"La plataforma virtual dentro de los templos del derecho: El derecho y la plataforma como sujeto y objeto del otro" -- Ponencia presentada en el Simposio Internacional: El cambio de paradigma tecnológico en el derecho internacional, transnacional y europeo (Roma Tre, 29-30 de enero)

 

 

 Versión en inglés ACQUI.

Me complace participar en el Simposio Internacional: El cambio de paradigma tecnológico en el derecho internacional, transnacional y europeo, organizado por mi brillante colega y amigo Fabio Bassan y patrocinado por (y celebrado en) Roma Tre. El programa se presenta a continuación y me entusiasma escuchar, y posteriormente leer, las maravillosas intervenciones de los participantes.

La reciente evolución de la tecnología está cambiando los paradigmas de la vida y las relaciones sociales. También produce un impacto significativo en las relaciones jurídicas y económicas a nivel europeo, transnacional e internacional. El uso malicioso de la tecnología puede ser decisivo para el resultado de una elección, pero también puede generar beneficios para la protección de los derechos fundamentales o para el Estado de bienestar. Puede contribuir decisivamente al aparato bélico de un Estado y puede proteger y preservar la paz. Transforma a las corporaciones multinacionales en órdenes privados, incluso potencialmente dotadas de su propia moneda, y también permite formas de protección de los individuos y la comunidad frente a ellas. Puede resultar en un enorme gasto de electricidad, pero también en una reducción del impacto ambiental.
Sin embargo, el resultado no es neutral: la supervisión del uso de la tecnología es más lenta que la evolución tecnológica y amplifica las limitaciones del derecho transnacional, supranacional e internacional. * * * En esta conferencia, nuestro objetivo es debatir las implicaciones de este tema en sus diversas aplicaciones y comprender si existe un camino de cooperación que pueda reemplazar total o parcialmente el actual escenario de confrontación.

Mi contribución se titula La plataforma virtual dentro de los templos del derecho: El derecho y la plataforma como sujeto y objeto del otro. El texto de esta ponencia se presenta a continuación y también se pueden consultar aquí. Un breve resumen ofrece al lector la idea principal:

Esta ponencia examina la dialéctica de la subjetividad jurídica en condiciones en las que el derecho se codifica, se operacionaliza y se aplica cada vez más a través de sistemas tecnológicos que superan la capacidad cognitiva humana. Se pregunta si las plataformas digitales han alterado los vectores fundamentales de la subjetividad y la soberanía jurídicas, desplazando la autoridad de los ordenamientos jurídicos centrados en el ser humano hacia regímenes mediados por la tecnología. Utilizando la figura bíblica de Sansón como metáfora extendida, el artículo contrasta una visión tradicional —las plataformas como instrumentos sujetos al control soberano externo— con una alternativa más radical en la que la plataforma misma se convierte en estructura y agente, ejerciendo voluntad autónoma. Basándose en la obra de Fabio Bassan, Digital Platforms and Global Law, el análisis rastrea las trayectorias regulatorias contemporáneas: el ordenamiento privado transnacional, los acuerdos de producción entre estados y plataformas, y la interconexión de normas públicas y privadas. Este enfoque considera la esencia de la subjetividad de las plataformas haciendo referencia al problema análogo de la subjetividad de la empresa multinacional; cada una es a la vez un objeto, un espacio-objeto pasivo definido por las acciones y la posición de los sujetos jurídicos tradicionales, y el sistema para ordenar esas relaciones. Si bien el marco de Bassan trata plausiblemente a las plataformas como instrumentos insertos en estructuras legales en evolución, estas reflexiones van más allá, sugiriendo que las plataformas pueden emerger como sujetos regulatorios independientes, potencialmente soberanos por derecho propio. A medida que los sistemas automatizados y generativos de toma de decisiones internalizan las funciones de gobernanza, las plataformas pueden constituir sus propios órdenes normativos, transfiriendo el control a los humanos solo cuando sea necesario. El resultado es un futuro de soberanías en competencia que desestabiliza las categorías tradicionales de derecho, autoridad y subjetividad.

Puede acceder a la versión en inglés de estas reflexiones aquí--ENGLISH; ESPAÑOL.La versión en español se encuentra a continuación.

Estas imágenes sugieren la progresión que subyace a la transformación de la legalidad y sus sujetos. 

 

  

Pix credit here (Athens central market)

Pix credit here

Y esto es lo que produce ChatGPT cuando se le pide que escriba un código simple para un mercado autónomo ("A continuación se muestra un ejemplo mínimo y autónomo de «mercado» implementado como una aplicación web de un solo archivo (HTML + CSS + JavaScript). Suposición: desea un mercado digital simple donde los usuarios puedan publicar artículos para la venta y comprarlos localmente (en memoria), sin backend, sin pagos ni autenticación. Este es el esqueleto básico más pequeño y útil que puede ampliar posteriormente para crear un sistema real"):[And here is what ChatGPT produces when asked to write a simple code for a self contained market ("Below is a minimal, self-contained “marketplace” example implemented as a single-file web app (HTML + CSS + JavaScript). Assumption: you want a simple digital marketplace where users can list items for sale and purchase them locally (in-memory)—no backend, no payments, no auth. This is the smallest useful scaffold you can later extend to a real system.")]:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
  <meta charset="UTF-8" />
  <title>Simple Marketplace</title>
  <style>
    body {
      font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
      margin: 40px;
      background: #f5f5f5;
    }
    h1 { margin-bottom: 10px; }
    .container {
      max-width: 700px;
      background: white;
      padding: 20px;
      border-radius: 6px;
      box-shadow: 0 2px 6px rgba(0,0,0,0.1);
    }
    input, button {
      padding: 8px;
      margin: 5px 0;
    }
    button {
      cursor: pointer;
    }
    ul {
      list-style: none;
      padding: 0;
    }
    li {
      display: flex;
      justify-content: space-between;
      padding: 10px;
      border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd;
    }
  </style>
</head>
<body>
  <div class="container">
    <h1>Simple Marketplace</h1>

    <h3>Add Item</h3>
    <input id="name" placeholder="Item name" />
    <input id="price" type="number" placeholder="Price" />
    <button onclick="addItem()">List Item</button>

    <h3>Market Listings</h3>
    <ul id="market"></ul>
  </div>

  <script>
    const market = [];

    function renderMarket() {
      const ul = document.getElementById("market");
      ul.innerHTML = "";

      market.forEach((item, index) => {
        const li = document.createElement("li");
        li.innerHTML = `
          <span>${item.name} — $${item.price}</span>
          <button onclick="buyItem(${index})">Buy</button>
        `;
        ul.appendChild(li);
      });
    }

    function addItem() {
      const name = document.getElementById("name").value;
      const price = document.getElementById("price").value;

      if (!name || !price) return alert("Enter name and price.");

      market.push({ name, price });
      document.getElementById("name").value = "";
      document.getElementById("price").value = "";

      renderMarket();
    }

    function buyItem(index) {
      const item = market[index];
      alert(`You bought ${item.name} for $${item.price}`);
      market.splice(index, 1);
      renderMarket();
    }
  </script>
</body>
</html>

Los templos (de derecho) se han caidos. Algo nuevo espera construcción, pero esta ves en forma de código informático. 

"The Virtual Platform Within the Temples of Law: Law and Platform as Subject and Object of the Other"--Remarks Presented at the International Symposium: The Technological Paradigm Shift in International, Transnational, and European Law (Roma Tre, 29-30 January)

 

Pix Credit ChatGPT per author instruction

Spanish language version HERE.

