[By Guancha Network Columnist Yann Moer]

In the Biden era, we are committed to "demystifying" the values of white liberals and pointing out their double standards; in the Trump 2.0 era, we should be committed to "demystifying" realism and pointing out its pitfalls.

If you tended to support realism during the time when the values of white liberals were rampant, then now you should be wary of a special group hiding under the banner of realism - appeasers.

During the 90-day tariff exemption granted by Trump, the world was in a state of mutual observation, except for China, which had no way to look at others because many countries regarded China as the leader and expected the resulting herd effect, not for everyone to jump off the cliff together, but to find another way out.

Therefore, in the face of Trump's maximum pressure, China needs to focus on internal appeasement rather than any external country.

Other than China, the most important participant in this tariff competition is the EU. The problem with this alliance of nations is that its appeasers do not want to be just part of the flock, but hope to be the leader, aiming to lead the flock into another sheepfold with even worse conditions, and they advocate that "being enslaved is better than jumping off the cliff."

The goal of some European appeasers is to become the head slave, tasked with managing the slaves for the master, so that the EU can still maintain its status as America's top disciple, pretending it is not a slave.

Fairly speaking, there are elites within the EU who genuinely want to escape American domination, but if they want to become mainstream opinions, they must pretend to walk the middle path, otherwise they will be marginalized as extremists.

However, the middle ground is the domain of appeasers. The biggest characteristic of appeasers is to "seek risk avoidance in all things," and elites who believe that pursuing autonomous status is worth taking risks rarely find a path that can both free them from American dominance and reduce risks. Therefore, outsiders often see the EU, this supranational organization, as being caught between "neither getting what it wants nor losing what it has" while trying to have it both ways.

In theory, once you step onto the arena, don't expect to leave unscathed, but European appeasers always have delusions of escaping unharmed. Based on this, I believe that the EU must kneel before the US, and currently they are only pondering how to "half-kneel." And once Europe half-kneels, they will particularly despise those countries that insist on not kneeling, and will more faithfully serve as America's enforcers, tasked with crippling those who refuse to kneel.

Appeasers are a large faction within the European establishment, and their political spectrum ranges from center-left to center-right.

I have always advocated that China should "divide and rule" the EU, not to expect them to unite or be independent, precisely because of this. This article uses the EU as an example to mainly discuss the characteristics, thoughts, and pros and cons of appeasers, providing a model for similar discussions within our own internal context.

In short, Trump's best friend overseas is the appeasers of various countries.

The goal of European appeasers is to be the number one slave of the American master

The EU must kneel, and is currently pondering how to "half-kneel"

The Chinese connotation of "appeasement" has long been turned negative, often equated with "surrender," so few people talk about the complexity behind this word. Appeasement is thoroughly realistic, and if you like realism but dislike appeasement, it's a bit strange.

The scariest thing about appeasers is that their arguments are pragmatic, rational, and take the overall situation into account, which can cater to the psychology of most people who simply seek stability and development. The so-called herd effect refers to the psychology of risk aversion, believing that the direction everyone is going is the safest, and there is nothing safer than pragmatic, rational, and big-picture views.

Where is the danger? The danger lies in the fact that "pragmatic, rational, and big-picture" are sometimes "cowardly, overthinking, and indecisive" euphemisms, which is the duality of appeasement. History often judges whether a specific appeaser belongs to the positive or negative side based solely on results.

Just by reviewing World War II history, one would find that Churchill, who advocated war, had no clue how to win the war, and his proposals carried extremely high risks. On the other hand, the appeasers had a hundred reasons to compromise with Germany. History judges right and wrong based on victory or defeat, thus making appeasement a symbol of shame and foolishness after the war. Rationally speaking, Churchill was wrong, but he ended up being right in the outcome.

Currently, Europe is divided between war and peace under Trump's tariff stick, showing that appeasement has not been swept into the dustbin of history but remains vigorous. Why? Because the advocates of appeasement are pragmatic, rational, and consider the overall situation.

For the European establishment, which firmly believes that "politics is the art of compromise," surrender always has the highest cost-effectiveness, and such thinking is always filled with their own problems rather than those of their opponents, thus often exhibiting a rational color and mature attitude, persuading people that being abused is better than dying.

