"Europe has been trapped in a state of erroneous values and has yet to awaken from its confusion."
"Whether Europe has the capability to support Ukraine and can continue to fight is a major question mark."
"When Europeans finally learn how to build a new world, that world will no longer belong to them."
In the more than three years since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Europe has faced comprehensive challenges in politics, economy, and society. One of the questions facing Europe is: how should Europe form a unified voice and construct its own future? In the "China Is This" program broadcast on Dragon TV on April 7th, Professor Zhang Weiwei, Dean of the China Institute at Fudan University, and Mr. Ding Yifan, a specially invited researcher at the China Institute of Fudan University, discussed Europe and dialogued with it together.
Professor Zhang Weiwei:
Not long after Trump returned to the White House, he abandoned Europe and held direct talks with Russian President Putin on ending the Russia-Ukraine conflict on February 12, 2025, meeting some of Russia's main conditions, such as refusing Ukraine's NATO membership and considering it unrealistic for Ukraine to restore its 2014 borders. The multi-round negotiations between the US and Russia excluded the EU.
Europe felt humiliated, and French President, British Prime Minister, Polish President and others flew to Washington to visit Trump one after another, but on February 26th, Trump still frankly stated that the purpose of the establishment of the EU was to bring down the United States.
Then the tariff war between the US and Europe began. Following the logic of former US Secretary of State Blinken, either at the dinner table or on the menu. Today's Ukraine is certainly on the menu, so where is Europe? The Financial Times quoted a German businessman as saying that Europeans are like children who can only sit at another table when their parents eat. Politico compared the EU to a "dessert" at a US-Russia banquet.
The Belgian Prime Minister was very sure that usually, if you are not at the negotiation table, then you can only become a dish on the menu, right? Trump has already proposed to annex Greenland. A Danish friend privately told me that in terms of the proportion of casualties among NATO troops in the Afghanistan War, Danish soldiers have died more than American soldiers, but the friendship boat can capsize at any moment; the US has never cared about old debts.
From the beginning of the Ukraine conflict, we at "This Is China" clearly judged that the US is the "fire starter" of this conflict, Ukraine is America's "pawn," which will eventually become America's "discard," and Europe is the second biggest victim. It follows the US step by step, from supporting NATO's eastward expansion to promoting "color revolutions," ultimately triggering the Ukraine conflict.
This extremely foolish approach has plunged Europe into today's "darkest hour," from refugee crises to inflation, from social divisions to economic recessions, and now it is being mercilessly mocked and abandoned by the Trump administration.
Not long ago, the senior American scholar Jeffrey Sachs made an incisive analysis of Europe's entry into the "darkest hour." He gave a speech in the European Parliament in February this year, and he said this way: In the past thirty years, Europe has completely lost direction, lacks independent foreign policy, loses strategic autonomy, and becomes a vassal of the US.
He believes that since the end of the Cold War, Europe has failed to form any effective unified and independent foreign policy. Europe does not have a unified stance, lacks a clear strategic direction, does not know what "independent European interests" are, and only blindly follows the US. Especially after 2008, Europe almost completely followed the US in international affairs.
Professor Sachs also pointed out that European foreign policy made a fundamental mistake, namely equating Europe with NATO. Europe should directly engage in dialogue with Russia and establish long-term stable cooperative relations instead of viewing Russia as an eternal enemy.
Former Singaporean diplomat Masakasu recently wrote an article in the US "Foreign Policy" pointing out that given the great divergence of values between the Trump administration and Europe, the transatlantic alliance is rapidly heading towards "collapse".
Trump urged NATO member states to allocate 5% of GDP for defense
Secondly, Europe should directly engage in new strategic negotiations with Russia and reach a "grand agreement" that respects each other's core interests. Although many European strategic experts believe that Russia poses a real threat to Europe, Mr. Masakasu pointed out that how could Russia pose a real threat to Europe with 744 million people and a GDP of 27 trillion USD?
Russia does not see Europe as a threat, nor does it think that Europe will send troops all the way to Moscow. He said that if Europe's wise men were still alive today, they would definitely support today's Europe reconciling with Russia and reaching an agreement that respects each other's core interests and makes further concessions on the Ukraine issue.
