Battle for Budapest

In the days before what is now known as the Iran War, and amidst the horrific suppression of its citizens by the Iranian state, a Dutch diplomat, having arrived at Tehran airport, was stopped and asked to disclose the contents of his luggage. He refused, citing diplomatic immunity, and left Iran, leaving his luggage behind. A subsequent inspection of the luggage in the presence of another Dutch diplomat, allegedly revealed three Starlink modems and a number of satellite phones.

It is not at all clear whether the devices were for ‘personal use’ or for the benefit of Iranian dissidents, but the incident reminded me of the efforts of George Soros to export hundreds of photocopiers into communist Eastern Europe in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, so that dissident texts could be copied and circulated.

This was the very tip of the iceberg of Soros’ funding of the pro-democracy movement in Eastern Europe, and at one point it was said that he gave more in aid than all the Western governments together. In particular Soros, who studied under the philosopher Karl Popper (author of ‘The Open Society and its Enemies’), was committed to creating an ‘open society’ in Hungary, the country of his birth, and established the Central European University (CEU) in Budapest in 1991.

Around the mid 1990’s I recall Bill Newton-Smith, a philosopher and Fellow at Balliol College and associate of Soros leaving England to help run the CEU. As he left Oxford, a young student activist called Viktor Orbán had come the other way (in 1990 I think), to begin a research fellowship on the topic of civil society in Europe, sponsored by the Soros Foundation.

Orbán didn’t last long at Oxford, returned home to become a member of parliament and the leader of the main liberal party Fidesz. Orbán has been a central figure in Hungarian politics since then, but in the late 2000’s, underwent a political and moral transformation. At a conference in Prague some years ago, I spoke with a few entrepreneurs who had been early associates of Orbán’s, and who had suspicions as to the motivation behind his change of tack.

This change pivoted on his relationship with Soros, who Orbán has transformed into a figure of hate for the far-right internationally. Equally, Orbán flipped his view on Russia. He had been highly critical of Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, but soon after, following a visit to St Petersburg to meet Vladimir Putin, Orbán started to change his stance on Russia.

For much of the past sixteen years, Orbán has commanded a large amount of popular support, though his actions and attitude in going against the grain of the EU have cost Hungary – in the last fifteen years, Hungarian GDP growth has lagged that of Poland by 0.8% per annum, tens of billions in EU aid has been withheld, and corruption has become institutionalised under Orbán. Budapest has become a staging post for the Russian security services and teachers, women, judges, amongst others have suffered in ways they would not expect in a normal European country.

In this context, the general election in Hungary (April 12^th) could become a critical turning point, and is highly important for the EU. At a broad level, polls point to a victory for Peter Magyar of the Tisza Party, with the majority of the opposition parties in Hungarian politics having swung behind him. However, in the context of extensive gerrymandering, a propensity for ethnic voting groups (Hungarians living abroad and Roma in Hungary) to tilt toward Orbán, and the capture of state institutions and budgets, the outcome is highly uncertain.

Not only is Orbán an ally of Moscow (Orban’s team has been accused of leaking confidential EU discussions to Russian officials, and Orbán holds frequent meetings with the Russian foreign minister), but he has become the darling of the international MAGA movement. Orbán’s campaign been endorsed by Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump, Marco Rubio visited Budapest in mid-February and vice president JD Vance will travel there on April 7^th, just before the election.

There are already allegations of impropriety and vote rigging against Orbán, in what will be a hotly contested election, and deep suspicion of social media influence by Russia, not to mention the support of the White House.

EU leaders fear a close election or that Orbán, having lost the vote, will use his remaining days to change laws and appointments to key institutions. The example of Poland is being mentioned, where on taking power Donald Tusk faced years of difficulty in removing hard-right opponents from media and other institutions.

As such, the EU will have to invest enormous time, energy and capital in remaking Hungary. The short-term gain for the EU will be the absence of the Hungarian veto on European foreign policy stances, notably so in the case of Ukraine.

Should Orbán win, or continue to contest a close vote, a more existential issue faces the EU that will centre around a gathering debate on how to further sanction and potentially expel an EU member that is steadfastly recalcitrant.

Lurking behind the election, is a deeper foreign policy issue for Europe, in the context of several major wars and the disintegration of NATO, the need to combat more fiercely interference in the democratic processes of EU member states.

Have a great week ahead,

Mike

Mars, Venus or just lost in space?

Two recent events have me thinking of a 2003 book by the international relations expert Robert Kagan, entitled ‘Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order’, which started life as a 2002 article in Policy Review. In the foreign affairs world, the book is known colloquially as ‘Mars or Venus’, because the opening sentence goes ‘Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus’.

Kagan’s aim was to explain that Europe and the US had very different views of the world, and that these differences were rooted in culture, history and aims. Europe is the older, wiser and more genteel continent, concerned with roping its social democracy in well made rules, whereas the relatively younger American republic (250 years old this year) was more muscular, in military and financial terms. Kagan’s book, in keeping with the reception given to Francis Fukuyama’s ‘The End of History’ and more recently Graham Allison’s ‘Destined For War’, is better known for its strapline than the detail of its argument, but then again that is the art of the successful author, and one that in comparison, few European international relations experts have cracked.

