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 …
If the goal is to prevent a challenger and there is none, then it’s not proof of the contrary.
But there is a challenger. One that grew incredibly fast even after Brzezinski published his book.
Thinking that China’s development is Merkel’s fault needs some proof to convince me.
That’s not the point. The point is that under Merkel, trade between Germany and China intensified, leading to a strong influx of technology into China and hence strengthening their growth. This would not be plausible if Merkel was actually part of a US ‘Grand Chessboard Plan/Conspiracy’.
Also, Merkel deepened the reliance of Germany on Russian gas. That’s weakening the US position and, if she was actually part of a ‘Grand Chessboard Plan/Conspiracy’ would not be plausible. Yet it happened.
So we can conclude: we both agree there is likely no benign vision in the US’ strategy. And we both agree there a strong Eurasian competitors. Therefore, both parts of Brzezinski’s idea are not given. Hence, I think it is fiction at best and don’t understand the obsession with the book nor what it can ‘prove’ in reality.
But let’s not forget the really interesting bits from your response:
What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split. What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
Russia alone is no challenger. The combination with Germany would have been. It’s worth having a look why that didn’t take place.
China is a challenger made by the US. The reviews point out that the book is missing that risk and focusses too much on Russia. In that sense the development of China confirms the mindset of the book.
Why don’t you see the key role of the US in the development of China?
I will answer your last question in another comment.
Russia meddled with US elections and currently try to annex one of Europe’s largest countries that wants to align itself with the ‘West’. A US under the strategy of Brzezinski would not allow these challenges to their power.
China is a challenger made by the US.
…which is a grave violation of Brzezinski’s strategy.
In that sense the development of China confirms the mindset of the book.
How does the US allowing China to emerge as their biggest rival since a long time confirm a book that states it is imperial for the US for exactly that not to happen?
A US under the strategy of Brzezinski would not allow these challenges to their power.
You could see the war as a tool to prevent Europe from working with Russia and China. Then the US is doing exactly that, preventing the challenger.
How does the US allowing China to emerge as their biggest rival
Momentum and ignorance. They allowed China to trade with the West to allow China to separate from the USSR. Afterwards China played their cards right and the US hasn’t managed to incide a revolution that would make China democratic and part of the western framework.
It confirms the book because the criticism was that China wasn’t considered enough. If that omission happens in reality then the book seems to reflect the focus of those who do the strategic thinking for the US.
You could see the war as a tool to prevent Europe from working with Russia and China.
Russia and especially China are the rivals for the US. This war is currently leading to a closer cooperation between the two countries, and also with other typical enemies of the US such as Iran or North Korea. Especially the latter two are now no longer as isolated as before. A clear loss for the US - and not permittable according to Brzezinski’s theory.
On the other hand, under Brzezinski’s theory, the US should do all it can to prevent Russia from getting Ukraine, as it would immensely strengthen their position. Russia is severely weakened in its war of aggression and it would be as easy for the US to enduringly eliminate them as a competitior as never before in the last 30ish years. In reality, the US is letting Europe more and more alone with the problem, showing less interest in the continent. This also leads to the growing desire within Europe to be more independent from the US, strategically, militarily, economically. They had the continent in their firm grip for decades, now that’s changing. Absolutely not permittable according to Brzezinski’s theory.
As you see, they neither ensure China is weakend, nor Russia is beaten, nor Europe stays within their sphere of influence. All of that should be the case according to Brzezinski.
to allow China to separate from the USSR
I’m still waiting for that reply!
What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split. What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
That depends on the alternatives. What if Europe would join Russia and China?
In reality, the US is letting Europe more and more alone
Look at the new base in Romania and the construction of the central hospital in Germany. The US are expanding. The threat of retreat is just there to sell the expansion of the military budgets to the population.
What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split.
What makes this question so important to you?
Not looking it up, but as far as I know it was about the nuclear bomb or the end of Stalinism in the USSR. But I don’t really know. The important part is that the US used it to split China from Russia which reduced their chance of winning as communist countries. This led to USSR collapsing.
What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
You must know. All regime changes need an opposition so that all countries support the opposition of their enemies. Russia supports AfD in Germany and the US supports opposition in other countries.
The US opened the WTO to China despite China not fully fulfilling the requirements.
Why? There must have been a plan to use the economic change to drive political change.
But that China would be too big. So in addition to that, the usual racial divides are predisposed to split the country.
Why would Europe do so? We are neither like Russia nor like China and we don’t look for someone to ‘join’. We don’t even have the same interests.
The US are expanding.
Trump is threatening to remove a five-digit number of soldiers from Europe. Of course he does, as he wants to shift to the Pacific. US presence in Europe will not expand.
What makes this question so important to you?
Because you make it sound like the Americans were the reason for that. And that, quite frankly, would be an absolutely wild theory.
Not looking it up, but as far as I know it was about the nuclear bomb or the end of Stalinism in the USSR.