I am delighted to be able to participate in the International Symposium: The Technological Paradigm Shift in International, Transnational, and European Law organized by my brilliant colleague and friend Fabio Bassan and sponsored by (and held at) Roma Tre. The Program follows below and I am excited to listen to, and eventually read, the marvelous interventions of the participants. 

The recent evolution of technology is changing the paradigms of life and social relations. It also produces a significant impact in legal and economic relations on European, Transnational and International levels. Malicious use of technology can be decisive for the outcome of an election, but it can also produce benefits for the protection of fundamental rights, or for the welfare state. It can decisively assist a state's war apparatus, and it can protect and preserve peace. It shifts multinational corporations into private orders, even potentially endowed with their own currency, and enables forms of protection of individuals and the community from them as well. It can result in a huge expenditure on electricity, but also in a reduction in environmental impact.
Nevertheless, the result is not neutral: oversight of the use of technology is slower than technological evolution, and it amplifies the limits of Transnational, Supranational, International law. * * * In this conference we aim to debate on the implications of the issue in its various applications, and to understand whether there is a path of cooperation that can replace all or part of the current confrontation scenario.

My contribution is titled The Virtual Platform Within the Temples of Law: Law and Platform as Subject and Object of the Other. The remarks follow below and may be accessed here as well. A short abstract gives the reader the gist:

These remarks examine the dialectics of legal subjectivity under conditions in which law is increasingly encoded, operationalized, and enforced through technological systems that exceed human cognitive capacity. It asks whether digital platforms have altered the fundamental vectors of legal subjectivity and sovereignty, shifting authority away from human-centered legal orders toward techno-mediated regimes. Using the biblical figure of Samson as an extended metaphor, the paper contrasts a traditional view—platforms as vessels subject to external sovereign control—with a more radical alternative in which the platform itself becomes both edifice and agent, exercising autonomous will. Building on Fabio Bassan’s Digital Platforms and Global Law, the analysis traces contemporary regulatory trajectories: transnational private ordering, state–platform production agreements, and intermeshing public–private norms. It considers the nature of the subjectivity of platforms by reference to the analogous problem of the subjectivity of the multi-national enterprise; each is both an object, a passive object-space defined by the actions and placement of traditional legal subjects, and the system for ordering those relations. While Bassan’s framework plausibly treats platforms as vessels embedded in evolving legal structures, these remarks pushes further, suggesting that platforms may emerge as independent regulatory subjects, potentially sovereign in their own right. As automated and generative decision-making systems internalize governance functions, platforms may constitute their own normative orders, translating control back to humans only as needed. The result is a future of competing sovereignties that destabilizes traditional categories of law, authority, and subjectivity.

The Spanish language version (versión en castellano) of the Remarks may be accessed here--ENGLISH; ESPAÑOL.The English language version also follows below.

These images suggest the progression behind which is located the transformation of legality and its subjects.

  

Pix credit here (Athens central market)

Pix credit here

And here is what ChatGPT produces when asked to write a simple code for a self contained market ("Below is a minimal, self-contained “marketplace” example implemented as a single-file web app (HTML + CSS + JavaScript). Assumption: you want a simple digital marketplace where users can list items for sale and purchase them locally (in-memory)—no backend, no payments, no auth. This is the smallest useful scaffold you can later extend to a real system."):

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
  <meta charset="UTF-8" />
  <title>Simple Marketplace</title>
  <style>
    body {
      font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
      margin: 40px;
      background: #f5f5f5;
    }
    h1 { margin-bottom: 10px; }
    .container {
      max-width: 700px;
      background: white;
      padding: 20px;
      border-radius: 6px;
      box-shadow: 0 2px 6px rgba(0,0,0,0.1);
    }
    input, button {
      padding: 8px;
      margin: 5px 0;
    }
    button {
      cursor: pointer;
    }
    ul {
      list-style: none;
      padding: 0;
    }
    li {
      display: flex;
      justify-content: space-between;
      padding: 10px;
      border-bottom: 1px solid #ddd;
    }
  </style>
</head>
<body>
  <div class="container">
    <h1>Simple Marketplace</h1>

    <h3>Add Item</h3>
    <input id="name" placeholder="Item name" />
    <input id="price" type="number" placeholder="Price" />
    <button onclick="addItem()">List Item</button>

    <h3>Market Listings</h3>
    <ul id="market"></ul>
  </div>

  <script>
    const market = [];

    function renderMarket() {
      const ul = document.getElementById("market");
      ul.innerHTML = "";

      market.forEach((item, index) => {
        const li = document.createElement("li");
        li.innerHTML = `
          <span>${item.name} — $${item.price}</span>
          <button onclick="buyItem(${index})">Buy</button>
        `;
        ul.appendChild(li);
      });
    }

    function addItem() {
      const name = document.getElementById("name").value;
      const price = document.getElementById("price").value;

      if (!name || !price) return alert("Enter name and price.");

      market.push({ name, price });
      document.getElementById("name").value = "";
      document.getElementById("price").value = "";

      renderMarket();
    }

    function buyItem(index) {
      const item = market[index];
      alert(`You bought ${item.name} for $${item.price}`);
      market.splice(index, 1);
      renderMarket();
    }
  </script>
</body>
</html>

The Temple is brought down. A new one waits to be built; or rather coded.

Davos Part 6: Reflections on the Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy

Pix credit here

 

What must it be like now to be Volodymyr Zelenskyy? What must it be like now to be Ukraine? I suspect, perhaps, like it was to be as one of the many consumable places, like Poland, in the aftermath of the  Diplomatic Revolution of 1756? Or perhaps like it was to be a fine plump roast goose at a dysfunctional family meal where the only thing that binds those at table are their hunger (and I mean that in all its senses).  President Zelenskyy offers us a reason or two and in the process holds a mirror up to all of the self satisfied and moralistic creatures (I had other terms but this one will do) at the great political herd rutting that is Davos (Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy).  

In the process, the President of Ukraine reminds the rest-- with the same pathos as Haile Selassie did in his time, and as Rejtan is said to have attempted at the Partition Sejm, that morals, like interests, is a commodity the character of which is framed to suit the times and the lusts and the characteristics of those with the power to deploy them, as well as those who have no choice but to endure them. President Zelenskyy explained in terms that perhaps even the delegates their claques of commentators, amplifiers and collared intelligentsia could understand by reference to age appropriate  move analogy: 

Everyone remembers the great American film “Groundhog Day” with Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell. But no one would want to live like that – repeating the same thing for weeks, months, and, of course, for years. And yet, that’s exactly how we live now. And it’s our life. And every forum like this one proves it. Just last year, here in Davos, I ended my speech with the words: “Europe needs to know how to defend itself.” A year has passed – and nothing has changed. We are still in a situation where I must say the same words.

But why? (Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy).

President Zelenskyy asks the right question.  Nonetheless, nothing in the answer satisfies; even less so when the mirror of that explanation exposes the character of morals and values that serve as sparkly baubles rather than as signifying premises that guide whatever form the fundamental political lines of the emerging great states and their blocs take. Worse, perhaps, it suggests that, whether one clings to the values of the ancien regime or embraces any of the value sets now on offer in the great bazaar of public sovereign morality, their realities are better observed in the picture of Dorian Gray than by any contemplation of physical form (or certainly anything that might ooze from their propaganda departments). The disgust, should there be cause for any, might then emerge not from the lack of morals, or their contingency, but from nearly a century of wrapping the community of states within a moral universe that, in the exists, exists only in the minds of the dead. 