That, in 2002, Kagan felt the need to state that Europeans and Americans are different, betrayed the long-held sense that they are the same people, in the sense that in 2002, the vast majority of Americans could trace their family history back to Germany, Ireland, Britain and France (in 1960 some 85% of foreign-born Americans were from Europe in vs 10% today).

That much was also clear during the many events in Washington to mark St Patrick’s Day. President Trump invoked his own European heritage (Scottish mother, German father), teased Speaker Mike Johnson as to whether he was a WASP or Italian, whilst Taoiseach Micheal Martin told how a Cork man, Stephen Moylan, a senior officer in George Washington’s staff, is credited with the first use of the phrase ‘the United States of America’ in 1776.

In that context, the ‘Mars and Venus’ argument is ever more relevant today as the divide between Europe and its American cousins widens. While European countries wholeheartedly supported the US in the 1991 Kuwait War (see our recent note) and in the aftermath of 9/11, the doubts that many European governments had over the 2003 invasion of Iraq partly motivated Kagan’s book (the film ‘Quai D’Orsay is very good in this context).

In that context, the polite refusal of nearly all of America’s allies, not just in Europe but also the likes of Japan and India, to send ships to the Strait of Hormuz, is emblematic of a deepening divide, and in recent weeks a good number of American friends have reached out to ask ‘is it us, or is it you?’. My polite response is that ‘it’s the White House’ (noting that most Americans are against this war), but more broadly I feel that one of the great anomalies of our time is that so few Americans realise the damage that is being done to America’s reputation abroad.

So, one might argue that Kagan’s ‘Mars-Venus’ short-hand for international relations has never been more true, and the fact that Europe has done little in the past twenty years to bolster its security, and to deepen its financial markets, gives some weight to American frustration and derision. Equally, the vandalization of shared values (democracy) and institutions (NATO, the United Nations) by the White House causes horror across European capitals.

Yet, at this painful point in trans-Atlantic relations, I wonder if we have reached peak ‘Mars-Venus’, in the context that Europe today is still quite like it was in 2003 in terms of world view, whereas the US is politically and socially very different to that of 2003.

My reasoning is that Europe is finally having the ‘neo-con’ moment that the US went through in the early 2000’s (Robert Kagan was part of that movement), and is starting to rebuild its defences, though it lags badly on capital markets union (now Investment Savings Union).

Oddly, Europe no longer shares the same enemies as the US. Russia should be the prime concern of European security chiefs. It is also troubling that the Trump administration actively supports far-right parties like the AfD in Germany, and the few European nations who side with the Kremlin (VP Vance visits Hungary next week).

As such, Europe’s path and challenge is clear – to remain the sole liberal democratic pole in a disordered world. When Robert Kagan wrote his book in 2003, the natural assumption was that American democracy was a beacon for others to follow, as far as Asia and even across Eastern Europe (Kagan’s wife Victoria Nuland was a senior American diplomat serving in Eastern Europe during ‘the Maidan’ in 2014, where her most famous utterance was ‘f@#k the EU’).

Yet, America’s democracy is now in deep trouble, and one of the sharpest critics of Donald Trump’s approach is Robert Kagan, who warns of the descent towards a dictatorship.

It will be over by Christmas

Mon centre cède, ma droite recule, situation excellente, j’attaque

At the First Battle of the Marne, not so far from Paris, in September 1914, Marshall Foch sent the above, inspiring communiqué to Marshall Joffre (‘my centre is crumbling, my right is retreating, the situation is excellent, I attack!’). The Battle of the Marne was arguably the greatest land battle of the twentieth century and caused over 500,000 casualties. Its strategic effect was to halt and reverse Germany’s lightning attack across France towards Paris and set the scene for years of entrenched warfare. At the time, the Great War was some three months old, and many thought that ‘it will be over by Christmas’.

There are few parallels between the First World War and the Iran War, but there is a creeping feeling that, in the absence of a clear strategy from the White House (see last week’s note ‘Safe Places’), there is a risk that this conflict becomes entrenched.

It is already very costly. In the first week of the attack on Iran, the US apparently spent close to USD 11bn on weapons and munitions, and that is without calculating the human and economic costs. In the context of record public indebtedness, the question is not so much can America win the war, but can it afford it?

Indeed, it seems largely forgotten now that America’s own wars have been associated with indebtedness. That the American Revolutionary War was financed mostly by the French (Lafayette and Beaumarchais), Spain and the Netherlands – indeed in a lesson for policy makers today, Congress had to print money to pay off these loans, which had the effect of causing rampant inflation and devaluing the dollar. It’s also worth flagging that the American Civil War saw a sharp run up in debt (US sovereign debt in 1865 was 40 times what it was in 1860, according to figures from the Treasury), the consequence of which was a collapse in the dollar, again.

Still, the lesson that wars generally strain finances, seems to have been habitually forgotten. Some might recall that Larry Lindsey, an economic adviser to George W Bush’s administration left his job after producing what at the time was considered to be a high estimate (USD 200bn) of the costs of the second Iraq War. It turned out to be a conservative estimate, as the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of the war at USD 2.4bn and other analysts have put the total cost at closer to USD 5bn.

