Synchronized defense budgets, shared doctrines, and welfare cuts expose the fiction of a 'rift'—while citizens foot the bill for perpetual war readiness.
As a former German diplomat and one of the speakers of the German Foreign Office (AA) long ago I can fully confirm your observations and analysis. My Asian or African friends frequently simplify it to "Germany/Merz (and predecessors) are just hanging on the US-payroll". I try to explain that the reality is much worse: like religion in Middle Age our "elites" are exactly what you describe - people with similar mindsets, aims and "philosophies". The worst idea and "cover" for this dangerous groups of like-minded people is to consider them as a conspiracy - since in fact, on the long run it works like a conspiracy - but without any deeply rooted form of organization or clearly identifiable leadership. The "Dark State" is a perfect example, but its worldwide "philosophy" even more dangerous. Not Trump, Biden and Obama were the poison with soft and sweet taste, working on the long run.
A former superior of mine became leader of the "Munich Security Conference", one of my crew buddies - a brillant former ambassador - member of the Bilderberg and other influential organizations. And they are convinces to be on the right way. Alex Lo wrote for the South China Morning Post "von der Leyen is a Force of Destruction". He got it simple and right.
BTW: I hate the way the word "elite" is used today for anyone or group with power and influence. In my education "elites" were morally, culturally, ethically distinguished persons - just and only in a positive sense. I fear, today even an Adolf Hitler would be labeled "elite" - no wonder our "elites" are leading the world into destruction today.
Thank you, Herr Rudolf, coming from someone who served inside the AA (German Foreign Office), your confirmation carries real weight.
On terminology: when I write “elites,” I mean functional elites or ruling strata—officeholders, agenda-setters, and the organizational heads of territorial entities—rather than the older, normative sense of “elite” as moral or cultural exemplars. Historically, these groups emerge through specific selection mechanisms (education, party structures, patronage, networks), legitimated by narratives of “competence.” The titles vary across time (nobility, mandarins, technocrats, “civil society leaders”) but the function is comparable.
As you note, this rarely requires a formal conspiracy. Homogeneous training, shared socialization spaces (conferences, think tanks, foundations), and aligned incentives generate isomorphic behavior: so it works like a conspiracy over time without centralized command.
My current article which I'm working on, tries to map precisely this: how different cultures and periods define “competence,” how that definition filters who rises into functional elites (or let's say ruling strata), and how those norms then shape policy outcomes (Germany’s present transatlantic milieu included).
Thanks again for adding an insider perspective; it sharpens the analysis.
Excellent analysis. I found the observations on Merz's advisers and speeches informative. I agree the marriage holds at the strategic, political elite level and it is premised on Europe serving USA global power. I wonder though if the sociocultural differences will not drive a deeper split over time. It will drive splits in society, and Trump's crassness gives people the excuse to break the American spell. The routine contempt of US elites across the spectrum towards Europe - which reminds me of the attitudes of the British Raj - may also provoke breakaway elites. Especially if there is a cascade of disasters from US elites bad deciaion making and failed war on China. Thanks for the food for thought.
Thank you—glad the piece was useful as food for thought!
I’m less confident, though, that sociocultural divergences will push Europe out of Washington’s orbit any time soon:
Nationalism can cut both ways. A CDU-style or AfD-style nationalism is far more likely to present itself as the reliable U.S. partner (“strong borders, strong defense, stand with the West”) than as a Gaullist bid for autonomy. The brother-in-arms narrative travels well on the right.
The public doesn’t yet see the convergence. Most Germans still interpret foreign policy through energy prices and holiday travel, not grand strategy. Elite alignment remains largely invisible, blunting mass pushback.
Anti-U.S. sentiment ≠ strategic rupture. Even if Trump’s crassness offends, it may fuel a “we need to spend more so we’re taken seriously in Washington” reflex rather than a call to chart an independent course.
That said, I agree that cracks could widen if U.S. decision-making produces spectacular failures, especially a botched confrontation with China that drags Europeans into an economic tailspin. But absent that level of shock, the centrifugal sociocultural forces look weaker to me than the centripetal logic of shared interests, supply chains, and decades-old security habits.
Now, the European elites and their subordination to the Trump administration...I would say this is more like capitalist class solidarity across borders: a shared worldview among political-managerial elites that outweighs any felt obligation to protect national sovereignty or voters’ material welfare (I just need to remember Merz and his comments on anything related to the economy and workers' rights). How else could this be explained? After all, Western democracies have slowly ceased to be democratic and have descended into oligarchies. They are in the process of becoming such entities in the near future if they aren't already.
