The War of Two Worlds has begun – Part 5

Don’t lose sight of the big game: The hegemon is fighting for supremacy against a multipolar but heterogeneous world. President Trump puts the West in a state of hope and indignation on a daily basis – this does not impress the Chinese or the Russians.

Peter Hanseler

Introduction

After Ukraine sent a swarm of drones to Moscow on the night of March 11, 2025, which resulted in deaths and injuries and is considered a terrorist attack due to the targets chosen – only residential buildings – talks were held between the Americans and Ukrainians in Saudi Arabia. It is worth mentioning that (President) Zelensky was not allowed to attend at the behest of the Americans: He is out of the game; whether he has already realized it is not clear due to his drug use.

A 30-day ceasefire was agreed and the US will immediately resume military aid and the supply of intelligence. To call this an agreement is foolish because the Russians would have to agree, which they did not: The Russians hold all the cards, the Ukrainians none at all – according to President Trump’s original tone.

The Russians are cleaning up the Kursk region, there’s no other way to put it. It is quite possible that the last Ukrainian will be expelled from Russia in the next few days. This means that Zelensky will lose the last card for negotiations with Russia.

The Russians will silence their weapons if their conditions for negotiations are met in order to achieve lasting peace (territorial claims, neutrality of Ukraine, withdrawal of all Western troops, new elections in Ukraine, lifting of Western sanctions). Donald Trump’s negotiating methods of administering hot and cold showers to the West on a daily basis until the addressees no longer know which way is up and which way is down are catching on in the West, but are not productive vis-à-vis Russia and China. I assume that Donald Trump and his team will realize this by this weekend at the latest.

The warnings I have issued several times about the financial markets seem to be confirmed by the current reality. Nobody knows whether this is the beginning of the great collapse or not.

I refer here briefly to Part 1 – US Strategy in WW1 and WW2; State of the US and the Collective West; Part 2 – BRICS and the Global South; Part 3 – US U-turn on Russia; Part 4 – Medium-term forecasts. (Links to this?)

No change in the geostrategy of the US

The long-term strategy of the US has not changed as a result of the turnaround towards Russia. The United States still sees itself as the clear number one in the world with a position of hegemony. It will do everything in its power to maintain this supremacy – by any means necessary.

It would therefore be a big mistake to interpret Trump’s turnaround towards Russia in recent weeks as an overall change in strategy. Russia has been in the crosshairs of the British and then the Americans for over 120 years. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Americans gained huge influence in the economy and politics of the then weak giant empire by financing the Russian oligarchs and were never so close to their goal – the dismemberment of Russia.

President Putin completely slashed the political power of the oligarchs, thereby neutralizing US influence and the influence of the City of London within Russia. The Americans responded with NATO’s eastward expansion, which was contrary to the agreement and against which Russia resisted diplomatically for 30 years. Another manipulation by the US was the Georgian war, which it caused through its installed puppet Saakashvili and in which it failed. After that, the US played at friendship when Hillary Clinton and Sergei Lavrov met in Geneva and Hillary Clinton promised a new beginning, only to gather time and forces for the preparation of Maidan. This time the drumfire against Russia lasted over 10 years since Maidan and again the US failed to bring Russia to its knees economically, achieve regime change (e.g. with Navalny) and defeat Russia militarily. This time, the US’s involvement in the war, together with its NATO partners, was more direct than at any time since the Second World War. Nevertheless, they failed again.

One should therefore be extremely cautious about reading too much into the current behavior of the US or even wanting to recognize a change in strategy, because apart from its behavior towards Russia, there is no indication that the US is changing its foreign policy strategy, on the contrary: the US is taking an extremely aggressive stance towards Canada, Mexico, Panama, Greenland, Gaza, Venezuela and is in the process of pursuing its economic interests by exerting pressure on the EU, India, China and – somewhat below the surface – Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, the pro-genocidal behavior of the US in Gaza does not fit at all with the image that the US wants to convey as a peacemaker in Ukraine.

