shenanigans like they’re attempting in the US.
The EU could one day potentially be a force for good for white nationalism though. People lack imagination in this department. We never thought the US president would be speaking up about the great replacement and openly advocating for remigration. Our ideology is now rooted in the US executive branch, and could one day be rooted in the EU bureaucracy in the same manner. Then, the same way the EU now is obfuscating its hand in the great replacement and acting as if it’s an inevitable primordial force, future white nationalists could do the same for remigration. One day their declining influence and numbers may be top-down imposed, the policies hidden through layers of bureaucracy, and it’s promoted as just a natural process like the wind or the clouds, the same way it has for our present declining influence. There may be one day majority non-white European countries, and if they’re in the EU, and if racial nationalists control the EU, remigration could be imposed from the top down despite the will of the non-white majority in certain countries. If the EU is dissolved, and we’re respecting national sovereignty, then those countries are lost forever. This is nothing unthinkable, it’s just a reversal of what’s already happening..
Let us see their “democratic” mechanisms not as being essentially evil, but as the tools they are.
“Thus our primary focus should be on overthrowing globalist ideas and replacing them with nationalist ones.”
I think this is what makes this more of a spiritual struggle than a political one. The right ideas in place will select for the right people, empower the right people and repel the wrong ones.
I’ll also note that conspiracy fanatics usually completely ignore ideals/ideas, reducing everything to will/intention, as if the direction of the latter wouldn’t be determined by the soup of ideas and memes the person in question is immersed in!
I’m not surprised that Keith Woods wrote the article about potentially turning the EU for good. I read his pessimistic assessment of the political prospects of dissidents in Ireland and I understand he’s hoping to override the treacherous elites in Dublin internationally as the country is completely dominated by the capital area and its liberal elites. This however is a dangerous route as it can leave one relying too much on foreign political winds rather than creating their own. The EU is an unwieldy and weak tool when it comes to foreign policy, dictated primarily by the consensus of the Council of Europe and executed in rather narrow bounds by the High Representative (an auxiliary office competence-wise). As a result, most diplomatic power (outside foreign trade policies) remains at the discretion of the member states. Likewise, the security and immigration policies are conducted by the member states with EU’s agencies like Frontex performing supporting roles. Reforming those at the discretion of the EU increases the already problematic bureaucratic inertia and in cases like defense, would require de iure abolishment of national militaries and shifting oversight over industry to even make sense. I’m not even going to write about the treaty revision procedures in the EU. Europe would conduct faster remigration through simple bilateral agreements with Frontex acting as a grease to help more struggling nations. Bulgaria had to handle the border fence building, manning and negotiating border management with Turkey largely by herself. Poland had to send her own soldiers to the eastern border to stabilize it and received the deportations from Germany under the cover of the night (as can be seen in Keith’s recent documentary). There is no real replacement for national diplomacy and defense. It was the activist citizens and political opposition that forced the prime minister Donald Tusk to manage this tasteless farce on the western border which blew up in his face and harmed his reputation.
You should read his article. He doesn’t envision a changed EU helping Irish nationalists. He thinks that the EU is very unlikely to be changed at all, and if it is changed, it will only be because individual states like Ireland become strong enough to force change. Hence Europeans need to work in their homelands to gain enough power to control their borders. If they gain the power to leave the EU, they will also, however, have the power to change it. But all that is a byproduct of gaining power at home.
This sounds like Richard Spencer’s Pan-European state. It’s less viable than destroying the EU.
You can’t change it; it’s supremely undemocratic, superficialily based on the old rotating Yugoslavia federal government, only without the socialist ideology. The only states that matter in it are Germany and a distant second–France.
I took you advice Dr. Johnson and I’m retracting my insinuations about Keith’s motives. His “competing vision” appears to be more of a thought experiment rather than wishful thinking. I’m still disagreeing that the EU can be easily with nationalist governments in power. It over-simplifies the problems stemming from EU’s own history, institutional culture, structure as well as law, not to mention the political and economic landscapes in which it operates. The latter are going to become significantly overhauled if Remigration succeeds under nationalist auspices as a period of great instability in Europe looms over the horizon. This will affect not only the domestic politics, but foreign relations as well and ethno-nationalist networks won’t be enough to smooth those effects completely. There will be strong pressures both from within and from without Europe to seek assistance from the outside.
