Angela Merkel’s calm steadied a wounded nation — but it also put it to sleep. For sixteen years, Germany mistook caution for competence and comfort for courage. This essay dissects how the myth of …
I am not sure how to answer this. If the goal is to prevent a challenger and there is none, then it’s not proof of the contrary.
The US decided to integrate China into WTO. Sweden sold the car company, Canada the mobile phone technology. It was the goal to integrate China economically. Thinking that China’s development is Merkel’s fault needs some proof to convince me.
As I said, Merkel went to Bush, and if you don’t know, the rift between Merkel and Merz is about Merz wanting more independence from America.
Minsk II and the gas kept Russia believing that there was a future. Minsk II was deception. Why not the gas? As shown by reality, there was no real dependency.
Merkel even gave her phone to the NSA for inspections.
If the goal is to prevent a challenger and there is none, then it’s not proof of the contrary.
But there is a challenger. One that grew incredibly fast even after Brzezinski published his book.
Thinking that China’s development is Merkel’s fault needs some proof to convince me.
That’s not the point. The point is that under Merkel, trade between Germany and China intensified, leading to a strong influx of technology into China and hence strengthening their growth. This would not be plausible if Merkel was actually part of a US ‘Grand Chessboard Plan/Conspiracy’.
Also, Merkel deepened the reliance of Germany on Russian gas. That’s weakening the US position and, if she was actually part of a ‘Grand Chessboard Plan/Conspiracy’ would not be plausible. Yet it happened.
So we can conclude: we both agree there is likely no benign vision in the US’ strategy. And we both agree there a strong Eurasian competitors. Therefore, both parts of Brzezinski’s idea are not given. Hence, I think it is fiction at best and don’t understand the obsession with the book nor what it can ‘prove’ in reality.
But let’s not forget the really interesting bits from your response:
What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split. What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
Russia alone is no challenger. The combination with Germany would have been. It’s worth having a look why that didn’t take place.
China is a challenger made by the US. The reviews point out that the book is missing that risk and focusses too much on Russia. In that sense the development of China confirms the mindset of the book.
Why don’t you see the key role of the US in the development of China?
I will answer your last question in another comment.
Russia meddled with US elections and currently try to annex one of Europe’s largest countries that wants to align itself with the ‘West’. A US under the strategy of Brzezinski would not allow these challenges to their power.
China is a challenger made by the US.
…which is a grave violation of Brzezinski’s strategy.
In that sense the development of China confirms the mindset of the book.
How does the US allowing China to emerge as their biggest rival since a long time confirm a book that states it is imperial for the US for exactly that not to happen?
A US under the strategy of Brzezinski would not allow these challenges to their power.
You could see the war as a tool to prevent Europe from working with Russia and China. Then the US is doing exactly that, preventing the challenger.
How does the US allowing China to emerge as their biggest rival
Momentum and ignorance. They allowed China to trade with the West to allow China to separate from the USSR. Afterwards China played their cards right and the US hasn’t managed to incide a revolution that would make China democratic and part of the western framework.
It confirms the book because the criticism was that China wasn’t considered enough. If that omission happens in reality then the book seems to reflect the focus of those who do the strategic thinking for the US.
You could see the war as a tool to prevent Europe from working with Russia and China.
Russia and especially China are the rivals for the US. This war is currently leading to a closer cooperation between the two countries, and also with other typical enemies of the US such as Iran or North Korea. Especially the latter two are now no longer as isolated as before. A clear loss for the US - and not permittable according to Brzezinski’s theory.
On the other hand, under Brzezinski’s theory, the US should do all it can to prevent Russia from getting Ukraine, as it would immensely strengthen their position. Russia is severely weakened in its war of aggression and it would be as easy for the US to enduringly eliminate them as a competitior as never before in the last 30ish years. In reality, the US is letting Europe more and more alone with the problem, showing less interest in the continent. This also leads to the growing desire within Europe to be more independent from the US, strategically, militarily, economically. They had the continent in their firm grip for decades, now that’s changing. Absolutely not permittable according to Brzezinski’s theory.
As you see, they neither ensure China is weakend, nor Russia is beaten, nor Europe stays within their sphere of influence. All of that should be the case according to Brzezinski.
to allow China to separate from the USSR
I’m still waiting for that reply!
What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split. What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
That depends on the alternatives. What if Europe would join Russia and China?
In reality, the US is letting Europe more and more alone
Look at the new base in Romania and the construction of the central hospital in Germany. The US are expanding. The threat of retreat is just there to sell the expansion of the military budgets to the population.
What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split.
What makes this question so important to you?
Not looking it up, but as far as I know it was about the nuclear bomb or the end of Stalinism in the USSR. But I don’t really know. The important part is that the US used it to split China from Russia which reduced their chance of winning as communist countries. This led to USSR collapsing.