The geopolitical aggression of the US has therefore not changed at all, and its policy towards Russia is an exception driven by opportunism.

Europe completely off the rails and offside

I see Europe’s solo effort, which will not be much of one, as a direct emotional reaction to the change of course by the US towards Russia. There is nothing more to it than that, as we have discussed in previous parts that the states in Western Europe can justifiably be described as vassals and the EU as an instrument of the US. I believe that the reaction of the Europeans – especially Germany, France and the UK – is nothing more than a dwarf rebellion that will soon collapse. These European states will soon have to come to an arrangement with the US. The antics being pulled by the political leadership in France, Germany and the UK are unrealistic and contrast with the pitoyable conditions in the countries concerned, which are crying out for internal restoration of order. The list of our articles on the difficult conditions in Europe is long. I refer to “Germany is a naive pawn of the US with no power to turn things around”.

The problems in Germany, for example, are multi-layered: debt, economy, economic policy, migration problems, dissatisfaction among the population, wokeism, incompetent leadership and a lack of credibility. The most recent example of the credibility of the leadership in Germany was Friedrich Merz’s promise not to touch the debt brake (just one day before the election), only to take on over a trillion in new debt a few days later. Merz wants to fast-track this insane spending through the Bundestag, where he needs a 2/3 majority, which he would not achieve in the new parliament.

As a reminder, the 20th German Bundestag was dissolved after losing a vote of confidence in Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz. On December 16, 2024, Scholz submitted a vote of confidence, which was rejected. As a result, Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier dissolved the Bundestag on December 27, 2024. After the new elections took place, the regular legislative activity of the old Bundestag ended and it has not been able to pass any new laws since the Bundestag elections on February 23, 2025. Until the constituent session of the new Bundestag on March 25, 2025, it will only remain in office in an executive capacity and can only take action in exceptional situations during this transitional period, for example if urgent measures are required – which does not include such serious constitutional amendments. Against this background, this coup by Friedrich Merz and his cronies is legally more than dubious. However, we will have to wait and see whether the current soft-spoken and ideologically streamlined German Constitutional Court will see it the same way. In any case, this approach is a complete disregard for the will of the people and a prime example of how politicians don’t give a damn about the people and their will.

The offended Europe is attempting to use cheap actions to try to convince the affected populations of a narrative about the imperialist Putin that has already vanished in the US and with crazy ideas, such as that it is possible to win militarily against Russia; nota bene after this strategy failed even with the support of the US. This actionism is based on the narrative that Russia first wants to attack the Baltic states, then Poland and finally Western Europe. There is not a single indication of such an intention. If you really know Russia, the first question you will ask yourself is what Russia would do with a Western Europe in such a sorry state. This narrative has been built up in the West to justify support for stupid policies over the last three years. It is quite possible that this complete nonsense is actually believed by some politicians in Europe, a further sign that the people concerned believe their own propaganda and are therefore not suitable for a government post for this reason alone.

Incidentally, Germany’s hostile attitude towards Russia does not go down well in Moscow. Russia has never attacked Western Europe, but the Germans have over 30 million Russian lives on their conscience in the First and Second World Wars and now have the chutzpah to portray Russia as the aggressor.

Let’s briefly look back to the last time Germany had serious armed forces and what it took to reach this level: It was not Adolf Hitler who initiated the rearmament of what would later become the Wehrmacht after Versailles. This process began as early as 1922 when Germany began to circumvent the rules imposed by Versailles in order to rearm. Thus the rearmament lasted a full 17 years until the start of the war (1939). In 1939, Nazi Germany spent 25% of its gross national product on armaments – spending increased steadily during the war until, in 1944, 75% of the gross national product was spent on military expenditure. Incidentally, it was not possible to rearm on one’s own. This build-up was financed primarily by the US – see my comments on this in Part 1 of this series. Furthermore, this build-up required the complete submission of the people to the will of Adolf Hitler in order to raise and train an army of around 4 million men. Nevertheless, Germany lost the war. It is therefore incomprehensible what Friedrich Merz is proclaiming here.