Thirdly, Europe should also reach a new strategic agreement with China. Instead of blindly following the US to oppose China, he believes that this blind following of the US results in the US looking down on Europe, and China can help Europe solve a real and long-term geopolitical nightmare, namely the explosive growth of Africa's population and the possible impact of this growth on Europe's immigration.
Mr. Masakasu explained this way: In 1950, Africa's population was only half of Europe's, today it has increased to twice that of Europe, and by 2100, Africa's population will be six times that of Europe. If the African continent does not develop well, many people will flow to Europe, and Europe is not working with China to jointly develop Africa, but is following the US to resist China's construction in Africa. Mr. Masakasu believes this reflects Europe's immaturity in long-term strategic considerations.
The key dilemma for Europe today can perhaps be summarized as weak hard power and improper soft power. Since February 28th, when Trump and Zelensky had a explosive argument in the White House, Europe has been acting frequently. On March 4th, European Commission President von der Leyen announced an "rearming Europe" plan worth 800 billion euros, but this is easier said than done.
Europe's hard power is too weak. For a long time, Europe has basically outsourced defense to the US, naively believing that the NATO mechanism means the US will spare no effort to defend Europe's security, but the US is a profit-driven country. Why would it play with you without benefit? Europe has also long adhered to neoliberal economic policies, leading to the hollowing out of many industries, making it extremely difficult for Europe to rearm itself.
As for soft power, the mainstream liberal values of the EU have been fiercely attacked by the Trump camp. Vice President Pence openly criticized Europe at the Munich Security Conference, saying that Europe is undemocratic, Europe restricts press freedom, and Europe violates the rule of law. He and Musk publicly supported European conservative political forces and looked down on the current democratic "white left" politicians in Europe. Europe has been trapped in wrong value myths for a long time and has yet to wake up.
I recently visited Europe and accepted interviews from many European media outlets. I mentioned that when the "Arab Spring" broke out in 2011, we warned our European friends that the "Arab Spring" would turn into the "Arab Winter" and harm Europe, but Europeans did not listen. As a result, Middle Eastern refugees flooded into Europe in batches.
Not long ago, a European think tank expert told me that the "Arab Winter" is temporary, and there will be an "Arab Spring" next. They even thought that Trump's administration is temporary, and Europe can wait and see. In short, many European elites are still deeply immersed in the "end of history" and the discourse of "democracy or dictatorship," and are stubbornly obstinate, far behind this rapidly changing era.
Even the American leader today has discarded this liberal discourse, but the French leader is still calling on the US to cooperate with the EU to win the competition with China. The EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy also said that the US should see that if we cannot deal with Russia on the Ukraine issue, how can we deal with China, which is much stronger than Russia?
As we have pointed out many times in this program, the world has long entered the post-Western era and the post-American era. The foolish "democracy or dictatorship" values are being replaced by "good governance or bad governance" values. I say to these stubborn Europeans that China is like a high-speed train. We won't wait for you to wake up. We will move forward and achieve our determined goals.
To be honest, the most important reflection for Europe is how it got into today's "darkest hour." Europe's values need to keep pace with the times, and Europe needs to hold an open and learning attitude toward a new form of human civilization. Otherwise, Europe will continue to decline and will be difficult to become a significant level in a multipolar world.
As to when Europe will realize this point, it remains unknown. I remember a European philosopher once said this: When Europeans finally learn how to build a new world, that world will no longer belong to them.
I share these with you today. Thank you all.
Mr. Ding Yifan:
From a realistic perspective, Europe has the ability to support Ukraine in winning this war, but whether it can continue to fight is a big question. Let's look at how much assistance Europe can provide to Ukraine.
First of all, in terms of military supplies and materials, Europe has provided large amounts of military aid to Ukraine, including artillery, armored vehicles, air defense systems, etc. Among them, France, Poland, Germany are considered the main aid powers. However, Europe's own arsenal is limited. Besides aiding Ukraine, it must maintain a certain quantity of its own weapons, which is very difficult to achieve.
The EU is considering mobilizing approximately 800 billion euros to strengthen Europe's defense capabilities and provide "immediate" military support to Ukraine
Secondly, Europe's logistics transportation capacity is also limited. Although European countries themselves have relatively developed logistics transportation networks, including railways and highways, it is not so convenient to quickly transport supplies to Ukraine. Because various transportation infrastructure within Ukraine has been damaged by Russia, Europe lacks long-range delivery capability.
