Time for Europe to Press the Reset Button

“There is great disorder under the heavens – the situation is excellent”

(天下大乱形势大好).

Mao Zedong’s words in 1967, spoken during his inspections across various regions of China, were not merely an observation but an affirmation of his belief in the transformative power of upheaval. At the height of the Cultural Revolution, the widespread mobilisation of the masses had plunged the country into profound chaos—a condition he considered advantageous.

A few weeks ago, I experienced a striking sense of déjà vu. The disruptive activities of Elon Musk’s “DOGE Team” of young executives, systematically dismantling entire government agencies in the United States in a bid to eradicate the so-called ‘Deep State’—a project both he and his political allies vehemently despise—evoked in me a distant yet undeniable parallel with Mao’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

My immediate response was to consult an AI assistant, which, while cautioning me against drawing simplistic comparisons, nonetheless acknowledged certain striking similarities. Nor am I alone in this perception. Several recent publications have drawn parallels between Musk’s actions within the U.S. government and historical upheavals such as Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Analysts like Orville Schell [1] and John Feffer [2] have pointed to the broader implications of this new breed of techno-authoritarian disruption.

Yet this is no imitation of China’s radical purges. Rather, it follows a distinctly Western blueprint—one that eerily resembles George Orwell’s dystopian vision in “1984” [3] beginning with the reconfiguration of language itself. The emergence of contemporary ‘newspeak’ [4] and the manipulation of political discourse signal a deeper transformation—one that warrants revisiting Orwell’s prophetic warnings with renewed urgency.

Europeans might be tempted to dismiss this spectacle across the Atlantic as another American idiosyncrasy. But complacency would be a grave mistake. This is not an isolated event; it is part of a broader geopolitical shift. The goal is nothing less than a comprehensive global reset—an agenda championed by Donald Trump himself.

This assertion is not mere speculation. A number of recent publications lend credence to the argument. Writing in Eurasia Review, Alastair Crooke contends in his article [5], Europe Faces a MAGA ‘Vibe-Shift’ as Trump Moves to His Primordial Objective: The Global Reset, that Trump’s eagerness to expedite a resolution to the Ukraine conflict—ostensibly to normalise relations with Russia—is in fact a prelude to a far-reaching reconfiguration of the global order. Crooke paints a bleak picture of the future for Europe and its leaders, who, in his view, remain oblivious to the gravity of the moment.

Similarly, Hal Brands [6], in his Foreign Affairs article [7] The Renegade Order, presents a clear and coherent articulation of the U.S. worldview—one that appears, at first glance, to be a rational and logical framework. Yet upon closer examination, it becomes evident that reality has been significantly contorted to fit a particular narrative.

What emerges is a continuity of the 19^th-century doctrine encapsulated by the term Manifest Destiny, a phrase coined by journalist John O’Sullivan. The notion that Trump is merely extending this expansionist tradition is not questioned—it is, in fact, lauded. The only apprehension among his supporters is the possibility that he might fail to realise his objectives.

But where does Europe fit into this grand design? The answer is unambiguous: we are expected to serve this mission. Should Europe choose not to align with this American vision, the repercussions may be severe. As Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at The Financial Times, starkly warns [8], “Europe will either rise to the occasion or disintegrate. Europeans will need to create far stronger co-operation embedded in a robust framework of liberal and democratic norms. If they do not, they will be picked to pieces by the world’s great powers.”

Wolf, however, falls into the trap of wishful thinking, arguing that Europe must ‘save’ Ukraine from what he perceives as a U.S.-Russian conspiracy—as if Europe were equipped for such an daunting undertaking.

In reality, the United States is neither pro-Russia nor pro-Ukraine; its strategic objectives lie elsewhere. Washington’s actions are designed to weaken both Russia and Europe, thereby cementing its dominance over Eurasia. This is a classic example of offshore balancing, a strategy similarly employed against China in the Indo-Pacific. Chinese academic Han Heyuan highlights [9] this point, drawing upon the work of British geopolitical strategist Halford Mackinder. In his 1904 paper The Geographical Pivot of History [10], Mackinder argued that preventing the rise of a single dominant power on the Eurasian continent has always been the fundamental objective of Anglo-Saxon maritime powers. The United States has simply inherited this mantle from the British Empire.

