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 …
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?
Subsequent means that it happens afterwards. Hence, it cannot be the cause.
Europe continuing to trade with them would already undermine US decoupling.
Europe has no interests in trading with someone that actively wants to harm them.
As long as we get better rates than China…
Yea, doesn’t sound like ‘Team USA’ to me…
I> think I am only arguing that without the Ukraine war the EU and China and Russia would cooperate.
I’d say you’re only saying it but not arguing. Because so far, you haven’t really presented arguments for it that actually affect us and not America or someone else.
Subsequent means that it happens afterwards. Hence, it cannot be the cause…
… Of the Sino-Soviet split. But it can be the cause of a third world country, technically second world, to become a challenger.
Europe has no interests in trading with someone that actively wants to harm them.
Right now - that’s the point. The argument is about the possibility that without the war, there could be extended trading and “This war is currently leading to a closer cooperation between the two countries” would be the better alternative to all of Eurasia trading and not a clear loss.
As long as we get better rates than China…
Yea, doesn’t sound like ‘Team USA’ to me…
Tariffs are a tool to give the president direct control over the spending, without congress. Foreign relations is an afterthought.
I’d say you’re only saying it but not arguing. Because so far, you haven’t really presented arguments for it that actually affect us and not America or someone else.
Have you forgotten the time before the war and the ongoing trade with China right now?
If you need a reason for the future, that will be China’s advanced technology and their cheap products from lights-out factories.
Europe isolating itself from global commerce for ideological reasons would be spectacular, especially if it is to avoid trading with former self-isolating China and a country of the self-isolating USSR.
But it can be the cause of a third world country, technically second world, to become a challenger.
…which wouldn’t make sense if Brzezinski’s theory was true.
The argument is about the possibility that without the war, there could be extended trading
Even without the war, both China and Russia are opposed to democracies and a strong sovereign Europe because they are system rivals. So I don’t see it at all, even without Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine.
and not a clear loss.
For America, the only relevant factor when it comes to Brzezinski’s theory, those two collaborating is a clear loss and hence a violation of that theory.
Have you forgotten the time before the war and the ongoing trade with China right now?
For our mistake with Russia, we are currently paying a big price and the price for bolstering China will also be quite big. These countries never were our partners but used us to gain strength.
Europe isolating itself from global commerce
Not from global commerce but from autocratic and ideological nouveau riches that aggressively want to dominate trade while stumbling over their ever faster running feet. China is opposed todemocracy, they don’t want us to succeed or even partnership but only to dominate. But getting rich is easy, staying rich is hard. Let’s see how well and stable China is doing when the first big recessions come around the corner.
which wouldn’t make sense if Brzezinski’s theory was true.
From the known page
China’s future role is greatly underestimated. Despite many correct partial analyses, Brzezinski’s book neglects the economic dynamics of important states as well as future population growth and the conflicts that will become inevitable as a result. Likewise, the future effects of electronic globalization are not sufficiently appreciated.
Brzezinski ignored it, and thus did the US, until it was too late. It’s a limitation of the theory, not a contradiction.
China and Russia are opposed to democracies
Like a fascist USA. If that happens, wouldn’t we want to balance our dependency on the US? And wouldn’t we want to be prepared, so keep trading with China and Russia?
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?
Subsequent means that it happens afterwards. Hence, it cannot be the cause.
Europe has no interests in trading with someone that actively wants to harm them.
Yea, doesn’t sound like ‘Team USA’ to me…
I> think I am only arguing that without the Ukraine war the EU and China and Russia would cooperate.
I’d say you’re only saying it but not arguing. Because so far, you haven’t really presented arguments for it that actually affect us and not America or someone else.
… Of the Sino-Soviet split. But it can be the cause of a third world country, technically second world, to become a challenger.
Right now - that’s the point. The argument is about the possibility that without the war, there could be extended trading and “This war is currently leading to a closer cooperation between the two countries” would be the better alternative to all of Eurasia trading and not a clear loss.
Tariffs are a tool to give the president direct control over the spending, without congress. Foreign relations is an afterthought.
Have you forgotten the time before the war and the ongoing trade with China right now?
If you need a reason for the future, that will be China’s advanced technology and their cheap products from lights-out factories.
Europe isolating itself from global commerce for ideological reasons would be spectacular, especially if it is to avoid trading with former self-isolating China and a country of the self-isolating USSR.
…which wouldn’t make sense if Brzezinski’s theory was true.
Even without the war, both China and Russia are opposed to democracies and a strong sovereign Europe because they are system rivals. So I don’t see it at all, even without Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine.
For America, the only relevant factor when it comes to Brzezinski’s theory, those two collaborating is a clear loss and hence a violation of that theory.
For our mistake with Russia, we are currently paying a big price and the price for bolstering China will also be quite big. These countries never were our partners but used us to gain strength.
Not from global commerce but from autocratic and ideological nouveau riches that aggressively want to dominate trade while stumbling over their ever faster running feet. China is opposed todemocracy, they don’t want us to succeed or even partnership but only to dominate. But getting rich is easy, staying rich is hard. Let’s see how well and stable China is doing when the first big recessions come around the corner.
From the known page
Brzezinski ignored it, and thus did the US, until it was too late. It’s a limitation of the theory, not a contradiction.
Like a fascist USA. If that happens, wouldn’t we want to balance our dependency on the US? And wouldn’t we want to be prepared, so keep trading with China and Russia?