Pix credit here

But President Zelenskyy cannot say that. Indeed, he needs these rutting states and might have cause for the scraps from the Davosian Satyricon in which they congratulate themselves, and are pandered into doing so with gusto by those dependent on that self referencing cycle of feel-good self-congratulation of. . . . themselves. 

Pix credit here

All of this comes through; but only in the most genteel way possible. Like Noel Coward entertaining his gentrified hosts ("The Stately Homes of England" from Operette (1938)) President Zelenskyy performs for the only thing that matters to him--the preservation of the Republic of Ukraine, or as much of it as he can preserve after its first partition in 2014 (no one really likes to dwell on this, at the height of the ancien regime and perhaps a harbinger of its collapse, if only because it was the very titans of the old order (about which nothing negative may be suggested), at least as the bards will remember them in centuries to come, did little but engage in the most delightful political performances within their Petit Trianon of their multilateral rules based palaces) of that time 

So where is all the discursive commotion?  

1. When all else fails rub one's benefactors' noses in their own hypocrisies and weaknesses. Here we have a modern rendition of Coward's "The Stately Homes of England" but as tragedy. 

Each year brings something new – for Europe and for the world. Everyone turned attention to Greenland. And it’s clear – most leaders simply are not sure what to do about it. And it seems like everyone is just waiting for America to “cool down” on this topic, hoping it will pass away. But what if it will not? What then?

There was so much talk about the protests in Iran – but they drowned in blood. The world has not helped the Iranian people enough. And it’s true – it has stood aside. In Europe, there were Christmas and New Year celebrations. The seasonal holidays. By the time politicians came back to work and started forming a position – the Ayatollah had already killed thousands. And what will Iran become after this bloodshed? If the regime survives, it sends a clear signal to every bully: kill enough people, and you stay in power. Who in Europe needs that message to become a reality?

And yet – Europe hasn’t even tried to build its own response. (Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy).

The best thing of all is that for society's trained to sleep through the sermonizing of their religious leaders this feels vaguely comforting for the small tingle of guilt it may produce. And, at any case, it helps enhance the glories of the discursive performances of European leaders (see here), and produce some donations. But it also produces enough fear among some that they will be moved to action, especially those who may feel that they are next on the Russian menu (see, eg., The Presidents of Ukraine, Poland, and Lithuania Agreed That Their Teams Will Work to Strengthen Cooperation Within PURL and SAFE – Volodymyr Zelenskyy). 

2. At least the Americans own up to their own self-serving agendas, except when they don't. President Zelenkyy may be excused for reminding his audience, in a charming way, of their own elastic approaches to matching sentiment, and morals, to action. 

Let’s look at the Western Hemisphere. President Trump led an operation in Venezuela. And Maduro was arrested. And there were different opinions, but the fact remains: Maduro is on trial in New York. Sorry, but Putin is not on trial. And this is the fourth year of the biggest war in Europe since World War II – and the man who started it is not only free, he’s still fighting for his frozen money in Europe. And you know what? He’s having some success.(Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy).

 Yet President Zelenskyy is grateful for small favors, especially when one can direct interest in money in ways that may have collaterally beneficial effect.  Aaaaahhh money remains the great motivator, even of those who value the expression of their morals in a more quantifiably certain way.  "It’s Putin who’s trying to decide how the frozen Russian assets should be used – not those who have the power to punish him for this war. Thankfully, the EU decided to freeze Russian assets indefinitely – and I am grateful for that – thanks, Ursula, thanks, António, and all the leaders who helped. But when the time came to use those assets to defend against Russian aggression, the decision was blocked. Putin managed to stop Europe. Unfortunately." (Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy). And, of course, President Zelenskyy notes that the Americans have every reason to resist the regime of the International Criminal Court, as does China. But what remains mystifying is the way that  this opposition has stymied a European approach to disciplining one of its own. The foundational issue for Europe is Europe itself; it glories in its own simulacra, one in which rhetoric has the power of action and action is magically undertaken by others. 

Some Europeans are really strong. It’s true. But many say: “We must stand strong.” And they always want someone else to tell them how long they need to stand strong. Preferably – until the next election. But that’s not how great power works, to my mind. Leaders say: “We must defend European interests.” But they hope someone else will do it for them. And speaking of values they often mean valuables. * * *And we’ve told our European partners multiple times: act now. Act now against those missiles in Belarus. Missiles are never just decoration. But Europe still remains in “Greenland mode” – maybe… someday… someone will do something." (Ibid.)

There are many reasons for this; some are quite powerful. Yet whether one takes the high road or that other to the realities of Europe today, the  end point appears to be the same. The idea of Europe remains strong; its bureaucracies remain a powerful element for weaving institutional Europe together. But Europe is also a magical place where things can happen without great inconvenience or cost. This is not just a European thing--it appears that all people everywhere, when they reach a certain level of opulence begin to believe in magic, and with it the magic of their power is dissipated in the thoughts about magical solutions. Perhaps, then, Ibn Khaldun, speaking to us from 14th century North Africa was right after all: 'assabiyah (عصبيّة) extends to four generations before it is dissipated.   

3. "A plague o'both your houses." Mercutio spoke true enough, but the reality of his situation became clear only at the moment he was crushed between the needs and desires of those who consume "middle powers" (a reference to the now well known remarks of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney).  

MERCUTIO. No, ’tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door, but ’tis enough, ’twill serve. Ask for me tomorrow, and you shall find me a grave man. I am peppered, I warrant, for this world. A plague o’ both your houses. Zounds, a dog, a rat, a mouse, a cat, to scratch a man to death. A braggart, a rogue, a villain, that fights by the book of arithmetic!—Why the devil came you between us? I was hurt under your arm.
ROMEO. I thought all for the best. ("Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (Act III, Scene 1)).

President Zelenskyy  spends some time working through the list that the cupidity and weaknesses of both houses make possible (at least as a function of their purported moral-normative stances).

We all see that the forces trying to destroy Europe do not waste a single day – they operate freely, even operate inside Europe. Every “Viktor” who lives off European money while trying to sell out European interests deserves a smack upside the head. And if he feels comfortable in Moscow, it doesn’t mean we should let European capitals become little Moscows.

And I thank every country, of course, and every company that helps Ukraine repair its energy system. This is crucial. Thank you to all who support the PURL program, helping us buy Patriot missiles. But wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier to just cut Russia off from the components it needs for missile production? Or even destroy the factories making them? * ** And we still have the coordinates of the factories where they’re made. Today, they target Ukraine. Tomorrow, it could be any NATO country.

Too often, people hide behind the excuse that “China helps Russia.” Yes, it does. But not only China. Russia gets components from companies in Europe, the United States, and Taiwan. Right now, many are investing in stability around Taiwan. To avoid war… But can Taiwanese companies stop contributing electronics to Russia’s war? Europe says almost nothing. America says nothing. And Putin makes missiles.

And here, in Europe, we’re advised not to mention Tomahawks to the Americans – not to spoil the mood. And we’re told not to bring up Taurus missiles. When the subject is Türkiye, diplomats say – don’t offend Greece. When it’s Greece, they say be careful with Türkiye. In Europe, there are endless internal arguments and things left unsaid that stop Europe from uniting and speaking honestly enough to find real solutions.* * * Europe remains a beautiful but fragmented kaleidoscope of small and middle powers. Instead of taking the lead in defending freedom worldwide, especially when America’s focus shifts elsewhere – Europe looks lost, trying to convince the U.S. President to change. But he will not change. President Trump loves who he is. And he says he loves Europe. But he will not listen to this kind of Europe. (Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy).