This is very wise. What you say about Euro elites saying “we need to spend more so we’re taken seriously in Washington” is exactly what I have observed in Australia over the last 10 years. Worried about US withdrawal, the 'sub-imperial elites' say we will be model allies. I think the tipping point will come after undeniable US defeat, which I see coming in Ukraine, China and more uncertaintly in West Asia. Even the loyalest allies don't like to hang out with a loser. They will start listening then to all the advice they will be getting that they can defend themselves better with diplomacy not US wonder-weapons.
I tend to agree that only a first-order shock such as an unmistakable U.S. defeat, could jolt allied capitals out of the current reflex to “buy relevance” with bigger weapons budgets. But I’m not convinced the present crop of European or Allied decision-makers would pivot even then. Most have been socialised for decades in the same trans-Atlantic training loops. In other words, the problem is less the outcome of this or that war than the personnel pipeline that keeps reproducing a worldview almost indistinguishable from Washington’s.
Real change, in my view, would additionally require a new leadership cohort that is not embedded in those structures and that’s not merely a geopolitical shift. I’m sketching some thoughts on this “convergence of thinking” for another piece right now; the deeper I dig, the more I see how epistemic networks (who you study with, whose conferences you attend, which think-tank pays your airfare) hard-wire policy and worldview orientation frameworks.
So yes: catastrophe could be the catalyst, but only if it coincides with or accelerates a turnover in the elite stratum itself.
Thank you so much Nel. I am very happy to see such a young and powerful researcher. It gives one hope.
Regarding the current nihilistic"fuite en avant" that took hold of western elites, i think that there is a major factor that is not yet understood: its reliance on fake production. Faked GDP numbers and ultrafinancialized economies can work well to support buying power in the West, as long as other nations are not frustrated and confident enough to seek an alternative. Production has always been the implicit measurement of greatness of nations. The current US bullying, and EU barking, is setting many nations in motion, to try to seek alternatives and stand up to the bullies, forcing the West to make good on the implicit threat of its superior productive force. Only now can the real depth of western cultural and motivational decline begin to appear: we have indulged into self-agrandizement and pseudomoral gratification, totally disconnected from reality. That is enough to sustain a soft-totalitarian and self-proclaimed-democratic regime, to buy collective submissiveness, for awhile, but it has increasing costs on real productivity. Emmanuel Todd calculates that the FIRE-sector-led US GDP is only less than 60% of what is claimed even in terms of PPP, and GPD/cap about that of Germany. West-european GDPs are also overestimated, if only when assessed in terms of PPP. And the consumerist mentality that is hypertrophied in the West is also very hard to walk back. It took perhaps 2 centuries to build, with the last 60 years of intensive education, and it could be even longer to turn around, because we are not ready to accept that we have a collective psychological issue there.
Have you tried to make quantitative models of your analyses, if only very simple ones based on game theory ? Or structural equations models common in social sciences, psychology, and macroeconometrics - though Sims-type macroeconomic models are rarely called SEM. I ask because it would be very interesting to meld macroeconomic, mesoeconomic and microeconomics decisions on funding of think tanks, trade agreements, etc, with the autocratic sliding of (pseudo)elites that you describe - i call "pseudoelites" persons that are coopted into elite positions rather than landing into ones thanks to their performance, this is related to the overproduction of elites that is studied by Petr Turchin.
Lastly dear Nel, I would be curious to know where you are doing your PhD, and whether you have any articles published yet ? Thank you again, Paul Le Meur, from France
Indeed. I had thought that only the MIC alliance would be bad for Europe, while the rift would be real otherwise. In retrospect, the implications are larger and deeper. Can I paraphrase your ideas as: Trump may not like the current crop of European leaders. However, the deep-staters in all these countries are still in control, and much more so in Europe than in the US. Adding the multi-national companies and the super-rich. Their business interests are also more aligned than the discord between Trump and his European counterparts.
I usually argue that national defense is the number one, if not the only job, for a national government. But in the case of the US and many European nations, national defense is but an excuse for uncontrolled and unaudited money flow into private pockets. I wonder if the US and the European nations should nationalize the MIC (if that dream can be realized at all). Military spending and waste will remain mostly unchanged, but now they are nominally under the umbrella of the executive branch of the government and subject to the usual internal accounting and inspection. At least, the government cannot use business interests or shareholder payback as excuses. Taking MIC into national government removes one layer of middlemen and a bunch of shareholders.
