There are books that Rampini, a fanatical supporter of the USA, has never read. Certainly the title is not original, because "art of war" is usually associated with Clausewitz, or Lao Tze. Instead, Machiavelli too, in addition to the famous "Prince", wrote an "art of war", which I personally find more complete because in addition to reasoning (very Lullian, or Cartesian if you prefer), it also incorporates a certain amount of politics.
Undoubtedly everyone says that politics has something to do with it, going so far as to say "war is the continuation of war by other means", but then they go back to talking about war in a technical sense. Machiavelli's work, on the other hand, also includes a substantial part of politics, including the causes of the war, and the "after", or rather the political part of the occupier, in case there is expansion.
A very interesting thing is when he says “a war is a box that can contain up to twelve conflicts”. Twelve is a way of saying "an understandable number, but greater than one in terms of dimension, and two in complexity".
And the war in Ukraine is a typical case: the war is between Russia and Ukraine, but actually it contains many conflicts. One of which is the conflict between US corporate and European industry. Another is the inevitable conflict between the EU and any nation that intends to be a superpower, or is striving to become one.
Let's start with the last one, since the first one is included. We all know what the EU is, but we haven't yet asked ourselves what the EU means, from the point of view of the superpowers, or at least of the countries that are on the way to being one (like China) or striving to be one (like Russia) .
A superpower, or a power, is distinguished from other nations by the ability to project its will, or its power (in German there is the word "macht", which is difficult to translate) on smaller countries.
A world run by powers, or by superpowers, is a world in which strategy is consumed on the terrain of the smallest countries, which fall within areas of influence. And if a country falls into a power's area of influence, it does as that power says.
It is absolutely obvious, in this sense, that a concept such as the EU is not foreseen. For small countries to unite and stop obeying the powers is, from a certain point of view (that of the powers) the very negation of the concept of power, or superpower.
In short: the EU has no friends among the powers and would-be powers. For them, it is ABSOLUTE EVIL. We cannot expect the US, Russia, China, and others to be anything but mortal enemies of the EU, since for them the EU is what should NEVER happen, which is for small countries to unite and resist the will of the power.
There is just no concept. If the countries of Latin America formed their own union similar, in terms of integration, to the EU, or African countries did it, (Africa could host two or three of these unions, quite homogeneous), or worse in Asia, for USA, Russia and China would be in serious trouble.
The illusion that there is a "West" is absurd. It is absurd because the USA and the EU are, and can only be, natural enemies. It is the concept of the EU which is the absolute negation of all that the USA can be.
If the EU were to become a single country, or a power, everything would be easier, because it would limit itself to sanctioning the principle of a world dominated by powers, with no hope of freedom on the part of small countries.
Russia, for example, has no problem talking and strategizing with the USA or China. The existence of these powers is part of an ancient and consolidated vision of the world.
But the EU is the contradiction of the idea of a world based on powers.
For China, Russia, USA, the EU is absolute evil and must be cancelled. We cannot expect anything else, and pretending to belong to an undefined and impossible to define "West" is purely illusory. A wishful thinking, but always an illusion.
The EU can expect nothing but enmity from other powers, emerging or would-be powers. And they should be treated as natural enemies.
Obviously this is not the attitude of the countries that are part of the EU, for now. And I say “for now” because, as a Greek colleague of mine used to say, “there are lessons that enter your head only by passing through your ass. Hurting".
The question "but does the USA want to deindustrialize the EU", therefore, is redundant. It is redundant because the US wants to DESTROY the EU. The destruction of industry is only one of the things at stake, together with the destruction of the single market, the destruction of institutions, the destruction of treaties.
And China and Russia want the same. And it is even more crucial than the dialectic they have between them, because the powers or superpowers are perfectly equipped, even psychologically, to deal with each other. What they cannot tolerate is small countries uniting and opposing their designs.
A striking example is the war in Ukraine. The US could close it in two days.
It is quite clear that the Ukrainians are using long-range artillery as a substitute for air support. When you're under attack and you ask for artillery saturation, sure, you're asking for artillery support. But if you're doing it against an enemy that's 100km away, and you want to go even further, or if you're doing it against their infrastructure, or you're doing it to destroy individual tanks, you're using artillery as a poor substitute for air support. . Ditto for rocketry.
Now, if you're using missiles and artillery as a poor man's air force, that's because you need air support. F-16s, F-18s, A-10s, numbering around 200 in total, would end the war. It would be enough to announce the creation of such a base, and the war would be over. Very few A-10s can wipe out Russian tactical battalions in a very short time.
But it doesn't. Why'? Because obviously the war has to last long enough to represent a major crisis for the EU, and because they want to destroy the EU before Ukraine can join. Ukraine has huge reserves of gas and oil, which have never been used because they are not convenient: Russian gas and oil were cheaper.
But right now, if Ukraine joins the EU, it will be the new supplier of gas and oil. Ditto for agriculture: if Ukraine were to join the EU, given the volumes, for US agriculture the game of exports would be closed.
It is therefore obvious that the US will never give Kiev what it needs to end the war: it will give it what it needs to continue it.
Nor would it be strange if Russia too, with an underground agreement, were to participate in this game: the USA is a power, the Russians want to be, for both the EU is a living blasphemy.
When building a message like that of the EU, a message that invites small countries to unite to be independent from the powers, it is OBVIOUS that ALL the powers are to be considered NATURAL ENEMIES.
Asking whether the US wants to "deindustrialize" the EU, therefore, is redundant: the US wants to DESTROY the EU, and you can rest assured that, on this subject, both China and Russia will be willing to play their game, and to exchange favours. (like that of making the war in Ukraine last for years and years).
No power can tolerate the idea of small countries joining forces to escape the powers' zones of influence. Consequently, the EU must start from the idea that the US wants to destroy it, and both the Chinese and the Russians, if necessary, will gladly lend a hand.
Believing in this imaginary entity called "the West" is perhaps a way of not having to formulate a thought that the 80s/90s politicians who are in power today don't like.
But, I repeat, there are lessons that go in the head through the ass, and they get there better if the process is painful.
The war in Ukraine will, I hope, be the time when someone in Brussels understands what's going on. Of course, Berlin has understood.