What does it mean that the United States has begun to take decisive action against the European Union?

If history is really useful in studying the real world, we may find such an interesting phenomenon that if a country has been strong before, it may become strong again. This probability seems to be much greater than that of a country that has never been strong and gradually becomes strong. Please note that I am only talking about probability here.

What kind of enlightenment can this give us? It seems to be useful when judging the land of Europe. Does Europe, which was once strong, have the possibility of becoming strong again? This is more predictable than judging whether new powers will gradually emerge in many regions of the world that have not previously produced strong countries.

In other words, in the future world, will countries and regions like China and Europe become strong again, or will other regions gradually become strong in a new way that is rare in history? This seems to be a point that helps to think about many problems. Of course, I emphasize again that what I am talking about here is probability, that is, the difficulty of development of countries with different historical backgrounds; if they have never been strong before, more exploration and effort will be required, and this is not to provide a fatalism.

一

In fact, since World War II, the entire Europe has been suppressed by the United States in terms of autonomous development and contributions to world science and technology and wisdom. This is not to say that most of the talents who once led Europe have immigrated to the United States. The real reason may be that when autonomy is lost, the contact with the most cutting-edge issues of mankind is lost, and it only becomes a rational explanation and auxiliary propaganda for the existing world created by the United States, and there will be no greater challenges to stimulate the entire society and talent system.

What this means is that when Europe's capital, security, business and other systems all come from the spillover of the larger-scale system of the United States, Europe has lost both the sense of honor of touching the ultimate challenge of mankind and the enthusiasm for solving practical problems. In this context, the whole of Europe has actually entered the "soldier" square, rather than the "general" system, which is a huge burial for stimulating the emergence of talents and contributing more innovations.

Many people may think that some American technologists always want to develop global software systems, Mars immigration, artificial intelligence, etc., which is a pure capital business behavior. In fact, from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the end of World War II, the whole of Europe was in this atmosphere. This is also the reason why so many great scientists and thinkers were born in modern Europe, because Europe stands at the forefront of the world. This position determines the huge source of social and talent power.

This is like why China began to plan and build the entire lunar exploration system alone, because looking around, other countries have fallen far behind. If China does not build a human base on the moon, China will not have a ride. This is a challenge, a driving force, and an honor. This will stimulate the entire Chinese talent and wisdom system. This kind of power that belongs to China now belongs to Europe from the Industrial Revolution to World War II, and after World War II, it basically belongs to the United States (the Soviet Union also contributed a part during the Cold War, but it was difficult to sustain).

Second

The change in the possibility of belonging to Europe has now entered a critical period.

There are three fundamental historical changes here. The first is that the United States will gradually withdraw from Europe from the security level. This is not only reflected in the level of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, but also in the changes in the systemic external demand of the entire United States; the second is that the challenging and honorary power of the United States leading the world since World War II is no longer enough for the United States to ignore the cost issue, that is, the benefits created by this leading power, whether in short-term feelings or long-term expectations, cannot cover the economic system of allies including Europe (it can no longer be carried); the third is that in addition to Europe's need for security and "independence" in decision-making, in fact, from the perspective of the tariff war launched by Trump, the ultimate real target is the European Union, because the European Union and the United States have the highest degree of industrial overlap. Only by seizing the high-end industrial system of the European Union can the United States retain its strategic share in the fields of military industry, large aircraft, etc.

It has also been very clear from the recent remarks of Trump, Bessant, etc. that the United States does not intend to manufacture sports shoes, T-shirts, and socks, but to manufacture military equipment and various large objects. This means that most manufacturing countries that produce low-end and mid-range products will not become the ultimate target of the US tariff war, because the United States has begun to give up competing with these countries for jobs in textiles, sports shoes, T-shirts, socks, etc.

Of course, in addition to competing with Europe for military equipment, large aircraft, etc., competing with China for computers, artificial intelligence, etc. is also an important target direction. Let's talk about the European issue first.

In such a context, if Trump's supporters generally believe that the establishment of the European Union is to weaken the United States, then the United States has an objective motive to "kill" the European Union. The United States does not want to protect Europe anymore, nor does it have the willingness and internal certainty of incremental economic resources to lead Europe. More importantly, it must use the "tariff war" to squeeze out the dominant industries that overlap with the United States in Europe in order to "guard" the United States' more certain interests (high value-added jobs).