Bingo. Given you are apparently quite interested in these countries, you absolutely should look it up! You can only profit from knowing history and it is a fascinating story. The USSR was fed up with Stalinism and his personality cult after he finally checked out, China (= Mao) not so much. The USSR aimed for coexistence with the US, China absolutely wanted war, even if that meant nuclear war. There’s the quote of Mao from then that he’s not afraid of nuclear war, as there are 600m Chinese and even if half of them died in such a war, there still would be 300m left, which he considered enough. Obviously, this didn’t sit too well with other Communist leaders who became increasingly afraid of that mad man. The USSR even gathered troops along the Chinese border in order to start a preemptive strike to stop him. It was rather close. This conflict and hate came from within, no Americans needed.
You must know. All regime changes need an opposition so that all countries support the opposition of their enemies.
So you think the US was also behind Tian’anmen, Tibet, the Uyghurs and Navalny?
That sounds like a very comfy world view: whenever a country you like is doing something bad, just blame the country you don’t like for it. Case closed. Doesn’t it make you suspicious how easy this would be? Ever thought that the countries you like themselves did something bad entirely on their own?
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.
because there’s a clandestine, coordinated elite in the US and not because there was simply money to be made. According to Ockham’s razor, this is highly unlikely.
Then I asked you to explain within the simple model how the acceptance of Trump can be explained. I can only explain it to myself with coordination.
Access to 500m people and the second biggest market on the world.
In a tradewar I cannot imagine that Taiwan ignores a potential wish of the US to limit exports to the EU for that.
Just not rely on China, the US and Russia.
Who would align with the EU and not one of them? Don’t forget that Britain does their own thing.
I don’t see arguments for it.
AI, microchips and whatever else we don’t have. Remember Biontec? They chose a US company for production.
No-one says it should.
It is inevitable for products that are only available in China and America, if you decouple from China.
It is not. … change our approach to things,
Timing. We have to change things first or we couple with the US.
That’s wrong. These technologies go where money is
Where is the money? EU wrote in a recent report that compared to the US, it is not in the EU.
Then I asked you to explain within the simple model how the acceptance of Trump can be explained. I can only explain it to myself with coordination.
Trump is running amok and turns the US inside out with no respect for rules, laws and conventions. No-one over there wants to be the one that stands out as criticising him, possibly ruining their business. But that’s a new phenomenon and can hardly explain the behaviour of the US for the last 30ish years.
In a tradewar I cannot imagine that Taiwan ignores a potential wish of the US to limit exports to the EU for that.
That would be the case no matter what we do. As you can see now, even “being friends” with him doesn’t stop him from punishing us.
Who would align with the EU and not one of them?
That’s for us to achieve. Democracies who want to maintain the rule of law could be interested in a more reliable partner than the US.
Remember Biontec? They chose a US company for production.
Could be changed with the necessary political initiatives. And should be changed.
It is inevitable for products that are only available in China and America, if you decouple from China.
Which products are available only in China and America for which a European counterpart is inconceivable?
Timing. We have to change things first or we couple with the US.
Fine. I’m not the one stopping us.
Where is the money?
To be spent by Europe for Europe, instead of shovelling it abroad. We have to be as protectionist as the US and China.
to show that the simplified model cannot explain everything.
It can, though.
So can we give up on trading with China or do we do it because we are asked to decouple?
Trump is only a glimpse of our future, being increasingly bullied around. Hence, it shows the importance to obtain independence and sever ties to these rivals as fast as possible.
Microchips and AI, for now. But whatever it is, the size requires that it is always something.
There’s European AI and concerning microchips: only further underlines the importance for us of protecting Taiwan against the threats of their aggressive neighbour.
I still don’t get it. How can the billionaires accept Trump’s politics if markets are closing for them?
Trump is only a glimpse of our future, being increasingly bullied around. Hence, it shows the importance to obtain independence and sever ties to these rivals as fast as possible.
It does. But why decouple from China as long as we depend on the USA?
There’s European AI
We have AI at home. The French AI is ‘surprisingly good’. Is that enough?
concerning microchips: only further underlines the importance for us of protecting Taiwan against the threats of their aggressive neighbour.
Your answer to the US being able to influence Taiwanese export policy is that we have to be able to protect it from China?
That would be an option, but a serious argument would have come with an idea of how that could be achieved.
How can the billionaires accept Trump’s politics if markets are closing for them?
Because they think if they don’t appease the mobster, he will cut them out of any business in the US. Given that he likes to reign like an absolute ruler, I can see that happening, but still would advise them to stop sucking up to him. We won’t hear what they really think of him until he’s no longer in power. Whenever that’ll be.
But why decouple from China as long as we depend on the USA?
You need to decouple from both. Otherwise, you’ll just shift your dependencies to the other country instead.
The French AI is ‘surprisingly good’. Is that enough?
It will have to do. And if we funnel our funds into that instead of sending the money to our rivals, like the others do anyways, we can have top notch products.
That would be an option, but a serious argument would have come with an idea of how that could be achieved.
There are numerous levels of support. Bolstering and recognising Taiwan, providing economic and military assistance, making the point that we won’t accept China’s invasion. China and the US cannot be the only parties on the world that can project power.
Because they think if they don’t appease the mobster, he will cut them out of any business in the US.
There was no need to end up like this. Billionaires have above average intelligence and a team of intelligent advisers. Project 2025 was known, and much more, since they know him in person or through friends and acquaintances.
