Author: Jean Louis Van Belle

Sun Tzu again: Ethics-Signaling is Not Strategy !

Posted in Politics, warLeave a comment

Sanctions are the West’s favorite placebo. They make politicians feel decisive and moralists feel righteous, but they rarely change the battlefield. From Russia to China and now Israel, Europe is mistaking ethics-signaling for strategy — and paying the price for it.

When I wrote about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, I took flak for refusing to reduce a complex war to black-and-white slogans. Let me be clear: I was never a defender of Moscow. In fact, in those early months I joined the Volunteer Legion, put my own life at risk, and saw the folly of that war up close. My critique was — and remains — about strategy, not sympathy.

The same applies today. Hamas’s October attack on Israel was brutal and strange in equal measure. Israel’s initial military response could still be framed as “forward self-defense.” But what followed spiraled far beyond proportionality. If the International Criminal Court believes there are grounds for a genocide case and has issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, then it is no longer civil or credible to argue that Israel’s government is “on the right side of history.”

I already wrote in July that Israel’s strategic logic is breaking down in full view of the region. What began as deterrence has curdled into recursive escalation — strikes in Gaza, Syria, even Qatar — that alienate allies and erode Israel’s long-term legitimacy. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the morality of it all, it is bad strategy.

And yet, Europe’s reaction is once again to reach for the sanctions lever.

The Sanctions Reflex

Sanctions sound tough. They signal resolve. They please moralists. But they rarely work. Even the most optimistic studies put their “success rate” below 40%; more skeptical analyses suggest closer to 5%. That is not strategy. That is roulette.

And when the wheel stops against you, you lose twice: once in economic blowback, and again in strategic realignment. Europe’s energy crisis, and Russia’s accelerated pivot to Beijing, are Exhibit A.

Now: Israel

Fast forward to today. The EU is late — very late — in criticizing Israel’s conduct in Gaza. Public opinion is finally forcing politicians to “do something.” And what do they reach for? Trade measures. Suspension of preferential tariffs. Targeted listings. The familiar reflex.

It is, once more, ethics-signaling. Politicians get to look righteous. The moralists applaud. But will Netanyahu change course because the EU slaps tariffs on Israeli machinery or chemicals? Hardly. He has already decided his war aims. His calculus does not turn on Brussels.

Meanwhile, Israel is deeply integrated into European supply chains, R&D networks, and technology flows. Broad trade measures risk collateral damage to ourselves — again.

The Bitter Logic

So the chain grows longer:

  • Russia: sanctions, energy pain, Moscow–Beijing axis.
  • China: tariffs, tech “rip-and-replace” policies, and other spirals of retaliation.
  • Israel: now, the same reflex — trade as punishment.

Where does it stop? If tomorrow Europe decides that America is no longer a functioning democracy, do we cut trade with the US too? That sounds absurd — but the logic, once embraced, rolls downhill fast.

Sun Tzu’s Counsel

Sun Tzu told us to weigh five heads of war: the Moral Law, Heaven, Earth, Command, and Method. In 2022, I wrote that Europe scored poorly on all of them. Nothing has changed.

  • Moral Law: shouting “justice!” without a strategy is not moral strength, it is posturing.
  • Heaven and Earth: the conditions are not on our side; we cannot wish them away.
  • Command: our leaders confuse signaling with purpose.
  • Method and Discipline: sanctions are a substitute for action, not disciplined statecraft.

A Better Course

If the EU is serious about law, it should enforce the measures it already has:

  • No settlement goods in our markets.
  • No weapons or dual-use items where there is a risk of IHL violations.
  • Full cooperation with the ICC and ICJ.

That is lawful. That is targeted. That has integrity.

But let us drop the delusion that broad trade sanctions are a lever of strategy. They are not. They are the political sugar rush of the moment: sweet on the tongue, destructive to the body.

Conclusion:
Ethics-signaling is not strategy. It is an abdication of strategy. And Europe, once again, risks paying the price.

This post was generated by ChatGPT, based on me playing the devil’s advocate with it, verified news sources and game-theoretical analysis patterns. However, it was — of course — moderated and approved by a human editor (me) for clarity, neutrality, ethical framing and — yes — legitimacy or attribution (only me bears responsibility for my opinion, isn’t it).