Great commentary: let me try to unpack it piece by piece.
Is the “rift” only theatrical? You’re right that personal friction (Trump vs. Macron, Merz, Starmer etc.) hasn’t disrupted the deeper mesh of interests that binds Washington and European capitals.
That mesh is produced by:
Permanent bureaucracies (defense, finance, intel) that survive electoral swings;
Trans-Atlantic think-tank circuits that write the talking points;
Multinationals and large asset managers whose portfolios straddle both sides of the ocean.
So yes: the same “deep-state + C-suite” bloc remains ascendant in Berlin, Paris, Brussels, and to a degree even under a Trump White House.
I’d go a step further. Western corporations aren’t merely protecting current profits; many fear they cannot win a fair industrial race against a state-coordinated Chinese economy. When market supremacy feels unattainable, the incentive shifts to regulatory, financial, or military pressure on the rival. That’s why talk of “de-risking” so quickly morphs into sanctions regimes, tech-export bans, and forward deployments.
Would outright nationalization fix the Military-Industrial Complex? I do not think so, because:
De facto nationalization already exists. R&D, risk, and most capital expenditures are taxpayer-funded; the “private” contractors earn regulated profit margins. It’s public money with a shareholder skim on top.
Militarism is driven by state strategy as much as by private profit. A fully state-owned MIC could still be directed toward power projection if the political class sees that as essential to preserving hegemony.
Information asymmetry and threat inflation don’t vanish in a state company. The same generals and lobbyists would write the specs and threat assessments.
In short, nationalization might trim shareholder dividends, but it wouldn’t remove the geostrategic incentive to treat military spending as an insurance policy for fading economic primacy.
The MIC is already quasi-nationalized; militarism flows less from private ownership than from a ruling (corporate and state-based) coalition that sees force as the shortcut to preserving a slipping economic order. Changing ownership without changing that strategic mindset risks swapping shareholders for commissars while the spending curve (and dangers) keep climbing.
Excellent analysis! A powerful reminder that the only way to properly understand current events is to“follow the policy.” Follow the policy development process, read the “outputs” of the Think Tanks, listen to the congressional committee hearings, and monitor your blood pressure as you read Foreign Affairs with its reeking undertones of moral righteousness, unbridled supremacy, and manifest destiny. It’s not hard to do. You don’t even need Wikileaks to publish a National Security Council memorandum or diplomatic cable to enlighten you. It’s in plain sight, and studiously ignored by the Western stenographers masquerading as journalists.
Thank you, Michael. I’m glad the piece resonated. I’m often struck by how little “detective work” is actually required: most of the playbook is sitting in open‐source PDFs and C-SPAN archives, gathering digital dust. The gap is between published-but-unread. Once you start treating think-tank white papers and committee hearings as primary sources, the goals become depressingly transparent.
The rearmament of Germany sends shivers down my spine - and so should all Europeans. But the European elites cling to their transatlantic umbilical cord, no matter how condescendingly the Americans treat them. They are so thick-skinned that they stand upright without a spine. Rearmament is now being sold as an economic rescue for Germany. The war memories only remain as unconditional defense of Israel. NATO propaganda seems to be able to remove the last remnants of anti-war resistance. This will not end well.
This, too, strikes me as weird: It is the almost reflexive loyalty many European leaders show toward their U.S. counterparts—even when the policies on offer damage Europe’s own economies (and may cost much more down the line).
At that point, it begins to look less like “Atlantic partnership” and more like capitalist class solidarity across borders: a shared worldview among political-managerial elites that outweighs any felt obligation to protect national sovereignty or voters’ material welfare. How else could this be explained? After all, Western democracies have ceased to be democratic and have descended into oligarchies.
The "capitalist class solidarity" exists on the Pacific side as well. However, the solidarity there is weaker, perhaps due to stronger nationalism. At one point, even the Chinese communist party and the American capitalists were in close alliance. Xi's purge among the business leaders had something to do with that. Given the US trade/tariff war, even factions against Xi inside the CCP have to think twice about their future alliance with their former business partners. Tim Cook had always been treated like a president, but he switched to the "made in India" strategy since the first low-priced iPhone several years ago, if not earlier. Continued effort by China to keep him attached is a failure during this brief trade/tariff war (in a brief intermission right now).
