On the New Cold War Between MAGA and Globalist "Fortress Europe"
There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear...
-- Buffalo Springfield, "For What It's Worth (Stop, Hey What's That Sound)"
Certain countries in Western Europe above all the British allied to the Franco-German-Benelux EU-globalist core, along with woke Scandinavian countries could become increasingly unwelcome places for MAGAs and Western dissidents to vacation, much less maintain as citizenship by ancestry or European Plan B options. If you want to live in Europe long term look at the south and southeast of the Continent and stay frosty, friends. – Belisarius
A very unusual revelation dropped this week: a pro-Palestinian graduate student whose visa was revoked by the Trump Administration for his pro-Hamas views turned out to be a British intelligence asset. Mahmoud Khalil has not merely been an asset in the mundane definition of being an informant, which is the typical cover of an asset the powers that be use inside any terrorist or criminal organization to direct (or at least nudge) them. He's been an actual holder of a security clearance issued by one of his majesty's secret service/s, which implies a background check and recruitment above and beyond the standard level for intel or law enforcement agency informant/s. So what does this mean?
MI6 Gets Outed as Running a Pro-Hamas Grad Student as an Agent on US Soil
It means, first of all, that the Trump White House is subtly threatening the Brits via leaks about Khalil to MAGA friendly and alt-media outlets about London abusing their privileged position of trust within the 5Eyes intelligence sharing agreement. This is the agreement that since World War II, has intimately tied American and British signals gathering resources worldwide. Someone at a high level on the Trump team, possibly even one Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard, is implying that if the Brits keep pushing Trump to escalate the war in Ukraine or pursue other policies detrimental to the MAGA agenda, then further embarrassing revelations will prove forthcoming that will be highly damaging to the US-UK Special Relationship. Which brings us to the question of who decides on the bedrock elements of high politics, as famously defined by the German philosopher Carl Schmitt: the friend-enemy distinction and who decides the state of exception.
fwiw I doubt he's a UK agent provocateur but it's possible. Would certainly explain the bizarre decisions made by the Columbia pro-Palestine people, as well as the complaints of some more moderate pro-Palestine types. https://t.co/KgPBJS85vK">https://t.co/KgPBJS85vK
— Nemets (@Peter_Nimitz)
https://twitter.com/Peter_Nimitz/status/1899962765135274033?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 12, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
For weeks now, since Trump was sworn in, we've heard so much in the legacy media about the UK and European allies no longer trusting the US with their secrets because of DNI Gabbard's alleged sympathies toward Russia or the former Assad regime in Damascus. But consider for a moment that Trump and his team might have reduced reason to trust NATO ally Europeans, especially the Brits, due to their past and more recent abuses of intel assets for purposes of interference in internal American politics (see the Steele Dossier), as well as the increasingly hysterical and strident statements of UK and EU politicians denouncing Trump as a Russian asset for criticizing Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky as a wartime dictator (which happened to have been true, even if Trump under heavy pressure from his own cabinet and Congressional allies 'rowed back' his words about Kiev's dictatorship) and more recently, over berating Zelensky in the Oval Office.
The 'Atlanticist' (Globalist) Legacy Media's Extreme Deference Bordering on Sycophancy Toward the EU(SSR) and London
Fundamentally, aside from the legacy media's implicit assumption that neither European allies hellbent on continuing the war with Russia to the last Ukrainian, nor the British can ever be criticized for anything (proving the UK, not Israel, is the real American ally that meets Voltaire's qualification of show me whom you are not permitted to criticize, and I shall show you who rules over you), the question is about who gets to be the decider for the Collective West: the so-called leader of the free world in Washington, or the Brits and Continental Europeans, now noisily asserting that they will remain the true defenders of democracy as America falls into allegedly Russian-influenced billionaire oligarchy? Who gets to speak for "the West" and for "the free world", assuming such categories still exist as they purportedly did during the last Cold War with then Soviet Russia?
The Two Questions of Carl Schmitt, Regarding who gets to be "the Decider?"
This is an almost Schmitt-ian question. It was Schmitt who defined politics along the fundamental lines of
1) the friend-enemy distinction and
2) a sovereign being the one who determines the state of exception.
VI Lenin defined Schmitt's maxims more crudely: politics is a question of who is doing what to whom.
