Chad Xi.jpeg
Do nothing.
Win.
this post was submitted on 02 May 2026
13 points (93.3% liked)
Geopolitics : News and discussion
403 readers
12 users here now
Rules:
- Be polite and do not spam.
- Domestic news items without any geopolitics are spam.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
And failing
46 minute: China's proposal
40 minute: divergence between elite and electorate
Is that true? At least for a war against Russia the majority seems willing to fight.
There's a reason all the parties in charge of the major European countries are polling under 20% now. Look at France, Germany, and UK as prime examples. The regimes are deeply unpopular. And even despite all the propaganda, vast majority of people don't have an interest in actually fighting Russia. AfD in Germany, RN and Progressive Front in France all have anti war platform. A party that's against the war just won massively in Bulgaria as well.
In Germany, no party in parliament would oppose a war against Russia. At most the AfD would, but the AfD seems to be split between pro Russia and pro USA forces. So if the US do their homework there won't be an opposition.
People on the street may oppose the war but they don't make the decision.
AfD is polling like at 30% now and it's by far the most popular party. So, when the next election comes they're very likely to be the dominant force in German politics. Especially given that the economy can only get worse in the mean time. And what do you think the chances of the US doing their homework are given what we see unfolding in Iran?
AfD is polling like at 30% now
Even with 49% they can't prevent the decision for war.
And what do you think the chances of the US doing their homework are given what we see unfolding in Iran?
I believe in Trump as a mad man figure head. The US are decoupling. They may have been surprised by the number of hits and the number of rockets but they couldn't expect a regime change. The shutting down of the strait was expected by them. It's the world that had to be eased into accepting the chaos that is going to come. A burning Middle East has always been the prediction for a war with Iran and it has always been said that it can't be conquered. The US has no invasion force there so the current situation is part of the plan. People accept it because it is explicable and thus excusable because of Trump.
The US is doing their homework in Europe. There will be age verification on the internet. The police is going to use Palantir. The economy will depend on US AI services. Europe will be ready when people don't accept Trump as an excuse anymore. The economy will switch to weapons manufacturing so the problems will be postponed.
Your original question was whether there is a disconnect between the public and the elites, and the answer is that there is. You're now moving to the discussion of whether AfD would actually be able to stop the war or not. That's a separate question. Also, there's a good chance it's a moot question given the economic shock from the war on Iran in Europe. It simply might not be possible for Europe to keep supporting Ukraine materially in the near future.
And I agree that the attack on Iran goes beyond Trump, but my point is that the execution was very much bungled in every way imaginable. If this was done under, say Obama, they would've come up with a solid pretext, got allied on board, and managed the narrative a lot more skilfully. Trump admin didn't bother with any of that, and this is creating real problems for the US geopolitically because everybody can see clearly what the empire is doing here. There isn't even attempt to hide it.
But the real target isn't actually Iran, the goal appears to be to disrupt energy shipments to Asia to create instability and dependence on US energy exports. This is the same playbook that was used to cut Europe off from cheap Russian energy. And once the US starts having influence over countries by controlling their energy supplies they will drive their politics to turn them into proxies against China the same way Europe was turned into a proxy against Russia.
Going back to Europe, the real question is how much of this the public is willing to swallow. The age verification and other ways to stifle free speech is not going to go over well when people are already angry. And switching to weapons manufacturing will necessitate further austerity. Personally, I don't think that's even possible to do in practical terms with the energy prices being what they are. Remember the whole plan to produce 1.5 million shells for Ukraine? I expect this will work out in a similar way. The EU will make a slush fund, a bunch of people will line their pockets, and nothing much will actually materialize in the end.
That’s a separate question.
Sorry, that was sloppy. My point is that the AfD is not the majority of the public so there is not a complete disconnect.
It simply might not be possible for Europe to keep supporting Ukraine materially
It will be funny if Europe switches to a planned economy. As long as the raw materials are available I expect Europe to deliver.
There isn’t even attempt to hide it.
I think the US fundamentally switched communication strategies. The internet reveals everything. It has become impossible to maintain moral superiority for neocolonial wars. The US embraced that and installed a president who hides the truth in plain sight.
Thiel and the scapegoat theories remind me too much of Trump. https://read.lukeburgis.com/p/peter-thiel-on-rene-girard
But the real target isn’t actually Iran, the goal appears to be to disrupt energy shipments to Asia
Agree. I read something about Alaska terminals. Though I think Iran would be helpful for supply routes against Russia, like it was in ww2.
