On Monday, May 18, 2026, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry arrived uninvited to Nuuk. He strolled down Nuuk’s main street with a doctor in tow and chocolate coins in his pocket, which he cheerfully handed out to the children while inviting them to his mansion in Louisiana. He called it soft diplomacy. “ Cajun food diplomacy,” he said in a warm Southern accent - many of us have a somewhat different view of strange men handing out candy to children playing in the streets. It’s worth noting that during his time in Congress, Landry went by the nickname the intern.

Trump’s threat of an invasion of Greenland fell flat with a TACO bang - that’s why Trump sent “The Intern” to Greenland. Threats have been replaced with “friendliness” - a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The desire for control over Greenland's mineral wealth remains intact. Does the U.S. really believe that Greenlanders are that stupid?

The scene belongs in a colonial novel from the 1880s.

But it is 2026. And this is the most advanced democratic nation that has ever existed. Until now, American diplomacy has worked by the U.S. smilingly telling others what it wanted - European countries fell in line. Now Europe is smiling back - while we, ready for change, prepare for a break with the U.S.

That is what reality looks like now.

Subscribe now

The Showman in the White House

Trump’s press conferences have become a form of involuntary bad reality TV. Either Trump sits at his desk with one or two rows of people behind him - who look like completely random people, plucked from the 4 train. All choreographed to stand with admiring expressions, while Trump’s sentences start in one place, meander through a jumble of unrelated anecdotes, and land somewhere, with praise for himself and his fabulous achievements. Trump no longer needs journalists - only microphone holders and camera operators. Critical journalists are barred from entry. Should they dare to ask critical questions, they are mocked with something irrelevant.

Last week, he explained that the Lincoln Memorial basin should be viewed as “a very sophisticated swimming pool, not a leaky, dilapidated facade.” He spoke of having built over 100 swimming pools in his career. The basin, which was originally supposed to cost $1.8 million to renovate, is now up to $13.1 million. The contract went to the company that had maintained the pool at his golf club in Virginia. Without a bidding process.

No surprise - it’s just another ordinary Tuesday.

The constant stream of threats

It’s easy to forget how many threats Trump has made over the past year. One is drowned out by the next. If you pull them out of the stream and lay them side by side, the list is staggering:

• He threatened a military invasion of Greenland. It didn’t happen.

• He threatened to “take back the Panama Canal.” It didn’t happen.

• He threatened to make Canada “the 51st state.” It didn’t happen.

• He threatened punitive tariffs against European countries if they didn’t support a U.S. takeover of Greenland. That did not happen.

• He threatened to “wipe Iran off the map as a civilization.” That did not happen.

• He threatened to bomb Iranian cities “back to the Stone Age.” That did not happen.

• He has threatened Putin with “serious consequences” at least six times since January 2025. No consequences.

• He has threatened Xi, BRICS, the EU, NATO, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, the UN, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the International Maritime Organization, the International Energy Agency, and the International Criminal Court.

There’s no need to even mention that the list isn’t exhaustive - that’s well known.

The pattern is the same every time. He either roars verbally - or, more often than not, on Truth Social. The markets tremble. The other side holds its breath. He backs down. He calls it “a good deal.” “We won,” he says. It doesn’t have to be true - it just has to sound good - to his ears.

Niels Ivar Larsen put it precisely in the Danish newspaper Information: ‘The realities are revealed day by day - Trump’s violent threats are empty. Iran has not made a single concession in the war. The Iranian civilian population has been threatened with thirst and darkness, but the Iranian military has learned a strategic lesson they will never forget: the Strait of Hormuz is their trump card. The U.S. has taught them that if you just hold out, Trump will back down.’

What is exhausting is not the threats themselves. It is the pattern. The endless cycle of fire-and-brimstone rhetoric followed by capitulation. America’s enemies have understood it. Putin has understood it. Xi has understood it. Khamenei has understood it. Kim Jong-un has understood it. No one takes him seriously anymore - only his destruction is taken seriously. If the consequences weren’t so serious for the world - it might actually be unintentionally amusing.

For a foreign policy leader, this is worse than being weak. Trump is predictably weak. His opponents can plan around it. He can no longer bluff, because it is common knowledge that HE is a bluff.

He can no longer deter, because deterrence requires that the opponent believe you mean it. Trump has no credibility. All that remains is the roar - into the void - that no longer frightens the opponent.

In return, his endless bluster has cost 80 years of constructive alliance structures. That could have helped the U.S. in China.

Don Quixote rode toward the windmills, believing they were giants

Trump is also fighting windmills - literally - the Lava Ridge project, the five offshore wind farms, the Scottish waters. He has spent two billion taxpayer dollars to pay energy companies to abandon their green projects. He has threatened smaller countries with punitive tariffs to get them to vote against a CO2 tax on shipping. But just as in Cervantes’s tale, the windmills are still standing. U.S. wind capacity has doubled since he first took office in 2017. China has already won the race for the energy sources of the future. Trump is stuck in the past.

While Trump makes the U.S. increasingly dependent on fossil fuels - the rest of the world, including China, is moving toward sustainable energy - building wind turbines, solar farms, and becoming independent of the Strait of Hormuz in the long run.

The Endless Lies

The Washington Post gave up. The newspaper, which during Trump’s first term counted 30,573 false or misleading statements over four years, has shut down its Fact Checker database during his second term. Not because the lies have stopped - on the contrary. Toward the end of his first term, he was making 39 false statements a day. In his second term, the pace is even faster. It just no longer makes sense to count the lies coming from the White House.

You can’t pick the worst ones, because it’s like picking the worst raindrop in a downpour. But here are a few worth highlighting:

• He still tells American voters that it is China that pays tariffs on Chinese goods. It is American consumers and businesses who pay - not China. Every economist since Ricardo has known this. The CBO has confirmed it. His own Treasury departments have admitted it. He still says it.

• He claims that the war against Iran was “the most successful military operation in American history,” even though it has cost $29 billion, closed the Strait of Hormuz, sent gas prices skyrocketing, and caused a shortage of motor oil. At the same time, he says the war will be over next week. He’s been saying that for five months. The fact is, Trump threw in the towel on April 7, 2026. Trump has proven that the U.S. is a paper tiger. The U.S. has no cards to play. They’re throwing billions at cheap drones.

• He says he has ended eight wars. Experts agree that he has ended - zero.

• He says his ballroom in the White House won’t cost taxpayers a dime. At the same time, he has asked Congress for one billion dollars for “security.”

• He says that The Golden Dome will cost $175 billion. The CBO estimates the cost at $1.2 trillion.

• He says that the plane from Qatar is a gift to the American people. According to the plan, it is to go to his presidential library after 2029.

• He says that the insider trading on oil shorts prior to his announcements about the Iran war is a conspiracy theory. The Department of Justice is now investigating at least four trades with a total profit of $2.6 billion, executed with timing that, according to Paul Krugman, gives off “an overwhelming stench of corruption.”

• He has claimed that he won the 2020 election.

• He has claimed that he won the 2024 election by a “landslide.”

• He has claimed that Obama personally ended his presidency in 1925.

• That Joe Biden is an android.

• That wind turbines cause cancer.

• That acetaminophen causes autism. Even his most recent scientific advisors have distanced themselves.

Hannah Arendt wrote about totalitarian systems that their goal is not to convince people of a specific lie, but to make citizens abandon the notion that truth exists at all. When nothing is true, everything can become true. When a people have no shared narrative to unite around, they are no longer a united people. This is not merely a political strategy for Trump. It is a cognitive state. He no longer distinguishes for himself. That is the point.

Share

The Man Without a Corrective

Maggie Haberman and her colleagues at The New York Times published a detailed account in April of how the war against Iran came about. The article is based on conversations with some of the highest-ranking sources in Trump’s own administration. Who they are, one can only guess. Why they spoke, one can also only guess. But what they said is disheartening.

The idea for the war came from Benjamin Netanyahu. He pitched Trump a military and strategic assessment that, in the words of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was “bullshit” - but which impressed the president. It became U.S. policy. When the question of the Strait of Hormuz was raised - could Iran close it? - Trump dismissed the concern. He believed the Iranians would be bombed back within a few days. There was no factual basis. According to the newspaper, the assessment was not challenged.

It was not challenged. That is the key sentence.

His closest associates - politically, militarily, and in intelligence - dare not. The sycophants issue half-hearted warnings and back down. They later tell reporters what they didn’t dare say at the meeting.

The Strait of Hormuz was closed. The war has so far cost $29 billion and continues. Iran has now learned how much power their control over the strait gives them. They will remember that forever. It is a strategic gift the U.S. can never take back.

It is easy to be outraged by Trump’s rhetoric. But what is most disheartening is that we, as observers, are witnessing a strategic collapse without any internal coherence. The Iran war is not connected to the support for Orbán. It is not connected to the weakening of deterrence against China regarding the Taiwan issue. It is not connected to the weakening of NATO. It is not connected to concerns about migration to Europe if the war produces refugee flows.

When we then talk about Europe in connection with the Iran war, the U.S. is dissatisfied that Europe does not want to get involved in the war - without giving any thought to the fact that:

• Europe was neither consulted nor warned before the U.S. started the war against Iran.

• The Iran war has a massive economic impact on Europe because Europe gets a large portion of its oil from the Gulf.

• Trump has essentially started a war that will devastate Europe economically without consulting or warning them first.

• Why get involved in a war when you don’t know why it’s being fought?

• And the explanation for the war? Europe still hasn’t received it.

As Kasper Kildegaard wrote in Børsen: “The explanation may, of course, be that many of us simply aren’t smart enough to grasp the strategic grandeur. But the explanation may also be that there is simply no point to it.”

There is no point to the war. That is what is frightening. The war was not decided based on national interest, alliance considerations, or geopolitical strategy. It was decided because Netanyahu pitched it well, and because Trump’s instinct became an argument in itself that no one dared to contradict.

That is how decisions are made now. The most powerful military unit in human history is controlled by one man and his instincts. Not because his knowledge and judgment are strong and well-founded—but because he is blinded by his own grandeur and is vengeful.

He fires ministers who don’t deliver. Removes generals who protest. He publicly humiliates officials if they dare to correct him. The result: a decision-making apparatus where the truth no longer reaches the top.

It is Caligula’s court. It is Brezhnev’s final years. It is the state of any autocracy when internal checks and balances have vanished.

The frontier myth in grotesque parody

Le Monde correspondent Arnaud Leparmentier has written an interesting analysis of how Trump is attempting to revive the American frontier myth - the belief that American identity is built on the conquest of new frontiers. Mars. Greenland.

Canada. Panama. AI. Yale historian Greg Grandin, whom the article quotes, explains that the frontier has historically functioned as a “safety valve”: When the U.S. had internal problems, it exported them to new territories. Slavery moved westward. Labor revolts found an outlet. The Native Americans were displaced. So were the Mexicans. That is how the country grew, and that is how it postponed its own crisis.

The problem is that the frontier is long gone. The Pacific was reached in the 1890s. The Indian Wars were concluded. Cuba and the Philippines followed in 1898. Vietnam shattered the myth. Iraq buried it.

What Trump is now practicing is not a rebirth of the frontier myth. It is its grotesquely displayed coffin. He cannot open up new territory, so he tries to buy up old territory. He cannot produce true greatness, so he builds a gilded triumphal arch. He cannot create wealth, so he redistributes the public treasury to those who keep him in power. He cannot win real wars, so he stages them as TV shows and calls them victories. He cannot colonize Mars, so he hands out chocolate coins to Greenlandic children.

The frontier myth once demanded the brutality of conquest, but it also produced railroads, dams, bridges, universities, moon landings. Trump’s version produces press conferences. It is colonial ambition without colonial capacity. It is the empire reduced to its own advertising.

Best illustrated by Trump’s visit to China, where Xi made one thing crystal clear: do not support Taiwan. Taiwan is our problem.

And presto - Trump immediately begins to distance himself from Taiwan.

Caligula and the Horse

The Roman emperor Caligula, who reigned for four years between 37 and 41 CE, is known primarily for one thing: that he appointed his horse, Incitatus, as consul.

That is how it appears in the textbooks, and that is how it has appeared for two thousand years. Madness. Egomania. A sign of what happens when one man gains too much power.

Modern historians - Aloys Winterling stands out in this case - have revealed a more sinister interpretation. Caligula wasn’t crazy. He was calculating. He had realized that the Senate had already become symbolic. Power lay with the emperor, the army, and the treasury. The senators could still don their togas, deliver speeches, and vote ceremonially - but they had no real authority. When Caligula appointed his horse as consul, it was not the ramblings of a madman. It was a precise political humiliation: If a horse can do the job, what does that say about you?

The senators could not answer. They could not laugh, for that would insult the emperor. They could not protest, for that would acknowledge the insult. They could not ignore it, for then they would accept the premise. Caligula had destabilized the entire institution without making a single formal decision. He was assassinated shortly thereafter, and the senators briefly discussed restoring the Republic. It remained mere talk. Claudius came to power, and the empire continued.

Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Fund is the Incitatus of American politics. The legal construct is a complete farce: He sued his own government for $10 billion. He settled with himself. The judge declared himself “stripped of jurisdiction” and dismissed the case. $1.776 billion of taxpayers’ money is now set aside to compensate the 1,600 people who stormed the Capitol on January 6, plus Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro. Both were jailed for ignoring congressional subpoenas. Now the same Congress - via taxpayers - must pay them compensation for being persecuted. For having ignored Congress.

It is the exact same maneuver - it is the horse in the Senate. A deliberate humiliation of the institution. Congress faces the same choice as the Roman senators: Laugh, protest, ignore - all of it will confirm the premise. The Republican majority has chosen to let it happen. The Democrats are furious, but powerless. Justice Williams wrote a sentence that will go down in the history books: “stripped of jurisdiction”. The Court had no jurisdiction. The settlement was never entered into the record.

No qualms - the taxpayers will pay.

Corruption as a business model

This is just this week’s story. A couple of weeks ago, ABC News revealed that the Department of Justice is investigating whether a group of investors made at least $2.6 billion on oil short trades made just minutes before major Trump announcements regarding the war against Iran. $500 million short 15 minutes before Trump announced a delay in attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure. $960 million a few hours before the ceasefire. $760 million 20 minutes before Iran’s foreign minister announced that the Strait of Hormuz was open. That kind of timing doesn’t come from good analysis. It comes from advance information.

Trump has accepted a flying palace from Qatar - a country that supports both Hamas and the Houthis. His sons are building a golf resort in these countries. He has hosted private dinners at the White House where admission was contingent on purchasing his meme coin. The Trump family has established its own cryptocurrency while simultaneously abolishing the rules that prevent money laundering. The Corporate Transparency Act has been suspended - companies are no longer required to disclose who owns them. The Securities and Exchange Commission is staffed by loyalists who promote the interests of friends and punish enemies. The SEC’s crypto investigation unit was shut down in April. Cases against crypto firms were dropped in February.

And then there are the contracts. This is where the pattern becomes clearest, because it has been systematized.

Donald Trump Jr. became a partner in the venture capital fund 1789 Capital shortly after his father’s election victory. During the first year in office, companies in the fund’s portfolio received contracts worth over $735 million from the Trump administration, according to a tally by the Financial Times - many without a bidding process - without competition. A quantum computing company received $10.8 million from the Air Force. A mining company, Vulcan Elements, received a $620 million defense loan - more than twice the company’s entire value at the time 1789 Capital invested in it. The loan was granted without competition and without the technical review normally required, because one of Trump’s own executive orders had waived that requirement. Companies linked to Eric Trump have received similar benefits: a robotics startup received a $24 million Pentagon contract, and a drone company secured a weapons deal.

Senators Warren, Blumenthal, and Kim have repeatedly asked Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for answers: Was there a bidding process? Was a conflict-of-interest review conducted? The Pentagon’s response was that their conflict-of-interest checks consisted of reviewing the contractors’ own financial disclosures - and nothing else. When Democrats attempted to subpoena Trump Jr. to testify, Republicans shut down the proceedings to protect him.

The key point is that no one has accused Trump Jr. of breaking the law. 1789 Capital insists that its holdings are “passive minority stakes.” And that is precisely the point. This isn’t an envelope of cash under the table. It’s kleptocracy made legal: the public treasury is being drained through contracts that look administrative, to companies owned by the president’s family and friends, while any oversight has either been removed or prevented. Connections trump economics1. It’s not corruption hiding in the shadows. It’s institutionalized corruption. Corruption that has become standard administrative practice.

The U.S. government apparatus has been converted into a private source of income. Not metaphorically. Literally. And the Republicans - they are actively complicit.

Imagine the reaction if this had happened under Obama or Biden.

The petty vindictiveness

Trump was recently asked if he ever thinks about the financial hardships of ordinary Americans, and if that might motivate him to end the war against Iran. He replied: “Not even a little bit. I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody.”

That is the most honest thing he has ever said.

Meanwhile, inflation is rising. Wages aren’t keeping up. Young Americans can’t get into the housing market. The University of Michigan’s consumer confidence index has hit an all-time low. Interest payments on the U.S. national debt now exceed the defense budget. The U.S. spends more on interest payments than on its military. The number of Americans receiving food assistance has fallen from 42 million to 38.5 million - not because things are getting better, but because the rules have been tightened. As a source of funding for the law that increases the national debt by $3.4 trillion over ten years - so his supporters can save on taxes.

American households are cutting back on spending to pay their electricity bills. The travel industry is reporting a decline. Pension savings are being withdrawn at a record pace. The engine oil is running out.

Trump is spending $1 billion on “security” for his new ballroom. $22 billion on Dulles Airport. A gilded triumphal arch. Takeover of Washington’s municipal golf courses. He’s being flown around in a flying palace while the American middle class cuts back on groceries. Trump has no qualms - he’s passed the bill on.

He is also petty and vindictive. He has fired boards of directors at cultural institutions to get his way. He has posted AI-generated images of Obama, Biden, and Pelosi submerged in sewage. He has revoked security clearances from former intelligence officials. He fires cabinet members if they aren’t 100% loyal. He uses the Department of Justice to persecute his political opponents. He has put the decades-old defense partnership with Canada on hold because Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke in Davos about “superpowers that are no longer subject to any constraints” - incidentally, without mentioning Trump by name.

He cannot tolerate being criticized. He cannot tolerate others being well-liked and successful. He cannot tolerate others receiving praise. When one reads recent American politics as a character study, it is the most embarrassing autobiography a superpower has ever written about itself.

Perhaps it is precisely dignity that he lacks - and knows he lacks. Dignity cannot be bought, cannot be threatened into existence, cannot be staged with gilded triumphal arches. It can only be carried. It is something one possesses naturally. This may explain his fawning admiration for King Charles: a man who possesses natural dignity in his entire being and demeanor - a dignity that Trump cannot acquire - no matter what he does.

A country shaped in the image of its president

The worst part isn’t Trump. The worst part is that the U.S. now resembles him. A nation that once stood for something has become a petty, vengeful nation that uses its economic and military superiority to blackmail allies and advance the president’s private interests.

The federal budget sinks deeper into the red with each passing month. In 2024, the U.S. spent $850 billion on defense - and $880 billion on interest payments on the national debt. For the first time in American history, interest expenses exceed the defense budget. All major credit rating agencies have downgraded U.S. government debt. The independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that U.S. debt relative to GDP will reach 172 percent in 2054, up from 98 percent today.

Harvard economist and former IMF chief economist Kenneth Rogoff wrote in Foreign Affairs last year that “a once-in-a-century debt crisis in the U.S. no longer seems remote”. This is one of the most conservative voices in American economics using the words “debt crisis” and “U.S.” in the same sentence. He notes that debt crises typically arise when a country’s financial situation is fragile, interest rates are high, the political system is paralyzed, and a shock catches policymakers off guard. “The U.S. already meets the first three criteria. The only thing missing is the shock.”

Even more concerning: Stephen Miran, who is now Trump’s chief economic advisor, proposed a plan in November 2024 - the so-called Mar-a-Lago Accord - for the U.S. to selectively default on payments to foreign central banks and treasuries that hold trillions in U.S. debt. The very existence of the proposal has shaken global investors. It is no longer a hypothetical scenario. It is a strategy discussed at the highest levels of the current administration: planned default on U.S. government debt.

Worst of all: the dollar. The one structural strength the U.S. had left - the only one that gave the country a power no one else could emulate - is now under direct pressure from the president’s own policies. Trump threatens the dollar every time he roars. When he imposes arbitrary tariffs. When he uses the sanctions apparatus as a personal means of pressure. When he signals that the rule of law no longer guarantees property rights. When he lets his own national debt explode without a plan. When he attempts to undermine the Federal Reserve’s independence to push interest rates down. The BRICS countries have accelerated their decoupling from the dollar. Central banks are buying record amounts of gold. The share of global reserves held in dollars has fallen from 68 percent in 2004 to around 58 percent now, and the curve is pointing downward.

He says he defends the dollar. He is the man who is undermining it.

As Rogoff writes: “No major power in modern history has been able to maintain a dominant currency without also being a superpower.” Spain in the 16th century. The Netherlands in the 17th century. Great Britain in the 19th. The dollar’s dominance was always tied to the U.S.’s political and economic credibility. Trump is selling that credibility for short-lived victories on Truth Social.

The EU is in the process of signing a trade agreement with the U.S. - with built-in safeguards in case the Americans don’t keep their end of the bargain. It is a legal acknowledgment that the American negotiating partner cannot be trusted. When Trump changes his mind more often than ordinary people change their underwear, you can’t enter into normal agreements. You build in escape clauses. That is the new world order: the U.S. is no longer a guarantor, but a risk factor.

For the first time in recent history, Canada has discussed reducing its military procurement from the U.S. Poland, Germany, and France are talking about European strategic autonomy as a concrete necessity, not a French pipe dream. The EU is including escape clauses in the trade agreement because the American president cannot be trusted. Mark Carney put it bluntly in Davos: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” That is Thucydides. That is the Melian Dialogue. That is not a democratic world order - it is the empire without the mask.

And the empire now has only the mask left.

Make America Great Again – everybody respects us now

Trump fundamentally misunderstands his own position. He believes the world respects him. It does not. The world obeys him because the U.S., as a nation, possesses great power and a considerable arsenal of weapons. That is not the same as respect.

Respect requires respectable behavior. Respect cannot be threatened or bought. Respect must be earned.

Trump has the bombs. He has the dollar as a reserve currency. He has the sanctions apparatus. He can hit nations with tariffs and infrastructure with missiles. The world bows down because the alternative is worse. But no one - no one - respects him.

Putin does not respect him. Putin exploits him. Every time Trump calls Putin “very smart” and praises his strength, the Kremlin rubs its hands together. Putin knows the pattern: a vain, flatterable, cognitively impaired old man who will lose any negotiation if you just give him a good headline to take home. Putin has been given five years to continue the war against Ukraine because Trump gave it to him. The U.S. is no longer supplying weapons. The EU is funding the Ukrainian defense against the Russian invasion. Trump is pulling troops out of the EU. Rubio stands up at the recently held NATO summit and says that the U.S. is done with the war in Ukraine - Putin couldn’t have asked for a better gift.

Xi doesn’t respect him either. Xi sees one thing: a country that has chosen to make its economy dependent on showmanship rather than substance, its politics dependent on one man’s mood swings, its foreign policy dependent on a flight plan to Mar-a-Lago. China is playing the long game. They know that U.S. demographics are collapsing, that the national debt is out of control, that the technological lead is crumbling. They don’t need to do anything. They just have to wait.

Trump thinks he’s clever. That no one can see through him. He is Putin and Xi’s useful idiot - the most effective weapon for defeating the U.S.

Meanwhile, China is building high-speed trains, alternative energy sources, refineries, ports, semiconductor factories - and bringing Russia in as a vassal state. The U.S. is building a ballroom and painting a pool blue.

The Kneeling in Anchorage

No image has captured Trump’s foreign policy subservience as precisely as the summit in Anchorage on August 15, 2025. Trump flew north to meet Vladimir Putin - a man with international arrest warrants for war crimes issued by the International Criminal Court - and Trump literally rolled out the red carpet for the war criminal. American soldiers knelt on the tarmac to smooth it out before Putin’s plane landed. That is the image the world remembers: American soldiers on their knees before a war criminal.

Behind that image stands Putin himself, who has orchestrated the longest, most cynical strategic manipulation of an American president in history. Since 2014, Putin has known that time is on his side. He has been playing the long game. Trump thinks he is the negotiator. Putin knows he is the target.

At the summit, Putin made no concessions. Not a single one. He did not agree to a ceasefire. He did not withdraw from a single occupied area. He did not stop the attacks on the Ukrainian civilian population. He did not approve any territorial compromise. Instead, he got everything: the end of international isolation, the red-carpet photo op, Trump’s public admiration (“we have a fantastic relationship”), and a U.S. president who subsequently shifted the responsibility for ending the war onto Zelenskyy. As Celeste Wallander, former assistant secretary of defense, put it in Foreign Affairs: “For Putin, the summit was never about pursuing peace in Ukraine. His goal has always been to bend the international system to his will. Anchorage gave him even more time.”

The whole world - except Trump - saw it as a huge victory for Putin.

Reagan in Reykjavik in 1986 refused to give in to Gorbachev on the missile defense system, even when it meant the summit collapsed. That decision hastened the fall of the Soviet Union four years later. Trump in Anchorage in 2025 gave Putin everything he could have wanted, thereby strengthening the very regime he claims to challenge.

Trump’s relationship with Putin is the most disheartening chapter of this presidency. He calls Putin “very smart.” He defends Putin against his own intelligence agencies. He is withdrawing American weapons from Ukraine. He accepts Putin’s narrative of “legitimate security concerns.” He has spoken with Putin more often than with most American allies. When Putin gives speeches about Ukraine, Trump repeats the exact wording almost verbatim a few days later. That is not diplomacy. It is Trump as a media outlet, channeling Putin’s message.

Fiona Hill, who was Trump’s own advisor on Russia during his first term, has warned about this time and again. “Putin is making a mockery of Trump,” she said ahead of the Anchorage summit. “He uses the Russian language in a way that can be quite sarcastic and ironic. It gets completely lost in translation.” Trump insisted on meeting Putin alone, without his own interpreter. She explained the pattern: “Putin lures you in for a moment. He loves this ‘two guys talking’ routine, but what he’s really doing is making you complicit in all the things he wants.”

Hill was also present at the 2018 Helsinki summit, where Trump sided with Putin against his own intelligence agencies. She has since said that she considered faking a medical emergency - throwing herself backward with a “blood-curdling scream” - to interrupt the summit. She is not an alarmist. She is a British-born academic who is now the vice-chancellor of Durham University. She has seen Trump and Putin in the same room. Her verdict is clear: “Putin has Trump’s number.”

We know from Maggie Haberman’s reconstructions that this isn’t a matter of strategy. Trump can’t stand being contradicted, and Putin has learned that praise works. That’s the whole relationship. An autocrat has manipulated an American president through the one psychological weakness that makes Trump most dangerous: his need to feel big in the presence of other men he perceives as strong.

While Trump worships Putin, Putin is killing Ukrainian children. While Trump admires his strength, Putin is undermining Trump’s own country through cyberattacks, election interference, and strategic corruption. While Trump fawns, Putin has won yet another year on the battlefield. Putin doesn’t need to win militarily. He only needs to win Trump. And he has won him.

It is the deepest humiliation for a NATO member in the alliance’s 76-year history: that the superpower that founded the alliance now reports to Moscow. That is why Putin still needs the U.S. in NATO.

Trump is not the cause - he is the result

It is tempting to pin the problem on Trump. But Leonard Pitss is right in spirit: it is about culture more than the economy. I would point out, however, that he cuts too sharply. It is not an either-or situation. It is an old culture, ignited by a new economy.

The cultural disposition is old - older than the republic itself. In ‘Caste’, Isabel Wilkerson calls it a caste system: a racial hierarchy embedded in the American fabric from slavery onward. The historian Taylor Branch, quoted by Wilkerson, poses the question most sharply: if people were given the choice between democracy and whiteness, how many would choose whiteness? This is not a question from 2026. It is a question that has lain beneath the American surface for two hundred years.

But something triggered that dynamic around 1980. As I described in Willful Blindness, there is a straight line from Reagan to Trump. Reagan began it. Trump is completing it. It is not a break. It is a line. Deindustrialization, the decline of the white working class, stagnant wages, “deaths of despair,” the growing divide between city and country - Reagan opened the economic line with deregulation, debt, and the belief that the market fixes everything. Forty years later, Trump is reaping the cultural fruit. The economic pain gave an age-old cultural disposition a language and an enemy. It is not racism or economic anxiety. It is economic decline that breathed new life into an old hierarchy. And gives populism a tailwind.

That is the interpretation that explains what the simple explanations cannot. Trump is what the voters wanted. 88 percent of Republican voters still support him, according to Quinnipiac. That is higher than Nixon had in his best days. The Republican elite supports him because they fear his base. The business community supports him because the alternative is regulation. The tech elite supports him because they see a chance to reshape the state in their own image - Thiel as architect, Vance as project, Trump as platform.

In March, V-Dem, the world’s largest democracy research project, published its annual report. It concluded that the U.S. can no longer be called a liberal democracy. The country has experienced the fastest and greatest decline in democratic standards in modern history. The U.S. is moving toward authoritarianism faster than Russia did in the early years under Putin, Turkey under Erdoğan, and Hungary under Orbán. The Economist has downgraded the U.S. from “full democracy” to “flawed democracy.” The Steady State, a group of 350 former U.S. security officials, describes the system as “competitive authoritarianism” - elections held within a framework set by those currently in power.

It is no longer alarmists and the left who are saying this. It is CIA veterans and The Economist - the political and economic mainstream. The U.S. is no longer a democracy in the sense we have known it.

It is not a country that has fallen asleep. It is a country that has made a choice. A NATO member is under constant threat of annexation. As late as the night of May 23, 2026, Trump posted an AI-generated image of himself looking out over a Greenlandic mountain. Canada, an ally, is treated as an enemy. NATO and the EU are treated as subjects at the Sun King’s court.

Caligula died after four years. His closest associates murdered him. The Senate briefly discussed restoring the Republic. They did not do so. Claudius took over, and the empire rolled on, into two centuries of slow decline.

The American Republic was not destroyed in a single day. It was given away through ten thousand small acts of submission by people who knew better. Hannah Arendt wrote that indifference is more dangerous than ignorance. The Republican majority in Congress is not ignorant. They know. They have actively chosen to submit to Caligula. The U.S. Congress now has just as much power as the Russian Duma. The price - well, Trump certainly doesn’t care about the Republicans.

No other species chooses the least qualified as its leader. The herd is protected by the strongest, the wisest, the most experienced. Only humans - who call themselves the most intelligent species on Earth - choose the least qualified and realize too late that they’re standing in quicksand.

And no, not all Americans support Trump - but enough do. And that’s a terrifyingly large number, considering the size of the U.S.

You just can’t make this shit up.

Sources / Further Reading

Greenland and Landry DR, KNR, Berlingske and Sermitsiaq, May 2026, on Jeff Landry’s visit to Nuuk, the opening of the new U.S. consulate, and the protests. Berlingske on Landry’s congressional nickname, “the intern.”

The Iran war Maggie Haberman et al., The New York Times, April 2026, on how the war began. Kasper Kildegaard, Børsen, 13 April 2026. Niels Ivar Larsen, Information, 22 April 2026. Robert Kagan, “Checkmate,” The Atlantic.

Lies and facts The Washington Post Fact Checker (30,573 false or misleading claims, first term). Congressional Budget Office on the Golden Dome ($1.2 trillion). Paul Krugman, Substack, on the oil-trade timing. ABC News on the DOJ investigation into the short positions.

Corruption and contracts Senators Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal and Andy Kim, oversight letters to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, on 1789 Capital, Vulcan Elements and Pentagon contracts. Financial Times and CNN on Donald Trump Jr.’s venture fund. Reuters on DHS no-bid contracts under Kristi Noem.

The Anti-Weaponization Fund The New York Times and CNN on the settlement, the $1.776 billion fund, and Judge Williams’s “stripped of jurisdiction” ruling.

The economy and the dollar Kenneth Rogoff, “America’s Coming Crash,” Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2025. Stephen Miran on the “Mar-a-Lago Accord” (November 2024). Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, debt projections.

Putin and Anchorage Celeste A. Wallander, “The Wrong Way to Do Diplomacy With Russia,” Foreign Affairs, September 2025. Fiona Hill, interviews ahead of the Anchorage summit and on Helsinki 2018. Levada Center on Russian public opinion. Catherine Belton, Putin’s People (2020).

The state of democracy V-Dem Institute, annual report, March 2026. The Economist Democracy Index. The Steady State. Leonard Pitts Jr., Substack, May 2026.

Climate and wind power Jørgen Steen Nielsen, Information, May 2026, on Trump’s campaign against wind power. American Clean Power Association and Wood Mackenzie on installed capacity.

The frontier myth Arnaud Leparmentier, Le Monde, 14 May 2026, with Greg Grandin (The End of the Myth).

Caligula Aloys Winterling, Caligula: A Biography.

We are at a moment when an entire system is choosing to look the other way.

On Wednesday, May 6, 2026, the S& P 500 closed at a new all-time high - driven by speculation about an impending Iran deal, as reported by Axios. That same morning, Trump had called the deal “perhaps a big assumption” on Truth Social and threatened that the bombings would resume “at a much higher level and intensity than before.” The market seized the opportunity - and soared.

Two days later, on Friday, May 8, the index closed even higher - this time driven by a jobs report whose headline “beat expectations” (115,000 new jobs versus an expected 55,000), but whose underlying data was disastrous: The labor force fell by 226,000, the participation rate dropped to 61.8% (the lowest since October 2021), and the U6 unemployment rate rose to 8.2%. The tech sector as a whole has risen +12% over 10–20 trading days (from mid-April to May 8), driven by AI euphoria. AMD’s market cap had skyrocketed by 90% in a month (from around $200–250 billion to $380–450 billion), while Nvidia rose ~50% over the same period. AMD’s stock nearly doubled over the course of five weeks, driven primarily by demand for their AI chips (MI300X).

NASDAQ Composite, 1995–2026 (log scale). Three peaks, same pattern. The dot-com bubble in 2000. Pre-financial crisis 2007. And now - five times higher than the dot-com peak, driven by a handful of AI stocks whose business model relies on structural deflation of wage income. The Buffett indicator stands at 230%, compared to 146% at the dot-com peak and 109% before 2008. Source: TradingView.

That same Friday, Michael Burry - the investor who, as one of the few, saw the subprime bubble in 2005, was ridiculed for three years, and was proven right in 2008 - wrote on X: “Stocks don’t go up or down because of jobs or consumer confidence. They’re going straight up because they’ve been going straight up.” He compared the situation to the final phase of the dot-com bubble.

Three days later, on Monday, May 11, the index rose again to a new record - this time despite Trump’s rejection of the Iran deal.

Two days later, on Wednesday, May 13, the index set yet another record - the fifth in twelve days. The S&P 500 closed at 7,444.25. Apple crossed $300 for the first time ever. Nvidia set a new all-time high for the sixth day in a row. The S&P 500 added $516 billion in market value in a single day. The record was set on the same day the Producer Price Index for April was released: an increase of 1.4% - expected: +0.5% (PPI rose nearly three times more than expected) - the largest monthly increase since March 2022, and nearly three times higher than expected. That should have been bad news for the market. Instead, it became yet another record.

On the same day, the Senate confirmed Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair by a vote of 54-45. Jerome Powell’s term expires on Friday, May 15. The last institutional resistance to the asset-price narrative that has driven the market will disappear in two days.

Five records in thirteen days. Each triggered by a different narrative. Wednesday: rumors of peace. Friday: jobs numbers that “beat expectations.” Monday: rejection of peace. Wednesday: new Fed chair.

The market ignored him. Closed its eyes. Grabbed the balloon - as it always does. Until it can no longer.

Every day has its specific trigger. But the direction is predetermined: Every day, the market finds the narrative that justifies the rise it is already in the midst of. No one listens to those who stop and ask: What does it mean when an entire financial system chooses narrative over reality - and when that is institutionalized as policy.

Trump ignores the problems - or rather: he defines them away. Ask about oil prices, and he answers: the stock market. Ask about gas, and he answers: the stock market. Ask about inflation, and he calls it “fake.” The stock market functions as a shield - a single yardstick meant to overshadow all other realities. Consumer confidence, life expectancy, delinquency rates, actual consumer behavior - everything else is dismissed.

The University of Michigan’s consumer confidence index hit 48.2 in early May - the lowest level ever in data dating back to 1946. Lower than during the inflation shock of the 1970s. Lower than during the financial crisis of 2008. Lower than during the pandemic. Trump said that same week: “Everything’s doing really well.”

This is not willful blindness in the classical sense of “we didn’t know.” It is willful blindness in its most disturbing form: A system that has chosen a single metric - the asset price - and declared it to be reality, while dismissing all other indicators as irrelevant. A system that has chosen a narrative - and called it reality. The difference is crucial. The asset price is not reality. It is a construct determined by the mechanisms we have just seen: algorithmic trend-following, information asymmetry, presidential signaling, wealth concentration among the top 10%. When this single constructed yardstick is elevated to reality, while consumer confidence at 48.2 (the lowest since 1946), credit card delinquency at 12.7%, and declining life expectancy are dismissed as “fake” or irrelevant - then we have a system that does not merely turn a blind eye to reality. It has replaced reality with a metric it can manipulate itself.

This essay is about what it means when a financial system - and the state tasked with regulating it - chooses narrative over reality. And about how the consequences of that choice extend far beyond Wall Street: to oil prices in the Philippines, to credit card debt in Ohio, to the chip supply in Taiwan, and to the refugee flows that will soon hit Europe’s shores. For when you close your eyes to one reality, you ultimately close them to all of them.

The Anatomy of Disconnection

The Market as an Amplifier of the Few’s Knowledge

A market that rises on rumors reveals more about market mechanics, power, and greed than about economics. Not because anyone believes the rumor, not because fundamental data is improving, but because the market’s own infrastructure is designed to amplify any movement in one direction.

Today, the so-called CTAs - Commodity Trading Advisors, or managed futures - manage around $300–350 billion in assets. Due to futures leverage, they typically control positions many times larger than their own capital. Goldman Sachs estimated at the end of 2025 that CTAs’ long exposure in U.S. stock index futures alone amounted to $65–70 billion.

These funds track price alone - not fundamental data. They do not read quarterly earnings reports. When the S&P 500 breaks above a certain moving average or momentum level, CTAs are forced by their own algorithms to buy. When the index falls below the threshold, they are forced to sell.

Structurally, this means: Whoever can push the price above a certain threshold doesn’t need to have the capital themselves to move the entire market. The CTAs - the algorithmic trend-followers - do the rest. You pay for the match - the trend-followers pay for the fire.

Add to this the so-called 0DTE options - options that expire on the same day - which in 2026 will account for over half of the S&P 500’s ’s options volume, an activity that was virtually nonexistent in 2020. Every time the price crosses certain levels, options issuers are forced to hedge by buying the underlying stocks, which further amplifies the movement.

Add in passive index funds, where U.S. 401(k) pensions automatically pump in about $50 billion every month - regardless of market valuations. And add retail traders who, via platforms like Robinhood, buy on every dip, because they have been conditioned by 15 years of rising markets to believe that declines are always buying opportunities.

The overall picture is a market that is structurally designed to amplify any trend. That does not mean that it always goes up. It means that it rises with ever-diminishing fundamental justification - and that it falls with ever-greater intensity once the trend reverses. The path up is long and self-sustaining. The path down is steep and self-reinforcing.