Friend-Enemy Distinction Regarding Europe, Especially London's Soft Spot for Radical Islamists and Immigrants Hostile to Israel
Let's start with the friend-enemy distinction, which in the eyes of say a pro-Israel MAGA voter for Trump, the UK and much of Europe have betrayed in Huntington-ian 'civilizational' terms, by opening their borders to millions of anti-Israel Muslims, including radical Islamist preachers. Europe, as the critique went after 9/11, has embraced dhimmitude, which is the submission of non-Muslims to the supremacy of Islam and the ummah, the global Islamic community. Some of the bestselling spokesmen or women for this viewpoint included the late bestselling author and Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci. So from a longer term perspective, why should Americans who dislike Islamism and Muslims in general care so much about Euro-dhimmis shrieking regarding MAGA betraying them and turning toward Putin's Russia? Especially the EU that after years of condemning the Assad government, now refuses to condemn the post Assad Syrian regime for sectarian massacres of Alawite and Christian minorities in Latakia?
Europe's Growing Hostility to Free Speech is Directly Tied to Its Open Borders Agenda
Of course, it must be admitted that the case against a dhimmi-fied Europe is often advanced by people with a stated or unstated pro-Israel agenda. For millions of MAGA voters and the subset of the very online Dissident Right that largely could care less about or even dislike Israel, the broader problem with the Europeans--especially the Brits--demanding continued US taxpayer monies for Ukraine and or sacrifices of US advisors on Ukrainian battlefields is that these allies have betrayed their stated Western values. Both through open borders not-so-slowly replacing the natives of Western countries, and via their growing hostility toward free speech, in no small part because open borders cannot co-exist with tolerance for critics and political parties opposing unrestricted migration. Thus many German Greens contending that they must ban the second most popular political party in Germany to save German democracy from...German voters exercising their democratic right to vote for the AfD.
This creature is our enemy, not Russia. https://t.co/V1XjDmcbx7">
pic.twitter.com/V1XjDmcbx7</a></p>— Gabe (@GabeZZOZZ) <a href="https://twitter.com/GabeZZOZZ/status/1899517445569716292?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 11, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
UK/EU Hypocrisy of Defending Democracy in Ukraine While Banning it in Romania
This was the core thesis of Vice President JD Vance's speech at the 2025 Munich Security Conference, which drew furious denunciations from many Atlanticist European politicians. Vance's criticism of British police arresting a silent Christian protester outside an abortion clinic rankled and exposed the major distinctions between UK Tories and Trump Republicans. The era of Reagan-Thatcher bonhomie it's safe to say, is thoroughly buried in the past. Vance slammed German discussion about banning the AfD and the so-called firewall forbidding cooperation with the "far right" party in the Bundestag. Vance also criticized the EU-puppeteered government of Romania for nullifying the election of Călin Georgescu, and gently mocked the Clownworld rationalization for banning Georgescu, that all Russia needed to alter a European election was a few bot social media accounts.
Therefore even if Europe is not regarded by MAGA Americans as an actual adversary, it's clearly no longer seen as the reliable friend that preceding European powers had been during the last Cold War. Thus when Europeans rail against Trump and MAGA voters betraying the free world, the charge can be hurled back at them that Europeans themselves are rejecting free speech and becoming more authoritarian in the name of fighting Russia. And soon, in a Fortress EUrope and Orwellian UK banning right wing dissent by alleging that it's linked to the Russians OR more darkly on the horizon, even to the Americans. So when we use the phrase "the last Cold War", we mean it in the sense that the second Cold War widely discussed between the Western and Eurasian powers might end up superseded or transformed, into one between the Americans and the Europeans.
The State of Urgent Exception Applies to Enemy Russia, But Not So Much to China
To bring our discussion back to the two basic Schmittian questions, who in this most severe of trans-Atlantic controversies gets to be the sovereign, who is the one that gets to define the exception related to Ukraine, including each member of NATO's relations with nominal adversaries, Washington, or London and secondarily Brussels? It's noteworthy for example, that in the same articles that the French public intellectual Jacques Attali declares MAGA America is an enemy of a unified Europe that Europeans must unite precisely to re-arm and achieve greater leverage in balancing the Chinese against the Americans. Attali also claims somewhat hysterically that if Europe fails to do this, it will be invaded by Russia (what happened to the claim that the Russians had already been bled white in Ukraine?).
The sad part of Attali's statements is that he is half right, in the sense that Europeans desperately do need to shed their vassalage to Washington, and half totally wrong, in that he proposes they do so by forming a globalist-dominated and increasingly militarized and repressive superstate. In other words, the very 4th Reich which British euro skeptics were dismissed as fringe conspiracy nuts in the 1990s and early 2000s for warning was the end
game of the EUropean superstate.