Personally, I don’t think that’s even possible to do in practical terms with the energy prices being what they are.
Tariffs are supposed to end the US trade deficit which gifted resources to the US. I think the higher energy costs replace that. At least Germany always handed some surplus over to the US. So I expect the economy to keep working.
AfD looks like it's the single most popular party now, and their support keeps growing while other parties are declining. Seems that them connecting the war to the economic decline people are feeling is a key reason. Polls also show the war to be unpopular, for example: https://en.yenisafak.com/world/most-germans-want-merz-to-hold-direct-talks-with-putin-poll-reveals-3714541
And even with a planned economy, the big issue is energy. Europe is now almost entirely dependent on the US, and until that problem is solved there's not much that can change.
And agree, the US is now an openly predatory power that's squeezing their vassals for all it can. The mask is completely off now.
The big difference from WW2 is modern China which is the biggest industrial base in the world by far. What I expect will happen is a lot of Eurasia will get integrated in trade over land. Pakistan already opened six routes from Iran just recently. We're likely going to see more of that.
The other flaw with the American plan is that it assumes fossil fuels are the only game in town. I expect Asia will now double down on Chinese solar panels as an alternative, and the demand for oil and gas is never going to come back to previous levels.
And yeah the whole tariff policy was a huge failure. The US industry is actually shrinking right now. But again, Europe needs to get off American energy to actually start developing. Chinese renewables are the obvious choice, but seems like there's still a lot of sinophobia in the EU.
What I expect will happen is a lot of Eurasia will get integrated in trade over land.
Which is funny
One of Mackinder's personal objectives was to warn Britain that its traditional reliance on sea power would become a weakness as improved land transport opened up the Heartland for invasion and/or industrialisation (Sempa, 2000).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
But again, Europe needs to get off American energy to actually start developing.
Germany gave up its solar industries. It only makes sense as a concession to America.
Without a Trump impeachment I assume that the West still has strategies to come out on top against China in collaboration with the USA.
I don't see how the west can come out on top against China myself. The west is entirely dependent on manufacturing in China and many industries that China has an effective monopoly on. There's no path towards replicating that in the foreseeable future. On top of that, it's not like China is standing still. They caught up and are now surpassing the west precisely because the rate of development there is much faster. Otherwise catching up would not have been possible in the first place.
That makes we wonder why Iraq received the democracy treatment and not China. They must still believe that they can contain China. Why else would they show the world their war crimes, ecological destruction and corruption instead of presenting themselves as reliable partners?
The only way to win would be nuclear war but then why wait any longer? Do they hope that they can take out Russia? Do they still bet on robots and AI? I have no idea what the exit strategy could be but they behave as if they have one.
I mean they tried to do a color revolution in China in 1989 and failed. Also, it's kind of weird to compare Iraq to China given that they have nothing in common.
The reason that the US is showing the world their true face now is because they don't have anything to offer now. Back in the day, the US used to be a manufacturing powerhouse, it lead in science and technology, and it was a key part of the global economic system. Today, China is the biggest trading partner for most countries, the US financial system is no longer central to world trade, and the US has lost its technological edge. So, all it can do now is squeeze as much blood as it can out of its remaining vassals and cannibalize them. Which is precisely what's happening.
Meanwhile, a nuclear war would be a loss for absolutely everyone. Even the oligarchs in the US understand that they'd be living the rest of their lives like rats in a bunker in that scenario. They're much rather rule over diminished empire than do that.
I don't think the US expects to take out Russia anymore, but they do want to burn Europe down before they retrench. The worst possible scenario from American perspective would be for Europe to get economically integrated with the East. And then deal with a big Eurasian bloc as a competitor. And since they have nothing to offer Europe, they're just bleeding both Europe and Russia out while poaching what they can from Europe in the process.
The goal is likely to break up the EU and then negotiate with individual European countries from the position of absolute power. Wars in Ukraine and Iran act as a vehicle towards this end, making Europe entirely dependent on the US for energy and ensuring relations with Russia continue to be hostile.
The main focus for the US will likely be in their own hemisphere going forward. So, it's going to be a bad time for Canada and Latin America.
Also, it’s kind of weird to compare Iraq to China given that they have nothing in common.
Iraq was about to abandon the petrodollar. If they care about upholding their reign, why not also wage the war against China then, when the technological lead was bigger. They have let it pass because they had other options and they still must have them now.
