Europe’s Crisis: Policy Decisions and Their Consequences

Introduction

Future historians may well ask what led to the decline and ruin of Europe. The actions and decisions of key leaders in recent decades have played a pivotal role, with policies that have shaped the continent’s current challenges.

Angela Merkel: Architect of European Transformation

Dr. Tilak K. Doshi of the Daily Skeptic identifies Angela Merkel as a central figure in Europe’s troubles. In 2015, Merkel oversaw a massive wave of immigration into Europe, primarily from the Muslim world. Simultaneously, she implemented net zero policies, decommissioning nuclear power and removing fossil fuels from the German industrial base. This dual focus—shutting down nuclear and coal power plants in favor of wind and solar energy—initiated a process that is now undermining the German economy.

Merkel’s rationale for accepting millions of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa was to address Europe’s low fertility rates and to bring in “doctors and engineers” to support the economy. However, Doshi observes that Germany and the European Union instead received an influx of fighting-age males, often crime-prone and resistant to assimilation, placing additional strain on already overstretched welfare systems. As current Chancellor Merz acknowledged, “The welfare state that we have today can no longer be financed with what we produce in the economy.”

Doshi concludes that both social and economic consequences were predictable: crime surges and the rise of parallel societies in cities such as Cologne and Berlin, as well as elsewhere in Europe, including Malmo in Sweden and Southport in England. Industry has increasingly relocated to the United States and Asia in search of affordable energy, leaving Germany—once Europe’s workshop—facing stagnation. Despite these outcomes, Merkel was celebrated by Brussels and mainstream media as the moral conscience of Europe.

Ursula Von Der Leyen and the European Commission

Ursula Von Der Leyen’s tenure as Germany’s defense minister was marked by inefficiency, with the Bundeswehr operating only a handful of tanks and aircrafts. Yet, she now holds the unelected and unaccountable position of President of the European Commission. In her recent “State of the European Union” address, Von Der Leyen reaffirmed her commitment to the “green transformation,” even as European industries falter under electricity costs that are triple those in the United States. Germany’s deindustrialization continues apace, while Britain, under both Conservative and Labour governments, aligns with the EU’s climate and immigration policies and shuts down vital steelworks, refineries, and offshore energy operations.

Despite these trends, Von Der Leyen’s rhetoric invokes economic competitiveness and energy security, even as policies restrict the fossil fuel sector that would otherwise deliver growth and affordable energy. As Doshi remarks, Europe has become a civilization sacrificing its productive capacity at the altar of Gaia. Von Der Leyen also criticizes elected officials like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, who resist unvetted immigration policies and defend national traditions. Orbán, for instance, is branded an “ally of Russia” for importing affordable gas and prioritizing Hungarian interests, while Fico faces similar condemnation for refusing mass migration and the latest ‘woke’ gender dogmas. Their insistence on national interests and skepticism of EU unity mark them as heretics to the European creed.

Centralization, Censorship, and Loss of Freedom

The European Union’s drive for tighter control over national politics has led to troubling developments, including the nullification of elections in Romania, interference in Moldova’s elections, and proposals for government access to private internet communications. Von Der Leyen’s push for net zero policies and increased censorship has contributed to a less free Europe, burdened by bureaucratic rules and unsustainable economic and energy policies.

A Crisis of Civilization

Europe’s difficulties are not merely economic—they reflect a deeper crisis of civilization. Doshi argues that elites such as Von Der Leyen have lost faith in the fundamental tenets of Western civilization, prioritizing sentiment over substance. The tendency to replace engineers with activists in energy ministries and to elevate failed ministers to international office has proved disastrous. The economic cost of such virtue signaling is severe: Europe’s electricity and gas prices are among the highest globally, crippling its manufacturing sector. Major industries are relocating to countries with more rational energy policies, while Europe’s share of global industrial output declines and its welfare states consume ever more of a shrinking economic pie.

Inversion of Priorities and the Cost to the Working Class

Europe’s decline is a result of deliberate choices favoring bureaucratic globalism over national aspirations. Doshi highlights Von Der Leyen’s recent call for multilateral development banks to focus on climate change rather than poverty, despite opposition from the United States. This inversion of priorities illustrates how Europe’s elites perceive the main problem of the poor as insufficient decarbonization, rather than lack of opportunity. Yet, evidence indicates that economic growth—not emissions cuts—remains the most reliable path to environmental improvement and human welfare.

The true victims are the working class, who bear the burden of high energy bills and face a future of mounting debts and a declining civilization. Doshi argues that Europe must rediscover the virtues of Western civilization that once enabled it to prosper and remain free and must reverse the momentum of its decline.

Biden and Obama policies failure that Trump inherited.