This change is all-round and a very thorough trend. If the EU does not realize this, it can only mean that Europe's re-emergence may still be very far away, because Europe's autonomy, that is, the sense of honor and enthusiasm to face the world's cutting-edge issues, has not yet reappeared, and it still hopes to hide behind the United States to find solutions to all its own difficulties.

Three

Does Europe, or the current EU+UK system, have such potential?

From my personal understanding, potential can be forced to some extent. Just like the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the attitude of the Trump team towards the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the EU has been forced to have a rare historical decision-making unity. Whether it is Germany's military industry, the breakthrough in post-war military decision-making, or the large defense budget of the EU as a whole, there has actually been a consensus that was unimaginable before.

If this is just a "breakthrough" in security autonomy brought about by the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, then the recent threat by Trump to impose a 50% tariff on the EU, and the EU must make concessions to the United States on tariffs and other issues, will be a test of the EU's determination to be autonomous at the economic level. More importantly, Europe is also facing an objective fact, that is, the innovation frontier of the entire economy is still in a state of living off its old capital. More than 80% of the world's cutting-edge innovation entities are in China and the United States. The whole of Europe has fallen behind in the field of cutting-edge innovation, which has forced the whole of Europe to reflect on its decades of "retirement-style", "bloated and rigid", "dependent on the United States to lead the way" and other social and innovation environments.

From this perspective, the changes needed by Europe are even more urgent than those of the United States.

In the hundreds of years before World War II, Europe was actually a relatively obvious "international architecture" national system, which was also forced to some extent. The rise of the Ottoman Empire (blocking Europe's development route to the east) and the decline of the Mediterranean commercial civilization forced the whole of Europe to face the Atlantic. From this time on, exploring the world and building new and completely different systems for the explored new and various interactive architectures became something that Europe had to face.

Therefore, whether Europe still has such potential or general interest, or whether more countries can trust Europe without the United States, may be a topic worth discussing. Of course, even if Europe becomes strong again, it can no longer look at the world with the eyes of the colonists.

If we stand outside the EU and pay attention to this system, in fact, from my personal thoughts (chatting) and observations, the potential of the EU is still very large, which is related to the diversity, division of labor and advantages within the entire EU system. But the EU still needs to do several very important things before it can really get rid of the current predicament and become sustainable.

Let's talk about the advantages of internal diversity, division of labor, etc. First, we will talk about Germany, France and Britain. Although the UK has left the EU, it is difficult to completely leave the EU from the perspective of future development, especially after the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the huge changes in US policies. The binding effect between the two will only increase, not decrease.

To put it simply, Germany is a country that attaches great importance to basic education and is very serious about the professional level. These two points determine that Germany can bring the most basic predictability and reliability to the European Union. Regarding the emphasis on basic education, the overall education system may be more concerned, including vocational education. I focus on basic education here because Germany attaches more importance to basic education than the United States, France, Britain, etc.

This makes the entire manufacturing and professional system in Germany very stable. Although the stability here does not include the innovation level, after all, most manufacturing industries are not actually based entirely on the most cutting-edge innovation, but on the stability of the seriousness, quality, scale and talent supply system.

Regarding German education, this is actually not what I want to say. The real German system, the "seriousness" of the profession, can study many problems clearly, which is a great advantage. Let me give you an example so that you can understand. For example, in the eyes of many Germans, in this world, except for love, there is nothing that cannot be explained clearly.

For example, the philosophical system that has always been considered difficult to explain and neurotic has been explained very clearly by the Germans who love to be picky. So much so that if you want to study philosophy now, including various definitions and concepts, you have to look at what German philosophers say, including Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Musk, Fischer, Schelling, Wittgenstein, Habermas, etc.

In other words, Germany is a country that is so picky that even philosophy must be systematically clarified and defined, not to mention other professional and scientific issues.

What does this mean? In fact, if we look at the attitude towards World War II, there is a big difference between Germany and Japan. A country that even defines philosophical concepts clearly is unlikely to dwell on things like right or wrong for too long. Wrong is wrong, right is right, and if you are wrong, you must admit your mistakes, and admit your mistakes thoroughly. In fact, this is also the reason why Germany was gradually accepted by countries in the region and most countries in the world after World War II.