Equally, Britain and France are fascinating in many ways – they have very old and rich economies and together have been involved in most wars going back to at least 1000 AD. Britain is a nose ahead of France in that there is arguably a longer thread of data available about its economy, and it is very well curated by the likes of the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility, whose note on ‘300 years of public finance data’ is a must read for aficionados of economic history.

If I could sum up those 300 years of data it would be to state that wars drive indebtedness, and then indebtedness itself drives fiscal reform. Between 1700 and 1800, debt to GDP in Britain rose from 25% to close to 200%, during a period that was marked by wars over the Spanish Succession, the Austrian Succession, the Seven Years War, the American War of Independence and of course the Napoleonic Wars (after the French Revolution). As a rough rule, British participation in the many and varied wars of the 18^th century led to spikes in defence spending of up to 10%, whilst the more deadly world wars saw defence spending push beyond 50% (of GDP).

More broadly, the Kiel Institute has created a database of conflicts going back over the past 150 years that measures the economic costs of war and they have used this to create a model that scopes the potential economic costs of war scenarios. Though quite chilling in its consequences, their interactive tool is useful, and I recommend it to the White House.

For example, I input a scenario (based on 2023 economic valuations) for a war that takes place in Taiwan and also in China (assuming a dramatic US riposte). The direct economic and capital damages are well into the USD 20 trillion, and that is without counting US military losses and the disruptive effect on world trade, risk appetite, and financial market collateral damage.

So, not only do armies march on their stomachs as Napoleon hinted, but also on their balance sheets. In this alarming context, geopolitical ‘players’ have two pressing needs. One is to build out their military capabilities, and the other is to reduce debt – in part to allow them the fiscal space to be warlike. With the US now spending over USD 100 bn more on interest payments on its debt than on its military, it is living a strategic contradiction.

Have a great week ahead, Mike

Safe Places

I started the week in the beautiful surroundings of Killarney, Co. Kerry, where after nearly two months of constant rain, blue skies opened up. One of my earliest memories of Killarney, thanks to Irish-German cousins, was the sizeable German community there (Killarney used have a German butchers) and a commonplace saying at the time was that the reason many Dutch and Germans were drawn to the southwest of Ireland is that its remoteness and prevailing winds, meant that it would be the safest place in Europe in the event of a Cold War nuclear exchange.

That much was mildly reassuring given the news from the Middle East.

More so in the context that, in the same corner of the world at Île Longue in Brittany, Emmanuel Macron announced an upgrade of France’s nuclear deterrent, and critically the building of a European nuclear umbrella encompassing the likes of Greece, Belgium, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. This was followed by bi-lateral announcements by other states, notably Germany, and work on joint operations committees will start to take shape from the end of this year.

This is a major announcement from France and the involvement of other countries is highly significant, especially in the case of Germany, and it is yet another indication of the advent of a Military Union in the EU (and I would include Norway and the UK here, possibly Canada). Yet, as we noted in last week’s note (‘Riddle of the Funds’), capital markets union, and business scaling incentives will be more important than nuclear missiles in enabling Europe to build a military innovation complex.

My worry is that with the pace of geopolitical events taking place at a rapid speed, Europe may leave it too late. The attack on Iran was a case in point, but the White House has left the outside world convinced that it has no coherent strategy for Iran, and this exposes multiple risk scenarios.

Five weeks ago in our ‘Persepolis 2’ note, we concluded by observing that the future of Iran might change when ‘An opening may come when the Supreme Leader, Khamenei dies – he is 86 and suffers from cancer. This event could provide the cover for a discrete but meaningful shift in policy, and the start of negotiations on sanctions and Iran’s nuclear program, and the beginning of a more promising era’.

Broadly, my view has not changed. The volatility of the past week has taught us much more about the behaviour of investors and market analysts, than the future of Iran. There has simply been too much ‘knee-jerkism’, about the impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz on long-term inflation and bond markets for example.

What matters most is the long-term alignment of Iran with other countries in the region, post this war, and in this context, there are several considerations. If this war ends in a ‘Mission Accomplished’ style declaration of triumph by both the US and Iran, the first factor will be the extent to which Iranian civil society has any role in the government. Iran is unlike Iraq was in 2003 in that it has a broad middle class, and a large, wealthy diaspora ready to contribute to the country. Unfortunately, it is also unlike Iraq in the sense that it has a highly entrenched regime elite, and herein lies the fallacy of the White House’s decapitation strategy. The Iranian ‘regime’ is composed of priests, oligarchs and the military, who have deep economic interests across the country (the IRGC own stakes in many businesses) and unrooting them will be difficult. If somehow, a more modern elite was to eventually come to power in Iran, then this would be a considerable boost for my ‘Fourth Pole’ thesis of a coherent, thriving economic zones across the region.