In the medium term, I would dare to say that the Americans will increase the pressure on Europe until they give in. Nevertheless, even if Europe leans closer to the US again – or rather: has to lean closer – the great “love” seems to be clouded and snooty Europe will probably play the offended liver sausage to Uncle Sam for a long time, because in their eyes Uncle Sam flirted with the lame bear in the East, who turned out not to be lame at all. Trump’s attempt to achieve peace is judged by the war-drunk Europeans as overreaching and treacherous. With all the reservations we expressed about the US at the beginning, it is incomprehensible to portray peace efforts as treasonous.

Does the Collective West still exist?

This raises the question of the current state of the Collective West: I dare say that the Collective West is currently without the European part and resembles an amputated paper tiger. What remains is the empire – the hegemon – whose European pillar is openly opposing the empire, with the active help of the media. It is not yet clear how South Korea, Japan and Australia will behave. However, I dare to predict that they will behave more wisely than Europe. Nevertheless, the Collective West is no longer present in a way that gives it a good chance of competing with the Global South.

In the end, it’s all about money

The world religion is money – most people are like that

As we look further ahead, the following statements, which many may consider trite, are extremely important.

I spent an evening this week with a geopolitical commentator and we were debating the messy situation. At one point he said, “we talk about geopolitics, but at the end of the day we are only talking about money”. A wise sentence.

Money doesn’t just govern geopolitics, it governs most societies in this world. Since my youth, consumerism and the importance of money have become a religion in all the societies I have traveled to around the world. This certainly doesn’t affect all people, but many, too many. If you are not rich – and most people are not – many people at least want to look rich. To look rich, a lot of people will do almost anything. I have never seen so many expensive cars on the roads of this world in my life, about 90% of all cars are leased or otherwise paid for with money one does not have. People buy things with money they don’t have to impress others they don’t like. So the luxuries before our eyes are not based on wealth and economic power, but are an expression of credit-financed madness.

Incidentally, this is not a phenomenon that is limited to the West. People in Russia and Asia are also going into debt for trinkets. This social phenomenon has been fueled by the zero interest rate policy of many central banks, because the money to finance these stupid status symbols was obtained for free. It is possible that the high interest rates on loans are the reason why Russia, for example, has gone less far with this madness.

We should therefore judge the average person by how they behave and be aware that the average person does have a major influence on the behavior of the governments concerned. It follows that the statement “follow the money” is therefore one of the first rules you learn in geopolitical analysis.

Initial position

We described the situation in the Collective West in Part 1. In addition to all the problems already described there, within two weeks the cohesion between Europe and the US has deteriorated. There is currently no unity and we have pointed out many times that the Petrodollar is essential for the United States’ sustainable survival. I also assume that Donald Trump has noticed that the Global South has no fundamental problems with the status of the US dollar as the world currency. The BRICS countries turning away from the US dollar was caused by the Americans as they increasingly used the US dollar as a weapon and countries that should be punished for their views were cut off from the US dollar, culminating in March 2022 with Russia being cut off not only from the US dollar but from all Western currencies and the freezing of Russia’s foreign currency reserves. From this point onwards, trade between BRICS countries began without the US dollar.

Is the US dollar coming back?

In the article – co-authored with Simon Hunt – “How BRICS could overcome its biggest challenge – the balance of payments”, we showed, among other things, how the use of the US dollar has collapsed since 2022 and how BRICS and other countries in the Global South are looking for alternatives to the US dollar as a trading and reserve currency.

If Donald Trump wants to stop or reverse this trend, he can achieve this: Lift all US dollar sanctions for all countries. So not only for Russia, but also for Iran, Cuba, etc. If Trump succeeds in convincing the global community that the days of abusing the US dollar as a weapon are over, the BRICS states and other countries of the Global South will make greater use of the US dollar again. This will very quickly lead to the lifting of sanctions against Russia.

