If Europeans in Brussels open their mouths to tell the truth, they'll be in deep trouble! The majority is so brainwashed, they will fight you for the narrative they're trapped in! They will defend it with anger! That's our level in Brussels! A psychological case! One word: Orwell!
A comprehensive overview, but I have one quibble and a couple of points to add.
The Suez Canal was already owned by Egypt and received (small) rents; it was the Suez Canal (operating) Company that was foreign owned, and took the bulk of revenues, which was nationalized.
That's brings up the first point: the French and the British resented America because it ended their empires. If (Western) Europe wasn't US-domunated during the Cold War, would things have been better off for smaller countries like Benelux, Greece, Denmark or the Nordics as pawns for "Great Power" UK, France, Germany to compete over? I think not.
The second point is that the world economic system at this time was different: Europe and the US (+Canada. Australia, Japan) were producer nations with a global industrial monopoly. The US provided a public good of stable financial order, enforcing market access for raw materials and exports for western countries. They took a cut off the top which benefited them disproportionately, and tribute in the form or arms sales - but that's the hegemon's perogative. First piece is always the biggest. But it was profitable for everyone, since they didn't have to fight for markets and resources (at the expense of the global south, but we're focusing on the European perspective & the global south would have suffered anyway, as it will with China).
The problem is that this "win-win" is no longer sustainable by the US political-economy (Triffin dilemma, hollowing out, etc) despite it still being preferable for certain elite/oligarch interests in both the US and EU. Everyone (US, EU, global south, China is tussling to renegotiate terms if trade. The big question is whether the west will go quietly like Gorbachev did, or will resort to arson. The West controls most of the food exports and is sufficiently endowed in energy and water to rebuild after a cataclysm, and thus maintain relative dominance.
Hey otter, have you looked into the theory of 5th generation warfare? It reveals a lot on where NATO and Europe will be heading. The advent of cheap drones being the new metagame in warfare, the global power structure will become a lot more evenly spread. The two big blocks of the Cold War were inherently built for a 3rd and 4th generation climate, when the meta was who can produce the most tanks, planes, and missiles, and in a world where only like ten countries could produce any at all, and two stood out as the biggest and most populous.
That being said, if we ever do get a smaller, european bloc, it'll take a few decades. We all know that the current leadership of any european country doesn't have our interests in mind, at all.
Well, I am investing in as much publicly traded drone tech as possible 🤣, but I haven’t read any experts on the topic (happy for recommendations), just got my eye on the maelstrom.
India must never be allied with. It will only seek to invade and scam and steal from Europe.
I liked this essay a great deal, but have to warn that Canada opened her arms to India and now lies dead.
Sorry the last part of the essay has me consternated. Better to drop 50k tons of nukes and firebomb every city and then remigrate every indian back to India (or before if people are feeling kind).
As to the nature of NATO it is the straw that has turned Europe into a soup that the US transfers all resources from Europe to the US. The outrageous part is that Australia, NZ, Japan, Korea and Canada are all forced to knuckle under and offer tribute and to stagnant their own economies and genocide their own people through unending waves of jeets and africans and muslims also.
It truly is sad. It isn't the average American's choice but the upper class has clearly a set policy and they are ruthlessly pursuing it.
Nice overview, what is needed is a Bismarck to rally the nations of Europe and to play off the US, China, India and Russia along with the Arabic and African nations against each other (along with those European nations likely to betray). And while they're distracted to move to unite the armies, resources of certain parts of Europe and to avoid NATO payments of course.
Not De Gaulle, the last one left Europe wrecked and was an eager servant/slave of the American order. I don’t know if Europe could survive another one (I’m French and dislike him/am suspicious of him). He had his virtues but he was also a man who had no problem working with Stalin and Eick so dunno about him nowadays.
Good point. I’m just sceptical of De Gaulle these days, I’d rather a Salisbury or Bismarck though as you said they both had their problems. I’m also thinking a Cardinal Richelieu would be pretty awesome.
There are two broad schools of thought regarding geopolitics today in my view. Only one will turn out to be correct. (1) The Amerisphere is so strong that it will continue in the foreseeable future because its technological lead is immense, as also its institutions and soft power. (2) The Eurasian challenge, aka China, Russia, and yes, India, will mount a sufficiently viable challenge to the Amerisphere, not as an adversary but as an entity that is not anti-America but non-America.
If Europeans in Brussels open their mouths to tell the truth, they'll be in deep trouble! The majority is so brainwashed, they will fight you for the narrative they're trapped in! They will defend it with anger! That's our level in Brussels! A psychological case! One word: Orwell!
A comprehensive overview, but I have one quibble and a couple of points to add.
