Hi everyone — Dario here.

The deluge of AI-driven news means that once-respectable fields like geopolitical analysis, once handled by a few competent individuals (and me), can now be readily manufactured and packaged under a credible-sounding Substack name by the most acne-ridden of adolescents.

That’s why The Blind Spot is turning towards color pieces — rooted in that fascinating place we call ‘IRL’, which smells, makes sounds, and stays delightfully unpredictable.

But that doesn’t mean these weeks have lacked geopolitical blind spots. And despite the info-pocalypse, it’s still our duty to shed light on them.

I’m just tired of doing it the old way.

Here’s a shot at something new:

WHAT THE WORLD IS WATCHING

Why everything in the geopolitical news space revolves around Trump turning the American Empire inwards.

In other words, he’s creating an American América.

Read on, cowboys (and cowgirls).

1 – The Trump peace plan continues

Trump’s peace plan for the Gaza conflict emerges with plaudits from the region just as Israel intercepts the so-called ‘aid flotilla’.

Alongside Trump’s remarkable Article 5-like guarantee for Qatar’s safety, after Israel’s norm-defying bombing of Doha, pundits report the 20-point peace plan has sparked a split in Hamas.

The 20-point peace plan has the usual Trumpian formula: a timeline for an Israeli withdrawal, Hamas’ release of hostages, and the removal of Hamas’ governance of the strip.

It also features strong language about the creation of a special economic zone in Gaza to attract investment for reconstruction.

While Hamas’ military wing and foreign officials have responded positively, some of its internal factions oppose foreign control of Gaza or being sidelined from governance.

Whether the plan will be accepted in its current form remains in question. I’d expect some more fighting before the peace dust settles.

But if you read between the lines of this shockingly pro-Trump FT article titled “How Trump cornered Netanyahu”, the peace may have been engineered already. The piece’s revelations, which study Netanyahu’s fraught relationship with Trump, should come as no surprise to our readers. We called out Trump’s intense distaste for Bibi way ahead of time.

2 – While American jets cross the Atlantic

This coincided with the sight of large numbers of American B-2 bombers, fighter jets and refuelling planes flying across the Atlantic into the Middle East.

Alongside the usual red flag: the Papa John’s near the Pentagon reporting an unusually high amount of traffic.

Who will be the target of this stick? Afghanistan? Iran?

Time will tell.

The rumour mill is claiming this hints at another Israeli-Iranian clash.

If so, it’s more likely to turn into series of negotiations under fire like the previous 12-day war, rather than a true beginning of WW3.

The past decade has only confirmed Clausewitz was right: war is nothing but an extension of politics.

3 – Hegseth pleads for fewer fat people in the military

This one was a slight surprise.

Everyone was initially spooked by Hegseth’s sudden call assemble all senior commanders.

Relief washed over the mainstream media after videos emerged of the cool, silent reception to Hegseth’s push on grooming standards and fitness.

What this sideshow overshadowed was Trump’s surprise appearance and soft-launch of the military’s expanded domestic role, notably in Portland, Chicago and Memphis.

4 – Amid rumours of Maduro’s overthrow

A New York Times op-ed claimed that top Trump aides are pushing hard to oust Maduro from power in Venezuela.

While Trump’s reclassification of drug cartels as terror networks gives him an impeccable casus belli against Maduro’s government (given its ties to the Cartel de los Soles), the news must be contextualised.

As we reported last month, the flare-up in U.S.-Venezuelan relations coincided with both countries rekindling several important commercial partnerships. Notably, Trump reissued Biden-era licenses to Chevron to resume oil extraction in Venezuela.

Furthermore, Trump’s move of vessels and use of military assets is a show of force aimed at the wider region, as we will expand on below.

Lastly, high-level U.S. officials have been calling for regime change in Venezuela for over a decade.

Trump may loudly oppose regime change operations. But this doesn’t mean he wouldn’t opt for a surgical regime change operation in Venezuela if the opportunity arose.

But if the opportunity had ever truly existed, Maduro would be long gone by now.

Though we’re not convinced one way or another. Because, as we will see below, Trump’s appetite for regime change may be more region-dependent than his declarations suggest.

THE AMERICAN AMÉRICA

To understand the blind spots above, let’s unpack the American América concept.

As an Argentinian border guard once bluntly reminded me: “América is from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.” A fact often forgotten amid the controversy over the renaming of the Gulf of México to the Gulf of América.

América is the entire continent. Most of its people speak Spanish. América is NOT the United States of America.

But that might be changing soon!

As discussed in a previous newsletter, Trump serves as this Empire’s Diocletian figure.

Trump is shifting American power from 20 percent across 100 percent of the globe to 100 percent across 20 percent of the globe.