Countries like Poland and Hungary show ethnostates can still exist within the EU with strict immigration policies[…].
Poland is diminishing steadily as an ethnostate. The”strict immigration policy” exists only in comparison to the west and the EU’s economic policies indirectly contribute to the immigration pressure. PR restrictions like the recent one on Georgians are not going to cut it, just like Trump’s crackdowns on “garbage”.
I disagree that EU’s anti-American pivot would be a bad thing. Metapolitically we need the opposition to the American Empire in Europe as raised frequently by Angelo Plume on X for example. This pivot is also going to be inconsequential politically due to the power disparity as well as the disingenuous attitude of the Eurocrats who simply take a personal umbrage at Trumps’ way of conducting politics.
At this point, I recommend that you all carefully review Emile Durand’s pivotal Counter-Currents article “Toward a Baltic-Black Sea Union: ‘Intermarium’ as a Viable Model for White Revival” from October 19, 2015, which explains why the interwar Polish geopolitical concept of an Intermarium alliance — meaning between the Baltic and Black Seas — secures the culturally and racially healthiest parts of Central and Eastern Europe from Russian imperialism as well as the imperialism of Washington and Brussels.
I am skeptical of the intermarium concept becoming a reality, for several reasons, one of which is the economic gap between Western and Eastern Europe:
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/18794.jpeg
Poland has been the largest net recipient of EU funds for every year of the last two decades. In 2021, Poland received 11.9 billion Euros. Adjusting for population size, and the value of the Euro to Dollar, that would be like the US receiving 129.3 billion dollars. And that happens yearly.
Hungary is in a similar boat. It receives more than twice as much money as Spain, which has 5 times as many people.
Eastern Europe has beautiful tourist zones & wonderful capital cities, but the vast majority of the region is significantly poorer than Western Europe. Just look at GDP per capita maps:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/4187653/11571499/GDP_per_capita_ver3-01.jpg
Because of this, millions of young Eastern Europeans have moved to Germany. Many send remittances home to family members.
Emile Durand’s article, from 9 years ago, predicted huge numbers of Westerners moving East. That hasn’t happened. Migration still largely flows from Eastern Europe to Germanic Europe, the Benelux, and France.
I can’t see Eastern Europe’s leaders willingly leaving a system that purposefully goes out of its way to transfer wealth to their nations. It would be political suicide.
Hello Mr. Vypont. I advise against using the EU funds stats as arguments when discussing the economic power. For more important is the company ownership structure, particularly across important sectors. GDP is a good indicator, but breaking it down by contribution (public vs private) is better. Trading partners and the structure of trade also tells much more about the economic reality.
I had touched on these subjects under this article by an Estonian nationalist about Intermarium.
I will write more why the proposal made by Dr. Johnson here makes little sense, especially in light of the official US strategy.
Though what you say about GDP is true, these are unviable states that completely destroyed their economies with free-market reforms in the 1990s. Any prosperity of these countries since then are functions of massive youth flight to the West, huge DFI/off-shoring from the West and direct cash in-flows.
I get it, some of the authors here are living the expat dream in E.E.–but this can be replicated in any country, they are all more socially fun than the USA. Gen X and Millenials taught English in Japan and lived a crazy life of sex, celebrity attention and supr-legal status–it clouded judgement of clearly seeing the realities and negativities of that society. However, we weren’t men in our 40s and 50s, but boys in our early 20s.
Dismantling Communism was a good thing, actually.
I would not speak about the Eastern Europe, but in the post-Soviet world itself, in the ex-SU, the communism was replaced not by a some kind of softer socialism (as envisioned by Gorbachov), but by worst tyrannical despoties ruled by ex-communists, ex-KGB men and establishment’s priests. The regimes here of today are much more reactionary and anti-human, than the communism was after Stalin. The civil and human rights of common people are much more restricted in the post-Soviet states, than they were in 1980’s.