The Suez Canal was already owned by Egypt and received (small) rents; it was the Suez Canal (operating) Company that was foreign owned, and took the bulk of revenues, which was nationalized.
That's brings up the first point: the French and the British resented America because it ended their empires. If (Western) Europe wasn't US-domunated during the Cold War, would things have been better off for smaller countries like Benelux, Greece, Denmark or the Nordics as pawns for "Great Power" UK, France, Germany to compete over? I think not.
The second point is that the world economic system at this time was different: Europe and the US (+Canada. Australia, Japan) were producer nations with a global industrial monopoly. The US provided a public good of stable financial order, enforcing market access for raw materials and exports for western countries. They took a cut off the top which benefited them disproportionately, and tribute in the form or arms sales - but that's the hegemon's perogative. First piece is always the biggest. But it was profitable for everyone, since they didn't have to fight for markets and resources (at the expense of the global south, but we're focusing on the European perspective & the global south would have suffered anyway, as it will with China).
The problem is that this "win-win" is no longer sustainable by the US political-economy (Triffin dilemma, hollowing out, etc) despite it still being preferable for certain elite/oligarch interests in both the US and EU. Everyone (US, EU, global south, China is tussling to renegotiate terms if trade. The big question is whether the west will go quietly like Gorbachev did, or will resort to arson. The West controls most of the food exports and is sufficiently endowed in energy and water to rebuild after a cataclysm, and thus maintain relative dominance.
Well said The Otter. I’m still Pro-Western, but NATO has made Europe subservient to America and it needs to end.
Maybe end’s not the right word. Maybe a better phrase would be a more balanced partnership.
Nah. You’re good. I’m used to such internet talk. Lol!
Hey otter, have you looked into the theory of 5th generation warfare? It reveals a lot on where NATO and Europe will be heading. The advent of cheap drones being the new metagame in warfare, the global power structure will become a lot more evenly spread. The two big blocks of the Cold War were inherently built for a 3rd and 4th generation climate, when the meta was who can produce the most tanks, planes, and missiles, and in a world where only like ten countries could produce any at all, and two stood out as the biggest and most populous.
That being said, if we ever do get a smaller, european bloc, it'll take a few decades. We all know that the current leadership of any european country doesn't have our interests in mind, at all.
Well, I am investing in as much publicly traded drone tech as possible 🤣, but I haven’t read any experts on the topic (happy for recommendations), just got my eye on the maelstrom.
https://aicentral.substack.com/p/five-generations-of-modern-war
This article by Vox Day is a good place to start.
India must never be allied with. It will only seek to invade and scam and steal from Europe.
I liked this essay a great deal, but have to warn that Canada opened her arms to India and now lies dead.
Sorry the last part of the essay has me consternated. Better to drop 50k tons of nukes and firebomb every city and then remigrate every indian back to India (or before if people are feeling kind).
As to the nature of NATO it is the straw that has turned Europe into a soup that the US transfers all resources from Europe to the US. The outrageous part is that Australia, NZ, Japan, Korea and Canada are all forced to knuckle under and offer tribute and to stagnant their own economies and genocide their own people through unending waves of jeets and africans and muslims also.
It truly is sad. It isn't the average American's choice but the upper class has clearly a set policy and they are ruthlessly pursuing it.
Nice overview, what is needed is a Bismarck to rally the nations of Europe and to play off the US, China, India and Russia along with the Arabic and African nations against each other (along with those European nations likely to betray). And while they're distracted to move to unite the armies, resources of certain parts of Europe and to avoid NATO payments of course.
We really need a de Gaulle or Bismarck right about now.
Not De Gaulle, the last one left Europe wrecked and was an eager servant/slave of the American order. I don’t know if Europe could survive another one (I’m French and dislike him/am suspicious of him). He had his virtues but he was also a man who had no problem working with Stalin and Eick so dunno about him nowadays.
But I’m down for another Bismarck.
De Gaulle was skeptical of the USA, and Bismarck had problems of his own. No statesman is perfect.
Good point. I’m just sceptical of De Gaulle these days, I’d rather a Salisbury or Bismarck though as you said they both had their problems. I’m also thinking a Cardinal Richelieu would be pretty awesome.
Its an entire culture that needs to be changed and EU is just divided and fool not to notice.
Damn, you made it to Multipolar Press, Otter. Congrats.
There are two broad schools of thought regarding geopolitics today in my view. Only one will turn out to be correct. (1) The Amerisphere is so strong that it will continue in the foreseeable future because its technological lead is immense, as also its institutions and soft power. (2) The Eurasian challenge, aka China, Russia, and yes, India, will mount a sufficiently viable challenge to the Amerisphere, not as an adversary but as an entity that is not anti-America but non-America.