This also means that if Germany believes that the European security system that relied on the United States is wrong, it means that the Germans will start to re-understand and make clear decisions, and they will most likely not look back. These things really need to be judged based on the national character of the Germans (chatting).

If Germany provides the EU with a kind of psychological and expectational reliability and certainty, the UK can actually provide it with the openness and sustainability of the macro platform based on the EU system. We often pay attention to some of the institutional systems exported by the UK to the world. Of course, the majority of them are unsuccessful, and many have even reached a bottleneck period.

I personally think that the real structural advantage of the UK is actually reflected in the business and social activities. Many people may not know that most of the modern sports with strong participation and great influence in the world are basically invented and developed by the British. The rules and participation systems include modern football, cricket, rugby, hockey, badminton, golf, tennis, squash, snooker, rowing, race walking, modern archery, darts, modern boxing, etc.

It is actually very difficult to design a sport and promote it into a rule and adjudication system that the whole world is willing to participate in. This involves the stimulation of human potential, the release of human nature and the simulation of controllability. It is necessary to consider not only the enthusiasm of participation, but also the attractiveness and viewing of competition, as well as the referee and rules, and even how to design "loopholes" and improve trainability. If this logic is applied to the business field of economic development, it is actually to design a whole set of economic activity cycle problems, including participants, how to stimulate participants, how to adjudicate, how to accommodate growth, and how to become sustainable, etc., which is not an easy task.

From the perspective of transactions, the United States has surpassed the United Kingdom for more than a hundred years from the perspective of its overall national strength, or from the perspective of industrial scale and other aspects, but the transfer of the global trusted trading market has not been completed so far, that is, London is still the world's number one financial center, and New York has not completed the replacement of London. This is actually closely related to the traditional ability of the United Kingdom to design and maintain the entire global trading system.

Four

France is very active in the EU system and has a strong presence in the diplomatic field. Many people also think that France's basic industry and military industry are also okay, but in fact, I personally think that these will not be France's advantages in the future, nor will they be France's support for the division of labor at the scale of the EU. France may contribute imagination and consumer luxury goods.

In the earliest days, France also produced a lot of scientists, even no less than Britain. This is because France was catching up with Britain's industry at that time and had a strong industrial foundation. The imagination of most talents can be said to be more inclined to hard-core technology and basic science, etc., but with the rise of industries such as Germany and the United States, France's imagination began to develop towards the sociological level, and has now completely entered the artistic level. The reliance of art on imagination is just combined with the marketing selling points of luxury goods such as "transcendence" and "exquisiteness", plus the long-term operation of various scene buildings and various social activities in the Greater Paris area, France's imagination and luxury industry are actually very advantageous. If France itself has very good agricultural planting areas, the catering industry such as wine and food can develop with the help of tourism, etc., and luxury goods, imagination, tourism, catering conferences, etc., support each other, which is a very sustainable industry in attracting global consumers.

Based on such an industrial background, if France is under the EU system, that is, it is not a separate system, then France will have certain advantages in attracting the "return" of American talents in the future (more like the United States, in fact, the United States learned from France in the early days of its founding). A while ago, France held an international conference on choosing Europe for American scientists.

In fact, in addition to the imagination at the artistic level, if France is based on the EU system and provides scientists with a more relaxed and inclusive social environment, while not being as rigid and monotonous as Germany, France can improve the entertainment, food, playability, etc. of the entire EU, and the scientific achievements produced in France can be realized by manufacturing-based countries such as Germany within the EU system. That is, France accepts the return of American talents and provides better research venues, and Germany provides the realization of the scientific end. New advantages can emerge to compete with the United States for the talent advantages of the European and American systems.

Of course, there are also traditional European powers such as Spain and Italy within the EU, which will not be discussed one by one here. At present, the biggest innovation obstacle in the EU is actually a systemic "institutional" problem. Since the whole of Europe lost its sense of crisis after World War II, and the population growth was slow, the basic industry and industrial brand system had a generational advantage that was ahead of the world, and the core countries of the whole Europe lived very comfortably. This made these countries become a completely top-down management country, that is, the management was done in the bottom system with a very high penetration rate. This led to the entire European system being only suitable for large enterprises that did not care about costs and had stable profits. Small enterprises could not adapt to the entire management system of Europe at all, that is, it was not suitable for start-ups at all. This is also one of the important reasons why the EU missed various emerging technologies such as the Internet in recent decades.

