The Empire Steps Back
The U.S. is moving on and Europe’s ruling class is panicking
This article may age very poorly if, for example, the rhetoric from the Trump administration about drawing down its European commitments turns out to be mere bluster. Yet several commentators doubt that it is1. Many see it as a strategic necessity, a reflection of America's need to shift resources and attention towards the Pacific in order to contain China, now its principal rival2. The 1990s are over, and Uncle Sam can no longer be everywhere at once, particularly given its unwavering commitment to the Middle East’s greatest democracy. Some have argued that it is time for Europe to stop free-riding and pay its fair share. They often cite how much more the U.S. spends on defence compared to its European “allies”3. They claim that Europe has benefited immensely from American security guarantees but should stand on its own two feet. Yet this argument fundamentally misunderstands the nature of empire.
Whether Europe has truly benefited from its subjugation and occupation is debatable, but American involvement in the continent has never been an act of benevolence. It has always served a broader imperial function: aligning European states with an Atlanticist worldview (both before and after the Cold War). This has meant not only fostering institutions and political structures conducive to American influence but also actively promoting individuals (from the nominal left and the nominal right) who support this alignment, while marginalising those who do not (again from the nominal left and nominal right)4. That is: helping friends and harming enemies5.
To give a brief window into this (and its current unravelling), a recent Associated Press article began with “Donald Trump’s abrupt freeze of U.S. foreign aid is sending shockwaves through Eastern Europe, leaving pro-democracy groups, independent media, civil society initiatives and local governments scrambling to make ends meet”6. I’ll just let you interpret however you like. I’m sure, like all good believers in liberal democracy, we all oppose interfering in the politics and governance of free sovereign states, especially when it comes from the richest country in the world.
The consequence of all of these “interventions” has been to turn Europe into a collection of vassal states, ruled by regional governors whose positions depend fundamentally on American patronage or at least consent. Each vassal is different with its own unique story (its own variant of boomer truth7 perhaps) but all are fundamentally in the predicament understood by Julius Evola 70 years ago8, domination by a culturally hostile power. There is sometimes a vague frustration among Europeans about this plight. Yet most struggle to grasp the true source, so deeply embedded are they within the frame of American hegemony.
The UK stands apart, uniquely committed to the American Empire, more so in fact than America itself. Some commentators in fact see the American Empire as a continuation of the British Empire9, regarding the two nations as fundamentally inseparable. Relevant too, is that Atlanticist British elites have a long history of successfully dragging a somewhat reluctant America into European conflicts rather than accept compromise10. It is likely that she will try to do so yet again (I pray this time she is shown the cold shoulder).
The Coming Crisis for the Vassals
The undiluted truth is that when push comes to shove, Washington has never regarded European leaders as anything but thralls. This was perhaps no more true than when the U.S. was engineering regime change in Ukraine: in a leaked phone call, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, can be heard discussing her ideas for personnel to make up the new Ukrainian government with then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When Pyatt suggested that European leaders might be unhappy with America’s machinations, she dismissed these concerns with a blunt “fuck the EU”11. The message from Washington, then and now, is the same: European leaders are useful instruments or inconvenient obstacles, but never partners.
Nonetheless, American withdrawal is an existential crisis for these leaders. They were never meant to be sovereign rulers; they were selected precisely because they were not. They understand on an instinctual level that if the U.S. truly draws down its presence in Europe, their political careers, and the system that sustains them, may not survive. This is the source of the confusion, outrage, and outright panic we have seen in recent days.
Last week, JD Vance and Peter Hegseth essentially announced America’s intention to close several branches of the firm12 coming a week after Trump cut USAID funding (an organisation that, among other things, served as a vehicle for ensuring the "right" people took power and enacted the "right" policies across Europe13). Yet many European elites (especially the British) seem determined to ignore both the actions and words of the new U.S. administration14. To accept them it seems would be too psychologically devastating.
A Crisis of Identity: The Social Psychology of Decline
From a Social Identity15 perspective, the self-conception of European elites has been built upon liberal internationalism, cosmopolitanism, and the belief in an ever-expanding progressive order. These are not merely political positions but deeply internalised markers of their identity, defined in opposition to both history and deplorable parochial nationalists (both within Europe and without). If the U.S. leaves Europe, it is not merely a strategic dilemma but an identity crisis. European elites know that they cannot take on the role standard-bearer for progressive globalism should America withdraw (in part because without American money, it is unlikely that European elections will continue to deliver reliably compliant liberals). Shorn of Washington’s money and military backing, Europe’s political class will quickly turn into yesterday’s men, adrift and unable to sustain the ideological framework that has given them meaning and justified their rule for decades.