The key consequence is information asymmetry. Whoever knows when an announcement is coming - a tariff suspension, a regulatory easing, a geopolitical statement - can position themselves ahead of it. They don’t need to buy enough to move the market alone. They simply need to push the price past a publicly known CTA level. The market mechanics take care of the rest.

In April 2026, the CFTC opened an investigation into precisely this pattern. According to Bloomberg, regulators have asked the CME Group and Intercontinental Exchange to hand over Tag 50 identifiers - data that can identify the parties behind specific trades - for unusual spikes in volume immediately prior to Trump’s announcements. At least two episodes over a two-week period showed that volume in both stock index futures and crude oil futures spiked without any apparent trigger - minutes before an announcement. Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sheldon Whitehouse have formally asked the CFTC to investigate whether there has been “recurring misuse of material non-public government information.”

Whether the investigation survives the political headwinds is an open question. But the investigation itself is now on paper - and this is a rare instance of the system attempting to scrutinize itself.

The market has also internalized two phenomena that now function as permanent structures. The first is called the TACO trade - Trump Always Chickens Out - where traders have learned that his tariff threats are systematically followed by pauses or retreats, and therefore position themselves contrary to his statements. The second is the Trump put - the market’s assumption that the president will intervene against major declines because he uses the Dow Jones as his personal success indicator.

Both effects create predictable patterns that insiders can exploit - in ways that are inaccessible to ordinary investors.

This is where it becomes crucial to understand what this means for the individual American - but also for the rest of the world. Given the size, power, and significance of the U.S. to the global economy, the rest of the world can only watch as the snowball grows.

The top 10% of U.S. households own about 90% of the stock market. When the market rises, the gains go to them. The top 1% has increased its share of wealth to 32% - the highest level since the Federal Reserve began tracking it in 1989, and that equals the combined wealth of the bottom 90%. The top 0.01% - Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Ellison, and their peers - have accumulated wealth so rapidly over the past 15 years that their combined holdings have now doubled compared to 2010, while the median household’s real purchasing power has stagnated. The share of wages in GDP is at its lowest level in 75 years.

When Trump therefore declares that the stock market is proof that “everything is going really well,” he is saying something that is technically correct for about 10% of the population. For the 1% who own a third of everything, things are going fantastically. For the 0.01% who have positioned themselves ahead of his announcements, things are going even better.

For the bottom half - notably 170 million people, more than ten times Denmark’s population - things are not going well. Credit card debt has reached 12. 7% delinquency, the highest since 2011. The auto finance sector is reeling with a 5.2% delinquency rate, surpassed only by the fourth quarter of 2010 during the crisis. 50% of Americans are effectively poor or on the brink of poverty. This is not a statistical curiosity. It is the simplest form of fundamental inequality: a broad American underclass living paycheck to paycheck in the country with the highest GDP per capita in the G7.

The two groups live in the same country, but in two different economies. One is reflected in the Dow Jones. The other is reflected in the University of Michigan’s consumer confidence index of 48.2, the lowest since 1946.

These are not two sides of the same reality. They are two realities whose decoupling is actively maintained by the mechanisms that determine what counts as reality. Asset prices are the tool of the top 10%. Default is that of the bottom half. Both are real. Only one counts in the official narratives.

As former Citibank trader Gary Stevenson - now one of the sharpest voices in British economic debate - has put it:

“The world of the billionaires has exploded, the world of the public sector has collapsed, and the world of the middle and working classes has collapsed. It’s the same thing. It’s a transfer of wealth.”

That is the fundamental anatomy of the disconnect: When the market rises because it rises; when the infrastructure is built to reinforce the trend; when insiders get the information first; and when the president declares asset prices to be the only reality -then it is no accident that reality is asymmetrically distributed.

It is the structure that has chosen its own winners. And the winners know it. They have built the system so that it reinforces their advantage - making it invisible to everyone else and deliberately turning a blind eye to their problems.

The Buffett Indicator: When the Market Doesn’t See Reality

The Buffett Indicator - the ratio of the stock market’s total market capitalization to U.S. GDP, which Warren Buffett himself called “the best single measure of where valuations stand at any given moment” - currently stands at around 226–230%, the highest level ever - higher than the dot-com peak (146%), higher than before the 2008 crash (109%), and nearly double the historical average of around 120%. Currently, the indicator is 2.4 standard deviations above the historical average. This is not merely an overvaluation - it is an extreme statistical deviation that typically precedes market corrections.

At the same time, government finances are showing alarming trends:

• The federal deficit for fiscal year 2026 was already at $1.2 trillion as of the end of March.

• According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), projections point to public debt reaching 175% of GDP in 2056 - a level that, historically, has been associated with debt crises in other countries.

• Even more concerning are developments in the bond market: At a 2-year Treasury auction in March, the major banks that trade in government bonds (Primary Dealers), had to absorb 24% of the supply - twice as much as usual. This signals waning global demand for U.S. government debt, a sign that investors are beginning to doubt the dollar’s long-term stability.

On the household front, an even more worrying picture is emerging:

• The share of credit card debt that is 90+ days past due reached 12.7% in the fourth quarter of 2025 - the highest level since 2011.

• Auto loans with the same delinquency rate stand at 5.2% - the second-highest quarterly rate on record, surpassed only by the fourth quarter of 2010 during the financial crisis.

• The overall delinquency rate has risen to 4.8%, the highest since 2017, driven by delinquencies among low-income earners and young people.

• Total credit card debt has exceeded $1.3 trillion - an amount that exceeds Denmark’s annual GDP.

• The average annual percentage rate (APR) on credit cards stands at 21-23.75%, a level that makes it nearly impossible for many households to pay off their debt.

This is the K-shaped economy in action. Asset holders - the top 10% who own about 90% of the shares - are experiencing record wealth. At the same time, wage earners without shares are experiencing a continuous deterioration of their conditions.

These two realities exist in parallel under the same national GDP figure - a statistical illusion that hides the deep inequality that has emerged.

This is the deeper observation: Asset prices are no longer signals of economic health. They have become an instrument of wealth concentration - independent of productive activity, of broad prosperity.

The market is no longer a thermometer; it is a pump that automatically shifts wealth upward while concealing the structural imbalances that undermine the economy for most people.

The mechanisms driving this have accumulated over decades:

• The explosion in the money supply since 2008 - and especially during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 - has primarily created asset inflation, not goods inflation. The reason is that the newly created money has ended up with those who already own assets (the so-called Cantillon effect) , rather than reaching the general population.

• Share buybacks - banned in the U.S. from 1934 to 1982 as market manipulation, but re-legalized by the Reagan administration - have transformed corporate earnings from reinvestment to financial engineering. Today, the average large U.S. company spends more on share buybacks than on research and development.

• Tax policy favors capital income over earned income by an ever-widening margin.

• According to the CBO, Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) adds $4.2 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years, primarily through tax cuts that benefit top earners and large corporations.

On top of this structural foundation, the Trump administration has added a further asymmetry:

• Political signaling that creates direct asset price stimuli - the creation of a strategic crypto reserve, deregulations, and tariff suspensions - combined with a weakening of the SEC’s enforcement capacity.

This is not the creation of a new phenomenon. It is a catalyzed intensification of an existing dysfunction - a dysfunction that is now playing out with greater speed and greater risk than ever before.

This is precisely MarketWorld in its purest form - the world Anand Giridharadas describes in Winners Take All.

The rhetoric that “markets generate wealth,” “low taxes create jobs,” “stock buybacks return capital to owners,” “crypto innovation democratizes finance” - all this win-win rhetoric masks a simple, but uncomfortable truth: upward wealth transfer masked as market efficiency.

When 813,000 wallets lose $2 billion on the $TRUMP memecoin, while 58 wallets gain $1.1 billion, that is not market efficiency. It is extraction - a systematic transfer of wealth from the many to the few. But the language makes it invisible - because the losers acted “voluntarily.”

Asset prices have become the central propaganda tool.

The sitting president focuses on the Dow Jones - not because the Dow reflects the economy, but because the Dow is the only number that can be presented as “success,” while all other indicators - median income, debt, mental health, life expectancy, social mobility - are deteriorating.

The stock market has become a distraction mechanism - and it functions as such precisely because it is manipulable through the mechanisms we have described. It only works because the majority of Americans do not own significant amounts of stock and therefore have no “skin in the game.” They are shown the outcome of a market in which they do not participate and asked to accept it as a measure of the nation’s health.

The Five Decouplings

The anatomy of the decoupling is not a single thing. It is five simultaneous movements, each documented by official institutions, each explained publicly, and each ignored in the official narrative of American strength.

The five decouplings are not independent of one another. They reinforce each other, and it is their interplay that makes the crisis greater than the sum of its parts .

The first concerns asset prices. The second concerns job numbers. The third concerns AI investments. The fourth concerns inflation. The fifth concerns geopolitical position.

Each one is its own story. Together, they tell a single story: of a system that knows better - but chooses to turn a blind eye.

Decoupling 1: Asset Prices versus the Real Economy

The seven largest U.S. technology companies - Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Tesla - account for 33.7% of the S&P 500’s total market capitalization in April 2026.

In 2016, it was 12.5%.

The ten largest companies together account for 39% of the index - far exceeding the dot-com bubble’s peak of 27% in 2000.

We’ve moved past 2000.

Goldman Sachs expects the seven largest companies to account for 46% of the S&P 500’s total earnings growth in 2026.

This means that 1% of the index’s companies account for nearly half of all earnings growth, while the remaining 493 companies account for the other half.

That is not a healthy economy. It is an extreme concentration - and a dangerous one at that.

The earnings concentration is even more striking:

• The top 7 account for 26% of total net income in the S&P 500.

• 67% of the IT sector’s total earnings come from these seven companies.

• These companies trade at P/ E multiples of 31 - while the rest of the market trades at 21.

At the dot-com peak, the top 10 traded at a P/E of 43 versus 21 for the rest. We are not quite at dot-com levels in terms of ratios - but we exceed the absolute concentration.

Paul Krugman - Nobel laureate in economics - documented this exact pattern on May 10, 2026, while this essay was being drafted.

Krugman’s observation is crucial because he writes from a European perspective about the U.S. economy:

• In 2001, France had a GDP per capita of 74% of the U.S. level, measured in purchasing power parity.

• In 2024, it was 73%.

• Germany has actually closed part of the gap.

The U.S. growth advantage since 2010 - on which the entire American narrative of an “exceptional economy” rests - is largely due to the expansion of the technology sector.

If you take tech out of the equation, the U.S. economy resembles Europe’s.

Not only that: on many metrics, Europe’s economy resembles a better version of the U.S.’s.

Krugman uses an analogy worth remembering: “ In economic terms, Europe is to the U.S. as Texas is to California.”

California has grown faster than Texas since 2007 because it is home to the tech clusters. But no one in Texas feels poorer because of that. The gains from technology are distributed globally through the market for the products the tech sector delivers. The average European uses Google, buys Apple, and subscribes to Netflix. The value is produced in the U.S. The value is consumed internationally.

The next day, Krugman published a technical note formalizing the point: In a two-country model where one country dominates the rapidly growing tech sector, that country’s measured GDP grows faster - but real wages in both countries rise by the same amount. The difference in scale thus does not reflect a difference in living standards. It is a formally demonstrated scale artifact.

When you subtract the tech-generated growth out of the GDP figures, the U.S. is left with an economy that resembles Europe’s—but:

• Without Europe’s social safety net.

• Without Europe’s universal healthcare system.

• Without Europe’s worker protections.

Europeans work shorter weeks and have longer vacations - by choice, not as a sign of underdevelopment.

Americans work longer weeks with poorer social protection, and the result is not a higher standard of living. It is longer workdays for poorer social security.

Krugman followed up on May 12 with an elaboration of the point in human terms. American life expectancy is now significantly lower than in other affluent nations - and the gap is growing every year. Infant mortality in the U.S. is higher than in some significantly poorer countries. Traffic fatalities are now far more common in the U.S. than in Portugal - the country where Krugman himself worked in 1976, where driving was terrifying, and which has since surpassed the U.S. in road safety. The murder rate is several times higher than in European cities, despite the fact that American right-wing commentators portray European cities as dangerous. The average German employee has 25 to 28 paid vacation days annually. The average American private-sector employee has 10. And the U.S. is the only industrialized country that does not guarantee health insurance to its citizens. That is the reality the GDP figure hides. That is what will erupt as political anger when the American public realizes that the narrative of “exceptional economy” was a measurement artifact - built on a figure that measures the wrong thing.

That is the first disconnect. The stock market in the U.S. does not reflect the American economy. It reflects seven companies.

Decoupling 2: Job Numbers Versus the Labor Market’s Real Strength

On Friday, May 8, 2026, the Bureau of Labor Statistics report showed 115,000 new jobs - nearly twice as many as expected.

The headline read: “Strong labor market.” The numbers below the headline told a different story.

Indicator Number Reading

New jobs created 115,000 “Beat expectations”

Expectation 55,000 Headline positive

Labor force -226,000 Contraction

Labor force participation rate 61.8% Lowest since Oct. 2021

Unemployment (U3) 4.3% Unchanged, appears stable

U6 (broad measure) 8.2% Up 0.2 percentage points

Part-time workers for economic reasons +445,000 to 4.9 million Strong growth

Real wage growth +3.6% YoY Below inflation

How can 115,000 new jobs be created while the labor force shrinks by 226,000?

The answer lies in immigration policy.

In February 2026, Goldman Sachs published an analysis of what they call “ break-even job creation” - the number of new jobs needed to keep the unemployment rate constant. In the 2010s, this figure was around 70,000 per month. Goldman now estimates that it has fallen to 50,000 by the end of 2026, due to the collapse of net immigration.

Year Net Immigration Difference

2010s (avg.) ~1 million/year Baseline

2024 2.7 million (Census)

2025 1.3 million -54% in one year

2026 (Goldman) 200,000 -80% from the 2010s

2026 (Census) 321,000 Heading toward negative

The U.S. is heading toward its first negative net migration in over 50 years. More people will leave the U.S. than arrive.

When you remove immigrants, the number of jobs that need to be created to “look strong” drops. “ This means that a jobs report of 115,000 in 2026 looks stronger than it would have in 2022. It is not a strong economy. It is a smaller economy that looks strong because the yardstick has been moved.

In May 2026, the University of Colorado Boulder published a study documenting what the ICE raids actually do. The official claim from the Trump administration: Removing undocumented workers “frees up jobs for Americans.”

The researchers found the opposite. In cities where ICE has conducted raids, employment of U.S.-born men with a high school education fell by 3% in the construction sector. When construction companies lose their undocumented workers, they don’t hire Americans. They cut back on projects. They don’t fulfill orders. They close down.

The American Enterprise Institute - a conservative think tank not known for being critical of Republicans - published a working paper in 2025 projecting that Trump’s mass deportations would reduce U.S. GDP by 2.6–6.2% over a decade. That is no small matter. It is structural damage on a scale that will take a generation to heal.

The labor market looks stable because supply is shrinking faster than demand. That is not strength. It is contraction masquerading as stability.

Decoupling 3: AI Investment versus Job Creation - and the Question of What AI Actually Produces

By 2026, the four largest U.S. technology companies - Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Meta - will spend approximately $725 billion on AI infrastructure.

Company 2026 Capex (bn USD) Free Cash Flow Change 2026

Amazon 200 -17 to -28 bn (negative)

Alphabet 175-185 -90%

Microsoft 120-190 -28%

Meta 115-145 -90%

Total ~$725 billion Historic erosion of FCF

By comparison, Denmark’s total GDP is around $400 billion. Four U.S. companies spend nearly twice as much on AI infrastructure in a single year as Denmark produces in an entire year.

The question is: What are they actually building?

A large AI data center employs 50-150 full-time staff after commissioning. The construction phase generates 1,000-3,000 temporary jobs over 2-3 years, but these are temporary positions. Traditional industrial investment at the same level creates 3 0-50 times more full-time jobs per dollar invested.

At the same time, these same companies are laying off employees. Microsoft, Meta, Google, and Amazon have laid off thousands of employees every quarter throughout 2024 and 2025. The justification - which has become standard in press releases - is “streamlining” and “adapting to AI.” Investors reward this. Stock prices rise with every round of layoffs.

That is the inherent contradiction. AI investment only makes sense if it eliminates jobs downstream. Microsoft isn’t selling AI to companies because companies want more employees. They sell it because companies want fewer. Sales are measured in saved labor costs. The business model presupposes structural deflation of wage income in precisely those sectors that today support the American middle class - office work, administration, law, accounting, customer service, programming, and parts of the medical field.

It is Henry Ford’s paradox in the 21st century. When Ford doubled his workers’ wages in 1914, the argument was not philanthropic. It was economic. “If my employees can’t buy my cars, there is no market.”

The hyperscalers’ current model does the opposite. It optimizes for short-term revenue by making customers’ customers less able to have workers as customers. If companies’ customers no longer have wage income, the companies have no customers. This is not a side effect . It is the inherent contradiction.

Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson have documented in Power and Progress that AI technology can be developed in two fundamentally different directions:

1. Automation - where the machine replaces humans.

2. Augmentation - where the machine enhances human capacity.

Both are technically possible. Both have existed side by side throughout industrial history. The difference between them is not technical - it is political, driven by tax policy (favoring capital over labor), labor market regulation (or the lack thereof), and the hyperscaler monopoly’s profit logic.

The current choice is clear: automation.

The hyperscalers’ free cash flow reflects this. The largest and richest companies in world history are burning through cash at a rate historically seen only in companies at risk of bankruptcy. It only works as long as investors believe that AI revenue will materialize.

That belief is already wavering.

OpenAI - the company that defines the entire AI - projects a loss of $14 billion in 2026. Sam Altman has publicly admitted that the company is losing money on even its most expensive product: ChatGPT Pro at $200 a month. “We are currently losing money on OpenAI pro subscriptions,” he wrote on X in January 2025. “People use it much more than we expected.”

CFO Sarah Friar hinted in a comment (which was quickly retracted) that OpenAI was considering asking the U.S. government for a “government guarantee” - (backstop) - for its investments in computer infrastructure. Tom’s Hardware analyses project that OpenAI will run out of cash in mid-2027, unless new sources of funding are found.

This is not a marginal business. It is the central player in the entire AI narrative. Every time someone talks about “AI will replace jobs,” they are implicitly referring to OpenAI’s technology. If OpenAI cannot pay its own bills, if Microsoft, Google, and Meta are burning through hundreds of billions on data centers that do not produce physical goods that can’t be sold at a price that covers the costs - then what have we built?

AI isn’t an industry like steel production or car manufacturing. It doesn’t produce goods that can be exported. It produces computing power that is used once and then disappears. Every ChatGPT query costs OpenAI money in the form of electricity and chip wear and tear. Scaling exacerbates the problem - more users mean more losses, not more revenue.

And at the same time, four companies are burning through $725 billion to build more of it.

If the AI bubble bursts - if investors suddenly ask where the money is being made - it’s not just stock prices that will fall. It’s the entire investment flow that has propped up the U.S. stock market since 2023. The Mag 7 accounts for 33.7% of the S&P 500. If these companies have to scale back their capex plans, if Amazon can no longer justify spending $200 billion annually on data centers, if OpenAI goes bankrupt or is bailed out by the government - the narrative that underpins the entire market will collapse.

And the American middle class, which has seen no productive jobs created by AI investment - only layoffs - will be left with pensions tied to Mag 7 stock prices. This is the deepest form of collective blindness: an entire economy tied to an industry that cannot earn back its own money.

Decoupling 4: Inflation and Energy Data versus Real-Life Experience

The official CPI for January 2026 was 2.4% year-over-year. The figure looks moderate. It is not moderate.

In October and November 2025, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history took place, and the BLS had to extrapolate the CPI figures from incomplete data. Those figures are now part of the time series’ foundation. What inflation “actually was” during those months, no one will ever know for sure.

Between February and March 2026, Brent crude rose from $72 per barrel to $126.

• That is the largest monthly jump in over 50 years.

• The IEA called it “the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market.”

• Gasoline prices in the U.S. have risen by $1.16 per gallon since the war began.

• Jet fuel has risen 95%.

• In Canada, prices have risen 30%.

These increases are not distributed evenly across the population. In May 2026, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published an analysis of consumption patterns that documents the K-shaped consumption in figures:

Income Group Volume Consumption (Gasoline) Increase in Expenditure (in dollars)

Under $40,000 -7% +12%

Over $125,000 -1% +19%

Low-income earners cut their gasoline consumption by 7% in physical volume but spent 12% more in dollars. They can no longer afford to drive, but what they do drive costs more. High-income earners cut consumption by only 1%, while their total spending on gasoline rose 19%. They drive as before. They just pay more.

The inflation shock is not a single shock. It is two shocks in two different economies.

The real purchasing power of the average American household is falling because average wages are rising 3.6% year over year, while experienced inflation - especially for food, energy, transportation, and housing—is rising faster.

For the top 10% who own assets, wealth is accumulating faster than inflation. For the bottom 50%, there are no assets to accumulate. There are only wages, which aren’t keeping up.

Decoupling 5: Geopolitical Position versus Real Vulnerability

The fifth and deepest decoupling is the one upon which the entire argument of this essay is based. It is the decoupling that ties the other four together.

The U.S.’s strategic position in 2026 is fundamentally more fragile than the rhetoric suggests.

• Weapons stocks are depleted following the conflicts in Ukraine, Israel, and with the Houthis and Iran. During the Iran conflict, the U.S. has fired missiles and ammunition worth over $12 billion.

• THAAD, Patriot, Stinger, Javelin, and GMLRS stocks are all severely depleted.

• Strategic oil reserves have been heavily tapped.

• Treasury auctions show weakness: Primary dealers absorb 24% of 2-year notes, double the usual amount - a signal of waning international demand for U.S. debt.

• In January 2026, we saw the “Sell America” trade, where the dollar, Treasury bonds, and stocks all fell simultaneously - these are behavioral patterns traditionally seen in emerging markets, not in a reserve currency.

But the most significant vulnerability concerns Taiwan. This is where the entire decoupling comes together into a single picture.

TSMC in Taiwan produces over 90% of the world’s chips under 5nm. It is the only foundry in the world currently mass-producing 3nm chips, and will be the only one at 2nm when that technology matures. By comparison, China cannot yet produce chips under 7 nm.

Nvidia, AMD, Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta - none of them have their own advanced manufacturing facilities. They design chips. TSMC manufactures them.

The entire $725 billion in U.S. AI investment in 2026, the entire concentration of asset prices, the entire dominance of the Mag 7 in the S&P 500 - all of it rests on a single supply chain from a single island located 130 kilometers from the Chinese mainland.

In April 2026, Foreign Affairs published the essay “The Real Threat to Taiwan: America Is Preparing for the Wrong Kind of Crisis.”

The argument is that U.S. strategy is focused on the wrong threat scenario. The U.S. is preparing for an invasion. The real risk is quarantine.

Beijing’s diplomatic framework is consistent: Trade can continue freely as long as specific conditions are met - no U.S. weapons to Taiwan, no dual-use components, no military advisers, and restrictions on exit permits for TSMC process engineers (many of whom are Chinese citizens).

Beijing does not need to invade Taiwan to control TSMC. It just needs to make it difficult for the people who know how to run the factories to leave the country.

That is precisely the scenario to which the U.S. is structurally unable to respond. You cannot intervene militarily against an export control rule. You cannot bomb a bureaucracy.

When Foreign Affairs recommends a core coalition between the U.S., Australia, Canada, Japan, and the UK - which together account for over a third of global GDP and nearly half of the global defense budget - it is a strategy that requires those alliances to function.

The Trump administration has, throughout 2025 and 2026, systematically undermined every single one of them.

The deepest contradiction is this: The leaders of the hyperscalers - Pichai, Nadella, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Huang - have all privately visited Trump in 2025, have all contributed to his inauguration fund, and have all publicly expressed support for his policies. At the same time, every single one of their companies’ business models is existentially dependent on ongoing access to Taiwan-produced silicon.

Every dollar of U.S. AI investment generates revenue for a company on an island the U.S. may not be able to protect. The AI The AI bubble is not only financially vulnerable. It is strategically self-defeating.

One must assume that there is no strategy - or that it is so ill-conceived that the absence of a strategy would be the best-case scenario. If you think the current energy crisis is bad, it is nothing compared to a crisis of chip supply. Every office, every car, every hospital, every bank, every military unit in the Western world will feel it within weeks.

If someone twenty years from now is asked to explain what willful blindness was, they will point to Taiwan. The U.S. administration spent $725 billion in 2026 on infrastructure that was existentially dependent on continuous access to advanced chips from Taiwan. At the same time, that same administration dismantled the diplomatic, military, and institutional structures that would be necessary to defend Taiwan.

They did it publicly. They did it on the record. They did it with full knowledge of the underlying dependency - because it was described in every quarterly report from every hyperscaler, in every Foreign Affairs essay, in every internal briefing from the intelligence agencies.

Share

Capture: Who Built the Blindness

It is tempting to read current events as an anomaly. As if Trump is a deviation, a temporary break with an otherwise functioning American tradition. As if the system can return to its former state once he is gone.

That is not correct. Trump is not the disruption. He is the culmination.

Reagan began the deregulation of the financial sector. Trump is completing it. These are two sentences that span four decades. Krugman has documented it from another angle: The U.S. began to fall behind other affluent nations in health, safety, and life expectancy around 1980 - precisely when the Reagan administration took office. This is not a coincidence. It is the same pattern viewed from two different perspectives.

These are two sentences that span four decades, and they are the most important analytical tool in this entire essay. What we call Willful Blindness in 2026 is not an acute condition arising under the current administration. It is the cumulative result of deliberate political choices made by Democratic and Republican administrations since 1981. It is built by people whose names we know, whose careers are publicly documented, and whose ideological frameworks are printed in books that sit on the shelves of university libraries.

Let’s see how.

The Revolving Door: When Power Shifts from Government to the Private Sector

Robert Rubin went from being co-chairman of Goldman Sachs to Clinton’s Treasury Secretary in 1995. As Treasury Secretary, he was the chief architect behind the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act - the 1933 law that had separated commercial banking from investment banking for 66 years, enacted as a direct response to the financial crisis of 1929. When Rubin left the Treasury in 1999, he became a director at Citigroup - the first major U.S. bank able to combine the two forms of banking, precisely because the law he had repealed no longer stood in the way. He received over $120 million in compensation over the next decade. In 2008, Citigroup was bailed out by the U.S. government using taxpayer money.

Hank Paulson came from Goldman Sachs as CEO and became Bush’s Treasury Secretary in 2006. As Treasury Secretary, he designed the TARP bailout - a package authorized for up to $700 billion - that directly benefited Goldman Sachs.

Tim Geithner was President of the New York Fed during the financial crisis and became Obama’s Treasury Secretary. After his time in government, he became president of the private equity firm Warburg Pincus.

Steven Mnuchin went from Goldman Sachs to becoming a hedge fund owner who profited from the subprime collapse, and then became Trump’s Treasury Secretary during his first term. Three months after he left office, his new private equity firm received two billion dollars from Saudi Arabia.

Janet Yellen was Chair of the Federal Reserve and subsequently became Biden’s Treasury Secretary. Between those two roles, she received $7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street banks.

Scott Bessent, Trump’s second-term Treasury Secretary, was a hedge fund owner and Soros veteran.

These are not anomalies. This is the recruitment pattern. For forty years, the Treasury Department has been staffed by people whose professional and financial lives, both before and after government service, have been defined by the financial sector.

The argument is always that expertise is needed - people who view the world through the lens of the financial sector and who serve the financial sector’s interests before, during, and after their time in government.

The British mirror image is identical:

• David Cameron earned £10 million within a year of leaving the office of Prime Minister.

• Tony Blair is now a consultant for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, JPMorgan, and Sergei Brin.

• Rishi Sunak’s father-in-law is one of the richest men in the world.

Gary Stevenson, the former Citibank trader who is now one of the sharpest voices in British economic debate, has put it this way:

“We’re not stupid because the people who set tax policy work for them. It works a hell of a lot for them.”

Larry Summers: the perfect example

If you want to understand what capture is and how it works, Larry Summers is the perfect example.

As Clinton’s Deputy Treasury Secretary - and later Treasury Secretary - Summers was the chief architect behind two legislative moves that fundamentally changed the U.S. financial sector:

1. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 - the law that had separated commercial and investment banking since 1933.

2. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 - the law explicitly prevented the regulation of derivatives, including the credit default swaps that later destroyed AIG and were central to the 2008 crash.

Brooksley Born, then chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, attempted in 1998 - two years before the law was passed - to warn of the risks. She proposed regulating the then-nascent market for over-the-counter derivatives and was met with massive resistance from Summers, Rubin, and Alan Greenspan. Summers personally called her and pressured her. She was forced out of her job.

Ten years later, the very market she wanted to regulate collapsed, costing the global economy at least $15 trillion.

Summers was not fired. He was promoted to lead Obama’s economic response to the crisis he had helped create.

Between his time in Clinton’s Treasury and his return under Obama, Summers earned:

• $5.2 million from the hedge fund D.E. Shaw over 16 months.

• $2.7 million in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Lehman Brothers in 2008 - the year the financial crisis erupted.

When he stepped in as Obama’s National Economic Council director in 2009, he was the chief architect of the bank bailouts that funneled hundreds of billions of dollars to the very institutions that had paid him.

He has never been prosecuted. He has never been removed from the public sphere. He still appears as an authoritative commentator in the financial press. His only public admission of error came in 2014, in the passive voice, without naming his own role: “Financial deregulation may have gone too far.”

This is a prime example of capture. Not corruption in the classical sense - he has not received envelopes under the table. He has received speaking fees for speeches, salaries for work, and consulting fees for advice. Every single transaction is legal.

The cumulative effect is that a man, whose entire career has been funded by the financial sector, has shaped the rules under which the financial sector operates, across multiple democratic presidencies. And when he speaks about monetary policy - as he often does - he is presented as a neutral economist.

If you look at it from the perspective of current law, he is not corrupt.

Cognitive Captivity

It’s not just money. It’s language.

If your entire education is grounded in a single theoretical framework - efficient markets, rational expectations, monetary neutrality - and your professors are funded by think tanks like Hoover, AEI, Brookings, which in turn are funded by donors from the financial sector, and your colleagues move in and out of the same institutions, and your career prospects depend on being quoted by the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg - then you are not corrupt when you argue for deregulation. You believe in it. It is the only language you know.

What philosophers call epistemic capture - cognitive captivity - is perhaps the most important concept for understanding how an entire generation of economists and policymakers could consistently advocate for policies that systematically transferred wealth upward, while sincerely believing they were serving the public good.

Larry Summers has probably never thought of himself as corrupt. He has probably thought of himself as intelligent, pragmatic, and market-respecting. His mind is not empty . It contains only one language.

In my professional life, I have met several economists who see nothing wrong with pushing the limits - or doing something that the rest of us consider morally questionable. They do so on the grounds that it is not illegal. That is why they do it, regardless of the immorality.

This is Arendt’s point about clichéd language as a substitute for thinking, applied to the modern economic elite. Decision-makers cannot see certain alternatives because those alternatives do not exist within their conceptual framework.

When Anand Giridharadas documents in Winners Take All how the language of MarketWorld - win-win, stakeholder capitalism, doing well by doing good - has colonized the entire philanthropic and political discourse, he is not describing rhetoric. He is describing how the boundaries of thought are shifted so that certain actions become unthinkable before they become politically impossible.

Those who can no longer say “tax” without saying “burden” can no longer think of taxes as public funding. Anyone who can no longer say “regulation” without saying “burden on growth” can no longer think of regulation as protection.

Language has preceded policy. Policy follows language.

The structural form: who has access

The Federal Reserve has a “Federal Advisory Council” consisting of twelve bank representatives who meet with the Fed’s Board of Governors four times a year. There is no equivalent council for workers, consumers, or borrowers.

The Fed’s economic models do not include distribution. They have GDP, asset prices, inflation. How money is distributed, who bears the costs, who reaps the gains - that is not part of their mandate or the model. It is not a mistake. It is a political choice about what counts as “the economy.”

The banks have a large apparatus of lobbyists, lawyers, and PR people in Washington. Consumer groups and labor unions have a fraction - and certainly not the same financial resources at their disposal to influence elected officials.

When a regulator considers a new rule, it receives 200 detailed analyses from industry and 5 from civil society. That skew in information is in itself a form of capture. It is not immediately about regulators refusing to listen. It is about the fact that the only information reaching them in sufficient quality and quantity comes from one side.

Federal Reserve Under Pressure

The most profound institutional change under the Trump administration came on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, while Trump was in Beijing. The Senate confirmed Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair by a vote of 54 to 45. He succeeds Jerome Powell, whose term expired on Friday, May 15, after eight years at the helm.

Powell - appointed by Trump himself in 2018, reappointed by Biden in 2022 - has pursued a tight monetary policy since 2022 to combat inflation. He has resisted public pressure from the Trump administration throughout 2025 and 2026. He has kept interest rates higher than Trump wanted. He was the last remaining institutional brake on the asset price narrative.

Warsh is not Powell. He is a former Fed board member under Bush, has publicly criticized Powell’s tight policy for two years, and has signaled a willingness to lower interest rates more quickly - exactly what Trump wants. He is not a traditional technocrat Fed. He is the Trump Fed.

For seven decades, the Federal Reserve’s independence has been a cornerstone of U.S. economic stability. It was established following the experiences with politically controlled monetary policy in the 1930s and 40s. It was maintained through Watergate, through the stagflation of the 1970s, through the 2008 crisis. Every single U.S. president since Truman has respected it - at least publicly.

Trump does not respect it. Throughout his presidency, he has treated the Fed as a political opponent standing in the way of his asset price narrative. With Warsh, he has now secured the person - and presumably the power - he desires.

The last remaining independent institution capable of curbing the asset price bubble is being dismantled. The ECB in Frankfurt will remain independent. The Bank of England will remain independent. But the Federal Reserve - the central banking system that controls the world’s reserve currency - will, starting Monday, May 18, May, be under direct presidential pressure.

The consequence is that the feedback mechanism that has kept U.S. inflation in check will disappear. If Warsh lowers interest rates faster than the underlying economy allows- and that is precisely what he has been appointed to do - the result will be higher inflation, lower real wages, and even greater asset price concentration.

This is precisely the pattern this essay has described - now accelerated by the very institution that could have slowed it down.

Reagan did not start this. Trump is completing something that has never existed before: a U.S. central bank that can no longer resist political pressure.

Slobodian: Enclosure as a Project

Quinn Slobodian has documented in *Globalists* how the neoliberal project - from its beginnings in 1930s Geneva (with Hayek, Mises, Röpke) - was never about “free markets” versus “states.” It was about isolating the market from democratic pressure by creating supranational structures that made national tax policy structurally difficult.

Hayek himself called it the “encasement” of capital against what he termed “unlimited democracy.” The WTO, EU competition law, ICSID investor protection, international tax treaties, free trade agreements. Each instrument is a layer in that encasement, making it harder for a democratic majority to tax, regulate, and redistribute.

What we now call capital flight is not a marginal evasion of the system. It is the system’s original intent unfolding.

In his recent book Crack-Up Capitalism, Slobodian has documented the next phase: Special Economic Zones, Charter Cities, free ports, digital sovereign jurisdictions (Dubai, Singapore, Honduras’ ZEDE project, Próspera, Peter Thiel’s seasteading experiments).

He calls it “the secession of the wealthy from the territorial state.”

When Bezos builds his fortune in Washington State using the state’s schools, infrastructure, legal system, and research networks, and then moves to Florida to avoid the state’s wealth tax, it is not a marginal choice. It is the central logic of how modern fortunes work: build under one jurisdiction, be taxed under another, and keep the two from intersecting. Wealth is far easier to move than earned income.

Crypto: Enclave in its purest form

The most profound example of Slobodian “encapsulation” in the current administration is not a free port or a charter city. It is crypto regulation - or rather: its systematic dismantling.

In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order establishing a strategic crypto reserve consisting of Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana, and Cardano. In March 2025, the SEC under the new leadership, the SEC dropped a number of pending lawsuits against major crypto platforms. Coinbase, Binance, Kraken - all cases dismissed. The so-called “Crypto Czar” David Sacks - a Silicon Valley investor and personal friend of Trump - now leads the administration’s crypto policy.

It is not just deregulation. It is something more fundamental.

The crypto infrastructure - in the form it is now evolving under U.S. law - is a payment system that, by design, evades government control. Transactions can take place pseudonymously. Value can be moved across jurisdictions without passing through a regulated financial institution. Smart contracts can execute financial agreements without intermediaries. Stablecoins - digital tokens pegged to the dollar - can operate as a parallel currency without Federal Reserve oversight.

Each of these features is presented as “innovation” and “the democratization of finance.” The actual effect is quite different. Crypto does three things at once, all of which systematically weaken the state’s capacity to regulate capital:

First: It makes tax enforcement structurally more difficult. The IRS can, in principle, require reporting of crypto transactions, but in practice, pseudonymous transactions on decentralized platforms are nearly impossible to track in real time. When Bezos wants to move $100 million to a foreign jurisdiction, it requires lawyers, banks, and paperwork. When a dollar is converted to Bitcoin and sent to a wallet with no named owner, it requires nothing.

Second: It makes sanctions and cash flow control structurally more difficult. The SWIFT system remains the dominant infrastructure for international payment processing, and SWIFT is subject to U.S. and European regulation. Crypto is not. Iran, North Korea, Russia - all have experimented with crypto infrastructure to circumvent sanctions. It is technically difficult, but it is not impossible, and it is getting easier every year.

Third: It creates a parallel currency that is not subject to central bank policy. When USDC and USDT - the two largest stablecoins - combined have a market value of over $200 billion (2026) and circulate on platforms outside the Federal Reserve’s direct oversight, we effectively have a shadow dollar operating without the stabilization mechanisms that the official dollar has. If a major stablecoin collapses - like TerraUSD in 2022 (a loss of $40 billion) - the losses could be enormous, and there is no “lender of last resort.”

The $TRUMP meme coin, where 813,000 wallets lost $2 billion while 58 wallets gained $1.1 billion, is not a curiosity. It is a harbinger of what unregulated crypto trading means for ordinary Americans. It is precisely the kind of extraction - from the many to the few - that this essay has described. But now carried out with a speed and opacity that have never existed before.

The point is not that crypto itself is the problem. The point is that, under current legislation, crypto becomes an instrument that makes taxation, sanctions, and financial stability policy structurally more difficult. It is Slobodian’s “enc asement” made digital. It is the separation of capital from the territorial state, executed with code instead of jurisdictions.

The Trump administration sells it as technological progress. The actual effect is that the instruments a democratically elected state can use to regulate capital are becoming less effective year by year. This is not a side effect. It is the strategy.

Buy, borrow, die

The modern financial elite has devised a technique that renders traditional taxation analytically obsolete. In the old days, the wealthy accumulated wealth and then sold it to finance consumption or inheritance. Each sale triggered capital gains tax. The tax system was built around the assumption that the wealth would sooner or later pass through the point of realization, where the state could take its share.

The modern strategy avoids this entirely. Bezos does not sell Amazon shares. He pledges them as collateral. When he needs liquidity - for a wedding in Venice, for the acquisition of the Washington Post - he borrows against his stock holdings. The loan is not taxable because, legally, loans are not income. He pays interest that is minimal relative to the ongoing growth of his wealth. When he dies, his children inherit the shares with a “stepped-up basis” - the original purchase price is reset to the market value at the time of death, eliminating any capital gains that ever existed.

