US-Euro Split ?
pawz
Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 21,672 
I see many people commenting that the US is trying to pull a reverse Kissinger, wooing Russia away from China, completely missing the obvious truth right before their eyes: if there's a split happening, it's a Euro-US split.
That's a common flaw in human nature, we're often incapable to conceive that the status quo we've lived with our entire lives has fundamentally changed. We look to patterns from the past, seek to refight the previous war; it's far easier and more comforting to believe you're still in the box even when the box has disappeared.
Russia isn't going to split again from China, there is not a single chance in hell, it learned that lesson the hard way... Putin, as a famously keen student of history, understands how much damage that did.
And why would he? What benefit would Russia possibly derive from this? The world has changed: as we've seen during the Ukraine war the West unleashed its entire economic arsenal against Russia, only to demonstrate its own impotence. Russia last year was Europe's fastest-growing economy even when completely cut off from Western markets. So if the West's maximum pressure amounts to so little, its maximum friendship isn't worth much more.
It's utterly delusional to think that the two torch bearers of the Global South would split just as the emergence of the long sought multipolar order is finally coming true, all in exchange for a return of Western trade which they now know is dispensable, and an end to sanctions which they now know don't hurt much.
Also, kind reminder that Kissinger didn't actually split Russia and China: he took advantage of an already existing split. Geopolitically speaking, it's incredibly hard to split powers - especially great powers, but it's much easier to leverage an existing split. And looking at the landscape, those that are already split - or rather splitting - aren't Russia and China, but very much the U.S. and Europe.
A Euro-US split was bound to happen sooner or later, as the cost of the alliance increasingly outweighed the benefits on both sides. Especially with the rise of the Global South, China in particular, which initiated a profound identity crisis: suddenly you had countries "not like us" being far more successful, taking over an unsurmountable lead in manufacturing, and increasingly science and technology.
At some point there are three choices in front of you: join them, beat them, or isolate yourself from them and slowly decay into irrelevance. The West has been trying the "beat them" approach for the better part of the past 10 years and we've seen the results: an increasingly desperate series of failed strategies that only accelerated Western decline while strengthening the very powers they meant to weaken.
It also tried the "isolate yourself" approach with the various plans of "friend-shoring", "de-risking", "small yard, high fence", etc. That wasn't much more successful and the West undoubtedly sees the writing on the wall: the more you isolate yourself from a more dynamic economy, the further behind you get.
This leaves us with "join them", and here Trump's calculation seems to be that if the U.S. does so first, it undoubtedly can negotiate much better terms for the U.S., much like China did with Kissinger back in the late 1970s when it joined what was at the time still the U.S.-led international order. With Europe, like the Soviet Union back then, left with no choice but to accept whatever crumbs remain.
The situation of course isn't exactly similar. We're outside the box, remember... For one the U.S. isn't remotely in the same conditions as those of China back then and, unlike the Soviet Union, Europe lacks both the military might to resist this new arrangement and the economic autonomy to chart its own course. Which means that in many ways, geopolitically speaking, the U.S. is in better conditions and with more leverage than China had (and therefore able to get itself a better deal), and the EU ends up in worse conditions than the Soviets.
Still, the fundamental reality remains that Trump, for all his faults, seems to have understood earlier than Europeans that the world has changed and he'd better be the first to adapt. This was clear from Rubio's very first major interview in his new role as Secretary of State when he declared that we're now in a multipolar world with "multi-great powers in different parts of the planet" (https://state.gov/secretary-marco-rubio-with-megyn-kelly-of-the-megyn-kelly-show/…).
As a European though, I can only despair at the incompetence and naivety of our leaders who didn't see this coming and didn't adapt first, despite all the opportunities and incentives to do so. They foolishly preferred to cling to their role as America's junior partner, even as that partnership was increasingly against their own interests, something which I've personally warned about for years.
Turns out, strangely, that the Europeans were in fact in many ways more hubristic and more trapped in the delusions of Western supremacy than the Americans. The price for this hubris will be very steep, because instead of proactively shaping their role in the emerging multipolar order, they will now have to accept whatever terms are decided for them.
.
Comments
If we are adults here we understand that the US, Russia and China are the world leaders. Europe is going to be a caliphate soon anyway. Cesspool of corruption, fascism, and Nazis. WEF and the EU. We have nothing in common with that shit
Our universities teach the worst of the lessons coming out of Europe on multi culturalism and open borders
The fucking Vikings in Sweden watch their women being raped by "newcomers" and do nothing. The Nazis in Germany jail people for pointing this out when it happens there
Trucks and knives are going on killing sprees and the governments will arrest those who complain
In other words, Fuck Europe
Fuck Western Europe.
The Poles, Czech and Slavs are pretty legit - and damned good looking.