Sure, it is "Atlantic Elite Partnership". Point is even if Trump tries to 'drain the swamp' this does not extend to the MIC. On the European side the elites still are in control and cling to the military alliance at any cost. European elites are so brain-washed they are unable to conceive the US as an enemy. It goes back to FDR America and the US helping liberate Western Europe from the Nazis. Even the US annexing Canada and occupying Greenland will be swollowed and explained as necessary for the common interest.
Perfeito, muito obrigado, sua pesquisa foi fundamental para condensar algumas ideias que vinha pensando acerca da dominação de espectro total na America Latina, em especail no Brasil, onde esquerda e direita parecem ser apenas expressão do Partido Democrata e Republicano no país.
IBM provided the Nazis with everything they needed to run concentration and extermination camps (the famous number tattooed on the skin, among other things); Palantir provides the targets in the concentration camp that is Gaza. Different times, same logic.
El comportamiento conspicuo de la sociedad "educada" reproduce fractalmente los patrones que muy acertadamente señalas. El servilismo es la auténtica correa de transmisión vertical engrasada por la hipocresía y el edonismo inserto en el modelado educacional occidental....el sistema austríaco y jesuítico educativo es patente; tan patente que tu mejor acierto es aplicable a prácticamente toda la sociedad "no hay alternativas porque hay un marco establecido de sentir común que restringe la creatividad resolutiva".....ni siquiera tu en este mordaz y bien documentado análisis puedes sustraerte a la existencia de una sociedad vertical instituciinalizada......porque hemos sido formados en ese molde (?)...
Confío cada vez mas en la evidencia de que el servilismo lleva a la ósmosis de la ineptitud: los mas estúpidos llegan más arriba y solo es cuestión de tiempo que la estructura colapse por si misma.
Excellent piece man. You nailed it how they sustain their plan of New World Order or One World Government or whatever they called. What is important is many indie researcher are nailing it maybe not 100% but brick by brick the veil of their secrecy is now subjected into the light of reason. A means for humankind to be awaken finally. Keep up the good work sir or madam.
Such a relief to read people who actually look through the smokescreen at the hard facts. It is insane how patriots of european countries have been beguiled by the Trump antics into believing their dreams were about to be fulfilled. Thank you so much. Keep up the brilliant work.
This article gives a better skeleton key to understand the turn of European foreign policy from 2004 to 2022. Todd's had suggested increased financial dependence of European capitalists after the end of Swiss banking secrecy, but this explanation does not fly). The capture seems to be happening with the political elite and the press as described in this article. The reason it convinces me is that we see the exact same mechanism happening in France as in Germany:
- 2004: Chirac/Villepin opposing Iraq war, similar to Shroder
- 2007: Nicolas Sarkozy (Pdt) gets elected with all kinds of foreign support (while the Lybia influence is toxic, Bilderberg or neo-cons influence are not mentioned by media) and reintegrate France into NATO.
- since 2007, Emmanuel Walls (PM), Emmanuel Macron (Pdt), Edouard Philippe (PM), Gabriel Attal (PM) are all from the atlanticist Young Leader nursery.
- Atlanticist positions earn the praise of mainstream media (Le Figaro, Le Monde framing of rejoining Nato as modernisation) and lucrative talks, whereas Villepin is treated as pariah, and the press does a witch hunt of politicians aligned to Russia.
In comparison, the UK is arguably vassalized since the 1956 Suez crisis. The pushing away of Corbyn shows similar mechanisms at work, although the capture is much older.
Outstanding analysis, but you have failed to highlight the nature of the people behind the scheme. It is not being controlled by the Americans per se, but by the Talmudic Jewish element on the planet. It plans and controls every aspect of it. The objective? Let me quote a speech made on 24th June 1982 by Menahem Begin to the Knesset: "Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." In this context please note also that Noahide Law was incorporated in US law in 1991 and has since been annually re-affirmed by every US President.
The description of the elite knowledge networks sounds exotic, unique and all powerful, when, in simple speak, its common sense and can be overcome by simply challenging their right to exist.
As a former German diplomat and one of the speakers of the German Foreign Office (AA) long ago I can fully confirm your observations and analysis. My Asian or African friends frequently simplify it to "Germany/Merz (and predecessors) are just hanging on the US-payroll". I try to explain that the reality is much worse: like religion in Middle Age our "elites" are exactly what you describe - people with similar mindsets, aims and "philosophies". The worst idea and "cover" for this dangerous groups of like-minded people is to consider them as a conspiracy - since in fact, on the long run it works like a conspiracy - but without any deeply rooted form of organization or clearly identifiable leadership. The "Dark State" is a perfect example, but its worldwide "philosophy" even more dangerous. Not Trump, Biden and Obama were the poison with soft and sweet taste, working on the long run.