The technique is called “buy, borrow, die.” It is not a marginal manipulation. It is the dominant principle of capital accumulation among the top 0.01% of American and British society. Larry Ellison has borrowed billions against his Oracle holdings. Elon Musk pledged 90 million Tesla shares in 2022 alone. The Walton heirs, the Murdoch family, the Koch brothers - same pattern.

In 2021, ProPublica revealed IRS data documenting that between 2014 and 2018, the 25 richest Americans paid an average effective tax rate of 3.4% on their total wealth growth:

• Bezos: 0.98%

• Musk: 3.27%

• Bloomberg: 1.30%

• Buffett: 0.10%

The average American pays about 14% of their annual income in federal taxes alone.

Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez have documented that the 400 richest American households now pay a lower effective tax rate than the lower middle class. This is not a calibration error in a progressive system. It is reverse progressivity, made permanent through forty years of deliberate policy.

It is - to borrow Stevenson’s term - heredocracy, not capitalism. The outcomes for individuals, especially for younger generations, now depend on the size of the inheritance they receive from their parents. Those who do not inherit no longer have the opportunity to build wealth through work. Those who inherit no longer need to work.

Pillar Two: the blocked countermeasure

It has not been impossible to act. In 2021, 142 countries signed the OECD/G20 agreement on Pillar Two - a global minimum tax of 15% for large multinational corporations. It was the first serious attempt at international tax coordination in half a century. Gabriel Zucman, who has led much of the analytical work behind the agreement, has also proposed in 2024 a global minimum tax rate of 2% for billionaires, which would generate up to $250 billion annually.

Brazil, France, Spain, South Africa, and Germany supported the proposal. The U.S. and the U.K. rejected it.

In January 2025, the Trump administration declared that the U.S. would no longer implement Pillar Two. It threatened retaliatory measures against countries that imposed the minimum tax on U.S. companies.

The EU has stood by the principle but is under massive pressure. The UK has signaled a willingness to “modernize” its implementation - the kind of phrasing that, in diplomatic language, means phasing it out. The UK might well need to reconsider, given its economic situation.

If Pillar Two falls, 2025-2026 will be remembered as the point at which the last serious attempt at multilateral reform was crushed. It will be no coincidence that this happened under a U.S. administration whose economic team is staffed by people who have profited from precisely the offshore structures that Pillar Two was intended to target.

Piketty’s Diagnosis

Thomas Piketty has documented the deep historical dynamics. When the rate of return on capital (r) exceeds economic growth (g), existing wealth grows faster than new earnings, and society moves structurally toward inheritance-based wealth concentration.

Piketty has documented that r > g has been historically normal in all societies except for the extraordinary period between 1914 and 1970, when the world wars, the Depression, and high postwar tax rates kept the opposite relationship (g > r) in effect.

Share of wealth income in GDP:

• 1900-1910: 35-40%

• 1950-1970: 20-25%

• 2026: 30-35%

We are heading back to the structure of La Belle Époque - a period when a family’s surname meant more than a person’s work, when social mobility was the exception rather than the rule, when most people were born into a place they could not leave. Like the Indian caste system. Like Europe’s Middle Ages.

The modern American middle class - the postwar generation that could buy a house, send its children to school, retire - was not capitalism’s natural state. It was a historical anomaly, made possible by the destruction of existing wealth during the world wars and by postwar tax rates that kept wealth concentration in check.

When Reagan began to roll back those tax rates in 1981, he opened what Stevenson calls Pandora’s box: permission for a class of people to aggressively increase their share of wealth.

The deeper point: Capture is infrastructural

Capture has not been merely intellectual. It has been infrastructural.

Every time a regulatory agency has been weakened - Glass-Steagall, the CFTC, the SEC, the FCPA - it has made future reform more difficult. Every time a tax loophole has been expanded - stepped-up basis, carried interest, offshore structures - it has made taxing the wealthiest more technically difficult. Every time an offshore jurisdiction has been allowed to develop without consequences, it has made capital flight easier. Every time international tax coordination has been watered down, it has made collective action less likely.

The accumulation of capture effects over four decades means that the window in which reform was still technically possible is closing. It is not merely that the will is lacking. It is that the capacity has been actively dismantled. It is this difference that makes 2026 more serious than 2008.

In 2008, the financial crisis broke out, and the response apparatus functioned. The Federal Reserve, the Treasury, Congress, the FDIC, international central bank cooperation - all intact. The crisis got ugly. The banks were saved. Homeowners were not. But the capacity to act existed.

In 2026, that capacity is actively being dismantled:

• The Treasury is headed by a hedge fund owner.

• The Federal Reserve is under direct presidential pressure.

• SEC enforcement has been weakened.

• FCPA enforcement is suspended.

• The Public Integrity Section at the DOJ has been reduced from 36 to 2 lawyers.

Those who are now removing the inspectors general have simply completed the work their ideological forebears began at the Treasury under Clinton. The difference is not direction. The difference is that the previous generation still felt the need to justify their actions using market-theoretical language. The current generation has abandoned that justification. They are removing the rules because it serves their interests to do so, and because there is no longer a power that can stop them.

Reagan began it. Trump is completing it.

It is not a break. It is a continuum.

The Butterfly Effect: The Absence of Strategists

The Trump administration has systematically dismantled the structures whose function was to foresee the consequences of their actions.

• The closure of USAID is not just a humanitarian disaster - it is also the dismantling of the U.S. early-warning system for famine, disease, state collapse, and the resulting migration flows. For many years, USAID’s analysts were the U.S.’s best source of information on what was happening in the Sahel, Sudan, Yemen, and Bangladesh.

• The State Department’s Africa Bureau has been downsized. Intelligence briefings are not being read. NSC positions are filled with loyalists instead of professionals.

• Inspectors General fired in 2025 across twelve departments simultaneously - the officials tasked with identifying administrative consequences internally.

• Public Integrity Section at the DOJ reduced from 36 lawyers to 2.

• FCPA enforcement suspended by executive order - the removal of oversight mechanisms against corruption.

Each individual removal is justified by a local logic (cost-effectiveness, deep state, inefficiency). The cumulative effect is that the U.S. government has lost its ability to see itself. Decisions are made without impact assessments. The war on Iran is launched without anyone in the room able to answer what it will mean for Somali bread prices. USAID is being shut down without anyone being able to answer how many refugees this will generate in 18 months.

It is the butterfly effect in reverse: not that small actions have major consequences, but that major actions are taken as if they were small, because the system for assessing consequences has been dismantled.

This is not a hypothetical warning. It is an already documented series of defeats. Krugman summed it up on May 11: experts warned that tariffs would raise consumer prices without bringing back jobs - it happened. Experts warned that Hegseth’s “warrior ethos” and purge of those with doubts about loyalty would weaken the military in war - it happened. Experts warned that the Iran attack would lead to quicksand and a global energy crisis - and it did. Experts warned that Trump’s threats against allies would undermine American credibility - and it did. Inflation is rising. Industrial employment is falling. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. As Krugman put it, Trump is now traveling to Beijing as a beggar, to ask China for help in getting out of his Iran mess. The experts were right. But the system that needed to hear them had removed them.

Friction is Feedback: Europe, Allies, and the New Breakthrough

How often have we in Europe been mocked by the U.S. for our slowness? Bureaucracy is friction, and friction is the enemy. Regulated states are stagnant. European institutionalism is portrayed as a museum piece, not as an engine.

“Move fast and break things.” “Get things done.” “America gets stuff done while Europe debates.”

Trump’s voters find him decisive, decisive. He gets things done. It is precisely this “speed is strength” narrative that is being celebrated. But what those same voters will experience in two or three years, when the credit card bill can’t be paid, when gas prices have doubled, when their pension fund has been halved - are the consequences of precisely this lack of friction.

Speed without a system of consequences does not generate decisiveness. It generates damage that only becomes visible afterward - sometimes long afterward. Just look at Reagan’s and Thatcher’s disconnects.

American decisiveness is not strength. It is the absence of the apparatus that would have spotted the error while it could still be corrected.

Europe’s institutions are criticized for being slow. But slowness is not failure - slowness is the time during which a state can reflect on itself. A system that has eliminated its own slowness has not gained speed. It has lost the ability to navigate.

The institutions of many European nations were deliberately built in response to the experience of fascism that struck the continent in the 1930s and 40s. The German Grundgesetz of 1949 contains so-called “perpetuity clauses” (Ewigkeitsklausel), which make certain fundamental rights impossible to repeal - even through constitutional amendment. The European Court of Human Rights. EU competition law. The Danish constitutional principle of separation of powers. The French Conseil Constitutionnel. All of these are institutions deliberately designed to make it difficult for a democratically elected leader to suddenly concentrate all power - because we have seen what happens when the checks and balances are absent.

Europe still has its institutions. They need to be made more efficient - not dismantled. The trend toward American-inspired dismantling exists - Orbán (former Hungarian leader), Meloni in certain respects, populism’s general frustration with the EU’s “slowness.” “ If we accept the American narrative that speed is strength, we’ll end up in the same place.

The European project isn’t perfect. But its slowness is its immune system.

Friction isn’t the enemy. Friction is feedback. When institutions are frictionless, they aren’t effective - they’re blind.

The consequences of the U.S.’s treatment of allies: the quiet breakup

While this essay was in the works, something happened that will have far greater structural consequences than the Iran war, than the asset price bubble, than the OBBB tax cuts. The U.S. is losing its allies. Not because allies have chosen it. But because the Trump administration has chosen it for them.

It started with Trump’s threats to “take” Greenland from Denmark - a NATO ally. It continued with tariffs against Canada, Mexico, and the EU. With pressure on Japan and South Korea to pay more for U.S. bases. With the threat to suspend Spain from NATO following its criticism of the Iran war. With Trump’s public accusation that NATO is a “paper tiger.”

The result is a coordinated movement that the American press is largely ignoring, but which the Danish, French, and German press are reporting as their top story:

On digital sovereignty, France has announced the phasing out of American video conferencing software (Microsoft Teams, Zoom) in the public sector by 2027 and its replacement with the French-developed Visio platform. Denmark’s Ministry of Digitalization has been in the process of replacing Microsoft Windows and Office 365 with Linux and LibreOffice since June 2025. Caroline Stage Olsen, then Minister of Digitalization, articulated the rationale clearly: “We want to be independent of the big tech companies and ensure digital sovereignty.” Germany (Schleswig-Holstein, ZenDiS, OpenDesk), Austria (the military), the Netherlands, Lyon, and a long list of European municipalities are following the same trend. The International Criminal Court in The Hague has switched from Microsoft Office to the German OpenDesk - after Microsoft closed Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s Outlook account in May 2025, following Trump’s sanctions against him.

On November 18, 2025, the French and German governments met at a joint Summit on European Digital Sovereignty. They launched a joint task force set to report in 2026. The Atlantic Council called it “Europe’s digital declaration of independence.”

This channels a significant amount of money away from U.S. tech companies.

On defense: The Wall Street Journal reported in April 2026 that European NATO members are actively working on a backup plan in case the U.S. withdraws from the alliance. A “EuroNATO” or “European pillar” within NATO is no longer a theoretical concept. It is in concrete planning. Germany has increased its defense budget to historic levels. Poland, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and the Baltic states are establishing joint procurement structures. EU Article 42.7 - the mutual defense clause in the EU Treaty - is now being discussed as a possible NATO substitute. NATO’s former Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has publicly stated that “ Trump’s decisions are leading to the collapse of the alliance.”

The U.S. Pentagon’s own 2026 Defense Strategy, published in January, articulated this as policy: Europe is no longer a priority theater for American conventional primacy. Europeans are described as “rich, capable, and therefore responsible” for handling the Russian threat themselves.

Apart from the fact that the U.S. president is simultaneously threatening the Danish prime minister over Greenland.

On trade and the economy: Under tariff pressure, Canada and Mexico have accelerated their trade diversification away from the U.S. Australia has increased its trade cooperation with the EU and Japan. India is following the same trend. The BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, plus new members) is now building real alternative payment systems that reduce dependence on the dollar. Reuters reported that the U.S.’s global reputation has fallen below Russia’s in 2026 international opinion polls.

This is the quiet upheaval. This is what the U.S.’s allies do not say out loud, because they still trade with the U.S., still cooperate militarily, still try to maintain formal relations. But beneath the surface, the movement is in full swing: We are becoming independent of the U.S. because the U.S. can no longer be trusted.

The deepest point is that American strength was never military or economic alone. It was based on alliances. A city on a hill, that the world would follow. When Trump dismantles the alliances - through insults, through tariffs, through threats, through public mockery - he is dismantling precisely what made the U.S. a superpower in the first place. He leaves the country economically large, militarily still powerful—but strategically isolated.

It is a process that cannot be reversed quickly. Once France has built Visio, they won’t go back to Microsoft Teams. Once Denmark has migrated its public sector to Linux, it won’t go back to Windows. Once Europeans have built their own defense structures, the need for American leadership will cease.

The U.S. is losing its geopolitical position at the same pace as its asset prices are rising.

The Course of the Tsunami

The cascades are not parallel. They are linked.

First wave (already underway): Oil prices hit poor importing countries first. The Philippines, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, and Zimbabwe are in an acute energy crisis. Fertilizer hits food production with a 6-12-month delay. According to the UN, a continued disruption of oil supplies through mid-2026 will lead to 32 million people in poverty and 45 million in extreme hunger.

Second wave (6-24 months out) : Migration flows. When USAID funds run out, food prices have risen 40-120% in certain markets, and public finances in low-income countries collapse under the weight of oil bills, movements begin. From the Sahel toward the Mediterranean. From Central America toward the U.S. From Southeast Asia toward Australia. Europe is the logical destination for large numbers. Political consequences in Europe: a further shift to the right, EU tensions over burden-sharing, and the undermining of the remaining liberal-democratic structures.

Third wave (12-36 months): Financial adjustment. If just one of the four assumptions collapses definitively - chip supply, energy, the dollar’s status, institutional predictability - asset prices will converge toward reality. A 40-50% correction from Buffett’s 230% above the historical average would hit U.S. pensions, Danish pensions, and global balance sheets. It will not be localized. The U.S.’s weight in global asset portfolios is too great.

Fourth wave (24-60 months): Geopolitical realignment. If Taiwan slips under Chinese control - through quarantine, coercion, or direct conflict - the technological and economic center of gravity will shift. The Western system, which has dominated since 1945, has lost its foundation of power without fighting for it.

Who chose the blindness

Every single institutional dismantling was a decision made by a named person in a named office. The closure of USAID had architects. The dismantling of the DOJ Public Integrity Section had architects. The suspension of FCPA enforcement had architects. Trump’s economic advisers are not neutral technocrats. They are selected because they do not see certain things.

It is not culture as an alibi. It is not news as an alibi. It is blindness by design.

A system that has chosen to remove the structures that would see and report its failures has not failed. It functions exactly as intended - as an instrument where those in power cannot be held accountable, because the apparatus that would hold them accountable has been removed.

The misfortune of the American middle class, the hunger of the Somali mother, the fuel queue of the Filipino car owner, the Taiwanese engineer’s blocked exit permit, the Danish retiree’s lost stock price in 2027 - these are not independent events. They are linked by one missing element: a decision-making apparatus that sees the consequences of its actions.

That is what we have lost. And it was chosen for us, by a few, while we looked on.

The 1973 oil crisis was the first geopolitical conflict to shake Western economies to a degree that brought about permanent structural changes. The current one has the potential to be even greater, because it does not stand alone - it coincides with a technological power struggle, institutional dismantling, and an asset bubble of historically unprecedented size. 1973 struck a healthy economy. 2026 strikes an exhausted, debt-ridden, polarized economy.

The world simply cannot solve all the problems Trump has created.

The Historical Perspective

Iran is an ancient nation. Civilization on the Iranian plateau dates back to Elam around 3200 BCE. The first Persian Empire under Cyrus the Great was founded 2,500 years before our time. When Iranian protesters stand in Tehran’s Grand Bazaar in December 2025 and say no to their regime, they do so with a historical self-awareness that stretches back to a time when the world was young. They have seen empires rise and fall. They have seen foreign powers attempt to shape them and fail. They have seen their own rulers collapse and be replaced.

China is even older in terms of cultural continuity. The Chinese invented paper around 105 AD, gunpowder in the 9th century, the compass, printing four centuries before Gutenberg, and silk production nearly 5,000 years ago. China has seen its own dynasties rise and fall over four millennia - from the Xia Dynasty (2000 BCE) to the Qing Dynasty (1644–1912). Xi Jinping and the Communist Party draw on a political memory that makes the American president’s four-year term seem insignificant.

Europe has its own long history. Our peoples are descended from migrations that have traversed these continents for thousands of years. We have antiquity behind us. We have the Roman Empire. We have the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment, two world wars, and the postwar order we built from the ruins. Our institutions have evolved over generations, often through trial and error. The EU’s “slowness,” for which American commentators mock us, is the result of a continent that has seen what happens when speed is prioritized over deliberation. We have a vivid memory of how democracies can collapse, because we have seen it happen within a single human lifetime.

The U.S. is a young nation. 250 years old. And it is now behaving like a teenager with its head in the clouds - convinced of its own greatness, convinced it has all the answers, unable to listen.

It does not heed the warnings from Burry, Krugman, Stevenson, Acemoglu, Zucman, Piketty, the analysts at Foreign Affairs, or its own former generals and diplomats. It does not heed history. It does not see that what it is doing now is exactly what other civilizations did before they fell apart.

Anyone who has had teenagers knows that they need guidance. Adults around them who, with patience and love, can say no, who can explain why, who can demonstrate the weight of experience without crushing the young person’s independence. It doesn’t always work. Teenagers are bound to make their own mistakes. But what that distinguishes a mature adult from an eternal teenager is the ability to listen when wisdom is offered - to admit that others have seen things one has not seen oneself.

The United States’ greatest mistake during this period is not a specific policy. It is that the country has chosen not to listen.

Trump lacks the intellectual capacity to see the consequences of his own actions, and he has systematically removed all competent advisors - inspectors general, professional bureaucrats, USAID analysts, FCPA lawyers - and replaced them with a court of sycophants (e.g., Jared Kushner, Stephen Miller, Peter Navarro), whose only qualification is blind loyalty.

This pattern is not new. Hannah Arendt saw the pattern before Trump was born. She wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951): “Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with the fools and buffoons whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.”

The Trump administration has fulfilled Arendt’s warning: Competent officials have been removed, and loyalty has become the only currency that counts.

The leaders of the hyperscalers - Pichai (Google), Nadella (Microsoft) , Zuckerberg (Meta), Bezos (Amazon), Huang (Nvidia) - know better. They smile, contribute to his inauguration fund, and support his policies - not because they believe in them, but because they profit from them: tax cuts, deregulation, government contracts. Huang is now with Trump in China. Huang, who is so eager to sell the banned chips to China. It’s a win-win for them - but a loss for everyone else.

The Republicans in Congress, who know better, remain silent. The Democrats, who know better, cannot find their voice. The American media landscape, which could know better, is fragmented between those who worship him and those who have given up.

As this essay is being written, Trump is in Beijing - a long-planned trip - as a follow-up to the trade war truce agreed upon by Trump and Xi in South Korea in October 2025. The backdrop was Trump’s 145% punitive tariffs, to which China effectively responded with an export ban on rare earth minerals. The Iran war has strengthened China’s negotiating position, but the primary purpose of the trip is trade, technology, rare earth elements - and Taiwan. China’s goal is concessions on the Taiwan - in exchange for trade agreements, which would be like giving away the goose that lays the golden eggs.

He is not alone. Accompanying him are the top officials of the U.S. government: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent. Also present are the absolute leaders of American capitalism:

• Tech: Tim Cook (Apple), Jensen Huang (Nvidia), Dina Powell McCormick representing Meta, Elon Musk (Tesla), Sanjay Mehrotra (Micron), Cristiano Amon (Qualcomm), Jacob Thaysen (Illumina), and Jim Anderson (Coherent).

• Finance: Larry Fink (BlackRock), Stephen Schwarzman (Blackstone), David Solomon (Goldman Sachs), Jane Fraser (Citi).

• Industry: Kelly Ortberg (Boeing), Larry Culp (GE Aerospace),

• Payments: Michael Miebach (Mastercard), Ryan McInerney (Visa).

• Agriculture: Brian Sikes (Cargill).

This is a delegation that brings together the most influential players in the U.S. economy - all with direct interests in China. All physically gathered around a president who is negotiating trade terms with a country that now controls two of the U.S.’s most critical dependencies: 95% of the world’s rare earth processing, and - through geographic pressure on Taiwan - over 90% of the world’s advanced chips.

According to Foreign Policy analysts Amanda Hsiao and Bonnie Glaser, China’s Communist Party is convinced that time is on their side. China does not need to invade Taiwan - it is simply waiting for the U.S. to withdraw on its own. And as Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi put it to Marco Rubio last week: The U.S. must “make the right choice” regarding Taiwan - it could open the door to new cooperation.

An explicit trade-off. Concessions on Taiwan in exchange for trade.

That is the negotiating table Trump now sits at - it illustrates the Taiwan-AI paradox in its purest form. Every dollar invested in American AI generates revenue for a company on an island (Taiwan) - an island the U.S. may not be able to protect, and which the U.S. may now trade away in a trade deal with China.

The incumbent U.S. president perceives the cheering on Truth Social as the voice of the world. But he does not hear:

• His own disheartened, beleaguered middle class,

• Iran’s 30,000 slain protesters,

• the Somali mother without bread,

• Beijing, quietly positioning itself around Taiwan,

• European allies, withdrawing and building their own defenses.

That is blindness. And it is dangerous.

Where does that leave the American people?

It leaves them alone with the consequences. The average American - who doesn’t own significant stocks, who hasn’t profited from the AI bubble, who doesn’t have an account in the Cayman Islands, who doesn’t have a seat on the board of a hyperscaler - is the one who will pay for this willful blindness. The Somali mother suffers first. The Filipino driver suffers quickly. But the American middle class suffers the longest, because they must live with the consequences of their own system’s choices in a society that lacks the European social safety net to catch them when they fall.

170 million Americans already live on the edge of or in poverty. When the AI bubble bursts, when the hyperscalers’ capex plans can no longer be financed by stock prices, when OpenAI or another key player goes bankrupt, when the Mag 7’s stock prices fall 40–60% - this number won’t get smaller. It will get bigger. No new growth engine will replace the one that’s fading away. AI isn’t steel production. AI isn’t car manufacturing. AI doesn’t produce physical goods that can be exported. When investors stop funding it, it disappears.

Left behind are 170 million people whose pensions were tied to Mag 7’s stock prices, whose credit card bills cannot be paid, whose car loans are faltering, whose health insurance is tied to jobs that no longer exist.

The old nations -Iran, China, India - will outlast the U.S. That is a statistical certainty, if not a geopolitical one. They have survived empires before. They will survive this. Europe will likely survive as well, because our institutions are built to withstand precisely the kind of speed the U.S. now celebrates. We have seen Weimar. We have seen Mussolini. We have seen the collapse of colonialism. We know what happens when speed is prioritized over wisdom.

The U.S. will survive as a geography. But the U.S. that existed between 1945 and 2024 - the country the world looked up to, the country that took responsibility for the liberal world order, the country that produced penicillin and moon landings and civil rights movements - is disappearing before our eyes. It is disappearing because it has chosen not to listen. It is disappearing because a teenager with nuclear weapons has taken the keys to the house, and because the adults have chosen to let him do so.

This essay is written from Denmark. From a small country with 1,000 years of continuous history, which has seen its own greatness come and go, which has learned to be small and to be content with that. We are not geopolitically significant, yet we are affected by the consequences of U.S. policy - as is the whole world - and we have no voting rights in the U.S.

No empire lasts forever - but today we have so much knowledge and unimaginable opportunities to communicate what we see. The sound of autocracy is silence. Perhaps we are wrong - perhaps not. None of us has a crystal ball. “Numbers don’t lie” - as Vaclav Smil wrote in 2021.

The American people deserve better than willful blindness. They deserve adults who listen. They no longer have them. That is perhaps the deepest tragedy in this entire story. Not that things are going wrong. But that they are going wrong while someone - while all of us - could have spoken up loud enough to stop it.

When I began writing this essay, the market had hit two all-time highs in the span of two days. Then came the third. The fourth. The fifth. Each time driven by a new narrative - a new bubble, a new illusion.

During Trump’s first term, his spokesperson Kellyanne Conway coined the term “alternative facts” to explain the seemingly smaller turnout at Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. It was a single sentence, spoken on live TV. It was laughed off by most of the media at the time. Eight years later, we are all living in that alternative reality.

A reality where stock prices rise while wages stagnate. A reality where the Dow Jones is celebrated as a success while consumer confidence plummets to historic lows. A reality where the rich get richer while middle-class incomes stagnate and the poor get poorer - no one sees it until it’s too late.

But alternative realities don’t last forever. They burst. And when they burst, it never hits the 10% who own 90% of the stocks. It doesn’t hit the 1% who own a third of everything at all. It hits us - the 90% - we pay the price.

In the U.S., where 170 million people live on the edge of poverty, and where a mother in Ohio can’t pay her credit card with a 23% interest rate. In the Sahel, where mothers watch their children starve while grain prices skyrocket. In the Philippines, where families sit in the dark, because the power is out and gasoline prices are out of reach.

In Mumbai, where boys scavenge for trash in the slums to survive - and where their families’ incomes fall every time global consumption shrinks, because there is then less trash to collect. It happened after Lehman Brothers in 2008. It will happen again.

Because when the narrative collapses - it collapses for everyone.

And when it collapses, it’s too late to turn back.

#WillfulBlindness #USEconomy #AIBubble #FederalReserve #Taiwan

Sources and further reading

For those who want to verify or read deeper. Where I cite specific data, dates, or quotations, I have verified them against primary sources at time of writing. Any errors are my own.

Market mechanics and the May 2026 rally

Axios, “Markets bet on Iran deal as S&P 500 hits record,” May 6, 2026.

CNBC, “S&P 500 closes at another record, notches longest weekly winning streak since 2024,” May 8, 2026.

CNBC, “S&P 500 closes at record as investors shrug off oil and Iran tensions,” May 11, 2026.

CNBC, “S&P 500 rises to another record on the back of tech even as majority of stocks close lower,” May 12, 2026.

Yahoo Finance, “S&P 500, Nasdaq hit record highs as tech rallies despite strong inflation data,” May 13, 2026.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index, April 2026 (released May 13, 2026).

Bloomberg, “CFTC opens probe into trading patterns ahead of Trump announcements,” April 2026.

Michael Burry on X (@michaeljburry), posts from May 2026 on equity market structure and the dotcom parallel.

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sheldon Whitehouse, letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission regarding “recurring misuse of materially nonpublic government information,” April 2026.

University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers, Consumer Sentiment Index, May 2026 release.

Goldman Sachs Global Markets Research, CTA positioning estimates, year-end 2025.

The Buffett indicator and household finances

Warren Buffett, Fortune, December 2001, on the market cap to GDP ratio.

GuruFocus, “Buffett Indicator: Where Are We With Market Valuations?”

Longtermtrends.net, “Buffett Indicator: Stock Market to GDP Ratio.”

Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2056,” March 2026.

Federal Reserve Board, “Distribution of Household Wealth in the U.S. since 1989.”

Federal Reserve Bank of New York, “Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit,” Q4 2025.

Wealth concentration, capture, and tax policy

Gary Stevenson, The Trading Game: A Confession (Penguin, 2024). Also Gary’s Economics on YouTube and Substack.

Anand Giridharadas, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World (Knopf, 2018).

Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Harvard University Press, 2014).

Thomas Piketty, Capital and Ideology (Harvard University Press, 2020).

Gabriel Zucman, The Hidden Wealth of Nations (University of Chicago Press, 2015).

Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez, The Triumph of Injustice (W. W. Norton, 2019).

Gabriel Zucman, “A Blueprint for a Coordinated Minimum Effective Taxation Standard for Ultra-High-Net-Worth Individuals,” report commissioned by the Brazilian G20 presidency, 2024.

ProPublica, “The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax,” June 2021.

Quinn Slobodian, Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism (Harvard University Press, 2018).

Quinn Slobodian, Crack-Up Capitalism: Market Radicals and the Dream of a World Without Democracy (Metropolitan Books, 2023).

Martin Wolf, The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism (Penguin, 2023).

The Wolf-Krugman Exchange, six-part series on FT’s The Economics Show, 2025. Available on YouTube and on Paul Krugman’s Substack.

Paul Krugman, key essays referenced

Paul Krugman, “Is Europe in Economic Decline?” Substack, May 10, 2026.

Paul Krugman, “A Two-Country Growth Model: A Technical Note,” Substack, May 11, 2026.

Paul Krugman, “Willful Ignorance as Foreign Policy,” Substack, May 11, 2026.

Paul Krugman, “What Happens When Americans Realize How Miserable We Are?” Substack, May 12, 2026.

Labor market and immigration

US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Situation report, April 2026 (released May 8, 2026).

Goldman Sachs, “Break-Even Job Creation and Net Immigration Outlook,” February 2026.

US Census Bureau, “Population Estimates Program,” 2024–2026.

Chloe East et al., University of Colorado Boulder, “The Local Economic Effects of ICE Enforcement,” May 2026.

American Enterprise Institute, “The Economic Costs of Mass Deportation,” working paper, 2025.

AI investment, hyperscaler capex, and the OpenAI question

Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Meta, Q4 2025 and Q1 2026 earnings calls and 10-K filings.

Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity (PublicAffairs, 2023).

Sam Altman on X (@sama), “Insane thing: we are currently losing money on OpenAI Pro subscriptions! People use it much more than we expected.” January 2025.

Sarah Friar, OpenAI CFO, comments on government backstop for AI infrastructure (subsequently retracted via LinkedIn), late 2025.

Tom’s Hardware, “OpenAI on track to run out of cash by mid-2027 without additional funding,” 2026.

Fortune, “Sam Altman says OpenAI is losing money on Pro subscriptions despite $200 price tag,” January 2025.

The Information, “OpenAI projects $14 billion loss in 2026.”

Crypto deregulation

Executive Order 14178, “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology,” January 23, 2025, establishing the Working Group on Digital Asset Markets.

Executive Order, “Establishment of the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and United States Digital Asset Stockpile,” March 6, 2025.

US Securities and Exchange Commission, public statements on discontinuation of enforcement actions against major crypto exchanges, 2025.

David Sacks, White House AI & Crypto Czar, public statements 2025.

ProPublica and Bloomberg, reporting on the $TRUMP memecoin and wallet distribution analysis, 2025.

Inflation, energy, and the K-shaped economy

International Energy Agency, “Oil Market Report,” March and April 2026 editions.

Federal Reserve Bank of New York, “Consumer Spending Patterns in a Two-Speed Economy,” May 2026 analysis.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index, January 2026.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Producer Price Index, April 2026 (released May 13, 2026).

Taiwan, TSMC, and US strategic position

Foreign Affairs, “The Real Threat to Taiwan: America Is Preparing for the Wrong Kind of Crisis,” April 2026.

Amanda Hsiao and Bonnie S. Glaser, Foreign Policy, on Chinese strategic patience toward Taiwan, 2026.

Center for Strategic and International Studies, “The TSMC Dependency: U.S. Vulnerability in Advanced Semiconductors,” 2025.

US Department of Defense, “2026 National Defense Strategy,” published January 23, 2026.

Wall Street Journal, “European NATO Members Quietly Plan for an Alliance Without the United States,” April 2026.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, public statements on NATO and US reliability, spring 2026.

The Beijing delegation, May 2026

New York Times, reporting on the Trump-Xi summit and accompanying delegation, May 12–13, 2026.

Berlingske (Denmark), “Trump har ingen trumf. Nu vil Xi have en indrømmelse,” May 2026. (In Danish)

CNBC, “Trump arrives in Beijing with delegation of US business leaders,” May 13, 2026.

Trading Economics, “United States Stock Market Index,” May 13, 2026.

The Federal Reserve transition

US Senate confirmation vote on Kevin Warsh as Federal Reserve Chair, May 13, 2026 (54-45).

Public statements from Trump administration on Federal Reserve policy, 2025–2026.

Jerome Powell, public remarks and FOMC press conferences, 2024–2026.

Kevin Warsh, op-eds and public commentary in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, 2024–2025, on Federal Reserve policy.

The revolving door and regulatory dismantling

Brooksley Born, oral history and PBS Frontline documentary “The Warning” (2009).

Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism (Basic Books, 2012).

Larry Summers, public financial disclosures, US Office of Government Ethics, 2009.

US Department of Justice, Public Integrity Section staffing reports, 2024–2025.

OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, “Pillar Two: Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules,” October 2021.

European digital sovereignty and the quiet break

BankInfoSecurity, “France Latest EU Country to Ditch US Tech,” January 2026.

Atlantic Council, “Digital sovereignty: Europe’s declaration of independence?” February 2026.

Élysée, “Summit on European Digital Sovereignty: Landmark Commitments for a More Competitive and Sovereign Europe,” November 18, 2025.

Caroline Stage Olsen, Danish Minister for Digitalization, public statements on the Microsoft to Linux and LibreOffice migration, 2025.

TechCrunch, “What’s behind Europe’s efforts to ditch US software in favor of sovereign tech,” April 2026.

ZenDiS (Zentrum für Digitale Souveränität der Öffentlichen Verwaltung), OpenDesk documentation and adoption reports.

International Criminal Court, statements regarding migration to OpenDesk following Microsoft’s suspension of Karim Khan’s account, 2025.

Al Jazeera, “Europe’s little-known mutual defence clause: Is it a NATO substitute?” April 2026.

European Policy Centre, “America’s new Defence Strategy and Europe’s moment of truth,” January 2026.

Iran 2025–2026 protests and the historical pattern

Encyclopaedia Britannica, “2026 Iranian Protests.”

Robert Lansing Institute, “Protests in Iran (Dec 2025–Jan 2026): Prospects for the Regime and the Future of Democracy,” February 2026.

Real Instituto Elcano, “Iran’s 2025–26 protests, resilience and political containment,” February 2026.

UK House of Commons Library, “Iran protests 2026: UK and international response,” January 2026.

Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856).

Crane Brinton, The Anatomy of Revolution (W. W. Norton, 1938; revised 1965).

James C. Davies, “Toward a Theory of Revolution,” American Sociological Review, 1962.

Jack A. Goldstone, Revolution and Rebellion in the Early Modern World (University of California Press, 1991).

Jack A. Goldstone, Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2014).

On totalitarianism, language, and the rejection of expertise

Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harcourt Brace, 1951).

Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (Viking Press, 1963).

Kellyanne Conway, “alternative facts,” interview on NBC’s Meet the Press, January 22, 2017.

Global interconnection and the Mumbai example

Katherine Boo, Behind the Beautiful Forevers: Life, Death, and Hope in a Mumbai Undercity (Random House, 2012).

Tata Institute of Social Sciences, research on waste pickers in Mumbai and the 2008 financial crisis transmission to informal economies.

Demographic data and structural background

Pew Research Center, “The State of the American Middle Class,” reports through 2024.

Vaclav Smil, Numbers Don’t Lie: 71 Stories to Help Us Understand the Modern World (Viking, 2020).

A note on data

Stock prices and indices are drawn from TradingView, Bloomberg, Trading Economics, and Macrotrends. Macroeconomic data is from the US Federal Reserve, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and Congressional Budget Office. International comparative data is from the OECD, World Bank, and Our World in Data.

April 21 marked exactly 25 years since my mother died. She was staying overnight at my aunt’s house; my aunt’s husband of 33 years had just undergone surgery for stomach cancer. My mother died around 10:00 p.m., at the age of 53, while my aunt slept in the bedroom next door. My mother was sleeping in the guest room and had likely been on her way to see her sister. She found my mother lying on the floor. They were identical twins.

I still remember the hours from when my father came and told me the news until the next day, when I was at the hospital to see her. I was sure they had mistaken my mother for my aunt - until I saw her lying on the steel stretcher in a dark blue T-shirt. A white sheet covered her body. Her lips were bloodless and gray. The bereavement nurse quietly closed the door behind me.

I felt empty. Just as empty as my brother’s voice when he answered the phone after I called him. At the time, he was working for Danida in Egypt. I could tell he was asleep. He fell completely silent. For a moment, we were silent together. Then he said: I’ll call you back in a bit.

The week before, we had gone down to visit him and his wife. My mother, our younger brother, my daughter, and I. We’d seen the pyramids, Mount Sinai, driven through the Sinai Desert, swam in the Red Sea. We’d ridden camels up and down Mount Sinai. My daughter was tied down with a scarf in front of the camel’s saddle. My mother rode in front and waved happily at us several times. She was wearing a red sweater.

April 14, 2001, a few days after we got home, was my mother’s birthday. It was a Saturday. With a 4-year-old daughter, work, and only a few days at home, I couldn’t bring myself to go see her. She was my mother, so of course she understood me. She said. Her voice sounded disappointed, even though she tried to hide it. In the self-sufficiency of my youth, I brushed it off as insignificant.

On April 21, around 11:30 p.m., my father rang the doorbell.

My brother and I were sitting with the pastor and were supposed to talk about our mother. Choose songs. No sad songs, we agreed. Our mother loved sunshine. Her favorite color was red. Her favorite flower was poppies. Once we’d brought freezer bags along in my daughter’s stroller, and we dug up poppies from the roadside and planted them in her garden. At the funeral, we sang “Rainy Day in November.”

A rainy day in November

On her grave, my daughter and I planted a giant red poppy and lavender from her garden. The gravedigger wasn’t happy. Under his mustache, he said quietly, “Preferably no perennials.”

After the funeral, my brother went back to Egypt. Our younger brother couldn’t handle the practical arrangements. It hurt him too much.

We had a good mother. The kind of mother who would give away her last penny to give it to us. When I was on maternity leave and then parental leave, my mother had marked the calendar every time my daughter and I had visited. One day she said, beaming with joy, that we had visited her 100 days in a year.

Even though it wasn’t my home - it hadn’t been my childhood home either - seeing my mother bustling about with the dishcloth, bringing coffee, her sofa, felt safe and cozy. I was home. When she died, the person who loved me unconditionally was gone. I was 32 years old.

Several years later, I heard a Madonna song: “...once I had a mother, it was nice.” I completely broke down on the highway on my way home from Copenhagen.

When I was clearing out her townhouse, I found a bag of cinnamon rolls. I knew she had bought them in case I happened to come to her birthday. Back then, I was obsessed with cinnamon rolls. I made coffee and ate them all at the dining table in her kitchen.

That I couldn’t even spend a few hours celebrating my mother’s birthday with her is one of the things I regret most in my life. It would have cost me so little and meant so much to her.

Even though we were so close, I don’t remember ever telling her that I loved her. I probably wrote it in one of my childhood letters - but I don’t remember ever saying it out loud. We didn’t do that in our home. I never doubted her love.

Her death came without warning. My mother was slim, exercised, and ate healthily. She didn’t smoke. She didn’t drink. We were all about to lose our minds because we weren’t allowed to put salt in the water for the vegetables and potatoes. She wanted her to drink the water. It was full of vitamins, she thought. She was a terrible cook and knew it. She hated cooking.

She’d been feeling unwell, called the on-call doctor, who’d said it was a virus. That’s what my aunt told me. She wanted me to file a complaint against the doctor. It was probably a brain hemorrhage, they said at the hospital.

My mother was a nurse and had always said she didn’t want an autopsy. We - all three of her children - agreed that she shouldn’t, if she could avoid it. It wouldn’t change anything. She was dead. Our aunt hadn’t killed her. Our aunt, her identical twin, was devastated. They had been together their whole lives. Right from conception. Lived close to each other. Saw each other almost every day. Until now.