Thirdly, although Europe can currently reach consensus politically and diplomatically to support Ukraine, this support is not unlimited. We have already seen many cracks. European countries themselves are skeptical about providing large-scale assistance to Ukraine and even integrating Ukraine into the EU.
What risks would arise if European countries significantly increase their assistance to Ukraine?
Firstly, they would run the risk of escalating the war. If large-scale assistance is provided to Ukraine, it may trigger a strong backlash from Russia, and these backlashes may have spillover effects, affecting NATO countries.
Secondly, Europe faces a significant rise in economic and energy risks. If Russia fully cuts off energy cooperation with Europe, Europe will face a very difficult situation. Because Europe's economy is already very difficult, and inflationary pressure is already very high, if energy supply is interrupted, inflationary pressure will continue to rise, and Ukraine may become the last straw that breaks Europe's economy.
Thirdly, Europe's internal politics will further divide due to aid to Ukraine. In fact, Europe has not experienced significant economic growth for ten years. If Europe falls into the trap of long-term aid to Ukraine, it will inevitably lead to public fatigue among European citizens. Therefore, so-called populist, far-right conservative leaders may rapidly rise. Under such circumstances, public dissatisfaction will translate into votes for them.
Finally, Europe also faces a significant risk of strategic overextension. They have many former colonies overseas, whether in Africa, Asia, or Latin America, and many special relationships. If all their capabilities are bet on the Ukraine issue, they may neglect other regions, and their political influence and diplomatic influence will rapidly decline.
In 2023, the African Union and the Caribbean Community reached an agreement at a summit held in Ghana to seek formal apologies and compensation from European countries for colonial exploitation and the slave trade
Let's take a look at the huge risks Europe actually faces.
Firstly, Europe's dependence on the US is very serious. If it risks splitting with the US to support Ukraine, it may exacerbate conflicts with the Trump administration. In this case, Europe's dependence on the US would turn into a fatal weakness. Since the end of World War II, for 80 years, Europe has basically relied on the US to maintain its security framework within NATO.
The second risk is that the impact of American populism on Europe may expand. Trump's "America First" has provided a template for Europe's so-called new conservatives or populists. They also imitate Trump, and in their political slogans, there are many contents opposing European integration.
From this perspective, the development situation of Europe presents a dilemma for the freeist leaders in power. If you do not show support, it proves that you are incompetent and weak. Facing a tough Trump administration, you have no solutions, indicating that the whole of Europe and the EU have achieved nothing. But if they defy the US at all costs to support Ukraine and gamble against Trump, their survival is at stake, and they may encounter major problems soon.
This contradictory logic essentially reflects deep-seated problems in the reconstruction of the international order during the post-Cold War period. There are mainly three points:
First, the outbreak of the trust crisis between the US and Europe. The US bypassing the NATO system to negotiate directly with Russia exposes the return of the offshore balancing strategy after the decline of unipolar hegemony. The US has returned to the offshore balancing of the past. Europe was surprised to find that it was viewed as a strategic buffer zone rather than an equal partner.
Secondly, the paradigm of Europe's geopolitical security is being deconstructed.
Thirdly, the role of "Global South" countries on the international stage is becoming increasingly important. The fact that Saudi Arabia hosted the US-Russia talks is not accidental. It reflects the strategic premium gained by Gulf countries during the energy crisis. If Europe cannot build a more inclusive security framework, including attracting Russia, its moral advantage is likely to be diluted by the pragmatic diplomacy of the majority of the world. This is the greatest change happening in the global geopolitical landscape.
Thank you all!
[Roundtable Discussion]
He Jie: After listening to the two analyses, everyone may have a feeling that Europe has put itself in a dilemma. For it, the "darkest hour" may just be beginning. If it doesn't handle political, military, and economic issues well, it will be even harder to go in the future.
Zhang Weiwei: Yesterday, I saw a report that wasn't directly about politics, but I found it enlightening. This is what the CEO of Renault said about developing electric vehicles. Europe has no roadmap in this area, so it can only learn from China. I think it's the same for Europe's politics now. There's no roadmap, and no one knows what to do next. Everyone is just reacting to emergencies.
I've seen some comments saying that Ukraine really needs this or that kind of support, but Europe is just cheering it on like a cheerleader, solving few practical problems. Behind this situation lies the disaster this crisis has brought to Europe, which is very clear to those who can see, but Europe seems to have lost its bearings.