A former superior of mine became leader of the "Munich Security Conference", one of my crew buddies - a brillant former ambassador - member of the Bilderberg and other influential organizations. And they are convinces to be on the right way. Alex Lo wrote for the South China Morning Post "von der Leyen is a Force of Destruction". He got it simple and right.
BTW: I hate the way the word "elite" is used today for anyone or group with power and influence. In my education "elites" were morally, culturally, ethically distinguished persons - just and only in a positive sense. I fear, today even an Adolf Hitler would be labeled "elite" - no wonder our "elites" are leading the world into destruction today.
Thank you, Herr Rudolf, coming from someone who served inside the AA (German Foreign Office), your confirmation carries real weight.
On terminology: when I write “elites,” I mean functional elites or ruling strata—officeholders, agenda-setters, and the organizational heads of territorial entities—rather than the older, normative sense of “elite” as moral or cultural exemplars. Historically, these groups emerge through specific selection mechanisms (education, party structures, patronage, networks), legitimated by narratives of “competence.” The titles vary across time (nobility, mandarins, technocrats, “civil society leaders”) but the function is comparable.
As you note, this rarely requires a formal conspiracy. Homogeneous training, shared socialization spaces (conferences, think tanks, foundations), and aligned incentives generate isomorphic behavior: so it works like a conspiracy over time without centralized command.
My current article which I'm working on, tries to map precisely this: how different cultures and periods define “competence,” how that definition filters who rises into functional elites (or let's say ruling strata), and how those norms then shape policy outcomes (Germany’s present transatlantic milieu included).
Thanks again for adding an insider perspective; it sharpens the analysis.
Excellent analysis. I found the observations on Merz's advisers and speeches informative. I agree the marriage holds at the strategic, political elite level and it is premised on Europe serving USA global power. I wonder though if the sociocultural differences will not drive a deeper split over time. It will drive splits in society, and Trump's crassness gives people the excuse to break the American spell. The routine contempt of US elites across the spectrum towards Europe - which reminds me of the attitudes of the British Raj - may also provoke breakaway elites. Especially if there is a cascade of disasters from US elites bad deciaion making and failed war on China. Thanks for the food for thought.
Thank you—glad the piece was useful as food for thought!
I’m less confident, though, that sociocultural divergences will push Europe out of Washington’s orbit any time soon:
Nationalism can cut both ways. A CDU-style or AfD-style nationalism is far more likely to present itself as the reliable U.S. partner (“strong borders, strong defense, stand with the West”) than as a Gaullist bid for autonomy. The brother-in-arms narrative travels well on the right.
The public doesn’t yet see the convergence. Most Germans still interpret foreign policy through energy prices and holiday travel, not grand strategy. Elite alignment remains largely invisible, blunting mass pushback.
Anti-U.S. sentiment ≠ strategic rupture. Even if Trump’s crassness offends, it may fuel a “we need to spend more so we’re taken seriously in Washington” reflex rather than a call to chart an independent course.
That said, I agree that cracks could widen if U.S. decision-making produces spectacular failures, especially a botched confrontation with China that drags Europeans into an economic tailspin. But absent that level of shock, the centrifugal sociocultural forces look weaker to me than the centripetal logic of shared interests, supply chains, and decades-old security habits.
Now, the European elites and their subordination to the Trump administration...I would say this is more like capitalist class solidarity across borders: a shared worldview among political-managerial elites that outweighs any felt obligation to protect national sovereignty or voters’ material welfare (I just need to remember Merz and his comments on anything related to the economy and workers' rights). How else could this be explained? After all, Western democracies have slowly ceased to be democratic and have descended into oligarchies. They are in the process of becoming such entities in the near future if they aren't already.
Curious to hear where you see the tipping point.
This is very wise. What you say about Euro elites saying “we need to spend more so we’re taken seriously in Washington” is exactly what I have observed in Australia over the last 10 years. Worried about US withdrawal, the 'sub-imperial elites' say we will be model allies. I think the tipping point will come after undeniable US defeat, which I see coming in Ukraine, China and more uncertaintly in West Asia. Even the loyalest allies don't like to hang out with a loser. They will start listening then to all the advice they will be getting that they can defend themselves better with diplomacy not US wonder-weapons.
