Chapter 461: Outdated G2
After Obama’s eight years and Joe’s four years, the Donkey Party’s legacy has been pretty much wrecked.
Facing Big T’s powerful slogans, the Donkey Party has almost no room to counterattack.
Unless they are willing to support Sanders.
The problem is that Sanders’ social democratic approach, trying to play it in America, is equivalent to offending the big financial backers behind the Donkey Party.
They don’t dare to.
Moreover, Sanders is also old.
Supporting Sanders would lose the support of capitalists in exchange for a hope of possibly winning, but not supporting Sanders means the Donkey Party lacks slogans and vision to attract voters.
However, a centipede dies but doesn’t stiffen; the Donkey Party took this opportunity to rummage through the historical arsenal for a long time and pulled out something called G2.
To this day, the Donkey Party thinks this might be the antidote.
New York NBC has a talk show called “Global Watch,” which mainly airs on Saturday nights at nine o’clock.
It focuses on depth, targeting audiences with higher education who think for themselves, most of whom are traditional white leftists.
That is, supporters of the Donkey Party.
Host Allison Reed is known for his sharp tone and firm globalist stance.
At the beginning, facing the lens, he said in a serious and heavy tone: “Welcome to ‘Global Watch.’ We have witnessed an unprecedented deep space rescue; three American astronauts safely returned thanks to the precise interception by China’s Queqiao Spaceship.
But behind the joy of this victory is the complete collapse of America’s political narrative.
Mr. Henderson, after the White House administration’s lunar divide-and-rule narrative has completely failed this term, what do you think we must admit? Does this humiliating rescue mean we must re-examine the controversial strategy from the previous president’s era, G2, co-governance by China and America?”
The person he questioned, Cameron Henderson, is a senior Donkey Party strategic consultant and former White House Security Committee member.
People like this have flexible identities; when the Donkey Party is in the White House, they are think tanks, and when the Donkey Party is out of power, their identity leans toward spokesperson.
They can advance to attack or retreat to defend.
Responsible for releasing some words that Donkey Party big shots aren’t convenient to say publicly, to test the tone.
Like whether Donkey Party voters would support strategies such as G2, and what the feedback from swing voters is.
Based on the feedback, formulate their next plan.
Henderson is lean, with a face full of deep wrinkles, gray hair, clearly a very capable white old man.
He clenched his hand into a fist and placed it on the table: “Allison, I think the word humiliation is very precise.
We must admit that the era of unipolar dominance is over, even in space.
The White House administration kept promoting to us that we established a base at the Lunar North Pole; they obsessively focused on planting the flag at the North Pole while completely ignoring China’s infrastructure barriers built at the South Pole.
When China can use its technology to decide whether your astronauts can return home, divide-and-rule becomes a joke.
The revival of G2 is a pragmatic choice, not an idealistic concession.”
After Henderson finished speaking, Allison immediately reacted; he glanced at the prepared script in his hand and asked: “Mr. Henderson, you mentioned the revival of G2.
But we must face reality: the G2 proposal from the previous president’s era was only based on shared responsibility in economy and climate governance.
Today’s China will absolutely not be content with co-governance only in these two ‘soft’ areas.
After they demonstrated deep space interception capability, what do we use to persuade them to return to the negotiating table? What new chips can we offer?”
Henderson replied without hesitation: “Allison, you raised the core issue.
Yes, after witnessing the muscle show in lunar orbit, the old G2 framework has gone bankrupt.
We can no longer fob off a country with space dominance capability using sweet talk about economic cooperation.
Our chips must be power.
We can pick up one of the greatest strategic visions in American history.
President Roosevelt’s vision for global order at the end of World War II.
At that time, President Roosevelt foresaw the rise of the Soviet Union; he proposed the concept of four policemen, namely America, England, Soviet Union, and China sharing global security responsibility, which eventually evolved into the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
President Roosevelt’s vision back then was to divide responsibility by power.
Today, China hopes to have more say in the world.
Then through the G2 framework, we can let them take greater responsibility and supervisory power in Asia-Pacific economic security and global supply chain stability.”
Allison immediately asked: “Is it like the United Nations, a power division at the institutional level?”
Henderson nodded: “Exactly.”
Generally, for shows like this, there is only one guest if the guest is big enough.
Clearly, a character like Henderson is far from a big shot.
