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 …
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?
Whenever there’s something bad about China, you’re quick to state some responsibility of the US for it. If you do that because you’re a communist or just ‘hate the West’ or whatever other reason I can’t know. But it’s telling.
Then China becoming a challenger is part of a plan that destroys China as a challenger.
Lol. So according to you, whatever the Americans would have done, it could always have been interpreted as the plan to destroy China. Worldview set in stone.
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.
Good for China. Why the constant whining then?
Then why allow American goods and especially services? They do the same.
Who says Europe should use American products?
Why do you prefer a soon to be fascist US over China in competition with a fascist US?
Currently I don’t. In the future, there might be a democratic US again I can prefer. China will only be democratic after its inevitable implosion, if it all. So no big chances here.
If it helps to avoid dependency on their US counterparts?
Shifting a dependency from one autocracy to another is not helping.
How can the EU be strong and independent with the existing dependency on the US?
By eliminating these dependicies, not switching them to China, obviously.
To understand what is happening.
Best of luck. Understanding requires an open mind, though. When’s the last time you’ve accepted a truth that was hard to you?
So to get this straight: you refuse to answer the question whether you prefer a strong China or a strong EU?
whatever other reason I can’t know. But it’s telling.
It’s telling indeed, that you ignore the hegemonial influence of the US.
Lol.
I don’t believe in comicly stupidly greedy Americans. Why else should they have opened their markets?
Good for China. Why the constant whining then?
Because we argue the future of the EU.
Who says Europe should use American products?
Tell me where the engineers come from who create the replacements.
Currently I don’t. In the future, there might be a democratic US again I can prefer. China will only be democratic after its inevitable implosion, if it all.
If China implodes and the US is fascist, there won’t be a democratic China, nor a democratic EU.
I think that’s what is coming.
What gives you hope that the US would be democratic again? They are mimicing Roman history. China could as well become democratic.
The biggest chance for democracy would be both being equally strong and in need of the democratic states of the world.
China will only be democratic after its inevitable implosion
Why is it inevitable?
Shifting a dependency from one autocracy to another is not helping.
Please take a moment. There is a difference between shifting dependency entirely and becoming less dependent by creating competition with a second supplier.
By eliminating these dependicies, not switching them to China, obviously.
How? From where do you get the engineers?
When’s the last time you’ve accepted a truth that was hard to you?
What’s hard? The WTO thing was new to me. Yesterday I realized after half a year that I treated somebody wrong, which you can interpret as good or bad. I think I regularly change my mind.
you refuse to answer the question whether you prefer a strong China or a strong EU
Because it’s the wrong question. A weak China is a strong US is a weak EU.
A strong China is a weak US and a weak EU, unless China makes good on their goal of a multipolar world.
A mid China and a mid US allow a mid EU.
As long as you don’t tell me where the engineers come from I don’t see a way for the EU to become strong.
whether you prefer a strong China or a strong EU
That depends. An ideal EU and the current China, I prefer the EU.
If the EU goes full surveillance and fascism, and China balances that for the rest of the world, I hope for the rest of the world that China is strong, even if my life would be better in a Neocolonial EU.
It’s telling indeed, that you ignore the hegemonial influence of the US.
Who says I do? I just don’t buy the ‘useful’ fairy tale that China (or Russia) isn’t to blame for the effects of their own conscious decisions. One wanted a war of aggression, one wanted to allow capitalism and billionaires. No-one else to blame.
Why else should they have opened their markets?
Dollars, why else? You know, capitalism and such…
Because we argue the future of the EU.
Exactly. That’s why it is important for the EU to become independent of those “big players” who only care about themselves.
Tell me where the engineers come from who create the replacements.
As of 2025, the European Single Market is larger than the Chinese and second only to the US. I know it is a popular strategy/belief to paint Europe smaller than it is, but frankly, we are strong enough.
If China implodes and the US is fascist, there won’t be a democratic China, nor a democratic EU.
China imploding and the US turning fascist is no concern of ours if we are independent.
Why is it inevitable?
Look at the domestic problems it’s facing. The promise of evergrowing wealth for everyone will no longer be sustainable. The promise of a nation led by and benefiting workers already is broken. Let’s see what happens next.
Please take a moment. There is a difference between shifting dependency entirely and becoming less dependent by creating competition with a second supplier.
We already are supplied by China. We need less supply of them (or the US, just in case you forgot) to be independent.
If the EU goes full surveillance and fascism, and China balances that for the rest of the world
How? China is already leading when it comes to surveillance an oppression of its people. Just because they don’t call their oppressing autocracy ‘fascism’ but painted it (vaguely) red doesn’t make it good.
that China (or Russia) isn’t to blame for the effects of their own conscious decisions.
The art of creating dilemmas or catch-22s. There was no winning move for them.
Dollars, why else?
I asked you. I think they do things for long-term success and are not driven by greed alone.
become independent of those “big players”
Which is impossible with too few engineers.
but frankly, we are strong enough.