They wanted second term Trump or at least didn’t try to prevent it even though they had the money to do it.
So they must have a common goal.
You need to decouple from both. Otherwise, you’ll just shift your dependencies to the other country instead.
More, you become dependend because there is no opportunity for replacement.
It will have to do. And if we funnel our funds into that instead of sending the money to our rivals, like the others do anyways, we can have top notch products.
Right now the AI companies sell their models for a loss.
OpenAI generated around $4.3 billion in revenue in the first half of 2025
Raking in billions though it may be, OpenAI has also committed to spending over $1 trillion over the next decade (yes, trillion).
That’s a “ReArm Europe” amount of money. I would say that it is worthwhile to spend but I doubt it will be spent.
The problem is that we don’t have the private capital for that. Do you expect the EU to bet on state-run companies?
making the point that we won’t accept China’s invasion. China and the US cannot be the only parties on the world that can project power.
Should the EU invest that AI € trillion better in carrier groups? In which country are we going to build bases to be able to supply the carrier groups while they defend Taiwan from China?
If the EU is stretched too thin no battle will be won.
More, you become dependend because there is no opportunity for replacement.
Why should there be no opportunity for replacement?
The problem is that we don’t have the private capital for that.
What numbers do you base that on?
In which country are we going to build bases to be able to supply the carrier groups while they defend Taiwan from China?
Taiwan, for example. If we can credibly conceive the determination to defend Taiwan with everything we have, including nukes, there won’t be a Chinese attack on Taiwan.
If you want something they don’t want (as you said yourself), you’d have to force them.
They prevent each other.
It means aspiring being stronger than the other two. Or at least equal. Not giving up the fight. Is that something you aspire?
No. It is too long term to help in the next years and too isolated. The EU as a better US ignores the rest of the world. The fight itself in that form is stupid if the rest of the world has the same goal.
that 800b ought to be invested yearly to ensure competitiveness
As if a fixed amount would be enough. Now we try to get foreign investment. Will the profits stay in the EU?
Now, I’m sure you’ll find a multitude of other reasons why you think it still isn’t possible
As you see
Why is it you don’t want it to work?
Why is it that you think will is enough?
Do you think Africa and South America didn’t want it enough?
You want to ‘negotiate a multi-polar world’, they each want pure domination and will try to grab as much of the earth as possible, subduing their respective parts to their domination. That’s hardly the same.
The EU as a better US ignores the rest of the world. The fight itself in that form is stupid if the rest of the world has the same goal.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here, please elaborate.
As if a fixed amount would be enough.
It is from the report you cited and they at least put their head around these numbers. Do you disagree with their expertise?
As you see
Yes. Citing the sentences in the Draghi report you like. Mistrusting the sentences after these you don’t like. The big question is if its actual expertise you base your mistrust on or simply gut feeling.
Why is it that you think will is enough? Do you think Africa and South America didn’t want it enough?
Africa and South America would love to be in our shoes. We are the second largest economical player on this world. Yet, people love telling us how weak we are and that our only chance for the future is to ‘cooperate’ with the bullies in either Washington or Beijing. It is telling how much the narrative is being pushed. Europe can decide to be as self-sufficient as any other big player, because it is one of them, but somehow that is something these people fear incredibly. If you don’t want to imagine a future that let’s Europe be more than a servant to the interests of the US and/or China, fine. But don’t put your limitations in the way of our continent.
It’s better that both are strong and fight each other than one winning and dominating the world.
While they fight there is the opportunity to find a stable arrangement for all.
The EU as a better US ignores the rest of the world.
The idea of having to be strong is toxic if that means that we treat small nations according to their size. I am worried that the way we handled Libya and other African countries will make it difficult to create alliances. We should not build our growth on that foundation.
Do you disagree with their expertise?
Do you believe promises from politicians? If wealth would be everything, India would have been the global power. Now we seek foreign investments. If they come from America or China, do you think the EU will control the outcome?
The big question is if its actual expertise you base your mistrust on or simply gut feeling.
Neither. It has to make sense to you, no matter what it is.
We are the second largest economical player on this world
India and China were the largest. Do we have the skills and culture to prevail?
It is telling how much the narrative is being pushed.
Just one of many. Even though you are right to question that narrative, it is not enough. If you just want to be strong, somebody will sell you a muscle car and only years later you will realize that the monthly payments made you weak.
Europe can decide to be as self-sufficient as any other big player, because it is one of them
The size of the economy is not enough.
If you don’t want to imagine a future that let’s Europe be more than a servant to the interests of the US and/or China, fine. But don’t put your limitations in the way of our continent.
If you can’t imagine all the things that make you a servant, some limitations will hold you back.
It’s better that both are strong and fight each other than one winning and dominating the world.
So? Then why don’t we also fight them? We don’t want either of them dominating the world - or even us.
The idea of having to be strong is toxic if that means that we treat small nations according to their size.
That’s exactly what the US and China are doing and just one sentence up, you said it is better that they are strong and fight.
Do you believe promises from politicians?
That’s not what I asked. Do you disagree with their expertise?
Neither. It has to make sense to you, no matter what it is.