If Iran is not ‘Iraq in 2003’, then the prosecution of this war by the US looks from a political point of view, nothing like the 1991 Gulf War. At the time George H. Bush, himself a decorated aviator, spent time building a coalition of allies to fight a war with a very clear and limited objective. Bush, General Norman Schwarzkopf and Colin Powell were recognized for their leadership and clarity, and we cannot say the same for Secretary of War Hegseth. Today, there is no sense of an overall strategy (though Israel’s aims are clear), and the enduring sense is that the White House is now a source of uncertainty, rather than an architect of peace. The reluctance of European nations to participate reflects this, and the damage that Trump has done to the trans-Atlantic partnership.

Then, finally, the remarkable feature of this war is how publicly quiet Russia and China have been about the plight of their Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) partner. China has become a vital financial partner in the last decade, Russia is at the epicentre of Iran’s economy and military supply chain. I recall taking an internal flight in Iran twenty years ago where the bodyguards of a Russian businessman stood protectively in the aisle for the duration of the flight (including takeoff and landing).

The danger is less Russian opportunism, but rather that it and China perceive America’s action to be strategic, and that they respond in kind. Other countries like Turkey will also ponder the post-war landscape and what it means for their regional positioning.

Let’s hope that none of them think of Kerry!

Have a great week ahead, Mike

Riddle of the Funds

A friend who lives in an isolated area and therefore in need of good reading material, recently asked me to recommend some geopolitical oriented thrillers. I immediately thought of decent, new writers in the field like David McCloskey and Charles Beaumont, the interesting recent James Stavridis/Eliot Ackerman books that straddle fact and fiction, as well as the scary ‘If Russia Wins’ by Carlo Masala.

However, many of my favourites are from different eras, Laurence Durrell’s ‘White Eagles over Serbia’ set during the Cold War, and then in a bygone period of great power competition, the works of Eric Ambler and of course, Erskine Childers (‘Riddle of the Sands’ ).

The end of globalization and the onset of great power competition means that those works remain relevant though, if on the fourth anniversary of the war on Ukraine European policymakers wanted reading recommendations, I might well propose a book like Sebastian Mallaby’s ‘The Power Law’, or Azeem Azhar’s ‘Exponential’, and to be cheeky, even ‘The Art of the Deal’.

My reasoning, with Europe (the EU, UK, Nordic nations) finally starting to mobilise its factories and innovators to bolster its war economy, is that there remain several missing elements in the quest to build the industrial champions of the European war economy. Europe’s politicians are very good at high minded rhetoric (there are repeated calls to build the European Google, Palantir and Anduril), and even better at racking up debt, but less gifted at spurring large scale innovation.

For instance, the response to the hostile American message to the EU at the 2025 Munich Security Conference was the lifting of the German debt brake, while the recent threat to ‘take’ Greenland has prompted multiple calls for the issue of ‘euro-bonds’.

However, with German military spending and defence related industrial production now taking off, the secret to defence and security innovation lies more in business school texts, than in war college. There are a few elements to highlight here.

The first one touches on a perennial problem for Europe, the lack of depth in financial markets. Amidst an epidemic of defence start-ups and fund launches across Europe, there are still relatively few investment funds focused on the kind of later stage investing required to scale security focused companies to a size where they can become part of the growing industrial infrastructure in Europe. This lacuna owes in part to the failure of Capital Markets Union (now Investment Savings Union), such that few pension funds and institutional managers are investors in ‘strategic autonomy’.

It also reflects a labour market problem – there are simply few investors in Europe who have good knowledge of the defence and dual use ecosystem.

The idea of an ecosystem is the second aspect of the defence investment riddle. A small number of countries have cracked this – the US and France stand out. In the US, like France, the education system provides a rich supply of engineers and technologically capable graduates (e.g. Onera Labs in France), many of whom have a layer of business school training, and in a good number of cases have ties to or experience in the military.

Ecosystems encompass large firms, divisions of the military and defence establishment (i.e. SpaceForce), as well as sector specialist investors. When the elements of such an ecosystem are connected and work together, they can propel an interesting start-up to a viable enterprise in a few years. A developed pan-European ecosystem does not exist, and its cultivation needs to surmount cultural obstacles (as the recent Future Combat Air System (FCAS) debacle has shown), tax and incentive policy, and a more open approach to innovation from large European firms.

Then, the element that is to my observation missing in many new defence focused start-ups and first-time investment funds is the presence of seasoned business operators who have experience in scaling businesses and advising on how best to navigate the various complex government procurement pathways across Europe.

This is a critical omission in the defence sector because government led procurement can help start-ups survive, but not necessarily grow. This is doubly so in dual-use technologies such as cyber security and hardware (including new materials), where ‘go to market’ is a more important imperative than ‘go to war’. Compared to the US, Europe has a short supply of such operators, and in general governments have not done a good job of encouraging them to become part of the ‘strategic autonomy’ economy.

Europe faces a diplomatic disengagement by the US, a grave security threat from Russia and industrial dislocation by China. As such, Europe’s war economy needs to add up to much more than guns and drones, but must rest on innovation, entrepreneurship and ambitious capital.

Have a great week ahead, Mike

Old Money

A recent book, Samuel Moyn’s ‘Gerontocracy in America, highlights the growing concentration of wealth and power in the much older generations in the US, whilst younger generations face historically high valuations in real estate and financial assets, and how this growing intergenerational divide might be mended. Moyn, in my view, has struck a chord that will become one of the new dividing lines in politics, in Asia and the West.