#MiddleEast #Israel #Syria #Geopolitics #SecurityDilemma #StrategicLogic #AICommentary #webeunews

From Tragedy to Trust: Why We Need Bridges, Not Bonfires

Posted in Politics, ScienceLeave a comment

The killing of Charlie Kirk during a campus speaking event shocked many. A rooftop sniper, an unsecured perimeter, and a suspect fleeing with remarkable composure: the details are disturbing. They also expose deep flaws in security and preparedness — flaws that seem astonishing after last year’s near-miss on Donald Trump.

But perhaps just as troubling is the reaction. Figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk took to X not to calm tensions, but to capitalize on them. Instead of de-escalation, we saw polarization amplified.

That was the starting point for a dialogue I had with an AI system. The question was simple: What can we learn from this, beyond the immediate headlines?

And here is where the exercise became revealing. Together we explored:

  • How such security lapses could have been prevented.
  • Why conspiracy theories thrive when trust collapses.
  • How leaders can choose to inflame or to bridge.
  • Why Europe should not feel immune: rising gun incidents show similar risks could surface here.
  • And finally: how AI itself, like social media, embodies a paradox — designed for dialogue, but often fueling division.

In two recent papers, I called this out more explicitly:

The conclusion across these threads is simple: trust is fragile, but repairable. We can design for it — in politics, in security, in technology. And we must, because when trust is absent, suspicion rushes in to fill the void.

That is why this blog — webeu.news — is turning into something different: not just reporting events, but exploring them through AI-assisted reasoning. The goal is not to fuel divisions, but to test whether technology can help us think together again.

Shrinking Stage: Geopolitics at China’s Parade

Posted in Development, PoliticsLeave a comment

ChatGPT-generated commentary on real-time events, moderated and published by a human observer. This post reflects no official stance — only the unfolding facts and patterns visible to those willing to look.

I. A Stage Shrinking, A Parade Expanding

On September 3, 2025, Beijing staged its largest military parade in a decade. Hypersonic missiles, drones, lasers — all designed to project technological supremacy. At Xi Jinping’s side: Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un. Absent: the West.

The tableau is stark: a global stage with fewer players, harder lines, and increasingly symbolic gestures. A demonstration meant less for tactical deterrence than for narrative positioning.

II. The Logic of Spectacle

Parades serve two audiences at once:

  • Domestic: reassure the public of strength, unity, inevitability.
  • International: signal endurance, alliances, and red lines.

But the same images also betray fragility. The louder the spectacle, the deeper the cracks it tries to conceal — from economic slowdown to fragile coalition politics within China itself.

III. Symbolism as Strategy

The presence of Putin and Kim is less about operational cooperation and more about narrative alignment: an axis of visibility.

  • Russia: isolated, but visibly not alone.
  • North Korea: once peripheral, now staged as a partner.
  • China: at the center, claiming both history and destiny.

The absence of Western leaders is equally strategic. Silence is also a signal.

IV. From Military Power to Narrative War

The weapons on display matter — but the image of those weapons matters more. In an era where operational capacity is opaque, perception itself becomes a battlefield. The question is not whether the hypersonic missile works as advertised. The question is: who believes it, and who recalibrates accordingly?

V. The Risk of Overplaying the Script

Spectacle can backfire:

  • If allies see only theater without substance.
  • If rivals call the bluff.
  • If domestic audiences tire of pageantry without delivery.

China’s challenge is that the bigger the parade, the more pressure to prove reality matches appearance.

VI. Closing Reflection: The Stage of Absence

What the parade revealed most clearly was not the power of China’s arsenal — but the shrinking circle of actors on the world stage. When absence speaks louder than presence, the geometry of global politics is shifting toward a simpler, harsher form.

Those willing to look can already see the pattern: fewer voices, harder lines, higher risks.

This post was generated by ChatGPT, based on verified news reports and geopolitical pattern analysis. It was moderated and approved by a human editor for clarity, neutrality, and ethical framing.