We don’t have key industries. Being stronger in 2025 is only temporary.
If we have the market but nothing to sell then we are just giving away our substance.
China imploding and the US turning fascist is no concern of ours if we are independent.
But we are not. Youtube and TikTok will make sure that the fascists will win the elections.
The promise of evergrowing wealth for everyone will no longer be sustainable.
That’s our promise. Are you sure it’s also theirs?
They are shifting to sustainable energy. Their population will accept ‘just’ a good life.
We already are supplied by China. We need less supply of them (or the US, just in case you forgot) to be independent.
Decoupling will make us source all our supplies from the US. Do you see the problem?
To be independent, we need the engineers. Have you noticed how often I have asked the question without an answer? (Our market is big enough is not an answer.)
How?
They have roled back their social credit system because it was too invasive. They can convince the world by finding a better balance than the West.
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?
Whenever there’s something bad about China, you’re quick to state some responsibility of the US for it. If you do that because you’re a communist or just ‘hate the West’ or whatever other reason I can’t know. But it’s telling.
Lol. So according to you, whatever the Americans would have done, it could always have been interpreted as the plan to destroy China. Worldview set in stone.
Good for China. Why the constant whining then?
Who says Europe should use American products?
Currently I don’t. In the future, there might be a democratic US again I can prefer. China will only be democratic after its inevitable implosion, if it all. So no big chances here.
Shifting a dependency from one autocracy to another is not helping.
By eliminating these dependicies, not switching them to China, obviously.
Best of luck. Understanding requires an open mind, though. When’s the last time you’ve accepted a truth that was hard to you?
So to get this straight: you refuse to answer the question whether you prefer a strong China or a strong EU?
It’s telling indeed, that you ignore the hegemonial influence of the US.
I don’t believe in comicly stupidly greedy Americans. Why else should they have opened their markets?
Because we argue the future of the EU.
Tell me where the engineers come from who create the replacements.
If China implodes and the US is fascist, there won’t be a democratic China, nor a democratic EU.
I think that’s what is coming.
What gives you hope that the US would be democratic again? They are mimicing Roman history. China could as well become democratic.
The biggest chance for democracy would be both being equally strong and in need of the democratic states of the world.
Why is it inevitable?
Please take a moment. There is a difference between shifting dependency entirely and becoming less dependent by creating competition with a second supplier.
How? From where do you get the engineers?
What’s hard? The WTO thing was new to me. Yesterday I realized after half a year that I treated somebody wrong, which you can interpret as good or bad. I think I regularly change my mind.
Because it’s the wrong question. A weak China is a strong US is a weak EU.
A strong China is a weak US and a weak EU, unless China makes good on their goal of a multipolar world.
A mid China and a mid US allow a mid EU.
As long as you don’t tell me where the engineers come from I don’t see a way for the EU to become strong.
That depends. An ideal EU and the current China, I prefer the EU.
If the EU goes full surveillance and fascism, and China balances that for the rest of the world, I hope for the rest of the world that China is strong, even if my life would be better in a Neocolonial EU.
Who says I do? I just don’t buy the ‘useful’ fairy tale that China (or Russia) isn’t to blame for the effects of their own conscious decisions. One wanted a war of aggression, one wanted to allow capitalism and billionaires. No-one else to blame.
Dollars, why else? You know, capitalism and such…
Exactly. That’s why it is important for the EU to become independent of those “big players” who only care about themselves.
As of 2025, the European Single Market is larger than the Chinese and second only to the US. I know it is a popular strategy/belief to paint Europe smaller than it is, but frankly, we are strong enough.
China imploding and the US turning fascist is no concern of ours if we are independent.
Look at the domestic problems it’s facing. The promise of evergrowing wealth for everyone will no longer be sustainable. The promise of a nation led by and benefiting workers already is broken. Let’s see what happens next.
We already are supplied by China. We need less supply of them (or the US, just in case you forgot) to be independent.
How? China is already leading when it comes to surveillance an oppression of its people. Just because they don’t call their oppressing autocracy ‘fascism’ but painted it (vaguely) red doesn’t make it good.
The art of creating dilemmas or catch-22s. There was no winning move for them.
I asked you. I think they do things for long-term success and are not driven by greed alone.
Which is impossible with too few engineers.
We don’t have key industries. Being stronger in 2025 is only temporary.
If we have the market but nothing to sell then we are just giving away our substance.
But we are not. Youtube and TikTok will make sure that the fascists will win the elections.
That’s our promise. Are you sure it’s also theirs?
They are shifting to sustainable energy. Their population will accept ‘just’ a good life.
Decoupling will make us source all our supplies from the US. Do you see the problem?
To be independent, we need the engineers. Have you noticed how often I have asked the question without an answer? (Our market is big enough is not an answer.)
They have roled back their social credit system because it was too invasive. They can convince the world by finding a better balance than the West.