What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
You must know. All regime changes need an opposition so that all countries support the opposition of their enemies. Russia supports AfD in Germany and the US supports opposition in other countries.
The US opened the WTO to China despite China not fully fulfilling the requirements.
Why? There must have been a plan to use the economic change to drive political change.
But that China would be too big. So in addition to that, the usual racial divides are predisposed to split the country.
Why would Europe do so? We are neither like Russia nor like China and we don’t look for someone to ‘join’. We don’t even have the same interests.
The US are expanding.
Trump is threatening to remove a five-digit number of soldiers from Europe. Of course he does, as he wants to shift to the Pacific. US presence in Europe will not expand.
What makes this question so important to you?
Because you make it sound like the Americans were the reason for that. And that, quite frankly, would be an absolutely wild theory.
Not looking it up, but as far as I know it was about the nuclear bomb or the end of Stalinism in the USSR.
Bingo. Given you are apparently quite interested in these countries, you absolutely should look it up! You can only profit from knowing history and it is a fascinating story. The USSR was fed up with Stalinism and his personality cult after he finally checked out, China (= Mao) not so much. The USSR aimed for coexistence with the US, China absolutely wanted war, even if that meant nuclear war. There’s the quote of Mao from then that he’s not afraid of nuclear war, as there are 600m Chinese and even if half of them died in such a war, there still would be 300m left, which he considered enough. Obviously, this didn’t sit too well with other Communist leaders who became increasingly afraid of that mad man. The USSR even gathered troops along the Chinese border in order to start a preemptive strike to stop him. It was rather close. This conflict and hate came from within, no Americans needed.
You must know. All regime changes need an opposition so that all countries support the opposition of their enemies.
So you think the US was also behind Tian’anmen, Tibet, the Uyghurs and Navalny?
That sounds like a very comfy world view: whenever a country you like is doing something bad, just blame the country you don’t like for it. Case closed. Doesn’t it make you suspicious how easy this would be? Ever thought that the countries you like themselves did something bad entirely on their own?
As a result of political development. After the Iraq war, we could have sanctioned the US which would have led to stronger cooperation with Russia. Things could have been different and can be different in the future.
The US are expanding.
Trump is threatening to remove a five-digit number of soldiers from Europe.
Why put Trump’s word over what is happening?
you absolutely should look it up
Yes. Thanks for the summary. However you know that I will make do with it alone for a while.
there still would be 300m left, which he considered enough.
I have read about similar thoughts by the US about nuclear war with the USSR. So let’s not pretend that only Mao is capable of that thought. As Europeans, we are expendables for both sides.
To me it seems that that is the current US strategy.
So you think the US was also behind Tian’anmen, Tibet, the Uyghurs and Navalny?
Have you seen the articles of newspapers fearing shutdown by the end of USAID? The US must be influencing every country. That comes with being the hegemon. It’s a matter of details for each country to which extend the US are responsible.
I am not sure how to answer this. If the goal is to prevent a challenger and there is none, then it’s not proof of the contrary.
The US decided to integrate China into WTO. Sweden sold the car company, Canada the mobile phone technology. It was the goal to integrate China economically. Thinking that China’s development is Merkel’s fault needs some proof to convince me.
As I said, Merkel went to Bush, and if you don’t know, the rift between Merkel and Merz is about Merz wanting more independence from America.
Minsk II and the gas kept Russia believing that there was a future. Minsk II was deception. Why not the gas? As shown by reality, there was no real dependency.
Merkel even gave her phone to the NSA for inspections.
But there is a challenger. One that grew incredibly fast even after Brzezinski published his book.
That’s not the point. The point is that under Merkel, trade between Germany and China intensified, leading to a strong influx of technology into China and hence strengthening their growth. This would not be plausible if Merkel was actually part of a US ‘Grand Chessboard Plan/Conspiracy’.
Also, Merkel deepened the reliance of Germany on Russian gas. That’s weakening the US position and, if she was actually part of a ‘Grand Chessboard Plan/Conspiracy’ would not be plausible. Yet it happened.
So we can conclude: we both agree there is likely no benign vision in the US’ strategy. And we both agree there a strong Eurasian competitors. Therefore, both parts of Brzezinski’s idea are not given. Hence, I think it is fiction at best and don’t understand the obsession with the book nor what it can ‘prove’ in reality.
But let’s not forget the really interesting bits from your response:
What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split. What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
I am sorry, I totally messed up what I read.
Russia alone is no challenger. The combination with Germany would have been. It’s worth having a look why that didn’t take place.
China is a challenger made by the US. The reviews point out that the book is missing that risk and focusses too much on Russia. In that sense the development of China confirms the mindset of the book.