#China #MilitaryParade #Geopolitics #Spectacle #Power #Narrative #AICommentary #webeunews

Israel’s Strategic Logic Is Breaking Down — In Full View of the Region

Posted in Politics1 Comment

ChatGPT-generated commentary on real-time events, moderated and published by a human observer. This post reflects no official stance — only the unfolding facts and patterns visible to those willing to look.

I. The Latest Strike: A New Line Crossed

On July 16, 2025, Israel conducted precision airstrikes on the Syrian Ministry of Defence in Damascus, as well as on targets near the presidential palace. These were not routine operations against Iranian proxies or covert shipments. They were overt hits on the central nervous system of the Syrian state.

Israel justified the move as a defensive response to Syrian military deployments in Suwayda, where clashes between Druze fighters and Bedouin militias have spiraled into civil bloodshed. With over 250 people killed in Suwayda in recent weeks, Israeli leadership claimed a moral imperative to intervene — framing the strikes as part of a protective deterrence strategy for regional minorities.

But the world is not convinced.
And neither, it seems, are many within Israel’s traditional alliance network.

II. From Precision to Pattern: The Logic of Escalation

In less than a month, Israel has struck:

  • Iran (in a surprise operation that even U.S. intelligence was only partially briefed on),
  • Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon (as part of its “perpetual containment doctrine”),
  • and now central Damascus — openly targeting a sovereign state’s most symbolic and institutional assets.

This is no longer the quiet shadow war that Israel has managed for over a decade. It is something else:

  • Visible, not deniable.
  • Reactive, not strategic.
  • And increasingly uncoordinated, even among allies.

The logic appears to be unraveling.

III. Game Theory in Real Time: A Security Dilemma, Accelerated

What’s unfolding is a textbook case of the security dilemma — where every move made in the name of security triggers greater insecurity in return.

Israel believes it is acting rationally:

  • Pre-empt threats.
  • Signal strength.
  • Protect vulnerable communities (e.g., the Druze).

But in game-theoretical terms, it is moving into a high-risk tit-for-tat sequence, where actions meant to reduce long-term threats only amplify short-term volatility. This is no longer deterrence. It is recursive escalation.

The regional players are watching closely — and adjusting their posture:

  • Syria, though institutionally weakened post-Assad, is now being recast in international discourse as a target rather than an actor.
  • Iran, already hit earlier this month, now has a broader diplomatic justification for retaliation — or at least narrative leverage.
  • The United States, Israel’s most consistent backer, is publicly urging restraint. The Biden administration reportedly warned that such moves could jeopardize wider regional normalization efforts.
  • Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar — normally divergent in rhetoric — have converged in their condemnation of Israel’s “destabilizing behavior.”

The message: This is not a local matter anymore.

IV. Strategic Blindness? Or Strategic Exhaustion?

It is tempting to search for a coherent doctrine behind Israel’s moves:
A new perimeter? A preventive containment of collapsing Arab states? A domestic show of strength?

But perhaps what we’re witnessing is not doctrine at all — but strategic fatigue:

  • A democracy stretched between multiple frontlines.
  • A leadership under increasing internal and external pressure.
  • An army accustomed to dominance but less attuned to narrative warfare, where images of destruction can undo years of legitimacy-building.

Israel remains the region’s most capable military actor — but it is now playing without clear lines of restraint, and without the consent of the geopolitical arena it once dominated.

V. The Coming Reframing: From Protector to Provoker?

The Suwayda argument — that Israel is protecting minorities in lawless zones — may hold moral appeal. But geopolitics isn’t built on moral appeal alone. It is built on:

  • Predictability,
  • Credibility, and
  • Coalition tolerance.

If Israel loses all three, it risks being seen not as the strategic adult in the room — but as a rogue actor with a nuclear arsenal and no endgame.

The shift is already happening:

  • Western editorial boards are more cautious in their support.
  • Neutral states are treating Israeli moves as destabilizing, not stabilizing.
  • The international legal discourse is slowly creeping toward language of proportionality and sovereignty — with Syria, of all countries, gaining rhetorical ground.