Heyuan also underscores an uncomfortable reality: in the ongoing Ukraine conflict, there is but one clear winner—the United States. The economic ramifications alone illustrate this dynamic. The war has precipitated a restructuring of global supply chains, with the U.S. emerging as the primary beneficiary of Europe’s energy crisis. In 2022, European imports of American liquefied natural gas (LNG) surged by 154%, at prices three times higher than those of Russian pipeline gas. Meanwhile, the U.S. military-industrial complex has reaped enormous profits, with defence contractors such as Raytheon and Lockheed Martin seeing their stock prices soar by over 200%.

Concluding this chorus of critical voices, Timothy Hopper, an international relations scholar at American University, writes [11], “The world is experiencing a resurgence of great power rivalry and neo-colonialism, but with one crucial difference: Europe is no longer a dominant force or a colonial power—it is now a target. Historically, Europe played a central role in shaping global policies and resource distribution. However, it is now caught in the crossfire of ruthless geopolitical competition from the U.S., China, and other rising powers. As America pursues aggressive bargaining, sanctions, and military threats to strengthen its position, Europe finds itself no longer leading the game but struggling to navigate its growing vulnerabilities in an increasingly brutal global contest.”

And struggling our leaders certainly are. Unlike Mao in 1967 or maybe Trump today, they do not see the disorder under the heavens as an advantageous situation. Rather, they appear bewildered, suddenly confronted with a reality they neither anticipated nor prepared for—one that has shattered their long-standing assumptions about global governance.

For decades, Europe has enjoyed the illusion of autonomy, largely thanks to the careful orchestration of U.S. foreign policy. That illusion is now being dismantled, and our politicians appear woefully unprepared. Shall they remain reliant on guidance from the White House, guidance that is no longer forthcoming? Instead, Washington is preoccupied with internal convulsions, as in some kind of “Great Oligarchical Cultural Revolution” radical elements within the administration systematically dismantle institutional continuity.

Figures such as Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer seem out of touch with the seismic shift occurring in Washington, where darker traditionalist values are regaining prominence. Unfortunately, this new reality is irreconcilable with the career trajectories of Europe’s existing political class. If change is to come, it will not originate from the top. Instead, it must emerge from below.

I like to draw from an insight Newton-John, a writer from down under, recently gained after taking on the respectable challenge of reading 100 history books: “I could suddenly see that the island of peace and prosperity I inhabited in my privileged life was just that,” he writes, “an island surrounded on all sides by an abyss of violence, turmoil and cruelty…”. This small and fragile island must not be washed over again by the raging tides of the stormy sea that surrounds it.

As for the lack of saviours in our higher echelons, we Europeans must no longer wait for a miracle to occur. The time has come to reclaim our agency. Noble declarations such as “We, the people!” and “The people are sovereign” must be more than mere rhetoric. They must become a call to action for every individual—one that resonates not just across our continent, but across the entire planet.

---

[1] Schell, O. (2025, February 19). Trump's cultural revolution. Project Syndicate. (https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/donald-trump-mao-zedong-cultural-revolution-parallels-by-orville-schell-2025-02)

• Orville Schell draws parallels between President Donald Trump's recent policy shifts and Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution, highlighting potential implications for U.S. foreign policy.

[2] Feffer, J. (2025, February 20). The Trump-Musk cultural revolution. Eurasia Review. (https://www.eurasiareview.com/20022025-the-trump-musk-cultural-revolution-oped/)

• John Feffer discusses the alliance between President Trump and Elon Musk, comparing their actions to Mao's Cultural Revolution and exploring the potential societal impacts.

[3] Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. Secker & Warburg.

• George Orwell's dystopian novel portrays a totalitarian society under constant surveillance, where truth is manipulated to maintain power. The narrative serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of oppressive regimes and the erosion of individual freedoms, remaining relevant in discussions about privacy, freedom, and government overreach.