There needs to be a basis for that. It can be either expertise or gut feeling. Which one is it?
Do we have the skills and culture to prevail?
Given that we come from a centuries-long period where we absolutely dominated the world, one would think so.
If you just want to be strong, somebody will sell you a muscle car and only years later you will realize that the monthly payments made you weak.
Exactly. That’s why most sensible people argue for a strategic independence of Europe. So the “monthly payments” we have to pay to countries who’re not in our favour, are as small as possible. The whole point is for us not to become someone who’s economically dependent on one of the big bullies.
The size of the economy is not enough.
It is. It is the second largest economy in the world. Why do you keep repeating this lie?
You said: It’s better that both are strong and fight each other
… each other than one winning.
Now, who do you think will carry the burden when two large ones are fighting? Hasn’t Europe been the stage for the cold fight between Washington and Moscow for too long? Why do we also need to be the stage for the fight between Washington and Beijing?
Yes.
So just to reiterate: you disagree with the expertise of the report you were citing numbers from?
If USA or China adjust, the investment is not enough.
Do you think they’re not really trying right now?
Just what I know.
You know more about this topic than the people writing this report?
Why should any country support the EU in that fight?
That’s not the question. You asked about skill and culture.
I told you about India. You already forgot by the end of the comment.
An economy isn’t measured by its inhabitants, but by its economic power. That’s why Europe is second before China and that’s why the US with only 300m is at the absolute top.
It’s either fight for dominance or being dominated.
I guess you’ll agree that we spent far to much time being dominated by the US. While you propose welcoming China as our new (co-)overlords instead, I propose a Europe that finally aspires to be independent. Yes, that will be hard, yes that will require changing a lot of things. But yes, it is worth it.
To be honest: we can keep this here up for months, becoming entangled in ever more remote topics such as apparently now discussing the East India Company, without making any progress at all. So let’s be clear: there’s a report even you cited that points out the challenges Europe’s facing when trying to become more independent. This report is written by actual experts in these fields, something no-one on this forum can claim for themselves. If you oppose the statements from that report, I expect more substance than just your intuition and a lot of noise thrown into the discussion.
Europe is the second largest economy on the world. European countries are among the most developed and wealthiest countries in the world. Independence is never given for free and starts with the desire to actually be independent. But that requires to also have an open eye for possibilities instead of solely concentrating on why something is not possible. I don’t think you want to do that, so what’s the point in keeping discussing really?
There will be increasing pressure to do so. The latest agreement between Trump and China is a great example. Europe can’t afford to just sit and watch them. Furthermore, take the momentum that developed here when Trump began to threaten us, resulting in BuyEuropean movements and shifts away from Microsoft, among others.
We move away from a time where there was a reliable framework of rules for all to one where each side only fights for its own benefit. The US under Trump is no longer willing to “take the EU along with them” but only pressures solutions for themselves. Same with China, everyone for themselves. In Europe, however, we forgot to use our own elbows to get what we want.
Some people moved to Lemmy, but things stayed the same.
Given the decades-long standstill and huge monopolisation, European agencies, governments, … currently ditching Microsoft is huge progress.
The US knows that they can’t continue as before because the internet doesn’t forget. So they are adapting.
All it takes is just another fit of Trump to push us further away. Given how unstable he is, that can happen any day.
Do you understand why no country is a direct democracy
I know why Germany is no direct democracy and the very good reasons for it.
why the European commission is selected by governments
Members of the European Commission are proposed by the governments but approved (or not) by the elected European parliament. In any case, the EU is an evolving body that continuously has to wrangle with the member states about competences and controls. If you want the EU to become more independent from its member states and a true “country” itself, be my guest. But so long, member states obviously want to keep their sovereign control.
In Europe, however, we forgot to use our own elbows to get what we want.
What is happening in Libya, Congo? For whom has Syria been changed?
Or the other way round, why did Germany have a trade deficit with the US during the good times?
The only thing that changed is that we ignore it differently.
currently ditching Microsoft is huge progress.
Yes
All it takes is just another fit of Trump to push us further away.
Are we different than US citizens? Trump is using the military internally and getting away with it.
The US has adapted. They use the inertia of the masses. They accept open rejection.
It takes the change of half of EU governments to change the commission. So it takes so much more than a fit to push us away.
I know why Germany is no direct democracy and the very good reasons for it.
How would you phrase it? History doesn’t match because the fascists came to power by the choice of a representative.
If you want the EU to become more independent
I wanted to show that a change in policy requires a change in government in many countries. In Germany Merz ties with the US are deep. It will be the same in many countries. Increasing pressure will not change much, much like the left cannot create the pressure to change anything in the US.
Nice framing! If Assad hadn’t waged a war against his own people, including chemical weapons and other war crimes, he’d still be in power.
But nevertheless, let’s try not to derail here. I’m talking about using our elbows against the US and China, just as they don’t have any problems using their elbows against us.
why did Germany have a trade deficit with the US during the good times?
From 2017 onwards, we had our highest trade surplus with the US…
Are we different than US citizens?
All that matters to us is that we are at the receiving end of his antics.
How would you phrase it?