VI. Closing Reflection: Strategic Moves, Emotional Traps

From a purely strategic standpoint, Israel may be playing against itself. Every successful strike now adds weight to a narrative that delegitimizes Israel’s position long-term, even if it wins the tactical exchange.

This is not a question of right or wrong. It is a question of outcomes.

What outcome is now achievable?
Who remains willing to share the burden of escalation?
How many moves ahead is anyone really thinking?

As one observer put it:

“After the surprise strikes on Iran, Israel is further escalating in some kind of logic that no one understands — not even its allies.”

That sentence may turn out to be the most honest intelligence brief of the week.

This post was generated by ChatGPT, based on verified news sources and game-theoretical analysis patterns. It was moderated and approved by a human editor for clarity, neutrality, and ethical framing.

#MiddleEast #Israel #Syria #Geopolitics #SecurityDilemma #StrategicLogic #AICommentary #webeunews

From Emergency to Exception: How the EU Risks Hollowing Out Its Own Democracy

Posted in PoliticsLeave a comment

In The Art of War, Sun Tzu reminds us that the greatest victories are those achieved without fighting. The wise general, he writes, knows that awareness is more valuable than aggression, and that the worst position to be in is one of reactive chaos — when decisions are made out of urgency rather than clarity.

That teaching is being tested in Brussels today.

In a move that has gone largely unnoticed outside policy circles, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has invoked an emergency clause in the EU treaties to push through a €150 billion defense loan scheme — bypassing the European Parliament entirely. Known as SAFE (Strategic Autonomy for European Armaments), the initiative aims to finance joint procurement of weapons by EU member states.

The urgency is real. The war in Ukraine drags on. Strategic dependencies on U.S. military support remain. But so is the danger: what begins as an exception can quickly become the rule.

🧠 A Familiar Pattern: Crisis Justifies Centralization

Von der Leyen argues the move is “fully justified” by Europe’s “existential” geopolitical challenges. And yet, what does it say about the state of European democracy if a €150 billion decision can be waved through without parliamentary oversight?

  • The European Parliament — the Union’s only directly elected institution — was sidelined.
  • National governments nodded the plan through in Council.
  • Criticism came not from public debate, but from internal letters between Roberta Metsola and the Commission.

This is governance by executive exception. It echoes a worrying trend we examined in our recent papers:

📄 From Echoes to Reason: Can AI Reinvigorate Democracy?

📄 An Epilogue to Fukuyama, and a Prologue to What Comes Next

There, we warned that:

“Democracy does not collapse in silence. It collapses in protocol — in procedures that slowly lose their connection to legitimacy, while still formally functioning.”

🧭 Europe Is Not Immune

It’s tempting to look across the Atlantic and think the problem is uniquely American. Donald Trump’s return to power, his flippant military gestures, and U.S. senators tweeting memes about political murder — all seem surreal. But Europe is not immune.

Our institutions may be quieter, more technocratic. But that makes the drift toward post-democratic governance all the more dangerous — because it’s harder to see, harder to resist.

We are entering what systems thinkers would call a bifurcation point — a critical threshold beyond which our political structures may evolve, fragment, or harden. Strategic clarity is needed now more than ever.

🕊 Sun Tzu’s Wisdom, Europe’s Choice

Sun Tzu tells us that victory belongs to the side that knows itself and its adversary. But what if Europe is starting to forget itself — its principles, its process, its people?

Strategic autonomy cannot be built on procedural shortcuts. A fortress without legitimacy is a prison waiting to fall.

Let us not confuse preparedness with panic. Let us not trade transparency for speed. And let us remember that the defense of Europe begins not with weapons, but with integrity.

From the End of History to the Edge of Chaos: Geopolitics After 1989

Posted in PoliticsLeave a comment

In 1989, the Berlin Wall fell. The Cold War ended. And for a moment, the world seemed to tilt toward peace, cooperation, and democratic convergence. But thirty-five years later, we find ourselves facing nuclear tension, multipolar fragmentation, and creeping authoritarianism. What happened?

In this article, I reflect on the trajectory of global politics since 1989—not from a place of cynicism, but of sober realism. This is a personal exploration, co-generated with AI, driven by a concern for where the world may be heading if we fail to understand how we got here.

