The text reads a bit too much like ChatGPT.
For example:
This isn’t about resentment; it’s about understanding how one woman’s provincial timidity shaped an entire generation’s political culture – and why voting for her, even once, was a mistake that cost us dearly.
And this reveals a bit the prompt:
Before diving in, a brief note on scope. This essay examines the structural costs of Merkel’s stability and the opportunities Europe lost under her long pragmatism. It doesn’t deny her crisis competence – the Euro’s survival, pandemic steadiness, and record employment – nor the limits of coalition politics and federalism.
What, are you saying roknablue.wordpress - a journal of travel, thought & transformation - isn‘t a trustworthy news source?
Has Germany been dictating everything? The frightening thing is that nobody filled the void in Europe.
When it comes to Merkel and Germany, the media in Germany didn’t point out the stalled investments and decisions until an opposition would have been elected. It was known that Merkel didn’t lead, but accepted.
If we know what is missing, then the elite does, too. If they don’t react then it’s by intention.
The elephant in the room is
But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America.
The real elephant in the room is that you again use truncated quotes from Wikipedia of a book you haven’t read to “proof” your conspiracy theories.
What’s the sentence before the one you quoted?
Feel free to quote it and explain how it invalidates the second sentence.
This is the full quote:
The ultimate objective of American policy should be benign and visionary: to shape a truly cooperative global community, in keeping with long-range trends and with the fundamental interests of humankind. But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.
Somehow, the first part about “benignly shaping a truly cooperative global community” is never quoted - or even considered? - in the numerous times you refer to it.
Furthermore, that this is a book written by a political scientist almost twenty years after his retirement from active politics in which he formulates his personal ideal of a geopolitical strategy for the US - and neither a factual description nor some spicy inside information being revealed, also apparently isn’t known.
Now, this article is about Merkel and Europe. Yet, you feel the urge again to quote this US book about the US again. Why? Are you insinuating Merkel is part of the “Grand Chessboard plan”, conducted by clandestine elites from the US?
If that were really the case, how come Merkel has like probably no other European leader in the last 30 years tied our continent to both Russia and China, the mortal Eurasian challengers of the US, especially if Brzezinskis personal “Grand Chessboard plan” were true? Why did the US allow this then? Why did the US allow Russia and China to become so strong (again) anyway? When Brzezinski wrote this, Russia was a bankrupt corpse and China far from the rival it is today. Now, more than 25 years later, Russia is as aggressive as ever since its existence and China is economically giving the US a good run for their money. Somehow, although Brzezinski clearly said it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, there are an awful lot of Eurasian challengers to a crumbling US. Strange, isn’t it?
So how this quote, because lets be honest, this is all its about for you considering this book, can be considered so “important”, is really beyond me.
Somehow, the first part about “benignly shaping a truly cooperative global community” is never quoted - or even considered?
It is considered, in the same way that all political promises are considered. It’s empty words until it is backed up with action. Doing bad things for the greater good is basic manipulation. Which actions of the US give you the confidence that this are not empty words that make the reader accept the rest?
formulates his personal ideal of a geopolitical strategy
The German Wikipedia page quotes an author named Chris Luenen as saying that that ideal is the orientation for the US. There is also the statement that Russia sees it as the foundation of US foreign policy. Finally some of the people whose reviews of the book are quoted, are high ranking enough that the book cannot be seen as fringe opinion.
some spicy inside information
As I wrote elsewhere, I take away the mental concepts that are used for analysis. The ambition to be the hegemon is not some spicy detail.
Are you insinuating Merkel is part of the “Grand Chessboard plan”, conducted by
clandestineelites from the US?Yes. Merkel visited Bush to assure German support despite Schröder’s rejection of participating in the illegal Iraq war.
Why … ?
China was bribed with prosperity to split from USSR. Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and others failed, so did Nawalny and others in Russia.
It almost looks like the US followed the blueprint of this book instead of listening to further advice.
Which actions of the US give you the confidence that this are not empty words
None. Because they are empty words. But both parts of Brzezinski’s theory are empty words, because both cannot be found in reality! There is no benign vision, there are strong Eurasian challengers.
The German Wikipedia page quotes an author named Chris Luenen as saying that that ideal is the orientation for the US.