A euro skeptic book published in 2000 by UK comic Mr. Bean Rowan Atkinson’s brother, Rodney Atkinson
Triangular Diplomacy, Western Hemispheric Focused Tacit Acceptance of Russian/Chinese Interests vs Euro-globalist Delusions of Influencing the Chinese in Their Favor
Historians examining Trump's détente with Vladimir Putin, which was severely constrained by the Russiagate hoax and ultimately blocked by his impeachment over alleged coercion of Zelensky and Ukraine in a phone call, can compare it to the diplomacy of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. When Nixon famously went to China to meet with Chairman Mao Zedong and developed an excellent rapport with Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, was he betraying the West during the Cold War? Some have argued that the CIA and other deep state agencies orchestrated the Watergate scandal to get rid of Nixon precisely because he was getting too close to making peace with the Russians and Chinese, threatening the trans-Atlantic military industrial complex.
Ambrose Evans Pritchard, the Tory columnist for the UK Telegraph, has denounced any such comparison between Nixonian and Trumpist American-Russian-Chinese triangular diplomacy as "an insult to our intelligence". But whose intelligence does Mr. Pritchard mean? Would that be the British intelligence services who direct tabloid outrage and feel entitled to dictate American relationship with Russia as an eternally hostile one? Meanwhile the UK, as a small but strategically solipsistic archipelago off the coast of northwest Europe, ignores the fact that ordinary Americans (and quite a few Britons) see China, not Russia, as the superpower that's swallowed up the lion's (or dragon's) share of previously American global manufacturing and trade?
The China hawks in the Trump Administration, most prominently the grandson of a former CIA director in Elbridge Colby, who have advocated for dialing down the war in Ukraine to fixate on the Pacific as urgently as possible, at least can point to China's economic behemoth status and MAGA voters' intuition to justify their approach. The Brits and Europeans can only shriek in reply about betrayals of the Special Relationship, and Washington regretting a re arming Europe's future military might or EU triangulations between the USA and China. The Europeans never ask themselves why the Russian-allied Chinese should trust them or why China needs their beloved European superstate as a partner, rather than relying on bilateral relations with smaller European countries. Nor do they ask what spending hundreds of billions into the trillions of pounds and euros on rearming to fight Russia will do to the Continent's already sky high tax and debt burdens, including the potential brain drain of their best and brightest entrepreneurs (which is where ESW comes in).
British Solipsism Not Only Means the UK is Practically Worthless as a Military Ally in the Event of War in the Pacific, But Also that the UK and its EU Allies Would Risk Alienating India
To put it in military terms, based on the here and now rather than imaginary re armament creating a European superpower the British will wholeheartedly against historic type (toward offshore balancing and frustrating any European hegemon) embrace, someone will have to pay for it all and perhaps even sacrifice soldiers on the ground in Ukraine for this. And in the present day, the Brits have spent 20 years driving the Russians into China's waiting arms with their relentless hostility, seizing upon alleged Russian skullduggery with exotic poisonings worthy of a Bond villain on their fair island. Not coincidentally, much of this British campaign to the extent that it ever ended in the 1990s with the end of the Cold War accelerated after Vladimir Putin's 2004 nationalization of Yukos Oil. That is, with Putin's arrest of the UK/French Rothschild bankers' agent Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Therefore Colby and other Trump Admin China hawks can fairly ask, what can an increasingly sparsely manned Royal Navy and more broadly, a hollowed-out UK military with a British Army of less than 73,000 people offer the US military in support, should China invade Taiwan? In that extreme Pacific War scenario, the Brits would most likely only be able to deploy maybe one nuclear powered submarine, one destroyer, and a token force of Royal Marines to wave the Union Jack flag in northern Australia, 2,000 miles away from the fighting in the Formosa Strait. Britain's two aircraft carriers--which the Royal Navy may decide to scrap--would be useless sitting ducks for Chinese missiles and therefore would stay on the other side of the planet during any war over Taiwan.
No, what London and Brussels (acting as the agent for the Davos Men and Women who rule Paris and Berlin) are insisting upon is the sovereign right to declare a state of exception on behalf of the entire West, because Russia invaded Ukraine, and the Ukrainians are on the European continent. Therefore Ukraine matters more than Taiwan because Taiwan has not been invaded yet, and in any case if the US won't defend Ukraine than why would it defend Taiwan? It's not hard to follow such midwit logic, save for the fact that Taiwan was never going to be as defensible as Ukraine in the first place, owing to its lack of any friendly land borders and close proximity to Mainland China.
Reducing everything to the scenario of a direct military clash in the Pacific, of course, ignores the broader questions of the Indo-Pacific strategic balance. Including the fact that any package of secondary sanctions sufficient to cause real pain for Russia's largest oil customers in China and India would also harm Indian refiners and other economic backers of the Modi government. And India, which is still heavily reliant on Russian arms, remains a vital ally for the US to have any hope of 'containing' China whatsoever.
