Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ewan's avatar

I agree with the sentiment of this but the Ming/Qing China comparison is way off base. Those are a story of overly strong central governments mandating stasis and isolation. Europe is fragmented with the EU subordinate to the member states. Many of the issues raised in this piece are symptomatic of that, e.g. German gas policy or French technology transfer to China. These make sense for the individual member states but not the EU as a whole. This fragmentation also precludes long-term stasis. The EU isn't able to force Denmark to burn the Maersk fleet nor get all 27 states to close their borders. Some kind of local-optimum temporary stasis is all you get.

"Someday someone will show up on Europe’s doorstep who can’t easily be bought off, and the era of harmonious stasis will come to a nasty end." This is a prediction of something that already happened - Russia/Ukraine. The process of military renewal has already begun. Yes, the EU will probably not be a 'third superpower'. Even if it re-arms and re-industrialises so will other areas of the world at as great a rate.

Europe won't be a superpower, nor will it's individual states be superpowers again. However, greater military power is very likely (and will have unpredictable effects in the region). As for technology, Europe has not meaningfully fallen behind yet, and re-establishing industries in already advanced economies may prove to be easier than establishing new industry in developing economies. Under the current system of trade most industry in Europe simply doesn't make sense no matter EU or state policies. But if that system is upended by China/USA conflict then that calculation would change in an instant.

Expand full comment
James Greenfield's avatar

A shame the UK stepped away from the project, we could at times push the French and German axis forward on some matters.

Expand full comment
183 more comments...

No posts