Bulgarian political scientist Ognyan Minchev in the Faktor:
"America is not MAGA, but today MAGA is in power - the US is radically changing its geopolitical interests
December 7, 2025
Washington's published National Security Strategy leaves little room for doubt that the United States is radically – and now officially – changing its basic understanding of its geopolitical interests. At least as long as this wing of the Republican Party – MAGA – is in power, this change will be serious and – in all likelihood – long-term.
I. Europe is no longer a major ally
Moreover, Europe is an obstacle, an obstacle to the realization of Washington’s strategic priorities. This 180-degree turn is provoked by three main arguments. First, Europe (at least for now) is an ideological opponent of Washington. After J. D. Vance’s notorious speech in Munich in February, there can be little doubt about this. As well as after the persistent insistence that power in European countries be fully taken over by national populist parties – like-minded of MAGA. Second, the EU has been an old and beloved enemy of the radical right in America for decades. This right is in power today. The EU is an economic rival and – to some extent – an obstacle to the unchallenged dictate of Washington and its associated corporate interests over small, individually taken European countries. Thus, the attack on Europe aims to disunite the EU (which is also the main goal of most national populists) so that the real estate group around the White House - and other similar corporate interests in power - can exert effective pressure and impose their schemes and interests on the individually helpless European countries. Third, a united Europe is a structural obstacle to the "cloudless" development of a good business between Washington and Moscow. Respectively - a disunited and helpless Europe is a good terrain for geopolitical deals and dividing the Old Continent into "spheres of influence".
II. Russia is no longer a rival
At least, it is not a major rival. The understanding that the “great powers” – the US, China and Russia – are in a system of mutual rivalry, but also have many common interests, is at work. Russia has become too close to China – it is practically under China’s control in the most important dimensions of its economic and – to a large extent – geopolitical presence on the international power map. America is not interested in this – and it will try to “pull” Russia towards itself through a system of well-executed and mutually beneficial “business deals”. Insolent “small subjects” like Ukraine are currently preventing this cordial understanding, but Washington and Moscow are “working on it”. Unlike Trump and his real estate group, those who know Russia well know that the Kremlin will play all possible “fairy tales from 1001 nights” to make the most of the assertive “businessmen” and will ruthlessly throw them into oblivion when it decides that it no longer needs them. Of course – if the Kremlin itself is destined to have the political and historical time to play this game. This is not at all certain. For now, the Kremlin is excellently managing the “offers” of the real estate group and is ready to gain the most from them – refusing to give anything in return, except for “miraculous projects for miraculous money”, with which it is flooding the “realtors”...
III. It would be a mistake to treat the National Security Strategy as a temporary document, expressing only the current biases of the current administration in Washington
Experts in the field of geopolitics and security strategies show the inertia to interpret the transatlantic relationship as a “transcendent”, eternal axis – a fundamental dimension of the international system dominated by the United States as a world leader. This was indeed a fact after 1945 until the end of the Cold War, and during the decades of the Western global project after it – almost to the present day. In this international system, the united efforts of America and Europe are a prerequisite for containing the main opponent of Western geopolitical hegemony – the Soviet Union, armed with a huge nuclear potential and a radical ideology of destroying the West with the aim of a global communist revolution. After the end of World War II, Washington was forced to build NATO and spread a nuclear umbrella over Europe to prevent the complete occupation of the Old Continent by the Stalinist Red Army. After 1990, the Soviet threat passed, but people with long-term strategic thinking in Washington understood that selective control over processes in Eurasia was key to realizing American hegemony in the global world. That is why NATO expansion was carried out - to counter the Kremlin's revisionism and to bind Russia long-term to the geopolitical community of the West. The failure to admit Ukraine and Georgia into NATO left the strategy for controlling Eurasia in a state of half-realization. And it opened space for Putin's geopolitical revanchism.