My personal favorite is the longer story of the comical effort to confront the United States over its Greenland ambitions that President Zelenskyy relates: 

And if you send 30 or 40 soldiers to Greenland – what is that for? What message does it send? What’s the message to Putin? To China? And even more importantly, what message does it send to Denmark – the most important – your close ally? You either declare that European bases will protect the region from Russia and China – and establish those bases – or you risk not being taken seriously because 30 or 40 soldiers won’t protect anything." (Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy).

Perhaps what is needed is a refreshingly honest abandonment of the old performative morality in favor of something more honest. That, perhaps, is a redeeming characteristic of America First. But I leave that to others to judge. That, however, is too painful. And that is President Zelenskyy's more subtle messaging. That Europe continues to believe that it is 1911.  If they do not align their policies to their realities the only thing that will remain will be discursive ghosts wafting around spaces filled with the eagerness of masterless intelligentsia and their civil society organs ( 浪人, ronin)--like those who floated around the globe on the dissolution of the Soviet Union until they were taken in elsewhere. Yet that applies with equal force to Russia, which in the minds of sum have been reduced, in all its majesty, as a majestic shadow manifesting American dreams of market (transactional/investment) exploitation, and Chinese dreams of resource exploitation. 

4. Sometimes your friends need a pep talk, especially if your own life depends on it.  That brings President Zelenskyy to the conclusion of his remarks, a pep talk to a Europe than may not be capable of listening, much less acting. It is a pity really. President Zelenskyy appears to understand that Europe may save itself only by saving Ukraine; that more is at stake for Europe in Ukraine than the politics of dealing with the absorption of a middling Republic by an ancient form of Empire. Yet Europe is undergoing its own Austro-Hungarian moment, when its parts would explode its solidarity and in fracture make them all easier to consume. Perhaps that might be the fate of Europe--the final resting point for a process of disintegration that began in the 19th century and acquired a tremendous momentum from 1914. But is it inevitable; President Zelenskyy believes otherwise as to do others. 

We should not degrade ourselves to secondary roles – not when we have a chance to be a great power together. We should not accept that Europe is just a "salad" of small and middle powers, seasoned with enemies of Europe. When united, we are truly invincible. And Europe can and must be a global force. Not one that reacts late, but one that defines the future. * * *  And Europe must be strong. And Ukraine is ready to help – with anything needed to guarantee peace and prevent destruction. We are ready to help others become stronger than they are now. We are ready to be part of a Europe that truly matters – a Europe of real power – great power. Today, we need that power to protect our own independence. But you need Ukraine’s independence, too, because tomorrow, you may have to defend your way of life.(Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy).

The Americans and the Chinese have each made their choices; they will have to live with them. Each will change them in substantial ways. Europe, President Zelenskyy argues, must also choose, or in not choosing, disintegrate.   

 

Pix credit here, Painting, Jan Matejko, Rejtan at the Partition Sejm (The Fall of Poland) (1866)

The Davos speeches considered for 2026 include the following:

1. Davos 2026 Part 1--Remarks of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney

2. Davos 2026 Part 2--Remarks of U.S. President Donald Trump

3. Davos 2026 Part 3--Remarks of  China's Vice Premier He Lifeng

4. Davos 2026 Part 4-- Remarks of EU President Ursula von der Leyen

5. Davos 2026 Part 5-- Remarks of Argentina President Javier Milei

6. Davos 2026 Part 6--Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy

Informational Program: "Student Loans: How to Pay Off Your Student Debt"

Pix credit here

I am delighted to pass along this announcement from my former student and colleague James Korman.

On Tuesday, February 3, 2026, from 4:00-5:00 PM ET, I am co-hosting an engaging webinar titled "Student Loans: How to Pay Off Your Student Debt." This session is designed specifically for students, faculty, staff, and administrators alike that are navigating the critical challenge of student loan management.

Why This Webinar Matters

Student debt affects nearly 43 million Americans, yet many individuals receive limited guidance on repayment strategies. This webinar fills that gap by providing actionable, practical guidance on understanding, prioritizing, and accelerating student loan repayment.

What We'll Cover

Understanding different student loan types and repayment options
Proven strategies for prioritizing and accelerating repayment
Common pitfalls that derail progress—and how to avoid them
Balancing student loan repayment with other financial goals

 About the Presenters

James Korman, Ph.D. | Financial Advisor, Prudential Advisors

PhD from University of Delaware in Political Science & International Relations
Adjunct Professor of Comparative Politics (Lafayette College, Fall 2025–Spring 2026) | Teaching/Leadership Experience across 4 Different Universities
5+ years of experience mentoring students on career development and translating academic knowledge into real-world applications
Passionate about empowering students, administrators, faculty, and academic staff to make informed financial decisions

David Montemurro, ChFC®, CLU® | Financial Advisor, Prudential Advisors

Chartered Financial Consultant with over 30+ years’ experience in the Financial Services Industry
Robust knowledge on comprehensive financial planning
Regional Director and proven industry leaderInvitation

I'd like to invite your students and colleagues to attend this free, educational session.

Registration details: Student Loans: How to Pay Off Your Student Debt | Meeting-Join | Microsoft Teams (Click on the hyperlink to register)

Davos Part 5: Reflections on Palabras del Presidente de la Nación Javier Milei en el Foro Económico de Davos 2026 [Argentine President Javier Milei's Remarks at Davos 2026]]

Pix credit here

Por lo tanto, esto implicará que - si queremos salir de nuestro oscuro presente - debemos volver a inspirarnos en la filosofía griega, abrazar el derecho romano y retornar a los valores judeocristianos, los cuales nos permitirán salvar a Occidente. Gran parte de los conflictos humanos surgen de una fallida interrelación entre el derecho natural y el derecho positivo. Así, el derecho natural es la ley que debe regir al ser humano porque se adecua a su naturaleza, y, por lo tanto, es justo en sentido universal. Es una ley común para todos los hombres porque es intrínseca a su esencia y, por lo tanto, inmodificable e inmutable. [Therefore, this implies that—if we want to escape our dark present—we must once again draw inspiration from Greek philosophy, embrace Roman law, and return to Judeo-Christian values, which will allow us to save the West. Much of human conflict arises from a flawed interplay between natural law and positive law. Natural law is the law that should govern human beings because it conforms to their nature and is therefore just in a universal sense. It is a law common to all people because it is intrinsic to their essence and, therefore, unchangeable and immutable.]

Por otra parte, el derecho positivo es el que redactan los hombres para seguir a su conveniencia. De este modo, cuando la ley positiva está en consonancia con la ley natural habrá justicia. En su defecto, será legal, pero no será legítima. En función de ello se reconocen dos derechos fundamentales: los derechos a la vida y a la libertad. El hombre nace vivo y nace libre y tiene derecho a conservar estos atributos de la naturaleza. Además, tiene derecho a que sus semejantes se lo respeten, en orden de buscar su propia felicidad, que es el fin al que tiende todo hombre. [On the other hand, positive law is the law that people create to suit their own convenience. Thus, when positive law is in harmony with natural law, there will be justice. Otherwise, it will be legal, but not legitimate. Based on this, two fundamental rights are recognized: the rights to life and liberty. Human beings are born alive and free, and they have the right to preserve these attributes of nature. Furthermore, they have the right to have these rights respected by their fellow human beings, in order to pursue their own happiness, which is the ultimate goal of every person.] (President Javier Milei, Palabras del Presidente Javier Milei en el Foro Económico de Davos 2026).