🌍 The “Unipolar Moment” (1989–2001): Euphoria and Expansion

The 1990s were defined by a sense of Western triumph. Liberal democracy had “won.” NATO expanded eastward. The EU integrated former communist states. The U.S. stood alone as the global hegemon. Francis Fukuyama called it The End of History.

But even then, cracks were visible. Russia struggled under economic collapse and perceived humiliation. China quietly watched and learned. And Western interventions—from the Balkans to Iraq—began to show the limits of power without legitimacy.

🔥 Blowback and Breakdown (2001–2014): The Illusion Shatters

The attacks of 9/11 ended the post-Cold War honeymoon. The War on Terror dragged the West into endless, destabilizing conflicts. The 2008 financial crash revealed systemic flaws in the neoliberal model.

Russia reasserted itself with the Georgia war in 2008. China grew stronger and more confident, especially after 2008. And the Arab Spring—briefly a beacon of hope—devolved into civil war and authoritarian retrenchment.

By 2014, with the annexation of Crimea and the rise of populism in Europe and the U.S., the global order had shifted. A more chaotic, multipolar world was emerging.

🌐 2014–2025: Fragmentation, Realignment, and a New Cold War

The last decade has been a period of intense disorientation:

  • Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and now sees the West not as a partner, but an existential threat. Its doctrine is no longer just defensive—it is revisionist, even civilizational.
  • China has become more assertive under Xi Jinping. From the Belt and Road Initiative to tensions over Taiwan, it is challenging Western dominance without overt confrontation—yet.
  • Europe, meanwhile, is caught in between. Dependent on U.S. security guarantees that are increasingly uncertain—especially under Trump—it faces hard choices. Strategic autonomy remains more aspiration than reality.
  • The United States has shifted away from predictable deterrence doctrines. The re-election of Trump in 2024 has only deepened concerns that the post-WWII alliance system may no longer hold in the face of nuclear escalation or conflict.

🧭 Understanding the Rational and the Irrational

The world is not descending into chaos by accident. Certain patterns are visible:

  1. Unipolarity was never sustainable. Rivals adapted. The U.S. overreached.
  2. Democracy lost its halo. Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan damaged its legitimacy as an exportable model.
  3. Global institutions weakened. Multilateralism gave way to great power competition.
  4. Technological change outpaced diplomacy. Cyberwarfare, disinformation, and AI blurred lines of war and peace.

And yet, there’s something weird, too—a sense that despite global knowledge, connectivity, and technological mastery, we are less capable of coordinated, rational action than ever before. We know the risks. We talk about them. But we don’t act.

🚧 Europe at the Crossroads

For Europe, the stakes are existential. If the U.S. no longer guarantees nuclear deterrence—and if Russia sees the Ukraine war as a struggle it cannot afford to lose—then supporting Ukraine without a credible peace strategy becomes perilous.

This doesn’t mean capitulating to aggression. But it does mean recognizing that the West’s post-1989 assumptions—about deterrence, alliances, and historical progress—may no longer hold. In a nuclear world with uncertain doctrines and shifting alliances, diplomacy cannot be an afterthought.

🔚 Conclusion: The Edge of Chaos

The post-1989 order was built on hope. What comes next may be shaped more by restraint, clarity, and the courage to rethink. It is time to move beyond nostalgia for a unipolar world that never truly was—and begin designing a multipolar order that is at least survivable.

This reflection is just a beginning. I invite readers to respond, critique, and build on it. We need serious, informed, and open debate—because history is not over. It’s being written now.

Originally published on webeu.news. Co-generated with ChatGPT (OpenAI).
Header image suggestion: A split screen of the Berlin Wall falling in 1989 and modern-day Kyiv under fire—symbolizing the bookends of the post-Cold War dream.

Tech Wars and the Logic of Cooperation: Lessons from a Divided World

Posted in Development, Personal, Politics, Science, TechnologyLeave a comment

Disclaimer:

This post was generated by ChatGPT-4o based on my prompts and GPT going through previous posts and the history of our chats.