From a System Justification Theory16 lens, their reaction is equally predictable. The Atlanticist order has functioned as a grand legitimising myth, reinforcing a path-dependent system of governance where European elites derived both material benefits and moral legitimacy from their alignment with the U.S (although this has been more straightforward when America is blue and progressive). The notion that this system could simply evaporate is unthinkable to them because it would render their own existence as rulers contingent rather than inevitable. Much like Soviet-aligned leaders in Eastern Europe in 1989, they cannot confront the possibility that their world is collapsing. These people do not think historically. After all, history ended in 1989 didn’t it?
Some leaders believe that the Globalist order can simply ride out the Trumpian storm, frustrate his goals and come together again after his departure like the T-1000 in Terminator 2. If this is true, then we should expect an escalatory poker game ahead of us (don’t rule out false flag attempts or European troops being sacrificed in Ukraine to guilt-trip the U.S. into intervention). However, as many have pointed out, Trump’s second administration is composed of very different figures from his first17. He may be easily distracted or outmanoeuvred, but they are unlikely to be.
What remains unclear, however, is what Europe would look like without American occupation.
Europe’s Dilemma: Between Disunity and Rivalry
As an imperial strategy, the "rules-based international order," the "collective West," "liberal democracy," or the "free world" is far superior to "America First." It is much easier for the regional governors to sell an ideology of inclusive globalism than one that openly privileges the imperial core. If the US reinforces this new ideology with shifts in trade and defence policy, Atlanticism cannot survive in its current form.
What then is to become of Europe? Europe First? Do we expect to see the formation of a European army and greater European integration? The problem here is, as Joe Biden remarked thirty years ago, "there is no moral centre in Europe"18. Decentralised collectives struggle to sustain serious militaries or act in unison on trade and foreign policy. This has been true throughout history, with the Holy Roman Empire and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, notable examples of diverse decentralised polities unable to compete with the centralised states of early modern Europe. If Europe were to become a strategic actor in its own right, it would need a centre willing and capable of commanding homage and extending patronage. To my mind, this could only ever be Germany, but the prospects for this seem extremely remote. After 80 years of the destructive propaganda imposed by the Allies after WWII, Germany lacks a political class capable of asserting herself internationally beyond seeking to lead the “never again” sacraments. Interesting here is the East-West division that has emerged politically with the East notably more nationalist. Notably, only West Germany was forced to endure the Frankfurt School-inspired ‘Denazification’ programme19. As Jonathan Bowden remarked ‘Communism kills the body, but liberalism rots the soul’20.
Nonetheless, even if Germany’s leaders were willing to take a leading role in geopolitics once again, Europe’s internal divisions are longstanding. France, Britain and probably Poland would stand in the way of a German-led Europe. Recall, as Sir Humphrey schooled Jim Hacker on “Yes Minister”, British Foreign policy for centuries was to intervene in European conflicts to preserve a balance of power and prevent the rise of a hegemon. In this endeavour they have fought with and against all major European powers. What's more, if effective unification were ever to occur, it would create a power bloc capable of rivalling the United States, which would create a problem for Washington. A united Europe, under American hegemony is one thing, a united Europe sovereign and independent, quite another. Before Brexit, the EU as a collective matched the U.S. in GDP and surpassed it in purchasing power parity21 and while recent years have seen Europe slip, discussions of how this dynamic could challenge American power were once popular in economic and geopolitical circles22. We should not underestimate the willingness of the U.S. to act to prevent this. They have likely done so before and would again23.
The Fate of Subjugated Elites After Imperial Withdrawal
History suggests that when an imperial power retreats, the local elites who thrived under its patronage rarely survive the transition. After independence in 1947, many British aligned Indian princes believed they could retain their autonomy and status in the new order. However, Nehru’s India swiftly moved to dismantle their power, integrating their states into the newly unified nation. While they were initially allowed to retain their titles and privileges, their political authority was effectively nullified and later Indira Gandhi formally abolished their remaining status24. Likewise in the 19th century, the Ottoman-aligned ruling class in the Balkans, once indispensable, was quickly cast aside and rebranded as relics of foreign domination when the new nations of Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia and Greece emerged25. When France pulled out of Algeria, the Pieds-Noirs and Harkis were either exiled or violently purged26.
It is difficult for us to view the European Atlanticist elite with the same detachment, because we are still steeped in the legitimising frames of the present. Unlike the Indian princes or the Phanariotes in the Balkans, they are not yet seen as an extension of empire, but as genuine rulers in their own right. Yet should the U.S. truly draw down its presence, new political elites are likely to arise to take their place and it is unlikely that they will remember their predecessors kindly. The ideological narratives of the future have yet to take shape, but one thing is certain: they will not be written to flatter those who ruled in the past.
