Bread and Circuses

To answer Trump’s hostile wake-up call we actually need to wake-up

Over last weekend the big issue that most engaged my attention was the publication of Trump’s appalling new National Security Strategy (NSS) which marks a radical departure in US foreign policy.

Now, I appreciate I’m perhaps a bit odd, certainly I’m in a minority, in getting worked up about such things, or maybe even being that interested. After all, it’s in the nature of representative democracy, that the electorate outsource decision-making on such things to those they elect, so they can get on with the rest of their lives.

But that can only go so far – outsourcing shouldn’t amount to abdication. And it certainly doesn’t extend to the news and current affairs media. A major part of their purpose – at least in my view – is to alert the public to what matters, to highlight what needs their attention and do it in a way that engages that attention.

These thoughts came to mind as I watched and read the response to that new security strategy – or rather lack of response.

The NSS came out overnight on Thursday, so let’s look at how BBC TV News responded. On the Friday late evening news, the lead story, covered at length, was the World Cup draw for England and Scotland. On Saturday, the lead story, again at length, was where they’d play their matches. Then on Sunday, the lead story was Lando Norris winning the Formula 1 World Championship.

Really? Is the city where a football team is going to play a match the most important story of the day? For God’s sake is it really even the most important sports story of the day? A Brit winning the F1 championship is great, but is it really that important? Interesting maybe for those who like their sport, but the most important news? On newspapers sport was on the back pages for a reason

Meanwhile, of the NSS, nothing.

After nearly five decades in the media, I am wearily familiar with the cynical, glib arguments about what journalists do is just ‘infotainment’, but the thing is I’m not a cynic.

So what it put me in mind of was the famous quote from Juvenal, the 1^st century Roman poet, about the public being distracted by ‘bread and circuses.’ The full quote is worth considering, “Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.”

His remark took aim both at the People and the authorities. The authorities were condemned for maintaining control by bribing the people with free wheat and providing spectacles (think ‘Gladiator’) which distracted attention and encouraged passivity rather than engagement. The People were condemned for being willing to abdicate civic responsibility in favour of such bribes and distractions.

Today, to those to be condemned I would now add much of the news media opting for infotainment – why challenge and inform when you can indulge? Why explain difficult stuff when you can analyse whether England’s circus performers can cope with playing in the heat at next year’s World Cup.

Later, the NSS somewhat limped into a wider public discourse but primarily as a discussion topic in current affairs rather than news. Where it’s entered the wider discourse it’s as an addendum to Trump’s latest brainfart in an interview damning Europe as decaying and its leaders as weak. In a way it’s all of a piece with news media’s lack of seriousness – finally responding once the world’s leading circus performer (who also rose to fame on the back of a TV show) wraps it up in easily digestible soundbites.

Meanwhile, much of the analysis among commentators (including mine on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7402730832362229760/ ) has highlighted the NSS’s significance for us, saying things like, ‘If Europe still needed a wake-up call then the US has just provided it.’ But how is anyone going to wake-up if there’s no alarm sounding?

All this is part of the problem. Leaving aside the alarming nature of the overall document, the NSS’s apologists seek to justify the extraordinary assertions it makes about Europe by highlighting Europe’s failure to pull its weight, primarily on defence.

In this particular aspect they have a case – it’s our open flank. However the wake-up call it gives is not that of a critical friend but a very openly signalled warning that they are they are ceasing to be our friend. And given the pre-eminence of the US in so many areas that’s very alarming indeed and far more significant.

So, let’s look at the NSS in a touch more detail, remembering this is a formal document not some off the cuff Trump soundbites.

It will come as no surprise to learn that, in somewhat nauseating tones, it depicts Trump as the all-purpose, very stable genius from which all good things flow. If, like The Police song, ‘Every Little Thing (S)he Does is Magic’, then it’s hardly surprising if a sense of alternate reality permeates the entire document.

It certainly strives hard never to let a meaningless cliché go to waste in the search for a faux profundity, itself masking vacuity. So it gravely states, ‘President Trump’s foreign policy is pragmatic without being “pragmatist,” realistic without being “realist,” principled without being “idealistic,” muscular without being “hawkish,” and restrained without being “dovish.”’ Hmm, what on earth does that word salad actually mean? Perhaps the suggestion of an early version of ChatGPT?