Hello Mr. Vypont.
Hi Elear, there has been a bit of a misunderstanding. In America, “Danny” is a male name whereas “Dani” is normally a female name / nickname. I sometimes write in an way that can come across as masculine or a bit critical (which is not my goal), but I’m a woman.
For more important is the company ownership structure, particularly across important sectors. GDP is a good indicator, but breaking it down by contribution (public vs private) is better. Trading partners and the structure of trade also tells much more about the economic reality.
I agree that those factors matter and, for the most part, I think they reinforce the argument that it would be extremely difficult to create an Intermarium Bloc in the near future. Germany is the largest trading partner of most Eastern European countries and many of Poland’s manufactured goods are sub-components for German exports. It would be hard, financially, for Eastern Europe’s nations to leave the EU and create their own alliance.
Perhaps a loose alliance of Eastern European nations could be created inside the EU, a sort of expanded Visegrad Group, but most of advocates of Intermarium want a powerful Polish led alliance.
Some even describe Poland as a “future great power:”
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/poland-as-a-great-power/
To me, this type of rhetoric seems like fantasy wish fulfillment.
I had touched on these subjects under this article by an Estonian nationalist about Intermarium.
I found your comments interesting, thanks for sharing them.
I will write more why the proposal made by Dr. Johnson here makes little sense, especially in light of the official US strategy.
Tbh, I mostly made my comment because I’ve seen a lot of GenZ Americans say things about Eastern Europe that are objectively untrue and I often find myself pushing back against these ideas. It was for the readers in that bracket, not a direct critique of Dr. Johnson’s views (which may differ from the article linked above).
America’s pro-White social media is full of videos of the most beautiful parts of Poland, images of tourists in Lake Balaton contrasted with migrants in poor neighborhoods of Paris, “Passportbros” talking about how wonderful Slavic women are, etc. This can leave Americans with a “rose-tinted” view of Eastern Europe.
My apologies Ma’am. I still manage to get confused by American names sometimes. Brings back George from Clint Eastwood’s The Eiger Sanction to my mind, or Glenn Close. I hope I won’t mistake any Jules that comes my way.
Some even describe Poland as a “future great power:”
It is very interesting that you brought up STRATFOR’s George Friedman. I read his book in 2009 and became intrigued about his potential motives and certain predictions about the changes in alliances (Poland v. Turkey), the whole thing seemed more like a work of futurology in a hindsight. Maybe I should re-read it again. Friedman himself had some interesting views on Americans’ denial of their imperial status.
Ultimately those “predictions” don’t appear coincidentally and the current puff-pieces about Poland’s military expansion are no exception. Besides usual massaging of the Polish sensitive ego, my country is likely being cast as the next anti-Russian bulwark by the usual suspects in the Media-Think Tank-MIC complex.
There’s no need to apologize, it’s easy to make mistakes like that when chatting online.
It is very interesting that you brought up STRATFOR’s George Friedman
My first encounter with his work was when I saw videos of his statements, being used by anonymous accounts, as proof that Germany & Russia should ally with eachother and get rid of the EU & throw America out of Europe.
That experience also made me realize the scale of Russian disinformation campaigns.
Thank you for these informative comments. Yes, Westerners view Slavic countries with many illusions, and also with a sort of idealized image of them as they were at the end of the Cold War. But the demographic situation is also appalling. And, I hope I’m wrong, but the racial decay is simply occurring a bit later than in Western countries.
Thanks Dragoslav,
Yes, Westerners view Slavic countries with many illusions, and also with a sort of idealized image of them as they were at the end of the Cold War
Tbh, I’ve noticed a lot of Americans also do this when they think of Germany.
But the demographic situation is also appalling.
The large number of young people who move abroad for work could definitely be problematic in the long run.
And, I hope I’m wrong, but the racial decay is simply occurring a bit later than in Western countries.
Well, political correctness about racial issues hasn’t set in to nearly the same degree & most of Eastern Europe is more homogenous so those are both good signs. There are definitely positive aspects of Eastern Europe too.