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Karas recently said that the US gives Europe "tough love" ("Tough love"). "Anyway, it's still love, better than no love at all." ("It's love nonetheless, so it's better than no love")

A European commentator put it very succinctly, "The problem with Europeans is that they have never strategically thought about foreign policy, and they suddenly face a situation where strategic thinking is required." People who habitually submit do not need strategic thinking or tactical reserves, as that is the master's concern.

The current situation is that the master's gun is pointed at the ones who have been habitually submitting.

China's initial victory in the trade war is bad news more than good news for the EU appeasers, because Trump has the determination to achieve a complete victory in the European battlefield to cover up the failure record of the war against China. That's why Trump said that Europe is "more despicable" than China.

Theoretically, the party enjoying a trade surplus is at a disadvantage in negotiations. However, the fact proves that this theory does not apply to Sino-US trade. But it is worth noting that only China is an exception because the US dependence on Chinese goods exceeds the logic of trade surpluses. In other words, other economies are still at a disadvantage in their negotiations with the US.

Therefore, the strongest argument for the EU appeasers is that "China is the leader in Sino-US relations, and the US is the leader in US-EU relations." This statement comes from a German commentator who has recently been frequently publishing appeasement viewpoints in British media.

Why British media? Because Britain has already surrendered to the US and psychologically hopes the EU will follow suit. If the EU also learns from China not to kneel, then Britain's humiliation will be historically ranked, leaving a stench for generations to come. In other words, if you want to find appeasement arguments within the EU, look for them in British media.

Is the statement "the US is the leader in US-EU relations" wrong? Not at all, it is a completely realistic description. Behind this belief lie a host of credible evidence proving that compromising with the US is the best strategy.

These pieces of evidence briefly stated are that the EU needs the US more than the opposite. Unlike the US's dependence on China, goods exported from the EU to the US are not essential items or lack alternatives, such as luxury cars, wine, and luxury goods. Conversely, the EU needs the US's oil, natural gas, digital services, and other projects that are hard to replace. Among these, energy-wise, since the EU has chosen to be enemies with Russia, options naturally decrease.

Furthermore, Trump seems to want banks to buy US bonds, which would further devalue the dollar, severely harming European exports, especially Germany's. If the EU retaliates against the US, it would harm countries heavily dependent on American goods like Belgium, France, Ireland, and the Netherlands.

Although the investment market selling US bonds and dollars to buy EU bonds and euros seems beneficial to the EU, the flip side of the coin is also a fact - Italy and France have higher debt rates than the US, and completely breaking away from the US would simultaneously affect US bonds and EU bonds, potentially triggering a global bond market collapse.

Even though the rationale for compromising with the US is sound and convincing, even appeasers cannot help but admit that the greatest risk of compromise comes from Trump's credibility. After witnessing Canada and Mexico's experiences, all parties have deeply believed that any agreement reached with the US only brings temporary peace, not the final resolution. In other words, compromise certainly doesn't bring long-term peace but instead facilitates the US taking what it pleases.

This balance forces appeasers to come up with another strategy - simply lying flat and doing nothing. Let Trump impose tariffs on the EU if he wants to, and the EU will not retaliate. This move may seem like masochism, but it makes sense because only American consumers will bear the brunt of the tariffs, sparing European consumers from punishment.

From the perspective of appeasement, the structural factors of US-EU relations reasonably predict that the EU must kneel, and currently it is merely pondering how to "half-kneel," and lying flat without retaliation is "half-kneeling."

Rationally suffering abuse

Objectively speaking, the appeasers' arguments for compromise indeed make sense. However, as mentioned earlier, this is a lack of strategic vision and tactical preparation. Once Trump's intentions are understood, it becomes clear that his tariff stick primarily targets American and European enterprises. Washington aims to attract investment back to rebuild America and adjust global supply chains to benefit America.

Thus, the countermeasures suitable for the EU are not necessarily tariffs but could be banning European companies from investing in the US. If the EU can broaden its vision, it should use outward investment "detachment from the US" as a bargaining chip rather than timidly and lazily lying flat.

The core issue of the trade war is not trade itself but the fact that "America is short of money" or "America is in debt." Therefore, the best bargaining chip is "not giving money." If the EU merely ignores US tariffs and neither taxes American goods nor prevents domestic capital from moving to the US, it effectively abandons its most important bargaining chip, allowing Trump to win twice and mockingly say every day that you "kiss his ass."