I tend to agree that only a first-order shock such as an unmistakable U.S. defeat, could jolt allied capitals out of the current reflex to “buy relevance” with bigger weapons budgets. But I’m not convinced the present crop of European or Allied decision-makers would pivot even then. Most have been socialised for decades in the same trans-Atlantic training loops. In other words, the problem is less the outcome of this or that war than the personnel pipeline that keeps reproducing a worldview almost indistinguishable from Washington’s.
Real change, in my view, would additionally require a new leadership cohort that is not embedded in those structures and that’s not merely a geopolitical shift. I’m sketching some thoughts on this “convergence of thinking” for another piece right now; the deeper I dig, the more I see how epistemic networks (who you study with, whose conferences you attend, which think-tank pays your airfare) hard-wire policy and worldview orientation frameworks.
So yes: catastrophe could be the catalyst, but only if it coincides with or accelerates a turnover in the elite stratum itself.
Thank you so much Nel. I am very happy to see such a young and powerful researcher. It gives one hope.
Regarding the current nihilistic"fuite en avant" that took hold of western elites, i think that there is a major factor that is not yet understood: its reliance on fake production. Faked GDP numbers and ultrafinancialized economies can work well to support buying power in the West, as long as other nations are not frustrated and confident enough to seek an alternative. Production has always been the implicit measurement of greatness of nations. The current US bullying, and EU barking, is setting many nations in motion, to try to seek alternatives and stand up to the bullies, forcing the West to make good on the implicit threat of its superior productive force. Only now can the real depth of western cultural and motivational decline begin to appear: we have indulged into self-agrandizement and pseudomoral gratification, totally disconnected from reality. That is enough to sustain a soft-totalitarian and self-proclaimed-democratic regime, to buy collective submissiveness, for awhile, but it has increasing costs on real productivity. Emmanuel Todd calculates that the FIRE-sector-led US GDP is only less than 60% of what is claimed even in terms of PPP, and GPD/cap about that of Germany. West-european GDPs are also overestimated, if only when assessed in terms of PPP. And the consumerist mentality that is hypertrophied in the West is also very hard to walk back. It took perhaps 2 centuries to build, with the last 60 years of intensive education, and it could be even longer to turn around, because we are not ready to accept that we have a collective psychological issue there.
Have you tried to make quantitative models of your analyses, if only very simple ones based on game theory ? Or structural equations models common in social sciences, psychology, and macroeconometrics - though Sims-type macroeconomic models are rarely called SEM. I ask because it would be very interesting to meld macroeconomic, mesoeconomic and microeconomics decisions on funding of think tanks, trade agreements, etc, with the autocratic sliding of (pseudo)elites that you describe - i call "pseudoelites" persons that are coopted into elite positions rather than landing into ones thanks to their performance, this is related to the overproduction of elites that is studied by Petr Turchin.
Lastly dear Nel, I would be curious to know where you are doing your PhD, and whether you have any articles published yet ? Thank you again, Paul Le Meur, from France
Indeed. I had thought that only the MIC alliance would be bad for Europe, while the rift would be real otherwise. In retrospect, the implications are larger and deeper. Can I paraphrase your ideas as: Trump may not like the current crop of European leaders. However, the deep-staters in all these countries are still in control, and much more so in Europe than in the US. Adding the multi-national companies and the super-rich. Their business interests are also more aligned than the discord between Trump and his European counterparts.
I usually argue that national defense is the number one, if not the only job, for a national government. But in the case of the US and many European nations, national defense is but an excuse for uncontrolled and unaudited money flow into private pockets. I wonder if the US and the European nations should nationalize the MIC (if that dream can be realized at all). Military spending and waste will remain mostly unchanged, but now they are nominally under the umbrella of the executive branch of the government and subject to the usual internal accounting and inspection. At least, the government cannot use business interests or shareholder payback as excuses. Taking MIC into national government removes one layer of middlemen and a bunch of shareholders.
Great commentary: let me try to unpack it piece by piece.
Is the “rift” only theatrical? You’re right that personal friction (Trump vs. Macron, Merz, Starmer etc.) hasn’t disrupted the deeper mesh of interests that binds Washington and European capitals.
That mesh is produced by:
Permanent bureaucracies (defense, finance, intel) that survive electoral swings;
Trans-Atlantic think-tank circuits that write the talking points;
Multinationals and large asset managers whose portfolios straddle both sides of the ocean.
So yes: the same “deep-state + C-suite” bloc remains ascendant in Berlin, Paris, Brussels, and to a degree even under a Trump White House.