China is a corrupt theftocracy (much more so than the US) and has an even worse debt problem than we do. The US has a huge competitive advantage in oil and gas and still in the protection of private property. Russia frankly is irrelevant except for nukes. It has about the same size economy as Italy. Europe is also irrelevant with declining populations and economies. When importing radical muslims is your long-term solution then congrats on becoming Egypt or Pakistan. Decline is a choice that the dems have made. The question is can Trump and his successors keep an America First governing coalition and try to revive American exceptionalism. Given the current state of our education system, that isn't happening.
If Europe wants to pivot to closer ties to China then they can be the ones to explain how they still have the moral authority. They’ll come begging for handouts soon enough.
Europe just wants free sh*t and then pretend that they have a seat at the table. China can lend them money that the Euros will never repay and then give up some property like ports and Chinese military bases. But China really doesn't have money to give away, just like we don't but still do like for Ukraine. That can't go on forever and so it won't.
This is an absolute must-read by Singaporean diplomat @mahbubani_k who proposes a path forward for Europe: https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/02/18/europe-eu-nato-us-russia-ukraine/…
First of all, he argues that "Brussels has slavishly followed Washington for too long" and that European leaders have become so pathetic that "they are licking the boots that are kicking them in the face."
He says that it is shocking, and even a display of "infantile strategic thinking", that "Europeans didn’t anticipate the quagmire they’re in". They based "all European strategic thinking on the best-case scenario of the United States being a totally reliable ally", despite the US's proven history of being anything but.
To him, "the only way to restore Europe’s geopolitical standing is to consider three unthinkable options":
1) "Europe should announce its willingness to quit NATO"
He argues that "a Europe that is forced to spend 5 percent on defense is a Europe that doesn’t need the United States", given that this "amounts to $1.1 trillion", which is more than the U.S.'s own defense spending.
This is exactly right: why exactly would Europe remain under subservience to the U.S. if it increases its military budget, as Trump wishes it to? And also, why would it spend this budget on U.S. equipment when it can use it to prop up its own economy? It makes no sense.
2) "Work out a new grand strategic bargain with Russia"
He dismisses the false notion that "Russia represents a real security threat to the EU countries" and effectively proposes to out-Trump Trump: why let him work out a grand strategic bargain at the expense of Europe, when Europe can negotiate "fair compromise with [Russia], respecting current borders between Russia and the EU and a realistic compromise on Ukraine that doesn’t threaten either side’s core interests"?
If a grand bargain is on the cards, Europe has evidently much more to lose by letting Trump negotiate it. And much more to gain by negotiating it themselves too: after all Russia is their neighbor, not the U.S.'s...
3) "Work out a new strategic compact with China"
Mahbubani writes that when push comes to shove the only reason for the downturn in EU-China relations is because "the Europeans foolishly believed that a slavish loyalty to American geopolitical priorities would lead to rich geopolitical dividends for them." But instead "they have been kicked in the face."
He also points out that "China can help the EU deal with its real long-term geopolitical nightmare: the demographic explosion in Africa." And that "unless Africa develops its economies, there will be a surge of African migrants into Europe." As such "Europeans should welcome any foreign investment in Africa that creates jobs" and not, as they're currently doing "shooting themselves in the foot by criticizing and opposing China’s investment in Africa" (which he says "demonstrates how naive long-term European strategic thinking has become").
To conclude he reiterates that "Brussels is sacrificing its own strategic interests to serve American interests in the hope that geopolitical subservience would lead to rewards", but "clearly, it hasn’t."
Europe should draw the right lessons and "carry out the currently unthinkable option: Declare that henceforth it will be a strategically autonomous actor on the world stage that will put its own interests first. Trump may finally show some respect for Europe if it does that."
Nothing to add, he nails it!
Europe can't stand on its own. It's going to be a vassal state of the US until it goes full Arab spring. The only alternatives are siding with China or attempting to go independent like India/BYU. Of those options being West Germany 2.0 is likely the best for their people but I'm sure the elite are rooting for joining the CCP super league.
They just haven't mentally accepted it yet. Five stages of grief.
As to Russia/China split i can almost guarantee this. Yous guysm and everyone else in the US sphere doesn't get how much these two hate each other. They still have land disputes and have for basically the existence of Russia(speaking of Putin knowing history).
Putin will do what he always does, play other super powers against one another to the benefit of Russia. To that end he's going to cut deals with the US while competitively bidding out to China. He's smart enough to not become a vassal of either.
All that said, Russia is on a downward spiral towards demographics and balkanization as they fail to hold onto their own vassal states. It's already happening ex. Syria for those of you trumpeting the Russia stronker than ever talking points. GDP measures include goods getting sent to Ukraine to get blown up. That doesn't mean Russia is getting richer in any way.
TLDR the US is still the SEC regardless of what Vandy does.
As the formerly free Western European countries continue to race toward authoritarianism, we should pull our troops from Germany, leave NATO, and have Hungary andother former Soviet satellites who actually want freedom and democracy as our base of operations. Make Europe defend themselves, and if they don’t to save their socialistic programs, take them over before their countries fall into third-world shitholes.
I’m only partially joking. I may not be alive for it, but if the USA has to defend Europe again, it will be to fight their own governments this time.
Welcome aboard