However, there is a new direction worth paying attention to. For the core European countries such as Britain, France and Germany, the bureaucracy and bloated system, as well as the rigid mechanism that relies too much on large enterprises to lock in production stability, may also provide more opportunities for other marginal countries in the EU system. For example, Poland and some Nordic countries have recently seen several European start-ups that make flying motorcycles, cars and other flying vehicles, which are actually all from Poland. For example, several innovative drugs that have been popular in recent years come from Nordic companies. If we look at external cooperation, for example, countries such as Spain, Hungary, and Greece (these countries have very good cooperation with China), there is also the possibility of contributing new growth in manufacturing and service industries to the EU from the outside.

In market competition, we often hear such a saying that success depends on oneself, and greater success is often achieved mainly by opponents. In fact, if we look at the current situation of the EU, if it wants to be "strong again", or "stronger" than in history, it may really rely on strong opponents to achieve it. For example, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the tariff war in the United States, the double attack of Russia and the United States at the security and economic levels (both may be fatal to the EU), whether it can reshape Europe, at least whether it can really allow the EU to step out of its independent development system and give the world a new development pole with a leading structure, is indeed worth looking forward to.

Five

Finally, let's make another assumption. It is assumed that the division of labor and development support within the EU are world-class and have great potential. Due to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the US tariff war, it is easier for the EU to reach a consensus on various "autonomous" developments. The reshaping and independent development of the entire EU system is just around the corner. Then, if we look at it from a larger global geopolitical environment, what is missing? In other words, what more forward-looking things does the EU need to do?

I'm going to have a casual discussion here. I think the EU still needs to do at least three things.

The first thing is how to reintegrate the UK into the internal system, or more specifically, whether the UK is willing to give up the pound and integrate into the euro system, and then use London's status as an international financial center to push the competitiveness and global participation of the euro to a level that can completely replace the US dollar. This is particularly critical for the future global development of the EU, as well as the evolution of a stronger division of labor and the development of an advantageous system.

The second thing is that the EU must pay attention to the Middle East. If the Middle East is just a place where the United States dumps arms and exports wars and conflicts (like Eastern Europe), many new problems will arise in the EU's future geopolitical environment. Because the main immigrants to the EU can actually only come from the Middle East, this cannot be stopped. There can only be a phased slowdown policy. In the long run, the EU has no choice and the trend of EU population shrinkage cannot be changed. However, if the Middle East does not import legal immigrants to the EU in the long term, but refugees (because of the long-term war in the Middle East), a lot of EU's development energy and resources will be seriously dispersed, and the internal political system will begin to split due to illegal immigration issues. If the Middle East can stabilize and show some signs of sustainable development, the EU can not only obtain higher-quality legal immigrants, but also become a stable energy supply, as well as the most important sales market for large aircraft, luxury goods, etc. (after all, there are as many local tyrants in the Middle East as energy).

The third thing is that the EU needs to cooperate with China, and at least in the next few decades, it cannot stand on the opposite side of China. This does not mean that China's development must require European issues, but in many geopolitical and economic trade development aspects, China and Europe's interests and demands are highly consistent, whether it is the demand and maintenance of international trade, or the expectation of stability and prosperity in the Middle East and other regions, or the interconnection of the entire Eurasian continent, their interests and development demands are consistent, and China and Europe are not based on world conflicts to profit. As for the issue of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, just as the EU cannot determine the behavior of Russia and the United States, China is the same and cannot determine the behavior of other countries. If the EU is angry with China based on the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, it will fall into a real dead end.

Six

Regarding the relationship between the United States and the European Union, in fact, in most cases, it is based on the past post-World War II order to establish a universal understanding. Therefore, many analyses and many countries in the EU and other systems will bind such understandings based on various similar values, common roots, etc., which is actually wrong. The relationship between the United States and the European Union has never had much to do with values, common roots, etc. If it were not for the background of the unification of the United States' superpower after World War II, there would not be a single "quiet" day between the European continent and the United States, and within the European continent. Those who fought each other were all so-called people with the same values ​​and common roots (almost all wars on the European continent are like this).