In many ways the geography of the America's mirrors its semiotic terrains. That is, territorial and physical geography aligns with the geographies of meaning and understanding the significance of the spaces they occupy. Argentina and Canada serve as the territorial bookends of the Americas--geographically and now semiotically (in terms of the cages from within which they can look out and order the world around them. At Davos in 2026, Argentina and Canada provided a glimpse of the cognitive spaces that separate the two ends of the Americas by almost as much of a distance as the physical terrains that separate them. Their cognitive and territorial separation on opposite side of the North-South borderlands of the Americas appeared at Davos to serve as the bookends of the signification of the fracture, no longer hidden behind the disapprobation and rhortical sidestepping of that portion of the global elites heavily invested in the old post 1945 global order as refashioned in their own image after 1989, of the emerging post-global ordering in the old liberal democratic and liberal democratic post-colonial world, at least as it has been manifested in the Americas. While  Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney provided the theoretical face, for middle powers, of the political line that is emerging as a European choice set described by EU President Ursula von der Leyen, Argentine President Javier Milei, long aligned with the conceptual underpinnings of the American fundamental political line, provided the other side of that theoretical and operational in his Davos remarks--Palabras del Presidente Javier Milei en el Foro Económico de Davos 2026 [Remarks by President Javier Milei at the Davos Economic Forum 2026]. 

 In many ways, and like the remarks of the Canadian Prime Minister, the remarks are both warning, lecture, assessment, analysis, and the pathways that are open contingent on the choices that are now available. Where the Canadian Prime Minister speaks the language of geo-politics and socio-economics, the Argentine President goes back to the old foundations of late Imperial Roman law/norm--to the conceptual cage that, too late for them. summed up the cognitive cages and structures that, by some miracle survived  into modernity. President Milei gives us the Institutes, not of John Calvin of Geneva but of the Roman-Byzantine Emperor Justinian, he draws on the old knowledge of the Greeks, and the normative values received from the progeny of the Children of Abraham, now scattered all about. These are deployed both to unmask, as he would see it, the fundamental contradictions of the ancient cognitive cages of the West (as he calls it) when they are refashioned within the structures and that last of the globe's Abrahamic religions--Marxism expressed through the Pauline structures of Lenin's variations on the forms of magisterium divided, like the estate of Isaac, Abraham's son (putting the patrimony of Ishmael aside for the moment), between a Soviet Esau and its degenerated (distilled?) forms of modernity in the West, and an Asian Jacob climbing the ladder of socialist modernization and wrestling with the Angel of the Lord manifested as contradiction. All of this is nicely encapsulayed in that discursive high point of President Milei's remarks quoted above. 

Thoughthe remarks touch on and draw far back into the wells of knowledge and debate in the West in what has came to be understood as a sort of knowledge zoo divided by epistemological taxonomies that say more about us than about the immunatbility of these classifications, it is driven foreard by analogy and metaphor:  

Por último, quiero dejarles una reflexión sobre la Parashá de esta semana. La Parashá Bo escribe, ese momento en que Moisés se enfrenta al faraón, símbolo del poder opresor del Estado, para advertirle que si no liberaba el pueblo hebreo caerían sobre Egipto las últimas tres plagas. Ante la negativa del faraón llegó la plaga de las langostas, la cual significa la hambruna. Luego, llegó la plaga de la oscuridad, la cual significa la pérdida de claridad para la toma de decisiones. Por último, la plaga de la muerte de los primogénitos, lo cual deja de manifiesto el destino de una sociedad que niega la libertad; la analogía con lo que ocurre hoy en Occidente es tremendamente clara. [Finally, I want to leave you with a reflection on this week's Torah portion. The Parashah Bo describes the moment when Moses confronts Pharaoh, a symbol of the oppressive power of the state, to warn him that if he did not free the Hebrew people, the last three plagues would fall upon Egypt. Upon Pharaoh's refusal, the plague of locusts arrived, signifying famine. Then came the plague of darkness, representing the loss of clarity in decision-making. Finally, the plague of the death of the firstborn, which reveals the fate of a society that denies freedom; the analogy with what is happening in the West today is tremendously clear. ] (Palabras del Presidente Javier Milei en el Foro Económico de Davos 2026 )

But then, in quite another fashion, were the remarks of the Canadian Prime Minister. Like Canada and Argentina, these become remarks take on the character of signified objects, the territory, the territories of rationality, the framing of reality and the human in it, that, as these remarks suggest, point to a very long conversation that  is perhaps more notable for its periodic rupturing than for any sort of seamless and steady movement (progress) from some where to another. Either way one fall back to the operatic; perhaps best summed up in the staging, action and text of the end of the first Act of Don Giovanni when Don Giovanni welcomes Donna Anna, Donna Elvira and Don Ottavio to a party in which he plans to seduce Zerlina and which they plan to prevent: È aperto a tutti quanti, Viva la libertà! [(Everyone is welcome [to our party]; long live freedom [liberty]] (Mozart Don Giovanni Finale Act 1; libretto here). The text and its context, written at the very precipice from off of which the ancien regime was about to be thrown, captures text sub-and con-text that drives the current situaiton. 

The point here is not to choose a side and argue for it or against the other, it is rather to expose the contours and stances, the textual, visual, and oral manifestations of that choice as presented for a wider public consumption for an analytics of the pathways that those with the power to do so are asserting tremendous effort to shift out from under the masses the fundamental premises on the basis of which the world is ordered, facts are identified and valued, and conditions and actions may be assessed as against the ideal world that those basic premises suggest. The global community will have its orthodoxies; the structures of stability and the protection against chaos will be built and sometimes ruthlessly enforced. What changes is the way each of these word concepts are understood, and thus understood manifested in the stream of activity that then constitutes authoritative and legitimate societal relations--at least for those with the power to enforce them, who believe in them, who have internalized them, and who can by the power of their ability to create a simulacra of the ideal society and its mores, project these down to those willing to embrace them.   

 President Milei's remarks in the original Spanish and in an English translation, follow below.  The original as published on the website of the President of Argentina, may be accessed here: Palabras del Presidente Javier Milei en el Foro Económico de Davos 2026.