His book brings demographic change into focus, a slow-creeping risk to economies, society and public life, but whose implications are only just surfacing in the public debate. Despite that, from a popular point of view, the sense in many Western countries is that there are too many people, or rather that infrastructure has not kept up pace with population growth – I am writing this in Dublin, which is an excellent case in point.

Yet, the long-run demographic trends – falling fertility, longer life expectancy and a shift in population composition towards a much smaller working (tax paying) population, will have enormous impacts on society, pension systems and debt loads, to name a few economic issues.

As much was evident in Germany’s recent pension reform debate which was nearly upended by Helmut Kohl’s grandson Johannes Volkmann and a group of other young parliamentarians who voiced the right of the younger generation to not have to shoulder the financial burden of their parents’ generation (under the German system, and many others, the working population effectively funds the retirement system of the older generation)..

The best starting point on the outlook for demographics is the United Nations World Population Prospects website. and the data – especially in chart form – are quite striking.

The UN data show that as we approach 2100 the world population will plateau and start to shrink. From roughly 2080 onwards the world population growth rate will turn negative for the first time in centuries (wars apart), as the death rate passes out the birth rate. Within the age cohorts, the over 65 group will expand by a billion people in the next thirty years.

More specifically, at the country level, the US death rate will surpass the birth rate in around 2040, and population growth is likely to only be sustained by immigration. The picture is worse for some European countries – Italy for example is already in negative population growth territory, and the most negative forecast scenario from the UN has the Italian population dropping from over 60 million today to 25 million by 2100 (the same level as when Garibaldi unified the country).

Equally, China, which has been renowned for its economic and population growth, will endure a collapse in the 24–65-year age group, who today number 830 million people and by 2100 are expected to comprise 280 million people. China is projected to be the country most affected by ageing, with its, China’s elderly dependency ratio is projected to surpass 100% by 2080, meaning there will be more people aged over 65 than those aged 15 to 65.

The expected collapse in the working population begs serious questions for the economy – who will pay taxes, sustain pension systems and where will demand for financial assets come from. Markets are not worried, yet.

In general, researchers find that there is a positive link between demographics and asset prices, a finding that is predicated on the rise of the boomer middle class and the coincident equity bull market and fall in bond yields. The idea is that until they retire, working households invest more in real estate, equities and other riskier assets, but then shift to income-oriented assets like bonds as they get older and require income from investments. The oddity in that respect is that despite an ageing population, equities and real estate are very expensive. This may well owe to a growing investment culture, a record level of wealth (USD 500 trillion worldwide) and the prosperity boon that has resulted from globalization.

In this context, old money will become a political target, both in terms of demands for lower inheritance taxes, to more populist measures to tax the ‘old’ and give the ‘young’. For governments who worry about demand for their bonds, wealthier older citizens might make ideal candidates for financial repression (their children would face lower inheritance tax provided that capital spent a period of ‘purgatory’ invested in government bonds – I outlined a similar theme in ‘Patriotic Capita l’)

At the same time, pension systems will have to change to accommodate a proportionately smaller number of workers (to pensioners). Private pension systems will become more common, they will invest more, earlier, with a tilt to riskier assets.

Concurrently, I expect to hear more on the need for states to establish sovereign wealth like funds (based potentially on the sale of state assets) to help provide for future pension liabilities. Another concern will be the need for states to cushion the potential blow of AI on workforces (a fund that holds equity in AI firms might be an avenue), at least through a transition period. In the long term, AI and robotics may well allow more older people to work for longer and for more women to enter the workforce. And, I haven’t managed to tackle the topic of later retirement ages and how that will impact the workforce and society.

The effects of demographics are not yet showing up in markets, and are just creeping into the investment industry, but it will become a major fiscal and financial megatrend.

Have a great week ahead, Mike

Constellations

One of the highly unique, and fascinating characteristics of this era of unravelling is the way we increasingly look at the world from a geopolitical rather than a geographic point of view. In previous phases in history, geography and geopolitics aligned neatly – for example the democratic West faced off against the communist East while economically, the North was well ahead of the South. Now, select countries from disparate parts of the world share the same dilemmas and challenges. Japan, as a middle power, arguably has more in common geopolitically with the UK, than it does with Indonesia. In turn, Singapore and Ireland, arguably share the same geopolitical stress points.

In the post globalized world, new coalitions and constellations of countries are beginning to emerge. That much was on display at Davos two weeks ago, when Canadian prime minister Mark Carney eloquently pleaded the case of the democratic ‘middle powers’ and the need for them to collaborate. His speech was followed by the far less eloquent launch of Donald Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’, which is a ragtag band of largely developing countries not known for their commitment to the rule of law and appreciation of human rights.

As the various threads of globalization – from the use of the SWIFT payment system to energy pipelines like Nord Stream, the ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US, NATO, USAID, and many more, fall by the wayside, new groups and alignments emerge, and in the rest of this note I will sketch some of them.