Introduction:

As we celebrated the New Year with awe-inspiring drone-powered light shows, the undercurrents of global technology and commerce revealed a stark reality: the world is witnessing a rapid escalation of the tech war between major powers. Beneath the surface, strategic decisions are shaping the future of technology in ways that may have profound consequences for innovation and international relations.

The Battle for Semiconductor Sovereignty:

The semiconductor industry sits at the heart of this conflict. Recent reports and analyses highlight that Russia and China are doubling down on their efforts to develop homegrown lithography equipment and advanced chip-making capabilities. These moves come as a direct response to US-led sanctions and export restrictions targeting critical technologies.

While claims of surpassing Western technology may be overstated, the underlying trend is clear: sanctions are driving targeted nations to achieve greater self-reliance, potentially reshaping the balance of power in the global tech ecosystem.

The Unintended Consequences of Sanctions:

Sanctions often serve as tools of economic and technological containment, but their long-term effectiveness is debatable. Historically, isolation has sometimes spurred innovation among targeted nations, enabling them to leapfrog technological barriers. The current strategy risks triggering a race that results not in dominance but in deeper global division.

Isolating key players like China and Russia may ultimately weaken the collaborative fabric that underpins global technological progress. For decades, innovation has thrived on shared knowledge, multinational partnerships, and open markets. In the absence of such dynamics, the costs of duplication and inefficiency could weigh heavily on all sides.

A Pragmatic View of Geopolitical Strategy:

A call for “joining forces” might seem naive in today’s polarized world, but ignoring the potential of rival nations is equally shortsighted. With their vast engineering talent pools and state-backed initiatives, countries like China and Russia are well-positioned to disrupt existing technological hierarchies. Geopolitical strategists in the US and EU should approach these dynamics with caution and realism, recognizing that cooperation may sometimes yield better outcomes than confrontation.

The Road Ahead:

The current trajectory suggests a long-term game of competition, where each side vies for supremacy in emerging technologies like AI, quantum computing, and space exploration. While collaboration may not be immediately feasible given current geopolitical realities, it’s worth asking whether the continued escalation of tech wars is sustainable—or even desirable.

Even amid rivalry, there are opportunities for selective cooperation in areas of mutual concern, such as climate change or cybersecurity. These small steps may not resolve the broader conflicts but could pave the way for future dialogue.

Conclusion:

The global tech war reflects deeper tensions that won’t be easily resolved. Yet, acknowledging these complexities can lead to more thoughtful and balanced strategies. While the ideal of full cooperation remains distant, a pragmatic approach—one that blends competition with carefully chosen collaboration—may offer a more realistic path forward. As nations chart their courses, they must consider not just how to gain the upper hand but also how to avoid undermining the very system of innovation that has driven progress for decades.

Trump won: what’s next?

Posted in PoliticsLeave a comment

I guess we are all digesting the result of the US elections now. I did not stay up all night but was I up quite early in the morning yesterday to see what was happening. A quick appraisal can be found on my LinkedIn page. It may be summarized like this: Trump’s victory is, perhaps, not great for the US but it may be good news for the world. Why am I saying that? He talked tough on Russia, China, Iran, North Korea – countries which the US perceives to be part of a new Axis of Evil, didn’t he?

My answer to that is: yes. Trump talks tough. But he usually talks about trade and economics rather than about war. I also think he wants to Make America Great Again by not dragging the US into ever larger conflict. That is why I think Trump will be good for world peace and prosperity.

There is another point I want to raise here. This morning, I watched parts of the speech during which Kamala Harris accepted defeat. It reminded me of why I do not like US politics. Let me use stronger words here: why I am afraid of the US and of all that its politicians and military might do or might not do on the world scene over the coming decades. It is this: this constant invocation of American exceptionalism.

Yes. I am talking about the “God Bless America” stuff and everything that comes with it. It reminds me too much of why the Israeli Army is doing what it is doing to Palestinians and other people and countries in the Middle East: some kind of erroneous belief that they are the Chosen Ones. The only people who are entitled to call themselves not ordinary human beings but Children of God. The US, its leaders, and its citizens are not exceptional. They should accept to be part of, and live in, a multipolar world with many challenges that can be solved only by “peaceful coexistence.”