 

Pix credit here Mozart Don Giovanni Finale Act 1; libretto here

The Davos speeches considered for 2026 include the following:

1. Davos 2026 Part 1--Remarks of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney

2. Davos 2026 Part 2--Remarks of U.S. President Donald Trump

3. Davos 2026 Part 3--Remarks of  China's Vice Premier He Lifeng

4. Davos 2026 Part 4-- Remarks of EU President Ursula von der Leyen

5. Davos 2026 Part 5-- Remarks of Argentina President Javier Milei

6. Davos 2026 Part 6--Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy

 

Davos 2026 Part 4: Reflections on the Address of President Ursula von der Leyen

Pix credit Foreign Policy

But the truth is also that we will only be able to capitalise on this opportunity if
we recognise that this change is permanent. Of course, nostalgia is part of our human story. But
nostalgia will not bring back the old order. And playing for time – and hoping for things to revert soon
– will not fix the structural dependencies we have. So my point is: If this change is permanent, then
Europe must change permanently too. It is time to seize this opportunity and build a new independent
Europe. (Special Address by President von der Leyen at the World Economic Forum
Davos, 20 January 2026)

Ursula von der Leyen is no stranger to the WEF; nor has she been reluctant to strongly describe a vision for Europe and European leadership that leverages both its culture and practices as they have emerged after 1945. In 2024, von der Leyen offered trust in a techno-bureaucracy guiding a rationalized process embedding normatively infused values. This techno-bureaucracy interlinked with apparatus of political, social and economic collectives within an accountability based system of oversight and compliance grounded in the objective of realizing public policy (President von der Leyen establishes fourteen Project Groups to deliver on political priorities). In 2025 President von der Leyen offered both a defense of the European project and a rationale for its critical importance for the global community. t is this project--the European vision for ordering itself and at least that potion of the world (or its pathways to production)--which werechallenged internally by key stakeholders, and externally by a trio of threats. The first is that of the United States which has embarked far more aggressively on a different path toward the management of economic and social relations. The second is that of the Chinese whose own Marxist-Leninist world view threatens the breadth of the influence of Europe and its normative projects both on the European periphery and along its production chains. And the third is  the threat that Russia poses to and as Europe (Special Address by President von der Leyen at the World Economic Forum).

In 20206, President von der Leyen  shifts gears entirely (Special Address by President von der Leyen). 2026 has proven to be especially challenging for Europe, or better, for the idea of Europe in the world and as a driving force, a vanguard element, of the progress of social relations within the community of nations and in globalization. And like Canada's Prime Minister, President von der Leyen looks at the state of the global community, at its fracture; like the Canadian Prime Minister President von der Leyen now seeks not accommodation, not a defense of its structures. She seeks independence for Europe. There are significant parallels between the remarks of President von der Leyen and that of Canadian Prime Minister Carney. But where the Canadian Prime Minister spoke to the role of middle powers in fashioning a sort of rump miltilateral rules based ordering in a world that is permanently fractures in order to jump start a post-global Bandung Conference ordering, President von der Leyen speaks with the ambition of a higher level party, and one with aspirations to ascend further in the post-global pecking order. 

To those ends President von der Leyen would protect the territorial integrity of Europe--at least that part of Europe that is not currently subject to Russian territorial claims (with respect to which the response is more nuanced). "First principle: full solidarity with Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The sovereignty and integrity of their territory is non-negotiable. Second, we are working on a massive European investment surge in Greenland." (Special Address by President von der Leyen). But that is bound up in the "new" security multilateralism that President von der Leyen advances, but now wrapped within the emerging dominant discourse of sovereignty: "I believe Europe needs to adjust to the new security architecture and realities that we are now facing. This is why Europe is preparing its own security strategy, which we plan to publish later this year. As part of this, we are upgrading our Arctic strategy too. And at the heart of this will be the fundamental principle: It is for sovereign people to decide their own future." (Ibid.). Within this context, and mirroring the much freer language of President Trump in his address, President von der Leyen emphasizes that Europe considers "the people of the United States not just our allies, but our friends." (Ibid.), and by implication, not its leaders. ("Engaging in dialogue with our friends and partners, also with adversaries if necessary. The point is that the world has changed permanently. And we need to change with it").  And as for Russia, challenges both to the Russians and the United States:

 Above all, it reaffirms Europe's unwavering commitment to the security, defence, and European future of Ukraine. In parallel, we decided to permanently immobilise the Russian assets and that we reserve the right to make use of them. This should serve as a stark reminder to Russia. And a message to the world: Europe will always stand with Ukraine. Until there is a just and lasting peace. (Special Address by President von der Leyen)

Whether this is possible remains to be seen, but a stance is the first step, and funding that stance the second.  

Beyond that President von der Leyen speaks to independence "On partnerships. On prosperity. And
security." (Ibid). She would also protect and enhance the economic independence of Europe--and here from the two hungry predators at Europe's door--the United States and China. President von der Leyen also describes an ambitious plan to carve out its own advantaged trading areas in Latin America, South Asia and Africa. "This agreement sends a powerful message to the world. That we are choosing fair trade over tariffs. Partnership over isolation. Sustainability over exploitation. And that we are serious about de-risking our economies and diversifying our supply chains." (Special Address by President von der Leyen). 

President von der Leyen describes the reconstruction of the administration of Europe, especially with respect to its economic life; these include the deepening of EU wide markets for enterprise organization, investment and capital. "Focal point number one is to create a conducive and predictable regulatory environment." (Ibid.). That involves creating a singular production platform across Europe.

Ultimately, we need a system where companies can do business and raise financing seamlessly across Europe – just as easily as in uniform markets like the US or China. If we get this right – and if we move fast enough – this will not only help EU companies grow. But it will attract investment from across the world. (Special Address by President von der Leyen). 

Related to this initiative is the second focus for a renewed and more productive Europe.  This second focus targets investment and capital. "We are now building the Savings and Investment Union. We need a large-scale, deep and liquid capital market that attracts a wide range of investors. This will allow businesses to find the funding they need – including equity – at lower cost here in Europe." (Ibid.). 

President von der Leyen then suggests the third focus--cheap and sustainable energy. "Third priority: building an interconnected and affordable energy market – a true energy union. Energy is a chokepoint – for both companies and households.  "This is our Affordable Energy Action Plan. For example, we are investing massively in our energy security and independence, with interconnectors and grids – this is for the homegrown energies that we are trying to promote as much as possible, nuclear and renewables. To bring down prices and cut dependencies" (Ibid.).

Europe, it seems, like the United States, is looking forward to a period of national rejuvenation in ways that may it more attractive to economic activity that tends to shy away, and perhaps, in the process retain its capacity for competitive innovation. Lastly, President von der Leyen notes, Europe must move from a focus on sustainable to sustainable and affordable energy. That is a tall order indeed and one that will require a bit of introspection among the elites that drive regulatory approaches in the Member States and within the EU bureaucracy.  

Pix credit here

 The Davos speeches considered for 2026 include the following:

1. Davos 2026 Part 1--Remarks of Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney

2. Davos 2026 Part 2--Remarks of U.S. President Donald Trump

3. Davos 2026 Part 3--Remarks of  China's Vice Premier He Lifeng

4. Davos 2026 Part 4-- Remarks of EU President Ursula von der Leyen

5. Davos 2026 Part 5-- Remarks of Argentina President Javier Milei

6. Davos 2026 Part 6--Address by the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenskyy

Fleshing Out the America First Framework as Peace Through Strength Projections: Brief Reflections on the 2026 National Defense Strategy (US Department of War January 2026)

 

 

On 23 January 2026, the Department of War released its 2026 National Defense Strategy document, subtitled "Restoring Peace Through Strength for a New Golden Age of America." It is the public face of what is likely to be (hopefully anyway) a far more detailed elaboration of the Republic's fundamental political line with respect to military matters, one that embeds the core premises of the Republic's New Era principal objectives--moving forward along the American Path toward the realization of a new golden age by ensuring that the Republic  realizes its strategy of peace through strength. .

Together with the  National Security Strategy of the United States for 2025 (November 2025) (discussed here: America First as the Essence of National Security and the American Post-Colonial 'Howl': Reflections on the 2025 National Security Strategy of the United States (2025)) and the U.S. Department of State Agency Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2026-2030 (January 2026)  discussed here: Reflections on the Normative-Institutional Architecture of America First: U.S. State Department "Agency Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2026-2030, the 2026 National Defense Strategy rounds out the elaboration of the America First basic political line of the Republic when it comes to the role and focus of the Republic's external relations with its (re) focus on the general contradiction of the Republic in its "new era of historical development" from the now foundational orienting lens of the protection and elaboration of a transactional ordering framework--the fundamental need of ensuring peace (the territorial space of a transactional universe projected outward and directed inward) for the appropriate forward movement along the path to the realization of the Republic's rebirth in its new golden age. 