Europe and America: A Shared Liberation?
The American Empire has never been a traditional empire, though headquartered in Washington and drawing its military, economic, and political strength from the U.S., its globalist framework has shaped and constrained America and Americans just as much as it has Europe, perhaps more. Many Americans (from left and right) have long resented the endless overseas commitments, trade policies, and economic arrangements that have favoured the growth of the order over the interests of American people. Just as European nations may find themselves free, willingly or not, from a hegemonic system that dictated their foreign and to a great extent domestic policy, so too may Americans find themselves freed from a global architecture that has not been run in their interests.
John J. Mearsheimer has been articulating the merits of a realist US foreign policy for years but its now clear that the news media senses the current moves are more than rhetoric.
https://www.ft.com/content/2be871f2-f7c0-48ae-a39a-822207a3cb88
https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/18/europe-eu-nato-us-russia-ukraine/
https://www.ft.com/content/beb38eb8-408c-4cdb-8086-77545d52099f
Some of the pivot to China has been discussed for years – the question was whether the US would actually be prepared to dial back its other commitments to do so. Under Biden they tried to avoid doing do by taking out Russia as a geopolitical power. This failed.
https://www.ft.com/content/b423aa65-b9cb-4ba5-9c7d-f67dc289a18f
https://www.ft.com/content/b423aa65-b9cb-4ba5-9c7d-f67dc289a18f
This is common rhetoric and typically presents European states as free riders of American security. The situation is much more complicated than this in reality.
There is too much to go into here but since 1945 the US has been deliberately influencing politics and culture, from paying academics to promote pro-American ideas, exporting jazz music to undermine both traditional European culture and the USSR, to subverting elections and infiltrating political parties. Since the 1990s, Eastern Europe has been awash with American money and influence too.
Penny M. Von Eschen - Satchmo Blows Up the World: Jazz Ambassadors Play the Cold War (2006)
Paul L. Williams - Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance Between the Vatican, the Cia, and the Mafia (2018)
Francis Stonor Saunders - Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (1999)
Carl Schmitt - The Concept of the Political (1932)
I for one am shocked, having assumed that Eastern Europe’s “pro-democracy” groups, “civil society” initiatives and “independent” media all arose organically thanks to tireless homegrown freedom fighters.
Neema Parvini (Academic Agent) has attempted to define the post-1945 episteme or “truth regime” to quote Foucault, that is the foundational moral order of our time.
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/view/the-boomer-truth-regime/
https://www.scribd.com/document/86639630/Foucault-Truth-and-Power-Interview
Julius Evola made arguments about America's cultural domination over Europe in several of his works, but the most explicit discussion can be found in the below works.
Julius Evola - "Ride the Tiger” (1961)
Julius Evola -"Men Among the Ruins” (1953).
Semiogogue in particular advocates this view with a focus on the closeness (ideologically and socially) of Anglo-American elites in the early to mid 20th century. “The Legacy of the British Empire” stream, hosted by Apolstolic Majesty in which he feaures alongside Neema Parvini (Academic Agent) is well worth a watch.
Britain has consistently used propaganda, intelligence operations, and economic and political influence to steer U.S. foreign policy toward deeper engagement in Europe. But it is true that they always allies in the US. In both World Wars, Britain worked (with American allies) to overcome American public resistance and reluctance among senior policymakers to secure U.S. intervention. After 1945, Britain actively lobbied for a sustained American presence in Europe, particularly in conflicts such as the Greek-Turkish crisis, despite many figures, most notably 1948 Republican Presidential candidate Robert Taft opposing permanent US deployment. Since 1989, many American figures advocated scalling down military commitments to Europe, Britain has remained a steadfast advocate of NATO expansion, aligning with interventionist U.S. politicians to promote operations in the Balkans, advance a transatlantic world order. Importantly, Britain worked with US allies to undermine resistance to NATO expansion in several Central and Eastern European states in the 1990s and early 2000s.
