In the previous article, we analyzed the internal problems of the United States, and here we will analyze the external environment of the United States. We take the Russia-Ukraine war as the main starting point, after all, Russia (the Soviet Union) has long been the biggest adversary of the United States, and the associated Europe is the basic plate of the United States.
1. The United States needs an enemy.
I saw a saying before that when the collapse of the Soviet Union became a foregone conclusion, the then Bush of the United States was deeply disturbed, and even did some operations to save the Soviet Union, but unfortunately it was already "difficult to save the gods".
The United States is the de facto controller of NATO, and through NATO, it controls most of the European countries. But the premise of NATO's existence is that there is a formidable enemy: the USSR!
NATO needs an enemy.
After World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States each had more than 10 million troops, the Soviet Army was almost invincible, and the United States Navy and Air Force could almost beat the whole world; After being tossed by Germany, Europe was devastated, and surrendering to the United States and the Soviet Union was almost an inevitable choice, after all, everyone had just recovered from the state of "red eye", but the whole country was still in war mode. So Europe was divided into two, each of which turned to the United States and the Soviet Union.
It can also be regarded as a strategy of "I give in first, don't beat me, it's useful to keep me", this strategy is effective - string an article (and count it as the bottom of your own later articles) - our country has a saying of "winning land and winning the people" during the Warring States Period: Zhao sent Su Dai to lobby Qin to retreat after the Battle of Changping. Although there is a suspicion of fooling, it actually makes a lot of sense.
Really blowing up the enemy country into a scorched earth is also a meaningless act of losing money.
At present, the major powers in the world have also accepted this statement, after all, if you really bomb a country into ruins and let your own people rebuild, no one wants to go to it; After all, no bomb fell from the sky - except for those with insurance - it is said that it is from the perspective of human nature, in short, there are very few wars of extermination - but as countries gradually return from wartime mode to peace mode, NATO's existential value to European countries is actually gradually weakening: without NATO, will the Soviet Union really fight us? Originally, it seems that the possibility is indeed quite large.
But what about after the collapse of the USSR?
After the disintegration, Russia once applied for NATO! It's outrageous, outrageous. If you Russia join NATO, then why does my NATO still exist?
Russia joins NATO, what excuse does the United States have to station troops in Europe?
I guess the European countries are thinking: just disband. Dissolved, Russia has no way to shoot at us, and the United States is embarrassed, right?
So it is said that "the United States needs an enemy."
2. Russia is forced to become an enemy of the United States.
Without an enemy, America's grip on Europe would be greatly diminished.
Therefore, the United States does not do it, and uses the prestige of the Soviet Union to set up a military alliance, which can at least solve part of the US military spending problem, part of the economic problem, and part of the political problem.
NATO is gone, how to play? So Russia's application was rejected.
It's interesting to simulate the psychology of both sides.
Russia: I'm giving up world hegemony and getting involved in Europe, okay?
USA: No! You don't!
Russia: I really gave up.
USA: No, you don't!
Then the United States continued economic sanctions against Russia.
Russia,Finally found out,I can't lie down with myself.,That。。。 I can only do it. When the United States is an enemy, it seems that the United States is more willing to play with me.
USA: If you understand. Anyway, I understand, no matter what you say, you won't give up on "nuclear leveling". You're not Ukraine again?
Ukraine:?? Actually, I'm not really stupid. Say that it sounds good to hear the third nuclear power in the world, I throw **? Well, I'll throw it casually, but what about the nuclear password?
Nations: What if you try to do it?
Ukraine: You can pull it down, what about the maintenance fee? Who's out?
Nations: We pay you to maintain nuclear ** to beat us? What do you want?
Ukraine: So, I have to abandon nuclear weapons.
Narrator: Xiao Wu, go down and rest for a while.
Russia's entry into NATO failed. American Lezizi: You have seen that Russia's threat is real, and he has more nuclear ** than me!
EU: Okay. After all, the United States is all "just excuses, ah no, just reasons?" Just the regulations", there are problems with the completion of NATO.