That's why appeasers' biggest flaw is that they exaggerate their own problems and downplay their opponent's issues, leading them to always conclude with "compromise," despite the pragmatic, rational, and big-picture nature of their reasoning process.

Their problems go beyond this. Appeasers also set a ceiling, limiting their strategic options by viewing China as an opponent, believing China is more "toxic" than the US because European enterprises cannot compete with Chinese enterprises. Besides China, appeasers fear that retaliating against the US would benefit the UK with lower tax rates, causing domestic capital to "move north."

This line of thinking, though somewhat accurate, is foolish. In the face of external shocks, it usually requires narrowing the impact scope to achieve low-cost and efficient recovery, but appeasers complain about having too few enemies, unnecessarily placing themselves in a false state of being surrounded on all sides, leaving only the option of compromising with the US.

The EU is searching everywhere for potential allies, but they are all "small fries," with the largest ones set as opponents, due to the mindset of the leader sheep. Clearly lacking confidence yet full of self-esteem, they cannot possibly achieve independence but only invite self-inflicted trouble.

In this global game, China is undoubtedly the leader. Within the EU, there are indeed smart people who argue that only by synchronizing with China can Europe find its footing. Independent action or seeking alternative paths has no chance of success.

During ceasefires, appeasement is always fertile ground, quickly leading to the argument of "no fighting, no peace, no defense, no death, no surrender, no retreat," lying flat as a response, and self-deceptively claiming that "sometimes, showing courage means doing nothing."

As a result, a basically evenly matched contest becomes entirely a matter of rhetoric. So-called democratic nations are adept at giving voters "an explanation," frequently portraying "surrender as victory."

In China's public opinion sphere, the EU's inclination to slide into submission is often attributed to Ursula von der Leyen, who is pro-American. Generally speaking, this view is correct. However, strictly speaking, the President of the EU Commission is not the "monarch" sitting across the negotiating table but more like a broker, tasked with collecting offers from EU members and then bidding to the US. Therefore, I do not think von der Leyen is a decisive figure; the real main players are Germany and France behind her.

France, Macron always sells the "illusion of autonomy" to enhance his presence, although he is a small India on the Atlanticist train, he has never stepped off. Germany, mired in so-called red-green politics, is pragmatic in civilian life but unrealistic in politics. Although an alternative pragmatic party emerged, the establishment powerfully "suppressed" it, preventing it from entering the decision-making circle.

As long as Germany and France remain weak, "half-kneeling" towards the US is the only feasible option. Von der Leyen's role is merely to persuade Germany and France, which originally did not want to fight, to kneel.

Von der Leyen is just a puppet on strings

Never waste a good crisis

One of the claims of appeasers is correct, "never waste a good crisis, use it to make bold decisions and reforms," meaning that pressure from the US should drive internal reforms within the EU. Churchill's famous saying is well-known among Europeans, but tragically, they only know it by heart.

At the beginning of Liberation Day, many people hoped that the EU would reach a "Comprehensive Investment Agreement" with China, but expectations soon fell through. We should know that even in terms of investment regulations, there are significant differences between Italy and France, and the EU's tangled regulatory framework fundamentally limits their decision-making options and possibilities for unity. Appeasers pointed this out to argue that "managing your own affairs" is more important than "detaching from the US," because without the former, there can be no latter. This idea is not wrong either.

Therefore, expecting the EU to be independent and autonomous is like hoping for plants to grow on Mars. While appeasers make some valid points on certain levels, wasting a good crisis means wasting an opportunity if you decide to "half-kneel."

In the trade war arena, China does not need to provide any form of assistance to the EU, nor does it need to; ensuring that the "not kneeling" outcome is more fruitful than "half-kneeling" is the greatest gift for Europeans.

The difference between basing actions on reality to wage war and basing them on reality to compromise lies only in daring to take risks to pursue higher goals. Courage does not come from "doing nothing"; it comes from knowing oneself and one's enemy and not fearing sacrifice.

This article is an exclusive contribution from Guancha Network. The content purely reflects the author's personal views and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, or legal responsibility will be pursued. Follow Guancha Network on WeChat (guanchacn) for daily interesting articles.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7512617455840248331/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and welcome your feedback below by clicking the "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" buttons.