The Intermarium will not happen until these countries put identity, sovereignty, and other values ahead of commercial values. Also, the EU (mainly Germany) is not going to be able to deliver these financial inducements forever.
The Intermarium will not happen until these countries put identity, sovereignty, and other values ahead of commercial values. Also, the EU (mainly Germany) is not going to be able to deliver these financial inducements forever.
I agree, I’m just skeptical of this happening in the near future. I’m not trying to be negative and shoot down a cool idea, I just think the financial enmeshment between Germany and Eastern Europe & the wealth gap means it is extremely hard to build something like the Intermarium right now.
(This is also a bit off topic but I think that the EU transfer funds likely contain elements similar to the USAID nonsense that DOGE uncovered, it wouldn’t surprise if buried in them there are payments to left leaning journalists, for example).
The Poles are massively buying houses in Spain, because they are afraid of the possible Russian aggression in Europe and hope that Russians will not come to Spain and to Gibraltar (well, I think, when the war really begins, they will come).
We are in year 4 of “three weeks to Kiev” so I don’t think the Russians are suddenly going to race across all of Europe and occupy Spain. That seems like a very unlikely scenario.
I also don’t blame the Poles for being afraid of Putin’s government. I’ve seen interviews with Russians, in the street, and the anti-Polish sentiment / ethnic animosity towards Poles among some Russians (not all) was intense. Putin could easily capitalize on that if he wanted to.
Yes, you are right about the 4th year. but you cannot ever underestimate the enemy.
The Russians did not think in 2022, that the Ukrainians would defend themselves. They have got informations from their agents (which were possibly not only THEIR agents), that Ukrainians disliked Zelenskiy and would greet Russian troops with flowers. So they were not ready for a serious fight. But now they ARE. And you see that they (with their overpopulation) cannot and will not spare their soldiers to advance. That’s Russian art of war.
The question is whether the EUROPEANS will defend themselves and fight so like Ukrainians did and do. I do not think so. Europe is economically much stronger than Ukraine, but its peoples will not risk their comfortable lives. Moreover, Europe is full of the Russian and pro-Russian “fifth columns”, so it is and it will be subverted from within.
Spanish real estate became popular among investors in Poland due to their affordability post-bubble, not some sudden fear of Russians on the Vistula line.
I will address the main points
of the article in separate comments on another occasion, with special
attention to the tidbits from this “denied” draft.
I only trust the officially denied information!
-prince Gorchakov, allegedly
Very good points. Whatever his personal reasons, I think Musk is not miles away from a point either. It’s hard to glean what good the EU is actually for, what positive role it provides, beyond its original remit as an economic trade zone.
It’s a bunch of globo-corp-left Count Kalergi bureaucrat types deciding what people can say and think. It’s not our friend. Its pious ‘punishing’ of American corporations helps generate internal self esteem for it and props up its retarded myths and reason to exist. It shores up its own moral void.
The idea of reforming it into something more appropriate and fit for consumption is all fine, but it wasn’t set up to implement white nationalism. If anything it was set up to make sure it never happens again, at least it told itself that.
If the EU just self destructed tomorrow it would be a huge short term win for nationalism like Brexit or Trump 1. But I’m sure it’s very true as the article says, the same forces would quickly try to fill the void with the same thing again.
I’d still take that myself though. Our enemies see winning and losing through institutions. If those institutions are no longer seen to have validity or trust it’s another win for us on the path to where we want to be. It’s another bit chopped away at of their ugly dead tree, with exactly the view to the longer to term ideas changes we want to happen.
I think that white countries (not just current EU members) need to transform themselves into a confederation of nationalist absolute monarchies—something along the lines of the old Holy Roman Empire or the Napoleonic Empire. Could Trump or J.D. Vance become the first emperor?
“Sovereignty” is an empty word unless it means national control of energy, finance, media, and military structures, such that the national leadership can make policy in the national interest and not be at the mercy of fickle allies who at any time could withdraw the nation’s military shield, force an energy price shock, destabilize its finances, or fake-“democratize” it with foreign-funded non-government organizations supported by mass media.
