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 …
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?
Brzezinski ignored it, and thus did the US, until it was too late.
What you quoted was the critical review of former German chancellor Schmidt in 1997(!). So you’re saying they ignored something stated even then for another 30ish years only to realise now that they - by accident - didn’t prevent a huge Eurasian challenger emerging from the ongoing trade with them? For being the ‘mighty mighty world hegemon that controls everything in this world’, that sounds awfully stupid and incompetent to ‘miss’ this.
It’s a limitation of the theory, not a contradiction.
I’m sorry but when not even the core principle of a theory is fulfilled, you can hardly call that a limitation.
It is a nice book with thoughts of an experienced former political scientist. But his observations and proposals are only that: proposals. To treat them as the ‘clandestine master plan’ of that country is -see the actual reality - frankly absurd.
Like a fascist USA.
That’s why we have to free ourselves of them too.
It is only you that always connects this step with ‘joining’ Russia/China. If you don’t want to think of an independent Europe but only want to swap one hegemon for another, fine. But don’t make that limitation ours.
So you’re saying they ignored something stated even then for another 30ish years
No, only why China was initially underestimated and they thought they could change China by accepting it into WTO.
Then they tried various things that ultimately failed. The result is the current attempt of last resort at decoupling.
To treat them as the ‘clandestine master plan’
You focus the argument on that. To me, the important parts are the concepts. The plans change, thinking of people in a functional way does not.
That’s why we have to free ourselves of them too.
As far as there can be freeing in a global economy I agree.
It is only you that always connects this step with ‘joining’ Russia/China.
Your word. I said cooperation and I asked you which word you would prefer for things like OSCE and trade agreements.
If you don’t want to think of an independent Europe
There is no escape from oil, rare earths, chip prodictions and AI algorithms.
The best strategy for Europe would be to build up China so that China and US are balanced and none can control Europe and they have to provide access to their resources to avoid that Europe only supports the other.
But that’s difficult to do, as the FDP, a German coalition party, can tell.
No, only why China was initially underestimated and they thought they could change China by accepting it into WTO.
You do realise that it was China’s intention from the mid-80s onwards to be part of international trade treaties (GATT, WTO) after the economic opening of Deng Xiaoping and reduction of state planning. and their wish to become a founding member of WTO, which was blocked by, i.a., the US. Not the US led China into WTO but China themselves.
This is more than 20 years ago and you still think that America would only be watching if their imperative goal was to prevent an Eurasian challenger from emerging?
To me, the important parts are the concepts.
The actions don’t fit the concept that it is imperative for the US to prevent an Eurasian challenger to emerge. If it actually was, it wouldn’t make sense for them to restrain the weapons delivered to Ukraine. They furthermore wouldn’t let China dominate the South China Sea. Yet they do all of this. You can choose to keep ignoring all these facts to preserve your world view, but that doesn’t change how wrong you look.
You do realise that it was China’s intention from the mid-80s onwards to be part of international trade treaties
Yes, but it’s up to the US that they had access to US markets. I got the WTO part wrong and looked things up. Seems like they blocked the ITO which would have prevented the trade deficit. There are also those insane cheap shipping fees from China. I still believe that the US supported China’s economic development.
This is more than 20 years ago and you still think that America would only be watching if their imperative goal was to prevent an Eurasian challenger from emerging?
They did not. They have been fostering opposition which usually ends in regime change. China just managed to avoid it so that the US are switching to decoupling.
If it actually was, it wouldn’t make sense for them to restrain the weapons delivered to Ukraine.
Because Ukraine would win and the war wouldn’t escalate? China said they cannot afford Russia to lose.
I think the Ukraine war is primarily used to decouple and militarize Europe and to make Russia abandon Syria.
Preventing a Chinese Russian alliance would have required Russian Nato membership.
Now the US can only prevent Europe from trading with them.
They furthermore wouldn’t let China dominate the South China Sea.
What should they do?
I think they are heavily influencing local politics. Everything else means war. For some reason that’s still too early.
Your word. I said cooperation
No, you didn’t.
Ok, I did, for the US worst case scenario.
It absolutely isn’t. China is opposed to democracy, considers us a system rival and we don’t have the same interests.
To be honest: not the first time you’re rock-solid convinced of something you got wrong. Shouldn’t that make you wonder?
I still believe that the US supported China’s economic development.
Ah, it doesn’t make you wonder. You learn you got something wrong, you just shuffle things around a bit and keep rock-solid convinced. What a convenient way to walk through life! :D
Btw: you’re convinced that both the US supported China’s economic development and they follow a plan that it is imperative for them to prevent an Eurasian challenger. Does not seem coherent.
Because Ukraine would win and the war wouldn’t escalate? China said they cannot afford Russia to lose.
So let me get this straight: China apparently says it cannot afford Russia to lose. Russia obviously also can’t afford that. Yet, you think the US doesn’t want Ukraine to win the war? Doesn’t make sense.
If both challengers say this outcome is unacceptable to them, that’s exactly what the US would need to push for according to Brzezinski. Explain.
I think the Ukraine war is primarily used to decouple and militarize Europe and to make Russia abandon Syria.