Let’s lay out a few facts: Donald Trump twice inherited heightened global instability from previous administrations. Specifically, he faced increased tensions with North Korea, ongoing conflict and chaos in the Middle East—much of which escalated during the Obama years—and further complications from Biden’s team, many of whom were also involved in earlier policy failures, it’s clear that Trump stepped into office at a time when international threats and regional turmoil were already on the rise.

Middle East Policy: The Role of Iran and U.S. Leadership

One of the most misguided foreign policy approaches in recent history was the belief that Iran could serve as a stabilizing force in the Middle East. The Obama administration’s strategy, which involved providing Iran with substantial financial resources and effectively permitting the continuation of its nuclear program beyond Obama’s tenure, was founded on the premise that a “balance of power” among Iran, the Sunni Arab states, and Israel would yield stability. However, this assumption overlooked the reality that Iran is a revolutionary power rather than a stabilizing influence, and much of the turmoil in the Middle East can be traced directly to Tehran’s actions.

When President Trump took office, he inherited an emboldened and aggressive Iran, fortified by financial assets provided through previous U.S. policy decisions. To address this, Trump imposed sanctions that significantly damaged the Iranian economy and sought to curb its regional influence. Conversely, the Biden administration reinstated aspects of the earlier Obama-era Middle East policy. As a result, Iran and its proxies in Syria, Yemen, Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon once again became sources of instability and conflict throughout the region.

A chronological review of recent Middle East geopolitical developments illustrates shifting alliances and U.S. foreign policy challenges. On September 15, 2020, the Abraham Accords were signed, normalizing relations between Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, with later participation from Sudan and Morocco; this marked a significant diplomatic breakthrough in the region. However, in subsequent years, Saudi Arabia began exploring deeper economic ties with China, evidenced by reports in 2022 and 2023 of discussions around settling some oil trades in Chinese yuan, rather than exclusively in U.S. dollars—a move interpreted by some analysts as a response to perceived inconsistencies in U.S. policy and a desire for diversified security partnerships (Wall Street Journal, 3/15/2022; Reuters, 3/16/2023). Critics of U.S. policy argue that a return to Obama-era strategies under the Biden administration contributed to Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of alternative alliances, while others contend that global economic trends and China’s growing influence played a substantial role. During his presidency, Donald Trump positioned himself as a mediator in Middle East conflicts, notably supporting Israel and applying pressure on Iran through sanctions. While Trump’s administration reportedly encouraged restraint by Israel during periods of heightened tension with Iran and advocated for negotiations, accounts of direct U.S.-brokered cease-fire interventions remain subject to debate among foreign policy experts (New York Times, 1/3/20f20; Brookings, 2/5/2020). Supporters argue that Trump’s approach fostered new diplomatic opportunities, while critics highlight ongoing instability and question the long-term effectiveness of his policies.   Experts need to understand that Israel restraint and wiliness to cooperate with Trump is that Israel understand Trump has its back plus many Arab nations view Iran as a threat to them. Overall, the evolving dynamics underscore a complex interplay of regional interests, great power competition, and shifting U.S. engagement in Middle East affairs. Trump thinking outside the box has rearranged America foreign policies.

Ukraine- This was yet another disaster Biden left Trump as the Ukraine has been fighting for their survival in a war that Biden weakness allowed to happen. When Biden pulled out of Afghanistan the way he did, it sent a message to Putin this is not a serious man and when Biden said that if Putin made a small excursion that is okay and Putin understood that to mean Biden would do nothing. In the Obama first administration Putin took Crimea and a portion of Ukraine, and it was the Obama administration that essentially allowed the Budapest accord which was to secure Ukraine borders in exchange to be rid of their nuclear weapons. Obama did not view defending Ukraine in our national interest even though he supported the orange revolution that allowed a Putin ally leading Ukraine to be ousted. When Putin marched into Crimea, Obama made it clear that Putin excursion would not be opposed. Trump now has to deal with the fall out of Obama and Biden failures in foreign which Trump inherited a major war in Europe and the Middle East along with America weakness exposed. There is more to dissect in the foreign policy area. The world is a more dangerous place and Biden foreign policy is to blame.

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Ukraine War: A Chronological Analysis

Obama Administration and Ukraine: Budapest Accord, Crimea Annexation, and U.S. Response

The roots of the ongoing conflict in Ukraine can be traced back to the geopolitical landscape shaped during the Obama administration. In 1994, the Budapest Memorandum was signed, wherein Ukraine agreed to relinquish its inherited Soviet nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia regarding its territorial integrity. However, when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, the U.S. response under President Obama was limited to imposing sanctions and diplomatic condemnation, rather than direct military support. While the Obama administration supported Ukraine’s pro-Western aspirations, including backing the Euromaidan protests and the ouster of a pro-Russian leader during the 2014 Orange Revolution, it stopped short of providing lethal aid. Critics argue this measured approach failed to deter further Russian aggression, while others contend that escalation could have risked broader conflict with Moscow.