[4] Burnett, I. S. (2025, March 18). Operation Newspeak. CounterPunch. (https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/03/18/operation-newspeak/)

• Ipek S. Burnett examines the Trump administration's manipulation of language, drawing parallels to George Orwell's concept of "Newspeak" in 1984, and its implications for critical thinking and dissent.

[5] Crooke, A. (2025, March 12). Europe faces a MAGA 'vibe-shift' as Trump moves to his primordial objective: The global reset. Eurasia Review. (https://www.eurasiareview.com/12032025-europe-faces-a-maga-vibe-shift-as-trump-moves-to-his-primordial-objective-the-global-reset-oped/)

• Alastair Crooke discusses the geopolitical implications of President Trump's actions aimed at settling the Ukraine conflict and normalizing relations with Russia. He explores how these moves are part of a broader strategy to establish a new world order, prompting Europe to adapt to this significant geopolitical shift.​

[6] Brands, H. (n.d.). Author profile. Foreign Affairs.(https://www.foreignaffairs.com/authors/hal-brands)

• This is Hal Brands' author profile on Foreign Affairs, detailing his background as the Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and his contributions to the field.

[7] Brands, H. (2025, February 25). The renegade order: How Trump wields American power. Foreign Affairs. (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/renegade-order-trump-hal-brands)

• Hal Brands analyses President Trump's unconventional approach to international relations and its potential effects on the global order.The Renegade Order, How Trump Wields American Power, Hal Brands, March/April 2025, Published on February 25, 2025,

[8] Wolf, M. (2025, February 25). The US is now the enemy of the West. Financial Times.

• Martin Wolf argues that recent U.S. foreign policy decisions, including the abandonment of Ukraine, position the country as an adversary to Western interests.

[9] Heyuan, H. (2025, March 12). Weaken and control: The US strategy for Eurasia and China. ThinkChina.(https://www.thinkchina.sg/politics/weaken-and-control-us-strategy-eurasia-and-china)

• This article explores the U.S. strategy to weaken both Russia and Europe to maintain its influence over Eurasia and China.

[10] Mackinder, H. J. (1904). The geographical pivot of history. The Geographical Journal, 23(4), 421–437.

• In this seminal paper, British geographer Halford John Mackinder introduces the Heartland Theory, positing that the central region of Eurasia (the "Heartland") holds the key to global dominance due to its strategic and resource-rich position. This work has profoundly influenced geopolitical thought and policy-making throughout the 20^thcentury.​

[11] Hopper, T. (2025, March 17). Trump and the return to economic colonialism: Coercive diplomacy as a new tool. Eurasia Review.(https://www.eurasiareview.com/17032025-trump-and-the-return-to-economic-colonialism-coercive-diplomacy-as-a-new-tool-oped/)

• Timothy Hopper discusses President Trump's tactics of coercive diplomacy and their resemblance to historical economic colonialism, focusing on recent dealings with European nations.

The choices we have to make after the elections

Friedrich Merz has won. He has achieved his personal goal. In all likelihood, he will become Germany's tenth Chancellor with the second-worst election result in the history of the CDU/CSU. Angela Merkel already acknowledged his qualifications for this path during the launch of her memoir, "Freedom," in December 2024 (zas-freiburg.de), when she attributed to him an "unconditional will to power"—adding, "and that's why I wish him well."

This statement, upon reflection, is rather compromising, although it appears to have been genuinely intended as a compliment—a recognition of Merz’s determination. Should an individual who prioritises himself and his ambitions above everything and everyone else be considered the best choice for Germany's welfare? Reducing Germany's future to a personal career ambition can hardly be what we need.

In Friedrich Merz, this path becomes particularly evident—but he is hardly an exception; rather, this seems to be the rule (the political career).