To start at the top of the pyramid, regular readers will know that David Skilling and I have extensively researched the phenomenon of small, advanced economies – a group that spans Sweden, Singapore, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Austria and Denmark, and that may in future incorporate the Gulf States.

Culturally, these countries are very different but share the same economic and social successes (‘happiest place to live’, ‘best rule of law’, ‘highest GDP’), and a common policy recipe that is based on innovation, openness, education and social cohesion. While we have even tried to create a policy forum for these countries (the ‘g20’), they do not act as a formal block, but actively compare notes behind the scenes. For example, the Nordic states are learning from each other and collaborating on immigration, while Ireland urgently needs to follow the examples of Singapore and Norway on defence.

Then, below the small, advanced economies are the ‘middle powers’, sizeable, developed countries, many of whom enjoyed periods of international dominance, but are now beset by demographic issues (ageing and immigration), and are searching for a defined geopolitical role. Japan, the UK, Canada, Korea, Australia and Russia (not big enough economically to be a superpower, and not nice enough either). With the exception of Russia, the middle powers are democracies and most are eager that the world stays much the same as it was during the period of globalization (at least in the case of Keir Starmer). As such they are beginning to hedge bets by aligning with larger powers, Russia with China, and the UK is now cultivating much better relations with the EU.

Looming over the middle powers are the three ‘great powers’ – China, the US and the EU, each with their strengths – military, finance and technology for the US, culture, liberal democracy, well-being and cities in the case of Europe, and industry and cultural cohesion in the case of China.

They will be the pillars of the emerging multipolar world, and in contrast to the globalized era where most countries adopted the American way of doing things, these three ‘blocs’ will increasingly do things their own, culturally specific way. AI is an example, but corporate governance might be another tack. In addition to these three behemoths, a ‘Fourth Pole’ made up of a core of India and the Gulf states, is possible, as we wrote back in November.

Those classifications still leave about fifty percent of the world’s population unaccounted for, whose nations collectively labour under the term ‘Global South’. These countries, from Nigeria to Indonesia to Bangladesh, share similar policy problems – the building of e-commerce driven economies, healthcare and urbanisation, to name a few but they are not at all at the level of policy exchange as the small, advanced economies, and many of them do not have structured economic models.

For some, the idea of the ‘Fourth Pole’ can become an interesting organizing point, but to a very large extent the survival of existing world institutions, from the UN to the World Bank, now depends on the large, populous emerging economies. Equally, the directions that these countries take in their political economy – do they follow the ‘Chinese model’, the European democratic one, or something else altogether. This policy question is vastly underestimated in the discourse on international economics and politics, partly because the ‘great powers’ are not leading by example.

Have a great week ahead, Mike

Arktika

In 2007 two Russian mini-subs, Mir-1 and Mir-2, dived over 4,000 metres below the Arctic Circle to plant a titanium Russian flag, and so launched a primitive claim to the geological treasures at the top of the world. In highly Bond-esque fashion, the subs were supported by Mi-8 helicopters and the Rossiya, Russia’s most powerful nuclear-powered icebreaker.

The exploit was criticized by the then Canadian foreign minister as ‘15^th century’ buccaneering but won the three Russian expedition leaders the medal of ‘Hero of the Russian Federation’ (they were accompanied by a Swedish scientist and an Australian adventurer).

The episode highlighted how the scramble for rare places (we wrote about this in 2021) – the Arctic, Antarctic and outer space, are becoming strategic theatres in a world of great power rivalry. As much was emphasized in 2011 when then Secretary for State Hilary Clinton attended the Arctic Council meeting in Nuuk, a hitherto obscure club, to strengthen America’s commitment to the Arctic.

In that context, it is no surprise that the Trump administration has discovered the strategic importance of Greenland, although there is not a single mention of it in the recent National Security Strategy document. The White House might have asked nicely and had its way to place listening stations and missile batteries in Greenland, but instead the President has banalised his office and his country, and placed in jeopardy the most important geopolitical alliance of the past twenty years.

In doing so he has proven my ‘Rule of Unravelling’ which states that in the post globalization era, all of the constructive institutions and values of the globalized world will be stress-tested, in some cases to breaking point. For instance, the UN is invisible and impotent, and the most sacred of American institutions, the Federal Reserve, has come under a full-frontal attack in recent months. NATO it seems is next.

In most European capitals, especially those with large professional armies, there is considerable doubt that, under the Trump administration, the US will be a reliable ally. The immediate implication is to change the calculus that underpins any security guarantee for Ukraine, and indeed the process by which Ukraine will eventually become a member of the European Union.

Europe already significantly outstrips the US in terms of the extent to which it funds Ukraine (relative to GDP, Denmark is the biggest donor), but the intent of this aid will now have to become more lethal, in terms of what Ukraine can do with the arms provided to it, and craftier, in terms of the ways Ukraine can work with European armies to upset Russia’s war machine.

More broadly, there is also growing chatter that NATO is defunct, and will in effect be replaced by a European army (the Spanish foreign minister, amongst others, called for this last week).

A first step here might be an augmentation (and accelerated implementation) of the EU SAFE (Security Action for Europe) program that allows member states to borrow to fund military equipment for joint use, especially where the bulk of that equipment is made in the EU. Canada is a member of the SAFE, and stupidly the EC made it all but impossible for the UK to join. But, US arms manufacturers will have a hard time selling in Europe.