I think the cliched language, the unsupported, inaccurate assertions and general vapidity of the NSS is not irrelevant in that reflects the intellectual poverty of the thinking behind it. That doesn’t change though how worried it should make us.

Most notably on Europe of course, where – and I choose my words carefully – Trump’s administration is saying it will actively support regime change within democracies in order to bring in governments aligned to the US worldview.

Thus, the NSS propounds a narrative of an undemocratic Europe to, “include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and Sovereignty...censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition…”

“…The Trump Administration finds itself at odds with European officials who hold unrealistic expectations for the war perched in unstable minority governments, many of which trample on basic principles of democracy to suppress opposition. A large European majority wants peace, yet that desire is not translated into policy, in large measure because of those governments’ subversion of democratic processes.”

America encourages its political allies in Europe to promote this revival of spirit, and the growing influence of patriotic European parties indeed gives cause for great optimism...Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory.”

It tops if off with its bullet point list stating among others:

“Our broad policy for Europe should prioritize:....

- Cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European

Nations.”

It’s a bizarre series of statements, both offensive and inaccurate. Europe’s governments are by any measure among the world’s most democratic nations. The assertion that ‘governments’ subversion of democratic processes’ are preventing peace in Ukraine is simply hallucinatory nonsense. As the saying goes, rubbish in, rubbish out.

But the outflowing rubbish is not just opening a yawning gap between Europe and the US but openly signalling active support to far right parties like Germany’s AFD, and France’s National Rally – an extraordinary move to interfere in the domestic policies of democracies that are supposedly allies.

The language used about ‘civilisational erasure’ and general support for Christian nationalism is strikingly aligned to the narrative of Hungary’s Viktor Orban, who really is subverting democratic processes, but is also a great pal of Trump.

What’s also notable is that while Europe gets it in the neck there is not one word of criticism for Russia, neither for its aggression in Ukraine nor its lack of democracy. Indeed the NSS’s narrative on culture and civilisation is close to some of Putin’s own views.

This is a stark contrast with Trump’s 2017 NSS which stated, “...Russia want[s] to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests…Russia aims to weaken U.S. influence in the world and divide us from our allies and partners.”

Russia will also have been hugging itself at another casually announced priority in the NSS asserting, ‘Ending the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance.’

NATO having an open door policy for new members, has been a unanimously agreed policy for decades – indeed the Alliance’s largest ever single enlargement of multiple nations was driven by a Republican president. Driven by fear of Russian aggression – which as we can see has been clearly justified by events – enlargements have been far from automatic. Stopping them would have been high on any Russian wish list, and now they’ve been given it without any Alliance debate.

Other than this, it’s also noteworthy that in what is after all a National Security Strategy, NATO – for more than seven decades the West’s primary defensive alliance – gets no recognition of its continuing importance or role, other than a requirement to spend more in a section on ‘burden-sharing’.

Looking beyond the focus on Europe, another important feature stands out in the section on the so-called ‘Western Hemisphere’, which basically means Latin America, with the reassertion of the US ‘Monroe Doctrine’.

The Monroe Doctrine dates from the 1820s when President Monroe asserted that the European powers should stay out of Latin America, which was now the US’s backyard, and any meddling would be regarded as a threat to US national security. It was initially somewhat welcomed by Latin American nations still shrugging off European control. However by the early 20^th century it, under President Theodore Roosevelt, took on distinctly colonial overtones, as an increasingly powerful US gave itself the right to intervene in Latin America in cases of ‘wrongdoing’.

More recently the doctrine had been reinterpreted as being more about partnerships than dominance, but that’s certainly not Trump’s view, and the NSS makes that explicit with what it calls the ‘Trump Corollary’, “After years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere, and to protect our homeland and our access to key geographies throughout the region. We will deny non-Hemispheric competitors the ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets, in our Hemisphere.”

It goes on to say, “The United States must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity—a condition that allows us to assert ourselves confidently where and when we need to in the region.”

Are we seeing this being put into effect now in Venezuala?