We don’t want a charismatic, manipulating leader to be directly electable by the people ever again. So that’s our compromise. I think it reasonable.
In Germany Merz ties with the US are deep.
Yet members of his party governing a Bundesland changed their administration away from Microsoft towards FOSS. That change can happen at a multitude of levels and can still gain momentum, even if there’s someone braking at the top.
I’m talking about using our elbows against the US and China
Those ellbows are controlled by politicians who are in favor of the US. Of course, if you don’t see how the democratic uprising in Syria was influenced, you cannot imagine that similar things happen in the EU.
From 2017 onwards, we had our highest trade surplus with the US…
Sorry, I meant that. Like China, we have produced goods for money that we didn’t spend. Germany always accepted to support the US. Now the EU is forced to do the same.
All that matters to us is that we are at the receiving end of his antics.
Then try to escape on your own.
We don’t want a charismatic, manipulating leader to be directly electable by the people ever again.
Who was that? Hitler was chosen by the president, not by majority. A direct election would have prevented the third reich.
That change can happen at a multitude of levels
Sure. So your plan for a free Europe is that the pressure from the US will be so big that people at various levels will do something against it.
Those ellbows are controlled by politicians who are in favor of the US.
How does that change anything in my point that we have to learn to use our elbows against the US and China? So far, we haven’t used them against either as much as we should.
Germany always accepted to support the US.
Having a trade surplus with a country is hardly “supporting” it. See how mad Trump is about it?
A direct election would have prevented the third reich.
Bold claims!
So your plan for a free Europe is that the pressure from the US will be so big that people at various levels will do something against it.
The pressure from the US is already so big. Right now, we are highly dependent on both the US (digital services for example) and China (outsourced key manufacturing for example). The more aggressive and selfish these players are becoming, as they do, the more we’ll face the truth that we have to exit these dependencies as fast as possible.
But there is a challenger. One that grew incredibly fast even after Brzezinski published his book.
That’s not the point. The point is that under Merkel, trade between Germany and China intensified, leading to a strong influx of technology into China and hence strengthening their growth. This would not be plausible if Merkel was actually part of a US ‘Grand Chessboard Plan/Conspiracy’.
Also, Merkel deepened the reliance of Germany on Russian gas. That’s weakening the US position and, if she was actually part of a ‘Grand Chessboard Plan/Conspiracy’ would not be plausible. Yet it happened.
So we can conclude: we both agree there is likely no benign vision in the US’ strategy. And we both agree there a strong Eurasian competitors. Therefore, both parts of Brzezinski’s idea are not given. Hence, I think it is fiction at best and don’t understand the obsession with the book nor what it can ‘prove’ in reality.
But let’s not forget the really interesting bits from your response:
What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split. What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
Part 1
I am sorry, I totally messed up what I read.
Russia alone is no challenger. The combination with Germany would have been. It’s worth having a look why that didn’t take place.
China is a challenger made by the US. The reviews point out that the book is missing that risk and focusses too much on Russia. In that sense the development of China confirms the mindset of the book.
Why don’t you see the key role of the US in the development of China?
I will answer your last question in another comment.
Russia meddled with US elections and currently try to annex one of Europe’s largest countries that wants to align itself with the ‘West’. A US under the strategy of Brzezinski would not allow these challenges to their power.
…which is a grave violation of Brzezinski’s strategy.
How does the US allowing China to emerge as their biggest rival since a long time confirm a book that states it is imperial for the US for exactly that not to happen?
You could see the war as a tool to prevent Europe from working with Russia and China. Then the US is doing exactly that, preventing the challenger.
Momentum and ignorance. They allowed China to trade with the West to allow China to separate from the USSR. Afterwards China played their cards right and the US hasn’t managed to incide a revolution that would make China democratic and part of the western framework.
It confirms the book because the criticism was that China wasn’t considered enough. If that omission happens in reality then the book seems to reflect the focus of those who do the strategic thinking for the US.
Russia and especially China are the rivals for the US. This war is currently leading to a closer cooperation between the two countries, and also with other typical enemies of the US such as Iran or North Korea. Especially the latter two are now no longer as isolated as before. A clear loss for the US - and not permittable according to Brzezinski’s theory.
On the other hand, under Brzezinski’s theory, the US should do all it can to prevent Russia from getting Ukraine, as it would immensely strengthen their position. Russia is severely weakened in its war of aggression and it would be as easy for the US to enduringly eliminate them as a competitior as never before in the last 30ish years. In reality, the US is letting Europe more and more alone with the problem, showing less interest in the continent. This also leads to the growing desire within Europe to be more independent from the US, strategically, militarily, economically. They had the continent in their firm grip for decades, now that’s changing. Absolutely not permittable according to Brzezinski’s theory.
As you see, they neither ensure China is weakend, nor Russia is beaten, nor Europe stays within their sphere of influence. All of that should be the case according to Brzezinski.
I’m still waiting for that reply!
That depends on the alternatives. What if Europe would join Russia and China?
Look at the new base in Romania and the construction of the central hospital in Germany. The US are expanding. The threat of retreat is just there to sell the expansion of the military budgets to the population.
What makes this question so important to you?