Therefore, there is another guest present, Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago, a professor specializing in international relations, who has great fame on the Chinese internet.
Because Mearsheimer’s biggest advantage is that his ideas are easy for Chinese people to understand.
Ideas like LGBT, Chinese people cannot understand; China has no such history, no history of enslaving black people, discriminating against black people, or treating other ethnic groups differently, so they fundamentally cannot understand the LGBT concept.
Mearsheimer is different; his main argument is realism first, simply put, “truth is only within the range of cannon fire.”
In handling international relations, he strongly opposes any additional conditions based on dreams, ideals, ideology, religious fanaticism, political correctness, and other metaphysical factors, and should only focus on strength comparison.
Allison threw the topic to Mearsheimer, asking: “Professor Mearsheimer, what do you think of China’s lunar rescue incident? And what do you think of Allison’s viewpoint?”
Mearsheimer was quite helpless; he clearly spoke based on realistic considerations, yet Americans think he is a China blower.
After thinking for a moment, he said: “China’s rescue is a projection of capability.
They demonstrated deep space precise interception capability, which is extremely deterrent in military terms.
But they chose a humanitarian action, which is sending a signal to Washington: we have the capability to constrain you, but we choose cooperation.
Washington should indeed seize this opportunity to transform this potential threat into a framework of rule-making and shared responsibility.
We should do this, but there are a few points I think need attention.
At this current time point, such a vision is not a boon to China; this is a strategic retreat on our part based on realistic factors.
Earlier, Mr. Henderson’s tone still framed this as a boon to China.
I think if the Donkey Party comes to power and really wants to implement G2, it won’t work with this mindset.
I have traveled to many countries; China is very special—they have an extraordinary obsession with returning to the position they should have.
In the colonial era, most countries experienced being colonized.
India was colonized by England for 190 years, the Ottoman Empire for 128 years, Egypt for 74 years, Annam for 96 years; similar cases are countless.
These are still countries that are developing relatively well now, but only China emphasizes this as humiliation; they have a proper noun “century of humiliation” to describe this period of history.
If Donkey Party politicians still see G2 as a boon, as something we proactively give you, Chinese people won’t buy it.”
When Henderson heard this, he retorted: “Professor Mearsheimer, isn’t this proactively giving? Isn’t this a gift from us showing sincerity?
If we don’t retreat, then we will inevitably need to use force or other means to redraw spheres of influence.
This is a long and tormenting process.
This is not good for both sides.
We are willing to proactively concede.”
After a moment of silence, Mearsheimer said: “No, you are wrong; this is not a gift, this is the chips and price we have no choice but to pay.
We need to gain space and time to solve the problems existing internally.
Let me put it this way: excluding nuclear weapons and military bases spread around the world, do we have military superiority over China?
At least in the Asia-Pacific region, is our win rate very low?
Once war breaks out and spheres of influence are redrawn, China excels at construction, no doubt about that, right?
China excels at construction, while we do not; for the same city reconstruction, we might take twenty years, China only five.
Moreover, because of the war, these are all reconstructions from zero, and the governance cost is very low.
China can digest these very well; the extended spheres of influence will be much smoother than past ones.
And us? Our spheres of influence in Asia-Pacific would be a mess, and we would lose economic vitality.
After war allocation, what we get are constantly bleeding wounds, what they get is nourishment.
Seen this way, war is the better gift, unless Washington dares to start a nuclear war.
And my so-called G2, conceding part of the spheres of influence, is not for nothing.
It is to increase China’s governance cost in these areas through covert means, to consume their energy.
For America, it is not that after building the G2 framework, we can lie on the merit book and continue the old ways.
This is unrealistic.
After China gains this sphere expansion, when they have internal problems, they will only want more; give then?
G2 is a strategic retreat; the purpose of this strategic retreat is to integrate the fatal problems existing in our internals and traditional spheres of influence.
Our core goal is to reorganize Europe, Canada, South America—these areas, to integrate them into a competitive 1.5 billion population super market.
This is not a simple trade agreement; this requires a Wilsonian reshaping similar to the Cold War era, a grand engineering project with America at the core, conducting structural reforms.
We first need an organizational structure that can translate political will into actual action.
Existing G7 and G20 are too loose, and the European Union is too internally consumed.
We must lead the establishment of a transatlantic-Americas economic security committee.
I call this vision Economic NATO.
This requires the White House and Congress to have enormous political mobilization capability.