“Sovereignty” is a useful thing to have if a state is good, that is if it is pro-White and defends the vital interests of Whites, such as peace. If the state is not good, for example if it is warlike, if it has antiwhite policies, or if it is furthering White genocide by mass immigration, then “sovereignty” is not good and it makes a bad situation worse.
Reject the European Union:
Embrace the European Confederacy.
Musk’s stand for free speech
and opposition to the EU were echoed by several prominent European
nationalists, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Germany’s
Alternative for Germany (AfD), France’s National Rally, and Austrian
author and activist Martin Sellner, who backed Musk’s call to end the
EU.
I really hope Trump or Musk won’t express more open support for AfD
or other dissidents as this may very well turn out to be a death-kiss
and Martin understands that. If USA decide to pressure the Eurocrats by
dangling a prospect of exercising the imperial investiture on the
Remigration activists this would put them in a lot of trouble. There are
already too many rats on the fake Right who are cheer-leading Trump in
his European disputes, hoping to boost their careers. This is why the European dissidents should distance themselves from those spats far enough to catch as little
flak as possible.
I went through the NSS document. It’s remarkable to me in its simplicity, certain frank admissions, calibrated regional ambitions and the overall defensive geopolitical stance it implies. Despite the “peace through strength” narrative the main suggestion that can be taken from the document is that USA need to rely far more on diplomacy than military deterrence. It is a temperate, short document of a waning superpower that openly concedes the worst errors made and maintains its bold posture while quietly pulling back strategically. Adopting Balance of Power (p. 10) as principle is an acknowledgement of the emerging poly-centric world which requires shifting the priorities to maintain and defend one’s exclusive sphere of hegemonic influence.
When going through the “Strategy” chapter, nationalists might be interested in the strategic principle Primacy of Nations (p. 9), which downplays the significance of international bodies and restores the nation-state to its leading role in politics. Explicit economic populism is expressed through the Pro-American Worker (p.10) and Competence and Merit (p. 11) subsections where the necessity of labor market protection and rejection of “meritocracy” argument for unchecked immigration are emphasized. It’s quite poignant that the bullet point The Era of Mass Migration Is Over (p. 11) is listed first under “Priorities”. It represents a major intellectual victory of Remigration promoters and lacks only the ethnic perspective to become a perfect representation of dissident claims, translated into a policy principle.
With all those declarations, the most detailed guidelines reside in the “Regions” section (pp. 11-29) and this is where the foreign policy strategy is clarified. What jumped at me first are the order at which the regions are listed and the (mostly) proportionate length devoted to each one of them. For the America First readers, the passages about commercial diplomacy in Western Hemisphere (p. 16) and continued support for India (p. 21) might attract their attention when wondering what limits might apply to the influence of populist declarations mentioned in the previous paragraph. I encourage American readers to read this document as it’s quite short (33 pages) and written in a very accessible style.
Now, to the point made in the article:
Thus my conclusion is that the Trump administration’s plan for America is to reverse white demographic decline. White Nationalists have been saying this for years. The only way to Make America Great Again is to Make America White Again.
I admit my conclusions didn’t go as far, although the declarations made in Competence and Merit indicate the administration is fully aware of the growing crisis of competence and that it cannot be averted by scouting talent across the world. That being said the document is rather careful to balance “between the extremes” and avoids delving too much in the demographic details. Slowing down the decline by exploiting the executive measures possible while promoting a culture of merit (de facto favoring whites) is my takeaway from the NSS. Granted, I lack knowledge when it comes to detailed prerogatives of the POTUS, but from what I’ve learned so far, the reversal is practically impossible without the Congress while battling judicial sabotage. No matter which democratic country we are talking about, fundamental reforms are impossible without the legislature. To bypass it would require Caesarean measures.
Embracing The Great Replacement narrative points was clever, but at the same time they reside further down in the text in such a way it’s rather conveniently distanced from the domestic observations. The document also discusses Europe at much shorter length than South America and Asia (around 1,5 and twice as long, consecutively) which puts things into perspective. The only significant concession is that both America and Europe (as “the West) should recognize the dangers of mass migration and adopt the wisdom of restrictive citizenship (point made earlier in The Era of Mass Migration Is Over).