IV. How is it possible – some think – for America to abandon Europe and ally itself with the Kremlin – that this is “unnatural”
No, it is not unnatural. The transatlantic shield of cooperation between the US and Europe after 1947 is a moment in history – albeit a prolonged moment. If we look back in time, we will see that the Anglo-Saxon world – whose leader for almost 100 years has been Washington – has a long history of using the geopolitical potential of the most retrograde empire in human history – the Russian Empire. In the 19th century, London and Vienna used Russia as an instrument to defeat Napoleon. In the early 20th century, London and Paris promised Russia the realization of its most cherished dreams – the conquest of Constantinople and all of Central Europe – in order to bring it to its side in the war against Germany. Roosevelt and Churchill took advantage of the unrestrained aggressiveness of the two totalitarian monsters in Berlin and Moscow to pit them against each other and to act as arbitrators – choosing cooperation with Stalin against Hitler. (Churchill said – “Even if the devil guaranteed me that he would fight Hitler, I would go down to hell to shake his hand”). American President Roosevelt gave Stalin half of Europe in the hope of building a new “European Concert” with him – but it led to the division of the Iron Curtain... The division of Europe lasted half a century, and after the Soviet concentration camp was finally about to give up its spirit to God, another American president – Bush senior – openly asked the parliament in Kiev in 1991 not to break up the Soviet Union, to abandon “excessive nationalism”, and the independence of Ukraine. Is it any wonder that Trump and Putin are making plans for the capitulation of Ukraine and for a new breakup and subjugation of (Eastern) Europe?
V. Washington’s behavior is explicable in a longer historical context, but it should not cause pessimism and despair in an “abandoned” Europe
First of all, Europe today is much different – more powerful and richer – than in 1945, as well as in 1989. Europe has three main problems. First – to restore its self-confidence and potential as a real international power – a factor capable of projecting military and organizational power, and not just the “soft power” of attractiveness. “Soft power” is a good resource when the international environment is favorable for positive examples such as European integration. When dark clouds gather in international life and big and ugly cannibals appear on the field, practicing exclusively integration attractiveness only increases the chances that “beautiful Europe” will turn into a feast – dinner for imperial cannibals. Second – Europe must quickly and decisively change the political, ideological and organizational foundations of its integration. The time of liberal utopias is over! Massive immigration with the aim of making Europe the prototype of tomorrow's global – multicultural world? No, thank you!
A green “deal” that would reduce Europe’s seven percent “emissions” while China and India spew out 30-40 percent each? No, thank you!
A cultural hedonism that mocks Europe’s historical heritage, denies Christianity, and plays with radical utopias and hostile alternatives to “cultural diversity”?
No, thank you.
Europe needs to revive its cultural and civilizational brilliance – not by returning to the past, but by building for the future. Third, Europe must avoid the political polarization and culture war that is shaking America today and giving rise to the ugly realities of the far left and the far right. European status quo politicians must make efforts to integrate the more sensible and moderate factions of national populist movements into the legitimate mainstream of European politics. Giorgia Meloni’s success is a good example of such integration. A historical compromise is needed. The politics of the status quo must be stripped of its ideological fetishes and organizational weaknesses in the process of European integration. National populists must abandon their priority of disuniting Europe in the name of a utopian revival of national sovereignty. When large predators are hunting you down to eat you, disuniting is a polite invitation to them for a nice dinner – no matter what paid emissaries like Orbán tell you. Disuniting Europe and curtseying to Moscow must be abandoned by the national populist sector – and the liberal status quo must abandon its utopias – immigration, ideological greenism, cultural radicalism and utopianism. Europe must remain diverse – in culture, in education, in local government, in social security. Europe must federalize more quickly in terms of military security, border security, financial and trade systems, innovation and technological power.
America is not MAGA. There are many different social trends in America – values, ideas, politics, there are many different interests in America – corporate, regional, community. Someday America may return as a friend of Europe. Someday... But today – MAGA is in power. It is time for Europe not only to wake up, but also to be filled with determination."
No comments:
Post a Comment