Trump Administration: Inheriting Challenges and Policy Actions

When Donald Trump assumed office in 2017, he inherited a Ukraine still grappling with Russian occupation in Crimea and ongoing conflict in eastern regions. The Trump administration took a more assertive stance by approving the sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine—such as Javelin anti-tank missiles—a departure from previous policy. Trump’s approach included maintaining sanctions on Russia and supporting NATO’s deterrence measures in Eastern Europe. However, his administration was also marked by controversy, notably the temporary withholding of military aid to Ukraine in 2019, which became the subject of his first impeachment. Supporters argue that Trump’s policies strengthened Ukraine’s defense capabilities, while critics suggest that the aid delay sent mixed signals about U.S. commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty. The overall impact of these policies remains debated among analysts.  (One should not forget that Biden did threatened to withhold aid if a prosecutor who was investigating a company in which his son was involved in with and earning million dollars a year.   Biden bragged about this in a recorded conversations.)

Biden Administration: Policy Shifts and Implications for Ukraine

President Joe Biden took office in 2021 amid escalating tensions between Russia and Ukraine. His administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 was widely criticized for its execution, with some analysts suggesting it projected an image of diminished U.S. resolve internationally. In early 2022, as Russian troop buildups near Ukraine intensified, President Biden stated that a “minor incursion” by Russia might be met with a different U.S. response than a full-scale invasion, a comment that drew scrutiny for potentially signaling ambiguity to Moscow. Following Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, the Biden administration responded with robust military, economic, and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, along with unprecedented sanctions on Russia. While some argue that earlier, clearer deterrence might have prevented the invasion, others note that Russia’s actions reflect long-standing ambitions that transcend U.S. policy alone.  That latter point fail to mention that Putin didn’t invade Ukraine during the Trump administration.  One reason could be Americans Marines had encounter with Russian mercenaries in the Middle East and as the UK Independent reported, “The artillery barrage was so intense that the US commandos dived into foxholes for protection, emerging covered in flying dirt and debris to fire back at a column of tanks advancing under the heavy shelling. It was the opening salvo in a nearly four-hour assault in February by around 500 pro-Syrian government forces – including Russian mercenaries – that threatened to inflame already simmering tensions between Washington and Moscow…In the end, 200 to 300 of the attacking fighters were killed. The others retreated under merciless air strikes from the US, returning later to retrieve their battlefield dead. None of the Americans at the small outpost in eastern Syria – about 40 by the end of the firefight – were harmed.”  Putin may have concluded that Trump might be more willing to oppose him military.

Complexity of International Relations: Multiple Factors and Perspectives

The causes of the Ukraine war are multifaceted, involving a combination of Russian strategic objectives, NATO expansion debates, and international security assurances. Some experts assert that each U.S. administration’s choices—whether restraint, engagement, or ambiguous signaling—shaped the context for Russian decision-making. The evolving conflict underscores the challenges of deterrence, alliance management, and the unpredictability of authoritarian actors in the international system. A comprehensive understanding requires examining not only U.S. policy decisions, but also the broader dynamics at play in Eastern Europe and beyond.

Observations

Point one

John Fetterman let the cat out of the bag as he noted that Democrats shutdown the government and he is not going to call his opponent Nazis.   He is ready to open up government and realize that this may backfire on the Democrats and his support for Isreal has hurt him with Democrats.  The question is whether in 2028, the left can remove him in the primary or whether the Democrat voters are ready to abandon their socialist wing or Fetterman loses to a hard-core leftist.  At this point would Fetterman run a third party?

Point Two

Greg Roman in Middle East Forum noted about Gaza, “The strategic imperative remains unchanged: empowering Gaza’s clan structures, which represent 72 percent of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents through 608 registered mukhtars and six major Bedouin confederations, to fill the governance vacuum as Hamas is systematically removed.”  Right now Hamas are going after their political opponents including clans to secure their own control but there is one options to Hamas, the clans themselves and while not perfect, better options for Palestine.  Hamas will not lead Palestine to statehood.

Point Three

The number one persecuted religion is Christianity and one of the worst offender are Muslims. In Nigeria alone, thousands have been murdered in a genocidal rage.  Wonder why this doesn’t get more attention?

Trump Policy

America First: The Trump Approach to U.S. Foreign Policy

Introduction

The Trump administration’s foreign policy is characterized by a distinct America First approach, which is neither isolationist nor driven by hubris. Instead, it is grounded in the principle of defending U.S. national interests. This philosophy draws from historical precedents, particularly the Cap Weinberger Doctrine, which established foundational rules for military engagement.

