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 …
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.
shuffle things around a bit and keep rock-solid convinced. What a convenient way to walk through life! :D
Why shouldn’t I believe what the updated knowledge says? Is it wrong that the US supported the outsourcing to China and thus created the challenger by their own choice?
a plan that it is imperative for them to prevent an Eurasian challenger. Does not seem coherent.
Unless they planned on using the billionaires for regime change.
Yet, you think the US doesn’t want Ukraine to win the war?
Not in the near future, or they would deliver the weapons. Long-term they plan on winning or the Nato and EU expansion would not make sense. The short term goal was decoupling and militarization, and the Syrian regime change.
that’s exactly what the US would need to push for according to Brzezinski.
They will, once they are ready for WW3.
a militarised Europe is bad for America because it is a more independent Europe.
Unless the soldiers are needed for WW3.
And why would the US care about Syria when it is imperative to them to prevent China?
Pipeline from Qatar and cutting supply lines of Iran to Lebanon. Control of the Russian bases that serve Africa and the Mediterranean.
A very wrong perspective, because both these things are caused by Russia invading Ukraine.
Why wrong? We agree that they are caused by Russia invading. We don’t agree on the US influence on that decision.
Yet you think the US, for which you think it is imperative to prevent China, is deterred by war? Doesn’t make sense.
I agree that they are not deterred by war. But they cannot win a conventional war anymore. So they have to prepare the population first to accept what will come.
For a conventional war, they would have to cut China from Russian supply lines, so them losing tanks in Ukraine is helpful.
No we don’t.
Then the best strategy for Europe is to balance the US with a strong China. Both will be opposed to democracy and consider us a system rival.
Why shouldn’t I believe what the updated knowledge says?
It seems you only adapt the updated knowledge to your beliefs, not the other way round.
Is it wrong that the US supported the outsourcing to China and thus created the challenger by their own choice?
No. It just completely clashes with Brzezinski’s theory, of which you are convinced the US follows it.
Unless they planned on using the billionaires for regime change.
The assumptions to make this theory work become more and more ridiculous.
Not in the near future, or they would deliver the weapons.
Why would they wait? Seems implausible.
They will, once they are ready for WW3.
Again, why would they wait? They come from a time where they were superior to China and head to a time where China only grows stronger. It is completely illogical for them to wait.
Control of the Russian bases that serve Africa and the Mediterranean.
Contrary to Russia, the US already has enough bases in the region. There is no need - or is the US already rushing into Syria to take these bases?
We don’t agree on the US influence on that decision.
We have indeed a differing degree of willingness to free countries of the responsibility of their actions. Russia is waging the war in Ukraine because Russia wants it and Russia is responsible for it.
I agree that they are not deterred by war. But they cannot win a conventional war anymore.
Yet a few lines further up you argue that they will wait even longer.
Then the best strategy for Europe is to balance the US with a strong China.
The best strategy for Europe is to be a strong Europe. It is quite telling that this is not appearing in your arguments.
It seems you only adapt the updated knowledge to your beliefs, not the other way round.
What should I believe?
No. It just completely clashes with Brzezinski’s theory, of which you are convinced the US follows it.
I gave reasons for it. If you don’t have an argument against them, why should I change my mind?
The assumptions to make this theory work become more and more ridiculous.
They are the ones profiting from Capitalism. Why shouldn’t they be involved? And why would the US accept so much trade if they didn’t plan on having a regime change?
Why would they wait? Seems implausible.
The war would escalate to WW3. Germany just updated the law for conscription. The chat surveillance laws are not in place. The West is not ready.
It is completely illogical for them to wait.
True. But why would they bomb Venezuelan boats and support the bombing in Gaza if China gets into the position to embargo them for war crimes in 15 years.
The US lost their complete spy network in China some years ago. Maybe they had hoped until then to succeed without a war. Or they are waiting for Starshield to finish.
I wouldn’t believe in WW3 if the US wouldn’t behave as if they will still be in power in 2040.
Control of the Russian bases
In case of war it’s much easier to shut them down.
Yet a few lines further up you argue that they will wait even longer.
No contradiction if they are willing to wage a nuclear war.
The best strategy for Europe is to be a strong Europe. It is quite telling that this is not appearing in your arguments.
How can we be? Nothing like AWS, Intel, Apple, OpenAI, F35, etc.
Even if we had the resources, how could we leave the US influence behind who need us to have a chance against China?