The future Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany will scarcely be envied. As long as the firewall ("Brandmauer") against the right wing AFD prevents a truly "grand coalition," the only feasible option is a medium-sized coalition with a thoroughly exhausted SPD. Following its worst electoral result in 137 years, this would deny the SPD an opportunity for renewal in opposition, sealing its permanent decline and marking the end of German Social Democracy.

Yet, this would not even be the only dramatic change looming ahead.

The whole of Europe is undoubtedly at a historic crossroads. One path leads to strategic autonomy, political unity and a strengthening of its own capabilities, explicitly including military capabilities, in order to achieve genuine independence.

The alternative path entails becoming heavily dependent on the United States, relying increasingly on the US for economic and security matters—effectively formalising Europe's status as a vassal state. 

This decision will define Europe's role and position in the future global landscape.

The situation is grave. On 26 February 2025, Ian Bremmer rhetorically asked: "Can Friedrich Merz be the leader Germany—and Europe—need?" The short answer is no. Lukas Hermsmeier of the NYT agrees. Bremmer, being a journalist, provides a longer yet useful answer.

Nevertheless, Friedrich Merz struck the right chord, correctly addressing the urgency when he declared his "absolute priority" as Chancellor would be "strengthening Europe" to achieve "independence" from the United States. The Trump administration appears largely indifferent to Europe's fate—a fact even Friedrich Merz has now recognised.

Before Washington began adopting a significantly harsher tone, Merz was known as a committed transatlanticist. However, he now also senses that not only German interests are at stake, but Europe's future—and perhaps even more.

Yet, he clearly lacks a coherent vision for strengthening Europe, or at least has not articulated one. Indeed, Europe as a respected international actor with real influence on the world stage does not yet exist; it still needs to be created.

An independent and confident Europe, impervious to division by either "friend" or "foe" (should such distinctions exist among states), would require a fundamentally different structure than today's EU: a federal state rather than a loose confederation. Such an entity, unlike the current and often somewhat mocked EU, could genuinely influence world affairs.

For China, for example, Europe’s strategic decision would have significant consequences. On the one hand, a more independent Europe could counterbalance the global strategy of the US, creating a more favourable international environment for China and, by extension, for Europe itself.

Conversely, complete dependence on the US would strengthen American global dominance and increase strategic pressure on China. If Europe continues down this path of reliance, it risks becoming an economic "crowbar," harming its own interests in the process.

To be taken seriously, a state must be large, strong, and reliable. This encompasses economic power, military strength, and political actions—a fact as obvious as it is logical.

Yet, for enough European states to move decisively in this direction, they must unfortunately first feel significant pressure to act. There is a faint hope that the current unclear security situation is already providing such an impetus.

While previously the US was unequivocally regarded as Europe's political and military shield, Europe now faces a delicate choice: becoming a vassal protected by the US or pursuing genuine independence amidst global uncertainty. 

It is plausible that Europe may be pressured into making this decision by its supposed protector. The retired libertarian conservative American politician Dr Ron Paul rhetorically asks: "US taxpayers are forced to cover more than half of the entire NATO budget while European countries rattle sabres at Russia and threaten war. If Europe feels so threatened by Russia, why don’t they cover the costs of their own defence? Why do poor Americans have to pay for the defence of rich Europeans? "

The situation, of course, is far more complex than portrayed here. Historically, the US benefited considerably from this division of responsibilities—a separate topic in itself. However, what is abundantly clear is the radical shift in opinion—a seismic event for Europe.

This sounds like a wake-up call. Perhaps it will succeed. Yet, I am not entirely convinced that, once awakened, we have the right leadership teams in our European governments; rather, I doubt it. Are they not all too preoccupied with their personal careers?

One thing, however, should be clear: Germany will not be accepted as Europe's leading nation. Europe must reinvent itself entirely.

What we have built so far might seem impressive—but sadly, it will not suffice in the near future.

The people have voted. They now have to live with the result. But the more momentous choices still have to be made.