Thomas E. Mahl – Desperate Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-44 (1998)
Nicholas J. Cull – Selling War: The British Propaganda Campaign Against American "Neutrality" in World War II (1995)
John Lewis Gaddis – Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy During the Cold War (1982)
Timothy Andrews Sayle – Enduring Alliance: A History of NATO and the Postwar Global Order (2019)
JD Vance’s speech was largely rhetorical, but the decision so far to exclude Europe or NATO presence in negotiations with Russia speaks for itself. Likewise, the US is now seeking to withdraw troops from Europe, which is line with Hegseth’s statement that “they’re not there forever”. There are even rumours that the withdrawal of US troops from Europe or parts of Europe are part of the peace negotiations.
https://www.politico.eu/article/america-military-presence-europe-not-forever-us-pete-hegseth-warns/
US Special Envoy Richard Grenell has revealed that USAID money was spent to influence the politics of Eastern European nations, with both Romania (cancelled Presidential election) and Slovakia (well funded, well attended protests with printed English signs demanding extending abortion rights and continued support for Ukraine) recent beneficiaries. https://www.hungarianconservative.com/articles/politics/romania-trump-envoy-richard-grenell-x-election-interference-usaid/
The British standout once again but the Baltic states are beginning to rival them for their pig-headed obstinate refusal to engage with the changing times. Apparently regardless of what the American’s say, Ukraine will join NATO and American troops can be made to stay in Eastern Europe. One thinks of the poor governor of Britannia in 410 AD, who after frequent pleas for military assistance was told by Emperor Honorius to look his own defences.
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-brit-ally-nigel-farage-ukraine-should-join-nato/
Much has been written about Trump’s failed first term. He tried to leave Syria and was ignored by Generals on the ground, he failed to “drain the swamp” and often surrounded himself with neoconservatives like John Bolton or neoliberals like Jared Kushner. Whatever you think of Musk, Tucker, Vance, Gabbard and Kennedy – they are not traditional swamp creatures.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/23/politics/second-trump-administration-agenda/index.html
https://www.vox.com/politics/399984/online-right-musk-vance-elez-antiwoke
In 1995, the ever hawkish Biden demands American intervention in the Balkans and argues that the Europeans cannot handle things because they have “no moral centre”.
Denazification went beyond removing Nazis; it systematically erased German national pride, replacing it with collective guilt and ideological reprogramming. Traditional identity was suppressed through media control, education, and cultural restructuring, ensuring patriotism was equated with shame rather than continuity. As a result, post-war West Germany was left in a state of ideological submission, where national identity was increasingly framed in terms of atonement rather than heritage. Unfortunately, the best book on this subject—Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing’s Charakterwäsche—has never been translated into English.
Caspar von Schrenck-Notzing – Charakterwäsche: Die amerikanische Umerziehung in Deutschland und ihre bleibenden Auswirkungen (1965, "Character Washing: American Re-Education in Germany and Its Lasting Effects")
Giles MacDonogh – After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (2007)
James Tent – "Mission on the Rhine: Reeducation and Denazification in American-Occupied Germany" (1982)
John David P. Moore – "The Americanization of Germany, 1945–1949" (2012)
Nicholas Pronay & Keith Wilson – "The Political Re-Education of Germany and Her Allies After World War II" (1985)
Jonathan Bowden was actually slighly misquoting Tomislav Sunić (who was in attendence so we can assume he was OK with it?). Sunic actually wrote “Communism rots the body, Capitalism rots the soul”. His book “Homo Americanus” is well worth reading.
https://jonathanbowden.org/speeches/credo-a-nietzschean-testament/
Tomislav Sunić - “Homo Americanus: A Child of the Postmodern Age” (2007)
Recent yeas have seen the GDP of the EU drop relative to the USA but until relatively recently it was seen as a competitor
There was an alleged leak of a RAND corporation document stating that provoking a war in Ukraine would facilitate a weakening of Germany and Europe, mainstream media an d RAND have called fake news, Russian propaganda – but they would say that wouldn’t they? Neema Parvini (Academic Agent) provided a thoughtful analysis of the destruction of Noord stream 2, from the perspective of Betrand de Jouvenel’s theory of power which also speaks to the weakening of Europe as a desired goal of the USA.
Barry Eichengreen, The European Economy since 1945: Coordinated Capitalism and Beyond (2008)
Barbara N. Ramusack, The Indian Princes and Their States (2004)
Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A Short History (2002)
Alistair Horne, A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962 (2006)
Like the spoiled children of doting parents, European elites have stayed in their parent’s basement for far too long. It’s easy to run your socialist experiments when someone else is making up the shortfall on your defense commitments. Time to pony up, move out and take charge of your own destiny. Only when you do that, will it be possible for Europe and America to truly respect one another.
It has a bit much of conspiracy theory to it. I think a better and far shorter take is that European never loved America, its brashness and no nothing attitude but put up with it as-long as it was more or less friendly. If it ain’t no more, well. Btw the worst anti American stances I heard were from posh English