They are the ones profiting from Capitalism. Why shouldn’t they be involved?
They are a product of China’s own economic policy. If you have difficulties accepting China’s own and willing amount of capitalism because you maybe still think China will finally help communism win, I can’t help you.
And why would the US accept so much trade if they didn’t plan on having a regime change?
Because they are more interested in economic profit than anything else. It was profitable for them to utilise the “cheap global factory” China was/is for the world. They were greedy.
The war would escalate to WW3.
Would have at any time. No reason for them to wait given that China becomes stronger.
No contradiction if they are willing to wage a nuclear war.
We’ve been through that.
How can we be? Nothing like AWS, Intel, Apple, OpenAI, F35, etc.
That’s up to us to change. There’s no benefit in changing these US firms to something Chinese and instead being bullied around by them. Do you want to be a victim all your life?
They are a product of China’s own economic policy.
Without US and EU markets they would be millionaires.
Because they are more interested in economic profit than anything else.
I have the impression that they are also deeply strategical. The IT companies have been building moats for decades.
No reason for them to wait given that China becomes stronger.
The population has to go along to avoid strikes. That needs preparation.
That’s up to us to change. There’s no benefit in changing these US firms to something Chinese and instead being bullied around by them.
There is, not in deterministic change but in competition. If there are two suppliers, both compete for the opportinity to do business. There is a reason that even in our capitalistic economy, monopolies are forbidden.
Maintaining those technologies requires scientists and engineers. We don’t have enough so we are forced to cooperate with those who have.
By decoupling from China we will not be able to negotiate conditions.
Without US and EU markets they would be millionaires.
It is China’s domestic policy that decides whether they’re millionaires, billionaires or anything else. The fact that they allow private persons to accumulate so much wealth shows they don’t have a problem with it.
I have the impression that they are also deeply strategical.
How so? Are you under the impression that the US is dominating the competition with China?
The population has to go along to avoid strikes. That needs preparation.
The core principle of war is to fight the enemy. America’s population has allowed their government to lead almost any war they like. If they wanted to fight China, they would have done so ages ago.
There is, not in deterministic change but in competition. If there are two suppliers, both compete for the opportinity to do business.
Again, you only look at this from a Chinese perspective. For Europe, there is no gain in changing one dependency to another. There’s only gain in becoming independent.
Do you?
I told you numerous times that I advocate a free, strong and independent Europe, so you could have known the answer. You however only argue for a Europe that caters to China’s and/or Russia’s wishes. What’s your obsession with these countries?
And the access to EU and US markets. The US could have prevented the knowledge transfer.
How so? Are you under the impression that the US is dominating the competition with China?
Because they made sure that the EU doesn’t have their own IT infrastructure. For China they failed. But by keeping Taiwan independent, they are still able to do a naval blockade.
If they wanted to fight China, they would have done so ages ago.
Unless they had the option for regime change and fumbled that.
Again, you only look at this from a Chinese perspective. For Europe, there is no gain in changing one dependency to another. There’s only gain in becoming independent.
That’s just wrong. Competition shifts power to the customer.
I told you numerous times that I advocate a free, strong and independent Europe
Then why do you ignore the opportunity to reduce the dependency on the US with competition from China?
You however only argue for a Europe that caters to China’s and/or Russia’s wishes. What’s your obsession with these countries?
Supporting competition is not catering to China. However, not decoupling from China will strengthen China. So I understand where you see the problem.
The bigger problem is that China is bigger than EU and US combined. So there can only be independence from China in strong cooperation with the US. Being fully independet will lead to both the US and the EU being dependent on China.
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.
Why shouldn’t I believe what the updated knowledge says? Is it wrong that the US supported the outsourcing to China and thus created the challenger by their own choice?
Unless they planned on using the billionaires for regime change.
Not in the near future, or they would deliver the weapons. Long-term they plan on winning or the Nato and EU expansion would not make sense. The short term goal was decoupling and militarization, and the Syrian regime change.
They will, once they are ready for WW3.
Unless the soldiers are needed for WW3.
Pipeline from Qatar and cutting supply lines of Iran to Lebanon. Control of the Russian bases that serve Africa and the Mediterranean.
Why wrong? We agree that they are caused by Russia invading. We don’t agree on the US influence on that decision.
I agree that they are not deterred by war. But they cannot win a conventional war anymore. So they have to prepare the population first to accept what will come.
