WELCOME TO USCE
Either we simply abandon this dream, accept Europe’s civilizational erasure and enter the Trumpian new barbarism, or we approach the difficult task of sublating the European civilization.
Welcome to the desert of the real!
If you desire the comfort of neat conclusions, you are lost in this space. Here, we indulge in the unsettling, the excessive, the paradoxes that define our existence.
So, if you have the means and value writing that both enriches and disturbs, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
“USCE” in the title stands for the “United States of Civilizational Erasure,” a name which fits perfectly the vision of the US presented in the 33-page document “National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” quietly released by the White House in late November 2025.1 While we do not learn anything new in this document, it provides a kind of systematic exposure of Trump’s “America First” doctrine: it sets out the administration’s realignment of US foreign policy, from shifting military resources in the Western Hemisphere to taking an unprecedentedly confrontational posture toward Europe.2 What until now may have been dismissed as Trump’s confused improvisations is now clearly articulated as a global ideological vision which effectively amounts to what he accuses Europe of: civilizational erasure.
Apart from well-known general trends toward civilizational erasure (Trump’s animosity toward academia and independent public media), let me just mention two minor facts: Trump nominates three actors to steer Hollywood in the direction he desires (Mel Gibson, Sylvester Stallone, Jon Voight); Trump brutally intervened in the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, changing its orientation toward popular culture. Where are the good old years around 1950 when the CIA financed translations of T. S. Eliot’s poems into East European languages and directly organized abstract expressionist painters into a group to counter Communist influence in Western Europe? And is the ultimate document of the erasure of civilization not a long drone shot of Gaza with almost all of its buildings destroyed? Not even to mention the gold noose-shaped pins worn on December 8, 2025, in the Knesset by Ben Gvir and members of his party. They were nearly identical to hostage pins that came to represent Israel’s demand to bring its abducted citizens home, but while the yellow pin symbolized the fight for life, the noose pin did the exact opposite: it advertised the celebration of death as legislation. Their display accompanied the latest push in the National Security Committee to advance a bill that would dramatically expand Israel’s use of the death penalty: it seeks to impose a mandatory death sentence on any Palestinian (just Palestinian!) who intentionally or with “indifference” causes the death of an Israeli civilian out of “hostility toward the public” or from a nationalist motive.3 Again, the end of civilization…
Back to Trump’s document: it outlines a dual-track approach to China, pushing to contain Beijing’s global influence while preserving economic ties and maintaining the current conditions on Taiwan, saying that “deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” However, although the approach to China is the central claim of the document (and even a relatively rational one), it is eclipsed by the obsession with Western Europe. Trump and his administration blame the EU and migration for what they say is imminent, total cultural unraveling in Europe. The document notes that Europe has economic problems, but it insists that they are “eclipsed by the real and more stark prospect of civilizational erasure” within the next 20 years:
“The larger issues facing Europe include activities of the European Union and other transnational bodies that undermine political liberty and sovereignty, migration policies that are transforming the continent and creating strife, censorship of free speech and suppression of political opposition, cratering birthrates, and loss of national identities and self-confidence.”
The war in Ukraine is mentioned in this context of discussing Europe’s “civilizational erasure.” The US stresses that it is in America’s interest for this war to stop, including in order to restore “strategic stability” with Russia. However, the US administration claims that “unstable minority governments” in Europe have “unrealistic expectations for the war,” while also hinting they are hindering the peace process. The comments come as European leaders discreetly warn that Washington could “betray” Ukraine during peace negotiations with Moscow. Does Trump’s recent critique of Zelensky not point in this direction: “We’ve been speaking to President Putin and we’ve been speaking to Ukrainian leaders, including… President Zelensky, and I have to say that I’m a little bit disappointed that President Zelensky hasn’t yet read the proposal; that was as of a few hours ago.” No wonder the Kremlin praised America’s new harder posture toward Europe: Trump blames European officials for blocking US-backed efforts to end the conflict and states that an end to “hostilities” is needed to stabilize European economies, prevent war, and re-establish stability with Russia.
“It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, in order to stabilize European economies, prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the war, and re-establish strategic stability with Russia, as well as to enable the post-hostilities reconstruction of Ukraine to enable its survival as a viable state.”
Surprisingly (although not really), the underlying narrative comes close to what some leftists claim: Russia and the people of Ukraine sincerely want peace, and it is only the European obsession (shared by the corrupt Ukrainian leadership) with the idea that Russia should and could be defeated which makes the war drag on. The Brussels EU bureaucracy talks all the time about the need to establish peace and safety for Ukraine, but what it effectively does is sabotage every negotiation and send Ukraine old arms (like antiquated tanks) that are of no use and just rot in Ukrainian warehouses while thousands are meaninglessly dying on both sides of the battlefield. While such stances present themselves as a neutral description of facts, their bias is clear. The main “factual” claim – Ukraine cannot win the war (of course it cannot do it alone, which is why it needs our help) – effectively expresses the desire that it should lose it as soon as possible. A model case of heroic resistance is thus presented as its opposite, as meaningless slaughter.