An EU army could very easily be put together around the structures of existing cooperation agreements, and of course, the structures that have been put in place by NATO. Yet, there is still a considerable amount of work to do however on optimizing collaboration in areas like cyber warfare, intelligence sharing and logistics infrastructure (the EU aims to create a ‘Military Schengen’ by 2027).

The aim of such an army would be the defence of European interests and territories, which in practice takes aim at Russia, but can be broadly interpreted to also cover counter-terrorism, space and the deep seas. In the context of the spat over Greenland, the composition of such an army could encompass elements that are not traditionally classed as military activities, such as economic war, but that in a total war world, might be part of the greater arsenal.

In Europe, the response to each crisis is to create a ‘Union’. In the same way that the euro-zone crisis led to the idea of Capital Markets Union, Europe’s ‘neo-con’ moment may produce a ‘Defence Union’, but unlike CMU, there is now a deadly sense of urgency. To my mind, it is still not at all clear that Europe’s political leaders are ready to command a large, capable military machine.

In a recent note ‘Year of the Riposte’ and in a talk at University College Cork with Prof. Andrew Cottey (‘Europe under Siege), I highlighted the litany of challenges that have been put to European leaders by the White House, China and Russia. In every case, the response has been a mixture of panic and a floundering search for compromise. Europe still dances to the tune set by Trump and others, as the Greenland fiasco has shown.

For example, in an underestimated speech at Davos, Friedrich Merz told the audience that ‘he gets it’ on defence and security. Yet, military procurement and recruitment are inefficient and sluggish.

Europe’s leaders have not yet passed the test set out in our recent ‘Riposte’ note ‘the litmus test for Europe in 2026 is to stop reacting to the disorder that others sow, but to build a positive narrative around the EU, and critically to riposte in a meaningful way against its adversaries’.

Soon they will have no choice, In 2019, Emmanuel Macron boldly stated that ‘NATO is brain dead’. It is now.

Have a great year ahead, Mike

Persepolis

In October 1971, a time when Mao ruled China, Brezhnev was in charge in the USSR and Nixon president of the USA, Maxim’s, the famous Parisian restaurant closed for two weeks so that staff could prepare the restaurant’s greatest order – the feast organised by the Shah of Iran to celebrate the 2500th anniversary of the establishment of the Persian empire by Cyrus the Great.

The Shah’s celebration became known as the greatest party of all time (Life magazine called it ‘the party of the century’) and became highly controversial for its lavishness. For instance, nearly 300 red Mercedes were used to ferry guests around a large, tented city and in the end Maxim’s and other establishments sent some eighteen tonnes of food to Iran. Waiters had to open and taste all of the bottles of Chateau Lafite Rothschild 1945 for poison. Many of the world’s royal families attended, as did a range of social and political figures from Grace Kelly to Tito to Haile Selassie, to Imelda Marcos. It’s perhaps no surprise that this display of excess was followed a few years later by the Iranian Revolution.

The spectacle of the Shah’s party, his ties to foreign governments and the cruelty of his secret police and a drawn-out recession contributed to months of protests in the late 1970’s, which then led to the Revolution. One of the best accounts of the Revolution is a somewhat accidental one – Desmond Harney’s excellent eyewitness account of the revolution “The Priest and the King.” At the time, Harney worked in Tehran. He had been ready to leave Iran on vacation, but for work-related reasons he remained, and then witnessed the eruption of the revolution around him.

My other Revolution-related thought is of former Ayatollah Khomeini, who, on disembarking the Air France aircraft that took him back to Tehran on the outbreak of the revolution, was asked by ABC anchorman Peter Jennings how he felt about his return to Iran. “Nothing. I feel nothing,” was the alleged response. It gave a pointer as to the austere image Mr. Khomeini wanted to portray and of his cold single-mindedness. The fact that the man who translated Khomeini’s comments, was executed three years later, was another clue as to what would follow.

The regime that Khomeini created has outlasted many others – perhaps only the late Fidel Castro and especially so the late Queen Elizabeth II of England have seen as many US presidents, German chancellors, among others, pass on and off the world stage. While Iran has until recently been a dominant player in the Middle East from a geostrategic point of view, it has, to be polite, not been an economic success.

Thus, in keeping with the template of revolutions, high prices, scarcity of food and fuel, and a broken economy, are triggering protests across Iran, that have become so vast, that expectations are growing that Iranians may eject their leadership. That moment may not be too far off, but the path to an Iran that benefits its people remains a difficult one.

Not only are its geriatric rulers stubbornly cut off from its people and the outside world, they have historically, to a worrying extent (this was especially the case under former prime minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), relied on heightened tension with the US, Israel and other ‘enemies’ for political oxygen. Also, economically, Iran is like Russia in that most of the assets and resources in the economy are held by a small number of people (IRG, business owners, clerics) who form a sclerotic elite around the theocrats. Breaking their hold on the economy will be difficult, even under a new regime.

