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 …
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.
And the access to EU and US markets. The US could have prevented the knowledge transfer.
Stop deflecting the responsibility. China is in control of China and if there are billionaires in China, it happens with the approval of the government.
Unless they had the option for regime change and fumbled that.
Or they could try to make Xi Jinping an American spy. Or even better: they now try to lure China into a war against Taiwan. Because they see it as the only option of getting China off its path to glory.
That’s just wrong. Competition shifts power to the customer.
You forgot that Europe is more than customers. Allowing Chinese subsidised goods into the market is destroying local production and hence the economic foundation of consumption. Chinese goods in Europe only help China. So: no!
Then why do you ignore the opportunity to reduce the dependency on the US with competition from China?
Because contrary to the stupid Americans who can’t even Brzezinski’s theory, I won’t do something that benefits the Chinese.
Making the European market the dumping ground for Chinese over-production is not ‘reducing dependency’. Open your eyes / be honest.
Supporting competition is not catering to China.
Competition needs rules. China is not adhering to rules. So: allowing Chinese goods into Europe is catering to China and helping them in their economic war with the US. I’m not interested in that. For me: the priority is a strong and independent EU. What is your priority? A strong China or a strong EU? Be honest.
Stop deflecting the responsibility. China is in control of China and if there are billionaires in China, it happens with the approval of the government.
You are assuming too much that I am a communist. Billionaires are needed for an economy unless people act responsibly.
The argument is that the US opened their markets for China to prosper with the goal of supporting the billionaires in a revolution against the party. Then China becoming a challenger is part of a plan that destroys China as a challenger.
they now try to lure China into a war against Taiwan. Because they see it as the only option of getting China off its path to glory.
What else would get them off? Europe not importing their goods is a drop in the bucket if they can supply Africa, Asia and South America. China will develop those regions and create their markets.
Chinese goods in Europe only help China. So: no!
Then why allow American goods and especially services? They do the same.
But again, from where should the engineers come that produce all goods?
Isolating Europe will be like isolating China before they got wracked in the Opium wars.
Because contrary to the stupid Americans who can’t even Brzezinski’s theory, I won’t do something that benefits the Chinese.
Why do you prefer a soon to be fascist US over China in competition with a fascist US?
Making the European market the dumping ground for Chinese over-production is not ‘reducing dependency’.
If it helps to avoid dependency on their US counterparts? Selectively allowing imports where we are already dependend on the US reduces dependencies.
helping them in their economic war with the US.
Which is bad, unless the US become fascist.
I’m not interested in that. For me: the priority is a strong and independent EU
How can the EU be strong and independent with the existing dependency on the US?
What is your priority?
To understand what is happening. How can I choose a side if I don’t know their goals?
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.
Stop deflecting the responsibility. China is in control of China and if there are billionaires in China, it happens with the approval of the government.
Or they could try to make Xi Jinping an American spy. Or even better: they now try to lure China into a war against Taiwan. Because they see it as the only option of getting China off its path to glory.
You forgot that Europe is more than customers. Allowing Chinese subsidised goods into the market is destroying local production and hence the economic foundation of consumption. Chinese goods in Europe only help China. So: no!
Because contrary to the stupid Americans who can’t even Brzezinski’s theory, I won’t do something that benefits the Chinese.
Making the European market the dumping ground for Chinese over-production is not ‘reducing dependency’. Open your eyes / be honest.
Competition needs rules. China is not adhering to rules. So: allowing Chinese goods into Europe is catering to China and helping them in their economic war with the US. I’m not interested in that. For me: the priority is a strong and independent EU. What is your priority? A strong China or a strong EU? Be honest.
You are assuming too much that I am a communist. Billionaires are needed for an economy unless people act responsibly.
The argument is that the US opened their markets for China to prosper with the goal of supporting the billionaires in a revolution against the party. Then China becoming a challenger is part of a plan that destroys China as a challenger.
What else would get them off? Europe not importing their goods is a drop in the bucket if they can supply Africa, Asia and South America. China will develop those regions and create their markets.
Then why allow American goods and especially services? They do the same.
But again, from where should the engineers come that produce all goods?
Isolating Europe will be like isolating China before they got wracked in the Opium wars.
Why do you prefer a soon to be fascist US over China in competition with a fascist US?
If it helps to avoid dependency on their US counterparts? Selectively allowing imports where we are already dependend on the US reduces dependencies.
Which is bad, unless the US become fascist.
How can the EU be strong and independent with the existing dependency on the US?
To understand what is happening. How can I choose a side if I don’t know their goals?