So, all it can do now is squeeze as much blood as it can out of its remaining vassals and cannibalize them.
Europe could have rejected Ukrainian Nato membership and could have prevented the escalation and the squeeze. For some reason they agreed.
Even the oligarchs in the US understand that they’d be living the rest of their lives like rats in a bunker in that scenario.
Nuclear winter and hunger is worse than the radiation. The elite will have enough food though. Moderna and others will take care of cancer for the masses. AI preserves the knowledge.
The elite could have transferred enough of their resources into a multipolar world to have a good life. Instead they fight. That doesn't look like they try to avoid the bunkers. They want the power.
The goal is likely to break up the EU and then negotiate with individual European countries
That requires South America and Europe to voluntarily stay with them. With a technological lead, China could support one country after the other to break free. This would be a reverse cold war and the US are burning all goodwill in advance.
Bleeding Europe dry would seed even more resentments. This is a fragile strategy. It could create the divergence between elite and electorate. So I think resources will be available, just not enough to become independent and the EU will stay together for maximum weapon production.
The problem for the US is that China is not genocidal Germany. The rest of the world will not unite against it. Unlike Russia China won't conquer Taiwan. At best the US can hope to transfer the anger against Russia onto China if China gets involved in the war there. But if China doesn't get officially involved they still need a plan to contain China. Selfisolation won't work and would only be hilarious, given the Chinese history.
Iraq was about to abandon the petrodollar. If they care about upholding their reign, why not also wage the war against China then, when the technological lead was bigger. They have let it pass because they had other options and they still must have them now.
When exactly do you think there was a window to wage a war on China which is a nuclear power? There's a reason the US won't even dare to attack DPRK let alone China. They let it pass because they had no options and China outplayed them. The US isn't the main character. Other sovereign countries make plans and have agency of their own. China's planning and policy proved to be more successful than that of the US. Americans banked on doing political capture in China, and expected that integration with the western capitalist system would eventually displace the power of the government and then large capitalists would betray the country. That never happened, and that's the reason the relations are increasingly hostile.
However, as we saw during the tariff war, China has the US by the balls. All they have to do is stop the export of stuff like rare earths, and the entire US economy grinds to a halt. The US can't even produce weapons without these exports.
Europe could have rejected Ukrainian Nato membership and could have prevented the escalation and the squeeze. For some reason they agreed.
It couldn't because Europe is not independent. It is a vassal of the empire and it does what the US tells Europe to do. Same applies to south Korea, Japan, Canada, and Australia. These are not sovereign countries with independent policy.
Nuclear winter and hunger is worse than the radiation. The elite will have enough food though. Moderna and others will take care of cancer for the masses. AI preserves the knowledge.
Do you remember the pandemic when people started going stir crazy after a few months of the lockdowns? Now imagine the most narcissistic people on this planet having to live in a bunker for years. They would go nuts after a few weeks tops. Of course, they have indeed been talking about such plans, and it's kind of hilarious. One big problem is that they would need staff, and once the society collapses there's no reason for the staff not to turn on them. https://archive.ph/eK4Dp
Again, what possible benefit would there be for the rich to live like that over ruling over half the world? It's a nonsensical proposition. They want power, but not at the cost of their own comfort. The current level of conflict doesn't affect them directly in any way. It's like a game of risk for them where they move pieces around on the board. A nuclear war would have direct and sever consequences. If they didn't care about these consequences then they would've started one with USSR during the Cold War.
That requires South America and Europe to voluntarily stay with them. With a technological lead, China could support one country after the other to break free. This would be a reverse cold war and the US are burning all goodwill in advance.
We already see how this strategy is working in both South America and Europe. China is not all powerful, and it's very far from South America. It can do little to challenge the US there in practical terms, especially when the US navy starts doing active piracy on the high seas. Europe on the other hand, could work with China, but the leadership in Europe continues to dance to American tune.
Bleeding Europe dry would seed even more resentments. This is a fragile strategy. It could create the divergence between elite and electorate. So I think resources will be available, just not enough to become independent and the EU will stay together for maximum weapon production.
We see precisely this happening right now, but look at what's happening in the Middle East. That's American plan for Europe too. The EU will collapse, individual states will be thrown into chaos, and there could be a long period of infighting, terrorism, and insurgencies. This will make the whole region volatile which works to American advantage. It's basically a scorched earth policy. If the US can't dominate Eurasia, then they will do everything to throw it into chaos. That's the strategy that's already been used in many other regions. Just look at Latin America or Africa as an example where the US regularly conducts coups and installs dictatorships. Europe is next on the menu.