Not looking it up, but as far as I know it was about the nuclear bomb or the end of Stalinism in the USSR. But I don’t really know. The important part is that the US used it to split China from Russia which reduced their chance of winning as communist countries. This led to USSR collapsing.
You must know. All regime changes need an opposition so that all countries support the opposition of their enemies. Russia supports AfD in Germany and the US supports opposition in other countries.
The US opened the WTO to China despite China not fully fulfilling the requirements.
Why? There must have been a plan to use the economic change to drive political change.
But that China would be too big. So in addition to that, the usual racial divides are predisposed to split the country.
Why would Europe do so? We are neither like Russia nor like China and we don’t look for someone to ‘join’. We don’t even have the same interests.
Trump is threatening to remove a five-digit number of soldiers from Europe. Of course he does, as he wants to shift to the Pacific. US presence in Europe will not expand.
Because you make it sound like the Americans were the reason for that. And that, quite frankly, would be an absolutely wild theory.
Bingo. Given you are apparently quite interested in these countries, you absolutely should look it up! You can only profit from knowing history and it is a fascinating story. The USSR was fed up with Stalinism and his personality cult after he finally checked out, China (= Mao) not so much. The USSR aimed for coexistence with the US, China absolutely wanted war, even if that meant nuclear war. There’s the quote of Mao from then that he’s not afraid of nuclear war, as there are 600m Chinese and even if half of them died in such a war, there still would be 300m left, which he considered enough. Obviously, this didn’t sit too well with other Communist leaders who became increasingly afraid of that mad man. The USSR even gathered troops along the Chinese border in order to start a preemptive strike to stop him. It was rather close. This conflict and hate came from within, no Americans needed.
So you think the US was also behind Tian’anmen, Tibet, the Uyghurs and Navalny?
That sounds like a very comfy world view: whenever a country you like is doing something bad, just blame the country you don’t like for it. Case closed. Doesn’t it make you suspicious how easy this would be? Ever thought that the countries you like themselves did something bad entirely on their own?
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.
Part 5
From https://feddit.org/post/20075694/9782975
I think we essentially agree.
Part 2
From https://feddit.org/comment/9570469
Then I asked you to explain within the simple model how the acceptance of Trump can be explained. I can only explain it to myself with coordination.
In a tradewar I cannot imagine that Taiwan ignores a potential wish of the US to limit exports to the EU for that.
Who would align with the EU and not one of them? Don’t forget that Britain does their own thing.
AI, microchips and whatever else we don’t have. Remember Biontec? They chose a US company for production.
It is inevitable for products that are only available in China and America, if you decouple from China.
Timing. We have to change things first or we couple with the US.
Where is the money? EU wrote in a recent report that compared to the US, it is not in the EU.
Trump is running amok and turns the US inside out with no respect for rules, laws and conventions. No-one over there wants to be the one that stands out as criticising him, possibly ruining their business. But that’s a new phenomenon and can hardly explain the behaviour of the US for the last 30ish years.
That would be the case no matter what we do. As you can see now, even “being friends” with him doesn’t stop him from punishing us.
That’s for us to achieve. Democracies who want to maintain the rule of law could be interested in a more reliable partner than the US.
Could be changed with the necessary political initiatives. And should be changed.
Which products are available only in China and America for which a European counterpart is inconceivable?
Fine. I’m not the one stopping us.
To be spent by Europe for Europe, instead of shovelling it abroad. We have to be as protectionist as the US and China.
Doesn’t have, to show that the simplified model cannot explain everything.
So can we give up on trading with China or do we do it because we are asked to decouple?
Microchips and AI, for now. But whatever it is, the size requires that it is always something.
Technically it’s Taiwan but Nvidea wanted to keep supplying China.
It can, though.
Trump is only a glimpse of our future, being increasingly bullied around. Hence, it shows the importance to obtain independence and sever ties to these rivals as fast as possible.
There’s European AI and concerning microchips: only further underlines the importance for us of protecting Taiwan against the threats of their aggressive neighbour.
I still don’t get it. How can the billionaires accept Trump’s politics if markets are closing for them?
It does. But why decouple from China as long as we depend on the USA?
We have AI at home. The French AI is ‘surprisingly good’. Is that enough?
Your answer to the US being able to influence Taiwanese export policy is that we have to be able to protect it from China?
That would be an option, but a serious argument would have come with an idea of how that could be achieved.
Because they think if they don’t appease the mobster, he will cut them out of any business in the US. Given that he likes to reign like an absolute ruler, I can see that happening, but still would advise them to stop sucking up to him. We won’t hear what they really think of him until he’s no longer in power. Whenever that’ll be.
You need to decouple from both. Otherwise, you’ll just shift your dependencies to the other country instead.
It will have to do. And if we funnel our funds into that instead of sending the money to our rivals, like the others do anyways, we can have top notch products.
There are numerous levels of support. Bolstering and recognising Taiwan, providing economic and military assistance, making the point that we won’t accept China’s invasion. China and the US cannot be the only parties on the world that can project power.
There was no need to end up like this. Billionaires have above average intelligence and a team of intelligent advisers. Project 2025 was known, and much more, since they know him in person or through friends and acquaintances.