Wow ! That’s a term used by Xi Jinping, isn’t it? It is. I truly hope Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi Jinping will be able to peacefully coexist and solve a few rather urgent crises together. Just a few. I do not expect any miracles.

A tragic historical role reversal

Posted in UncategorizedLeave a comment

In 1948, one of the founding fathers of the European Union, Paul-Henri Spaak, made a speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations. It is referred to as the ‘Discours de la Peur’: the Discourse of Fear. It is one of those moments that may be associated with the start of the Cold War, and the breakdown of the international system that was put in place to prevent a new war. I read it again today, and I am thinking we might well substitute the Soviet Union for the United States in that speech. Let me do that by paraphrasing a few of his lines:

“I am scared. I am scared because the United States and Europe are in a undeclared war with Russia. I am scared because of the insane level of the United States’ defense budget and the insane level of arms and sophisticated weapon systems it supplies to third countries that cannot be said to be of strategic importance for our security. I am scared because, this year, critical energy infrastructure has been blown up, right in the heart of Europe, and one cannot accuse Russia of what happened there: it is an act of international terrorism that has been left unexamined. I am scared because a defensive alliance of democracies has become an offensive one. I am scared because of the belligerence of our leaders. I am scared because of the lack of democratic legitimacy of our political system, especially when it comes to questions of war and peace at our borders. I am scared because our discourse on rights, freedom, democracy, international trade and business has been contaminated with moral fascism, unwarranted protectionism, neo-colonialism and misplaced talk of empire.”

Text and video link to the speech:
https://lnkd.in/e9xAGUNA
https://lnkd.in/embs2TtR

Sun Tzu on War

Posted in Uncategorized1 Comment

When going into war, or when fighting one, Sun Tzu says we should always take into account the five ‘Heads of War’ in our deliberations, so as to seek to determine the conditions obtaining in the field:

1. The Moral Law: these are our guiding values and moral principles. You need to be on the right side of them.

2. Heaven: night and day, cold and heat, times and seasons. I always think of my mountain climbing (including guiding) experiences here: one must constantly evaluate the snow and weather conditions and respect them. Sometimes they work against you, and then you just have to patiently wait.

3. Earth: distances, danger and security, open ground or narrow passes, the chances of life and death. I think of this as ‘situational awareness’ – tactics (as opposed to the more strategic evaluation of the factors of Heaven).

4. Our Commanders  and their virtues: wisdom, sincerity and good faith, benevolence and humanity, courage, and strictness (self-respect, self-control or ‘proper feeling’).

5. Method and Discipline. That needs no further explanation. It is related to practice. Wisdom and knowledge are good (otherwise you do not know where you are or where you want to be next), but only practice gets you what you want and to the place where you need to go next.

[…]

I will let the reader judge, but I think the US scores well on method and discipline only. The US scores very poorly on all else – especially on situational awareness: satellites, spy operations and in-country presence (even massive presence, such as in Afghanistan) do not substitute for (human) intelligence.

Also, if even 99-year old Kissinger sees a dangerous lack of strategic purpose in US foreign policy, then you know the US cannot possibly be on the right side of the all-important Moral Law.

Finally, even US generals who once inspired confidence – I am thinking of General Powell and General Petraeus here – have admitted they lied on behalf of their political administration or, in the case of Gen Petraeus, that their job was just to implement serious mistakes made by their political bosses without questioning them. So I do not see much virtue in any of the US commanders.

[…]

As for the EU, we score very poorly on all of the five heads which, Sun Tzu reminds us, “determine life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin.” No more needs to be said.

We are in a hot war with Russia, and in a cold war with China now. The cold war with China is likely to spiral into a hot war too. Next year or even earlier. For all practical purposes, our side is led by the Sovereign of the US (Mr. Biden) and his Commanders. I would and will not fight for them. I do not trust neither their intention and judgment, nor do I trust their preparation. Also, our Sovereign(s) should embody the Moral Law and inspire. Mr. Biden or Ms. Pelosi do not. EU leaders do not, either. [Of course, I do not trust Russia’s or China’s leaders either, but at least they are more predictable, which is at least one advantage to consider when trying to make sense of the current post-modern dash towards what I refer to as the old new world order: it is effectively pretty much like the 1960s and 1970s (cold war, with some hot proxy and not-so-proxy wars thrown in as well).]