He Jie: The process of European integration has continued for many years, but it hasn't really been in a good state. Now, the rise of right-wing forces, especially the various pressures Europe has faced in recent years, may make the entire integration process go backwards. Is there such a possibility?
Zhang Weiwei: Absolutely. Because the political forces in Europe, as you used the concepts of "right-wing" and "left-wing," are part of the Western mainstream discourse, for convenience. Actually, if you put it bluntly, one is "neoliberalism," now called "white left," and the other is "conservatism," Trump, Germany, Norway, etc., are called "right-wing," and both sides exhibit "populism."
For example, the "white left" shows "democratic deficit," the more democratic the better, everyone discusses, but nothing gets done. The "right wing" also has various forms of "populism." I don't dare to say it's a matter of life and death, but their mutual struggle is very intense. Actually, Vance's criticism of Europe's这批"white left"is heartfelt, he says you have harmed Europe and also harmed the US, everyone has been harmed by this group of "white left," and now we can't compete with China, etc.
He Jie: If Europe cannot form a common voice, where is the trouble for the entire European continent?
Ding Yifan: The EU mechanism actually has some problems in design. The EU mechanism is designed to share blessings but not necessarily share burdens in difficulties. So when things are going well, the problem is not obvious, and when things are going well, its appeal and influence are particularly large, thriving, and the economy develops very well. But since the debt crisis, things have started to go wrong. Because the debt crisis actually shows their economic difficulties.
How did the debt crisis come about? Some countries have more debt, some have less debt, the countries with less debt blame the ones with more debt for affecting them. Gradually, once these crises occur, the options become fewer; and when the options become fewer, complaints between each other will grow larger. Finally, people feel that the EU is just a burden.
He Jie: Very vivid, very visual. Vance said Europe has also dragged us down. Does the entire Western camp have such a characteristic: good times can be enjoyed, but when encountering difficulties, they push each other to shirk responsibility, attack, and even fleece the other side for the maximum benefit, maximizing their own interests?
Zhang Weiwei: Look at the details, Vance criticized Europe and cried when the OSCE chairman finally announced the end of the conference. They also seem very naive, thinking the transatlantic relationship is fixed, unbreakable, and will always be together forever.
US Vice President Vance criticized European countries at the Munich Security Conference
There is a phrase in English and French, "Après moi, le déluge," meaning "After me, the flood," which is a famous saying by King Louis XV of France. The West now practices short-term politics, lasting around four years, and then it's no longer my concern, so it's impossible to formulate and implement a long-term plan. There used to be some elitism, including the initial integration of the EU, which still existed from the days of the coal and steel community, but later became increasingly populist, resulting in nothing getting done.
He Jie: Over the years, we have been talking about transforming the economic structure and shifting to new quality productivity. But in the process of new and old kinetic energy transformation, people feel that this transformation is not happening naturally. It will go through many challenges and self-reflection. So at this time, the determination of the government is very important, including the determination of every ordinary person. You just said that European populism and this kind of political system make it hard to come up with determination.
Ding Yifan: From the start of Confucian culture, Chinese culture has not only considered long-term planning but also a sense of the bigger picture. This sense of the bigger picture is a concept of family and country, but they lack this concept of family and country.
The concept of family and country means that for the sake of this broader vision, I am willing to make sacrifices and do things. But in the West and in Europe, they don't have this view. Although they have certain commonalities, this commonality is actually Christianity. Why is it so difficult for Turkey (to join the EU)? Because it is not a Christian country, and if it joins, there might be problems. So they are culturally and ideologically opposed on this issue.
But because the momentum of Europe's development should have started from 2008 until now, if you look at the net index of GDP without considering inflation, today Europe's GDP index is still lower than in 2007, the year before the global financial crisis in 2008, which was the peak moment, but in these十几年there has been no development.
No economic or social development, how do you think the general public feels, they see no future. Even though we are very difficult, we can feel that everything is undergoing transformation and upgrading, and the future will be better. So you will expect your future income to be better. Therefore, the difference in expectations leads to different behaviors.
So there is a big problem between Europe and China, Europe has almost completely missed what we call the "Fourth Industrial Revolution." One of the main reasons for missing it is the fragmented geographic板块, with more than twenty languages alone. Nowadays, it is discovered that internet industry development requires a unified market in mother tongues like Chinese and English for the internet to develop. Including you mentioned the lack of development, the lack of hope when young, etc., are all related to this. So the fragmented geographical板块and the lack of internet industry development have made AI revolution and others increasingly difficult.