Regardless, why should we care in Europe? Because by asserting its primacy and right to intervene as it sees fit in the Western Hemisphere the US is embracing the concept of ‘spheres of influence’, where the world is divided up among the big powers.

Big boys’ rules.

And this is an absolute departure from the direction of travel that seemed to follow the end of the Cold War. In Europe at least that period saw countries that had suffered under the Soviet yoke were able for the first time in half a century to choose their own course.

It was the US that very much led the way in that and even the Russians were at least temporarily on board. In 1997, in happier times, they signed the NATO/Russia Founding Act, stating:

“NATO and Russia will seek the widest possible cooperation… without dividing lines or spheres of influence limiting the sovereignty of any state.” This meant, NATO/Russia further agreed:

“…respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples’ right of self-determination.”

That was then. Since then Putin has pivoted back to an openly imperialist world view, now asserting, ‘The Russian world means Ancient Rus, the Tsardom of Muscovy, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and modern Russia that is reclaiming, consolidating, and augmenting its sovereignty as a global power.’

That’s an awfully big chunk of Europe, including NATO members. Russia believes it is justified in controlling its own ‘sphere of influence’, what it calls the ‘near abroad’, with Putin stating, “…we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia.”

Again, little wonder Russia has welcomed the NSS. Not only is it free of criticism of Russia, it is the US espousing the same world view as Russia. If the US can claim it ‘must be preeminent in the Western Hemisphere as a condition of our security and prosperity’ how can it object to the same reasoning by Russia over Ukraine and other parts of its ‘near abroad?’

Notice in both the US’s and Russia’s claimed ‘sphere of influence’ what the smaller nations think of it is irrelevant. The US statements in the NSS about the primacy of national sovereignty is suddenly very conditional, not to say hypocritical. Big boys rules[i].

One ironic footnote to the NSS’s assertion of US power-based dominance is that it then bizarrely says, ‘We want to maintain the United States’ unrivalled “soft power” through which we exercise positive influence throughout the world…’ This from a government that has just cut billions in development aid, dismantled USAID and its international broadcasting outlets such as Radio Free Europe. Trump’s team are systematically eviscerating US soft power, not maintaining it.

It was Theodore Roosevelt who said, “Speak softly and carry a big stick” but Trump prefers loudly bullying, especially your supposed allies. Soft power basically works through persuading others that acting together is in their mutual interest and to accept certain values and policies on the basis of ‘enlightened self-interest’. Trump’s loudly proclaimed ‘America First’ approach is so obviously unenlightened self-interest that it begs the question as to why other nations would want to support the US.

So, what does this mean for Europe and, more to the point, what should we do about it?

Firstly, we should not hope this is some passing phase, some storm we can weather. Trump’s one year into a four year term, and what we’re now seeing formalised reflects instincts and prejudices that have been evident for years. This reflects what he is.

Secondly, it also reflects the prejudices and views of his team. Most notably, in February in Munich his Vice President, JD Vance, delivered a speech with the same criticism of Europe. If anything Vance is even more trenchant in his views, and he of course is a front runner to follow Trump in 2028. Given the games the Republicans are playing with fixing the US electoral system to their advantage then hoping the Democrats might win is not a good bet.

Effectively we now need to set aside the assumptions of the last eight decades.

Europe must work on the basis that the US and Europe are now on diverging paths and can no longer assume we are friends and instinctive allies that share the same values, world view and therefore likely strategies.

This doesn’t mean Europe and the US have become adversaries, but it does mean sometimes and probably increasingly we will be clashing. Thus, over Ukraine, Trump favours concessions to Russia that are fundamentally against Europe’s security interests. In the same vein, Trump actively meddling in European democracies to boost political parties he favours is the action of a hostile actor.

Specifically, on defence, whatever we say publicly, we need to work on the assumption that the US can no longer be relied upon to live up to its Article Five obligations that an attack on one will be regarded as an attack on all. We can also assume adversaries like Russia will draw the same conclusion, which makes it all the more like they will test NATO’s resolve.

So we are in unexplored terrain and in a critical situation – one where NATO and the EU’s leaders need to rise to the scale of the challenge. We are going to have to find ways to disagree, and act in our own interest, politely but firmly, even if it risks the wrath of Trump.