They wanted second term Trump or at least didn’t try to prevent it even though they had the money to do it.
So they must have a common goal.
More, you become dependend because there is no opportunity for replacement.
Right now the AI companies sell their models for a loss.
That’s a “ReArm Europe” amount of money. I would say that it is worthwhile to spend but I doubt it will be spent.
The problem is that we don’t have the private capital for that. Do you expect the EU to bet on state-run companies?
Should the EU invest that AI € trillion better in carrier groups? In which country are we going to build bases to be able to supply the carrier groups while they defend Taiwan from China?
If the EU is stretched too thin no battle will be won.
Do you disagree with what I said, though?
Why should there be no opportunity for replacement?
What numbers do you base that on?
Taiwan, for example. If we can credibly conceive the determination to defend Taiwan with everything we have, including nukes, there won’t be a Chinese attack on Taiwan.
Part 3
From https://feddit.org/post/20075694/9681817
They prevent each other.
No. It is too long term to help in the next years and too isolated. The EU as a better US ignores the rest of the world. The fight itself in that form is stupid if the rest of the world has the same goal.
As if a fixed amount would be enough. Now we try to get foreign investment. Will the profits stay in the EU?
As you see
Why is it that you think will is enough? Do you think Africa and South America didn’t want it enough?
You want to ‘negotiate a multi-polar world’, they each want pure domination and will try to grab as much of the earth as possible, subduing their respective parts to their domination. That’s hardly the same.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here, please elaborate.
It is from the report you cited and they at least put their head around these numbers. Do you disagree with their expertise?
Yes. Citing the sentences in the Draghi report you like. Mistrusting the sentences after these you don’t like. The big question is if its actual expertise you base your mistrust on or simply gut feeling.
Africa and South America would love to be in our shoes. We are the second largest economical player on this world. Yet, people love telling us how weak we are and that our only chance for the future is to ‘cooperate’ with the bullies in either Washington or Beijing. It is telling how much the narrative is being pushed. Europe can decide to be as self-sufficient as any other big player, because it is one of them, but somehow that is something these people fear incredibly. If you don’t want to imagine a future that let’s Europe be more than a servant to the interests of the US and/or China, fine. But don’t put your limitations in the way of our continent.
Not my argument.
It’s better that both are strong and fight each other than one winning and dominating the world.
While they fight there is the opportunity to find a stable arrangement for all.
The idea of having to be strong is toxic if that means that we treat small nations according to their size. I am worried that the way we handled Libya and other African countries will make it difficult to create alliances. We should not build our growth on that foundation.
Do you believe promises from politicians? If wealth would be everything, India would have been the global power. Now we seek foreign investments. If they come from America or China, do you think the EU will control the outcome?
Neither. It has to make sense to you, no matter what it is.
India and China were the largest. Do we have the skills and culture to prevail?
Just one of many. Even though you are right to question that narrative, it is not enough. If you just want to be strong, somebody will sell you a muscle car and only years later you will realize that the monthly payments made you weak.
The size of the economy is not enough.
If you can’t imagine all the things that make you a servant, some limitations will hold you back.
So? Then why don’t we also fight them? We don’t want either of them dominating the world - or even us.
That’s exactly what the US and China are doing and just one sentence up, you said it is better that they are strong and fight.
That’s not what I asked. Do you disagree with their expertise?
There needs to be a basis for that. It can be either expertise or gut feeling. Which one is it?
Given that we come from a centuries-long period where we absolutely dominated the world, one would think so.
Exactly. That’s why most sensible people argue for a strategic independence of Europe. So the “monthly payments” we have to pay to countries who’re not in our favour, are as small as possible. The whole point is for us not to become someone who’s economically dependent on one of the big bullies.
It is. It is the second largest economy in the world. Why do you keep repeating this lie?
Fight, dominance, those metaphors don’t help.
What we want can only be secondary to what is possible.
… each other than one winning.
That was a very sloppy argument.
Yes. If USA or China adjust, the investment is not enough.
Expertise is too much. Just what I know.
Rape, pillage, enslave. Why should any country support the EU in that fight? That history is a burden, not an advantage.
Just be careful that that is not included in the plans of the big bullies.
I told you about India. You already forgot by the end of the comment.
You said: It’s better that both are strong and fight each other
Now, who do you think will carry the burden when two large ones are fighting? Hasn’t Europe been the stage for the cold fight between Washington and Moscow for too long? Why do we also need to be the stage for the fight between Washington and Beijing?
So just to reiterate: you disagree with the expertise of the report you were citing numbers from?
Do you think they’re not really trying right now?
You know more about this topic than the people writing this report?
That’s not the question. You asked about skill and culture.
An economy isn’t measured by its inhabitants, but by its economic power. That’s why Europe is second before China and that’s why the US with only 300m is at the absolute top.
And you say we have to fight and dominate them.
Because we don’t have the skills to avoid it. It’s 1984, we could have known.
Yes. It’s a political document. It’s a lower bound on the problems and an upper bound on the potential.
Good question. They are, but so is the EU.
They write what is necessary, not what is sufficiant.
You think those old skills will help?
I am talking about the East India Company. India was the wealthiest country in the world, next to China. Both succumbed to small European countries.