My mother was spared the experience of my youngest little brother’s death four years ago. He was 49. It hit my father hard. For the second time, I had to call my brother. This time he was living in Taiwan.

Our youngest brother had no family. No children. It felt very empty to clear out his home. It felt like removing all traces of him. My mother is still within me. I can feel her. See her in the mirror. The older I get, the more I look like her. I haven’t seen my mother in 25 years, and I am now older than she was when she died.

My brother had to go back to Taiwan after the funeral. My father and I cleared out the apartment. My father isn’t a man who showers people with praise. One summer day in his garden, he suddenly said, “I could never have managed it without you.” That was it. The subject was closed.

I can’t tell my father that I love him. He would be happy, but also perplexed. That wasn’t done in our home. There are many ways to say it.

My 84-year-old father is going blind. I’ve signed him up with the Danish Association for the Blind. Taught him how to use audiobooks. He’s gained a new network where everyone is blind. We take it from the humorous side.

I live an hour’s drive from him and drive down a couple of times a month, when we go shopping. I pay his bills online. He tries to find the emails I need to see himself so he can show them to me. It takes forever. I sit there like a three-year-old on Christmas Eve, about to snatch the iPad out of his hands. I pull myself together. My father is a grown man. I have no right to treat him like a child by being condescending about his visual impairment. I could have found the relevant emails in 10 seconds.

When I needed to put up shelves, look after my daughter, and later the dogs, he was there. Always. Now it’s my turn.

My father and I were at the cemetery on Sunday. Their grave needed to be spruced up for spring. We planted scented geraniums, pulled weeds, tidied up. We had to move a rose bush. My father got to work, but couldn’t see what he was doing. My father has always been energetic and decisive. He still is, and yet he isn’t. He has become vulnerable and frail. I know it’s a matter of time. It could be this year. It could be in 10 years, if we’re lucky. You never know.

A Rainy Day in November

A rainy day in November - translated from Danish to English

1. I will paint the day blue

with a streak of sunshine

choose the light over the shadow

give myself a nudge in the back

believe in everything, even in happiness

I will paint the day blue.

2. I will paint the day yellow

the sun like a butterfly

landing on my hands

all rainy days end

it says “May” on my calendar

I will paint the day yellow.

3. I will paint the day red

with the glow of the last rose

I will pick chanterelles

dandelions and stinging nettles

live in the moment that matters

I will paint the day red.

4. I will paint the day green

deep and cool—ash green

place lit candles in candlesticks

forget wrinkles, double chins

hope my mirror deceives

I will paint the day green.

5. I will paint the day white

now that it is the time of wolves

buy French anemones

for the last twenty kroner

listen to Vivaldi’s melodies

I will paint the day white.

6. I will paint the day bright

cross out and check off

I have a thousand things to do

at eleven forty-five

November was hung out to dry

I will paint the day bright.

Hermes taught us that power always has two faces. Patriarchy is no exception. It promises protection but delivers oppression; it preaches equality but practices exclusion. To understand Hermes is to understand that the duality of power is not a flaw—it is its essence.

The question no one wants to ask. And as I myself discovered while writing this essay. It has been really difficult for me to begin the writing process—why? Is it because the answer requires us to look ourselves in the eye? To admit that it is not a few “bad men” who are the problem, but a system that makes it possible—and that we are all, in one way or another, part of it? Am I afraid to discover that we are living a lie?

This essay will show how patriarchy is not a historical relic, but an active structure that shapes our laws, religions, media, and even our biology. From the goddesses of Mesopotamia to Epstein’s island, from Beauvoir’s philosophy to Yehuda’s epigenetics—the pattern is the same: Power protects power, and power goes to those who take it.

After reading through the material, I can once again conclude that power is patriarchal. It is not white, not brown, not black—it is male. And it has used every culture, every religion, every legal system to cement itself.

The five major patriarchal religions all have in common that women are not allowed to challenge men. They must submit to the man. Serve him. Women still must do so, to a greater or lesser extent, in over 85 percent of the world.

After the 2008 verdict, Epstein wanted the women to look “childlike.” Non-English speakers were “the easiest girls to get along with.” Before the verdict, the age range was 14–17. It is the same pattern in the cases described below: Bucha, Pelicot, Rotherham, the children’s home cases. The pattern is the same everywhere: it is not attraction. It is the absence of resistance. It is control, not the woman—that is, before girls become women who make demands and resist.

* * *

The Curse of Religion

Before the five major patriarchal religions existed, other structures existed. Archaeological finds from Mesopotamia—the Ubaid culture, ca. 6,500–4,000 BCE—reveal temples dedicated to female deities and societies with little evidence of social hierarchy. Of 121 realistically modeled terracotta figures from the period, 79 percent are female, only 4 percent are male.

When the excavations took place in the 1920s, the British archaeologist Leonard Woolley chose to classify the clearly female figures with crowns and ritual objects as “priests”—that is, men. A small detail with major consequences: by removing gender from the interpretation, he rendered women’s power invisible and affirmed that divinity was masculine.

When the early Christian church selected which texts would be included in the Bible, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene—and other Gnostic texts that emphasized female spiritual authority—were deliberately excluded. Mary Magdalene was reduced from a key disciple to a sinner. It was not a random choice. It was a political project.

Urbanization, war, and centralized power gradually marginalized the female deities. The five major religions—Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism—emerged during the period from approximately 1500 BCE to 600 CE, as societies transitioned from tribal-based structures to hierarchical state societies. Common to all of them is that they institutionalized patriarchy as a means of social control. Women were written out or reduced to symbols.

The Old Testament, Genesis 3:16:

“Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

This is politics, written into the creation myth—that is, into the beginning of everything. Indoctrinated into both genders for millennia—generation after generation.

The priesthood cemented male authority. Patrilineal succession ensured that wealth passed from father to son. Women’s sexuality was controlled to guarantee “pure” bloodlines—through the hijab, virginity checks, marriage contracts, and female genital mutilation. The Virgin Mary became the only acceptable ideal: pure, obedient, mother. Eve was the demonization—the woman who led man astray, who was the threat to the order.

Joan of Arc heard God’s voice directly—without a male intermediary. An ecclesiastical court under English occupation burned her for it in 1431. The French Church canonized her in 1920, when she was sufficiently dead to be harmless as a national symbol. It is not hatred of the woman that kills her. It is her refusal to be an object.

It is no coincidence that the men we encounter in the Pelicot case, in Rotherham, in Epstein’s network, and in the rape camps of the Congo all operate within the same basic logic: the woman is subordinate. Her body does not belong to her. Power over her is legitimate if the proper authority—the man, the law, God—has given permission.

These structures are not relics of the past. They are encoded in over three thousand years of institutions: laws, rituals, texts, upbringing, norms. Repeated generation after generation. Internalized by both genders.

And here, Rachel Yehuda’s research poses an uncomfortable question: what if it is not merely cultural—but epigenetic?

* * *

The Objectification of Women

Simone de Beauvoir wrote in *The Second Sex* (1949):

“Woman is defined and prescribed by man, and not the other way around; she is the non-essential in relation to the essential. He is the subject, he is the absolute—she is the other.”

“ “One is not born a woman, one becomes one.” It is not biology, but historical power structures, that have created women as ‘the other’—a subordinate category defined in opposition to men as the norm. Beauvoir points out that women have always been ‘the other’—the one who is seen but does not see, the one who is defined but does not define.

This is precisely the pattern we find in Jewish law, Christian theology, Islamic sharia, the Hindu caste system, and the Buddhist monastic tradition. Women are never the subject, but the object—just as in the beauty industry, where women’s bodies become consumer goods, or in power networks like Epstein’s, where women become commodities.

Beauvoir’s genius lies in showing how this objectification is not merely religious or legal, but existential: women are taught to see themselves through men’s eyes, to adapt rather than define themselves. It is the same logic that means a woman in 2026 is still judged by her appearance, her age, or her sexuality, while men are judged by their actions.

In the West, religion is no longer the dominant factor in keeping women captive. Religion has been replaced by the media—both TV and social media. Algorithms created by men keep women trapped in an unconsciously objectifying self-image. It is the anatomy of a different story—but the logic of the same system.

* * *

Women as Consumer Goods

In Iran, Afghanistan, and India, oppression is explicitly codified in laws and religious decrees. Marriage ensures men access to domestic help, sex, and a mother for their children. In the West, the mechanisms are more invisible, but just as systemic. Here, it is not ayatollahs or Taliban leaders who write the rules—but ordinary men—bosses, colleagues, friends, customers—who act as if women were objects they have a right to use.

The difference is not whether oppression exists, but how it works: not through laws, but through norms. Not through open hatred, but through silence, complicity, and the tacit understanding that some men simply have a right to women’s bodies. Is this understanding unconscious—or an active choice?

* * *

The Fontenay-sous-Bois Network Case

The Fontenay-sous-Bois Network Case in France (2014–2017) did not expose a single group of criminals. Over 50 men—teachers, police officers (who paid for sex while still in uniform), social workers—paid for sex with girls aged 13–14. These men, ordinary citizens, considered it their right. It was not a question of morality, but of access. The price: 50–100 euros for sex with a 13-year-old. Like buying a beer or a pizza.

“They treated us like objects. They knew we were children, but it didn’t matter. They paid, and so it was their right.” — Victim, Le Monde 2017

The police had known about the case for years but ignored it until a female teacher spoke out. The men were protected by their positions. Many received lenient sentences or went free, even though the girls testified. The media called it an isolated case, but similar networks have been uncovered in Toulouse, Nice, and Marseille.

The Fontenay-sous-Bois case shows that patriarchy doesn’t require criminals—it only requires men who believe they are right. And a society that lets them.

Fontenay-sous-Bois is not a French exception. It is a pattern with specific locations.

Street-level cases — Denmark

In Copenhagen and Aarhus, girls aged 14–17 were exploited by men between the ages of 20 and 40, lured with money, drugs, or “love.” The police acted slowly due to a lack of evidence or bias against the girls, who were considered “problematic” or “voluntary.” In 2021, it emerged that the police in Aarhus had misclassified several reports of grooming as “other crimes,” meaning that none were investigated.

And Rotherham is not an English exception. It is the same pattern on a larger scale—with the added layer that the authorities chose the system’s self-preservation over the girls’.

The Rotherham Case

Over 1,400 girls—some as young as 11. The police, social services, and local authorities knew about it. They ignored it for fear of being called racists.

What do all these cases have in common? The girls come from poor families. The men are middle class or higher up in the system.

Common to all these cases is that the men did not act in the dark. They acted in full confidence that the system would not punish them. That confidence was justified.

But there is one case that is different—not because the acts are worse, but because it forced us to look. Because the victim refused to let the system protect the perpetrators.

* * *

The Pelicot Case

For ten years, Dominique Pelicot drugged his wife Gisèle, raped her, and invited strange men to do the same, while he recorded the assaults. 200 documented rapes. The folders on his computer were numbered and named. 4,000 files.

Gisèle Pelicot did not know what was going on. She thought she was developing Alzheimer’s.

The 51 men sitting in the courtroom in Avignon were not monsters. They were ordinary men between the ages of 26 and 74—a cross-section of ordinary France. A firefighter. A prison guard. A nurse. A journalist. A 31-year-old tells the court:

“ We are not monsters. We are men like any other men.”

That was his argument. A 63-year-old HIV-positive man maintains that it is okay as long as the man has given consent. A 55-year-old anesthesia nurse denies rape on the grounds that he thought she was playing dead. A 69-year-old karate instructor left the scene when he saw what was happening—but did not report it. “If I had known he was filming me, I would have reported him,” he said. Not because she was unconscious. Because he himself was on film.

Gisèle Pelicot chose to have the trial held in open court. Not because she wanted to expose herself, but because she understood that closed doors protected the perpetrators.

“The shame must shift sides.”

Is it hatred? Or is it something more precise and devastating: a perceived right? That the female body is an object that can be distributed, lent, used—if only the proper authority grants permission. Her husband. The system. Tradition. God.

Gisèle Pelicot refused to let the system protect the men. But what about those who never had the chance? Those whom the system failed so completely that the only way out was to strike back?

* * *

Valérie Bacot and the system that knew

In 1992, Daniel Polette moved in with Valérie’s mother in the small French town of La Clayette. Valérie was 12 years old. He began raping her that same year.

In 1995, she reported it. He was convicted and imprisoned. When he was released, he was allowed to move back home. No one asked any questions. Valérie was now 17 and pregnant with his child. She and the baby moved in with him—what else could she have done, in a world that had never told her there was an alternative?

For the next 24 years, he beat her, monitored her, and threatened to kill her and the children if she left him. He forced her into prostitution—in a specially equipped van near local truck stop restaurants, with an earpiece so he could give instructions.

In March 2016, he asked his 14-year-old daughter for sexual favors. That same day, Valérie shot him in the back of the neck. She buried him with the help of her 16- and 17-year-old sons. The book she later published is titled *Tout le monde savait*.

Everyone knew.

Valérie stood accused of premeditated murder. Potential sentence: life imprisonment. The prosecution itself asked for leniency: “She is clearly a victim.” The court sentenced her to four years in prison, three of them suspended. She left the courtroom a free woman.

The man who for 24 years systematically raped, beat, and forced her into prostitution was dead. He could not be held accountable. She was the only one in the courtroom who could be sentenced.

This is not a flaw in the system. It is the system.

Polette is dead. But in most cases, the men of the system survive—protected by the network of institutions that have more interest in their own survival than in that of the victims.

Jimmy Savile didn’t just survive. He was celebrated.

* * *

Jimmy Savile — the national treasure

For more than 50 years, Jimmy Savile was a British icon. DJ. TV host. Knight. Friend of Queen Elizabeth, prime ministers, the Pope. He ran marathons for charity. He visited hospitals, nursing homes, and orphanages. The nation’s kind-hearted uncle raised 40 million pounds for charitable causes—while systematically sexually exploiting his victims.

589 potential victims. 450 of them reported assaults committed by Savile personally. The victims’ ages ranged from 5 to 75. His preferred targets were teenage girls.

What makes this case more than the crime of a single individual is the institutional response. The BBC knew about the allegations. A planned Newsnight documentary in 2011—the year he died—was not aired. The police received reports but dismissed them. In 2009, he was questioned and threatened with legal action. Four weeks later, the prosecution dropped the case.

That he avoided punishment through decades of abuse is not luck. It is the description of a system that actively chooses not to see. Because it is more convenient to keep the national treasure than to protect the girls whom no one would believe anyway.

Savile used charity as a shield. R. Kelly used something even more effective: music. And the music industry’s willingness to turn a blind eye, as long as the album sold.

* * *

R. Kelly — The Anatomy of Control

In 1994, R. Kelly, 27, married 15-year-old Aaliyah. The marriage certificate stated she was 18. The marriage was annulled when the lie came to light. His next album was titled Age Ain’t Nothing but a Number.

It went on for decades. Lawsuits. Settlements with non-disclosure agreements. A 2002 video case showing him with a 14-year-old girl—which ended in an acquittal in 2008 because the jury could not positively identify the girl. The music industry kept him. The Grammy committee nominated him. Big stars appeared on his albums.

Journalist Jim DeRogatis—who had been following Kelly for 17 years—reported in 2017 that Kelly lived with six young women in various properties and controlled every aspect of their lives: what they ate, how they dressed, when they slept, and what they were allowed to say.

The women were not minors. But they were young, vulnerable, and dreaming of a career—and he was the man who could give it to them. That was precisely the vulnerability he preyed upon. The 2021 trial produced 45 witnesses who testified that managers, assistants, and bodyguards not only facilitated his crimes but actively recruited girls and young women for him.

The lead prosecutor put it precisely: Kelly “used lies, manipulation, threats, and physical abuse to dominate his victims” and exploited his “money and public persona to conceal his crimes in full view of the public.”

In full view of the public. For decades. With an industry that chose not to know.

In 2022, R. Kelly was sentenced to 31 years in prison for running a system to recruit and abuse young women for decades.

Kelly used his star status as a tool for access. Larry Nassar used something even more subtle: trust. The unconditional trust we place in the doctor in the white coat.

* * *

Larry Nassar — the doctor in the white coat

From 1996 to 2014, Larry Nassar was the team doctor for the U.S. Olympic women’s gymnastics team. He attended four Olympic Games. He was the team doctor at Michigan State University. He was the trusted, friendly, always-available doctor whom the girls and their parents trusted completely.

His method was simple. He called it treatment.

Under the guise of physical therapy, he blatantly inserted his finger into the girls’ vaginas, often while parents sat in the same room. He learned to position his body and his towel so that it went unnoticed.

More than 265 women and girls have been identified as victims. The abuse spanned 22 years.

The first official report reached the FBI in July 2015. The FBI contacted Nassar in September 2015. After that, nothing happened for more than eight months. Nassar continued his practice undisturbed.

According to Aly Raisman, USA Gymnastics knew in 2015 that at least six gymnasts had been abused—and let him continue anyway.

“It was like serving innocent children to a pedophile on a silver platter.” — Aly Raisman, Senate testimony

When Simone Biles testified in 2021 with tears in her voice, she made it clear:

“I blame Larry Nassar, and I also blame an entire system that enabled and perpetuated his abuse.”

The system included USA Gymnastics, Michigan State University, the U.S. Olympic Committee—and the FBI. The FBI director apologized publicly: “I am particularly sorry that there were people at the FBI who had the chance to stop this monster in 2015 and failed. That is unforgivable.”

No FBI agent has been prosecuted. Nassar is in prison. The institutions that protected him for decades still exist, unchanged.

Nassar used a legitimate social role as a cover for systematic abuse—and survived for decades because the institutions behind him chose to protect themselves. Jeffrey Epstein had no legitimate role. He had something far more valuable: access to everyone else.

* * *

Jeffrey Epstein — girls as currency

When you write the words “girls as currency,” it brings to mind slavery. But that is exactly what Epstein did. There is a great deal of focus on Epstein and massage. Just as important are all the cases where young girls and women were funneled through Epstein to other men for abuse—but for some reason, the focus remains solely on Epstein.

The recruitment model was the same everywhere: girls were offered money for massages, which gradually became sexualized. Afterward, Epstein paid them extra to recruit new girls—from shopping malls, from parties, from their schools. The system expanded by turning the victims into recruiters. Released documents show text messages with pricing: “$1,000 per girl.” A scout writes that she has girls from Eastern Europe ready and asks if they are suitable for “J.” Passport information and physical descriptions attached.

Jean-Luc Brunel, a French model scout partially funded by Epstein, recruited girls for Epstein and his network—according to Virginia Giuffre, girls as young as 12. Brunel allegedly committed suicide in a French prison in 2022 while awaiting trial. Another chapter closed, without a verdict.

Ghislaine Maxwell is in prison. Epstein is dead. But what about all the other men? Epstein is a monster, no doubt about it—but he is not a lone scapegoat. He was a supplier to an entire network that knew exactly what they were buying and that has never been held accountable.

It is no coincidence that Larry Summers, Bill Gates, Clinton, Prince Andrew, and dozens of bankers, politicians, and media moguls visited his island, flew in his private jet, or received “massages” from young girls.

They knew what they were getting—and they knew the system protected them.

“They all knew what was going on. They just chose to look the other way because they were too powerful to be held accountable.” — Virginia Giuffre

Epstein’s “little black book”—a list of his contacts and clients—is gone.

Epstein was not a perverted loner. He was transactional. His network functioned as a marketplace. His clients were the power elite. None of them have been prosecuted.

All of the above cases took place in peacetime. In democracies. With functioning legal systems — that actively chose not to function.

If we turn our gaze to war, even that facade disappears.

* * *

Subscribe now

Rape as a weapon — the ugly face of war

The cases above are horrifying and far from isolated. If we turn our gaze to war, it gets even worse. Then we’re not talking about a hundred or a thousand victims. Then we’re talking about hundreds of thousands. A systematic, cataloged, and deliberately employed abuse so horrifying and vile that it’s almost unbearable to read about.

Electric shocks to genitals. Rape with bottles and rifle butts. Gang rapes. Women having their breasts cut with knives while other men watch. Women held in camps where they are raped again and again and again.

State-sanctioned hatred — rape as a weapon of war

There is a term military researchers use: rape as a weapon. It sounds abstract. It is the opposite.

It is the systematic, ordered, documented abuse of women’s bodies as an instrument to break people down, displace populations, and wipe out ethnic groups. It is not men running amok in the chaos of war. It is strategy. It is commanded from above. It is archived and categorized—just like Dominique Pelicot’s files.

In Bosnia, Serbian forces set up rape camps. Women and girls, some as young as twelve, were held captive and systematically raped over months and years. The pregnant ones were detained until it was too late to have an abortion. The perpetrators told the victims that they would give birth to a child of the perpetrators’ ethnicity. This was no accident. It was deliberate. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia declared it a crime against humanity.

In Rwanda, over the course of a hundred days in 1994, between 250,000 and 500,000 women and girls were raped. Men infected with HIV were recruited specifically to infect the victims. The women were told: we won’t kill you now—we’ll give you a slow death. The tribunal ruled that mass rape constituted genocide.

In the Congo, the conflict since 1996 has produced over 200,000 documented cases of sexual violence.

At the height of the conflict, an estimated 48 rapes were committed per hour. Women’s bodies literally became the battlefield—a means of destroying families, displacing communities, and controlling access to mineral resources. Coltan and gold for our cell phones. Blood and bodies as the price.

It is not African. It is not Arab. It is not Muslim or Christian or ethnically specific. It is patriarchal. It is the same pattern, repeated across continents and millennia: the female body as territory to be conquered, destroyed, and possessed to demonstrate power over the enemy.

Those who were supposed to protect

And then there are those who came to help.

When UN peacekeeping forces arrived in Kosovo and Bosnia in the 1990s, brothels sprang up within months. Women from Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe were trafficked in—sold, imprisoned, coerced. Not alongside the peacekeeping force. With it as their customer base.

Kathryn Bolkovac was an American police investigator, hired by the private security firm DynCorp to work for the UN mission in Bosnia. She uncovered an organized sex trafficking network involving UN police officers from Ukraine, Pakistan, Romania, Germany, and the United States. Approximately 30–40 percent of the clients in Bosnia’s sex trade at that time were international personnel. She reported this to more than 50 superiors.

She was fired.

The UN did not launch an investigation into the trafficking network. They launched an investigation into Bolkovac.

Between 2004 and 2016, the UN received nearly 2,000 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse committed by its peacekeepers. Few resulted in prosecution. Serial abusers could be sent from mission to mission without consequences.

The UN mission chief in Cambodia stated in 1995, when sexual assaults were under investigation, that peacekeepers have the right to drink, enjoy life, and pursue young, beautiful members of the opposite sex.

This is not the mistake of a single individual. It is the culture expressed through the mouth of an official. The culture that makes the trafficking of women possible—not as underground crime, but as market logic.

It must be emphasized that the figures above represent only documented cases. The actual number is undoubtedly much higher.

* * *

Trafficking in women—slavery by another name

Trafficking in women still takes place. It has a name: slavery.

Today it is called sex work. Call it what you will. It is still a woman’s body objectified into a commodity. Men are the customers. Studies show that ordinary men purchase sexual services even though they are aware that the woman they are using for sexual gratification has been trafficked. In doing so, they support modern slavery. The difference between a trafficked woman and drugs is that a woman can be used—read: abused—multiple times.

Men who buy women’s bodies are not considered perpetrators. Because the culture tells him that he has the right to purchase the right to use a woman’s body for a given amount of money. And when money changes hands, society does not consider it rape.

When the demand is so massive that it creates networks like the one in Fontenay-sous-Bois, it is no longer an individual problem. It is a cultural one.

* * *

Internalization—the system within us

Simone de Beauvoir published *The Second Sex* in 1949. It remains the sharpest analysis we have of how patriarchy functions—not as a malicious conspiracy, but as a structure that reproduces itself because we are all raised within it.

“One is not born a woman, one becomes one.”

This is not a biological observation. It is a structural one. Women are taught to see themselves through men’s eyes. To conform. To diminish themselves. To evaluate themselves based on parameters they did not define themselves.

Magdalene Laundries — women who punished women

From 1765 to 1996, the Catholic Church, in collaboration with the Irish state, ran institutions that interned women and girls deemed to be “morally depraved”: unwed mothers, victims of abuse, girls from poor families. An estimated 10,000 women passed through these institutions. They worked as unpaid labor in laundries. Many died there. Some were buried in unmarked graves.

The Irish Parliament formally apologized in 2013. The Catholic Church has never apologized.

But the most disturbing thing about the Magdalene Laundries is not the Church. It is that the institutions were predominantly run by nuns. Women who punished other women. Women who enforced the patriarchal Church’s judgment on women’s sexuality and autonomy—in the name of a God to whom they themselves would never have full access, in an institution that would never ordain them.

This is internalization in its purest and most destructive form. Not oppression imposed from the outside, but absorbed so completely that it became care, duty, and a calling.

De Beauvoir’s point, made concrete in stone and water and hidden graves.

De Beauvoir is not merely a historical witness. She is also a cautionary example of how deeply entrenched the system is.

The woman who described the mechanisms of patriarchy with the greatest precision reproduced them herself. De Beauvoir recruited young female students for sexual relationships with Sartre—and occasionally for relationships with herself. She abused the power asymmetry she understood intellectually better than anyone else. She lost her teaching license for it. Afterward, she fell silent.

This is not a point that discredits the analysis. It is a point that confirms it: the system runs so deep that even the woman who exposed it was trapped within it.

But there is something important that must be said here. De Beauvoir chose it. Epstein chose it. Nassar chose it.

Pelicot’s 51 men chose it. The system is not an excuse—it is an explanation of why it is possible. Possibility is not the same as destiny. The central moral point of this essay is: we all have a choice. But the choice is not free for everyone under the same conditions. And the system actively rewards those who choose to exploit it.

Look at the men at the top in 2025: Putin. Trump. The tech oligarchs in Silicon Valley. A small, closed male elite that controls platforms, capital, and political power on a scale the world hasn’t seen since the European empires. They aren’t there in spite of the system. They are there because the system produces and promotes them—the men who are willing to wield power without empathy, greed without accountability, control without consent. It is the same logic as Epstein’s island. It has simply been scaled up.

Britney Spears and Cultural Desire

In the West, we have told ourselves that we have done away with religion’s active oppression of women. That is not wrong. But we have replaced it with something more invisible and perhaps more effective: the media and tech algorithms’ systematic objectification of the female body.

Britney Spears was 17 years old and on the cover of Rolling Stone in an unbuttoned silk nightgown with a Teletubby in her hand. Blonde. Half-naked. A child playing an adult—or an adult playing a child. Both at once. That was the point.

“...Baby One More Time” wasn’t just a pop song. It was a statement about what the culture wanted. A schoolgirl uniform. A body in motion. A girl close enough to childhood to arouse desire, old enough for it to be legal.

We thought it was normal. We sang along. We subscribed. We clicked. When she broke down, we called it madness. For 13 years, she didn’t legally own herself—while she earned millions and filled arenas.

No One Is Safe

Collien Fernandes is one of Germany’s biggest media personalities. TV host, actress, voted the world’s most beautiful woman. For a quarter of a century, she has been virtually everywhere.

Five years ago, she was told that a video was circulating online showing her having sex with a bunch of men. That was just the tip of the iceberg. There were fake profiles in her name where customers could buy pornographic images, phone sex, and “private sex recordings.” An entire Collien Fernandes porn industry—and she had no idea.

In 2024, she produced a documentary on ZDF in which she tried to track down the masterminds. She didn’t find them.

She found them on Christmas Day 2024 in a hotel room in Hamburg.

Her husband was shaking all over and said: I did it. I did it.

“For years, my body was stolen from me,” she said later. And the perpetrator “was the person closest to me.”

She is not a victim of an unknown criminal in a dark corner of the internet. She is a victim of the man she loved and trusted—and of a technological system that enables anyone to fabricate, distribute, and sell a woman’s body without her knowledge or consent.

Deepfake pornography is not a new crime. It is the oldest crime in a new technological guise: the female body as territory to be possessed, traded, and distributed. No touch required. No physical access. Just an image and an algorithm.

Collien Fernandes is a celebrity. She can afford lawyers, she has access to the media, she has an audience that listens. Yet it took five years, and the response came from the perpetrator himself.

What happens to those who aren’t celebrities?

Today, algorithms decide which images get the most likes. Which bodies are rewarded. Which women exist. It’s not ayatollahs writing the rules. It’s men in hoodies in California. The result is the same: the female body as a consumer product, internalized by women as the norm—not through fear, but through a desire to belong.

The system has changed form. It has not ceased.

It is the anatomy of a different story—and we will tell that in the next essay.

* * *

An open question—what we carry

What if three thousand years of systematic oppression are embedded not only in laws and norms—but in the body?

Rachel Yehuda is a neurobiologist and director of the Traumatic Stress Studies Division at Mount Sinai in New York. Her research on the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors revealed something that remains both controversial and accurate to this day: traumatic experiences leave biological traces—changes in how genes are expressed — that are passed on to the next generation. Not as memory. As biology.

“You don’t inherit the trauma. You inherit a signal. A bias.” — Rachel Yehuda

Children of traumatized mothers exhibited altered stress responses without having experienced the trauma themselves. In rat experiments, Yehuda showed that maternal care—or lack thereof—in the first days of life altered the offspring’s DNA methylation, a change that was passed on to the next generation. In humans, this is a hypothesis with strong evidence, not a proven fact. Yehuda is careful to make that distinction.

The question is hard to ignore: what does three thousand years of systematic oppression, violence, and control leave behind? Women calibrated for restraint, adaptation, and fear? Men calibrated for authority, justice, and dominance?

No one chose this. It is not a character flaw. It is something we carry—all of us—as a biological and cultural layer of everything that came before us.

But here is the crucial point: epigenetic changes are plastic. They can be reversed. The environment that created them can be changed. Resilience is inherited just like trauma.

This is not determinism. It is the opposite: a biological affirmation that change is possible—but that it requires a different environment, not just a different will. It is not enough to tell men to behave better. It is not enough to tell women to demand more. We have all been raised into—and possibly biologically shaped by—a system that has shaped us for millennia.

Change is collective, or it is nothing.

* * *

Share Marianne’s Substack

Power begets power

There is a common thread running from the medieval church to today’s tech oligarchs. It is not about religion or technology. It is about the same thing as always: who controls access to resources, information, and people’s minds.

During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church amassed the greatest concentration of wealth the world had ever seen. At one point, it owned nearly a third of all the land in Western Europe. It controlled education, healthcare, marriage, birth, and death. And it controlled the truth—what God said, what was a sin, who went to heaven and who did not. Power over interpretation is power over people.

The Reformation, industrialization, and democracy eroded the Church’s monopoly. But the power did not disappear. It shifted.

To the royal houses and the aristocracy, who owned the land and thus those who worked it. To industrial magnates like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford, who owned the means of production and thus those who operated them. To the financial elite who owned the capital and thus those who needed it.

And now to tech.

A handful of men—almost exclusively men—today control the infrastructure through which three billion people’s communication, information, relationships, and self-perception flow through. Mark Zuckerberg decides what you see on Facebook and Instagram. Elon Musk decides what is allowed to be said on X. Google decides what information you find. Amazon decides what you can buy and at what price. And the algorithms—written by these men, optimized for these men’s business goals — shape what you desire, what you fear, who you are.

It is no coincidence that this elite is predominantly male. It is no coincidence that it recruits from within itself—the same universities, the same networks, the same investors. It is no coincidence that it operates with minimal regulation, minimal taxation, and minimal democratic oversight. It is no coincidence that Jeffrey Epstein had presidents, scientists, bank executives, and tech pioneers on his guest list.

The elite has always enriched itself at the expense of those outside its ranks. And it has always used control over information and interpretation to legitimize this enrichment—indeed, to make it seem natural, even divine.

The Church called it God’s will.

Tech calls it disruption.

The result is the same: a small group of men who determine the terms of everyone else’s lives—and call it freedom.

And just as the church’s power rested on women’s subjugation—as labor, as reproducers, as sinful bodies to be controlled—the power of the tech patriarchy rests partly on the same. The algorithms that objectify women’s bodies. The platforms that amplify hatred toward women. The work structures that punish care and reward aggression. The global sex industry that is run and financed digitally.

Patriarchy has changed its clothes. It has not changed its logic.

* * *

Do men hate women? — An answer

We’re back to the question in the title.

Most men do not hate women. That is the honest and important caveat. I know men in equal relationships based on mutual respect, men who share household chores and support their partners’ careers, men who raise their children to treat all people with respect. They are not the exception to the human race—they are the majority, in the West, that is.

But that is not what the question is about.

The question is not whether most men are monsters. The question is what the system produces, promotes, and protects—and whom it empowers to act as if women were not fully human.

Epstein could have chosen not to. He knew his actions were wrong. He chose them anyway—for decades, on an escalating scale, with increasing risk, because the system rewarded him and did not punish him. The same applies to Nassar, Kelly, Pelicot’s 51 men, the soldiers in Bucha. They were not incapable of choosing. They chose. Consciously. All made active, deliberate decisions.

And the system chose them.

That is the central point. Patriarchy as a structure does not promote men who treat women with respect. It promotes men who are willing to use power without empathy. Look at the big picture: the men who today hold the most global power—political, economic, technological—are predominantly men who have demonstrated precisely that ability. To treat people as means, not ends. To prioritize growth, control, and dominance over care, equality, and consent.

This is no coincidence. It is the system’s selection mechanism.

From the goddesses of Mesopotamia to Gisèle Pelicot’s bedroom. From Genesis to Epstein’s computer files. From the rape camps in Bosnia to the algorithms in Silicon Valley.

The pattern is not exceptions. It is the system functioning exactly as it was built.

The system is built as if men hated women. And until we change it—not just individual men, but the structure, the law, the norm, the technology, the biological legacy we carry—it will continue to produce the same results.

“The shame must shift sides,” said Gisèle Pelicot.

It’s not just a statement about her case.

It’s a call to the system.

Until we change the system, no woman is safe.

Not even your daughter.

Bibliography

Do Men Hate Women? — Magtens Anatomi, Essay 3

Sources are listed alphabetically within sections. Where online sources were consulted, access dates reflect the research period for this essay (2024–2025).

Primary Sources & Memoirs

Bacot, Valérie, with Clémence de Blasi. Tout le monde savait [Everyone Knew]. Paris: Fayard, 2021.

de Beauvoir, Simone. Le Deuxième Sexe. Paris: Gallimard, 1949. English translation: The Second Sex, trans. H.M. Parshley. London: Jonathan Cape, 1953.

Giuffre, Virginia, with Amy Wallace. Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2025. [Posthumous publication]

Pelicot, Gisèle, with Judith Perrignon. Une Vie à Vivre [published in Danish as En hyldest til livet – Skammen skal skifte side]. Paris: Grasset, 2026.

Investigative Journalism & Documentary

Brown, Julie K. “Perversion of Justice.” Miami Herald, investigative series, November 2018. miamierald.com

DeRogatis, Jim. “Parents Told Police R. Kelly Is Holding Women in a Cult.” BuzzFeed News, July 17, 2017. buzzfeednews.com

DeRogatis, Jim. Soulless: The Case Against R. Kelly. New York: Abrams Press, 2019.

OCCRP / Kyiv Independent. “He Came Back: Ukrainian Women Share Their Accounts of Rape by Russian Forces.” Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, June 2024. occrp.org

Documentaries

Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich. Directed by Lisa Bryant. Netflix, 2020.

Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story. Directed by Chris Smith. Netflix, 2022.

Surviving R. Kelly. Executive produced by dream hampton. Lifetime, 2019.

Athlete A. Directed by Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk. Netflix, 2020.

At the Heart of Gold: Inside the USA Gymnastics Scandal. Directed by Erin Lee Carr. HBO, 2019.

Legal & Official Documents

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T. Judgment, September 2, 1998. [First ruling declaring rape an act of genocide]

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac et al., Case No. IT-96-23. Judgment, February 22, 2001. [First ruling declaring rape a crime against humanity]

Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. Report to the UN General Assembly. October 2023. ohchr.org

Irish Government. Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee to Establish the Facts of State Involvement with the Magdalen Laundries (McAleese Report). Dublin, 2013.

Jay, Alexis. Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham 1997–2013 (Jay Report). Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, 2014.

NHS England. Savile Investigation Reports: 28 NHS Trusts. June 2014. england.nhs.uk

NSPCC and Metropolitan Police Service. Giving Victims a Voice: Joint Report into Sexual Allegations Made Against Jimmy Savile. January 2013.

UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU). Report on Conflict-Related Sexual Violence. November 2024. ohchr.org

US Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. Review of the FBI’s Handling of Sexual Abuse Allegations Against Former USA Gymnastics Physician Lawrence Gerard Nassar. July 2021. oig.justice.gov

US Senate Judiciary Committee. Hearing: Examining the Inspector General’s Report on the FBI’s Handling of the Larry Nassar Investigation. September 15, 2021. Testimony of Simone Biles, Aly Raisman, McKayla Maroney, Maggie Nichols.

Academic & Research Sources

Epigenetics & Trauma

Yehuda, Rachel, et al. “Holocaust Exposure Induced Intergenerational Effects on FKBP5 Methylation.” Biological Psychiatry 80(5), 2016, pp. 372–380.

Yehuda, Rachel, et al. “Intergenerational Transmission of Trauma Effects: Putative Role of Epigenetic Mechanisms.” World Psychiatry 17(3), 2018, pp. 243–257.

Yehuda, Rachel. Interview with Trevor Noah. The Daily Show / podcast transcript, 2018. [Referenced for public-facing summary of epigenetic mechanisms]

Sexual Violence in Conflict

Johnson, Kirsten, et al. “Association of Combatant Status and Sexual Violence with Health and Mental Health Outcomes in Postconflict Liberia.” JAMA 300(6), 2008, pp. 676–690.

Palermo, Tia, et al. “Undercounting, Overcounting and the Longevity of Flawed Estimates: Statistics on Sexual Violence in Conflict.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 90(3), 2012. PMC3260900.

Skjelsbaek, Inger. “Sexual Violence and War: Mapping Out a Complex Relationship.” European Journal of International Relations 7(2), 2001, pp. 211–237.

Grooming, Trafficking & Institutional Failure

DeRogatis, Jim. Soulless: The Case Against R. Kelly. Abrams Press, 2019.

Edwards, Brad. Relentless Pursuit: My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Gallery Books, 2020.

Public International Law and Policy Group. “Russian Use of Rape as a Weapon of War in Ukraine.” PILPG Blog, June 2025. publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org

Feminist Theory & Historical Context

de Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. Trans. Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier. New York: Vintage Books, 2011. [Recommended translation]

Pollock, Susan. Ancient Mesopotamia: The Eden That Never Was. Cambridge University Press, 1999. [Context for Ubaid figurines and pre-patriarchal structures]

Woolley, Leonard. Ur of the Chaldees. Ernest Benn, 1929. [Original source; critiqued in essay for gender-biased interpretation of figurines]

Reports & Institutional Sources

Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Ryan Commission). Final Report. Dublin: Government of Ireland, 2009.

Human Rights Watch. “Ukraine: Apparent War Crimes in Russia-Controlled Areas.” April 2022. hrw.org

Human Rights Watch. Shattered Lives: Sexual Violence During the Rwandan Genocide and Its Aftermath. 1996. hrw.org

Panzi Foundation. “Rape as a Weapon of War in the Eastern DRC.” 2025. panzifoundation.org

UN Women / UNIFEM. Rape as a Tactic of War: Fact Sheet. UN Women, 2012. unwomen.org

UN Office on Genocide Prevention. Background Note: Sexual Violence — A Tool of War. 2014. un.org

US Congress. “Rape as a Weapon of War: Accountability for Sexual Violence in Conflict.” Hearing transcript. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 2008. govinfo.gov

Selected News Sources

Full citations for individual news articles are available on request. Key outlets drawn on throughout: Miami Herald, BuzzFeed News, The Guardian, BBC News, NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting), Aftenposten, Kyiv Independent, Al Jazeera, OCCRP, NPR, CBS News, The New York Times.