He Jie: That's why I say that for Europe, the "darkest hour" may just be starting. Because it faces the dilemma of development, and its fragmented geographical板块was originally a disadvantage. Will this fragmentation become the norm in the future?
Zhang Weiwei: Historically, it's the norm. When the pie is not growing, everyone scrambles for the existing pie, and problems arise. Especially when chaos occurs, there are also external forces like Trump stirring things up, which is a major external force, and Europe will face major problems.
Just now, when discussing the energy issue, Teacher Ding had a view that originally Europeans believed that the energy bond between them and Russia was solid, right? It wouldn't change for many years. Now it has been completely destroyed by the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Nord Stream gas pipeline explosion diagram
He Jie: Looking at the issue of ending the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Americans' posture has suddenly become very flexible, and they want to talk to Russia, but Europe's attitude is still very firm. Mr. Ding, is there a possibility that when they think clearly someday, they will also discuss with Russia in a more pragmatic state?
Ding Yifan: Actually, this is a political issue. The liberal camp cannot accept this now, accepting this would mean that all previous policies have failed, and they are unwilling to negate themselves, so this is almost impossible.
However, if this situation continues, right-wing forces labeled as "populists" coming to power might reconsider this issue, because these parties have different views on Russia from the liberals. They don't consider Russia to be an eternal enemy.
These issues will continue to deeply entangle Europe for some time, but this also makes European policies difficult to reach a consensus, because there are many political parties. But you have to cooperate with these parties to exclude extremist right-wing parties; during the cooperation process, everyone is actually inconsistent, and must accommodate each other, compromise, resulting in difficulties in achieving consistency in economic and social policies.
He Jie: Europe's problems are not only geographically fragmented, but also its politics and economy are fragmented. So our theme is Europe's "darkest hour," but it should actually be Europe's "darkest hour" of integration, because we are increasingly seeing its fragmentation in all dimensions, and we hear the sound of fragmentation.
[Q&A Session]
Audience: Hello, Mr. Weiwei, Mr. Ding, and Host. My name is An Shiyi, and I work for a company in Shanghai. Our company deals with daily chemical products and cosmetics. Given the severe external crisis facing Europe today, the EU is still unable to present a unified opinion internally.
We all know that since the establishment of the European Communities in 1991, the European integration process has passed more than thirty years. Why does Europe still perform like a scattered sandpile until now? Where exactly does the problem lie in Europe's internal integration? Is there still a possibility for further integration of this European bloc? Thank you, teachers.
Zhang Weiwei: From the analysis of many experts and scholars, they think the EU made some mistakes. One obvious mistake was expanding too fast. Another was that many things became populist, everything had to be democratized. The "democratic deficit" had to be solved through democratic discussion, but once discussed, it couldn't be solved.
Then some methods were proposed, for example, using a dual-track approach to solve it, which means that some countries can integrate more closely, while others can do as they please. But no matter what is done, these discussions are just empty talk right now.
Europe can talk, but it cannot act. The reason lies in what I have always said, the nature of the fragmented板块leads to it. So the economic base and geographical conditions determine its politics are fragmented, and integration is extremely difficult. Added to this are external forces, Russia and the US do not want to see them become stronger, that's the situation.
Ding Yifan: After the establishment of the EU, can you say that it has made some progress in the so-called integration direction? There is a little progress. For example, in administrative aspects, customs and personnel mobility, and the Schengen Agreement, it has done some things. It has exchanged some national sovereignty for something called European sovereignty. But apart from these, the truly critical things have not formed a unity.
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Schengen Agreement, and currently 29 countries have joined the Schengen Area
He Jie: We often say that reform has entered the deep water zone. They have done the easy things first, the things that can be done easily, leaving only the hard nuts to crack.
Ding Yifan: These hard nuts actually affect them. When everyone's life and economy are good, pushing these things slowly is still possible. Trump's tariff war is a big misunderstanding, as he uses the logic of tariffs to support industrialization in the US in the 19th century to fit today's situation.
But today's international trade, including US-EU trade, US-China trade, and China-EU trade, is no longer like the past, where I sell you a finished product and you sell me a finished product. More and more, it involves product trading in the larger international industrial chain.