Love him or hate him, the move makes sense. Empires that didn’t willingly retreat from overseas commitments as debt mounted (like the Spanish) were forced to leave the hard way.

This shift explains why the ‘sticks’ of Trumpian foreign policy, like the B-2 bombings of Iran’s nuclear reactors, or the current redeployment in American air assets overseas, are being launched from the United States.

This is critical signalling: “We may be trimming our overseas commitments. But we can still strike from home.”

It’s why Trump’s United States seems keen to resolve the Middle Eastern crisis by pacifying regional players, rather than continuing its decades-long policy of fracturing the region along ethnic and sectarian lines.

The same applies to Trump’s intentions in Europe. From urging Europe to spend more on defense, to attempts at pacifying the Ukraine-Russia conflict, or his recent (and very misunderstood) GOOD LUCK tweet to Ukraine, it all fits the same strategy.

Trump is washing the United States’ hands of overseas conflicts, imposing a new mini Pax Americana focused on América.

An American América.

This suggests we might see more tumultuous military posturing, and even aggressive operations, in Latin America by U.S. forces. Conversely, we’d be surprised if the same exit strategy weren’t applied to a Taiwan handover, ending the chance of a near-term China-U.S. conflict.

OTHER BLIND SPOTS

DRONES GALORE

In recent weeks, northern European airfields have experienced an unprecedented incursion by mysterious, unidentified drones. Even friend of the Blind Spot Michael Every got grounded at Munich airport overnight due to the inexplicable appearance of drones over German airspace this week.

IS IT NON-HUMAN? As the resident UAP expert, my answer is conclusive (despite the lack of evidence to back it): NO.

Why?

Because I don’t think non-human intelligence would time their drone flap with the construction of an EU drone wall, or conspicuously fly them over the constituencies that will be forced to pay for it.

IS IT RUSSIA? Given last month’s incursions of Russian-made drones into European airspace, it’s no surprise that Nordic authorities are pointing at the eastern bear. But, as you might expect, this narrative overlooks other possible explanations.

In short, the official story (which blames Russia) is incredibly “sus” (as the kids say).

Let’s summarize the events first.

Several Danish airports were forced to close last week after multiple large drones were spotted lazily flying overhead, their lights flashing, creating potential flight hazards. The drones caused numerous flight cancellations and diversions, continuing to loiter long after the incident was reported and the Danish military was summoned.

But strangely, after hours of tracking by Danish police and the military, the drones mysteriously disappeared after parading around for several hours.

Similar events occurred in Germany and France, where mysterious drones reportedly overflew sensitive areas, carelessly flashing their position lights and even flying in formation.

Although no evidence has been made public, authorities are unsurprisingly suggesting it could be Russia’s work.

I can’t blame them. After all, these drone incursions come after two weeks of aerial incidents between Russia and Europe. This includes the curious timing of a dozen unarmed Russian drones lazily flying into Poland on the morning that Ursula von der Leyen announced a Baltic ‘Drone Wall’ in her address to the EU. It also comprises the numerous breaches of European airspace by Russian military aircraft, notably causing Estonia to request an Article 4 consultation.

But let’s think logically: both sides could theoretically stand to gain from provocative actions on European soil. Russia might be sending a message, while Western powers could be blaming Russia to justify more taxpayer-funded adventurism.

Based on the particulars of this event and historical parallels in the region, I lean toward the latter

In practical terms, I struggle to see what kind of drone technology could be deployed that would make Danish, French and German authorities not intercept the flights, while these large drones carelessly and evidently display their positions, while authorities prove unable to follow their departure despite being tracked for several hours.

The official story makes no sense. So if they’re not Russian, whose drones are they?

History provides several answers, with the “Swedish submarine war” of the 1980s under the Premiership of Swedish Olof Palme being a great example.

Around 17-36 detected submarine operations in Sweden during the 80s were blamed on aggressive Soviet incursions into neutral European countries, with the International Studies journal calling them “the first Soviet military-political initiatives against a Western European state since the Berlin crisis of 1960–1961.”

Palme couldn’t grasp the Soviet motives behind these actions, and the Soviets questioned why the Swedish Navy didn’t fire on these mysterious submarines. Sweden’s admirals, however, procured enough evidence to compel Palme to blame Moscow, nudging Sweden further into NATO’s secret nuclear embrace.

Then came the revelation. In 2000, John Lehman, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, claimed that U.S. and British submarines “frequently” and “regularly” entered ostensibly neutral Swedish waters following secret “Navy-to-Navy” consultations during that period.

In a compelling Substack piece, Swedish professor Ola Tunander reported that John Lehman personally told him these Swedish operations were decided by a “Deception Operation Committee” chaired by the CIA Director.

The reason is clear: the submarine incidents fueled strong public distaste for the Soviet Union in Sweden, boosting support for closer alignment with NATO.