Nach der Wahl ist vor der Wahl

Friedrich Merz hat gewonnen. Er hat sein ganz persönliches Ziel erreicht. Aller Voraussicht nach wird er mit dem zweit-schlechtesten Wahlergebnis der CDU/CSU-Geschichte der 10. Deutsche Bundeskanzler werden. Dass er die Voraussetzungen für diesen Weg hatte, hat ihm bereits Angela Merkel anlässlich der Vorstellung ihrer Memoiren "Freiheit" im Dezember 2024 bescheinigt (zas-freiburg.de), indem sie ihm den „unbedingten Willen zur Macht“ attestierte - mit dem Zusatz 'und deshalb gönne ich es ihm'.  

Diese bei einigem Nachdenken kompromittierende Aussage war offenbar ernsthaft als Kompliment, als Anerkennung von Merz' Entschlossenheit gemeint. Ein Mensch, der sich und sein Ziel allem und allen anderen voranstellt, soll also die beste Wahl zum Wohl Deutschlands sein?  Die Zukunft Deutschlands als eine persönliche Karriere. Doch wohl nicht ernsthaft.

Bei Friedrich Merz wird dieser Weg besonders deutlich werden – eine Ausnahme aber ist er mitnichten, eher die Regel (Die politische Karriere).

Zu beneiden ist der zukünftige Kanzler de Bundesrepublik Deutschland allerdings keineswegs. Solange die „Brandmauer“ zur AFD gegen eine wirklich „große Koalition“ noch hält, ist nur eine mittelgroße Koalition mit einer völlig erschöpften SPD denkbar. Dieser würde damit, nach ihrem schlechtesten Wahlergebnis seit 137 Jahren, die Erneuerung in der Opposition verwehrt. Ihr endgültiger Untergang wäre damit besiegelt, die deutsche Sozialdemokratie damit Geschichte.

Das wäre aber nicht einmal der einzige dramatische Wandel, der uns bevorsteht.

Ganz Europa steht zweifelsohne an einem historischen Scheideweg. Der eine Weg führt zur strategischen Autonomie, zur politischen Einheit und der Stärkung der eigenen militärischen Fähigkeiten, um echte Unabhängigkeit zu erreichen. 

Der andere Weg bedeutet, sich in eine starke Abhängigkeit von den USA zu begeben und sich in wirtschaftlichen und sicherheitspolitischen Fragen noch stärker auf sie zu verlassen, also ganz offiziell ein Vasallenstaat zu werden. 

Diese Entscheidung wird Europas Rolle und Position in der zukünftigen globalen Landschaft bestimmen.

Die Lage ist ernst. Ian Bremmer fragte rhetorisch am 26. Februar 2025: „Kann Friedrich Merz der Führer sein, den Deutschland - und Europa -braucht?“ Nun, die kurze Antwort lautet nein. Das meint auch Lukas Hermsmeier von der NYT. Bremmer, als Journalist, gibt eine längere Antwort, die jedoch hilfreich ist.

Immerhin traf Friedrich Merz traf den rechten Ton, ordnete die Dringlichkeit angemessen ein, als er bekundete, dass seine „absolute Priorität“ als Kanzler darin bestehen wird, „Europa zu stärken“, um „Unabhängigkeit“ von den Vereinigten Staaten zu erlangen. Denn die Trump-Administration scheint dem Schicksal Europas „weitgehend gleichgültig“ gegenüberzustehen. Das hat inzwischen auch Friedrich Merz erkannt.

Bevor Washington begann, einen deutlich raueren Ton anzuschlagen, war Merz als überzeugter Transatlantiker bekannt. Jetzt aber scheint auch er zu ahnen, dass nicht nur deutsche Interessen auf dem Spiel stehen, sondern die Zukunft Europas und vielleicht sogar noch mehr.

Eine Idee, wie eine Stärkung Europas zu bewerkstelligen wäre, hat er allerdings offensichtlich nicht. Zumindest hat er sie nicht geäußert. Und überhaupt, Europa als international geachteter und auf der Weltbühne ernst genommener Akteur gibt es noch nicht, es muss erst noch geschaffen werden.