We saw what a storm of indignation swept across Europe when Donald Trump announced that he wanted to negotiate with the Russians on an equal footing. If Trump concludes that it is in his own interest to demilitarize the US dollar and force SWIFT, the ECB, the Japanese and Swiss central banks to lift their sanctions and return the frozen assets, the Europeans will be outraged, but no more.

This is the only way to ensure the refinancing of the US budget; this will only work if more countries hold the US dollar again, as this is the only way the US can continue to refinance itself “automatically” – see my comments on this.

US will seek closer ties with BRICS in the medium term

We discussed in Part 2 that BRICS – the economic interest grouping of the Global South – has already left the G7 as the economic association of the Collective West far behind – see in detail our discussion of this in Part 2.

If the Americans go down the path of the “liberal” US dollar, it is foreseeable that the US will work more closely with BRICS countries and those who want to become BRICS members. This is in order to do business, but also to expand its geopolitical influence in these countries, according to the principle “if you can’t beat them, join them – and then beat them”. BRICS and countries close to BRICS will welcome closer business relations with the US.

Sooner or later, however, the US will not be content with just doing business, but will try to get countries close to BRICS on its side. The list is not endless, but it is long.

Targeted countries of the US or the Collective West

Due to the multipolarity that BRICS relies on, which in my opinion is being practiced, as there are no formal leadership structures, the Americans – at least initially – will be able to operate relatively undisturbed within these groups of countries.

Their aim will be to attract as many strong countries as possible to “their side”, because the Americans act as a hegemon and are therefore unipolar and think in blocs. They do not understand multipolarity and it is ultimately a horror to them when their “friends” do business with the “other side”.

I don’t have a crystal ball, but I assume that the Americans will target those countries that either have a lot of natural resources or an important strategic location. This is already becoming apparent.

A very good example of an interesting country in terms of raw materials is Saudi Arabia. It was invited to become a full member of BRICS in the summer of 2023, but has not yet ratified its membership. Saudi Arabia is one of the world’s largest producers of oil, accounting for almost 13% of global production, and is therefore very interesting for BRICS, but also for the Collective West. Saudi Arabia is therefore an important piece of the mosaic for the US in this big game – more details in Part 2.

Due to its geographical location, Turkey should serve as a further example of a future trouble spot. The Turks, or rather their ruler Erdogan, always wants to dance at all weddings, which not only annoys the US, but certainly also Russia and China. Erdogan is seen as skillful, but completely unreliable and disloyal. Because of this behavior – especially the behavior of the Turks in Syria – Syria will probably not become a BRICS member in the medium term. The Americans will exploit this vacuum.

Panama has also been in the headlines for a few weeks now, as Trump wanted to take over Panama. An interim solution seems to have been reached. In a major acquisition by Blackrock, port assets in Panama were also acquired, among other things. This brings Trump closer to his goal by reducing Chinese influence in Panama.

Other countries of interest to the US include Kazakhstan (uranium, proximity to Russia), Malaysia (natural gas and trade routes), Nigeria (oil) – the list is long and, strategically, African countries will be of particular interest, as this giant continent promises incredible wealth and was kept low and poor by the irresponsible colonial policies of the French and British.

Hubris meets Nemesis

When it comes to assessing the Collective West’s chances in the long term, we have to start with the attitude of the Collective West that can become and has already become one of the biggest stumbling blocks: hubris.

Since ancient times, hubris has referred to the overestimation of man’s own abilities. In Greek mythology, Nemesis is the goddess of balancing justice.

Western superpowers have been directly or indirectly controlling events in the world for centuries. In modern times, this meant above all economic control with the reserve currency.

600 years of domination has led to hubris in the West. In the past, countries were not difficult to control from the West. The rest of the world was not organized, not educated, had no industrial power and served merely as a storehouse of raw materials to be plundered by the Western colonial powers.