Could the mystery submarine debacle, like the current mystery drones, be a similar case of deception?

We don’t know. But the facts line up in favour of this angle. For one, the refusal or inability of Western European militaries to intercept these conspicuous drones, and to easily lose track of them is unusual. Particularly when smaller and low-flying Russian drones are precisely tracked along every inch of Europe’s borders and repeatedly shot down. Furthermore, NATO’s proven history of false-flag operations means this angle could certainly be prove correct in due time.

ADDENDUM ADDENDUM: France’s seizure of a Russian oil tanker, after Zelensky blamed Russia’s fleet of covert tankers for launching the mystery drones, should add points to the ‘it’s definitely not Russia’ side.

In case you don’t get why, here’s a long lost quote that Sun Tzu never said:

UKRAINE: HOW I GOT IT WRONG

In mid-July, I predicted that, despite ample indications pointing to the long-term continuation of the Ukraine conflict, certain key signals suggested it could end sooner than expected. Despite an initial feeling of triumph due to the Trump-Putin summit a few weeks later, the taste of peace soon soured. My analysis had been incorrect. And I finally figured out why.

The suggestions pointing towards long-term continuation were:

• Rumours reached us that Western power elites want to wait it out. Apparently, they are basing themselves on estimates that Russia could collapse if the conflict drags on for a few more years. This comes with the added chance of getting an Atlanticist in charge of the U.S. Presidency after 2028.
• There’s a lot more profit to be gained from prolonging the conflict, both in terms of arms sales and the deepening indebtedness of Ukraine (and Russia).

Key signals against the conflict’s elongation included:

• Internal Ukrainian issues: not just Zelensky’s decreasing popularity, but especially the conflicts’ strain on manpower.
• War is no longer essential to meet Western power players’ objectives: rearmament and financial control measures have already been implemented.

This suggested that the longer the Ukraine-Russia conflict continued, the critical manpower shortage would push Europe toward a ceasefire. Particularly because the necessary rearmament legislation to subsidise European industry through a war scare had been achieved.

This appeared confirmed by the Trump-Putin summit a week later. Alas, after a subsequent “peace” summit involving the Europeans, and series of massive Russian drone strikes on Ukrainian cities, it all fell apart once more.

This left me scratching my head. What did I miss?

Turns out, I had missed the nature of how the war evolved. Because the Ukraine-Russia conflict has shown that when both parties adapt to modern warfare, the fight becomes… sustainable.

You heard me right.

Peer-to-peer modern warfare, done right, results in a sparse battlefield, where most engagements are sporadic and light-touch, and most combat losses are borne by hardware.

The brutal trench warfare of 2022-24 to early 2025 is no more. Where you used to have platoons (30-50 soldiers) manning a trench line, today you only need a squad of half a dozen people, dug in concealed hide-outs, observing the front-line through slits, sensors, and cameras.

It’s not just because the slightest movement gets you killed: the battlefield is now replete with thermal, night-vision and high-powered scopes.

Large groups are also a tasty—and increasingly rare—target.

Lastly, you only need a few people to handle an infantry or armoured assault when your defence depends on calling in drone or artillery support.

This video explains it well:

In short, the job of an infantryman changed from a 2-D environment to a 4-D environment. Not only do they need to carry much more equipment, taking extreme caution in their movements and actions. Even basic things like vehicular transport are no longer available for all but the rear-guard.

But this has one dramatic political upside. Because fighting man-to-man has become such a nuisance, the killing has slowed down.

Historical parallels: It’s not the first time that a technological revolution has caused armies to become more casualty-averse.

The evolution of the arquebus and musket had a similar effect in Renaissance Europe. Since so much training and investment were being poured into conventional troops than heretofore, their generals became more reticent about engaging them in battle.

These developments meant wars became more common because armies rarely engaged each other and thus survived longer. On the upside, it meant that while wars wrought havoc on the unlucky cities in their wake, they cost very few casualties.

The outcome: This means that, despite knowing that the conflict is headed towards a resolution sooner rather than later, its lower casualties mean it may still have a long way to go before manpower deficiencies force the Western players to the table.

What we’re watching:

An FT short on the graduate job-pocalypse postulates that companies may see a rise in paid apprenticeships, a type of indentured servitude where a graduate is apprenticed in exchange for several years’ mandatory work once the graduate completes their apprenticeship. I’d be surprised if this didn’t mean a shift from 18+ education turning towards in-house apprenticeships for a wide range of roles, and away from universities, over the coming decades.

Trump’s executive order quietly declared that NASA is now a spy agency. The Futurism article describing this designation loudly decried the loss of ‘ space science’. But as one YouTube comment put it, “common sense told me this at 12”. In other words, if you didn’t realise that NASA probably functioned as a centre for espionage, you may still believe in Santa Claus.