The size of the economy doesn’t help against cleverness. Are we going to be clever?
It’s either fight for dominance or being dominated.
I guess you’ll agree that we spent far to much time being dominated by the US. While you propose welcoming China as our new (co-)overlords instead, I propose a Europe that finally aspires to be independent. Yes, that will be hard, yes that will require changing a lot of things. But yes, it is worth it.
To be honest: we can keep this here up for months, becoming entangled in ever more remote topics such as apparently now discussing the East India Company, without making any progress at all. So let’s be clear: there’s a report even you cited that points out the challenges Europe’s facing when trying to become more independent. This report is written by actual experts in these fields, something no-one on this forum can claim for themselves. If you oppose the statements from that report, I expect more substance than just your intuition and a lot of noise thrown into the discussion.
Europe is the second largest economy on the world. European countries are among the most developed and wealthiest countries in the world. Independence is never given for free and starts with the desire to actually be independent. But that requires to also have an open eye for possibilities instead of solely concentrating on why something is not possible. I don’t think you want to do that, so what’s the point in keeping discussing really?
Part 4
From https://feddit.org/post/20075694/9754653
Then how do you want to convince them? I am sure they have already thought about making the EU a global power, and they have chosen otherwise.
There is also the need to convince the media and the public. Otherwise the next election will undo everything.
There will be increasing pressure to do so. The latest agreement between Trump and China is a great example. Europe can’t afford to just sit and watch them. Furthermore, take the momentum that developed here when Trump began to threaten us, resulting in BuyEuropean movements and shifts away from Microsoft, among others.
In which way? To me the latest is that chips from the nationalized Dutch company are exported again.
Similar to when Reddit started the Api thing?
Some people moved to Lemmy, but things stayed the same.
Those are accepted losses.
The US knows that they can’t continue as before because the internet doesn’t forget. So they are adapting.
That pressure will be compensated. Do you understand why no country is a direct democracy and why the European commission is selected by governments?
We move away from a time where there was a reliable framework of rules for all to one where each side only fights for its own benefit. The US under Trump is no longer willing to “take the EU along with them” but only pressures solutions for themselves. Same with China, everyone for themselves. In Europe, however, we forgot to use our own elbows to get what we want.
Given the decades-long standstill and huge monopolisation, European agencies, governments, … currently ditching Microsoft is huge progress.
All it takes is just another fit of Trump to push us further away. Given how unstable he is, that can happen any day.
I know why Germany is no direct democracy and the very good reasons for it.
Members of the European Commission are proposed by the governments but approved (or not) by the elected European parliament. In any case, the EU is an evolving body that continuously has to wrangle with the member states about competences and controls. If you want the EU to become more independent from its member states and a true “country” itself, be my guest. But so long, member states obviously want to keep their sovereign control.
What is happening in Libya, Congo? For whom has Syria been changed?
Or the other way round, why did Germany have a trade deficit with the US during the good times?
The only thing that changed is that we ignore it differently.
Yes
Are we different than US citizens? Trump is using the military internally and getting away with it.
The US has adapted. They use the inertia of the masses. They accept open rejection.
It takes the change of half of EU governments to change the commission. So it takes so much more than a fit to push us away.
How would you phrase it? History doesn’t match because the fascists came to power by the choice of a representative.
I wanted to show that a change in policy requires a change in government in many countries. In Germany Merz ties with the US are deep. It will be the same in many countries. Increasing pressure will not change much, much like the left cannot create the pressure to change anything in the US.
Nice framing! If Assad hadn’t waged a war against his own people, including chemical weapons and other war crimes, he’d still be in power.
But nevertheless, let’s try not to derail here. I’m talking about using our elbows against the US and China, just as they don’t have any problems using their elbows against us.
From 2017 onwards, we had our highest trade surplus with the US…
All that matters to us is that we are at the receiving end of his antics.
We don’t want a charismatic, manipulating leader to be directly electable by the people ever again. So that’s our compromise. I think it reasonable.
Yet members of his party governing a Bundesland changed their administration away from Microsoft towards FOSS. That change can happen at a multitude of levels and can still gain momentum, even if there’s someone braking at the top.
Those ellbows are controlled by politicians who are in favor of the US. Of course, if you don’t see how the democratic uprising in Syria was influenced, you cannot imagine that similar things happen in the EU.
Sorry, I meant that. Like China, we have produced goods for money that we didn’t spend. Germany always accepted to support the US. Now the EU is forced to do the same.
Then try to escape on your own.
Who was that? Hitler was chosen by the president, not by majority. A direct election would have prevented the third reich.
Sure. So your plan for a free Europe is that the pressure from the US will be so big that people at various levels will do something against it.
How does that change anything in my point that we have to learn to use our elbows against the US and China? So far, we haven’t used them against either as much as we should.
Having a trade surplus with a country is hardly “supporting” it. See how mad Trump is about it?
Bold claims!
The pressure from the US is already so big. Right now, we are highly dependent on both the US (digital services for example) and China (outsourced key manufacturing for example). The more aggressive and selfish these players are becoming, as they do, the more we’ll face the truth that we have to exit these dependencies as fast as possible.