Bitter truth-

By

 

If EU members knows China could help the war between Ukraine and Russia but can't put it directly diplomatically or otherwise and can't because they're also ripping benefits from the war. 
Does it mean EU-elites are so scared of China's reaction in terms of economic response. 
Who's fooling who? 

First, we need to separate three actors:

  • The European Union

  • China

  • Russia and Ukraine

Now let’s examine the core claims embedded in your question.

1. Could China realistically “help end” the war?

China has leverage over Russia in three areas:

  1. Trade dependency – After Western sanctions, Russia became more dependent on Chinese markets.

  2. Energy purchases – China buys discounted Russian oil and gas.

  3. Technology channels – Dual-use goods flow indirectly.

However, leverage is not the same as control.

China’s strategic interest is:

  • Prevent Russia’s collapse.

  • Avoid direct sanctions on itself.

  • Maintain trade with Europe.

  • Position itself as a “neutral peacemaker.”

If Beijing pushed too hard on Moscow, it risks:

  • Driving Russia into instability.

  • Weakening a strategic counterweight to NATO.

  • Damaging its own geopolitical posture.

So the idea that China can simply “switch off” the war is overstated.

2. Is the EU afraid of China’s economic retaliation?

Let’s examine the structural reality.

The EU’s largest trading partner in goods is China. Germany’s industrial sector is deeply exposed to the Chinese market. Supply chains in electronics, rare earths, solar panels, and machinery remain interconnected.

But “fear” is too simplistic.

The EU has:

  • De-risking policies underway.

  • Anti-subsidy investigations.

  • Strategic autonomy initiatives.

  • Screening mechanisms for foreign investment.

So this is not paralysis — it is managed interdependence.

The EU cannot economically decouple overnight without self-harm. That constraint shapes diplomatic language.

That’s not fear. That’s structural entanglement.

3. Are EU elites benefiting from the war?

This is where rhetoric often oversimplifies.

Yes:

  • Defense spending has increased.

  • Energy diversification created new contracts.

  • Certain sectors (arms manufacturers, LNG importers) profit.

But Europe overall has absorbed:

  • Energy shocks.

  • Inflation.

  • Fiscal strain.

  • Refugee costs.

  • Industrial competitiveness pressure.

War is not economically net-positive for the EU system as a whole.

Some sectors gain. The macro picture is more complex.

4. Why doesn’t the EU publicly pressure China harder?

Because diplomacy operates on layered incentives.

If the EU openly accuses China of enabling Russia:

  • China could restrict exports.

  • Trade tensions escalate.

  • Europe weakens its own economic stability.

  • China drifts closer to Russia strategically.

Instead, the EU uses:

  • Sanctions on entities.

  • Quiet diplomatic messaging.

  • Coordinated G7 positioning.

  • Gradual economic diversification.

Strategic ambiguity is not always weakness — sometimes it is calibrated pressure.

5. “Who’s fooling who?”

In geopolitical terms:

  • China signals neutrality while sustaining economic ties with Russia.

  • The EU criticizes Russia while preserving trade ties with China.

  • Russia frames the conflict as anti-Western resistance.

  • Ukraine seeks maximal Western support while navigating donor fatigue.

Every actor performs narratives aligned with their domestic audience.

This is not necessarily deception — it is strategic positioning.

6. Are EU elites scared?

They are constrained, not scared.

The EU faces a triad problem:

  1. Security dependence on the United States.

  2. Economic interdependence with China.

  3. Military aggression from Russia.

No European state can ignore any of the three without systemic cost.

So their policy is balancing — not bold confrontation.

7. The uncomfortable truth

Modern global power is interdependent.

The EU cannot coerce China without economic consequences.
China cannot fully abandon Russia without geopolitical consequences.
Russia cannot win outright without escalation risks.
Ukraine cannot concede without existential cost.

Everyone is operating within constrained rationality.

No one is fully “fooling” anyone.
Everyone understands the structural game.
They simply act according to their incentive architecture.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Why are machine tools considered the “mother industry” for industrialization, and what does this mean for Africa and other developing economies?

