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 …
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.
Every answer you wrote is at one point steering go the US, even if it isn’t about them.
Why in the world would Europe “join” China and Russia? The US waged war against Iraq!
Mao declaring that he’s ok with sacrificing half his population? Yea, the US said something similar!
The Soviets becoming increasingly concerned about Mao’s aggressive stance? US president Nixon wanted to be perceived as a ‘mad man’!
China using its military to suffocate protests movements that arose at the same time the Soviet Bloc was imploding? Putin killing his biggest domestical challenger? Have you read about USAID?
Either you are actually convinced that America is behind every action of another country, which itself would be a worryingly simplified look on the world to have, or it’s just your way of derailing every discussion that goes in a direction you don’t like.
Either way: saying ‘but the US!’ is not an argument for Europe ‘joining’ Russia or China, as we don’t have the same interests. Saying ‘but the US!’ is irrelevant when it comes to Mao’s remarks that lead to the Soviets becoming increasingly hostile to him. And finally, ‘but the US!’ is no excuse for China acting against its own people with military force and suppression or for Tsar Putin murdering whoever he seems a challenge to his reign. Countries are responsible for their own actions and I’m here to discuss with people that are capable of having a world view with more than one facet.
Whereas you disregard every story line that contains the US. The US is the hegemon. You can’t seriously believe that the US keeps to itself after USAID, cable leaks and things like ‘Fuck the EU’. There is US influence in every major event. If you treat that as the elephant in the room, then of course, somebody else is always responsible.
Why in the world would Europe “join” China and Russia? The US waged war against Iraq!
We are Team USA. Why should we break with the US if not due to some major event that the US does?
If the current development continues and the US become more fascist than China and Russia, wouldn’t Europe start to cooperate more with them, if there would be no war in Ukraine?
The roots of the Soviet-Sino split have nothing to do with the US. Yet you can’t stop parroting about America.
Europe does not want to ‘join’ China or Russia due to lack of common interests.
Europe isn’t ‘Team USA’, as can be seen by the tariff treatment we’re currently getting. They are not our friends.
A Europe that frees itself from an unreliable American partner does not need to join Russia/China. I don’t understand your difficulties understanding this? Why are you so hellbent on changing one big daddy to hide behind for another?
The roots of the Soviet-Sino split have nothing to do with the US. Yet you can’t stop parroting about America.
Because the subsequent integration into WTO was influenced by the US. That created the Eurasian challenger that shouldn’t exist. It is against the strategy unless it was used to isolate the USSR and to turn China capitalistic.
Europe does not want to ‘join’ China or Russia due to lack of common interests.
Europe continuing to trade with them would already undermine US decoupling.
Europe isn’t ‘Team USA’, as can be seen by the tariff treatment we’re currently getting. They are not our friends.
As long as we get better rates than China and equal or better rates than other countries, it’s not something that prevents our business but is a tax on Americans.
A Europe that frees itself from an unreliable American partner does not need to join Russia/China.
On it’s own that’s true.
I don’t understand your difficulties understanding this? Why are you so hellbent on changing one big daddy to hide behind for another?
That’s your conclusion. I think I am only arguing that without the Ukraine war the EU and China and Russia would cooperate. Maybe that word is too strong? How would you classify the OSCE or trade agreements?
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.
Have you noticed?
Every answer you wrote is at one point steering go the US, even if it isn’t about them.
Why in the world would Europe “join” China and Russia? The US waged war against Iraq!
Mao declaring that he’s ok with sacrificing half his population? Yea, the US said something similar!
The Soviets becoming increasingly concerned about Mao’s aggressive stance? US president Nixon wanted to be perceived as a ‘mad man’!
China using its military to suffocate protests movements that arose at the same time the Soviet Bloc was imploding? Putin killing his biggest domestical challenger? Have you read about USAID?
Either you are actually convinced that America is behind every action of another country, which itself would be a worryingly simplified look on the world to have, or it’s just your way of derailing every discussion that goes in a direction you don’t like.
Either way: saying ‘but the US!’ is not an argument for Europe ‘joining’ Russia or China, as we don’t have the same interests. Saying ‘but the US!’ is irrelevant when it comes to Mao’s remarks that lead to the Soviets becoming increasingly hostile to him. And finally, ‘but the US!’ is no excuse for China acting against its own people with military force and suppression or for Tsar Putin murdering whoever he seems a challenge to his reign. Countries are responsible for their own actions and I’m here to discuss with people that are capable of having a world view with more than one facet.
Whereas you disregard every story line that contains the US. The US is the hegemon. You can’t seriously believe that the US keeps to itself after USAID, cable leaks and things like ‘Fuck the EU’. There is US influence in every major event. If you treat that as the elephant in the room, then of course, somebody else is always responsible.
We are Team USA. Why should we break with the US if not due to some major event that the US does?
If the current development continues and the US become more fascist than China and Russia, wouldn’t Europe start to cooperate more with them, if there would be no war in Ukraine?
The roots of the Soviet-Sino split have nothing to do with the US. Yet you can’t stop parroting about America.
Europe does not want to ‘join’ China or Russia due to lack of common interests.
Europe isn’t ‘Team USA’, as can be seen by the tariff treatment we’re currently getting. They are not our friends.
A Europe that frees itself from an unreliable American partner does not need to join Russia/China. I don’t understand your difficulties understanding this? Why are you so hellbent on changing one big daddy to hide behind for another?
Because the subsequent integration into WTO was influenced by the US. That created the Eurasian challenger that shouldn’t exist. It is against the strategy unless it was used to isolate the USSR and to turn China capitalistic.
Europe continuing to trade with them would already undermine US decoupling.
As long as we get better rates than China and equal or better rates than other countries, it’s not something that prevents our business but is a tax on Americans.
On it’s own that’s true.
That’s your conclusion. I think I am only arguing that without the Ukraine war the EU and China and Russia would cooperate. Maybe that word is too strong? How would you classify the OSCE or trade agreements?