People became so accustomed to a few Western states dominating large parts of the world that they missed out on the major developments in the rest of the world – the Global South. The economic, social and military power of giants such as China, India and Russia is still completely underestimated by the West today. They still think they are the masters of the world.

Friedrich Merz is a prime example of hubris: he presides over a country with 83 million inhabitants who have forgotten how to work (apart from the middle class and small businesses), whose economy is on the brink of collapse and yet he is puffing himself up like a hen and wants to stand up to Russia militarily after the Russians have dismantled the entire NATO armed forces in the last three years. Now Merz is even going so far as to stand up to their colonial master Trump.

Friedrich Merz literally stands for this attitude of the Collective West. Donald Trump, the president of a country that many Europeans regard as uncultured, seems to be the first to have recognized the writing on the wall. His geopolitical U-turn probably also has to do with the fact that he has recognized that the Global South – especially China, Russia and India – must be taken seriously as a competitor. That is a wise decision. The superficiality of the Americans – like all qualities – always has a flip side: I know of no country that can reinvent itself more quickly. I can’t say whether the turnaround will be sustainable in this sense, but I believe that not underestimating your opponents is the basis of all success.

The key to sustainable success

Industrial production

In Part 1, we described the dream start with which the US began its hegemonic status after the Second World War at the latest. One of the cornerstones was the fact that the US produced 70% of the world’s industrial output at home. This advantage, which in my opinion is the cornerstone of geopolitical power, was shortsightedly and negligently relinquished with President Clinton at the latest. The Americans were of the opinion that the world could be controlled without industrial supremacy. NAFTA, a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, was the first step. Initially, the Mexicans and Canadians were left to produce industrial goods for the masters in the US and then more and more production was moved to Asia, especially to China, which has become the factory of the world over the last 30 years. In the beginning, these were low-tech products, but today we have reached the point where the most complex goods are practically only produced in China – and other Asian countries such as India, Vietnam, etc.

Apple, for example, allegedly produces a top iPhone for around USD 10 labor costs and all costs, including components, are less than USD 500. The selling price in the US is around USD 1,500. Manufacturing costs in the US would be many times more. There are many reasons why it will be practically impossible to move production of the iPhone to the US, for example, but one big argument is certainly that the industrial know-how is not available in the US.

Many people think that Apple only produces in China because of the low costs. However, Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, contradicts this himself. It is not the low labor costs why Apple produces there, because labor costs are no longer low in China. It is the know-how that makes the difference. There would not be enough trained people in the US to manufacture these products.

A second example is cars. The days when Chinese cars were only ahead in the low-cost segment are already over. A good example is a Chinese SUV that takes aim at a German model: The Li 9: costing around USD 60,000, mind you with full equipment. If you put together a well-equipped BMW X7 on the BMW Switzerland website, it will cost you around USD 170,000. Now many will argue that the quality of the BMW is certainly better. According to the comparison test, this is not the case.

Of course, the LI-9 is not for sale in Switzerland or Germany – you have to go to Russia. Russians love beautiful cars and German politicians have kept the door to the giant empire open for the Chinese for three years – Moscow is teeming with LI-9s.

Industrial know-how

In the US, the demise of industry has been going on for decades, in Europe they think they are still at it. If the German government’s goal was to destroy German industry, they have made huge progress in recent years. The German automotive industry employs 770,000 people and is by far the largest industrial sector in the country in terms of turnover. Of these, 19,000 jobs were already lost in 2024. The negative trend is continuing, as the share prices show. In the last 12 months, VW lost 16.9%, Mercedes 17.6%, Porsche 20% and BMW 24%. The DAX, on the other hand, gained 26%.

If the trend towards de-industrialization continues, industrial know-how will be lost. The affected populations thus lose the ability to run an industry. This situation cannot be solved by simply investing money in the industries, because the industry knows increasingly less what to do with these investments.