It also quotes him saying that, despite popular belief, Europe and especially Germany don’t just have the choice between aligning themselves with either the US or China/Russia but that they should pursue their foreign relations based on interests instead of emotions. And he’s right! Why is it that criticising the US also comes with simping for Russia/China for some people? Are these countries interested in a strong and independent Europe next to them? Of course not. So someone that’s actually interested in us Europeans should rather promote a European perspective independent of these rivals of ours. A Russia waging a war of aggression based on expansionism and imperialism is an enemy to our interests. A China that floods our markets with goods while restraining our access to their market is an economic rival. Their interests are not ours.
There is also the statement that Russia sees it as the foundation of US foreign policy.
Why should we care? Russia also considers Ukraine not a sovereign country. They say whatever they want to justify their actions.
Finally some of the people whose reviews of the book are quoted, are high ranking enough that the book cannot be seen as fringe opinion.
…and there’s also a lot of critical voices in the reviews. The opinions on the importance of the book are not as monolithic as you make them seem.
The ambition to be the hegemon is not some spicy detail.
You do realise that every country with an ambition to be a leading global power also has the ambition to control a certain sphere of influence? Be it the US, the ‘Russian World’ or China’s influence in Africa. We don’t need Brzezinski’s book for that.
Yes.
Awesome. Thanks for being so honest! Although to say that Merkel is part of a ‘Grand Chessboard Plan’ by the US smells very much like conspiracy theories, given the mentioned actions by Merkel:
- enabling the industrial rise of China by forging extremely strong economic bonds between Germany and China, leading to vast amounts of know-how flowing into the country, allowing them to catch up as fast as they could;
- making Germany dependent on Russian gas, leading to a soft and appeasing response to Russian aggression in Ukraine from 2014 onwards, hindering the continent to answer in necessary intensity and hence maybe encouraging Putin’s full scale invasion in 2022.
If there was be a ‘Grand Chessboard Plan’ and she was be a part of it, none of this would make sense, as it only benefits Eurasian challengers of the US, which are to be prevented by all costs according to this plan.
China was bribed with prosperity to split from USSR. Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and others failed, so did Nawalny and others in Russia.
Please elaborate further. What were the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split. What do you mean by Tian’anmen, Tibet, Uyghurs and Navalny?
I am not sure how to answer this. If the goal is to prevent a challenger and there is none, then it’s not proof of the contrary.
The US decided to integrate China into WTO. Sweden sold the car company, Canada the mobile phone technology. It was the goal to integrate China economically. Thinking that China’s development is Merkel’s fault needs some proof to convince me.
As I said, Merkel went to Bush, and if you don’t know, the rift between Merkel and Merz is about Merz wanting more independence from America.
Minsk II and the gas kept Russia believing that there was a future. Minsk II was deception. Why not the gas? As shown by reality, there was no real dependency.
Merkel even gave her phone to the NSA for inspections.
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?
I just assume every German politian is compromised like Schröder was.
Though this story begs to differ. Merkel wasn’t compromised. That’s her. And her decisions mostly reflected her own ideals, for like 16 years. Also pretty uncommon for CDU politicians not to be involved in several dirty money controversies. I’d say she has moral integrity. I mean there is a lot of valid criticism, like what’s outlined in the article. But being compromised doesn’t seem to be on the list?!
She likely had a Stasi file. Whoever knew the content, if compromising, didn’t have to pay.
But a conspiracy theory about some select individuals isn’t on the same level with a politician who outright works for Gazprom. Or deliberately wasted billions, or took lobby money or regularly does some nice nepotism with consultants, or gave billions of taxpayer money to VW just so they can pay their investors some bonus… I mean all of that regularly happens with all the other ones. And Merkel seems pretty alright to me compared to that. I mean considering being compromised in specific… not necessarily the broader picture of what she did or didn’t do.
(Edit: And I saw the interview about the Syrian refugees and her a few weeks ago. And the way she talks seems quite upright. When confronted, she gives context, a solid reasoning grounded in facts, and cites her ethics. And she doesn’t (as of today) insist she did the objectively right thing. Scholz on the other hand tends to conveniently forget everything when confronted.)
Merkel must have known about CumEx. It’s just not associated with her.
If everybody but the king is corrupt then questions should be asked.
Still, I would prefer Merkel over most politicians to become the next chancellor again.
Right. Wikipedia says the Bundesfinanzministerium was aware of CumEx trade since 2002…
Looking at some of the articles and Wikipedia pages, they were even aware as early as 1992 based on whistle blower reporting?
And if I read this right, all that came from this is a 3.5y slap on the wrist for one individual?!
