Dr. M

Good night

American policy is emerging from the diplomatic fog and entering a zone of open coercion, while the old order is collapsing faster than Europe seems to notice Stephen Miller is not the classic behind-the-scenes adviser who occasionally whispers in the president’s ear. In Donald Trump’s second term, he has transformed into a kind of ideologue—a man who openly articulates what Washington has been doing for decades but previously concealed behind rhetoric about human rights, democracy, and alliances. When Miller coldly declares that the world is ruled by “power and force,” that there are iron laws of power that have “applied since the beginning of time,” he defines a new phase of American policy. Today, words and deeds align. The context that gives such statements weight stems from the fact that Trump is now in power with the experience of his first term and with people who can more easily bypass the system’s internal restraints. Miller is now deputy chief of staff for policy and is no longer merely the designer of anti-immigration decrees, as he once was. He participates in shaping strategy, drawing on an old 19th-century idea—the Monroe Doctrine—but reinterprets it in the spirit of the present moment. The Western Hemisphere is imagined as a space in which American will stands hierarchically above the rights of smaller states. Trump adopts this quickly, but it is Miller who dictates the rhetoric, which at times sounds almost like a parody of imperialism, like something dreamed up by the Monty Python team—unfortunately, there is no humor in this story, not even black humor. When explaining the operation in Venezuela, Miller claims that the United States will run the country until a “new order” is established, thereby showing exactly how his theory of force looks in practice. The sovereignty of a state becomes a variable category. If oil is important and geopolitical position is crucial, and Washington is in a hurry, the role of Congress and international organizations slips into second place (or is no longer mentioned at all). Miller shows a similar line of thinking when he talks about Greenland. That Arctic island, officially under the Danish crown, is in his eyes the next target. The statement that Greenland should become part of the United States, and the belief that no serious actor would go to war against America over it, reveal the core of Miller’s doctrine. In the background are resources, new Arctic routes, and military positioning vis-à-vis Russia and China. In the foreground appears the message that the U.S. will use its superiority to take what it considers necessary for its “own security.” Worst of all—isn’t Miller right? At least when it comes to the claim that “no one would go to war against America.” Would Denmark fight? Even though it could rely on European allies, statements from Copenhagen are, to put it mildly, pathetic. Calling someone who openly threatens you an “important ally” is an amplified signal to Trump’s predatory administration that the moment is ideal for an attack of any kind. The shameful statements from Denmark are not the beginning; all of Europe has for years been “feeding Washington’s ego,” telling Trump (and Washington in general) just how extremely submissive it really is. NATO’s chief, a former Dutch prime minister, calls him “daddy”; almost all EU countries are frantically increasing military spending in response to Trump’s brazen threats and in some way committing themselves to their own catastrophe by edging toward a direct confrontation with Russia. For America, that would be a fantastic outcome. Miller and other hawks of the new generation (imperialists replacing interventionists) are one step away from starting to seize parts of Europe even in these supposedly “peaceful times.” And they would get away with it—even now. But it would be even better if Europe were in total chaos, bombed and in direct conflict with nuclear-armed Russia. In such a scenario of complete collapse, America could come and take whatever it wants. Europe will ultimately prove to be a geostrategic preschooler or first-grader. While repeating every day the danger of the “Russian threat,” the real threat is piling up on the other side of the Atlantic. Miller’s influence is visible not only in interviews and bombastic formulations. The new National Security Strategy itself (in which, let us recall, Europe is sharply criticized, not Russia) clearly bears the stamp of his way of thinking. In that document, the Monroe Doctrine receives a kind of addendum that codifies the U.S. right to politically, economically, and militarily control the Western Hemisphere (an idea that will likely later be easily expanded to the entire globe). It mentions the need to secure access to energy and minerals, to adjust military presence, and to exploit superior military systems for American goals. Such a text is hard to imagine in the Obama era, or even in the Bush era, when attention was still paid to linguistic restraints and to the need for actions to appear at least formally consistent with the international order. In the first phase after the Cold War, Washington liked to present itself as the architect of the liberal order; later as the leader of the global war on terror; and in the Obama period as a power combining hard and soft power. Miller’s era breaks with that style. He openly embraces the logic of great powers, the logic of spheres of influence and raw power. He emphasizes the goal of access to resources, control of space, and the prevention of rivals. In his formulations there is no illusion that small states decide their own fate; what matters is which great power they align with. In this story, it is extremely ironic that Europe, which is still asleep when it comes to the American threat, is incapable of noticing anything concrete about the situation in Caracas and instead, like a broken record, keeps returning to Russia. Many thus claim that what Trump has done is a “gift to Putin,” because the Russian president will now feel more “willing” to launch similar attacks himself. But there is a difference. The Russian leadership, not even the Kremlin’s hawks, engages in rhetoric like that put out by Stephen Miller. What concrete chances has Washington given Venezuela? And what chances did Russia give Ukraine? Was autumn 2021 really so long ago? Would we have a horrific war in Eastern Europe today if the U.S. had committed not to pull Ukraine into NATO? Did Putin and Biden have a direct video conference where this was discussed? They did. And what did America tell Moscow? No chance. All of these episodes, it seems, Europe slept through and woke up in a hypnotized state in which there is only one threat—the Russian one. While they look toward Russia, America will take Greenland and, even more devastatingly, all of Europe’s economic competitiveness. Europe, which already has to import expensive American LNG gas and, at Washington’s command, build weapons stockpiles, will remain in this great-power story powerless, non-sovereign, and ripe for complete absorption into the American zone of interest and exploitation. They do not even have the strength to call a single Miller by his proper name, let alone “Daddy” Trump. Such a submissive stance, unfortunately for all of us here, will cost the entire continent very dearly.

Merry Christmas 😎