Therefore, it can be said that it is completely wrong to judge the future relationship system between the European Union and the United States based on the logic of values ​​and common roots. If you don't believe it, you can first look at the relationship between the United States and Canada (which can only move towards annexation and resistance to annexation in the end). Canada is just "leading" Europe one step.

In other words, it is precisely because of the special post-war "peaceful" coexistence order created by the United States, which is the only one in the world and has natural compulsion, that rhetoric such as "allies", "values", and "common roots" have the opportunity to be put on the table. You can't say that the peaceful coexistence between Europe and the United States after the war is due to the United States being too powerful. How can we talk about it then?

What does this mean? It is clear that the order created by the United States after World War II has completely collapsed, not collapsing. At this time, the only hope for the European continent to maintain long-term peace outside the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and prevent the first internal war is the effectiveness of the new system of the European Union. If the European Union is left, the internal contradictions brewing in the European continent will crush all the "values" and "same roots" that seem to be often mentioned now, which are considered to be strong consensus and things used to maintain mutual relations. In other words, the peace guarantee of the European continent, except for the effectiveness of the "European Union" organization, other consensuses such as "values" are not worth mentioning.

Seven

With the symbolic dissolution of the "Government Efficiency Department" led by Musk, the so-called internal reform plan initiated by the new US government has also failed, and it has failed completely. In this context, the entire point of solving internal interests and contradictions in the future of the United States will point to the international market, that is, all the development dilemmas and internal problems of the United States will be transferred to other international markets. From this perspective, the United States is no longer willing to maintain the post-war order, and the complete failure of internal reforms will prompt the United States to launch a tariff war against the European Union and withdraw from the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, which will become the only option to solve its own problems, rather than an option.

In fact, the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is not what countries such as Germany and France in the EU system want to see. For a long time, Germany and France have been trying to win over Russia, but because many small countries in the EU system, including several countries in Eastern Europe facing Russia, have always been very afraid of Russia, and are worried that Germany and France will sacrifice Eastern European countries when they are on good terms with Russia. In addition, Russia does have an international style of "fist" politics, which means that even if Germany and France are willing to win over Russia, other members of the EU system will not buy it (the United States has an opportunity to intervene).

This is also why Germany would rather abandon all Eastern European and Baltic land countries for a period of time and build a natural gas pipeline directly with Russia on the seabed. It is precisely because of the inconsistency of security and economic interests within the EU, coupled with Russia's "offensiveness", that countries like the United States, which can intervene in geopolitical conflicts at any time, have an opportunity to take advantage of it.

But the problem is that when the United States supports Eastern European countries and Ukraine and really fights with Russia, the entire European Union will become very passive, because the contradictions are expanded with the support of the United States, but the United States can withdraw at any time and leave all the problems to the European Union. Therefore, the real "autonomy" development of the European Union in the future also needs to consider an important issue, that is, in addition to core countries such as Germany and France, other countries will turn against it at any time, that is, there will be a second or third Ukraine, which will not listen to the command of the European Union and will conflict with other third countries or Russia again under the "intervention" of the United States.

Eight

To put it bluntly, it is a question of whether the European Union can control the countries within the European Union system. Of course, the same logic here is whether the European Union can establish trust at the security level, replace the United States, and become the real reliance of these small countries, and this is also a question of whether the European Union can achieve "autonomy" at the security level. In other words, as long as other countries in the EU always have a need for the United States at the security level and always distrust core countries such as Germany and France, the EU's security "autonomy" will be difficult to achieve, because the United States can manipulate conflicts and wars at any time based on some national security requirements within the EU system.

It can also be said that the EU's autonomy at the level of security and economic development determines the effectiveness and sustainability of the EU as an organization. At the same time, from the perspective of the entire EU, how to unify consensus and achieve "autonomy" without other illusions based on the strategic withdrawal of the United States from the security level of the European continent and the background that the United States will eventually "kill" the EU at the economic level to solve its own predicament. To some extent, this may also have spillover benefits. That is, when the EU can truly get rid of the post-war European order created by the United States, the spillover of its "autonomy" capabilities will forge a new global open architecture that can accommodate a larger system. This is a good thing for Europe and the world. Europe will become stronger again and the world will be more peaceful.