Al Jazeera. “Compromised Peace? Oslo Accords Figure Deeply Linked to Epstein Network.” February 2026. aljazeera.com

Kyiv Independent / OCCRP. “He Came Back: Ukrainian Women Share Accounts of Rape by Russian Forces.” June 2024. kyivindependent.com

Middle East Eye. “Norway’s Role in the Oslo Accords Questioned After Key Figures Appear in Epstein Files.” February 2026. middleeasteye.net

Comparable Titles — Context for Anglophone Publication

The following titles represent the editorial and commercial context for Magtens Anatomi as a book project targeting anglophone publishers.

Swisher, Kara. Burn Book: A Tech Love Story. Simon & Schuster, 2024.

Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs, 2019.

Schaake, Marietje. The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley. Princeton University Press, 2024.

Giridharadas, Anand. Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. Alfred A. Knopf, 2018.

Solnit, Rebecca. Men Explain Things to Me. Haymarket Books, 2014.

In January 2026, three million pages of Epstein documents were released. They revealed not just a pedophile. They revealed a network—a class consisting of men who, regardless of party or nationality, always choose each other over us. This essay is about them. And about us, who know this—and yet buy the cheap T-shirt, vote for the populists, and close our eyes when the system fails.

It takes a village to raise a child. It takes a very powerful network to abuse so many children.

— Anand Giridharadas, The Ezra Klein Show, February 2026

Giridharadas, who has spent years mapping out American power elites, put into words what those three million pages revealed: there is an Epstein class. A group of people who—whether they are Republicans or Democrats, globalists or anti-globalists—share a deeper solidarity: they look out for one another. Not for us.

That is the class this essay is about. Not because they are all pedophiles. Most are not. But because they all operate within a system where power protects power, where consequences only apply downward, and where the suffering of others is an acceptable cost of making money.

In Essay 1, I showed that we live in a patriarchy—that there is an invisible architecture behind everything, from the bedroom in Mazan to the Taliban’s laws. Now I will show the mechanism. Not a single case, but the pattern that connects them all. Power plus knowledge plus passivity equals abuse.

• • •

A business model that has killed over 1,020,000 Americans

Pain-stricken patients went to their doctors in good faith. And the doctors prescribed OxyContin—a drug that the manufacturer, Purdue Pharma, knew was highly addictive but marketed as safe. The patients became addicted. And when they tried to quit, they were stigmatized and blamed for creating the problem themselves.

It is a business model that has killed over 1,020,000 Americans since 1999—more than the total number of American soldiers killed in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined. According to the latest available CDC figures, over 107,000 in 2024 alone, primarily fentanyl-related deaths. A public health catastrophe that has devastated generations.

Purdue Pharma hired McKinsey & Company to design its sales strategy. McKinsey suggested focusing on the doctors who were already prescribing the most opioids, and Purdue enticed them with free pain management seminars at vacation destinations. Over 5,000 doctors and nurses attended these fully paid symposia.

The sales reps’ average annual salary in 2001 was $55,000. The average bonus was $71,500—with a range up to $240,000. Purdue paid out $40 million in sales bonuses that year alone. An internal memo to the sales force stated bluntly: “Your priority is to Sell, Sell, Sell OxyContin.”

McKinsey proposed a discount per overdose—a bonus to distributors for every death their pills caused. That’s not capitalism. That’s cannibalism.

McKinsey subsequently paid fines totaling around $1.5 billion—equivalent to a couple of months’ revenue. One partner was charged. Not for the 1,020,000 deaths, but for deleting a file. McKinsey still operates as one of the world’s most respected consulting firms. A drug dealer on the streets of Ohio gets 20 years in prison for selling the same drugs. That’s not justice. That’s the pattern.

And the Sackler family, who owned Purdue Pharma? They knew OxyContin was highly addictive, but aggressively marketed it as safe. They withdrew billions from the company before it went bankrupt and donated to both Democrats and Republicans to secure political goodwill. They didn’t buy a party. They bought a system. Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family have paid over $12 billion in fines and damages, but no family members have been personally convicted for the human cost.

The opioid crisis was no accident. It was the result of deliberate choices: Doctors who were bribed. Consultants who optimized sales. Politicians who looked the other way. And as factories closed in Ohio and Pennsylvania, the pills poured in.

• • •

The MAGA Lie: The Elite Moved the Jobs, But Blame Foreigners

Make America Great Again. America First. Jobs must return to the U.S., says Trump. It is true that jobs were moved overseas. But it was the American boards of American companies that made that decision. They chose profit over people. And the MAGA narrative blames foreigners for what the elite themselves did.

Donald Trump understood the anger. Not because he wanted to help those affected, but because anger is the perfect fuel for populism. The MAGA lie was born: ‘The elite have failed you.’ But the elite were not China or immigrants. It was the same men who sat on the boards of Purdue Pharma, Wall Street, and the companies that moved jobs to Bangladesh. Trump was not the solution. He was the symptom—and the swamp’s new king.

On April 24, 2013, an eight-story factory building in Savar, Bangladesh, collapsed. 1,134 people were killed. Over 2,500 were injured—mostly young women working under slave-like conditions to produce clothing for Western brands such as Nike, H&M, Zara, Primark, and Walmart. The workers had warned of cracks in the building. Management ordered them back inside.

Walmart pays approximately $1–$2.50 to produce a T-shirt. They sell it for $4–$8. A profit margin of 300–500 percent. A seamstress in Bangladesh must sew over a thousand T-shirts a month to earn her $95 monthly wage. In 2016, Nike and H&M moved production to Ethiopia, where the monthly wage is $26–$50—the lowest in the world. Pregnant women are fired. Restroom breaks are prohibited.

The apparel industry promised to make amends and improve conditions after Rana Plaza. In reality, nothing has changed. Production is simply moving to even cheaper countries. The fact that the apparel industry produces at the absolute minimum under slave-like conditions has not made products cheaper for consumers—it has led to higher returns on dividends and bonuses. We are part of the pattern: we know this, and we buy the cheap T-shirt anyway.

• • •

Anger, Trump, and the Swamp

The local communities that lost the most industrial jobs to offshoring—Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Pennsylvania—are precisely the ones hardest hit by the opioid crisis. Research based on over 700,000 drug-related deaths shows that up to 136,000 overdose deaths can be attributed to the decline in industrial employment alone. These are not two crises. It is one. When you lose your job, your dignity, your purpose—and someone offers you a pill that takes away the pain—you take it. Purdue knew this. McKinsey helped them find the right doctors in the right counties.

And those same communities voted for Donald Trump.

Trump is a fascinating phenomenon in this context because he has neither belonged to nor understood the class he now leads. The old money elite—the Hamptons, the Upper East Side, the boardrooms that matter—has never respected him. He has always been the loudmouth from Queens with the gold toilet, who, hungry for acceptance his whole life, flaunted his wealth in the most ostentatious way possible, precisely because he knew he wasn’t one of them.

In return, he understands anger as a driving force. Perhaps because he carries it himself. He knows what it feels like not to be let in. In a brilliant way, he knows how to channel other people’s anger—the anger of those who lost their jobs, their homes, their dignity—and direct it toward a target. Not toward the corporate boards that sent the jobs to China. Not toward Purdue Pharma, which flooded their communities with pills. Not at Wall Street, which gambled away their savings. But at immigrants. At the media. At everyone except the people who are actually responsible.

Trump promised to ‘drain the swamp.’ Instead, he has become the king of the swamp. But the swamp isn’t Congress. Congress is the auction house. The swamp is those who buy the politicians.

His cabinet is filled with billionaires and Wall Street types. His 2017 tax reform gave the richest even more money. Mitch McConnell is blocking laws that would lower drug prices. Joe Manchin is blocking green legislation in exchange for campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry. In 2024 alone, there were over 160 school shootings in the U.S.—and passing stricter gun laws is practically impossible. Elected politicians let people die to protect corporate profits.

The real power in the U.S. doesn’t lie in Congress. It lies in the boardrooms that finance Congress. In the law firms that draft the laws. In the consulting firms that optimize the profit machines. And in the class Giridharadas calls the Epstein class—a class that, no matter who sits in the White House, always ensures that the system works to their advantage.

Alexander Acosta negotiated Epstein’s plea deal in 2008: 13 months in prison, work release, and immunity for all co-conspirators. 36 identified victims. A 53-page indictment with 60 counts. And Epstein got off. Acosta reportedly said he was told that Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and that he should “leave it alone.” Acosta later became Trump’s Secretary of Labor.

The man Trump has appointed to lead the investigation into the Epstein files? Jay Clayton—became chairman of Apollo Global Management, the firm that paid Epstein $158 million. The investigator has financial interests in the very people he is supposed to investigate.

Trump’s closest advisor, Steve Bannon, privately advised a convicted pedophile on PR right up until 2019. Epstein told Bannon himself: “Trump wakes up sweating at night when he hears that you and I are friends.” We’ll return to that in Essay 6.

Virginia Giuffre, who from the age of 16 was passed around the network—“like a bowl of fruit,” she said—named them all. She died in 2025, at the age of 41. Officially a suicide. Shortly before the Epstein files were released. It has since come to light that large amounts of material from Epstein’s cell were destroyed in the days following his death. Without sounding conspiratorial, it is striking that the people who likely knew the network’s details most precisely are no longer alive. Epstein. Brunel. Giuffre. It’s almost like conditions in Russia.

• • •

The Financial Crisis: When the House of Cards Collapsed

It took ten years to build the American safety net after the Great Depression in the 1930s. Deposit insurance, separation of banking and speculation, minimum wage, labor rights, social security. It worked for nearly fifty years. Then the elite began to tear it down.

The financial sector had been working to repeal Glass-Steagall since the 1980s. Alan Greenspan began allowing banks to trade securities as early as 1987 and gradually expanded the permissions, so that by the time the law was repealed, it was already riddled with holes. In 1998, Citibank merged with the insurance giant Travelers to create Citigroup—a merger that was illegal under Glass-Steagall. Instead of being punished, Citigroup received a two-year waiver, based on the expectation that they would be able to push through a change in the law. Congress amended the law to fit what Citigroup had already done. That is not deregulation. That is the architecture of power: first you act, then you buy the law.

The law repealing Glass-Steagall was introduced by three Republicans but signed by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and supported by his Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers. Only one member of Congress, John Dingell of Michigan, warned that the law would create banks “too big to fail” and inevitably lead to a taxpayer-funded bailout. He was right. Ten years later.

What followed was a machine. Banks gave mortgages to people who would never be able to pay them back. They packaged thousands of these loans into complex financial products, CDOs, and sold them on as safe investments. The credit rating agencies—Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, Fitch—gave them AAA ratings. They were paid by the banks to give good ratings. It was like letting the accused choose their own judge. Goldman Sachs went a step further: they sold CDOs to their own clients and shorted them at the same time—they bet that the products they themselves were selling would collapse.

In 2005, IMF Chief Economist Raghuram Rajan warned at the Federal Reserve’s annual conference that the financial system was on the verge of collapse. Larry Summers—him again—called him a Luddite. Three years later, millions of Americans lost their homes. Summers became Obama’s chief economist. His name later appeared in Jeffrey Epstein’s will.

Charles Ferguson’s Oscar-winning 2010 documentary Inside Job laid it all out: how deregulation created the crisis, how those responsible got off scot-free, and how the same people were rehired to solve the crisis they themselves had created. The film’s most frightening conclusion was not that the system was corrupt. It was that nothing changed.

Because of the United States’ size as the world’s economic superpower, the crisis did not affect only Americans. In Europe, people lost their homes and jobs. In Vietnam, China, and other countries, already underpaid workers were laid off, and their families went hungry. It is always ordinary people who pay the price—no matter where they live.

• • •

Epstein’s Hidden Billion-Dollar Company

We already knew that Epstein socialized with Wall Street’s elite. We knew that Bear Stearns’ CEO was named in his will, that JPMorgan kept him as a client for thirteen years, and that Leon Black paid him $158 million. But in January 2026, investigative journalist Craig Unger revealed that the connection went far deeper than friendship.

From 2001 to 2007—while he was systematically abusing and trafficking underage girls—Epstein served as chairman of Liquid Funding Ltd., an offshore company registered in Bermuda with $6.7 billion in liabilities. The company issued exactly the same toxic securities—subprime mortgages, CDOs—that caused the global economy to collapse in 2008. Bear Stearns owned 40 percent. JPMorgan was the Security Trustee.

When Bear Stearns collapsed in March 2008, the Federal Reserve set up a $30 billion bailout package so that JPMorgan could take over the bank. One month later, Moody’s announced that all of Liquid Funding’s liabilities had been paid in full. No explanation. No documentation. The Federal Reserve has never disclosed exactly what the bailout package paid for. But the math is simple: the money came from the bailout package. That is, from American taxpayers.

The same taxpayers who had lost their homes, their jobs, and their savings paid to cover the liabilities of a company led by a man who trafficked underage girls.

The Federal Reserve has not responded to FOI requests. JPMorgan: “No comment.”

• • •

The Geographies of Impunity: Danske Bank and Nordea

The Epstein network extended far beyond Wall Street. In 2018, the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority revealed that Danske Bank’s Estonian branch had laundered over $200 billion for criminal networks, Russian oligarchs, and—according to leaked material from the FinCEN Files—companies linked to Jeffrey Epstein. The bank knew it. The authorities knew it.

The result? Danske Bank paid a fine of 15 billion kroner—equivalent to about two weeks’ profit. No top executives ended up in prison. Nordea, Scandinavia’s largest bank, has repeatedly been accused of facilitating tax havens for the ultra-wealthy and, according to the ICIJ’s Paradise Papers, helped clients hide fortunes in Luxembourg and the British Virgin Islands—the same tax havens Epstein used.

Following the Danske Bank scandal, Danish politicians promised harsh consequences.

The result is stricter anti-money laundering rules that primarily affect ordinary Danes, who must now document every single transfer above a modest threshold. The companies and billionaires behind the 200 billion that was laundered got off with a fine amounting to a fraction of their profits.

The same culture that protected Epstein in New York protected him in Tallinn and Copenhagen. And that same culture leads us to believe that someone else is taking care of the problem. But there is no one else.

• • •

The same circle of people—again and again

Bear Stearns collapsed in 2008, taking millions of people’s savings with it. The bank’s CEO, James Cayne, was listed as the executor of Epstein’s will. JPMorgan acquired Bear Stearns—and took on Epstein as a client. They flagged over a billion dollars in suspicious transactions and kept him for ten years.

Leon Black paid Epstein $158 million for tax advice—with money earned from buying up distressed companies during the crisis his own network had created. Larry Summers, the architect behind the bank bailout that saved Wall Street but not homeowners, served as executor of Epstein’s will. Jay Clayton, Trump’s appointed investigator, sits on the board of Black’s firm.

Jes Staley, head of JPMorgan’s private bank, became Epstein’s “chief defender”—through over a thousand emails, visits to the island, and the internal promise: “The strength of a Greek army was that its core stood shoulder to shoulder and would not flee. That’s us.” In 2025, Staley was permanently barred from the British financial sector. He is not in prison. A woman accuses him of rape at Epstein’s house.

This is no accident. It is no conspiracy. It is something worse: it is a system. A network of people who protect one another—not because they plan it in a dark room, but because they share class, money, and interests. And because the system rewards them for looking the other way.

• • •

The system protects the abuser

The same mechanisms that protected Wall Street protect those who abuse women and children. The pattern is identical: power, complicity, silence, impunity.

For decades, Catholic priests systematically abused children around the world. Bishops knew. Cardinals knew. Popes knew. And what did the Church do? It transferred the priests to new parishes, where they abused again. The Church’s global infrastructure functioned as a logistical network for abuse. It is exactly the same logic as Epstein’s network: in both cases, the institutions knew what was going on. In both cases, the abusers were protected because they were valuable to the system.

The FBI identified over 1,200 underage girls whom Epstein sexually abused. Ghislaine Maxwell recruited them—sentenced to 20 years. Jean-Luc Brunel, a model scout, groomed girls through the modeling industry and supplied them to Epstein. He died in a French prison in 2022. Officially, suicide. Prince Andrew was arrested in February 2026, charged with trafficking minors.

And while the victims died or lived with trauma for the rest of their lives: Leon Black paid $62 million for criminal immunity and kept his billion-dollar fortune. JPMorgan paid $365 million in damages—a fraction of what they earned from Epstein as a client. The Sackler family kept their billions. McKinsey paid a fine equivalent to a few months’ revenue. No CEO went to prison for the financial crisis. No cardinal went to prison for transferring a priest who abused children.

The pattern is always the same: the system protects the abuser. The victim pays the price.

• • •

MeToo: the moment the pattern became visible

In October 2017, something snapped. #MeToo spread like wildfire, and suddenly millions of women around the world were telling the same story. Not the same man—but the same mechanism. It wasn’t a revelation that abuse exists. It was a revelation that we all knew it—and had accepted it.

Harvey Weinstein is in prison. But the system remains. MeToo showed that when people stand together, the pattern can be broken. But the movement also showed that removing one man does not change the structure. Because the structure produces new men all the time.

• • •

Greed as a system

Is it wrong to make a lot of money? Not at all. But there can be something deeply wrong with the way it is made. It goes wrong when a system’s sole purpose is to enrich oneself at the expense of others. When ultra-processed food is sold disguised as real food, making consumers sick. When you exploit people in the Third World. When you design financial products that ruin ordinary people. When enough is never enough.

Epstein clearly never had enough. Neither enough money nor enough sex. And the men in his network who should have known better—and did know better—chose him anyway—some even participated. Because the system protected them. Because it always has.

One of the key differences between Europe and the U.S. is that in the U.S., the rules are there to protect corporations—in Europe, they are there to protect citizens. We have strong unions and institutions. For now. But union membership is declining. Elites in other countries look to the US and want the same conditions. They try to influence politicians and undermine our institutions.

The system won’t change on its own. It requires us to stop our complicity: stop voting for corrupt politicians. Stop buying goods produced through suffering. Stop believing that “that’s just the way it is.” Because every time we choose comfort over consequence, we support the hidden elite operating behind the system.

The elite depends on our passivity.

• • •

In the first essay, I wrote: we live in a patriarchy. Now I have demonstrated the mechanism. In the next essay, I will ask the question that no one wants to ask: Do men hate women?

About the series

This essay is the second in the series “The Anatomy of Power.” Essay 1: “We Live in a Patriarchy” was published on March 8, 2026. Upcoming essays: “Do Men Hate Women?”, “The Sexualization of Women,” “Ordinary Men,” and “Culture as an Alibi.”

Let March 8 be the day of revolution

International Women’s Day was adopted in Copenhagen in 1910 – in my city, in my country. Over a million people participated when it was celebrated for the first time in Austria on March 19, 1911.

March 8 became the fixed date in 1917, when Russian women went on strike for “bread and peace” – February 23 according to the Julian calendar, March 8 according to the Gregorian calendar. The strike triggered the Russian Revolution. In 1975, the UN officially recognized March 8 as International Women’s Day.

116 years after the conference in Copenhagen, I sit here and write that three out of four women in the world still do not live in freedom. So how far have we really come? We continue to live in a patriarchy – and it is not just a problem ‘out there in the world’. It is here. It is now. It is structural.

THE ANATOMY OF POWER – the premise is simple: we live in a patriarchy. The rest is documentation.

Violence against women is not an exception – it is systemic

Globally, nearly 1 in 3 women (30%) have experienced physical and/or sexual violence from a partner or sexual violence from a non-partner at least once in their lives. 840 million women. In 2024, approximately 50,000 women and girls were killed by a partner or family member – one every 10 minutes. 137 per day. And those are only the reported cases.

In India, a woman is raped every 17 minutes – if you count the reported cases. The actual number is estimated to be 10 to 20 times higher. Most do not report the assaults because the police continue to humiliate and shame the victims. In 89% of cases, the victim knows her rapist. In almost half of the cases in Delhi, he is a family member. One woman is murdered after being raped every day and a half. And for Dalit women – those from the lowest castes – the justice system’s response is an acquittal rate of 63%.

It is easy to believe that violence and oppression happen ‘elsewhere’ . But we are lying to ourselves if we tell ourselves that it only happens in countries that are unlike ours. Think of Epstein. Think of Pelicot. Think of Rotherham, where at least 1,400 young girls were systematically exploited while the police looked the other way. It happens here. It happens everywhere.

I don’t know any women who don’t have a strategy for avoiding violence. Keys between their fingers like knuckle dusters. A friend who tracks their location. A route that avoids dark streets. We learn it as girls: take care of yourself. But why is it our responsibility? Why isn’t it men’s responsibility not to rape?

In Copenhagen, women take a detour to avoid Istedgade at night. In New Delhi, they take taxis in groups. In Tokyo, they buy ‘anti-chikan’ apps for the trains. All over the world, women adapt – not because we are afraid of the dark, but because we are afraid of men. It’s not our fault. It’s the system’s.

Subscribe now

Three out of four women in the world do not live in freedom

And even for the quarter who do, violence is never far away. No country in the world has achieved full equality. Not one. The question is not whether we live in a patriarchy – the numbers answer that. The question is how deep it goes. From Afghanistan, where women are erased from public life, to Scandinavia, where we are ‘free’ but still struggle – the difference is one of degree, not kind.

Patriarchy is not a flaw in the system. It is the system

Patriarchy is not just legislation or violence. It is also rituals – and religions are among the most powerful.

Religion can liberate. But historically, it has primarily been used to control. Today, we have built many other social structures – capitalism, liberalism, democracy – all with the same skeleton and on the same foundation. The face of power is male. World leaders, boards of directors, CEOs – men dominate everywhere. This is no coincidence. It is by design.

In Ireland, women were not granted the right to divorce until 1996 – due to the influence of the church. In Italy, doctors refuse to perform abortions because their “conscience” outweighs women’s lives. In Iran, religious police killed Mahsa Amini in 2022 for showing too much hair.

The three major monotheistic religions – with over 4 billion followers – have one thing in common: women cannot be the supreme religious leader. In Catholicism and Islam, this is absolute. In Judaism, the reform movement has broken with this, but orthodoxy maintains the ban. God is apparently male – and his representatives on earth must be the same.

This is not just a historical curiosity. It is a power structure that still shapes our world. In 2026, a woman can become prime minister, but not pope. She can lead a state, but not a mosque. Religion is not just faith – it is politics.

In the traditional Jewish morning prayer, men recite every single day:

“Blessed are You, Lord our God, Master of the Universe, who has not made me a woman.”

Women instead say: “...who has created me according to His will.” This prayer is still recited today in Orthodox synagogues around the world. Women thus give thanks for being created “according to God’s will” – a will that apparently does not include equality.

Even in ancient times, Plato, Socrates, or Thales allegedly said something similar: “that I was born a human being and not an animal; a man and not a woman; a Greek and not a barbarian.” Patriarchy is not only religious – it is a structure that transcends cultures and millennia.

The Bible offers women two roles: the obedient virgin and the repentant whore. Everything in between is threatening. According to the Gospels, Mary Magdalene was a faithful disciple and the first witness to the resurrection. But in 591, Pope Gregory the Great decided to make her a prostitute – because a female apostle was a threat to the male-dominated church. It took 1,400 years for the Vatican to admit that this was wrong.

Islam’s first believer was a woman. Khadijah was a successful, independent businesswoman, older than her husband Muhammad, and his equal. She proposed the marriage herself. She financed the entire early Islamic movement with her fortune. 1,400 years later, men are using her religion to eradicate women from the public sphere.

Patriarchy is not just culture—it is ritualized.

It is so ingrained in our global society that it may take a revolution to break it down. So that we can all be considered human beings—men and women, on an equal footing, with equal rights and mutual respect.

Women as property

In at least 15 countries today, women are legally treated as the property of men – they cannot travel, work, marry, study, or seek medical care without a man’s permission. In Afghanistan, they cannot even speak in public. In Saudi Arabia, male guardianship was codified into law as recently as March 8, 2022 – on International Women’s Day.

But we don’t need to point fingers only at the East: in Europe, married women were legally considered the property of their husbands until just 125 years ago. In Denmark, married women did not gain full legal authority until 1899. In the US, in some states, a man still cannot be convicted of rape if the victim is his wife. Marriage is not love. It is a contract that historically has given men rights over women’s bodies.

They knew this in the 1870s.

In 1877, Tolstoy wrote Anna Karenina – a woman who lost the right to her child because she loved the wrong man and left her husband. Anna ends up throwing herself under a train. In 1879, Ibsen wrote A Doll’s House – about Nora, the woman who slammed the door because she refused to be a doll. Nora could not borrow money without her husband’s or father’s signature. When, in desperation, she forges her father’s signature to save her husband’s life, she is the criminal – not the system that made her legally incompetent.

Both works were considered scandalous. Both were about women trying to break free. Today, 150 years later, women still lose their children to men in at least 15 countries – not as fiction, but as law.

And voting rights? New Zealand was the first country in 1893. Switzerland waited until 1971. Saudi Arabia until 2015. And Afghanistan has gone backwards – women had the right to vote from 1964, lost it under the Taliban in 1996, regained it in 2001 and lost it again in 2021. The right to vote is not a gift – it was fought for. And it can be taken away again.

Women’s bodies are political property. In Poland, women are dying because doctors refuse to perform life-saving procedures for fear of legal consequences. In the US, a woman can now be convicted for taking abortion pills. The right to control one’s own body is not a given – it is a battle that is fought every day.

Objectification of women

Women’s bodies are a commodity. The beauty industry – predominantly owned by men – makes billions selling self-hatred to women. With the help of the media, women are filled with a fierce desire to change their appearance in order to attract men’s attention. It is not just a market – it is a tool of power.

In Copenhagen, you can see buses driving around the streets with large stickers that say: New breasts. The picture shows the most perfect breasts – not even surgically enhanced breasts are that beautiful. Could you imagine the same sticker saying: New Penis, with a long penis down the side of the bus? Hardly.

Pop culture as co-creator

Objectification is not just an industry – it is entertainment, and it plants seeds in our subconscious. In 1998, 16-year-old Britney Spears appeared in a schoolgirl uniform in “...Baby One More Time.” An adult industry deliberately packaged a child in a sexual narrative designed to arouse desire in adult men. The media counted down to her 18th birthday. Rolling Stone put her half-naked on the cover at age 17.

Madonna claimed that her sexualisation was liberation: “I control my own sexuality, so it’s empowerment.” But the question is whether you can liberate yourself within a framework created by the male gaze – or whether you are in fact just performing exactly what the framework demands and calling it freedom.

Beyoncé is one of the most talented singers of her generation. At concerts, she performs in bodysuits and stilettos. Jay-Z stands next to her in a suit and oversized clothes. Ed Sheeran performs in jeans and a T-shirt. No one demands that he look sexy for us to listen to his music. Female artists apparently have to show their bodies to be relevant.

Kim Kardashian became famous through a leaked sex tape and built an empire on being an object: reality TV, Instagram, plastic surgery as a brand. She has turned objectification into a business model. But that doesn’t change the mechanism—it confirms it. It just shows that women in a patriarchal system can profit from their own objectification. That doesn’t make it liberation.

When Cardi B raps about ‘making money with her body’, is that liberation – or the only tool the system has given her? When Tyga sings about women ‘on their knees’, it’s no longer shocking. It’s mainstream. It’s what we expect of women: that they are available. That they are there for men’s pleasure.

There is a direct line from pop culture’s sexualization of young girls to the world in which Epstein operated. When culture normalizes a 16-year-old girl as a sexual object, it becomes easier to overlook when a rich man exploits them.

Capitalism and patriarchy

It’s also about money and property rights. In several African countries, women cannot inherit land – even if they cultivate it – with the result that they are dependent on men for their survival throughout their lives.

Women own a fraction of the world’s land – despite producing almost half of the food. In Denmark, women’s pensions are significantly lower than men’s. Economic independence is not a ‘women’s issue’. It is a question of power.

Prostitution is legal in most countries and is called ‘the world’s oldest profession’. But it is not a profession – it is a symptom. A symptom of a system where women’s bodies are a commodity that can be bought whenever men feel like it. According to the UN, it is predominantly women and girls from the poorest and most marginalized groups who end up in prostitution – not because they ‘choose’ it, but because the system has given them no other options. When men buy sex, it is not about ‘freedom’. It is about power: the power to buy access to a woman’s body for the price of a dinner. In Germany, where prostitution was fully legalized in 2002, human trafficking exploded – and it is predominantly Eastern European and African women who pay the price.

Legalization did not protect women. It protected the customers—i.e., the men.

And we haven’t even touched on the porn industry—a billion-dollar business that systematically normalizes violence against women and shapes young men’s views on sex before they’ve even had a real sexual experience.

I’m not saying that this applies to all men. BUT...

Male drivers honk at 12-year-old girls on the street. Women are patted on the bottom by strange men. Your boss touches your shoulder a little too long. The man on the train stares. Your colleague comments on your clothes. The stranger on the street shouts after you. The list of even minor everyday violations is almost endless.

Every time a woman is subjected to assault, violence, murder, or abuse, we are all struck by the feeling that it could have been us. All women know that they are potential victims. Even in countries with high levels of gender equality, there are structures that make us vulnerable. Yet there is little discussion about how common these assaults still are. And what’s worse, many women feel that it is their own fault.

Today, you can hear men whining that it’s not nice to be seen as a potential threat. Sorry, but you are. Not because all men are dangerous, but because enough men are that all women must be on their guard. All women live with this quiet, low-level everyday fear. It is not pronounced, constant, or loud. But it is there. Deep down in the subconscious. In the hand that clutches the bunch of keys on the way home.

The invisible markers of everyday life

Language reveals power. In Danish, we say ‘people’, but we think ‘men’. We imagine ‘a good writer’ as a man until we hear a woman’s name. We imagine ‘a nurse’ as a woman – because it is a ‘woman’s job’. Language is not neutral; it is shaped by who has had the power to define it.

In Denmark, women earn on average less than men for the same work with the same education. During the COVID-19 pandemic, women lost their jobs more often than men – because they worked in ‘invisible’ sectors such as care. Worldwide, women perform 75% of all unpaid care work. This is not a ‘women’s issue’. It is a societal issue: who do we value and who do we pay?

Nor is public space neutral. In the subway, on the street, in parks – men take up space, both physically and symbolically. Men sit on seats with their legs spread, forcing women to squeeze together. Women learn to make themselves small. This is not biological; it is learned behavior.

The female accomplices

Patriarchy is not maintained by men alone. Ghislaine Maxwell procured young girls for Epstein. Brothels often have a madam.

Oppression has its female accomplices.

On one of my trips to India, I met a young woman who had been married for a year and a half. Her mother-in-law had never seen her face. She told me that every time her mother-in-law came into the kitchen, she had to cover her face. The mother-in-law is herself oppressed – and so kicks down to have a place to be superior. Pressure breeds pressure.

Women in general are also followers when they submit to beauty ideals defined by men, while imagining that they are doing so because they want to – without asking themselves why they are cutting up their bodies or filling their lips with fillers to make them look like they have labia on their faces.

Hollywood, Wall Street, the White House

The Epstein case has rightly outraged many. But it stands alone. Weinstein. Cosby. Polanski. The same pattern repeats itself: men who abuse, systems that protect, and those who pay the price – ordinary people.

And it’s not just about sexual violence. The financial crisis of 2008 followed exactly the same pattern: everyone knew, no one acted, no one was punished, and millions of ordinary people paid the price. The anatomy of power is not just a question of women’s equality – it is a question of the entire structure of our world, where a small elite has closed itself off and created systems that kick downwards.

More on that in the next essay: “There is a pattern.”

The ultimate power asymmetry

Even the way we treat animals follows the pattern. In the West, we cannot polish our halo. Even though animals are living creatures, we mistreat them to satisfy our own need for cheap food. We cannot even provide animals with decent living conditions until we kill them to eat them. That would mean we would have to pay more for our meat—and less profit for the backers. The mechanism is the same: we know it, we do it anyway, because our comfort weighs heavier.

There is a pattern

From the laws of Afghanistan to the bedroom in Mazan. From the Jewish morning prayer to the bus in Copenhagen with “New breasts.” From Britney’s schoolgirl uniform to Epstein’s island. From the Dalit woman who reports a rape and faces a 63% acquittal rate, to the young wife in India who must cover her face in front of her mother-in-law.

It’s the same pattern.

The same logic. The same system.

Power + knowledge + passivity = abuse. And those who have the power get away with it.

Until we stop them.

This was the overview. In the next essays, we will dive deeper. Into the patterns. Into the men. Into the culture that makes it possible.

Patriarchy is not invincible. It is created by people – and it can be dismantled by people. But that requires us to see the patterns. To hold those in power accountable. And for us – men and women alike – to refuse to accept the world as it is. The next step is to take action. But how?

This essay is the first in the series “The Anatomy of Power” – about power, desire, and greed in a world built by men, for men.

Leave a comment

Sources

Violence against women – global statistics

• WHO: Violence Against Women Prevalence Estimates, 2018. Global, regional, and national estimates. Geneva, 2021.

• WHO: Lifetime toll: 840 million women faced partner or sexual violence. November 19, 2025.

• The Lancet: Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual intimate partner violence against women in 2018. February 2022.

• UN Women / UNODC: Femicides in 2024 – Global Estimates of Intimate Partner/Family Member Femicides. November 2025.

• OECD: Society at a Glance 2024 – Violence against Women.

• World Bank: Gender Data Portal – Violence against women and girls: what the data tell us.

India

• National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Ministry of Home Affairs, India: Crime in India 2021, 2022, 2023.

• Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI): Rape and Rape/Gangrape with Murder in India – Incidence of Cases. October 2024.

• IDSN: Factsheet 2024 – Caste-based Gender Violence Against Dalit Women.

Women’s freedom and autonomy

• UNFPA: State of World Population 2021 – My Body is My Own: Claiming the right to autonomy and self-determination.

• UN SDG Report 2024 – SDG Indicator 5.6.1: Women’s decision-making on sexual and reproductive health.

• World Bank: Women, Business and the Law 2024.

• Equal Measures 2030: 2024 SDG Gender Index.

• V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg: Women’s Civil Liberties Index.

Male guardianship and women as property

• Human Rights Watch: Trapped – How Male Guardianship Policies Restrict Women’s Travel and Mobility in the Middle East and North Africa. July 2023.

• Human Rights Watch: Everything I Have to Do is Tied to a Man – Women and Qatar’s Male Guardianship Rules. March 2021.

• Amnesty International: Saudi Arabia – End Male Guardianship and Discrimination against Women. March 2023.

• Saudi Arabia: Personal Status Law, issued March 8, 2022 – codification of male guardianship.

• USA: Marital rape exemptions – state-level variations. AEquitas / National District Attorneys Association.

Women’s suffrage

• Pew Research Center: Key facts about women’s suffrage around the world. October 2020 (updated 2024).

• NZ History / Ministry of Culture & Heritage: World suffrage timeline.

• Wikipedia: Timeline of women’s suffrage (with original sources).

• Encyclopædia Britannica: Women’s suffrage.

Religion and women

• My Jewish Learning: Who Has Not Made Me a Woman – on Birchot HaShachar.

• Sefaria: Shelo Asani Isha – history, reactions, justifications and solutions.

• Talmud, Menahot 43b: Rabbi Meir’s three blessings.

• About Islam / Britannica / Wikipedia: Khadijah bint Khuwaylid – the first Muslim.

• Wikipedia / History.com / Bible Odyssey: Mary Magdalene – from apostle to prostitute.

• Pope Gregory the Great: Easter sermon, 591 AD (conflation of Mary Magdalene with the “sinful woman” in Luke 7).

• Ireland: Divorce referendum 1995 – legalised 1996. Irish Constitution, 15th Amendment.

• Italy: Conscientious objection to abortion – up to 70% of gynecologists in some regions. The Guardian / LAIGA.

• Iran: Mahsa Amini, died September 16, 2022, in morality police custody. Amnesty International.

Reproductive rights

• Poland: Deaths linked to abortion restrictions – Izabela Sajbor (2021), documented by Amnesty International.

• USA: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) – Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Economic inequality and land ownership

• FAO: Gender and Land Rights Database – women’s access to land, global overview.

• World Bank: Women, Business and the Law 2024 – property and inheritance rights.

• ILO / UN Women: Women perform 75% of the world’s unpaid care work.

• UN Women: COVID-19 and its economic toll on women. 2021.

Prostitution and trafficking

• UN Women: Facts and figures – ending violence against women, including trafficking.

• Germany: Prostitution Act 2002 – legalization and its effects on trafficking. Spiegel International / European Parliament study, 2014.

• European Parliament: Sexual exploitation and prostitution and its impact on gender equality. 2014.

Literature

• Henrik Ibsen: A Doll’s House (Et dukkehjem, 1879). Premiered at the Royal Danish Theatre, Copenhagen, December 21, 1879.

• Leo Tolstoy: Anna Karenina (1877).

Pop culture and sexualization

• Britney Spears: ...Baby One More Time (1998). Jive Records. Spears was 16 years old at the time of release.

• Rolling Stone: Britney Spears cover, April 1999 (Spears was 17 years old).

March 8 – International Women’s Day

• International Women’s Conference, Copenhagen, 1910. Clara Zetkin proposes an annual international women’s day.

• United Nations: Official recognition of March 8 as International Women’s Day, 1975.

• The Russian women’s strike, February 23 / March 8, 1917.

All statistics in this essay are based on publicly available data from international organizations. Where figures are estimates or ranges, this is indicated. The dark figures – particularly for violence against women – are, according to all sources, significantly higher than those reported.

One afternoon in 1979

One day in 1979, I came home from school. My mother was sitting in the dining room reading the newspaper, as usual. There was a large picture of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and his wife Farah Diba. As an 11-year-old, it wasn’t the revolution that caught my attention. It was Farah Diba. She was so beautiful. She and the Shah were standing in one of their palaces, dressed in their finest gala attire. My inner princess dream was awakened.

My mother readily answered my questions, but her answers were anything but princess-like. “That man,” she said, pointing to a picture of Ruhollah Khomeini. “He wants to enslave women. Now women are no longer free in Iran. They must belong to their husbands, cover themselves, and ask permission for everything.”

There are moments in childhood when an adult you trust puts into words something that shapes your entire life. My mother explained to me that freedom can be taken away from people with the stroke of a pen – and that it affects women in particular. Until that day, I had no idea that the world could be so unfair.

It has sharpened my interest in global events and butterfly effects ever since. Everything is connected. The 1979 revolution in Iran has shaped global politics – the world, especially the Middle East, would look very different today if it weren’t for the coup in 1979.

Trump doesn’t do politics – Trump does television

We live in a media world ruled by social platforms. Trump understands this better than anyone. He has an intuitive understanding of the impact of the media on people. After several bankruptcies, he first achieved real success when he became a reality TV star.

Trump doesn’t do politics. Trump does television. His politics are delivered in trailer form. He has said so himself. In Europe, everyone remembers the cringe-worthy day when JD Vance and Trump set out to grill Zelensky. In Europe, we thought it was more embarrassing for the US than for Zelensky, whom we consider a hero and a person of integrity. Embarrassing because leaders and decent people do not behave like that.

