Rude Awakening
One clearly reads the nervousness in Corriere della Sera, the newspaper of American interests in Italy. And this nervousness concerns the statements of Macron, who followed the summit with Xi. While there is a certain silence in the American media, and even bots on social networks, a sign that Washington must not have taken it well. But especially, a sign that they do not know how to respond.
To understand the Corriere's nervousness (and therefore of IHT and IFT) it is not necessary to understand what is happening: it is necessary to understand the dimension of their impotence. In other words, we need to understand to what extent everything the press has put in place to bring the 80s back (geopolitically) simply didn't work.
All efforts made to deny the evidence, in fact, have failed. In fact, throughout the beginning of the Russia/Ukraine war, newsmen scrambled to deny that the war itself was provoked by the US attitude, and that it was provoked in order to harm European industry.
On their side there was the fact that the plan failed (the reconstruction of the European energy sector was, in some ways, miraculous due to the speed of implementation), on the other the fact that Putin acquired an extreme dialectic that seems to agree with the anti-Russians.
And it is certainly true that Putin is to blame, but it is not true that the USA are innocent in this regard.
The real ingenuity of the pro-Anglo-Saxon press was to think that decades of distancing of public opinion from the US world could be included… because of the question of the war in Ukraine.
The myth of the silver bullet, that is, of the single shot that solves the problem in a single action, or with a single skill, is a recurring myth in the American narrative of the world, but obviously it didn't work.
European public opinion today is very pro-Ukrainian, but it goes without saying that they have become pro-American.
For weeks these newspapers have been wasting their time telling us how this war has "compacted the West" and "cemented NATO". If it weren't for the fact that getting Sweden and Finland in was a "not easy" operation and if it weren't for the fact that Sweden hasn't entered, and won't enter because, let's face it, the JAS 39 Gripen would really come in handy for the Ukrainians due to their capacity ' to take off with very little runway. Much more than the F-16s, which weren't born to take off from the road surface.
And when your alliance has one flank (s)covered by a nation working to keep you from winning, well, “revitalized” a saw.
The West has compacted itself in words, with the precise aim of making the USA happy, but I have to be honest: the German army is always strengthening itself in the same way (that is, an army in a defensive position), even if it is spending more ' money, and the famous purchase of F-35s is nowhere to be seen.
Although all European arms industries have increased production, this is not reflected in the shipments of material to Ukraine, which are very slow and not very substantial.
This "compactness", that is, can only be seen in words.
And then the question arises: if it is not true that the war in Ukraine was caused by the USA to weaken European industry, how come all the heads of state of continental Europe behave as if it were true?
The second problem is not Anglo-Saxon so much as British. The British took advantage of the war in Ukraine to give strength to the usual narrative of the EU split in two, between the "new" countries (which the British let in on purpose), i.e. Visegrad and the Baltics, and the "Old" Europe.
This is why they put themselves at the forefront together with the Poles in supplies to the Ukrainians, for this reason their polluting dialectic, on all social networks, is "the EU is split between new Europe and old Europe". This has caused some damage, both in strategic and military terms, resulting in a disproportionately arming Poland, and other things.
This is a problem of primary importance in the European order, and in governance, because from that moment on, the countries in question began to no longer respect crucial parts of the Lisbon treaty, and to apply blackmail to allow the financing of the Ukraine.
It was obvious that the Europeans would react.
A fortiori, this move by Macron is coming.
Which makes two things very clear to the US:
- A Europe divided as the British would like it could give the green light to Xi, on the invasion of Taiwan. For the USA, a united and aligned Europe is needed if they want to face the Chinese. If Europe proceeds in a fragmented manner, for Xi it is the green light. So now they will have to take their English friends by the collar and order them to work for greater European cohesion. The USA does not know what to do with Poland, Visegrad and the Baltic states in case of war with China. He needs the whole block in block. This split that the British want does not suit the USA at all. And represents green light for Xi.
- Just as the US can use the war in Ukraine to depress the economy and industry in the EU, the EU has the power to green light the invasion of Taiwan. The ensuing confrontation would do infinite damage to US industry. The dependence of US industry on Chinese is enormously higher than that which the EU had on Russian gas.
At this moment, for the USA the problem is not "Macron said this and so things are like this". The problem is "how many Europeans do we REALLY have on our side, in the event of a clash with China"?
With such a mass of states, the only way for the US to get the situation under control is to convince Brussels, and to bring Europe together, which requires ending the British game of dividing Western Europe. from the east, and probably requires actively working towards a truce in Ukraine.
Why is it mandatory?
The clash with China is bipartisan. Trump started it his way (even though Obama wasn't all that friendly either), and the Democrats are continuing the game, with visits from lawmakers, exercises, and everything that's going on.
It is clear that for Xi it has become a point of honor to take Taiwan, and that for the US it is a point of honor to react.
If tomorrow China succeeds in neutralizing Europe, manipulating the situation in Ukraine into obtaining a truce, the EU will hold tight to the situation; if it were divided it would be even worse because at that point each country would adjust it to its own convenience.
Now the US must therefore do two things:
- Stop the war in Ukraine and stop the damage to European industry that they are causing with their aid policy. Otherwise, in the event of a clash with China, the European industrial countries will give themselves over to neutrality.
- Stop the British and their mania for breaking up the EU. A divided Europe is all that is needed for Xi to have the green light, and for the USA to fail to isolate them.
Macron's move, that is, is absolutely rational. The same goes for the deathly silence of German diplomacy.