Narrator: There's a pipa that can also half-cover your face, so make do with it.
Although it is said that without an enemy, the United States can continue to arbitrarily continue to station troops in Europe and exploit Europe, but this is too different from what they preach about freedom and equality, and it is too much to slap in the face; And it will also affect the credibility and cohesion of the United States.
3. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has unveiled the "pipa".
Later, "Little Ukraine appeared", and Ukraine had to act as a flashpoint in the US-Russian conflict, but as a result, it made a mess of itself and lost it for decades to come. The deity has an unreliable idea, suggesting that Ukraine join other countries, Russia is the best, and Poland is also fine. Loans that have not been paid off for decades - Ukraine is gone, and there is no need to pay it back. What the? Sovereignty is gone, can't bear it? Your sovereignty, whoever wants it, it's good to send it out. Don't talk about Shen Wan.
Third, after making peace, the Rothschilds had to shake their heads when they saw it.
Ukraine is already in a desperate situation.
Off topic, let's move on to the United States. This Russia-Ukraine conflict has actually surprised many people, the first is that everyone thinks that Russia will not take action; What's more, second, everyone didn't expect Russia to play like this, and there is hardly any shadow of "strong".
Is Russia still considered the second military power? Anyway, no one saw it.
First, it has nothing to do with this article, and second, it has a serious consequence, and the leaders of EU countries will think about the question: Is Russia still capable of attacking Europe? Still want to? Do you still dare?
If not, why do EU countries still need protection from the United States?
Of course, Russia still has the ability to destroy humanity, but Russia also includes it. As long as he doesn't push Russia too hard, he won't nuclei humanity.
Then the question is even more important, judging from what happened to Ukraine, will the United States really protect Europe? And to what extent will it be protected? Judging by the attitude of the United States towards Ukraine, this protection is not reliable. Of course, objectively speaking, the allies of the United States are also close and distant from each other, and Ukraine and the United Kingdom must not be compared. So for Ukraine, just don't let him join NATO. As for the United Kingdom, when the United States really needs to desperately bail out, I think the United States can dissolve NATO.
And then there is, is the economic cost of getting U.S. protection worth it? Germany, as the economic heart of the European Union, has suffered a lot of losses in this Russia-Ukraine conflict. Let's talk about Nord Stream 2, the gas has not yet entered, and the sea water has gone in first. Germany is simply losing three times, losing money, losing time, and losing jokes - it is good to buy gas from Russia and not buy it, and it is not necessary for middlemen to make the difference, which really makes people laugh off their big teeth.
All things considered, is it cost-effective to curry favor with a less reliable ally in order to deal with a less threatening enemy, but at a huge economic cost?
Of course, this major change in national policy will not happen overnight, but I believe that as time goes on, the United States' control over the EU will become weaker and weaker, and the economic compensation it can receive will become less and less.
4. Europe that is gradually getting out of control.
Can the United States threaten the EU by means of war? It is definitely not possible to do it directly, otherwise the "cooking, freedom" and other things that I preach will collapse, and the internal problems of the country will be even greater; It is not impossible to use conspiracy methods, but in fact, the European economy is also quite empty, and the real use of means to harvest will lead to political instability in European countries, further loss of credibility, and the suspicion of killing chickens and eggs.
Of course, I don't doubt the moral sense of the United States in killing chickens and eggs, but after all, killing chickens and eggs itself is self-defeating, and it is still necessary to take it leisurely until it is absolutely necessary, and the United States is not stupid, is it?
In summary, the Russia-Ukraine war has further reduced the credibility of the United States; Moreover, the Russian-Ukrainian war has also exposed Russia's true military strength, which makes European countries understand that Russia does not have the strength to threaten Europe alone, which will lead to Europe's further separation from the United States and make it more difficult for the United States to divert contradictions.
Please pay more attention, like more, and comment more, and see you in the next issue of the wonderful content.
network, if there is any infringement, please contact the author to delete).