Listing only Poland, Hungary, Austria, and Italy is odd. What about Czechia and Slovakia, which are part of the Visegrad Group with Hungary and Poland? Bringing in Czechia and Slovakia would mean an alliance extending from the Baltic to the Adriatic. So why not include Slovenia and Croatia and the Baltic states as well? And why not extend this alliance to the Black Sea by incorporating Romania and Bulgaria? In short, why not build Intermarium?
Those countries can be used to counter France and Germany (as the former is making overtures towards China). Viktor Orbán has a good relationship with Trump and Republicans, in Poland the US Embassy is one of the key pillars of the system, President Nawrocki participated in CPAC while the Law and Justice party is traditionally pro-neocon. Italy is one of the countries affected most severely by the 2008 financial crisis, they remember EU’s meddling in their affairs and that Germans were dictating the austerity policies. From the three chief founding countries of European integration, Italy is the weakest and suffers from being a major frontier of immigrant invasions. About Austria I’m not sure. I know why it can’t be a part of Intermarium– Neutralitätserklärung (Declaration of Neutrality) and Österreichische Staatsvertrag or the Austrian State Treaty, that limits weaponry for the Austrian military. Without amending those the membership would be rather difficult. Why was Austria listed in this allegedly “unpublished version”? Maybe Americans think there is another weak link in the EU chain that could be broken. I would welcome a comment that provides a more solid hypothesis.
I won’t write more about Intermarium itself. Instead, I will argue why it’s not likely to be proposed, unless the EU (and NATO) is written off and the USA are going to need a new political architecture to organize their sphere of influence. In the National Security Strategy several priorities are listed to guide American policy in the region (p. 27). Among them, those three stand out regarding the discussed area:
The first point underscores the aim of maintaining strategic balance between Europe and Russia which reminds me of the Cold War logic of maintaining the status quo in Europe. That means avoiding encroachment in the rival’s sphere and preventing them from doing the same to us.
The second priority suggests increased cooperation with Europe’s sub-regions that include countries mentioned in the “extended draft”. At the same time it avoids mentioning military support or establishing any distinct security architecture besides the existing one. There is probably an unwritten recognition that those countries are disadvantaged against the EU core and the “Multi-speed Europe” is going to drive them further towards alternatives as the EU pie is shrinking. This point is the only one that could relate to the Intermarium idea, but when put into context, it appears to be aimed more against the German-Benelux-French axis. Thus, politically organizing countries in this part of Europe serves primarily to expand the commercial (and political) influence of USA and/or to diminish the German influence (and substitute it with the American one). This may also be a veiled threat to Germany, that they can no longer take their dominance in the East and South for granted and should listen more to what USA have to say.
Finally, the third point puts limitations on US engagement by explicitly restricting NATO’s expansion (which ties into the first point). Intermarium would either be circumventing this restriction (causing Russian demands for USA to distance themselves from it) or become a de facto sub-division of NATO to make Article 5 a dead letter in this part of Europe. Outside this document, American military engagement is also signaled to be reduced by announced troop reductions in Easter Europe (pull-outs from Romania) and recent suspending of the Baltic Security Initiative. Without USA the only countries that can reliably protect the Baltics are Poland and Germany.
To summarize, Intermarium as an expansive alliance that extends to Belarus and Ukraine in particular, is not really compatible with current official American strategy regarding and its priorities in Europe. It could potentially upend the policy of strategic balancing with Russia. Perhaps it could be shaped as an American-aligned bloc functioning as a client for the arms deals or an instrument of pressure on Germany-France, but it’s not likely to be set up against Russia unless the strategy is revised.
European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons. (p.25)
This assumption means that at least officially, USA recognize allied militaries in Europe as sufficient in balancing Russia. The cited article in Defense One does mention only pulling the Central- and Southern European countries away from the EU, not NATO. We do not know yet whether the security establishment in Washington DC considers the potential Intermarium area having a similar hard power advantage or at least a parity.
Something’s wrong with bulleted listing as shown under the third paragraph.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.