But Trump is not a politician. He is a TV star. He confirmed this himself with the words: “This is great television.” As I recall, he even repeated it. I don’t want to watch the clip again – it makes me feel sick.

In reality TV, everything revolves around drama, conflict, and momentum. The driving force is that there is always a new task, a new confrontation. Nothing stands still. That is precisely the dynamic he transfers to his politics. The problem is that reality does not follow a script – and we are all involuntary extras in his show.

The attention thief

Venezuela already feels like an eternity ago. Two months have passed. People’s memories are being deliberately destroyed. Everything is fragmented. Everything is delivered in trailers. Trump uses it as an ideological weapon. We have no moments of pause where we can stop and think. Consume. Process. Get an overview.

Social media controls what is talked about. Its fleeting nature controls the direction of our attention.

It all mixes together in a constant flow – bombs in Iran mixed with cute cat videos. Our attention is constantly being directed in new directions. The idea that what is being talked about is important because everyone is talking about it – turns us all into useful idiots.

The media once proclaimed itself the fourth estate. The self-proclaimed watchdog that was supposed to control the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. But what good is that when the media imitates social platforms and chases clicks?

The fact that my mother was able to explain the Iranian revolution to me shows how important it is to familiarize yourself with the narrative. Reading well-researched articles where writers familiarize themselves with the history. Not like today, where most people get their news in quickly edited sequences à la TikTok and Reels.

When you destroy people’s memories, they no longer have a shared narrative. It is the narrative that binds us together. The autocrat’s tool.

“For a totalitarian regime, the ideal subject is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom there is no longer any distinction between fact and fiction, between true and false.”

— Hannah Arendt, *The Origins of Totalitarianism

Venezuela: The template

The US is—sorry to say—good at destroying, but terrible at establishing peace. Libya. Iraq. Yemen. Afghanistan. Trump is even better at destroying, and given that professionally competent people in the administration have been replaced by inexperienced loyalists, this gives cause for concern.

Venezuela is back in business. On January 3, 2026, US special forces captured Maduro in a nighttime operation in Caracas. Two months later, the picture is disillusioning: the power structure is largely intact. Vice President Delcy Rodríguez – herself a Chavista – remains in power. The democratic opposition is marginalized. It resembles Iraq, Libya, and Panama: the tactical operation is successful, but the strategic reality is chaotic and unclear. The top is removed, but the system regenerates itself.

The pattern reveals itself in the speed. Just three days after the capture, Venezuela transferred between 30 and 50 million barrels of crude oil to the US. The money did not go to Venezuela, but to a blocked account under US control. Venezuela must now submit budget requests to use its own money—to pay teachers, police, and health workers.

And here is the condition that reveals the strategic logic: the US will not approve oil production in Venezuela unless the country severs economic ties with China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba and enters into an exclusive partnership with the US.

The pattern is: military intervention → capture of leader → oil agreement within 72 hours → US control of the country’s primary source of income → demand to break with China and Russia.

Venezuela has the world’s largest proven oil reserves – over 300 billion barrels. And the US is now effectively “running” the country’s economy.

History repeats itself – the US was complicit in the fall of the Shah

The US’s relationship with Iran has always been about resources disguised as something else.

In 1951, Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh nationalized the Iranian oil industry, which until then had been controlled by the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company – later BP. The British were furious, and together with the CIA, they organized a coup in 1953 that overthrew Mosaddegh and reinstated the young Shah Mohammad Pahlavi as absolute ruler. The US and Britain crushed a functioning democracy to secure access to oil. From then on, the Shah became the West’s man in the region.

The coup created the fundamental anger towards the US that Khomeini later mobilized. The Iranians never forgot it. For decades, the US supported the Shah’s authoritarian rule, including his notorious secret police, SAVAK, which was trained with the help of the CIA and Mossad. SAVAK systematically tortured and killed political opponents. When the US talked about democracy and human rights elsewhere but turned a blind eye to a brutal regime in Iran, it created a bitterness among Iranians that never went away.

When the Carter administration pressured the Shah to liberalize in 1977, it created a space that the opposition exploited. As the revolution escalated, the US was divided. The result was paralysis. The CIA fundamentally misunderstood the situation and completely underestimated Khomeini.

The irony is twofold: the US was complicit in creating the conditions that led to the revolution – and was then unable to understand or respond to it. A textbook example of how short-term geopolitical interests can produce long-term disasters.

History rhymes. It always does.

The war against Iran: The powder keg

No one can mourn Khamenei’s death. He terrorized his people for over 30 years. He dictated public hangings and shootings of his citizens. By removing Khamenei and the top of the revolutionary regime, a regime was removed that cultivated human sacrifice as an ideological and theological driving force – with martyr cemeteries, celebrated suicide bombers and a religious longing to throw themselves into the flames in the service of the holy cause. The biggest victim is and will remain the Iranian people.

But it is naive to believe that this can be done with a pinpoint operation.

In early 2026, widespread protests had rocked Iran, driven by an economy in free fall. The regime crushed them with massive use of force. US Treasury Secretary Bessent openly boasted that Washington had deliberately created a dollar shortage in Iran to send the rial into free fall and provoke unrest. In February, Iran and the US held indirect nuclear talks in Oman. Iran’s foreign minister spoke of a “historic” agreement within reach. Oman’s foreign minister said that “substantial” progress had been made.

On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel struck

One might ask oneself whether the diplomacy was sincere at all. The chronology speaks for itself: economic war → protests → negotiations making progress → military attack.

Netanyahu’s motivation is obvious.

Trump, on the other hand, has a problem explaining himself. He has capitalized on war weariness in the US his entire life. Now, in violation of international law and without congressional approval, he has thrown the US into an illegal and dangerous war project. “Israel wanted it – we just went along with it,” say his loyal sycophants. A very pitiful explanation from a superpower.

Iran is not Venezuela

If Trump had thought that Iran would be like Venezuela, he may have been talked into the war. He has a pronounced need to appear as a historic president. He is convinced that the military power of the US is so overwhelming that the US can do anything. Right now, he keeps talking about how fantastic the US Army is.

But military superiority is not enough to win a war and bring about the reality you want in the world. Take Afghanistan as an example.

Iran is not Venezuela. You can’t just remove the top, make a deal on natural resources, and move on.

The clerical regime has implemented the Mosaic Doctrine to ensure the survival of the state. The security system that many in Washington and Tel Aviv hoped would collapse has consolidated its grip on the state and is sending rockets in all directions in the region. Rumor has it that the US is arming Kurdish groups in Iran. This could be the beginning of civil war and chaos.

Trump is calling on Iranians to take to the streets once the regime has been crushed. With what, one might ask. Iran has strict gun laws – around 3.5 firearms per 100 inhabitants, compared to 120 in the US. Only Basij members loyal to the regime have weapons. Civilians are unarmed. So which Iranians are supposed to finish the job for the US? The hopeful son of the overthrown Shah, who dreams of returning to the peacock throne? Who are the Americans talking to? Who are the Israelis talking to? If there is a plan, it will be both gratifying and surprising, bordering on shocking.

There are 93 million Iranians. If just 10 percent flee, it will create chaos in the Middle East and Europe. Iran has perfected militias and guerrilla warfare. The Revolutionary Guard is far better entrenched than Gaddafi’s Libya or Maduro’s Venezuela. Libya ended in disaster because there was no plan for what would come after.

Iran is a much larger country with a much stronger state.

Attacking Iran is foolish. And the conflict threatens to draw in other countries – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Russia.

Follow the money

Iran has the world’s fourth largest oil reserves and is a key player in global energy supply. In addition, the country has 68 types of minerals – reserves estimated to be worth trillions of dollars. Iran is number four on the list of the world’s most resource-rich nations, surpassed only by Russia, the US, and Saudi Arabia.

In that context, the US attack suddenly makes a lot of sense.

Trump could not care less about women’s rights, democracy or theocracy in Iran. Trump and Netanyahu are both political actors who undermine freedom and democracy in their own countries. There is no reason to believe that the liberation of the Iranian people is the goal. They do not even pretend that international law matters to them. This war has long been Netanyahu’s dream, and now he has managed to make it Trump’s grand fantasy.

Long-term analysis is not Trump’s strength. The people behind Trump – Thiel, Musk, David Sacks, Vance and the wing they represent – think long term. They want control over natural resources. They prefer “colonial style,” direct ownership. They have pushed China out of Venezuela – are they now going to push China out of Iran to gain control of the country’s resources?

The pattern: Congo, Greenland, Ukraine

That is why Trump also acted out of the blue as a mediator in the DR Congo – a conflict that most people in the US, probably including Trump, have never heard of. In Congo, China controls 80 percent of the world’s cobalt processing – the mineral that powers electric cars, batteries, and the entire green transition. Trump’s “peace agreement” between Congo and Rwanda gave American companies preemptive rights to Congolese mines. Peace as a business model.

Trump could not invade Greenland without the entire international community reacting. Nor can he visibly throw Ukraine under the bus and make profitable business deals with Russia – that would, after all, provoke negative reactions in the US. That is why the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are a theatre, run by happy amateurs, until the US feels it can say “we tried everything” and move on.

Venezuela, Congo, Iran – it’s the same logic. Military power or diplomatic pressure → control over resources → demands to break with China and Russia → the US as the only partner.

This is not foreign policy. It’s business.

Ressource Tables for “The Powder Keg”

The story

One afternoon in 1979, my mother was sitting reading the newspaper. She saw through Khomeini immediately. She had the time, the overview, and the narrative that was needed.

The question is whether we have the same ability today. Or whether the theft of attention – the endless stream of trailers, drama, and momentum – has made us unable to see the patterns.

To remember Venezuela while Iran is being bombed and bombing others. To connect DR Congo with Greenland with Ukraine. To see that it is always about the same thing.

Follow the money. It always has been about the money.

March 2026

Subscribe now

Share Marianne’s Substack

Four years ago yesterday—on February 25, 2022—I had plans with my daughter. We were going to have lunch and enjoy ourselves in Copenhagen. When I looked around the streets of Copenhagen, everything seemed normal. Russia had invaded Ukraine the day before – as the crow flies, there are 1,300 km between Kyiv and Copenhagen. It was serious. I can still remember the feeling I had during those days, but I cannot describe it. I was sad, upset, melancholic, furious – none of these words cover the feeling. It was a very mixed feeling – just not a good one. My daughter could sense it and asked if something was wrong.

As with World War II, we must not forget the atrocities that Russia is subjecting the Ukrainians to. In these times, when the world’s attention shifts from crisis to crisis and when a small handful of people seem to get away with anything, it is even more important that we remember.

In the appendix to this essay, I have compiled a documented overview of Russian war crimes in Ukraine – the list is not exhaustive, as it only contains war crimes that have been documented to date.

The US decides what Ukraine and the EU can do

Today, four years later, I can read in the newspaper that Ukraine’s ambassador to the US has received a demarche from the Trump administration – a formal warning that Ukrainian forces must stop attacking specific targets in Russia.

The ambassador has been instructed to refrain from attacking American interests in Russia. This is reportedly in response to Ukraine’s drone attack on the Russian port of Novorossiysk back in November, which hit two tankers from the Russian shadow fleet and an oil terminal, according to the Financial Times. It should be noted that Kyiv has not confirmed that it was behind the attack.

The port is strategically important to Russia, as it is the export hub for Russian oil, which, among other things, finances the war against Ukraine.

The conclusion must be that the US government does not want Ukraine to win the war. Russia must bomb Ukrainian infrastructure, heating, and water supplies—in the ultra-cold winter—so that the Russians can freeze the Ukrainians into peace. Nor is it a problem for Trump that Russia is bombing American interests in Ukraine.

I wonder if Russia has sent a message to Trump to order Ukraine to stop attacking the Russian economy, which is under maximum pressure.

Note that Ukraine has only attacked targets that finance the war against Ukraine itself.

Biden gave Ukraine enough weapons to keep the war going, but never enough for Ukraine to win the war. The EU has been subject to certain restrictions and political constraints from the US – especially the Biden administration. The US has dictated ‘red lines’ for which weapon systems may be supplied and when.

The US also controls the supply chain. Many Western weapons depend on American components, and the US has also warned the EU against sending too advanced weapons to Ukraine.

And Trump – he would give the whole of Ukraine to Russia without batting an eyelid. The only thing that has stopped him is probably his vanity. Hence the asymmetrical pressure on Ukraine. Russia can do anything – Ukraine can do nothing.

The Russians’ eternal fear of Ukraine

Stalin was afraid of the Ukrainians. Putin is afraid of the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians are and have always been a proud people who have fought for Ukrainian autonomy for centuries.

Holodomor – Stalin’s genocide

Stalin initiated a deliberate starvation of the Ukrainians in the early 1930s. At least 3-4 million Ukrainians died, and many more suffered extreme hardship as a result of Stalin’s famine terrorism. Stalin confiscated all food, closed the borders to aid for Ukrainians, and forbade Ukrainians from leaving the affected areas. Hunger was a deliberately chosen tool to break the will of the Ukrainian people and eradicate Ukrainian national sentiment.

At that time, Ukraine was the Soviet Union’s most important agricultural region, and Ukrainian farmers wanted to keep their private land and crops and resisted Stalin’s collectivization of agriculture. Stalin saw Ukrainian resistance as a threat to the stability of the Soviet Union and decided to ‘discipline’ Ukraine through starvation, systematically implementing a famine known as the Holodomor.

The Holodomor is recognized by many countries, including Denmark, the United States, Canada, and the EU, as genocide against the Ukrainian people.

01.12.2013 Independence Square, “March of Millions” in Kyiv. A patriotic demonstrator sitting on a crane over a crowd of protesters. Photo by Natallia Kravchuk

Maidan – The Revolution of Dignity

In 2013, Ukraine’s then-president Viktor Yanukovych suddenly broke off negotiations on an association agreement with the EU and chose instead to strengthen relations with Russia, following pressure from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who offered Ukraine economic support in exchange for dropping the EU agreement. In what was then a highly corrupt Ukraine, this most likely meant more money for Yanukovych and a small group of politicians.

On November 21, 2013, the population began peaceful protests against the president’s rejection of the EU and acceptance of Russia on Majdan Nezalezjosti (Independence Square) in Kyiv, which became the center of the demonstrations. The name ‘EuroMaidan’ comes from the fact that many Ukrainians wanted closer integration with the EU and Western values. I highly recommend the documentary film ‘Winter on Fire: Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom’.

The government responded with violent repression. Berkut forces attacked the protesters, leading to deaths and hundreds of injuries. Legislation was passed to restrict freedom of expression and assembly. Protesters occupied public buildings, including Kyiv City Hall, as a symbol of their resistance.

In February 2014, the protests culminated in violent clashes between protesters and police. Over 100 people were killed, mainly in Maidan Square. Professional snipers shot at civilian protesters with the intent to kill, firing directly at their heads, necks, or chests, which led to international condemnation.

Under pressure from the EU, the US, and the opposition, Yanukovych signed an agreement on new elections. Parliament removed him from office, and he fled to Russia shortly afterwards. Ukraine held elections and set a course for closer cooperation with the EU and Western institutions.

Subscribe now

Putin’s fear of a democratic Ukraine

Putin cannot risk a well-functioning democratic Ukraine. The risk that Russians would be inspired by Ukraine and want real democracy is too great. Putin denied the legitimacy of the new Ukrainian government and claimed that Russian-speaking Ukrainians in Crimea were under threat.

On February 27, 2014, ‘green men’ appeared in Crimea and occupied strategic points in Crimea, including the parliament and airports.

On March 16, 2014, a controversial referendum was held under Russian control. The vote was internationally condemned as illegal and rigged.

On March 18, 2014, Putin signed a treaty annexing Crimea to Russia, which was met with sanctions from the West and condemnation from the UN.

Ukraine was technically the world’s third largest nuclear power

In 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the US, and the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. Ukraine committed to handing over all its nuclear weapons to Russia and joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In return, the US, UK, and Russia promised to:

· Respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and existing borders.

· Refrain from threats or use of force against Ukraine.

· Provide security guarantees in the event of threats to Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

· Seek action by the UN Security Council if Ukraine was subjected to nuclear threats.

Why should Ukraine trust security guarantees from the US?

In 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea. In 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Both actions were direct violations of the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in good faith, but received no real security in return – neither in 2014 nor in 2022.

Military intervention was never part of the guarantees in the Budapest Memorandum, and the agreement contains no obligation to defend Ukraine militarily. It was only a political and diplomatic guarantee.

Ukraine was tricked into giving up its nuclear arsenal. Ukraine’s fate is a warning not to trust allies unless they are militarily binding. But you can’t make a deal with the Trump administration. Trump has proven time and again that deals with him are only deals as long as Trump thinks there is a deal. You can no longer trust the United States.

The Russian lackey in the White House

Since 2016, there has been talk that Russia had control over Trump. That they had something on him. Trump definitely has a criminal record longer than the Bible. Trump has been dependent on Russian money his entire adult life. Trump could not run a casino without going bankrupt, and he only became successful when he became a reality TV star. He did not even write his own books – not even The Art of the Deal.

Trump has repeatedly proven that his loyalty lies with Russia. At the Helsinki summit in 2018, Trump publicly sided with Putin over his own intelligence services, stating, “I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia,” when asked about Russian election interference. In doing so, Trump disavowed 17 American intelligence agencies.

The moment was widely perceived as a betrayal of American democratic institutions – and revealed Trump’s unusual trust in Putin, a dynamic that has characterized his foreign policy ever since.

The Russians definitely have something on him – I just don’t think it matters. Putin is Trump’s role model, whom he describes as a strong leader. Trump craves Putin’s approval so much that he will do anything to get it. In his second term, the parallels to Putin’s playbook are clear – from control over institutions to oligarchs as a power base.

Donald Trump began seeking business opportunities in Russia in the 1990s, with the first documented attempts in 1996. However, his most extensive projects—such as Trump Tower Moscow—did not unfold until the 2000s and 2010s, when he negotiated with Russian oligarchs and Kremlin allies. Although no projects were completed, Trump received significant investments from Russian buyers in his properties, leading to FBI investigations into possible money laundering. During his 2016 presidential campaign, these connections continued, leading to the Mueller investigation into Russian interference.

In parallel with the so-called peace negotiations, Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner are pursuing business deals with Russia. Both have previously had business ties to Russia.

Trump does not care if it means sacrificing an entire country and its population.

Ukraine is fighting with one hand tied behind its back – by the US.

Nevertheless, Russia has not yet won, nor has it conquered that much land. In reality, it is fair to say that Russia has lost. The Russians have thrown their men into the ‘meat grinder’, they have sacrificed a huge number of men, they are using foreign soldiers and mercenaries, they have converted their economy to a war economy – considering the time frame and manpower losses, it must be said that Russia has not been successful with its three-day special military invasion. In fact, Ukraine has recaptured land. So stop saying that Ukraine cannot win. Ukraine can win if the US lets them win.

Ukraine has been fighting for four years with one hand tied behind its back. Donated weapons have only been allowed to be used for defense. Ukraine has not been allowed to enter Russian territory – yet Russia has not won.

That says a lot about Ukraine and the Ukrainians. Ukraine has not won because the US has not let Ukraine win over Russia.

Xi and Putin have a common interest

In his annual address to the Russian Federation Assembly on April 25, 2005, Putin said:

“The dissolution of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. For the Russian people, it was a real tragedy.

Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and compatriots suddenly found themselves outside Russian territory.”

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated in July 2025 that China cannot accept Russia losing the war in Ukraine. This confirms that China’s so-called official neutrality is a big lie.

The Russian and Chinese governments share a common opposition to the West and consider the West an existential threat. If Ukraine (and the West) wins the war in Ukraine, it will show that democracy and the West can triumph over authoritarian regimes – something that could undermine China and Russia’s legitimacy at home.

Both Putin and Xi share a fear of ‘colour revolutions’ (popular uprisings inspired by the West). A Ukrainian victory could inspire protests in Russia and China.

In addition, China and Russia want a ‘multipolar world’. They want to replace Western dominance with a new world order in which they, together with allies such as Iran and North Korea, set the agenda.

A Ukrainian victory will preserve the influence of the US and the EU in Europe and Asia.

A Russian defeat would weaken Putin’s regime and make China more vulnerable to Western pressure, for example on the Taiwan issue.

Trump hands China world domination

The US government is probably the only one in the world that does not understand that if Ukraine loses to Russia, the US loses to China – and China is the new superpower. Putin has repeatedly stated publicly that the West is weak and in decline, prioritizing economic profit and material interests over moral principles. Trump is the personification of all the worst human characteristics in this regard. And Putin is exploiting this.

Trump’s historic failure

Trump has consistently chosen Putin over Ukraine. This is a huge betrayal of the Ukrainian people, but Trump is also betraying the American values on which the US was built, for which generations of Americans have fought and given their lives – freedom, democracy, and the right to self-determination. The values that once made the US the leader of the free world are now being sold out by a man who admires tyrants and despises the alliances his predecessors built over 80 years. For what? Trump Tower in Moscow and filthy lucre for himself and Witkoff.

The irony is brutal. Trump says he wants to make America great again, and consistently does the opposite. Every time Trump bows to Putin, he proves Putin’s claim that the West is weak, greedy, decadent, and willing to sacrifice its principles for short-term gains. Trump personifies Putin’s point.

China does not need to wage physical war against the US, but only has to wait while Trump and his administration undermine the US from within. Every concession to Russia, every weakened alliance, every betrayed partner confirms to Xi Jinping that the Western, American, and democratic world order is disintegrating—not because it was defeated, but because it was abandoned by its own.

If Ukraine falls, history will not write that Russia won. History will write that the US sacrificed Ukraine so that the American president could pursue business deals with the Russian kleptocrat, terrorist, and child thief in the Kremlin.

A small note: Last night, on the fourth anniversary of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the US abstained from voting. Worth noting: Although the US’s failure to vote for the resolution at the UN has attracted attention and criticism, it is actually an improvement on last year, when the US joined Russia and North Korea and voted against it.

Sources:

Anne Applebaum: Red Famine

Seth Abramson: Proof of Collusion: How Trump betrayed America

Maggie Haberman: Confidence man

Photo from the Bucha massacre. from deviant media.

I can also recommend the movie ‘20 days in Mariupol’ availeble on HBO

Based on the CNN video, I have created an overview that illustrates the differences between Denmark and the US, so that the differences are clear – but also why it is impossible to implement the same vaccine system in the US.

Hepatitis B: Why we do not vaccinate

The video mentions the low incidence of hepatitis B in Denmark. 93% of hepatitis B cases in Denmark are people of foreign origin (50% Asia, 36% mainly from Romania, and 14% Africa) who were infected at birth in their home country. Sexual transmission is the most common cause of acute hepatitis B. There are fewer than 20 cases per year. That is why we do not have a vaccine against hepatitis B in our vaccination program.

In the US, the incidence is high, so fewer vaccines are not necessarily better when it comes to public health, but rather a question of taking action where it makes the most sense.

Trust cannot be bought – but politicians can

At one point in the video, Dr. Sanjay Gupta mentions that Americans are unlikely to be able to muster the same trust in the system that we have in Denmark. This is where I think one of the biggest problems in the US lies. I understand that you distrust your system, but in my view, your systems do not work because you have built them in such a way that outside economic interests – large corporations with their own profit as their goal – can “buy” your politicians and thus manipulate legislation.

The American system is based on the interests of large corporations – in Europe, the focus is primarily on the interests of citizens, and our legislation is adopted with the protection of citizens in mind – such as our GDPR rules. I can personally access all my medical records online and see what individual doctors have written in my records. As digitization is “relatively” new, previous records have been digitized through the implementation of the system, which means that I can see and follow most of my history myself, and as an EU citizen, I own my own data.

Share Marianne’s Substack

Health as a business vs. health as a right

In the US, even your healthcare system is based on profit, which firstly results in more expensive treatment prices, but also an interest in ensuring that the system does not become too advantageous for users – i.e. American citizens.

In Denmark, the healthcare system, hospitals, etc. are not required to make a profit. Of course, they have budgets that they must try to adhere to – they are not profit-oriented and their sole objective is to ensure the health and data of citizens. This is a radical difference from the American system, where:

• Insurance companies decide what treatment you are allowed to receive.

• Prices are opaque and often unreasonable.

• Coverage depends on your finances, not your needs.

With regard to data, there are very strict rules governing the storage and processing of sensitive personal data in Denmark/the EU. Violation of these rules can result in penalties. In Europe, you cannot buy your way out of punishment – with the possible exception of Hungary (I don’t know, but the country is corrupt).

In Denmark, we have a 24/7 on-call doctor service (vagtlæge). You call a single number, speak to a medical professional, and if needed, a doctor will see you – or even come to your home. No bill. I couldn’t find a translation for the word. It also applies for grown ups - if you are too sick to go to a doctor - also free.

Your data: Fragmented in the US, centralized in Denmark

In the US, patient data is stored in a scattered manner without the possibility of cross-referencing, and it is stored by private actors. In practice, there are no consequences for failing to store medical records, which means that if an American moves between states, changes insurance or doctor, their medical records can literally disappear. Every doctor, every hospital, every specialist has their own records – and they often do not communicate with each other. We have centralized data, all doctors can see my history, and as a citizen, I decide who can see my data. Furthermore, as a citizen, I can also go in and see who has accessed my data and get a log of who has opened my records. We have full transparency.

Your system is designed to protect privacy – but ironically, fragmentation undermines patient safety. As I understand it, the rules on record keeping also vary greatly between states. The US system protects privacy on paper, but undermines patient safety in practice.

Our systems are designed to protect citizens – not institutions or private interests. In Denmark, civil rights and data protection are a high priority.

The great irony: distrust of the state, blind trust in Big Tech

When we talk about privacy protection and trust in the system, it is even more ironic that most Americans uncritically use social media and other platforms that are virtually unregulated. The data we as users leave on these platforms is just as sensitive as our health data because it can be misused.

These platforms are controlled by private actors under monopoly-like conditions, and any attempt by Congress to pass American Privacy Rights has stalled due to lobbying and political disagreement (which probably stems from economic interests).

The result is that Google, Meta, TikTok, etc. can, in practice:

• Collect almost unlimited amounts of data about users

• Sell this data to third parties

• Use/misuse data for advertising, targeted campaigns, misinformation, etc.

• Combine data across services

In Denmark/the EU, the system is designed to protect citizens. In the US, the system is designed to protect companies’ right to profit.

Darwinism on the prairie

I can understand why Americans might be very distrustful of the systems. It must be the result of constantly experiencing – more or less consciously – that the system fails you because it is controlled by private economic interests, and that your whole life is more or less about survival because you have nowhere else to go?

I’m guessing. When I think of living conditions in the US, I think of Darwin and prairie wagons – a bit exaggerated, I know. But it is a struggle, unless you have a fortune to fall back on.

Share

I am a liberal – but...

Now you might be led to believe that I am a socialist – I am not. I am a liberal, but with the belief that everyone should have the opportunity to live a good life. I believe that some rights are fundamental, such as health, education, healthy food, and the opportunity to live a good life – the responsibility is one’s own. That humans should be self-regulating and, of course, not run businesses that pollute or otherwise harm the environment for profit.

On the other hand, I am old enough to have long since recognized that humans are generally bad at regulating themselves, which is why rules and sensible legislation are needed. Your president, along with many others, is a clear example of what happens when greed takes over.

As Europeans, we are often accused – especially lately – of having built our welfare systems because we have not contributed to NATO and have freeloaded off the US. This is a simplified truth with modifications – tending towards misinformation. We have our systems because we pay taxes. EVERYONE pays taxes. Even the rich.

Until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989/1990, EU countries spent a larger share of their GDP on defense. After Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the EU has paid for weapons, etc. for Ukraine – and the EU has contributed more to Ukraine overall than the US.

The US has used NATO to maintain American dominance in Europe and counter rivals such as Russia and China. In addition, the US has benefited significantly economically from European countries purchasing American military equipment, which strengthens the American defense industry. The US military budget is primarily focused on the Pacific and the Middle East – only about 6% of the American defense budget goes to Europe.

The US has never wanted a strong Europe – and it still doesn’t, now that we have been made your enemy, with a clear desire on the part of the US government to destabilise Europe.

MAGA: Same system, without brakes

When I hear/read about MAGA, it does not suggest that they are working to change the system to make it more “humane” and citizen-centered. On the contrary, they are working to accelerate the logic of the existing American system:

• Remove the rules and institutions that limit the freedom of action of companies

• Reducing the state’s capacity to protect citizens

• Concentrating power in the executive branch

This is not “more of the same” – it is the same system without brakes. In other words: All power to the oligarchs. How can Americans trust a system where profit and politics are so closely linked?

Perhaps the MAGA and America First people should think about that when they vote next time.

I really hope that one day the US and Americans can live a life of trust in the system and in each other. It’s a nice way to live when children can walk to and from school on their own.

Subscribe now

The Real Cost Comparison: What You Actually Have Left

On the suggestion of reader Jeff Rose, I’ve created a normalised comparison that subtracts ALL essential private costs – not just taxes. Because the question isn’t how much tax you pay. The question is how much you have left after paying for everything you MUST pay for.

Scenario: Two adults, one young child. All figures annual, in USD. Sources: US Census Bureau 2024, Kaiser Family Foundation 2025, Child Care Aware of America 2024, OECD, Statistics Denmark.

The numbers speak for themselves:

Despite paying 43% tax vs 19%, the Danish household has 33% MORE actual spending money – $10,500 more per year.

How is that possible? Because Americans pay 19% in tax PLUS 43% of their after-tax income on private essentials. That’s effectively 62% of their income gone. Danes pay 43% in tax plus just 9% of after-tax income on private essentials. That’s 48% total.

Americans pay MORE overall. They just pay corporations instead of the state. As we know, companies exist to make a profit and generate dividends for their shareholders. Companies make money from people’s illnesses. Governments do not make money from illness, but invest in a healthy and productive population.

This is the core insight that changes the entire debate: the question was never “high taxes vs low taxes.” It was always “who do you pay – and what do you get in return?”

The Hidden Tax on American Freedom

Americans pride themselves on low taxes. But they pay a hidden tax that no government collects: the anxiety tax.

It’s the tax you pay when you avoid the doctor because of deductibles. When you stay in a job you hate for the insurance. When you don’t start a business because you can’t risk losing coverage. When you have children later – or not at all – due to cost. When you choose your major based on debt, not passion.

This tax doesn’t show up in government statistics. But it shapes millions of lives every single day.

And the data confirms it:

• 36% of American households had medical debt in 2024.

• Every year, 530,000 families file for bankruptcy because of medical bills.

• 45% of Americans are afraid that a major health event will bankrupt them.

In Denmark, I’ve never once considered a job for its health insurance. I’ve never calculated whether I can “afford” to get sick. I’ve never worried that having a child would bankrupt me. We have paid maternity leave.

That’s not because Danes are richer. It’s because we’ve chosen a different social contract: we pay taxes for freedom FROM anxiety, not freedom TO worry.

The Time Tax: What Americans Don’t Count

Here’s what Americans don’t count when they celebrate “efficiency”:

The average American household spends per year:

• 13 hours comparing health insurance plans.

• 8 hours dealing with insurance claims and denials.

• 12 hours managing medical bills.

• 20+ hours researching college costs and loan options.

10 hours on tax preparation (because the US tax code is deliberately complex). Countless hours worrying about all of the above.

Total: 60+ hours of life admin that Danes simply don’t do. That’s more than a full work week every year, spent navigating systems designed to extract maximum profit while providing minimum service.

In Denmark: I visit my doctor. I leave. No forms, no bills, no follow-up calls. My daughter applies to university. She gets in – if qualified. No loans, no debt, no calculations. Tax season? The government calculates it for me. I click “approve.”

Time is freedom - Time is like money – you can only use it once. The Nordic model buys you time.

What This Means for Children

In America, your future is largely determined by your parents’ income.

The American middle-class child: parents spend $233,610 raising them to age 18 (USDA estimate). Add $100,000+ for college. The young adult begins life with crushing debt. Opportunity is inherited, not earned.

The Danish child: parents’ income matters far less. The state covers education, healthcare, childcare subsidies. University students receive a monthly stipend (≈$900) while studying. The young adult begins life with savings, not debt.

The American system creates dynasties. The Nordic system creates mobility. Which is more “free”?

The Innovation Paradox: Why Security Enables Risk-Taking

Here’s something that surprises Americans: entrepreneurship ecosystem quality is actually rated HIGHER in Denmark and Sweden than in the United States – Denmark consistently ranks among the top 5 globally.

Wait – high taxes are supposed to kill innovation, right?

The opposite is true. When failure doesn’t mean losing healthcare, when starting a business doesn’t risk your children’s education, when you have a safety net – you’re FREE to take risks.

Many Americans with brilliant business ideas stay locked in corporate jobs. Not from lack of ambition. Because they can’t risk losing health insurance.

In Denmark, I can start a business tomorrow. If it fails, I still have healthcare. My children still go to school. I still have a pension. Not a pension that will make me rich, but I can live. The state catches me.

That’s not socialism stifling entrepreneurship. That’s security ENABLING it. The American model traps talented people in “safe” corporate jobs to maintain benefits. The Nordic model frees people to pursue their actual ideas.

“But Wouldn’t High Taxes Kill the Economy?”

Let’s look at the evidence:

GDP per capita (PPP adjusted, 2024):

• USA: $76,000

• Denmark: $68,000

• Difference: 11%

But quality of life metrics:

• Life expectancy: Denmark +3.5 years.

• Infant mortality: Denmark 50% lower.

• Social mobility: Denmark significantly higher.

• Happiness index: Denmark consistently top 3, USA around 15.

• Economic inequality: Denmark far lower.

• Trust in institutions: Denmark among world’s highest.

You give up 11% in raw GDP. You gain decades of life without financial terror. Is that a bad trade?

We generally have the cleanest and most efficient governments in the world. They plan reforms, etc., to maintain efficient and secure institutions.

“But Nordic Countries Are Small and Homogeneous”

This is often code for “it won’t work with diversity.” It’s also wrong.

Denmark has 5.9 million people (about Colorado). Sweden has 10.5 million (about North Carolina). Finland has 5.5 million (about Minnesota). Foreign-born residents in Sweden: 20% – higher than the US at 14%. Copenhagen is as diverse as many American cities. And the model scales: Canada does it with 40 million people.

The real question isn’t size or diversity. It’s political will.

“But Someone Has to Pay for It”

Yes. Everyone does. That’s the point. ALSO the ultra-rich, who in the US pay remarkably little tax but benefit from very cheap workers they can fire at will.

In the Nordic model, the rich pay more, but they also get: an educated workforce, a healthy population, lower crime, social stability, and customers who can afford their products.

In the American model, the rich pay less, but they get: an undereducated workforce, a sick population, high crime, social unrest, and customers drowning in debt.

Even from a purely selfish capitalist perspective, the Nordic model makes more sense long-term. Short-term greed vs. long-term prosperity.

The Debt Reality Check

While Americans debate whether Nordic “socialism” is sustainable, let’s look at who actually has the debt problem:

Country Debt-to-GDP (2025)

Denmark 29.6%

Sweden 34.2%

Norway 42.7%

United States 125.0%

France 116.5%

Italy 136.8%

Source: IMF World Economic Outlook, October 2025

The Nordic countries have among the lowest debt ratios in the developed world. The United States has one of the highest. Which model looks more sustainable?

The Choice We Face

The American model promises freedom through individual success. The Nordic model promises freedom through collective security.

One model says: “You’re on your own – good luck.”
The other says: “We’re in this together – let’s build something.”

The data is clear: Danes have MORE disposable income after essentials. Danes live LONGER lives. Danish children have BETTER opportunities regardless of parents’ income. Danish businesses form at HIGHER rates.

An American can have a six-figure income and still be one illness away from bankruptcy. 37% can’t cover a $400 surprise expense. 530,000 families go bankrupt from medical bills every year. In the richest country in the world.

The American dream is expensive, exhausting, and excludes most Americans.
The Nordic contract is affordable, sustainable, and includes everyone.

It’s not about socialism vs. capitalism.
It’s about short-term greed vs. long-term civilisation.

Not to mention the view of humanity.

Which future do we want? One where we fight each other for scraps? Or one where we build something better, together?

The Danish system is, of course, not perfect. But I know which system I prefer to live under.

The choice is ours.

Greenlanders have the same rights as Danes to health, education and social services, among other things. Therefore, Greenlanders have little to gain by becoming a US state or similar.

*Thanks to reader for suggesting the normalised income comparison that became the centrepiece of this essay. When you subtract what Americans MUST pay privately for healthcare, childcare, education and retirement, the “low tax” advantage doesn’t just disappear – it reverses entirely.

Welcome to 2026.

Republicans are responsible for the actions of Trump & Co.

Not acting is an active personal choice. Everyone in the Trump administration, Republicans in Congress and the Senate, the courts and Republican voters are jointly responsible for the actions of the Trump administration – both in the United States and globally.

The American people have elected Trump and JD Vance based on democratic principles. In other words, they are employed by the American people to look after the interests of the United States.

Hannah Arendt wrote in Personal Responsibility in a Dictatorship: ‘I am afraid that our indifference was even greater than our ignorance.’

I would like to paraphrase this as follows: ‘I fear that our fear is even more dangerous than our wilful blindness and indecision.’

Republicans who criticise the Greenland policy also make sure to praise the president for other things – to avoid falling out of favour. The majority stand like ostriches with their tails in the air and their heads buried in the sand – hence the wilful blindness. If the world comes out unscathed on the other side, the same people will continue as before – without any judgement of their hypocrisy.

All members of Congress and the Senate should be given a copy of John F. Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage.

The Trump administration has clearly shown that it does not want to waste time on Congress. Time and again, it has exposed Congress’s self-imposed powerlessness. As a politician, you are responsible for your government’s actions at all times. So with their inaction, the Republicans are making a political choice.

What is the answer to the following question: Is the bystander to a rape guilty of not intervening?

Being the little guy in ‘the age of predators’

As a Dane, I am extremely intimidated by the United States. I cannot even imagine what it must be like to be a Greenlander right now. Danish newspapers report that many Greenlanders are very afraid.

There are 57,000 Greenlanders living in Greenland. Just under 6 million people in Denmark. Including infants and nursing home residents. We can do nothing against the United States. Nothing!

Lindsey Graham laughs loudly and dismisses it. Rubio says that the US will buy Greenland. Trump says that the use of military force cannot be ruled out. Both Denmark and Greenland are peaceful nations. Supporters of democracy and the rules-based world order.

Just read what it actually says. And think about it for a moment.

The US does not need to ‘own’ Greenland

Greenland is strategically important to the US. The US already has access to and full control over the security situation in Greenland.

Since the defence agreement in 1951 (updated in 2004), the US can establish military bases anywhere in Greenland – they just need to call Copenhagen. The US already has Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Base). Vance visited it in March 2025. The irony is that the US itself has closed four military bases in Greenland over the years. If Washington was concerned about security in the Arctic, they could have just done something about it. They have been able to do so for 74 years, but chose to deprioritise the area.

Vance justifies the White House’s policy towards Greenland and Denmark as a kind of consequence pedagogy: Denmark has not done enough for security in Greenland. That does not explain why the US wants to own something over which it already has full sovereignty and access.

Trump and Vance mock Denmark for buying ‘a dog sled’, which is an extension of the Sirius Patrol (Arctic specialists). They also conveniently fail to mention the 42 billion kroner Arctic arms build-up. The US Navy has a total of two icebreakers to cover the ENTIRE Arctic – one of which is used for spare parts. The truth means nothing to reality TV star Trump, who does what he does best: find one small thing and ridicule his opponent.

Not behaviour befitting a head of state.