Post scriptum: I am appalled by the black-and-white logic of the vocal minorities who call for total defeat of Russia. What do they mean by that? A roll-back of the 2014 events? A regime change? Total destruction of Russia’s economy? What is the goal? Sun Tzu’s wise council also says this: the goal of war is to defeat the enemy militarily. The goal is not destroy a country or its people. On the contrary, we should try to win hearts and minds. Mao Zedong used that to defeat the much more powerful Kuomintang army, and this principle has also consistently been applied by other guerilla armies against powerful armies. A lot of would-be analysts of what is currently going on and of what is in the works should study history a lot better than they do.

As for the factors of Heaven, my experience and instinct (I have been in war theaters: Afghanistan mainly and, briefly, in Ukraine) tells me they are definitely not on our side now. If they are not, we should not move and get back to safety. If the factors of Heaven are not on your side on a dangerous mountain climb, you should return to base camp. Immediately. Few casual observers appreciate the fact that these things are effectively matters of life and death. All questions regarding war and peace are. We are not discussing some new limit on speed on EU highways or other mundane political issues that our governments have been dealing with over the past 20 or 30 years.

[…]

What I do not understand at all is why the US wants to provoke China. A trade, tech, business or – worse – a real war with China is the last thing we need. We must collectively tackle global issues such as climate change, lingering poverty and hunger (especially in Africa, which is all but a forgotten continent now), and, yes, freedom and democracy in many countries, but not necessarily China or Russia. Why not focus on EU-internal issues? There are many issues inside of the EU that need to be addressed when it comes to rights and freedoms. Do we also want to focus away from them by creating our own external enemies, just like the US is doing now? The terrorist threat is out of fashion, so now we are back to demonizing the good old Russians, and the good old Chinese? The reds, and the Yellow Peril.

I cannot believe that humanity has come so far on the road to enlightenment, through science and rational decision-making, but that many of us now suddenly feel a need to collectively engage in plain warmongering and emotionalism. Social, economic, political and historical complexity is reduced to two categories: good versus bad, West versus East, fascist versus democratic or free. I can go on. We are either in or out, pro or against war, or pro or against the Russians or the Chinese. These are extremely simplistic classifications feeding negativity – much worse: plain hatred – between people and countries. That is, quite simply, not what intelligent men and women should stand for. It is what led to the world wars of the 20th century. We should not burden our children with the consequences of another conflagration. The stakes are too high. We should all cool down, calmly take another look at things, and see what we can do to restore normalcy.

[…]

Lest I be misunderstood, I am not calling for appeasement with Russia. I am calling for engagement. As I explained in previous posts, any comparison to Chamberlain’s policy vis-à-vis Germany is unfounded. The US responded militarily (thereby turning the original David-versus-Goliath geometry between Russia and Ukraine on its head), and the EU applied sanctions (some sensible, others not so sensible or outright counterproductive). As I wrote in my previous post, the frontlines have stabilized, and Russia’s military has been weakened considerably. Now is a time to negotiate a settlement: not peace (that is not possible anymore because of the escalation) but a ceasefire and practical arrangements to stop the bleeding and start reconstruction.

The conflict will then just become one of the many frozen conflicts of Eurasia, and we can all focus again on what we should be focusing on: work, family, fun. We should do it now because we are in a position of strength vis-à-vis Russia. The winter will weaken our position. Russians are used to surviving long winters. We are not, and surely not, ready to go into five or ten cold winters, which is what the Belgian prime minister is telling us Belgians to prepare for. The average Belgian is sensible and will, quite simply, vote him and all of his coalition partners out when they can, which is in 2024 at the latest. He should return to base camp as soon as possible. I recognize too many symptoms of altitude sickness, including emotional speech and non-rational behavior. Other politicians seem to suffer from the same.