Pix credit here, 鼎Cauldrons (Ding), Eastern Zhou to Han dynasty (770-221 BCE) first two years of the Qin dynasty, but by that point ding were already established symbols of the power bestowed to rulers by the mandate of heaven. Only the emperor could use nine ding together in ritual offerings. Lords were allowed seven, and so on down to low-ranking officials who could only use one ding for offerings. The greater importance placed by Zhou emperors on food rather than wine further increased the importance of ding, which were already the preeminent bronze ritual vessel for food. Around the middle of the Zhou, a system was developed to use ding to identify noble classes. These objects became canvases for epigraphs which tell modern researchers a great deal about Zhou dynastic life. In many cases high ranking officials used ding to record special occasions by casting Chinese characters directly onto the bronze vessels.

Pix credit here

The cauldron of Zhou dynasty China served as the essential incarnation of the State, its organization, and the space into which productive forces were gathered symbolically and on the face of which the basic or fundamental political line as then understood could be etched, engraved, read, and undertaken . Modern society has done away with traditional means of ritual invocations of authority and with it the semiotic power of the imaginaries of the cauldron (鼎 Ding). The idea remains current, and in traditions like West African Ifa it serves as the core metaphor for understanding the way structures within which all of the human is ordered and contained (eg., Odu Òfúnmeji "everything is contained within the calabash" (Ninu igbá naa ni)). The images and signification of these ritual objects assume modern form in the documents that are meant to contain "everything"--in this case the State and the state of its societal relations. The concepts are particularly apt when describing the three documents-- National Security Strategy of the United States for 2025 (November 2025) , Agency Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2026-2030 (January 2026), and the 2026 National Defense Strategy are the three essential legs of the cauldron of state, of the calabash, that together elaborates and signified the America First initiative, and from them, the conceptual structures that then bind together the core domestic policies of the American new era " (the great national renewal that will usher in a new golden age") and its external projection (peace through strength). 

As analyzed by the US Naval Institute staff in its own consideration of the 2026 National Defense Strategy with reference to their own mission, the core normative elements of the 2026 NDS can be divided into three parts: (1) defend the U.S. homeland first; (2) Indio-Pacific  peace through strength rather than confrontation and focused on access not territory; (3) burden sharing among the Republic's allies; and (4) align national defense with national reindustrialization (traditional industries) and innovative production (tech and AI based development) (2026 U.S. National Defense Strategy, U.S. Naval Institute Staff (January 24, 2026 9:28 AM)). All of this is intimately tied to the America First superstructure and its national security narrative/normative overlay. They also interweave the core of domestic policy with its expression as national security on the one hand, and international relations on the other. These serve as the core 4 lines of effort that serve as the normative heart of the National Defense Strategy (2026 NDS, pp. 15-23). 

• • Defend the U.S. Homeland. We will secure America’s borders and maritime approaches, and we will defend our nation’s skies through Golden Dome for America and a renewed focus on countering unmanned aerial threats. We will maintain a robust and modern nuclear deterrent capable of addressing the strategic threats to our country, raise and sustain formidable cyber defenses, and hunt and neutralize Islamic terrorists who have the ability and intent to strike our Homeland. At the same time, we will actively and fearlessly defend America’s interests throughout the Western Hemisphere. We will guarantee U.S. military and commercial access to key terrain, especially the Panama Canal, Gulf of America, and Greenland. We will provide President Trump with credible military options to use against narco-terrorists wherever they may be. We will engage in good faith with our neighbors, from Canada to our partners in Central and South America, but we will ensure that they respect and do their part to defend our shared interests. And where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused, decisive action that concretely advances U.S. interests. This is the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and America’s military stands ready to enforce it with speed, power, and precision, as the world saw in Operation ABSOLUTE RESOLVE.
  • Deter China in the Indo-Pacific Through Strength, Not Confrontation. President Trump seeks a stable peace, fair trade, and respectful relations with China, and he has shown that he is willing to engage President Xi Jinping directly to achieve those goals. But President Trump has also shown how important it is to negotiate from a position of strength—and he has tasked DoW accordingly. Consistent with the President’s approach, DoW will therefore seek and open a wider range of military-to-military communications with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) with a focus on supporting strategic stability with Beijing as well as deconfliction and de-escalation, more generally. But we will also be clear-eyed and realistic about the speed, scale, and quality of China’s historic military buildup. Our goal in doing so is not to dominate China; nor is it to strangle or humiliate them. Rather, our goal is simple: To prevent anyone, including China, from being able to dominate us or our allies—in essence, to set the military conditions required to achieve the NSS goal of a balance of power in the Indo-Pacific that allows all of us to enjoy a decent peace. To that end, as the NSS directs, we will erect a strong denial defense along the First Island Chain (FIC). We will also urge and enable key regional allies and partners to do more for our collective defense. In doing so, we will reinforce deterrence by denial so that all nations recognize that their interests are best served through peace and restraint. This is how we will establish a position of military strength from which President Trump can negotiate favorable terms for our nation. We will be strong but not unnecessarily confrontational. This is how we will help to turn President Trump’s vision for peace through strength into reality in the vital Indo-Pacific.
  • Increase Burden-Sharing with U.S. Allies and Partners. Ours is not a strategy of isolation. As the NSS directs, it is one of focused engagement abroad with a clear eye toward advancing the concrete, practical interests of Americans. Through this America First, commonsense lens, America’s alliances and partners have an essential role to play—but not as the dependencies of the last generation. Rather, as the Department rightly prioritizes Homeland defense and deterring China, other threats will persist, and our allies will be essential to dealing with all of them. Our allies will do so not as a favor to us, but out of their own interests. In the Indo-Pacific, where our allies share our desire for a free and open regional order, allies and partners’ contributions will be vital to deterring and balancing China. In Europe and other theaters, allies will take the lead against threats that are less severe for us but more so for them, with critical but more limited support from the United States.In all cases, we will be honest but clear about the urgent need for them to do their part and that it is in their own interests to do so without delay. We will incentivize and enable them to step up. This requires a change in tone and style from the past, but that is necessary not only for Americans but also for our allies and partners. For too long, allies and partners have been content to let us subsidize their defense. Our political establishment reaped the credit while regular Americans paid the bill. With President Trump, a new approach is in effect. Already, President Trump has set a new global standard for defense spending at NATO’s Hague Summit—3.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on core military spending and an additional 1.5% on security-related spending, for a total of 5% of GDP. We will advocate that our allies and partners meet this standard around the world, not just in Europe. As our allies do so, together with the United States, they will be able to field the forces required to deter or defeat potential adversaries in every key region of the world, even in the face of simultaneous aggression. This is how we will set conditions for lasting peace through strength around the world.
  • Supercharge the U.S. Defense Industrial Base. President Trump is leading a once-in-a century revival of American industry, re-shoring strategic industries to the United States and revitalizing the industries previous generations had shipped overseas. We will harness this historic initiative to rebuild our nation’s defense industry, which underpins our defense and that of our allies and partners. We must return to being the world’s premier arsenal, one that can produce not only for ourselves but also for our allies and partners at scale, rapidly, and at the highest levels of quality. To achieve this, we will reinvest in U.S. defense production, building out capacity; empowering innovators; adopting new advances in technology, like artificial intelligence (AI); and clearing away outdated policies, practices, regulations, and other obstacles to the type and scale of production that the Joint Force requires for the priorities before us. We will simultaneously leverage allied and partner production not just to meet our own requirements but also to incentivize them to increase defense spending and help them field additional forces as quickly as possible. In the process, we will not only ensure our own defense industrial advantage but also put our alliances on stronger footing so that they can do their part to maintain peace through strength on a strong, equitable, and enduring basis.