By
Image
  Machine Tools: The “Mother Industry” of Industrialization and What It Means for Africa and Developing Economies When economists, engineers, and policymakers speak of machine tools as the “mother industry” , they refer to the pivotal role these tools play in building every other industry. Just as mothers give birth to life, machine tools give birth to manufacturing. They are the foundation upon which industrial capacity rests, and without them, no nation can claim full industrial independence. For Africa and other developing economies striving for sustainable growth, this understanding is critical. What Are Machine Tools? Machine tools are mechanical devices used to cut, shape, drill, grind, or otherwise process metal and other hard materials into components. Examples include lathes, milling machines, grinders, presses, and CNC (computer numerical control) machines. These tools are essential for producing the parts that go into cars, airplanes, energy systems, agricultural machine...
Read more

It's now clear the west particularly America and European elites have been using democracy and capitalism to control and create sanctions on the developing and poor countries

By
Image
  To assess it rigorously, we need to separate three analytical layers: Normative ideology (democracy, capitalism as principles) Policy practice (how powerful states implement them externally) Geopolitical power behavior (how dominant states act regardless of ideology) Let’s examine this carefully. 1. Democracy as Principle vs. Democracy as Instrument Democracy, as theorized by thinkers like John Locke and Montesquieu , is grounded in: Popular sovereignty Rule of law Civil liberties Accountability However, critics argue that major powers — especially the United States and blocs like the European Union — sometimes apply democracy selectively in foreign policy. Examples often cited: Support for authoritarian allies when strategically convenient. Sanctions justified on “democratic grounds” but aligned with geopolitical interests. Military interventions framed as democracy promotion. This suggests inconsistency — not necessarily that democracy its...
Read more

Would Great Powers Accept Relational Accountability Over Strategic Dominance?

By
Image
  At the core of international politics lies a persistent tension: are great powers primarily guardians of order or maximizers of advantage? The modern state system, especially since 1945, has been structured around strategic dominance—military deterrence, economic leverage, technological supremacy, and geopolitical positioning. Relational accountability, by contrast, demands that powerful actors accept responsibility for how their actions affect weaker states and the broader global community. It requires constraint, reciprocity, and moral transparency. The critical question is not whether relational accountability is ethically desirable. It is whether great powers—given structural incentives—would rationally accept it over dominance. 1. The Logic of Strategic Dominance Great powers operate within an anarchic international system. There is no global sovereign capable of enforcing universal rules. Institutions such as the United Nations exist, but enforcement ultimately depends...
Read more

Why Petrol Cars Still Dominate in Most of the World—Despite EV Hype

By
Image
The global narrative around electric vehicles (EVs) suggests an unstoppable march toward an all-electric future. Headlines highlight rising EV sales in wealthy countries, bold government bans on petrol cars, and ambitious climate pledges from automakers. Yet step outside a few high-income markets and the picture changes dramatically. In most of the world—across Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Latin America, and large parts of Eastern Europe—petrol (and diesel) cars continue to dominate roads, sales, and consumer preferences. This persistence is not simply due to resistance to change or lack of awareness. It reflects deep structural realities: economics, infrastructure, energy systems, industrial capacity, and social behavior. Understanding why petrol cars remain dominant requires moving beyond hype and examining how mobility actually works for the majority of the global population. 1. Cost: The Decisive Barrier The most immediate and decisive factor is price . EVs remain significantl...
Read more

Let's evaluate whether stricter gun control alone would significantly reduce mass shootings in the United States — or whether broader structural reforms are required

By
Image
  Mass shootings are a multi-variable phenomenon. Firearm regulation is one variable. Social structure, mental health systems, grievance ecosystems, media dynamics, and enforcement consistency are others. Below is a structured analysis. 1. What Does Research Show About Gun Control and Mass Shootings? Comparative international data shows that countries with: Strict firearm licensing Low civilian gun ownership Mandatory training Registration systems tend to have lower rates of firearm-related mass shootings. Examples include: Japan China Australia After Australia enacted sweeping gun reforms following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, mass shootings declined sharply. However, the U.S. differs structurally: Over 400 million firearms already in civilian circulation. Constitutional protection under the Second Amendment. Federal–state legal fragmentation. This means policy feasibility differs from other countries. 2. Would Stricter Gun Control Reduce Mass Sh...
Read more