I’d go a step further. Western corporations aren’t merely protecting current profits; many fear they cannot win a fair industrial race against a state-coordinated Chinese economy. When market supremacy feels unattainable, the incentive shifts to regulatory, financial, or military pressure on the rival. That’s why talk of “de-risking” so quickly morphs into sanctions regimes, tech-export bans, and forward deployments.
Would outright nationalization fix the Military-Industrial Complex? I do not think so, because:
De facto nationalization already exists. R&D, risk, and most capital expenditures are taxpayer-funded; the “private” contractors earn regulated profit margins. It’s public money with a shareholder skim on top.
Militarism is driven by state strategy as much as by private profit. A fully state-owned MIC could still be directed toward power projection if the political class sees that as essential to preserving hegemony.
Information asymmetry and threat inflation don’t vanish in a state company. The same generals and lobbyists would write the specs and threat assessments.
In short, nationalization might trim shareholder dividends, but it wouldn’t remove the geostrategic incentive to treat military spending as an insurance policy for fading economic primacy.
The MIC is already quasi-nationalized; militarism flows less from private ownership than from a ruling (corporate and state-based) coalition that sees force as the shortcut to preserving a slipping economic order. Changing ownership without changing that strategic mindset risks swapping shareholders for commissars while the spending curve (and dangers) keep climbing.
Excellent analysis! A powerful reminder that the only way to properly understand current events is to“follow the policy.” Follow the policy development process, read the “outputs” of the Think Tanks, listen to the congressional committee hearings, and monitor your blood pressure as you read Foreign Affairs with its reeking undertones of moral righteousness, unbridled supremacy, and manifest destiny. It’s not hard to do. You don’t even need Wikileaks to publish a National Security Council memorandum or diplomatic cable to enlighten you. It’s in plain sight, and studiously ignored by the Western stenographers masquerading as journalists.
Thank you, Michael. I’m glad the piece resonated. I’m often struck by how little “detective work” is actually required: most of the playbook is sitting in open‐source PDFs and C-SPAN archives, gathering digital dust. The gap is between published-but-unread. Once you start treating think-tank white papers and committee hearings as primary sources, the goals become depressingly transparent.
Also ignored by the public.
Never before in human history has such incredible communications and research tools, like computers and smartphones, been available to human beings.
Do they use it to stay informed and make important choices in society? No. Tiktok and instagram and "influencer" mind rot instead.
The rearmament of Germany sends shivers down my spine - and so should all Europeans. But the European elites cling to their transatlantic umbilical cord, no matter how condescendingly the Americans treat them. They are so thick-skinned that they stand upright without a spine. Rearmament is now being sold as an economic rescue for Germany. The war memories only remain as unconditional defense of Israel. NATO propaganda seems to be able to remove the last remnants of anti-war resistance. This will not end well.
This, too, strikes me as weird: It is the almost reflexive loyalty many European leaders show toward their U.S. counterparts—even when the policies on offer damage Europe’s own economies (and may cost much more down the line).
At that point, it begins to look less like “Atlantic partnership” and more like capitalist class solidarity across borders: a shared worldview among political-managerial elites that outweighs any felt obligation to protect national sovereignty or voters’ material welfare. How else could this be explained? After all, Western democracies have ceased to be democratic and have descended into oligarchies.
The "capitalist class solidarity" exists on the Pacific side as well. However, the solidarity there is weaker, perhaps due to stronger nationalism. At one point, even the Chinese communist party and the American capitalists were in close alliance. Xi's purge among the business leaders had something to do with that. Given the US trade/tariff war, even factions against Xi inside the CCP have to think twice about their future alliance with their former business partners. Tim Cook had always been treated like a president, but he switched to the "made in India" strategy since the first low-priced iPhone several years ago, if not earlier. Continued effort by China to keep him attached is a failure during this brief trade/tariff war (in a brief intermission right now).
Sure, it is "Atlantic Elite Partnership". Point is even if Trump tries to 'drain the swamp' this does not extend to the MIC. On the European side the elites still are in control and cling to the military alliance at any cost. European elites are so brain-washed they are unable to conceive the US as an enemy. It goes back to FDR America and the US helping liberate Western Europe from the Nazis. Even the US annexing Canada and occupying Greenland will be swollowed and explained as necessary for the common interest.