Greenland’s own responsibility

One must not be blind to the fact that the Greenlanders share responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. For several years, the Greenlandic elite has overplayed its hand. There is a significant elderly burden, major social challenges, location and climate. Greenland will probably always be dependent on outside support.

The Greenlandic elite has never presented a plan for how Greenland will manage as an independent state – but naively dreams of billions from mining, which will only benefit the elite and foreign companies. As recently as 2 April 2025, Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt said that China is important to Greenland. This is naive to the point of stupidity. The Greenlanders are playing a double game and making the situation worse for both themselves and world peace.

Every time Denmark clears its throat, the colonial card is played. Regardless of the fact that Greenland has not been a colony since 1953.

Politician Jens Napaattooq presented it as a golden opportunity: ‘We must listen to what the US wants and establish a coast guard while saying no to the militarisation of the Arctic.’ Geostrategic naivety bordering on megalomania. Greenland cannot throw itself into Trump’s arms and at the same time believe it can be a demilitarised zone.

The Trump administration fundamentally does not care about agreements it has entered into itself. The US will never allow Greenland to become independent. We are living in ‘the age of predators,’ as Giuliano da Empoli calls it – a perfect characterisation.

Greenland has 25 of the EU’s 34 critical minerals. Neodymium for missiles. Dysprosium for drones. China controls 60% of the world market. For the Vance wing, Greenland is not about security – it is about breaking China’s monopoly.

Budapest Memorandum: A warning

In 1994, the US, the UK and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum. It guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in exchange for the country giving up its nuclear arsenal and joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state.

• 2014: Russia annexes Crimea.

• 2022: Russia invades Ukraine.

• 2025: The US pressures Ukraine to cede territory to the aggressor they themselves guaranteed against.

Everyone in Europe knows what is at stake. If Trump takes over Greenland, NATO will cease to exist. And the White House will not hesitate to blackmail Europe with Ukraine, which they have also abandoned in order to help the Russians. Europe pays for all support to Ukraine. The Trump administration delays deliveries, thereby giving Russia time on the battlefield. The US plays a little comedy, keeping Europe and Ukraine at bay with alleged peace negotiations. The truth is that Trump wants the war over, regardless of the cost to Ukraine and Europe, so that he can once again make money in Russia.

The lesson is simple: only a fool trusts American security guarantees.

‘Only my own mind can stop me’

Trump does not stand alone. Behind him stands an administration of right-wing extremists who lie, misinform and behave in ways that would have caused any respectable government to dismiss them immediately.

It is beyond my comprehension that they get away with what they are doing. There are protests. But consequences? None visible. None effective. Congress is silent. The Senate is silent. The courts tread carefully. The so-called independent institutions have been eroded – they are virtually non-existent.

Only with Greenland do I hear – and here I must make allowances for my ignorance as a Dane – a few Republican protests. Not against the lies. Not against the deportations. Not against the attacks on the rule of law. But against the threat of taking the territory of a NATO country.

It bounces off Trump. To the New York Times on 8 January 2026, he said that he feels he must own Greenland. A psychological need, he says. And at the same time, he says that he does not feel bound by international law. The only thing that can limit him is: ‘My own morality. My own mind.’

De facto, Congress, the Senate and the courts have been rendered dysfunctional. Neither the rule of law nor democracy exist anymore in the United States.

Putin and Xi have won. NATO and the free world are dead in the water.

In Denmark, the media is reporting that Denmark will be forced to give up Greenland in order to remain in NATO. Trump has said something similar. The truth is that the United States is already out of NATO. Trump & Co have actually said so publicly – probably by accident. When the 28-point plan for Ukraine was presented, it stated: “The United States must mediate between Russia and NATO”. The Trump administration does not consider the United States to be part of NATO. This is also evident from their security strategy.

Regardless of whether Maduro was a scoundrel, the Trump administration has not brought about regime change, merely removed one man and turned it into a TV show. BUT it was an illegal action.

The US is alienating itself with its behaviour in Europe, Greenland, Venezuela and the whole region. The US no longer believes it needs others to be a superpower. Trump has acquired a taste for bombing, and the US has created an atmosphere where everyone is afraid of them. The US has a distorted perception that it can do as it pleases in the world simply because its military gives it a kind of monopoly on violence. The whole world is in a constant state of alert.

Trump as a tool – Vance as a project

Trump is vain, boundless, completely unrestrained and completely insane. It is nauseating to hear how even intelligent people practically kiss the floor he has walked on. Trump is also the type who cannot tolerate being given power. It is clear that his megalomania has only grown in the last year.

His ambition to take over Greenland is an expression of egocentric megalomania. He wants to go down in history as the president who expanded the territory of the United States – regardless of the cost.

It is impossible to find meaning in Trump’s rhetorical ramblings. He has neither the intellectual capabilities, the ability for strategic thinking, nor the ability to plan to devise the policy pursued since January 2025. Presumably, he thinks as he speaks – incoherently and like an 8-year-old. He lives in the moment. He does not even consider future implications. Trump just wants to win ‘the moment’, get good TV coverage and make money. Lots of money! And he enjoys the attention.

There is a pattern, and it points in one direction:

Peter Thiel called the Trump 1 administration ‘crazier and more dangerous than expected.’ In 2024, he said: ‘If you hold a gun to my head, I’ll vote for Trump’ – and gave nothing to the re-election campaign in 2020 or 2024. Instead, Thiel gave $15 million to JD Vance in 2022 and introduced him to Trump in 2021. Musk, Sacks and Andreessen lobbied for Vance as VP.

The circle of people around Trump also indicates that Trump has been “colonised” by the Vance wing. Vance and the circle of people around him, on the other hand, have a perfect platform in Trump to pave the way for the political system they want for the United States.

Vance is Thiel’s man. Journalist Dave Weigel summed it up at the 2024 RNC:

Trump is the platform. Vance is the project. Thiel is the architect.

Peter Thiel is already talking about what Vance needs to do to become president in 2028.

Trump is reduced to the tool that will pave the way, while the others reshape the American state behind the scenes. Who is better at creating so much noise that no one notices what is happening? No one! ‘Let’s flood the zone.’

Had Vance deployed ICE, Congress would have protested. Had Vance imposed tariffs, Congress would have protested. Had Vance received a plane from Qatar, Congress would have protested. Had Vance said ‘my only limitation is my own morality’ – need I say more?

The cult surrounding Trump means he gets away with it. Brilliantly spotted by Thiel. As long as Trump gets good TV coverage and believes he is popular, they just need to feed him little notes with keywords for the press conferences, as Rubio is discreetly attempting to do. Vance just needs to keep up the act.

Stephen Miller – Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy – is the daily executive power. He wrote most of the executive orders that have shaken the United States over the past year. NBC News called him ‘the president’s id.’ Miller is a MAGA loyalist, but also the ideologue behind the Monroe Doctrine 2.0. On CNN, he said: ‘It’s about strength, power and might as the iron law of the new world.’

AMERICA FIRST – what does it really mean?

Vance performs MAGA and is all in on America First. Many in Europe have misunderstood this. They thought America First meant that Vance would not intervene anywhere.

America First can mean taking control of other countries if it is to America’s advantage. With the takeover of Greenland, the US is cutting ties with NATO once and for all. Quite in the spirit of Miller, Vance and Thiel.

Vance’s interpretation of Christianity says that you take care of your own first. Venezuela secures oil, rare earths and minerals. Greenland secures rare earth elements. America First is a US independent of China – and if that requires taking from others, then so be it. Because you can.

The rest of the world also needs resources. But we don’t have the military power. And then we have morals, which don’t weigh particularly heavily on Trump, Vance & Co.

A compromise solution?

Denmark could abandon its demand for no nuclear weapons in Greenland – the US has violated it several times anyway. A revised defence agreement. An agreement to keep China out of critical infrastructure and mining. That would address American mistrust of Greenlandic self-government.

But even today, Greenlandic politicians do not seem to have grasped the seriousness of the situation. You cannot play both sides with impunity when you are the smaller party.

The question is whether the US is really willing to accept the political repercussions and irreparable damage to the free democratic world that an annexation of Greenland would entail. This week, a handful of senators are coming to Denmark. We hope for a peaceful and dignified solution that will benefit the democratic world.

Trump feels he must own Greenland. Putin and Xi could not ask for a better weapon against Western dominance in the world.

In the background, Xi Jinping and China stand as a grey eminence and are the real winners in the long term.

Sources

• UN Treaties: Budapest Memorandum

• White House: 2025 National Security Strategy

• Avalon Project: Defence of Greenland Agreement, 1951

• https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/trump-interview-power-morality.html

Literature

• Haberman, Maggie: Confidence Man

• Chafkin, Max: The Contrarian

• McQuade, Barbara: Attack from Within

• Stevens, Stuart: The Conspiracy to End America

• da Empoli, Giuliano: The Age of Predators

January 2026

As a Danish citizen residing in Denmark, I am so tired of insulting claims from Americans. Denmark is NOT socialist. Denmark is not North Korea. If Denmark is socialist, then all religious people are socialist – regardless of whether they call themselves Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus or something else.

We have more to spend after tax than Americans – and we don’t pay for healthcare or education

It is true that we in Denmark pay high taxes – BUT we also have a higher average income, and after tax we have the same disposable income as an American, AND we do not pay to see a doctor, be treated in hospital, or for education at either primary or university level – ALL of this is free in the Nordic countries, including Denmark. In the United States, on the other hand, people live in constant fear of getting sick, being fired and thus losing everything. See my essay attached below:

Denmark’s independent institutions versus American political interference

My daughter is an adult now, so I am not familiar with how much we vaccinate in Denmark now, but when she got the vaccinations recommended, when she was a child. I trust our authorities because, unlike the US, Denmark has strong, credible and INDEPENDENT institutions that politicians have no influence over. I am also not aware of how much vaccination is done in the US.

Child mortality: The United States has twice the mortality rate of Denmark

The infant mortality rate in Denmark (for children under 1 year of age) is approximately 2.6 deaths per 1,000 births in 2024. In the United States, it is 5.3 deaths per 1,000 births in 2024.

The infant mortality rate in Denmark for children under 5 years of age is approximately 3.4 deaths per 1,000 births in 2023. In the US, the figure is approximately 7 deaths per 1,000 births in 2020.

That is twice as high.

So when RFK Jr. wants to reduce your vaccination schedule to the Danish level, perhaps you should ask yourselves: Why does Denmark have half the infant mortality rate of the United States, despite fewer vaccines? The answer is not that we vaccinate less – the answer is that we have a coherent healthcare system where ALL pregnant women receive maternity care, ALL children receive healthcare, and where parents do not fear losing their jobs and insurance if they become ill. Vaccines are just one small piece of a much bigger puzzle.

Subscribe now

Mass shootings: The United States has had 1,700 times more than Denmark in 10 years

If we take something as crazy as your gun laws and mentality around firearms and compare mass shootings in just the last 10 years:

Over a 10-year period (2014-2024), the difference is dramatic:

Denmark: Approximately 3-4 mass shootings during the period:

• 2015: Copenhagen shootings (14-15 February) at Krudttønden and the Great Synagogue - 3 killed

• 2016: Gang-related shooting (mentioned as the last before Fields)

• 2022: Fields shopping mall (3 July) – 3 killed

United States: A total of 5,188 mass shootings from 2014 to 2024

Annual distribution:

• 2014: 272

• 2015-2016: rising to 383

• 2017: 347

• 2018-2019: rising to 414

• 2020: 610

• 2021: 689

• 2022: 644

• 2023: 659

• 2024: 503

This means that the United States has had about 1,700 times more mass shootings than Denmark over the past 10 years – or an average of more than one mass shooting per day, compared to Denmark’s average of less than one per year.

It is important to note that mass shootings are very rare in Scandinavia, which makes Denmark’s figures exceptionally low compared to the epidemic levels in the US.

Well, I say – where is the common sense?

I would never consider living in the United States

So when I am asked whether, as a Dane, I would like to live in the United States compared to living in Denmark, the answer is very clear: I would not even consider it.

The United States threatens us – we were friends, now only on the surface

Compared to Denmark and the Nordic countries, the United States is a warlike nation. You call yourselves Christians and start lecturing us in Europe on how to live our lives. At the same time, you threaten us with all kinds of unpleasantries. We were once friends – now we are only friends on the surface. Your president constantly threatens to invade/steal/buy Greenland – and because of your weapons and attitude, we have to put up with it. This brings us back to the so-called socialist.

What you call socialist, we call charity

What you call socialist, we call charity. It is written in the book that you claim to live by. Your vice-president even squeezed in a meeting with a dying man, just because he – well, what else did he want other than to impose his own selfish desires on a dying man – and perhaps obtain some kind of blessing or manipulate the Catholic population ahead of an upcoming election. Americans are not charitable, and do not live by the book you claim to live by.

In Denmark, EVERYONE has a chance – regardless of their parents’ financial situation

In Denmark, EVERYONE has a chance to become something. EVERYONE has a chance to get a good education; the only thing required is that you attend school and do your homework. No matter how poor your parents are, you can go to a good school, high school and on to university – the only limitation is your abilities and effort in terms of homework, etc.

Free healthcare for all – the same treatment regardless of income

In Denmark, everyone is entitled to treatment at hospitals, doctors, etc. Regardless of income, it is free, and you receive the same treatment. However, if you have the money, you can also go to a private hospital, but this is mostly for sports injuries and cosmetic surgery. In Denmark, you cannot have cosmetic surgery at a public hospital – which is reasonable. No one needs silicone breasts or Frankenstein faces.

Taxes secure the future – not vulgar weddings in Venice

Stop calling Denmark socialist. We have a royal family, which is definitely not socialist. We also have rich people – not Bezos rich, but who the hell needs a vulgar wedding in Venice when children in the US can’t even go to a decent school? Maybe he should pay a little tax instead, so that the US can benefit from a skilled workforce in the future. That’s what taxes do – they secure the future of a country.

A well-educated and healthy population is the foundation of a country’s future

A well-educated and healthy population is the foundation of a country’s long-term development and prosperity. Here are the most important effects:

Economic development:

• Higher productivity: Educated workers are more efficient and can solve complex problems

• Innovation and competitiveness: Stronger education systems promote research, technological development and the knowledge economy

• Economic growth: Investments in human capital typically yield higher returns than physical capital in the long term

• Higher incomes: Better education leads to higher wages and living standards

Health benefits:

• Lower healthcare costs: Prevention reduces treatment costs

• Longer working life: Healthy people can work longer and contribute more to society

• Lower child and maternal mortality: As we saw in our previous discussion – Denmark’s low figures versus the USA

• Better quality of life: Fewer years lived with illness or disability

Social effects:

• Less inequality: Education is historically the strongest social elevator

• Lower crime: Stronger correlation between education and law-abiding behaviour

• Greater social cohesion: Shared values and democratic participation

• Better parenting skills: Educated parents invest more in their children’s development

Demographic advantages:

• Lower birth rates: Educated women have fewer children but invest more in each child

• Later childbirth: Better timing in relation to career and stability

• Less population pressure: More sustainable population development

Political stability:

• Stronger democracy: Educated citizens participate more in democracy

• Better institutions: Competent civil service and less corruption

• Peaceful development: Education reduces the risk of conflict

Concrete examples:

• South Korea: Massive investment in education and health transformed the country from poverty to high income in 50 years

• Scandinavia: The combination of universal education and healthcare created some of the world’s most prosperous and equal societies

• Singapore: Strategic focus on human capital turned a small island state into a global financial hub

Lack of investment leads to a negative spiral and possibly civil war

Long-term effects: A well-educated and healthy population creates a positive spiral: Better education → higher incomes → better health → more productivity → more resources for education and health.

Conversely, lack of investment in human capital creates a negative spiral – as seen in parts of the United States with poor access to education and health, leading to shorter life expectancy, lower social mobility and increased inequality.

I don’t really understand how the US dares to continue down this path, where inequality is growing ever greater with all the weapons in circulation in the country. If you’re not careful, it will end in a spectacular civil war.

Charity versus modern slavery

So what you call socialism, we call an investment in the future and charity – and over 50% of the Danish population is not even a member of a church. What do you call the United States? In any case, not everyone has equal opportunities – I call it modern slavery when people, despite having several jobs, cannot even afford to go to the doctor or give their children a good education.

Yes, we have fewer vaccines on the schedule. But do you know what else we have? Half the infant mortality rate of yours. So maybe – just maybe – Denmark’s success is not about fewer vaccines, but about a completely different social system with respect for humans and view of humanity?

Merry Christmas and happy new year.

The American illusion

When you peel away the rhetoric of the American myth and look at the realities, a completely different truth emerges: in practice, Americans buy privately what we in the Nordic countries get through the community. And they pay more for less. For most Americans, the American dream is an illusion that keeps them in a limited lifestyle and even more in poverty.

The eternal favouritism of the super-rich

The American dream, with its eternal favouritism of the absolute richest at the expense of the middle class and the poor, has led to a dangerous polarisation of the United States. A polarisation that could end in civil war when the smouldering rage finally erupts.

Two parallel modernities – two different worlds

The United States and Northern Europe are two parallel versions of modernity. In the American model, you pay less to the state, but you pay more to the market: health insurance at £800 a month.

University debt of $100,000. Personal contributions for childcare, dentistry, psychiatry, medicine and pensions. Freedom consists of the right to choose – but also the obligation to survive.

The Nordic model

In the Nordic model, you pay more tax, but you gain access to a system where basic security does not depend on your pay slip. Health, education and social security are not luxury goods, but rights. This is not a socialist dream; it is a civilisational contract, shaped by the experience of crisis, war and class struggle. A university education does not depend on your parents’ income, but on your own abilities. Children of single parents can go to university and get a good education. Everyone has the opportunity to have a good life in the Nordic countries.

The American model

An American can have a six-figure income and still be one illness away from bankruptcy. A child can become a financial project, a university education a loan, old age a lottery. That is the price of freedom. And is it really freedom when you have to live in constant fear?

Scandinavia – the cowboys’ eternal scapegoat

In Denmark or Sweden, freedom is the opposite: the freedom not to fear ruin. To get sick without becoming poor. To get an education, even if your parents can’t afford it. To choose a job based on interest, not insurance. We pay high taxes, yes — but we buy something Americans can’t: social peace, trust and time. And freedom!

When comparing median income in the US and the Nordic countries, the figures appear similar at first glance. But behind the statistics lie two different worlds. The American middle class often lives in constant financial tension, pressured by debt and uncertainty. The Nordic middle class lives with fewer luxury goods, but far more existential stability.

Inequality keeps the population in slave-like conditions

Inequality in the US is not only economic, it is psychological. It shapes the entire American identity: the dream of making it on your own, the fear of falling. It creates a society where success is measured in individual survival – not in collective well-being.

Freedom in the American sense is the absence of the state. Freedom in the Nordic sense is the absence of fear. When the state takes responsibility for health, education and welfare, it does not become an enemy of freedom, but its prerequisite. It is an ethical difference that goes back to the deepest layers of our history: the Lutheran idea of equality, the culture of cooperation in small communities, and the belief that community does not weaken the individual – it liberates it.

Is it freedom to live in constant fear?

American freedom is very expensive for the individual because it is bought with the individual’s own money. Nordic freedom is paid for collectively, month by month, in taxes. And perhaps that is precisely what makes it so invaluable: when we share the burden, we also share the security, and out of that grows another form of wealth – one that is not measured in dollars, but in peace, trust and time.

And, not least, a healthy, well-educated population.

Not least, one must assume that when individuals have to fight for survival in their everyday lives, it creates a harsh existence bordering on the uncivilised. In a rich, civilised society, it is not them against us – but us working together to create something valuable for the benefit of us all. The world and our planet are now in a state where we, as humanity, are forced to think beyond our own noses. We need to work together to create a healthy planet with a good environment – not only for our sake, but for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Polarisation only benefits the super-rich in keeping the masses down

Polarisation thrives in environments where “them against us” rhetoric prevails, but it is an outdated and uncivilised approach that those in power use to gather followers and maintain power. Putin has been doing it since 2000. Trump is a master at it. Al Qaeda and ISIS do it.

Who benefits from it? Apart from those in power?

Overregulation

It is true that there is too much overregulation in Europe. In Europe, citizens are catered to at the expense of bureaucratic challenges for businesses. In the US, businesses are catered to at the expense of citizens’ rights and safety.

In reality, regulation of businesses must take into account the safety of citizens and the environment.

When you think about it, ordinary people are still, to a large extent, a kind of slave. BUT in Europe, business regulation must also be relaxed to make it easier to operate and ensure future growth. Instead of fighting each other in trade wars, polarisation and denigration, Europe and the US should work together to ensure a future of growth for the benefit of all.

I am not a Christian. Not even religious. But I am a supporter of democracy, including economic democracy. If we have strong societies and cohesion, we can build a strong future together.

Subscribe now

There is something almost poetic about the fact that the fate of the world currently rests in the hands of three men who, together, have lived for over two centuries. Putin is 72, Xi is 71, and Trump is 78. If we add up their ages, we get 221 years – enough lifetime to have experienced the American Civil War, two world wars and the break-up of the Beatles. But instead of wisdom, the years seem to have brought them only a greater appetite for power, more stubborn pride, fragile vanity and a disturbing ability to turn personal frustrations into global instability.

Act I: Donald and his imaginary friends

Donald Trump lives in a world where he has a ‘very special relationship’ with Vladimir Putin. It's touching, almost. Like when a child insists that their imaginary friend really exists and is sitting right there at the dinner table. The only problem is that this child has access to nuclear weapons and the world's largest economy.

In Alaska, Trump clapped his hands excitedly like a child when Putin arrived. Literally. Ukrainian journalist Andriy Tsaplienko wrote: ‘Soldiers from the most powerful army on the planet roll out the red carpet as they wait for Putin.’ The American president stood and applauded a war criminal while uniformed American soldiers knelt to roll out the red carpet. It is difficult to imagine Abraham Lincoln, Reagan or Obama in the same situation.

Share Marianne’s Substack

The one-sided love

Trump's ‘relationship’ with Putin exists solely in his own head. As Fiona Hill, a former member of Trump's security council, dryly notes: ‘Putin is making fun of him, and if you read the Russian press, they are pretty derisive of him.’ She continues: "Trump seeks confirmation and recognition in the idea that he is one of the greatest men in history and that he has a special connection with Putin, who is also a great man. But that special relationship with Putin has never existed in reality. It was a friendship in Trump's imagination, it was his pipe dream." Trump believes or imagines that Putin and he have some kind of brotherhood, a bond over something that only exists in Trump's imagination.

Trump still dreams of his 100-storey Trump Tower in Moscow – he even planned to offer Putin the penthouse apartment for 50 million dollars. This is corruption so blatant that even a banana republic would blush.

The Alaska humiliation

The meeting in Alaska was nauseating and shameful. Trump had threatened ‘serious consequences’ if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire. But, as has always been the case with Trump when it comes to punishing Russia and Putin, these were empty words. So far, the consequences of Trump's words to Russia have been even more empty words. And now with the violations of NATO airspace – well – again, even more empty words. Trump cannot bring himself to admit that Putin does not give a damn about Trump.

Putin opened the press conference, even though Trump was the host. Putin spoke three times as long as Trump. Putin sarcastically mentioned that Alaska was once Russian. Putin smiled triumphantly, while Trump looked uncomfortable. Sergey Lavrov even arrived wearing a shirt with ‘CCCP’ on it – an unmistakable message to the West.

Act II: The Chinese trap and the irony of rare earth elements

While Trump dances his embarrassing solo dance in front of Putin, Xi Jinping has quietly laid a trap that the West has fallen right into. And the most ingenious thing about it? We built it ourselves.

In our greed for green transition and technological superiority, we have made ourselves totally dependent on Chinese rare earths. As one European politician put it: "Our dependence on Russian oil is mild compared to our dependence on China for critical minerals. We have bet everything on the green economy, and China can shut us down.‘

Jim Farley, CEO of Ford, had to admit in June that a shortage of rare earths had forced the company to temporarily ’close factories."

China's long game

Deng Xiaoping said prophetically in 1987: ‘The Middle East has oil. China has rare earths.’ He was playing the long game. While we in the West changed governments every four years and focused on the next quarterly report, China was thinking in terms of generations. As one Western security official says, ‘It has taken over 20 years to become so dependent on China. And it will take another 20 years to break that dependence.’

China supplies 70% of the equipment Russia uses for its military industry. 80% of the electronic components in Russian combat drones come from China. As Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said directly to EU leaders: China does not want to see Russia lose the war. Regardless of what China says to the West and the US, China actively supports the war in Ukraine. Most recently, downed Russian drones filled with Chinese technology have been found in Ukraine.

Act III: The two who really understand each other

While Trump lives in his fantasy world, Xi and Putin have a real partnership. In 2023, Xi said to Putin: ‘The world is currently undergoing changes the likes of which we have not seen in 100 years, and when we stick together, we are the ones driving those changes.’ Go home and rock the United States – you cannot do a reverse Kissinger here.

‘The two who have a special relationship are Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin,’ explains Fiona Hill. ‘They have met more times than any other world leaders, and they have a real political kinship. They share the same worldview and are from the same generation. It is Trump who does not fit into the picture.’

The fourth horseman: Modi and the Indian paradox

While our three main characters play their roles in the geopolitical drama, Narendra Modi – 74 years old and India's ‘strong man’ – stands in the wings and assesses his options. Modi is the wild card that both the US and China are desperately trying to win over to their side.

Trump elegantly ruined his own cards when, in his eagerness to take credit for peace between India and Pakistan, he burst onto the scene and praised the Pakistani leader. Like Trump, Modi loves to be the centre of attention. He is India's “strong man”, and he wants the credit for peace himself.

India as a crucial piece

The math is simple and brutal: ‘The US population is 340 million. China's is 1.4 billion.’ Without India on its side, the US simply does not have the talent pool it needs to compete. Modi knows this and proudly proclaimed: ‘Driven by India's youth, we are making remarkable progress in innovation and the application of technology.’

At the same time, Modi continues undeterred to buy cheap Russian oil, refine it and sell it on to Europe – profiting on both sides of the conflict.

The fifth horseman: Netanyahu and the doctrine of eternal war

Benjamin Netanyahu – 75 years old and Israel's longest-serving prime minister – fits perfectly into this grim ensemble of ageing leaders who prioritise personal survival and power over human life.

Netanyahu, as Trump noted, also has ambitions for the Nobel Peace Prize. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife. While he bombs Gaza into ruins, he dreams of being hailed as a peacemaker.

Netanyahu has perfected the art of political survival through conflict. When his corruption cases get too close, the conflict escalates. He has transformed Israel from a nation born of Holocaust survivors' dream of ‘never again’ into a state now itself accused of committing war crimes.

The heir: Peter Thiel and the architect of the future - Silicon Valleys Machiavelli

While the five old men play their obvious power games, Peter Thiel operates in the shadows with a far more sophisticated strategy. He publicly criticises China's surveillance state while building exactly the same tools for Western governments through Palantir. He warns against foreign interference while his political protégés undermine support for Ukraine.

Thiel represents perhaps the most dangerous type of player in this drama: he is intelligent enough to see the old men's weaknesses, young enough to outlive them all, and cynical enough to profit from the chaos they create. While Trump applauds Putin, Thiel's Palantir collects data on all of us.

The most disturbing thing is that Thiel – unlike the old men – is not motivated by ambition or nostalgia. He is motivated by a cold, calculated vision of a post-democratic future in which technology oligarchs like himself hold the real power. And he has placed his man JD Vance in the White House to take over when Trump, with his noise, has diverted attention from everything that is now going on behind the scenes in the United States. Not good news for Europe.

Europe's existential crisis

Europe is in an almost impossible situation. Fiona Hill states: ‘We are basically in Europe prisoners of these two guys’ – Putin and Trump.

When seven European leaders showed up at the White House to support Zelensky, Trump enthusiastically wrote: "We have never had so many European leaders here at one time. A great honour for America!!!" But it is not an honour for the US – on the contrary – it is to protect Zelensky from the shameless mockery that only a total ignoramus can subject a person and a nation fighting for their survival to.

As Fiona Hill concludes: ‘The message in all this must be that Europeans need to come together and do something that really does not come easily to them: they need to devise a strategy together.’

The United States as ‘a sick nation’

The US is now ruled by greed at all levels. The US is a sick nation run by an emperor without any clothes on and an American tech-oligarchy elite that has absolutely no connection to the everyday life of the average American. Health and education are only for the few.

The US has become a pathetic nation that does not take good care of its own. It may well be that European leaders and other heads of state travel to the US and flatter Trump in the most nauseatingly pathetic way, but behind his back they laugh at him – Putin and Xi laugh the loudest and are the winners in Trump's chaotic politics.

The real tragedy

The most tragic thing about all this is what we could have achieved instead. THERE ARE NO LIMITS TO WHAT HUMANITY CAN ACHIEVE IF WE WORK TOGETHER AND NOT AGAINST EACH OTHER. OLD MEN LIKE XI, PUTIN AND TRUMP SHOULD NOT STOP THIS.

Instead of cooperation, we see how the Russians are bombing Kyiv, civilians and children with impunity. More than 600 Russian drones and bombs hit the city on a Thursday night about a month ago. Twenty-three Ukrainians died, the EU diplomatic building was hit, and eight civilians were found in the rubble of an apartment block – one of them was a child.

Putin is ready to fight to the last Ukrainian soldier and the second-to-last Russian soldier because he is convinced that Ukraine will run out of soldiers and political support before Russia runs out of its deep resources and Trump's indirect support.

The seed of hope

However, there is a glimmer of hope. LET US USE THE LESSONS AND EXPERIENCE FROM THE LAST 3.5 YEARS TO BUILD A STRONG FUTURE FOR US ALL.

Europe is slowly beginning to wake up. The EU must work to maintain and develop a stable financial system that can stand up to and replace the US Federal Reserve, where Trump or future presidents can be expected to abuse their power.

Perhaps this is the ultimate paradox: the desperate attempts of old men to cement their legacies will likely be what finally makes the world realise that we need something radically different.

The emperor has no clothes. Putin is not a genius, he is a murderous gangster. Xi is not a visionary, he is a control freak who is terrified of a Gorbachev emerging in China. And Trump? He is a huge narcissist who lives and breathes for attention. He cares so much about what people think of him that anyone who speaks ill of him is FAKE NEWS – and he is so stupid that he does not understand that they might be right. No self-reflection there. It is sickening to see the British royal family and European politicians fawning so obsequiously in front of the cameras. The world is now also ruled by vanity. The moment the world and journalists choose to ignore Trump, he will collapse like a house of cards.

But when these men are finally gone – THEY WILL BE DEAD IN MAXIMUM 15 YEARS – the world will still be here. Damaged, scarred, but still here.

A personal appeal

I write this as a parent, as a citizen, as a human being who refuses to accept that my children should grow up in a world defined by the hatred and greed of old men.

When I see Trump applauding Putin enthusiastically, I think of all the Ukrainian parents who have lost their children. When I read about China's monopoly on rare earth elements, I think of the planet we are leaving behind. When I see images of a bombed-out Gaza, I think that humanity has apparently learned nothing from World War II. When I hear about Modi's oppression or Thiel's surveillance, I think of the freedom our children may never know.

But I also think of hope. Of the young Ukrainians defending their country. Of the brave Russians protesting against the war despite the risks. On all the millions of people around the world who choose compassion over hatred, cooperation over conflict, every single day.

Right now, a few people are choosing to rule the world based on power and greed. But it doesn't have to stay that way. We can choose differently. We MUST choose differently.

For the sake of our children. For the sake of the future. For the sake of humanity.

The old men will soon be gone. The question is: What kind of world will we leave behind for those who come after us? We make that choice now. Every day. With every action.

Let us ensure that when our children write the history of this time, they can write: ‘That was when the adults finally said stop. That was when they chose the future over the past. That was when they built bridges instead of digging ditches.’

How long must we pay the price for the ambition of old men?

Is there hope for us and our children? A famous quote from Kafka says: ‘There is plenty of hope, endless hope – just not for us.’ But hope is not a strategy. We must and will build stronger and healthier democracies that power-hungry demagogues cannot destroy. We must fact-check our information. Teach our children about the importance of community and healthy relationships, etc. Can we do it?

This is no time to wait. It is time to act.

The answer is still blowing in the wind. But the wind turbines that capture that wind? They are made from rare Chinese minerals.

Welcome to the great irony of the 21st century.

Subscribe now

There are moments in history when a single gesture reveals everything. When Trump clapped his hands as Putin walked toward him on the red carpet in Alaska, the world did not just see one president meeting another. We saw the leader of the free world hail a war criminal.

The anatomy of humiliation

The meeting in Alaska was not diplomacy – it was theatre. And Putin was the director.

Putin opened the press conference, even though Trump was the host. Putin spoke three times as long as Trump. Putin sarcastically mentioned that Alaska was once Russian. Putin smiled triumphantly while Trump looked uncomfortable.

It was a masterclass in psychological domination. A former KGB officer systematically breaking down the world's most powerful man in front of rolling cameras.

But the worst part was not Putin's behaviour – it was Trump's. For the first time in his presidency, Trump kept his mouth shut and let another man run the show.

The narcissistic president, who can never stand being overshadowed by others, voluntarily gave Putin the stage.

Why? Why is Trump so humble and obsequious towards Putin?

Share Marianne’s Substack

Share

The bloodiest joke in history

The irony is brutal: at the precise moment when Putin is weaker than ever, Trump chooses to save him.

Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's. Putin has lost Syria. Iran is weakened. Even China is embarrassed by Russia's performance in Ukraine. Trump could have crushed Putin with a snap of his fingers – instead, he threw him a lifeline.

It's like watching Churchill invite Hitler to tea in 1943, or Reagan embrace Brezhnev at the height of the Cold War. A historic opportunity, thrown away for... what exactly?

The price of weakness

While Trump applauded, Putin was probably thinking about the 20,000 Ukrainian children his forces have kidnapped. About the 13,580 civilians his troops have murdered since February 2022.

On the torture chambers in Bucha, Irpin, Mariupol.

And he knew that the American president had just given him the legitimacy to continue.

For that was the message from Alaska: Putin can commit all the war crimes he wants. America will still treat him as a respectable head of state.

Russia's weakness – Trump's wasted opportunity

Putin is weaker than at any time since the invasion began. The economy is on the brink of collapse. Russia is marginalised in the Middle East. China is dissatisfied. Allies such as Armenia feel betrayed. On the battlefield, Russia is losing thousands of soldiers every week to capture insignificant villages. A wise American president would have used this moment to put maximum pressure on Putin. But Trump did the opposite: he gave Putin legitimacy, no sanctions and a free opportunity to appear as an equal to the superpower. Russia may have a lot of territory, but it is NOT a superpower. Russia's economy is equivalent to that of Spain.

The result? Putin strengthened his position. Russia got some breathing space. And the US humiliated itself.

Europe as the adult in the room

While Trump is bowing down to Russia, Europe must step up as the adult party. The joint statement by European leaders after the meeting was crystal clear: ‘The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine.’

It is Europe that now bears the responsibility for defending Western values. It is Europe that must say no to Trump and Putin if they try to divide Ukraine between them like a cake.

And it is Europe that must put an end to the absurd situation where we send weapons to Ukraine with one hand and pay for Putin's war with the other through energy purchases.

Europe must immediately stop buying energy from Russia and India and instead buy from alternative suppliers – possibly the United States. This is something they can offer Trump in exchange for continued US support for the war in Ukraine. And it could really hurt Russia.

Putin got everything he wanted: no sanctions and back on the field

Trump has now threatened Russia with harsh reprisals six times, and nothing has ever happened. Six times Trump has TACOed on his threats. Trump appears very weak when he constantly shouts about punishing Russia, but then Trump blinks when Putin ignores Trump. On the other hand, Trump has no problem punishing Ukraine for being invaded by Russia.

Lavrov and Putin laughed all the way back to Moscow on the plane.

Strategic suicide

Trump does not understand that he is committing strategic suicide. By legitimising Putin, he is not only weakening Ukraine – he is undermining the entire American-led world order.

Why should anyone respect American demands for human rights when their president praises a child kidnapper? Why should anyone fear American sanctions when Trump repeatedly threatens Putin without following through on his threats?

Putin understands this perfectly. He has transformed Trump from a superpower into a paper tiger.

And he has done so without firing a single shot at American forces.

Xi's quiet triumph

In Beijing, Xi Jinping is surely watching the situation with satisfaction. His strategy is working: keep Russia going as a proxy against the West, but let Putin take all the diplomatic and economic blows.

Trump thinks he can play Putin off against Xi. In reality, the two autocrats have long since coordinated their strategy. Putin provides chaos and destabilisation, Xi reaps the geopolitical gains.

Anne Applebaum's truth

As historian Anne Applebaum said: ‘The only reason Ukraine has not yet won is that we have not decided that Ukraine should win.’

That is the crux of the problem. The West – and Trump in particular – has never had the will to let Ukraine win decisively. Instead, we have opted for a protracted war of attrition that is costing hundreds of thousands of lives and giving Putin time to consolidate his gains.

Congress's last chance

Congress must now step in and save what can be saved of America's credibility. Republicans and Democrats must send a clear signal together: Trump does not speak for America when he hugs Putin.

But will they? Or will they remain silent and watch as their president transforms the United States from the world's only superpower into Putin's useful idiot?

What the world sees

Friday, 15 August 2025 marks a turning point. Not because Trump and Putin met – such meetings may be necessary. But because the American president chose to show weakness and admiration for a man who systematically commits genocide.

For decades, America has claimed the role of champion of freedom. Trump abandoned that mandate the moment he clapped his hands for Vladimir Putin.

History will remember the image: an American president bowing to a Russian tyrant. That is not just Trump's legacy – it is America's shame.

And somewhere in a Ukrainian bunker, a soldier wonders why the leader of his allies is praising the man who is killing his comrades, stealing his children and raping his wife/sister/mother.

Perhaps Putin understands better than Trump what is going on: this is not friendship, it is capitulation. Trump craves Putin's recognition so much that he is willing to ignore all the facts – it is embarrassing AND dangerous.

Subscribe now

Nothing is more dangerous than a person in power who thinks he is smarter than everyone else and refuses to listen. Donald Trump is that person.

Putin shows up prepared down to the last detail, accompanied by skilled negotiators such as Lavrov.

Trump shows up with his gut instincts and believes he can rule the world based on them. The problem is that his gut is wrong.

Obama couldn't be fooled – Trump can

Imagine the contrast: Trump and Obama are almost diametric opposites.

One is intelligent, well-read, cultured, structured and well-educated. The other – well... And that is disastrous in the position of the most powerful man in the world. Obama would have surrounded himself with experts, interpreters and diplomats who analyse situations and prepare scenarios.

And then there's Trump, who rejects knowledge and fills the room with his ignorance. Obama has morals and insight. Trump has impulsiveness and vanity.

And Putin knows it. That's why he gives Witkoff medals to take home and manipulates Witkoff into blindly repeating Russian propaganda, for example in interviews with Tucker Carlson – it's hopelessly naive of the US.

You could say it's like letting a paedophile read bedtime stories to your kid.

Trump has already lost before the meeting even starts

Today, 15 August, Donald Trump is meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to discuss the war in Ukraine. But the problem isn't the meeting itself – it's that Trump has already thrown all his cards on the table.

In early summer, Trump already proclaimed that he was willing to recognise Crimea as part of Russia and the other occupied territories as de facto part of Russia. He was willing to normalise diplomatic and economic relations, including lifting all sanctions against Russia.

And, not least, Trump would forget all about war reparations and war crimes. So, as a reasonable person, one might think: What is there to negotiate? Trump has already laid all his cards on the table.