 What, then, is the nature of war in the Republic's "new era"? The 2026 NDS nicely summarizes it in their own words:

In doing so—as President Trump has so memorably emphasized—our purpose will not be aggression or perpetual war. Rather, our goal is peace. Peace is the highest good. But not a peace that sacrifices our people’s security, freedoms, and prosperity. Rather, a peace that Americans deserve—a noble and proud peace. Fortunately, this peace is compatible with the interests of our potential opponents, if they keep their demands reasonable and cabined. We do not demand their humiliation or submission. Rather, we demand only that they respect our reasonably conceived interests and those of our allies and partners who stand stoutly with us. If we all can acknowledge this, we can achieve a flexible and sustainable balance of power among us, and peace.
But we at the Department of War will be ready if our gracious offer is spurned. We know that wishing for a decent peace is not the same thing as bringing it about. Thus, if our potential opponents are unwise enough to reject our peaceful overtures and choose conflict instead, America’s armed forces will stand ready to fight and win the nation’s wars in ways that make sense for Americans. To ensure that is the case, this Strategy will ensure that we see things and the choices we need to make clearly. We will prioritize addressing the most consequential and grave threats to Americans’ interests. We will revamp our network of allies and partners to meet the threats we face. And we will be ready, always carrying the sharpest and most formidable sword but prepared to offer the olive branch. (2026 NDS, p. 24). 

None of this makes sense except as a functionally differentiated piece of the larger puzzle that is America First, and that acquires its normative depth not from the Department of War--they themselves have reconstituted their apparatus as an instrument of peace through the perpetual threat of projections of force to neutralize threats to peace--from from the architecture of the America First. That architecture, in turn, blends the essential elements of "new era" domestic policy (re-industrialization in a guided markets driven environment) to augur in the renewal of the Republic that will be manifested in a golden age of the Republic's social relations (articulated in the form of its customs and traditions) repurposed for the contemporary age. It is shaped, in turn, with the cautions of national security (protection against domestic and external threat) of the 2025 NSS, and the structures for the outward projection of the Republic's domestic policy (transactions in economic, social, and cultural objects) that are in turn extensions of the manifestation of domestic fundamental objectives (DoS Agency Strategic Plan). 

And thus the theory (whether one agrees with it or not I leave to the reader); and its calabash; its cauldron.

And with it an effort to repurpose violence projected outward (and inward) in the service of the State and against its enemies and unpatriotic elements. Within the cognitive cages of America First what emerges is their conviction that they will eliminate war --at least war as understood in 19th and 20th century terms, wars for territory, wars for elimination of other states, etc., ("No longer will we squander  Americans’ will, resources, and even lives in foolish and grandiose adventures abroad." 2026 NDS, p. 24). The Republic, or rather its citizens will certainly bleed, and the national treasury will be used, extensively, to finance capability. What appears to be the idea, though, aligns with the fundamental transactional conceptual baseline of the Republic in its new era--that such blood and booty sacrifices will be undertaken strictly for quantitatively justifiable (or perhaps discursively positive)) domestic ends--either to protect the heartland (at the heartland's borders or within its essential near peripheries). What the documents struggle with, then, is an effort to abandon the old conceptual starting points for understanding and perhaps  also for creating the legal-managerial structures for war, by reframing violence, as they mean to use it, as force projections in the service of peace (redefined as the absence of war, eg here or managed ceasefire), a condition of social relations understood, in turn, as the apex space (platform--eg it need not be physical but may be virtual as well) for social, cultural, economic, etc. transactions and with transactions value added ("this Strategy is defined by a realistic, practical approach to clearly understanding the threats Americans face and how realistically and pragmatically those threats can be addressed in
ways consistent with American interests." 2026 NDS p. 8).

For Europe (and NATO), the model is Israel ("Israel has long demonstrated that it is both willing and able to defend itself with critical but limited support from the United States. " 2026 NDS, p. 12). It generalized expression was elaborated in the NDS's discussion of "burden sharing. ("our allies and partners must
shoulder their fair share of the burden of our collective defense. This is the right thing for them to
do, especially after decades of the United States subsidizing their defense. But it is also vital from a strategic perspective—both for us and for them." 2026 NDS, pp. 13).  The measure is a function of negative impact on the Republic's interests calculated from their perspective, and an interdiction of substitution effects of U.S. contributions to joint projects of defense (or transactions) (Ibid., pp. 13-14).  

That value added and value threatening framework is nicely captured in the 2026NDS approach to China, not as such, but as a threat to the ability of the Republic to do business when and as it likes: "The American people’s security, freedom, and prosperity are therefore directly linked to our ability to trade and engage from a position of strength in the Indo-Pacific. Were China—or anyone else, for that matter—to dominate this broad and crucial region, it would be able to effectively veto Americans’ access to the world’s economic center of gravity, with enduring implications for our nation’s economic prospects, including our ability to reindustrialize." (2026 NDS, p. 10). Russia, on the other hand, is a second order threat and potential a first order platform for the realization of transactional value added. It is a threat to the extent it threatens the value added of old alliances along NATO's Eastern flank. But it is a secondary threat in the sense that the expectation now arises that the Republic will no longer finance the containment of Russian first order threats, even against its dearest allies (2026 NDS p. 10-11). There will be room to bargain, certainly--markets for defense and alliance are in essence no different than markets for "widgets", but it is clear that violence projections  against second order threats will have to be made worthwhile. A repudiation of the post 1945 order as it had come to evolve itself  after 1989; most likely. Yet in the minds of the architects of this approach it represents not a repudiation but a classic rectification. That then explains the approach to Iran as well--one that recharacterizes the Iranian leadership as a much more potent variant on the Venezuelan model--operating to thwart the Republic's interests and  heading both a state and a criminal apparatus which makes it fair game for force projections in defense of the Republic's win-win transactions platforms (2026 NDS, p. 11-12). And so on.  

That, at any rate, is one way one might read these documents, and with it, the way in which their authors understand and apply America First in its domestic, international, defense, security and institutional policy manifestations--all now as a unified whole that is both self-referencing (a series of looping conceptual constructs) and interconnected with the greater public and private organizational frameworks of the Republic. And all of this requires a substantial rectification both the policies of the Republic and of the thinking and conduct (the working style) of its own cadres and patriots as well as those of its allies (if they wish to remain so). That, in the discursive style of Herodotus, was the essence of President Trump's remarks at Davos, coded,, in a style infuriating or easily dismissed by his enemies (who in vanguardist terms would be understood and thus flushed out as unpatriotic or reactionary forces). Whether or not this is a good idea, whether it is attainable, or whether it will survive the current administration (the last point appears to be generally accepted if one takes the Canadian Prime Minister's speech ar Davos seriously), I leave for another day and others more invested in projecting their own value universes in the public domain (politics).     

The Introduction to the 2026 NDS follows below