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 …
The impact of Brexit on America is neglectable. China’s condition have always been like that and were even stricter. I obviously cannot proof collaboration, but to me, the support of Trump doesn’t make sense without a prior agreement on decoupling.
The report you quoted stated that there’s more money in Europe.
"In 2022, EU household savings were EUR 1,390 billion compared
with EUR 840 billion in the US. But, despite their higher savings, EU households have considerably lower wealth than
their US counterparts, largely because of the lower returns they receive from financial markets "
There are 1135 billionaires in the US. They allone can outspend EU households.
I don’t see the problem.
We have to finance raw materials by selling products. If China sells better products we don’t make money. Asia, Africa, South America, those countries will not choose one side, unless they are forced.
there’ll never be a situation where the confrontation with the US starts and China has access to these bases.
For the same reason the EU will never be in a position where the chips are sourced reliably from Taiwan, apart from the lack of logistics and weapons.
Still thinking there’s a winnable nuclear war?
I think that strategists think so.
Let’s see how they fare against the US on one hand and the Europe at the other.
As long as EU and US are decoupled, that’s doable.
I never claimed it did. Decoupling is not a purely American phenomenon.
China’s condition have always been like that and were even stricter.
Not always. Since the reforms of Xiaoping. And they are a key contributing factor to what we can see now. They are a tool for China to decouple.
Asia, Africa, South America, those countries will not choose one side, unless they are forced.
I’d like to see China trying to force the entire world to only buy from them. Not even the US managed to do that and they are far far stronger than China.
Before, there was no access at all, as far as I know.
Exactly.
Which was obvious and suggests that the West had reasons beyond temporary economic benefits to accept them.
The West saw the money to be made and thought they could still keep Chinese producers at a distance. If at all, it shows the incredible lack of long-term thinking.
That’s the smallest risk.
Yet again: even the US, completely dominating the globe, never managed to force every country to only buy by/sell to them. It also isn’t in the interest of these countries to be dependent on only one supplier/consumer.
I can only say that I saw a video with a military planner about the topic and that I read it in some articles.
And what argument made there did convince you?
That you accept.
Let’s get precise here: I specifically want a Europe that is independent. What specifically is it that you want?
How much Earth will be left after a full-on nuclear war?
“According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Food in August 2022,[20] a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia, which together hold more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, would kill 360 million people directly and more than 5 billion indirectly by starvation during a nuclear winter.”
“According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Food in August 2022,[20] a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia, which together hold more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, would kill 360 million people directly and more than 5 billion indirectly by starvation during a nuclear winter.”
Doesn’t really sound like a “win” to me.
I guess the US has enough soy beans now, and corn anyway, to survive during the first years.
You said that China could win by nuking Europe first.
Which other way, btw? There are several possible combinations.
China using the EU to beat the US.
Because according to you, our only perspective is to be used by other nations.
Because according to you, our only perspective is to be used by other nations.
We could also try to negotiate an actual multi-polar world. But that won’t happen if we decouple from China. I can’t remember that I have said that we have to be used by China.
The impact of Brexit on America is neglectable. China’s condition have always been like that and were even stricter. I obviously cannot proof collaboration, but to me, the support of Trump doesn’t make sense without a prior agreement on decoupling.
"In 2022, EU household savings were EUR 1,390 billion compared with EUR 840 billion in the US. But, despite their higher savings, EU households have considerably lower wealth than their US counterparts, largely because of the lower returns they receive from financial markets "
There are 1135 billionaires in the US. They allone can outspend EU households.
We have to finance raw materials by selling products. If China sells better products we don’t make money. Asia, Africa, South America, those countries will not choose one side, unless they are forced.
For the same reason the EU will never be in a position where the chips are sourced reliably from Taiwan, apart from the lack of logistics and weapons.
I think that strategists think so.
As long as EU and US are decoupled, that’s doable.
The EU will fully submit to the US.
I never claimed it did. Decoupling is not a purely American phenomenon.
Not always. Since the reforms of Xiaoping. And they are a key contributing factor to what we can see now. They are a tool for China to decouple.
I’d like to see China trying to force the entire world to only buy from them. Not even the US managed to do that and they are far far stronger than China.
Yet you fail to provide any reasoning for that.
Yet you fail to provide any reasoning for that.
Before, there was no access at all, as far as I know.
Which was obvious and suggests that the West had reasons beyond temporary economic benefits to accept them.
That’s the smallest risk. The US just bought Argentina for $40 billion.
I can only say that I saw a video with a military planner about the topic and that I read it in some articles.
… That you accept. If there are not the resources to have all technologies, and we decouple from China, then coupling with the USA is inevitable.
Exactly.
The West saw the money to be made and thought they could still keep Chinese producers at a distance. If at all, it shows the incredible lack of long-term thinking.
Yet again: even the US, completely dominating the globe, never managed to force every country to only buy by/sell to them. It also isn’t in the interest of these countries to be dependent on only one supplier/consumer.
And what argument made there did convince you?
Let’s get precise here: I specifically want a Europe that is independent. What specifically is it that you want?
We will see. Surprisingly they stayed ahead in all key technologies.
There will be some room left, but much smaller than today.
That the nukes are not as bad as they are imagined and that nuclear war is about coming out as the strongest afterwards to dominate earth.
I can imagine that people act with that attitude.
Do we discuss what can and will happen or what we want to happen?
Icecream? It doesn’t matter what I want. It matters what is possible.
There are no resources for Europe to master all technologies. This gives the US the leverage to use the EU to beat China.
I want something like a humanistic post-scarcity world, but that won’t happen with free people, which I also want.
How much Earth will be left after a full-on nuclear war?
Which is what you don’t want? What about the other way round?
“According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Food in August 2022,[20] a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia, which together hold more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons, would kill 360 million people directly and more than 5 billion indirectly by starvation during a nuclear winter.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
I guess the US has enough soy beans now, and corn anyway, to survive during the first years.
Which leverage does the EU have?
Which other way, btw? There are several possible combinations.
Doesn’t really sound like a “win” to me.
You said that China could win by nuking Europe first.
China using the EU to beat the US.
Because according to you, our only perspective is to be used by other nations.
We could also try to negotiate an actual multi-polar world. But that won’t happen if we decouple from China. I can’t remember that I have said that we have to be used by China.