So to bring it back our topic back to the Brits' solipsism and monomaniacal fixation on Russia, India also happens to be a highly Russophilic country in populist and elite (especially in its security services) circles, owing to the Indians experience with Soviet support during the Bengal Crisis of 1971 and even prior to that, Soviet Russian condemnation of British imperialist exploitation of the Subcontinent. Seeing all this, Moscow has aimed its rhetorical cross hairs on the Brits of late, with the Russian foreign intelligence service the SVR declaring this week, "As we can see, London today, just as it did on the eve of both world wars of the last century, acts as the main 'instigator' of the global conflict. At the same time, the British themselves, obviously, are again counting on sitting it out on their island. It is time to expose them and send a clear signal to the treacherous Albion and its elites: you will not succeed. London fears that this will lead to the failure of the British strategy of containing Moscow".
Unfriendly Statements by Leaders Go Both Ways--
And a UK and Europe Increasingly Hostile Against the US Would Themselves Face Growing Resentment from Within Their Populations and Hostility or Indifference from Without
Furthermore, if President Trump's hyperbolic and grandiose statements about making Canada the 51st state, retaking the Panama Canal, and absorbing Danish overseas territory Greenland into the Union should be taken both literally and seriously (rather than seriously but not literally as Trump supporters would prefer), then should the White House also take the denunciations of Trump as a Russian asset who is betraying Ukraine seriously as well? When European politicians like Macron or Merz declare that France or Germany must not only be prepared to lead NATO without the US, but to simultaneously challenge the Americans as well as the Russians? Clearly implying, at least in Merz's words, an implied moral equivalence between the Russian and American threats posed to the Continent? Do Merz and his idiotic cabinet understand that the last attempt to unite Europe as a Russophobic, anti-American Festung Europa ended with GIs and Russian soldiers embracing on the Elbe River, 80 years ago this spring?
Most ludicrously, should the US intel and military communities consider the words of Chrystia Freeland, the former Canadian Foreign Minister who declared that Canada should request British nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a MAGA-promoted US invasion? Surely a previously friendly state suddenly declaring it might need foreign nukes on its soil is not the friendliest move? We know for example, that Zelensky declared Ukraine might seek nuclear weapons if Kiev's demands for NATO membership were not met right before Moscow, having drawn an absolute red line against any NATO troops or nukes for Ukraine, launched its Special Military Operation in February 2022.
An EU Practically Declaring a Cold War on the US Will Find Itself Racked by Internal Dissension and Much Stronger US Efforts at Offshore Balancing On the Continent
There is already at least hints of a Trump White House counter to the growing authoritarianism and anti-MAGA American rhetoric and policies coming out of Brussels, as well as London. This week, Donald Trump Jr. visited Serbia, historically an ally of Russia and a traditionalist Orthodox Christian country in the Balkans. Although a territorial rump of the former Yugoslavia, Serbia has broader significance than just being the Russians' Orthodox little brothers in the Balkans other great powers have historically feared, demonized (as during the 1990s), or simply bullied.
🇺🇸🇷🇸‼️Donald Trump Junior, the eldest son of US President Donald Trump, landed suddenly in Belgrade.‼️
He met with the President of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, and the news of his visit sounded like a bomb throughout the region, because his arrival was apparently kept secret.… https://t.co/Md4OQUfbOX">
pic.twitter.com/Md4OQUfbOX</a></p>— Djole 🇷🇸 (@onlydjole) <a href="https://twitter.com/onlydjole/status/1899523432683102208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 11, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Serbia stands astride the millennia-old overland trade route from Asia Minor and the Greater Middle East to the the Danube River valley. Serbia also lost Kosovo to a Democratic globalist bombing campaign back in 1999 that we could very well see President Trump, or more likely VP Vance, deliver a sort of belated apology in Belgrade, on behalf of the American people. Whether such an apology would be backed by something of substance, such as a long rumored withdrawal of US troops from Kosovo and a de facto American blessing for Serbia reincorporating the portion of Kosovo that's still held by Serbs or even reunification between Serbia and the Republika Srpska in Bosnia is another question.
But what's clearly happening to those in the know from Budapest to Belgrade is that many MAGA elements see opportunities to strengthen Hungary, possibly Slovakia and even Serbia in the future as US friendly European powers that can withstand anti-MAGA American pressures from the Brits, French and Germans. Thus, the MAGA pushback against EU superstate pretensions has in our opinion, barely begun.
Maintaining NATO without American money and military might remains a pipe dream. Brussels and Franco-German and Brit intellectuals railing against MAGA's betrayal of the West should consider the price their countries would pay for making hot war with Russia combined with Cold War-style hostility towards MAGA their highest "European values". Because that's a Clownworld crazy-train millions of Europeans will try to halt or get off.