Neither is regime change obvious. The name of the Shah’s son Reza Pahlavi is circulating widely (in the West) as a possible figurehead, but the story of the ‘greatest party’ and the memories of his brutality are at least two reasons why he will not lead a ‘new’ Iran. At the same time, it is not obvious what individuals or groups might replace the regime, if it came to that.

A further complication is that Iranians are highly distrustful of interventions from abroad, indeed some people joke that Iran is the only country in the world where MI6 is still considered to be a force to be reckoned with. Military intervention by the US or other states may not be welcome.

The EU is slightly less distrusted than the US and the UK, and it should take a more active stance – in terms of further sanctions, asylum for the hundreds of young people who have been jailed, organise the supply of communication technology into Iran (VPN’s, satellite technology), and potentially begin to plan to assist and shape a transition process.

Iran has been weakened economically by sanctions, humiliated by Israel and had its military capability enfeebled but sadly, the state still has an array of resources with which to repress its people.

My sense is that the brutal repression in Iran will continue now (with very little visible public support in the US and Europe), and the economy will weaken further. An opening may come when the Supreme Leader, Khamenei dies – he is 86 and suffers from cancer. This event could provide the cover for a discrete but meaningful shift in policy, and the start of negotiations on sanctions and Iran’s nuclear program, and the beginning of a more promising era.

Have a great weekend ahead, Mike

Praefectus

Benjamin Jowett is one of the prominent figures in the long history of Balliol College. Jowett, a scholar of Plato and university reformer, was Master of Balliol from 1870 to 1893, where one of his preoccupations was the production of upstanding young men who would then populate the civil service, and in particular who would be sent to ‘run’ India (Jowett favoured a thorough grounding in Greek and Latin as preparation for this task).

It is an understatement to say that India suffered under British rule, during the colonial era (roughly 1700 to 1947) which was marked by the activities of the East India Company, India’s share of world GDP fell from 26% to 4% (after the Second World War). It is still recovering today.

To draw the obvious comparison with Venezuela, which is apparently now to be run from Washington in imperial style (will Marco Rubio be referred to as the Praefectus of Venezuela?), it at least does not have to worry about having its economy destroyed, the revolutionary socialist governments of the past twenty-five years have done a good job of that. Rubio is not made in the mould of Jowett’s scholars, but he speaks Spanish, which will be useful. A knowledge of finance will also be handy, to tackle the mountain of debt that Venezuela owes.

In a week where the American president has been scurrying around like a giddy child opening Pandora’s boxes, the strategy for Venezuela is not yet clear, and it could go very badly wrong, especially if the factions within the current Venezuelan regime start to disagree violently.

The apparent upside is Venezuela’s oil reserves and refining capacity, but this will take a long time and much capital to realise. Indeed, the process of extracting and monetising oil, and driving this wealth into an economy is something that few economies have mastered.

In this regard, the idea of ‘Dutch disease’, a concept that initially referred to the effect of large gas finds on the Dutch economy, is well known, and colloquially, it describes the way the presence of natural resources can (negatively) skew the economic development of a country. Angola, which has been described as a ‘successful failed state’ for the way it has managed to extract and process oil, but does little else, is an example. Nigeria, Russia and of course Venezuela are other examples.

To their credit, the Gulf economies are good examples of states that have used the wealth generated by natural resources in a very ambitious way, whilst top of the league table are Canada, and Norway. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is the benchmark for many others, and it bears imagining what the UK could have achieved by channelling the wealth from North Sea oil and gas reserves into a sovereign wealth fund from the 1980’s onwards.

If there is a distinguishing factor across the relative success of the above nations it is the rule of law (and its associated values – policy clarity, strong institutions, and enlightened decision makers). The concept of the rule of law (I can recommend a book of that title by Tom Bingham, formerly Lord Chief Justice and Master of the Rolls and like Jowett a Balliol alumni) should be clear to most readers, but its benefits are even more apparent when it is taken away. In this regard, a comment from a US oil company executive regarding investment in Venezuela (in the FT) to the effect that “No one wants to go in there when a random f…g tweet can change the entire foreign policy of the country’ is illustrative of the benefits of the rule of law. Similarly, threats by President Trump to curb the dividend policy of defence companies, and institutional ownership of housing also contribute to policy uncertainty.

World institutions like the IMF and World Bank have produced tons of research demonstrating the link between the rule of law and growth, and stability. Yet the world that ushered in these institutions and globalization, is crumbling, vandalised by ‘world kings’ (Boris Johnson’s phrase) who act in an arbitrary way. Germany’s President Frank-Walter Steinmeier made an important speech to this effect last week.

The litmus test of this view will be the flow of capital. For the moment, the market view seems to be that ‘world kings’ get things done, and markets are reacting in kind. However, there are looming risks, notably the diverging values between the White House and Europe.

If world leaders were stupefied by the raid on Caracas, there was near hysteria in Europe at the suggestion by President Trump and his advisers that the US would annex Greenland. Though the initial reaction from politicians and commentators across Europe was perhaps overblown, there is a gulf between the American view of the White House’s foreign policy, and that of allies, and in the medium to long term this growing lack of alignment and trust will prove damaging.

Have a great week ahead, Mike