The problem for the US is that China is not genocidal Germany. The rest of the world will not unite against it. Unlike Russia China won’t conquer Taiwan. At best the US can hope to transfer the anger against Russia onto China if China gets involved in the war there. But if China doesn’t get officially involved they still need a plan to contain China. Selfisolation won’t work and would only be hilarious, given the Chinese history.
Yes, global perception of China is a big problem for the US. And we already see Asia largely gravitating towards China. But the US still has India, South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines to create tensions in the region. The question is the one of resources. It's becoming clear that the US is very strained now, and they may have no choice but to retrench. Empires don't last forever, and as much as Americans see themselves as being exceptional, they're not going to be any different in the end.
When exactly do you think there was a window to wage a war on China
Always. The consequences of nuclear fallouts weren't worth it but that changes if there is no other opportunity left.
It couldn’t because Europe is not independent.
America needs Europe against China. What would they do if Europe says no? Nuclear war against Europe?
there’s no reason for the staff not to turn on them.
As there is now. Let the guards have family in other bunkers. Offer access to medical specialists elsewhere. But why live in a bunker if being on a ship in the Pacific is enough after some days?
They want power, but not at the cost of their own comfort.
Then why is the conflict not resolved?
It can do little to challenge the US there in practical terms, especially when the US navy starts doing active piracy on the high seas.
For now. At one point China has the better technology and will put an end to it. The US would be opened like China was opened. The US can't isolate for eternity.
If the US can’t dominate Eurasia, then they will do everything to throw it into chaos.
Who does the research for them instead? It would accelerate the Chinese technology takeover
It’s becoming clear that the US is very strained now, and they may have no choice but to retrench.
I think it's deception. Europe is still an ally. It's good cop, bad cop. We are at the beginning of the Iran war, not at the end. The US was prepared to fight two major wars at the same time. Like Syria, they will take their time to arrange the opposition.
Always. The consequences of nuclear fallouts weren’t worth it but that changes if there is no other opportunity left.
Again, there's zero rational advantage to nuclear winter over simply having hegemony over the western hemisphere. I'm really glad that even the oligarchs aren't this psychopathic.
America needs Europe against China. What would they do if Europe says no? Nuclear war against Europe?
America does not need Europe. What they need to make sure is that Europe doesn't become independent and economically integrated with China and Russia. So, the solution is to burn Europe down. This is very clearly what the US is doing right now. If the US actually needed Europe then they wouldn't be pursuing a destructive strategy against Europe. They'd be doing what they did during the Cold War when they poured a ton of resources into propping Europe up.
As there is now. Let the guards have family in other bunkers. Offer access to medical specialists elsewhere. But why live in a bunker if being on a ship in the Pacific is enough after some days?
And how long before one of the guards decides they don't need the rich baby anymore and they can just run the show themselves?
Then why is the conflict not resolved?
Because the conflict has no direct impact on them. I literally just explained this in my last reply. The current conflict is just a game for these people. There are zero personal consequences. They already have more wealth and power than they know what to do with. They will be comfortable no matter what happens, unless there is a nuclear holocaust. That's literally the only negative scenario for them that they would want to avoid.
For now. At one point China has the better technology and will put an end to it. The US would be opened like China was opened. The US can’t isolate for eternity.
I think the most likely scenario is that the US implodes, but China also hasn't been an expansionist power historically. I don't see any reason to expect China to do what the US is doing going forward.
Who does the research for them instead? It would accelerate the Chinese technology takeover
Creating instability is what the US does to slow down China. If Europe is thrown into chaos that will slow down Eurasian integration significantly. The same way the wars and terrorism did in West Asia. Europe isn't indispensable in any way. Also, if you look at research spending, you can see that Europe is a drop in a bucket compared to the US even now.
I think it’s deception. Europe is still an ally. It’s good cop, bad cop. We are at the beginning of the Iran war, not at the end. The US was prepared to fight two major wars at the same time. Like Syria, they will take their time to arrange the opposition.
We'll find out soon enough. I don't see any deception here myself. The US is very much strained economically, the numbers don't lie. The US lacks industrial base and isn't able to produce a lot of the things it needs. Europe is a burden for the US right now. It has never been an ally either. It's just been a convenient pawn to use against USSR during the Cold War. Now that USSR no longer exists, Europe has little value. If you think that the US would fight for Europe then prepare to be very surprised going forward.