Perfeito, muito obrigado, sua pesquisa foi fundamental para condensar algumas ideias que vinha pensando acerca da dominação de espectro total na America Latina, em especail no Brasil, onde esquerda e direita parecem ser apenas expressão do Partido Democrata e Republicano no país.
This is a great article! I translated parts of the text into Serbian and shared the translation at this link: https://mojalgoritam.substack.com/p/zarobljavanje-elite-i-evropsko-samounistenje. I hope you don’t mind.
IBM provided the Nazis with everything they needed to run concentration and extermination camps (the famous number tattooed on the skin, among other things); Palantir provides the targets in the concentration camp that is Gaza. Different times, same logic.
El comportamiento conspicuo de la sociedad "educada" reproduce fractalmente los patrones que muy acertadamente señalas. El servilismo es la auténtica correa de transmisión vertical engrasada por la hipocresía y el edonismo inserto en el modelado educacional occidental....el sistema austríaco y jesuítico educativo es patente; tan patente que tu mejor acierto es aplicable a prácticamente toda la sociedad "no hay alternativas porque hay un marco establecido de sentir común que restringe la creatividad resolutiva".....ni siquiera tu en este mordaz y bien documentado análisis puedes sustraerte a la existencia de una sociedad vertical instituciinalizada......porque hemos sido formados en ese molde (?)...
Confío cada vez mas en la evidencia de que el servilismo lleva a la ósmosis de la ineptitud: los mas estúpidos llegan más arriba y solo es cuestión de tiempo que la estructura colapse por si misma.
Amor, salud, paz y libertad !!!!!
The future of Europe. A mix of Greece, Rome and France.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1s8dS29_qN7I-LNKrcUHGpQjkHb-DftGG5Vq2Gm2c2VY/edit?usp=sharing
Hello yes great analysis. And once you have the simptoms and have identified the desease, here is the Rx:
1. Supress monarchies. Abdication. No more tax money for the royals.
2. Turn kindoms into Republics
3. Close the EU
4. Close NATO
5. Europe becomes NEUTRAL
6. Europe thrives in science. culture, research, development, and a tourist oriented economy. For more details fo to full article: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1s8dS29_qN7I-LNKrcUHGpQjkHb-DftGG5Vq2Gm2c2VY/edit?usp=sharing
Excellent piece man. You nailed it how they sustain their plan of New World Order or One World Government or whatever they called. What is important is many indie researcher are nailing it maybe not 100% but brick by brick the veil of their secrecy is now subjected into the light of reason. A means for humankind to be awaken finally. Keep up the good work sir or madam.
Such a relief to read people who actually look through the smokescreen at the hard facts. It is insane how patriots of european countries have been beguiled by the Trump antics into believing their dreams were about to be fulfilled. Thank you so much. Keep up the brilliant work.
This article gives a better skeleton key to understand the turn of European foreign policy from 2004 to 2022. Todd's had suggested increased financial dependence of European capitalists after the end of Swiss banking secrecy, but this explanation does not fly). The capture seems to be happening with the political elite and the press as described in this article. The reason it convinces me is that we see the exact same mechanism happening in France as in Germany:
- 2004: Chirac/Villepin opposing Iraq war, similar to Shroder
- 2007: Nicolas Sarkozy (Pdt) gets elected with all kinds of foreign support (while the Lybia influence is toxic, Bilderberg or neo-cons influence are not mentioned by media) and reintegrate France into NATO.
- since 2007, Emmanuel Walls (PM), Emmanuel Macron (Pdt), Edouard Philippe (PM), Gabriel Attal (PM) are all from the atlanticist Young Leader nursery.
- Atlanticist positions earn the praise of mainstream media (Le Figaro, Le Monde framing of rejoining Nato as modernisation) and lucrative talks, whereas Villepin is treated as pariah, and the press does a witch hunt of politicians aligned to Russia.
In comparison, the UK is arguably vassalized since the 1956 Suez crisis. The pushing away of Corbyn shows similar mechanisms at work, although the capture is much older.
Outstanding analysis, but you have failed to highlight the nature of the people behind the scheme. It is not being controlled by the Americans per se, but by the Talmudic Jewish element on the planet. It plans and controls every aspect of it. The objective? Let me quote a speech made on 24th June 1982 by Menahem Begin to the Knesset: "Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." In this context please note also that Noahide Law was incorporated in US law in 1991 and has since been annually re-affirmed by every US President.
The description of the elite knowledge networks sounds exotic, unique and all powerful, when, in simple speak, its common sense and can be overcome by simply challenging their right to exist.