For a conventional war, they would have to cut China from Russian supply lines, so them losing tanks in Ukraine is helpful.
Then the best strategy for Europe is to balance the US with a strong China. Both will be opposed to democracy and consider us a system rival.
It seems you only adapt the updated knowledge to your beliefs, not the other way round.
No. It just completely clashes with Brzezinski’s theory, of which you are convinced the US follows it.
The assumptions to make this theory work become more and more ridiculous.
Why would they wait? Seems implausible.
Again, why would they wait? They come from a time where they were superior to China and head to a time where China only grows stronger. It is completely illogical for them to wait.
Contrary to Russia, the US already has enough bases in the region. There is no need - or is the US already rushing into Syria to take these bases?
We have indeed a differing degree of willingness to free countries of the responsibility of their actions. Russia is waging the war in Ukraine because Russia wants it and Russia is responsible for it.
Yet a few lines further up you argue that they will wait even longer.
The best strategy for Europe is to be a strong Europe. It is quite telling that this is not appearing in your arguments.
What should I believe?
I gave reasons for it. If you don’t have an argument against them, why should I change my mind?
They are the ones profiting from Capitalism. Why shouldn’t they be involved? And why would the US accept so much trade if they didn’t plan on having a regime change?
The war would escalate to WW3. Germany just updated the law for conscription. The chat surveillance laws are not in place. The West is not ready.
True. But why would they bomb Venezuelan boats and support the bombing in Gaza if China gets into the position to embargo them for war crimes in 15 years.
The US lost their complete spy network in China some years ago. Maybe they had hoped until then to succeed without a war. Or they are waiting for Starshield to finish.
I wouldn’t believe in WW3 if the US wouldn’t behave as if they will still be in power in 2040.
In case of war it’s much easier to shut them down.
No contradiction if they are willing to wage a nuclear war.
How can we be? Nothing like AWS, Intel, Apple, OpenAI, F35, etc.
Even if we had the resources, how could we leave the US influence behind who need us to have a chance against China?
They are a product of China’s own economic policy. If you have difficulties accepting China’s own and willing amount of capitalism because you maybe still think China will finally help communism win, I can’t help you.
Because they are more interested in economic profit than anything else. It was profitable for them to utilise the “cheap global factory” China was/is for the world. They were greedy.
Would have at any time. No reason for them to wait given that China becomes stronger.
We’ve been through that.
That’s up to us to change. There’s no benefit in changing these US firms to something Chinese and instead being bullied around by them. Do you want to be a victim all your life?
Without US and EU markets they would be millionaires.
I have the impression that they are also deeply strategical. The IT companies have been building moats for decades.
The population has to go along to avoid strikes. That needs preparation.
There is, not in deterministic change but in competition. If there are two suppliers, both compete for the opportinity to do business. There is a reason that even in our capitalistic economy, monopolies are forbidden.
Maintaining those technologies requires scientists and engineers. We don’t have enough so we are forced to cooperate with those who have.
By decoupling from China we will not be able to negotiate conditions.
Do you?
It is China’s domestic policy that decides whether they’re millionaires, billionaires or anything else. The fact that they allow private persons to accumulate so much wealth shows they don’t have a problem with it.
How so? Are you under the impression that the US is dominating the competition with China?
The core principle of war is to fight the enemy. America’s population has allowed their government to lead almost any war they like. If they wanted to fight China, they would have done so ages ago.
Again, you only look at this from a Chinese perspective. For Europe, there is no gain in changing one dependency to another. There’s only gain in becoming independent.
I told you numerous times that I advocate a free, strong and independent Europe, so you could have known the answer. You however only argue for a Europe that caters to China’s and/or Russia’s wishes. What’s your obsession with these countries?
And the access to EU and US markets. The US could have prevented the knowledge transfer.
Because they made sure that the EU doesn’t have their own IT infrastructure. For China they failed. But by keeping Taiwan independent, they are still able to do a naval blockade.
Unless they had the option for regime change and fumbled that.
That’s just wrong. Competition shifts power to the customer.
Then why do you ignore the opportunity to reduce the dependency on the US with competition from China?
Supporting competition is not catering to China. However, not decoupling from China will strengthen China. So I understand where you see the problem.
The bigger problem is that China is bigger than EU and US combined. So there can only be independence from China in strong cooperation with the US. Being fully independet will lead to both the US and the EU being dependent on China.