Here we have to again acknowledge that the NSS has a point about Europe doing more to manage its own defence, and having more than enough resources to face Russia down if it did. I have previously rejected the grossly exaggerated assertion that somehow Europe’s contribution to NATO has been so pathetic, and also the notion that the US has not itself benefitted hugely from its contribution. It has, and in all sorts of ways.

Nevertheless, it has been shouldering a disproportionate share of the burden, and that’s going to have to end. More to the point it needs to end quickly.

To be fair, Europe’s nations have been moving in this direction, but in most cases the rises in budgets, defence reforms and weapons production have been within an ‘almost business as usual’ process. But what we actually need is emergency action as even then it will take years to crank up our emaciated armed force and defence industrial base.

Meantime we are perpetually one Trump tantrum away from some disaster. And Putin is pressing hard in Ukraine, seeing a window of opportunity. We need to fully take on board that Ukraine is our frontline – Ukraine is buying us time to crank up our defences, and if they fold then an emboldened Putin will quickly seek to pressure NATO in all sorts of ways.

We need to recognise that Putin’s ability to sustain his war against Ukraine is because he has turned Russia into a war economy. We are largely still operating with both peacetime economies and mindsets. Putin’s wartime economy can’t last, how long is guesswork, but while it does there is gap and that makes us vulnerable.

What we also see is a gap within Europe, in that some nations are adapting both resources and mindset, and others are not. Sweden is for me the exemplar in addressing the mindset issue, issuing a nationwide leaflet on what to do in case of crisis and war, with senior political and military leaders saying things like, “The situation is not pitch black but is very serious. All residents should now get ready for war in Sweden. On an individual level, you have to mentally prepare yourself.”

Other nations like the Baltics and Poland are also very forward-leaning. Of course they’re close to Russia, but Denmark is not, and it has re-introduced conscription, with forms of military service being planned by France and Germany. NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte put it starkly, “To prevent war, we need to prepare for it. It’s time to shift to a wartime mindset, and this means we need to strengthen our defences even more.”

In most countries though that debate has barely, if at all, started. It must, because that wartime mindset is going to be painful and require sacrifice.

That includes Britain, where the government is trying to talk a good game, but falling woefully short. Sure we’ve given a lot of kit to Ukraine and upped defence spending, but nothing we’ve done has required anything close to sacrifice on our part, nor has our government even begun to generate a narrative to prepare the nation for what needs to be done. For all Starmer’s foreign travels, defence and security are a ‘by the way’ in government messaging.

For instance, our armed forces remain in a parlous state, underequipped, undersized, with serious capability gaps in critical areas, and a shadow of what they were. The current uplift to their budget will barely touch the sides of what’s needed.

The obvious question then is where’s the money going to come from? The answer is, it’s going to come from us, and other places that also matter – and it will hurt. That’s the price of three decades of ‘bread and circuses’ since the end of the Cold War. We chose to believe that somehow we had seen the last of war, that even deterrence didn’t have to be very deterring, and we were wrong.

I am horrified and, having worked with so many Americans, personally upset by what’s happened to my America, but we are now in a double-bind. To the East we have a malign Russia invading Ukraine and conducting hybrid warfare against us, while to the West our former friend is turning their back on us. The sun is setting to the West, and on the wider Western World.

So, now it’s up to us to prove Trump wrong, to prove we are not decaying and weak, that our democracies retain their unity of purpose, values and durability.

At the crisis point of World War Two Churchill rallied Britain with his speeches, in one of which he said, “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”

We are lucky we are not at such a point of crisis. The ‘blood’ is coming from the Ukrainians and, as a result, so are most of the ‘tears’. What’s needed from us is ‘toil and sweat’ because we still have the time and the resources to provide Europe with the security it needs, and without having to rely on others.

The key point though is that we need to realise the need and buckle down to the task – no more ‘bread and circuses’.

---

[i] This return of Great Power brutalism and its historical roots are covered in more detail in a previous Substack that may be of interest: https://open.substack.com/pub/marklaity/p/from-thucydides-to-trump?r=ewpcb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false