Why don’t you see the key role of the US in the development of China?
I will answer your last question in another comment.
Russia meddled with US elections and currently try to annex one of Europe’s largest countries that wants to align itself with the ‘West’. A US under the strategy of Brzezinski would not allow these challenges to their power.
…which is a grave violation of Brzezinski’s strategy.
How does the US allowing China to emerge as their biggest rival since a long time confirm a book that states it is imperial for the US for exactly that not to happen?
You could see the war as a tool to prevent Europe from working with Russia and China. Then the US is doing exactly that, preventing the challenger.
Momentum and ignorance. They allowed China to trade with the West to allow China to separate from the USSR. Afterwards China played their cards right and the US hasn’t managed to incide a revolution that would make China democratic and part of the western framework.
It confirms the book because the criticism was that China wasn’t considered enough. If that omission happens in reality then the book seems to reflect the focus of those who do the strategic thinking for the US.
Russia and especially China are the rivals for the US. This war is currently leading to a closer cooperation between the two countries, and also with other typical enemies of the US such as Iran or North Korea. Especially the latter two are now no longer as isolated as before. A clear loss for the US - and not permittable according to Brzezinski’s theory.
On the other hand, under Brzezinski’s theory, the US should do all it can to prevent Russia from getting Ukraine, as it would immensely strengthen their position. Russia is severely weakened in its war of aggression and it would be as easy for the US to enduringly eliminate them as a competitior as never before in the last 30ish years. In reality, the US is letting Europe more and more alone with the problem, showing less interest in the continent. This also leads to the growing desire within Europe to be more independent from the US, strategically, militarily, economically. They had the continent in their firm grip for decades, now that’s changing. Absolutely not permittable according to Brzezinski’s theory.
As you see, they neither ensure China is weakend, nor Russia is beaten, nor Europe stays within their sphere of influence. All of that should be the case according to Brzezinski.
I’m still waiting for that reply!
That depends on the alternatives. What if Europe would join Russia and China?
Look at the new base in Romania and the construction of the central hospital in Germany. The US are expanding. The threat of retreat is just there to sell the expansion of the military budgets to the population.
What makes this question so important to you?
Not looking it up, but as far as I know it was about the nuclear bomb or the end of Stalinism in the USSR. But I don’t really know. The important part is that the US used it to split China from Russia which reduced their chance of winning as communist countries. This led to USSR collapsing.
You must know. All regime changes need an opposition so that all countries support the opposition of their enemies. Russia supports AfD in Germany and the US supports opposition in other countries.
The US opened the WTO to China despite China not fully fulfilling the requirements.
Why? There must have been a plan to use the economic change to drive political change.
But that China would be too big. So in addition to that, the usual racial divides are predisposed to split the country.
Why would Europe do so? We are neither like Russia nor like China and we don’t look for someone to ‘join’. We don’t even have the same interests.
Trump is threatening to remove a five-digit number of soldiers from Europe. Of course he does, as he wants to shift to the Pacific. US presence in Europe will not expand.
Because you make it sound like the Americans were the reason for that. And that, quite frankly, would be an absolutely wild theory.
Bingo. Given you are apparently quite interested in these countries, you absolutely should look it up! You can only profit from knowing history and it is a fascinating story. The USSR was fed up with Stalinism and his personality cult after he finally checked out, China (= Mao) not so much. The USSR aimed for coexistence with the US, China absolutely wanted war, even if that meant nuclear war. There’s the quote of Mao from then that he’s not afraid of nuclear war, as there are 600m Chinese and even if half of them died in such a war, there still would be 300m left, which he considered enough. Obviously, this didn’t sit too well with other Communist leaders who became increasingly afraid of that mad man. The USSR even gathered troops along the Chinese border in order to start a preemptive strike to stop him. It was rather close. This conflict and hate came from within, no Americans needed.
So you think the US was also behind Tian’anmen, Tibet, the Uyghurs and Navalny?
That sounds like a very comfy world view: whenever a country you like is doing something bad, just blame the country you don’t like for it. Case closed. Doesn’t it make you suspicious how easy this would be? Ever thought that the countries you like themselves did something bad entirely on their own?
As a result of political development. After the Iraq war, we could have sanctioned the US which would have led to stronger cooperation with Russia. Things could have been different and can be different in the future.
Why put Trump’s word over what is happening?
Yes. Thanks for the summary. However you know that I will make do with it alone for a while.
I have read about similar thoughts by the US about nuclear war with the USSR. So let’s not pretend that only Mao is capable of that thought. As Europeans, we are expendables for both sides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
To me it seems that that is the current US strategy.
Have you seen the articles of newspapers fearing shutdown by the end of USAID? The US must be influencing every country. That comes with being the hegemon. It’s a matter of details for each country to which extend the US are responsible.