Ein unabhängiges und selbstbewusstes Europa, das weder von „Freund“ noch „Feind“ (sollte es unter Staate so etwas geben) in Einzelstaaten auseinander dividiert werden kann, wäre ein deutlich anders Kontrakt als die bisherige EU: Ein Bundesstaat anstelle eines Staatenbundes.  Eine solche Entität könnte, anders als die bisherige, eher belächelte EU, tatsächlich Einfluss auf die Geschicke der Welt nehmen. 

Für China beispielsweise hätte eine richtungsweisende Entscheidung Europas erhebliche strategische Auswirkungen. Zum einen wäre ein unabhängigeres Europa in der Lage, die globale Strategie der USA bis zu einem gewissen Grad auszugleichen und ein günstigeres internationales Umfeld für China und damit auch für Europa zu schaffen. 

Umgekehrt würde eine vollständige Abhängigkeit Europas von den USA die globale Dominanz der USA stärken und den strategischen Druck auf China erhöhen. Wenn Europa weiterhin vollständig von den USA sein wird, würde dies die globale Dominanz der USA stärken und den strategischen Druck auf China erhöhen. Europa würde zu eigenen Schaden als wirtschaftliche „Brechstange“ eingesetzt werden.

Um ernst genommen zu werden, muss ein Staat groß, stark und verlässlich sein. Das betrifft die wirtschaftliche Kraft, die militärische Stärke und die politischen Aktionen. Das ist so wohlbekannt, wie banal.

Damit sich ausreichend viele Europäische Staaten aber in diese Richtung bewegen, müssen sie schon einen erheblichen Handlungsdruck spüren.  Vielleicht gibt die aktuell unklare Sicherheitslage bereits einen Anstoß zum Handeln. 

Während nämlich bisher die USA eindeutig als eine politisch-militärische Stütze für Europa empfunden wurden, steht Europa heute vor einer heiklen Entscheidung: ein Vasall unter dem Schutz der USA zu werden oder inmitten der Ungewissheit einer weltpolitisch unübersichtlichen Situation echte Unabhängigkeit anzustreben? 

Es ist gut möglich, dass Europa von ebendieser vermeintlichen Schutzmacht zu einer Entscheidung gedrängt wird. So fragt denn der libertäre, konservative amerikanische Politiker im Ruhestand Dr. Ron Paul auch rhetorisch: „Die US-Steuerzahler sind gezwungen, mehr als die Hälfte des gesamten NATO-Haushalts zu finanzieren, während die europäischen Länder mit den Säbeln gegen Russland rasseln und mit Krieg drohen. Wenn sich Europa so sehr von Russland bedroht fühlt, warum trägt es dann nicht die Kosten für seine eigene Verteidigung? Warum müssen die armen Amerikaner für die Verteidigung der reichen Europäer aufkommen? Verpflichtungen gegenüber der NATO und anderen internationalen Organisationen zu beenden.“ 

Zwar ist die Situation keineswegs so simpel, wie hier dargestellt. Auch sind die USA in der Vergangenheit recht gut mit dieser Aufgabenverteilung gefahren. (Das aber ist ein gesondertes Thema.) Was hier allerdings sehr deutlich wird, ist der radikale Meinungsumschwung – Für Europa ein Erdbeben.

Das klingt nach einem Weckruf. Vielleicht gelingt es ja. Ich bin mir jedoch nicht so sicher, ob wir, einmal auferweckt, bereits die richtigen Führungsteams in unseren europäischen Regierungen haben, eher bezweifle ich es. Sind sie nicht alle zu sehr mit ihren eigenen Karrieren beschäftigt?

Aber eines sollte klar sein: Deutschland wird als führende Nation nicht akzeptiert werden. Europa muss sich insgesamt neu erfinden. 

Was wir bisher aufgebaut haben, mag schon beachtlich aussehen - aber leider wird es auch in naher Zukunft nicht mehr ausreichen.

Das Volk hat gewählt. Es muss jetzt mit dem Ergebnis leben. Die schwerwiegenderen Wahlentscheidungen aber stehen uns noch bevor.