In this situation, tariffs not only fail to solve his problems but also worsen the domestic difficulties in the US. American processing enterprises rely on imported products from China to complete their supply chains. Therefore, when costs increase, it inevitably feeds back to consumers, causing overall inflation to rise. If it wants to sell internationally, lacking competitiveness, it cannot compete with other countries.
So since the first Trump administration launched the tariff war, the damage to American manufacturing companies far exceeds the effect of using tariffs to promote the return of manufacturing, which is exactly the opposite. This cognitive obstacle makes his current methods completely ineffective.
Audience: Good evening, I am a Chinese-American working in the semiconductor industry overseas. My name is Jiang Hongda. My question is: Will the US really withdraw from NATO? If it withdraws, will Europe still have the ability to support Ukraine? Thank you.
He Jie: I have a question. Are you working in the semiconductor industry? Are you from an American semiconductor company? How are you doing these years?
Audience: Not good at all. Everything is very difficult without the Chinese market, and business is getting worse and worse due to the chip ban.
He Jie: Does it affect you?
Audience: It affects part of it, and there are also some internal problems.
He Jie: Can you find alternative markets?
Audience: Of course, it cannot be as good as the development in China.
Zhang Weiwei: Regarding the NATO issue, Trump first demands a sky-high price, and when everyone is scared, he comes to negotiate a deal. But Trump's problem is that he thinks he's being mysterious, but everyone sees through him. Even small countries, including Canada, a medium-sized country with 40 million people, and Mexico, dare to confront him.
On April 3rd, Canadian Prime Minister announced a 25% tariff on all vehicles imported from the US that do not comply with the Free Trade Agreement
Without the US, Europe cannot defend itself; its military strength is far insufficient. Especially as they still consider Russia as the main hypothetical enemy, which is very difficult to deal with. But I think Russia does not want to occupy Paris or London; it has no such intention. Some Europeans even talk about the threat from China to them; I say China is seven time zones away from you, we have no interest in it, why would we threaten you?
Ding Yifan: Institutionally speaking, Trump alone cannot decide the US withdrawal from NATO. If the US formally withdraws from NATO, it will have a series of institutional arrangements, which are unlikely to be achieved. So it's more of a pressure, as Professor Zhang just said, demanding a sky-high price to ultimately achieve certain purposes and forcing these countries to increase military spending, and preferably buy their weapons.
All US presidents lobby NATO members to increase defense spending on behalf of US arms manufacturers. These countries lack arms manufacturing capabilities, meaning that as long as they increase military spending, they will buy US arms without exception, and US arms manufacturers make a profit.
The largest overseas market for US arms manufacturers is NATO member countries, and all standards are based on US standards. Once you buy my equipment, the next upgrade will still have to buy mine, always buying mine, so this is a long-term market, not just a one-time deal.
Zhang Weiwei: I've told them before, they always think they and the US are a democracy community, an ideological community, and an Atlantic Alliance. I think they're too naive. The US is a profit-driven country. Henry Kissinger's words are now widely used: "Being an enemy of the US is dangerous, but being an ally of the US is fatal."
The "white left" has this problem, they are trapped by their own ideology. So they still say: even though we don't like the current US, the US is in conflict with us, but we are still a family, our relationship with the US is closer than with China. These people think this way, and in the end, they harm themselves.
Audience: Hello, teachers, host. I'm a PhD student at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and my name is Yang Shun. My question is: After Trump took office, he practiced the so-called "America First" principle, eased relations with Russia, and promoted peace talks between Ukraine and Russia. This seems to be completely opposite to Biden's foreign policy. What is the reason behind this?
Zhang Weiwei: Just look at Trump and carefully examine his viewpoints and the main figures around him, including Vance, and even the people supporting him behind the scenes, including media with theoretical color, etc. You can see that, put nicely, they are the spokespersons for conservatism, populism, and various forms of right-wing populism.
Behind them is a life-and-death concern, they feel that if Trump fails this time and their views do not win, the US may no longer be the US, no longer a white nation, no longer an English-speaking nation, no longer a nation with only two genders. This is different from their religious ideas and cultural atmosphere.
Therefore, they brought Trump out this time, they are also risking it. You see Musk also, because of his child's gender transition, he decisively decided to support Trump, which is definitely a major trigger. In fact, the causes of many problems are much more complex.