The only thing left to negotiate is Putin's demand for the rest of Ukraine and the installation of a Russian puppet as president of Ukraine – and Trump will probably give Putin that too. Why not? Trump seems to be possessed by the Russian devil.

Share Marianne’s Substack

Naivety disguised as negotiation: Witkoff, the real estate agent who is going to save the world

Steve Witkoff has no diplomatic or political experience – he is a trained lawyer and subsequently a real estate developer. And let's not forget that Trump is too.

Trump is a property developer (with numerous settlements and bankruptcies) and a reality TV star – those are his professional skills.

Witkoff prepares for world negotiations by reading a few books and watching war films and Netflix documentaries, and thus prepared, he meets the most skilled negotiators in Russia. Witkoff has meetings with Putin and the Russians without interpreters or minutes.

After the meeting with Putin, Witkoff could not even remember the number or names of the Ukrainian-occupied areas. In an interview, Witkoff said directly: ‘They are Russian-speaking, and there have been referendums in which the overwhelming majority of the population has indicated that they want to be under Russian rule.’ He couldn't even remember the names: ‘Donbas, Crimea... Lugansk, and there are two others.’

Witkoff has no idea what he is talking about. He uncritically repeats the Kremlin's lies about ‘referendums’ held at gunpoint. As the ultimate psychological trick, Putin awarded Witkoff an honour intended for a CIA employee whose son died fighting for Russia. Putin knows exactly who he is dealing with.

Putin: 100% impulse control versus Trump's 0%

Putin is a driven negotiator who is trained in manipulating his victims. Trump is Putin's victim. Putin is 100% impulse control – Trump is 0% impulse control. Putin will be prepared for multiple scenarios for this meeting; he will have familiarised himself with all the potential outcomes.

He will lure the impulsive, greedy Trump with everything that glitters in the sun.

Trump believes that Putin and him have a relationship. They do not. Putin is using Trump because he is easy to manipulate. Who can forget Trump boasting that Putin only talks to him – well, that's probably because no one else wants to talk to Putin.

Trump wants to be part of history. Putin is writing it with blood.

A relationship built on fascination and money

Trump's fascination with Putin dates back to the 1980s. As early as 1987, Trump dreamed of building a Trump Tower in Moscow and wrote in his book ‘The Art of the Deal’ about building a luxury hotel ‘across from the Kremlin in partnership with the Soviet government’.

His dreams never came true, but the money flowed.

As Trump's own son Don Jr. admitted in 2008, ‘massive Russian private funds’ poured into Trump's businesses and properties in the 2000s. Trump's fascination with Putin is well documented in his own statements. As early as 2007, he praised Putin on CNN, saying that the Russian president was ‘doing a fantastic job of rebuilding Russia's image.’

In 2013, before the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, Trump tweeted enthusiastically: ‘Do you think Putin will be at the Miss Universe pageant in November in Moscow – if so, will he be my new best friend?’ After his trip to Russia, Trump continued to praise the warm welcome he received.

When popular uprisings in 2014 forced Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to flee and an angry Russia occupied Crimea and destabilised eastern Ukraine, Trump expressed admiration for Putin. He supported Putin's view that American exceptionalism is a ‘very dangerous’ notion.

After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Trump praised the decisiveness of the attack on the radio: ‘This is genius.’ During the interview, the former president said that Putin ‘loves his country.’

Michael McFaul, former US ambassador to Russia, warns: ‘If you go into the meeting unprepared, you could be fooled by Putin.’ Trump has fired all advisers who actually know anything about Russia and Ukraine. Trump does not listen to briefings, does not read memos and is historically illiterate.

Bloodbath for territorial crumbs

While Trump and Putin hold their ‘historic meeting’ - alone with their interpreters - without records or notes, the slaughter continues. Russian casualties are approaching 1 million killed and wounded, while Ukraine has suffered nearly 400,000 casualties.

Up to 250,000 Russian soldiers are dead – more than in all Soviet and Russian wars combined since World War II. This does not include all the stolen children, war crimes and material destruction committed by the Russians.

Despite these massive losses, Russia has only secured 1% of Ukrainian territory since January 2024, and the advance is as slow as 50 metres a day in some areas.

The Russians are committing war crimes every single day.

They execute prisoners of war and civilians, rape them – both men and women – probably including children, torture them, electrocute them and beat them. Just take the Russians' treatment of the award-winning Ukrainian journalist Viktorija Roshchyna, who returned from Russian captivity as a corpse, with her brain, eyes and larynx missing. In addition, there were clear signs of torture.

Trump ignores these facts. For him, Ukraine is a negotiation – not a fight for freedom, integrity and dignity. The Ukrainian people have been reduced to pawns in a vain man's attempt to get his name on a peace agreement.

Trump is handing Putin the jackpot

Trump is really doing Putin a huge favour by inviting him to a bilateral summit. The meeting gives Putin international recognition and legitimacy as an international player, despite the fact that the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for him for war crimes.

At no point has Trump imposed the slightest punishment or sanction on Russia. In return, the Trump administration has repeatedly punished Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. In March, he cut off arms supplies to Ukraine. In June, the Americans literally stopped planes from taking off with Patriot missiles, Hellfire missiles and Stinger missiles.

Europe: Financing its own demise

Europe, the United Kingdom, Norway, Canada, South Korea, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and other well-functioning democracies must stand together and make it clear that an agreement that does not include Ukraine and Europe is not acceptable.

Europe must simply stop buying energy from Russia NOW.

It is insane that Europe is pouring money into Ukraine's defence, into the EU's defence, while at the same time giving money to Russia through energy purchases, thereby financing Russia's war against Ukraine. Not to mention the possible future war against Europe.

Europe actually has strong cards in its hand – but does it dare to play them – does Europe dare to say no?

Europe must not allow itself to be run over. Europe actually has stronger cards in its hand than many people think. Europe has plenty of power – not only moral, but also economic and geopolitical. As French historian Françoise Thom points out, throughout the war, Europeans have underestimated their own capabilities and their position vis-à-vis Putin – and Trump, for that matter.

Europe must realise that it has cards to play. Trump's America will not be enough to get the Russian economy back on its feet. Apparently – without knowing it – Europeans find themselves in a strong position. Historically, the Russian empire has only survived thanks to Europeans who have been co-opted by Russian power.

With Trump, the US is currently saving Putin's regime, which Russia needs to extort money from Europe. Europe's interest, on the other hand, lies in Russia being freed from its autocracy. We must not give the Russian regime the means to bribe its population and maintain a gigantic military and police apparatus directed against us. We must stop the massive disinformation, hybrid warfare, sabotage and polarisation that the Russians direct against Europe on a daily basis.

Europe has a clear advantage: Putin needs European money and technology. After Russia's disastrous experience with autarky and a shift towards China, the Russians are painfully aware of their dependence on Europe if they do not want to end up as a Chinese vassal state. Europeans must therefore make it clear now that trade – including gas purchases – will not resume with Russia until it has withdrawn from ALL occupied territories and war reparations have been paid – possibly via frozen funds. The EU's energy purchases from Russia are therefore not in Trump's interest.

If Trump makes a bad deal with Putin, Europe must have the courage to say no. Europe's short-term economic interests must not be sacrificed for an illusory peace that only gives Putin time to prepare his next attack.

History remembers – today's leaders must remember that photo opportunities with the Mussolini or Hitler of today are unlikely to enhance their legacy. We remember Chamberlain's misjudgement of Hitler. Who knows whether Trump will end up a pariah in that league – play your cards right and play them smart.

This is not the Ukraine war – it is the Third World War in embryo

What Trump apparently does not understand is that this is not just a war between Russia and Ukraine. It is Russia and China's war against the West AND the United States. The visible battlefield is Ukraine – but there are many other battlefields: China's fentanyl war against the US, the disinformation war, the trade war, the flooding of markets with cheap goods, etc. Today, war can be waged in many ways. The latest example is Russia's intrusion into the US courts.

Putin still believes he can win the war and force Ukraine into Russia. That will always be his goal. Trump cannot change that. This is a war for ALL of Ukraine. Putin will never give up his claim to bring Ukraine into Russia's sphere of influence. Upon his arrival in Alaska, Lavrov wore a T-shirt with “USSR” or CCCP on it – surely Eastern Europe understands the symbolic value of that?

Disrespectful ignorance towards Ukraine

It is truly disrespectful of the US and Trump not to invite Zelensky to the meeting. Zelensky naturally refuses to cede any territory before the Trump-Putin meeting. That would be rewarding Russia for murdering the Ukrainian people, stealing Ukrainian children and destroying Ukraine as a country.

The Ukrainian people deserve peace and are not a commodity to be traded between two old, greedy, power-hungry, vain men. A dignified peace must be achieved.

As European leaders said in a joint statement: ‘The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine.’

A reliable peace is only possible with Ukraine at the negotiating table, with full respect for Ukraine's sovereignty and without recognition of the occupation.

Donald Trump has no right to give Ukraine away, but he probably doesn't care as long as he has the prospect of getting a Trump Tower in Moscow.

The way forward: support, not surrender

The best way to end the war is to supply weapons to Ukraine, impose sanctions on Russia and provide economic support to Ukraine. If, on the other hand, the US chooses to ease sanctions against Russia, it will make life easier for Putin and his government and prolong the war/occupation of Ukraine.

Putin and Russia must acknowledge that the invasion was illegal and pay war reparations and for the restoration of Ukraine. After all, it is the Russians who have destroyed the country. Alternatively, the EU, the United Kingdom and the United States must use the frozen Russian assets for the restoration of Ukraine.

The verdict of history – a reflection of dangerous incompetence?

Trump thinks he is the world champion of negotiation. But he is incompetent, naive and lacking in insight. He does not learn, he does not listen and he acts impulsively. And he thinks it's all about him.

It's not. It's about the future of Europe. It is about democracy. About freedom. About dignity. About respect. It is about a population in Ukraine that is not for sale. Trump has no right to give Ukraine away.

Today, Friday 15 August, will show whether Trump understands the seriousness of the situation or whether he will go down in history as the American president who gave Putin Ukraine. Fortunately, if things go wrong, it will be Trump's responsibility alone. But the price will be paid by millions of Ukrainians – and ultimately by all of us.

History will judge Trump if he fails. But it is Ukraine, Europe and the rest of the free world that will pay the price.

Peace without Ukraine is not peace – it is treason.

Subscribe now

There is something wrong with the way we measure success and what is acceptable when a president can behave like a narcissistic tyrant and still mobilise millions of Americans – not to mention Congress and the courts, when CEOs can destroy thousands of lives to boost share prices, when common decency is considered political correctness – then we have reached the point where ruthlessness is not only tolerated, but rewarded and celebrated.

In his book ‘The Age of Predators,’Giuliano da Empoli describes how modern politics has been taken over by what he calls ‘predators’ – figures who thrive on chaos and exploit the weaknesses of the system for their own gain. But Empoli's analysis goes deeper than just politics. It describes a fundamental transformation of how power works in the 21st century – and nowhere is this transformation more visible than in America.

But Trump did not emerge in a vacuum. Many of his methods were first perfected by Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. Berlusconi was the prototype of the type of leader that Trump later adopted – so much so that many analysts call Trump ‘the American Berlusconi.’ Berlusconi showed that it was possible to survive as a democratic leader even while openly despising democratic norms, and his success inspired authoritarian populists such as Putin, Orban, Trump and others. All of them with contempt for authority and common decency.

The asshole mentality has become a kind of social strategy.

Berlusconi's blueprint

The Italian media mogul and politician created the type of leadership that would later dominate American politics.

Berlusconi built his political power on his television empire. He literally controlled what Italians watched and understood early on that politics in modern society is about show, not substance. Trump adopted the exact same model through reality TV and later social media. Both proved that political legitimacy can be bought through control of the narrative.

Perhaps more importantly, Berlusconi normalised the idea that the rules do not apply to the rich and powerful. His blatant corruption, sex scandals and court cases became entertainment rather than political scandals.

His strategy was simple: make the scandals so constant that they lose their shock value. Trump copied this approach with complete precision. Who can forget: ‘Grab them by the pussy’? Berlusconi also represented the fusion of business power and political power – kleptocracy disguised as populism.

He used political office to protect his business empire and vice versa. The Trump administration was strikingly reminiscent of this style of government: nepotism (the Kushner family/Trump sons vs. Berlusconi's children), crypto, acceptance of expensive gifts such as planes, use of office for personal enrichment, constant attacks on the free press.

Berlusconi's ‘Forza Italia’ and Trump's ‘America First’ use the same populist nationalism of ‘making the country great again,’ while both legitimised extremist allies and undermined the justice system when it threatened their interests.

The system rewards predators

American society has built structures that directly promote what we might call the ‘asshole mentality.’ Take hyper-individualism: the myth of the ‘self-made man’ creates not only the idea that success is self-made, but also that empathy is a weakness. It's pretty much the prototype of every Hollywood action film.

If anyone can do what they want by working hard enough, then those who fail are simply not dedicated enough (J.D. Vance, Hillbilly Elegy). This rationalises ruthlessness as a virtue. Empoli describes how predators do not follow the same rules as the rest of us. They exploit the complexity of the system and the decency of ordinary people.

In the American context, we see this perfectly illustrated in the CEO culture, where leaders are rewarded for ‘making the tough decisions’ — even when that means destroying people's lives, the environment, and entire communities to increase profits by two per cent.

Celebrity culture as predator training

Where Empoli focuses on political predators, America has created an entire reality TV industry around the worship of manipulation, arrogance and narcissism as entertainment. Donald Trump's career is the perfect example: he became famous for being ruthless on TV, and this became his platform for political power.

But it was social media and algorithms that acted as steroids and imploded this development into our consciousness. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter/X, YouTube and others are designed to maximise engagement – and nothing creates engagement like anger, outrage and controversy.

The algorithms systematically reward content that provokes strong reactions, which means that the most ruthless voices are amplified. Yuval Noah Harari has been arguing for years that social media should be held accountable for their algorithms, and his warnings are proving more and more relevant every day.

Algorithms act as tools of manipulation that not only spread misinformation but actively shape our emotions and thoughts to maximise profits for the Tech Bros. Tech companies can no longer hide behind claims of being ‘neutral platforms’ when their algorithms deliberately promote the most controversial content solely to increase their owners' profits.

American media systematically celebrate personalities who break norms and ‘speak their mind’ – even if what they think is often destructive nonsense. Social media has democratised this process: now any narcissist can build a following by being sufficiently provocative. Anti-intellectualism makes it worse: ignorance is presented as authenticity, and expertise is viewed with suspicion as elitist.

Algorithms create echo chambers where assholes can find their tribe and radicalise each other. What was once socially unacceptable behaviour becomes normalised through repetition and reinforcement. When millions of people see the same type of reckless content every day, it becomes the new normal.

Structural recklessness

The fundamental problem is structural. Aggressive business behaviour and winner-takes-all capitalism create systems where recklessness is not just accepted – it is cultivated. When healthcare, education and even clean drinking water are commodities, survival becomes a struggle and leads to a lack of community spirit. In such a system, solidarity becomes a luxury that only the privileged can afford.

Empoli's predators thrive in chaos because chaos provides opportunities for those willing to break the rules. America's political system contributes to the organisational chaos: the lack of social safety nets means that families are constantly on the brink of financial collapse, and illness or job loss often means ruin. The gun culture means that any disagreement can potentially become deadly. America has a political system that exclusively serves and protects business, reducing citizens to consumers for the benefit of corporations. This creates the kind of stress and fear that predators thrive on.

Berlusconi proved that modern democracies were more fragile than assumed. He showed that you could buy the media, buy politicians and buy voters – and still be considered legitimate. Trump built on this model and is implementing it in the world's largest democracy. Neither of them represents a political ideology, but what Empoli calls the predator mentality: abuse of power disguised as anti-establishment rebellion.

Share Marianne’s Substack

Exceptionalism as immunity

American exceptionalism functions as the predator's wolf sign. The idea that America is God's chosen nation creates a sense that normal moral rules do not apply in America. America does not practise charity – again, J.D. Vance on immigration – and who, incidentally, forces a visit on a dying man (Vance's visit to the Pope was probably not at the invitation of the Vatican).

We see this everywhere: from American war crimes that are never punished to environmental destruction that is rationalised as an economic necessity. Empoli points out how predators always present themselves as victims, even though they are the ones wielding power.

In the American context, we see this when rich white men claim to be victims of ‘cancel culture’ while using their power to crush any opposition.

The weaknesses of democracy

It is tragic that democratic systems are particularly vulnerable to predators. Empoli describes how predators exploit the slowness and complexity of democratic institutions. While decent politicians try to follow the rules and seek compromise, predators simply break the rules and create facts on the ground – or at least the facts they want us to see – regardless of whether they are true or not.

Social media has made it easier for assholes by giving them direct access to millions of people without any journalistic or source-critical intermediaries. Trump could tweet lies and misinformation directly to his followers without anyone being able to fact-check them in real time. By the time someone finally fact-checks, the original reader/target audience has already moved on and never discovers that it was a lie. Algorithms ensure that the most extreme messages are spread as quickly and widely as possible, because social media rewards provocation, extreme views and narcissistic behaviour.

In America, we see this in the ‘legal but unethical’ culture, where anything that is not explicitly prohibited is considered acceptable. This creates an environment where unscrupulous actors can exploit the system's gullibility – and sometimes naivety, as older legislation is not adapted to the predators' platforms and hunting grounds. At the same time, algorithms reward those who are willing to go the furthest in their rhetoric and behaviour.

Will we end up like The Hunger Games?

Empoli's diagnosis is frighteningly accurate, but he offers no easy solutions – and that seems hopeless. The problem is not individual ‘bad apples,’ but systems that reward ruthlessness and punish decency.

To combat the predators, we must fundamentally change the structures that make their behaviour profitable. This means building social safety nets that make survival a right rather than a privilege. It means regulating the media so that narcissism is no longer sold as entertainment. It means creating economic systems that measure success by something other than profit.

Until we change the systems, predators will continue to thrive while the rest of us pay the price – and we may end up as extras in Mad Max or The Hunger Games.

But first and foremost, it means recognising that the ‘asshole mentality’ is not an individual character flaw – it is a symptom of systemic dysfunction. Predators rule because we have built systems that allow them to do so – BUT also because we, the ordinary citizens, allow them to do so. We put up with it. We like their posts.

We remain silent, watch TV and continue our hamster wheel – Trump is quite entertaining, after all – and completely and utterly shameless. A complete asshole – all the way through.

As Aaron James writes in Assholes: A Theory (2012): ‘An asshole is someone who allows himself special advantages in social relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunises him against the complaints of other people.’

It's not just acceptable to be an asshole in the United States – it's often the path to success in the United States.

The point is that the cultural structures in the United States reward the asshole mentality. And that makes it more common and acceptable than we see in many other Western societies.

And if you reward a behaviour enough times, you get more of it – that goes for dog training – and for people.

Subscribe now

Sometimes I consider leaving society, living a hermit's life in total ignorance. Buying a small house far out in the countryside – which is relative, as I live in Denmark, where the furthest you can get from the nearest town is 30 km.

‘The less you know, the better you sleep,’ is the title of one of David Satter's books – it sounds very appealing.

The child's hidden face

This morning, I read in the newspaper about Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq, a one-and-a-half-year-old boy with an emaciated body wearing a plastic bag as a nappy. The picture hurts my heart and makes me want to cry. His skin is so thin that you can see every bone in his little body. I cannot even imagine how that little boy must feel – or his mother, for that matter. Perhaps he is already dead?

Photographer Ahmed Jihad Ibrahim Al-arini/Ritzau Scanpix - the boy’s name is Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq. He is 1,5 years old.

The UN says that a third of the population has not eaten for several days. Meanwhile, Israel is conducting a PR campaign claiming that it bears no responsibility for the starvation or killings of Palestinian civilians. And it is all Hamas' fault. If you have read Magnus Ranstorp's ‘Hamas,’ you can partly understand the argument, but not the means. Hamas is not all Palestinians – and it is safe to say that the children had nothing to do with 7 October. How can any human being place restrictions on emergency aid to children?

The unique evil of human beings

How can people be so cruel to each other? As far as I know, human beings are the only creatures that consciously perform evil acts against other creatures – without seeing anything wrong in doing so. Human beings can reason and thus make conscious immoral choices.

The evil that takes place in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan and other places on earth should not happen. All human evil is a choice made by humans and touches on the boundaries between ethics, biology and consciousness. When animals appear to be “evil” towards each other, it is primarily about survival, reproduction and securing resources. When humans are evil, it is about the greed and lust for power of a few individuals – sometimes even the pleasure of seeing others suffer.

Our unique abilities – wasted

Although humans consider themselves to be superior beings, with unique abilities such as abstract moral reasoning, the ability to imagine the suffering of others, the capacity to act against our own immediate interests, and a complex understanding of consequences, we nevertheless inflict suffering on other living creatures – including our fellow humans – suffering through deliberate violence and other abuses. And this takes place on a completely different cognitive level than animal behaviour.

Furthermore, humans have the formidable ability to pass on knowledge – across history, generations and national borders. We can also accumulate knowledge and have even created machines that can think, store and translate our knowledge into archives accessible to virtually everyone.

Have we learned nothing?

Yet we allow a few people to orchestrate extremely violent acts against groups of people and nations that should be completely unheard of. Have we learned nothing from World War II and all the other wars? There are plenty of wars to choose from. Almost all of us can read – or at least we can look at pictures.

The images from Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan say it all – they make me frustrated, angry and sad. And at the same time, I don't understand it. I simply do not understand how Israel can get away with ethnic cleansing in Gaza, how Putin can get away with bombing and terrorising Ukraine, and how two military factions in Sudan can get away with driving almost 13 million people from their homes. All three of the above are subjecting population groups to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The choice between peace and evil

Humans can choose peaceful democratic coexistence. There are enough resources for all of us if we choose to share and help each other. National borders are something humans have invented. And no, I don't mean we should be communists – that doesn't work either. Funnily enough, in communist regimes there are always some who are more equal than others. But it must be possible to find a way to live together regardless of religion, skin colour and nationality.

The small, cruel men

We must continue to stand together against people who deliberately choose to commit cruel acts against their fellow human beings. We must stand together with our knowledge and tell them that we know what they are doing – and why they are doing it. They are not powerful men. They are small, cruel, greedy and power-hungry men – they deserve absolutely no respect or recognition. And they couldn't care less what the rest of us think of them, as long as they get what they want – so how can we ensure that they don't gain the power to turn reality into hell?

The followers of evil

I understand that a few people like Putin, Netanyahu and others may completely lack the capacity for empathy and thus be completely amoral and callous, devoid of human values – but I don't understand how they can have millions of people behind them who don't speak out. A leader cannot lead if the people don't follow him or her.

And just as importantly, it is not Putin, Netanyahu, General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan or Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo who are committing the war crimes – they give the orders, and SOME obey. This means that evil does not reside in a few, but is a conscious choice made by the many. Are we all evil at heart when it comes down to it?

Is fleeing surrender?

Is it evil when I want to flee far out into the countryside and live without the internet – or at least consciously choose not to follow the news – and just run around in Birkenstock sandals, listen to birdsong and read good books, protecting myself? Isn't that capitulation?

We must not look away

We must not give up and look away when some choose evil. We must write, raise awareness, take photos, videos, etc. We must document for history. We must ensure that no one forgets. Hopefully, one day we will learn that we can choose goodness, love for our neighbours and peace in harmonious coexistence.

All peoples have their religions and even claim to be religious – so much for religion.

Tikkun olam, Rahma, Caritas and Vasudhaiva kutumbakam.

Today, I think I will read Hannah Arendt: ‘On Violence, Thinking and Morality,’ because I do not understand how the above can take place in 2025 – and that we have learned nothing, despite our many years on earth.

There are moments in history when one must choose between the easy path and the right path. The EU now stands at such a crossroads.

While Donald Trump swings around with tariff threats against the whole world, penguin islands and countries that do not do as he thinks – as if he were a Daddy punishing unruly children. Trump is abusing tariffs as a kind of modern economic club. The fact that European politicians are not standing together in the common interest is frightening for the future. Should we bow down and hope for the best? Or should we stand firm and defend European values and interests?

The answer should be crystal clear: the EU must stand firm. Not just because it is about tariffs and trade – but because it is about the very foundation of European self-determination.

The bigger game behind the tariff war

When Trump threatens tariffs on European goods, it is not primarily about trade balances or competitiveness. It is about power. About establishing a hierarchy where the US dictates the terms and the EU obeys. Every time Europe bows to American threats, it sends a signal: we can be pressured.

That signal is read not only in Washington, but also in Beijing and Moscow. And most importantly, it is read by J.D. Vance, who may well be the next American president.

Where Trump is impulsive and unpredictable, Vance is cold and calculating.

His vision for Europe is crystal clear: a divided, weakened EU that can be controlled from Washington. Vance does not want European integration – he wants European fragmentation. He sees the EU's attempts to regulate American tech giants as a threat to American dominance. He regards European data protection laws as trade barriers. He wants a Europe that follows American dictates on everything from AI regulation to food safety.

The consequences of capitulation

Imagine for a moment what the world would look like if the EU bowed to every American threat. How would we regulate artificial intelligence in a way that protects European citizens? How would we prevent the misuse of Europeans' personal data? How would we ensure that the food we eat is not full of chemicals that are banned for good reason?

The answer is simple: we can't. Every time we bow down, we lose a piece of our ability to pursue independent policies. We end up as an American satellite – rich enough to buy American products, but too weak to set our own standards.

Lessons from Japan – and why we are different

Some point to Japan's recent trade agreement with the United States as proof that it pays to accommodate Trump – and that an agreement is necessary. But Japan is not the EU. Japan's economy has been stagnating for decades. Its population is ageing and the country faces structural problems that make it dependent on external partners. Politically, Japan is in a precarious position between American demands and regional uncertainty.

The EU, on the other hand, is the world's largest trading power with 450 million consumers. We have an economy that matches that of the US – albeit a little weaker, but we can easily regain our strength. We just have to go for it. In addition, we have something the Americans really need: a huge market for their goods and services. This gives us bargaining power – if we dare to use it.

What history teaches us

Both Russia and China have shown that Trump responds better to strength than to appeasement. When Putin or Xi Jinping stand firm on their positions, Trump finds a way around the conflict instead of escalating it. Trump gives in and disguises it as some kind of victory. Trump, for all his bravado, is fundamentally a businessman who understands power balances.

The EU's problem is not a lack of power – it is a lack of belief in its own power. We have become accustomed to seeing ourselves as the weaker party in transatlantic relations, even though the figures tell a different story.

The time to act is now

The EU is at a historic crossroads. We can choose to stand together and defend our interests, or we can allow ourselves to be divided and ruled. We can preserve our ability to regulate our own market and protect our citizens, or we can leave the decisions to Washington.

The choice seems obvious. But it requires political courage and a willingness to look beyond the next election or the next quarterly report. It requires European leaders to remember that the EU is not a random collaboration – it is a project to preserve European civilisation and values in a world dominated by great powers.

Strength through unity

Trump's tariff threats are not the end of the story – they are the beginning. How the EU responds now will shape the continent's future for decades to come. If we bow down, we invite more threats, more pressure and a gradual loss of sovereignty – we simply invite the bully to the party. If we stand together, we send a signal that Europe is not for sale – and that we will not be blackmailed.

The EU has only one way forward: stand firm, stand together, and remember that we are strongest when we are united. The alternative is not just economic capitulation – it is political irrelevance.

Europe cannot afford that. And as an EU citizen, I have absolutely no desire to live in an American colony.

It is time for the EU to think 20 years ahead

Subscribe now

Recommendation: I really recommend following/reading Paul Krugman’s Substack

Paul Krugman

The Art of the Really Stupid Deal

Earlier this week the Trump administration triumphantly announced that it had scored a big trade deal with Japan. Now the reviews are in, and the deal basically received a 0% score on Rotten Tomatoes. And I’m not talking about the reactions of economists; I’m talking about the reaction from the manufacturing sector, both management and labor, which Trum…

Read more

10 months ago · 950 likes · 223 comments · Paul Krugman

Leave a comment

It is no secret that the US's position as the world's undisputed superpower is under pressure. China is rising, while the US is faltering. And in the middle of this power struggle stands Russia as China's key ally – a role that is not just coincidental, but a deliberate strategy to undermine the West and the US in particular. This is the fundamental geopolitical reality: the war in Ukraine is not primarily about Putin's imperial dreams – it is China's proxy war against the US and the West. If America is to maintain its position as the world's superpower and win the strategic competition with China, Russia must lose in Ukraine. This context is critical to understanding why Trump's current approach to the conflict is strategically disastrous.

The US leadership is in the hands of a man who does not understand the game

But there is a problem: the US leadership is in the hands of a man who does not understand the game. Instead of strengthening the US's position vis-à-vis China and Russia, the self-proclaimed ‘deal maker’ and ‘man of action’ has done everything to weaken it. Trump is waging trade wars against his allies, praising dictators, and allowing himself to be manipulated by Vladimir Putin, who does not even hide the fact that he is stringing the Americans along with empty words. The whole world can see it – except Trump. “Putin really surprised a lot of people. He talks nicely, and then he bombs everyone at night,” Trump said on Sunday night, according to AFP. This is actually what the rest of the world has been trying to make Trump understand: Putin cannot be trusted. As Solzhenitsyn said, Vladimir Putin and the Russians lie, we know they lie, and they know we know they lie, and they lie anyway. And that is often how the diplomatic battle between Russia and the West plays out – politics and real estate are not the same thing – in politics, you don't just make a phone call and solve the problem. Politics is complicated.

China's role as the real opponent

China's foreign minister has now openly declared for the first time that China cannot accept a Russian defeat in Ukraine. This is no coincidence – in Chinese diplomacy, nothing is ever a coincidence. The statement reveals that the invasion of Ukraine is not just a regional conflict, but part of a global power struggle between the world's two largest superpowers.

Since 2013, when President Xi Jinping called for “telling China's story well” to the outside world, China has systematically worked to undermine US global influence. Russia's invasion of Ukraine fits perfectly into this strategy. China is using Russia to wear down the US and divide the EU and the US alliance, while at the same time securing a new market for its products and cheap energy and raw materials.

It is therefore naive to believe that a “reverse Nixon” can be achieved and China and Russia can be divided. Both countries sincerely want America's decline and degeneration. Russia has become a Chinese vassal state—Putin cannot wage war without China's support. The current US administration does not understand that by trying to pressure Ukraine into compromise, it is actually giving China and Russia exactly what they want.

Trump's misunderstanding of Putin

Trump is fundamentally mistaken in believing that Putin and he have a common understanding. Putin does not respect Trump – he laughs at how easy Trump is to fool. Putin respects Xi Jinping because he cannot outmanoeuvre Xi. Men like Xi and Putin cannot tolerate unpredictable, impulsive people. They consider Trump to be an ill-mannered, immature, spoiled teenager trapped in an old man's body.

This is clearly evident in Trump's handling of the war so far. At no point has he put pressure on the Russians or imposed new sanctions. Instead, he has stopped vital arms deliveries agreed under the Biden administration. Like a true bully, Trump has only threatened the victim – not the abuser, Putin. When Ukraine does not “toe the line,” he punishes Ukraine. When Russia doesn't “play ball,” he punishes Ukraine too. Why?

Actually, I think I finally understand what Putin has on Trump. I never believed that Trump was a Russian asset or anything like that. Trump is far too unpredictable and intellectually limited to be a spy or anything like that. No one today is going to get worked up over urine sex on poor video recordings, and the Russians have been laundering money through Trump's companies more or less openly since the 1980s. Today I received a newsletter from @tashecon blog (Timothy Ash's Substack), which I highly recommend.

Timothy Ash writes: "Some people have explained Trump's failure to exploit an advantage to the full in TACO - Trump is simply a soft touch. On Russia, I explained it differently, that I thought Trump was genuinely scared of Putin - perhaps his nuclear menace, or Putin's criminal background, that Putin would literally kill anyone to get his way. And even a POTUS's own life would not get in the way of Putin's mission. This explained in my view Trump's constant reluctance to criticize Putin, and his unwillingness to enforce any sanctions on Russia, whilst at the same time ostensibly always putting Ukraine and Zelensky to the fire. Trump seemed to like to bully the weak, while looking up and conceding ground to the strong."

It makes perfect sense, but I've never thought of it that way before. Trump has previously spoken about his fear of nuclear war. And aren't bullies often cowards who puff themselves up? And you have to agree with Trump that Putin has a habit of pushing people out of windows.

Lindsey Graham's understanding of the strategic context

Fortunately, there are Republicans who understand the strategic context.

Senator Lindsey Graham, one of Trump's most important allies, has long been working to rally senators around a bill with new comprehensive and crushing sanctions against Russia. There are now 85 co-signers—and more on the way. Graham has seen through Putin and the Russians and understands that a weakened Russia equals a weakened China.

His proposal for a 500% punitive tariff on US imports of goods from countries that buy oil and gas from Russia is brilliant. Large countries such as China and India will have to consider whether they want to continue selling goods to the US or buying energy from Russia. They cannot do both.

Graham's sanctions package would ultimately close the door and lead to a halt in trade with Russian energy. This would send energy prices skyrocketing and bring Russia's economy to its knees. These are exactly the kind of “crushing sanctions” that can really hurt Russia, which is largely financing the war through oil and gas exports.

The West's strategic mistake

It is crazy that the West has not used sanctions that really hurt Russia to stop the war. If Europe could live with a few shortages during World War II, it can probably do so again. It is grotesque that the West has financed Russia's invasion of Ukraine by buying oil and gas from Russia. The EU must buy its energy from the US instead.

It is more expensive, but it is insane to give money to Ukraine with one hand and money to Russia with the other. At the same time, Ukraine is being terrorized by Russia. Biden's policy was also weak. Ukraine was given just enough weapons to survive the Russians, but never enough to win the war. Biden was terribly afraid of Putin—and so are the Germans.

The West should have given Ukraine enough weapons from the start. It has cost far too many Ukrainian lives that Biden and the EU did not dare to give Ukraine the weapons it needed from the beginning.

China's media strategy and information warfare

While the US is dismantling its global media efforts through DOGE cuts, China is taking over the narrative. The US's global media empire is being dismantled, and China is exploiting this situation to sow the seeds of its counterpart. In Hong Kong, 60 American broadcasts have been replaced by 80 Chinese ones. Old-fashioned radio technology is important for rebel groups, as radio broadcasts are harder to shut down than access to websites.

China has made extensive use of social media and is very active in several languages. It also uses local journalists and influencers, which has strengthened the local population's trust in Chinese media, especially in Africa. In Denmark, China has used several influential figures to speak positively about China and criticize the West's “one-sidedly critical” image.

Beijing systematically cultivates influencers such as Andy Boreham and others. In a chaotic Western situation, China appears to be the more moderate, globally oriented, coherent, and predictable player. This is extremely favorable for Chinese storytelling because the alternative global leadership—the US—is falling apart.

TikTok is banned in China, but the West spends hours a day on the platform – thereby giving China access to our data.

China controls the narrative, while the West lulls itself to sleep with “meaningless” entertainment.

The growing influence of the BRICS countries

With Indonesia, the BRICS countries now account for almost 50% of the world's population, and China will do everything it can to influence and take control. Russia is merely a tool for China. So far, the West has taken a very arrogant approach to the BRICS countries – they should be careful, because it will come back to haunt them.

At the same time, the US is firing people in the foreign service at a time when US support in the Global South is almost non-existent. The US is digging its own grave because it has no coherent strategy. People like Vance and Thiel in Trump's political backroom are acting as a highway and catalyst for China's geopolitical ambitions.

America's structural problems

The grim truth is that Trump is more a symptom than a cause. The cause of America's problems is the experience of relative weakness. The US was all-powerful when the international system was built after World War II. Now, US industrial production has fallen dramatically.

The US has become indebted – private debt is high and national debt is even higher, at around $36 trillion, because there is no willingness to pay taxes. The autocratic president is a symptom of the weakness that American consumerism has turned the US into – where everything has to be produced as cheaply as possible so that shareholders can make more money. That is why production has moved to China. American companies have moved production themselves. It is not the world that has moved jobs out of the US.

Globalization and the US's own greed have brought the world's problems to the US's doorstep. The US may lose a war against China – including a trade war. Americans are not used to suffering. The Chinese are. They can stand together if necessary. In the US, they become completely hysterical and shoot each other.

Europe's role and responsibility

Europe also has problems. Fifteen years ago, the European economy was 2% larger than the US economy; in 2024, it will be 38% smaller. But Europe can turn it around again – they just need to figure out how to stand together. It is paradoxical that 500 million Europeans are asking 340 million Americans to defend them against 140 million Russians who cannot suppress 28 million Ukrainians – the Americans are right about that.

Europe must rapidly rearm and produce its own equipment instead of buying expensive American equipment. France could do with a little economic growth. Europe has forgotten that it is actually quite large, rich, and capable of crushing Russia. The EU is also a superpower that needs to rediscover itself and learn to stand together. Power-hungry, old-fashioned politicians like Le Pen and Orban must understand this if the EU is not to end up as a Chinese colony.

Europe is in ideological conflict with the US, with which its leaders deeply disagree but which they desperately need to influence. The US has sucked power and pathos out of Europe – that was Europe's price for NATO cooperation. But Daddy is leaving Europe. The question now is whether the US has any interest in Europe becoming truly strong.

Putin's terror regime

Putin is a criminal liar who slaughters his own people and throws soldiers into the meat grinder. He couldn't care less about Russian casualties – it is estimated that over a million Russians have died in the war. Putin respects only one thing: RAW POWER. That is why you cannot talk or negotiate with Putin.

Putin has rewritten history in Russian schools so that the illegal invasion of Ukraine is portrayed as an internal process. Orwell's “1984” has become prophetic. Putin does not just want Ukraine – his regime openly signals that it does not recognize many former Soviet republics as independent countries.

Russia is deliberately targeting civilians, hospitals, and nuclear power plants. This is not war—it is terrorism. Russia could end the war as easily as nothing—they could just go home and hand over the occupied territories. But Putin is not afraid of the West. He is afraid of his own people. Putin is afraid of ending up like Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

The way forward

Trump now has the opportunity to appear as a strong leader – but does he dare? Does Trump have the balls to support Ukraine so they can kick out the Russians and give China a slap in the face?

Russia has lost many wars before – even Japan has defeated Russia, which incidentally led to the 1905 revolution and World War I, which led to the Russian Revolution. In the current war in Ukraine, Russian casualties are approximately five times higher than in all Russian and Soviet wars combined between the end of World War II and the invasion in February 2022. If Russia loses, could this lead to another revolution? Neither Xi Jinping nor Putin can afford that.

A victory in Ukraine is a victory over China. China does not want to see Russia lose, because China needs Russia. That is why the US's current approach to Ukraine and the West is a disaster. If Trump and the US had a strategy to defeat China, they would never wage a tariff war against their friends and insult them again and again.

The solution is clear: Russia must be weakened as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Graham's sanctions, combined with massive arms deliveries to Ukraine, can hit Russia hard and thus indirectly China. The US, the EU, and NATO must stand together and create problems for Russia and China, as they have created for the West.

Russia must not have any sanctions lifted until it has paid war reparations to Ukraine and handed over all children and prisoners of war. The US and the EU are currently being pushed around by a corrupt country with an economy like Italy's. It is time to turn things around.

If America truly wants to maintain its position as the world's superpower and defeat China, the path is clear: Russia must lose in Ukraine. Anything else is strategic blindness that only benefits Beijing and Moscow.

China is thinking 100 years ahead—it's time for the West to do the same.