The Cap Weinberger Doctrine: Principles of Engagement

Former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger outlined six essential rules for U.S. military engagement:

  1. Forces should not be committed unless the action is vital to national interest.
  2. Forces should be committed wholeheartedly with the intention of winning, or not at all, there should be no half-hearted commitment.
  3. Commitment of forces must have clearly defined political and military objectives.
  4. The use of force should be a last resort, employed only after all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted.
  5. The relationship between objectives and the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
  6. There must be reasonable assurance of public support before committing forces abroad.

Weinberger introduced these principles in the post-Vietnam era, responding to national divisions and concerns about the management of the war. These guidelines remain relevant for political leaders today.

Historical Context: Lessons from Lebanon and Grenada

In 1983, two significant events shaped U.S. foreign policy: the loss of 240 Marines in Beirut due to a suicide bombing and the invasion of Grenada, where U.S. forces ousted a Marxist government backed by Cuban forces. The Beirut mission was criticized for its unclear objectives, leading President Reagan to withdraw U.S. troops, avoiding prolonged entanglement. In contrast, the Grenada operation was executed decisively, swiftly removing Cuban forces from the region.

Trump’s Application of Weinberger’s Principles

President Trump has exhibited caution in the use of military force, adhering to many of Weinberger’s principles. He has resisted placing American troops in harm’s way, such as in Ukraine, and has favored measured responses in the Middle East. For example, airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities were only undertaken after diplomatic efforts failed, supporting a broader strategy of stability. In these operations, Israel played a critical role by neutralizing Iranian air defenses, facilitating U.S. access to key targets.

Middle East Strategy and the Role of Alliances

Since October 7th, Israel has fought Iranian proxies, including Hezbollah and Hamas. Trump distinguished his approach from the Biden administration by granting Israel autonomy to address Iranian threats directly. His objective in bombing Iranian nuclear facilities was to delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions, after which he urged both sides to pursue a truce. Trump’s actions demonstrated an ability to escalate conflict strategically to deescalate and pursue peace, as seen in his involvement with Qatar and efforts to solidify alliances through the Abraham Accords, which aimed to unite Israel and Sunni Arab states against Iranian influence.

Opposition to Transnational Organizations

A central feature of Trump’s America First policy is skepticism toward transnational organizations. His rejection of the Paris Climate Accords in 2017 and after taking office was based on concerns that the agreement hindered American energy policy while favoring countries like China and India. Trump maintains that such accords disadvantage the United States. He has asserted that his own diplomatic initiatives have produced more tangible results than those of the United Nations.

Pragmatic Diplomacy and Cultural Realism

Trump’s foreign policy does not focus on spreading democracy, though he welcomes its growth. He has acknowledged cultural differences, notably when addressing Saudi Arabia’s domestic achievements without advocating for the imposition of democratic systems. His emphasis is on respecting national sovereignty, encouraging countries to avoid threatening their neighbors or the United States.

Immigration and Cultural Preservation

Trump has expressed concern about the erosion of Western civilization, attributed to open borders in the U.S. and Europe. He believes that unchecked immigration without assimilation undermines national identity, viewing secure borders as essential to preserving American culture. He has echoed the sentiment that immigration without assimilation amounts to conquest, reinforcing his commitment to border security and cultural integrity.

Energy Independence and Economic Strategy

Energy independence is a cornerstone of Trump’s foreign policy. He aims for the U.S. to lead global energy production, minimizing obstacles to development and leveraging energy exports to strengthen alliances. Trump warned European allies against reliance on Russian oil and gas, advocating for American energy as a more stable alternative. Promoting American energy exports not only benefits the U.S. economy but also solidifies strategic partnerships.

Modest Foreign Policy: Prioritizing American Interests

Trump’s approach is characterized by a modest foreign policy, placing American interests above all else. He recognizes the importance of alliances based on mutual benefit but resists arrangements that disadvantage the U.S., such as unfavorable tariffs. His negotiations aim to protect American workers, expand manufacturing, and encourage allied countries to adopt policies supportive of U.S. interests. Tariffs have also served as a tool to address border security and decouple manufacturing from China.

Strategic Objectives and Measurable Outcomes

Trump emphasizes the importance of clear strategic objectives and measurable outcomes before committing military or diplomatic resources. His foreign policy leverages economic tools and alliances to advance American interests, adapting previous administration principles to contemporary challenges. This pragmatic leadership seeks to position the United States as a decisive actor on the global stage.

Influences: Nixon and Reagan

In many respects, Trump combines the foreign policy approaches of Nixon and Reagan. He focuses on stabilizing the world through peace negotiations and strategic competition, particularly with China, while strengthening the American economy. Nixon’s legacy includes innovative diplomacy, such as leveraging China against the Soviet Union, while Reagan emphasized the importance of a strong economy as the foundation for effective foreign policy.