We must provide technology transfusion and financial guarantees as seed funding for integrating European and South American markets.
This is a reinvestment in the ally system.
And South America is our backyard, but it has been neglected by us for a long time.
This area has huge strategic resources and a young population structure.”
We cannot just do political intervention like in the past.
We must transfer the cost of stability and governance to South American countries.
By providing long-term, stable infrastructure financing, in exchange for reliable supply of resources, population, and markets from South America.
Incorporate South America into North America’s unified standard system.
The USMCA agreement needs to expand its coverage to include major South American economies, forming a true unified American production and consumption system.
The 1.5 billion population market we want to reorganize, the mark of success is being able to solve our internal problems faster and more effectively than the opponent.
If within ten years, we cannot prove that this Western super market surpasses China in technology research and development, supply chain resilience, energy independence, and market efficiency, then all our strategic retreats and G2 visions will be seen as appeasement like Chamberlain’s.”
It must be said that Mearsheimer is an international relations expert, but just an expert.
His vision, for America’s current organizational mobilization strength, is simply impossible to achieve.
Things develop wonderfully; Mearsheimer’s strategic vision, in Henderson’s view, is not worth considering; he also doesn’t believe Donkey Party politicians can achieve it.
However, when that speech about “reorganizing Europe, North America, South America, building a 1.5 billion population super market” aired, Big T sitting in Mar-a-Lago watched it at first with typical anger.
This is the Donkey Party’s program.
When Mearsheimer locked the strategic goal on “building a 1.5 billion population super market that can compete with China,” his expression froze.
This number, 1.5 billion, is a magic that any scale supremacist cannot resist.
This is even larger than the combined economic influence of China and India.
He grabbed his mobile phone and immediately posted a series of posts, turning this vision into his own strategy.
“Stupid MSNBC fake news experts finally said one thing right on tonight’s television program!
We must immediately integrate Europe, North America, and South America! I have been talking about this for many years, but Donkey Party stupid politicians are too slow! This is a huge market!
We need an Economic NATO, a system more powerful, fairer, and larger than the old NATO! This will be the most successful economic system in human history!
This is victory! This is the ultimate victory! I will do it, and do it fast! Let’s make it great again!”
Originally, Mearsheimer’s strategy was low-profile, but under Big T’s repost, it suddenly became a global hot topic.
Why did Big T appreciate Mearsheimer’s strategy?
Although Mearsheimer expounded his views based on cold international relations realism, his long-term strategic vision perfectly fit Big T’s core needs and psychological preferences in political philosophy.
The core of Big T’s political psychology is scale and victory.
The temptation of scale; this number itself represents absolute victory and supreme market dominance.
For a president obsessed with “huge” and “unprecedented,” this is the highest-level big deal he can boast to voters.
The vision clearly requires America to hold the leadership position in integration, setting unified technology and financial standards.
This is not the globalism he despises, where America submits to multilateral institutions, but the Regional Hegemony he pursues, where America sets the rules and allies comply.
Moreover, Mearsheimer’s plan has strong transactional nature, not ideology-driven.
Abandon ideals, return to transactions.
Mearsheimer’s plan removes ideological impurities, only talking about power, market, resources, and efficiency.
This perfectly matches Big T’s transaction-supreme thinking.
The Economic NATO concept directly echoes his criticism of the old NATO.
His logic is: allies cannot take advantage of America.
This new architecture requires Europe and South America to bear governance costs, eliminate internal barriers, and return America’s financial and technology investments.
This fits Big T’s understanding of fair burden-sharing and paid services in ally relations.
Most importantly, this space interception made him realize that war risk in the Asia-Pacific region is extremely high, and the cost of war is unfavorable to America.
Therefore, a super market with economic efficiency and scale at its core is the safest and most effective weapon to compete with China.
Mearsheimer’s realist strategy precisely provides him with a grand, transactional economic vision that can overwhelm China, perfectly satisfying all his political demands for power, scale, and victory.
The ripples of this space rescue are still spreading.
At this time, Lin Ran is also being interviewed.
He is in Shanghai, accepting an interview arranged by Bilibili.
Actually, at first, it was the Chinese official who hoped to chat with him about the story behind this space rescue.
Lin Ran politely declined; he felt CCTV’s atmosphere was too serious, and many things you say would be cut.
However, Lin Ran did want to say a few words, so he chose Bilibili.