Doesn’t make sense: a militarised Europe is bad for America because it is a more independent Europe. And why would the US care about Syria when it is imperative to them to prevent China? Seems like you just state things you don’t like: increasing military spending in Europe and Russia losing influence in the Middle East. A very Russian perspective. A very wrong perspective, because both these things are caused by Russia invading Ukraine.
Everything else means war.
So? You chose to believe China when they say it is imperative to them that Russia doesn’t lose in Ukraine. Yet you think the US, for which you think it is imperative to prevent China, is deterred by war? Doesn’t make sense.
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?
What you quoted was the critical review of former German chancellor Schmidt in 1997(!). So you’re saying they ignored something stated even then for another 30ish years only to realise now that they - by accident - didn’t prevent a huge Eurasian challenger emerging from the ongoing trade with them? For being the ‘mighty mighty world hegemon that controls everything in this world’, that sounds awfully stupid and incompetent to ‘miss’ this.
I’m sorry but when not even the core principle of a theory is fulfilled, you can hardly call that a limitation.
It is a nice book with thoughts of an experienced former political scientist. But his observations and proposals are only that: proposals. To treat them as the ‘clandestine master plan’ of that country is -see the actual reality - frankly absurd.
That’s why we have to free ourselves of them too.
It is only you that always connects this step with ‘joining’ Russia/China. If you don’t want to think of an independent Europe but only want to swap one hegemon for another, fine. But don’t make that limitation ours.
No, only why China was initially underestimated and they thought they could change China by accepting it into WTO.
Then they tried various things that ultimately failed. The result is the current attempt of last resort at decoupling.
You focus the argument on that. To me, the important parts are the concepts. The plans change, thinking of people in a functional way does not.
As far as there can be freeing in a global economy I agree.
Your word. I said cooperation and I asked you which word you would prefer for things like OSCE and trade agreements.
There is no escape from oil, rare earths, chip prodictions and AI algorithms.
The best strategy for Europe would be to build up China so that China and US are balanced and none can control Europe and they have to provide access to their resources to avoid that Europe only supports the other.
But that’s difficult to do, as the FDP, a German coalition party, can tell.
You do realise that it was China’s intention from the mid-80s onwards to be part of international trade treaties (GATT, WTO) after the economic opening of Deng Xiaoping and reduction of state planning. and their wish to become a founding member of WTO, which was blocked by, i.a., the US. Not the US led China into WTO but China themselves.
This is more than 20 years ago and you still think that America would only be watching if their imperative goal was to prevent an Eurasian challenger from emerging?
The actions don’t fit the concept that it is imperative for the US to prevent an Eurasian challenger to emerge. If it actually was, it wouldn’t make sense for them to restrain the weapons delivered to Ukraine. They furthermore wouldn’t let China dominate the South China Sea. Yet they do all of this. You can choose to keep ignoring all these facts to preserve your world view, but that doesn’t change how wrong you look.
No, you didn’t.
Haha, no. It absolutely isn’t. China is opposed to democracy, considers us a system rival and we don’t have the same interests.
Yes, but it’s up to the US that they had access to US markets. I got the WTO part wrong and looked things up. Seems like they blocked the ITO which would have prevented the trade deficit. There are also those insane cheap shipping fees from China. I still believe that the US supported China’s economic development.
They did not. They have been fostering opposition which usually ends in regime change. China just managed to avoid it so that the US are switching to decoupling.
Because Ukraine would win and the war wouldn’t escalate? China said they cannot afford Russia to lose.
I think the Ukraine war is primarily used to decouple and militarize Europe and to make Russia abandon Syria.
Preventing a Chinese Russian alliance would have required Russian Nato membership.
Now the US can only prevent Europe from trading with them.
What should they do? I think they are heavily influencing local politics. Everything else means war. For some reason that’s still too early.
Ok, I did, for the US worst case scenario.
Do we have the same interests as a fascist USA?
To be honest: not the first time you’re rock-solid convinced of something you got wrong. Shouldn’t that make you wonder?
Ah, it doesn’t make you wonder. You learn you got something wrong, you just shuffle things around a bit and keep rock-solid convinced. What a convenient way to walk through life! :D
Btw: you’re convinced that both the US supported China’s economic development and they follow a plan that it is imperative for them to prevent an Eurasian challenger. Does not seem coherent.
So let me get this straight: China apparently says it cannot afford Russia to lose. Russia obviously also can’t afford that. Yet, you think the US doesn’t want Ukraine to win the war? Doesn’t make sense.
If both challengers say this outcome is unacceptable to them, that’s exactly what the US would need to push for according to Brzezinski. Explain.
Doesn’t make sense: a militarised Europe is bad for America because it is a more independent Europe. And why would the US care about Syria when it is imperative to them to prevent China? Seems like you just state things you don’t like: increasing military spending in Europe and Russia losing influence in the Middle East. A very Russian perspective. A very wrong perspective, because both these things are caused by Russia invading Ukraine.
So? You chose to believe China when they say it is imperative to them that Russia doesn’t lose in Ukraine. Yet you think the US, for which you think it is imperative to prevent China, is deterred by war? Doesn’t make sense.
No we don’t. We’ve established that already.