The fact that this is not an initial trend, but has catastrophic consequences, is shown by a study that every Western economic policy maker should nail to the wall. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which is partly funded by the Australian military and is therefore certainly not pro-Chinese, has developed a Critical Technology Tracker with 64 current, critical technologies. The latest report is dated August 2024 and shows that the US was the leader in 60 of the 64 technologies between 2003 and 2007. China was only the leader in 3 technologies. Between 2019 and 2023, the US was the leader in only 7 technologies, while China was the leader in 57 technologies – including semiconductor chip manufacturing, gravity sensors, high-performance computing, quantum sensors and space technology.

This is a disastrous development for the Collective West. The question now is how to stop or reverse this trend.

Education

Technologies that are subsequently implemented in industry and thus lead to better and cheaper products can only be developed if people have a high level of education. I am not an education expert, but I spent my school years in Switzerland, studied at the University of Zurich before attending one of the best universities in the US (Georgetown). My son went to school in Switzerland, my partner’s son schools in Moscow and I once had 45 employees in Russia. What did I experience and observe?

The Swiss education system is considered one of the best and I think I received a good education at the University of Zurich a good 35 years ago. The top American universities (Harvard, MIT, Stanford etc.) have topped every global ranking for as long as I can remember. However, a handful of universities are not the deciding factor when it comes to assessing the level of education of a nation of 340 million. The inadequate education of the average American is legendary.

When I completed my master’s degree in law at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. over 30 years ago, which is a course taken by lawyers who have already completed their studies and have a few years of professional experience, I was somewhat surprised that the university offered a “legal writing clinic”, which revised the language of the students’ papers. The seasoned American lawyers had trouble expressing themselves clearly in their native language. Strange and alarming. That was over 30 years ago.

Regarding elementary school, I was able to find out that my son attended a summer camp in Zurich during the first years of elementary school. In elementary school in Russia, the children’s education is much stricter – 2 to 3 hours of homework per day is not uncommon. This certainly has something to do with the fact that the children have to learn a language that is far more complex than German or English, for example. This leads to the conclusion that the early intellectual training in Russia gives the pupils a head start that is probably impossible to catch up on. I hear similar things from China.

I had a company in Russia for over 10 years. The intellectual level of all employees was breathtaking. I dare say that a well-motivated Russian team beats any comparable team in Switzerland; this has to do with intellect, but also with the fact that Russians are hungrier than Westerners.

The above-mentioned study from Australia is not just an indication, but proof that the Chinese have beaten the Americans in the long term. Russia’s weapons technology has been legendary in the West at least since “Oreshnik”. This new weapon system shows that Russia may be superior to the West in terms of missile technology and metal alloys for decades to come. Ultimately, the development of such superior weapons is a consequence of a superior education system.

I don’t think I’m going too far out on a limb when I say that this war of the worlds will ultimately be won by those countries or blocs that have the stronger industry. The basis of a healthy industry is know-how and the latter requires education as well as raw materials.

Education, its development and expansion are projects that require many decades of time and money. Furthermore, the people – mothers and fathers – must be convinced that the education of their children is a priority. This in turn requires a self-confident society that believes in its own future. When I think of the frustrated faces in Europe and the short-sighted Americans, these are not good prerequisites for having a good chance in this marathon – in stark contrast to the societies in the Global South.

Conclusion

I wrote in Part 1 of this series that this series paints a picture with a broad brush. A potpourri of historical and contemporary facts and impressions, punctuated by a storm of events that have been unleashed with the inauguration of President Trump. A few years ago, a single piece of news of this kind would have been enough to make the world’s population hold its breath, but humanity no longer has time for that, because the next day the next bomb hits.

Despite the broad brush and the stormy geopolitical weather conditions, I believe that the major trends can certainly be identified; trends that are set and may well change again, but only if huge sustainable efforts are made, combined with a willingness to think in decades rather than quarters – a strength of the Global South, not really of the Collective West.

The Collective West, which we described in Part 1 , is currently in no state to shape the world in its favor. This already begins with the historiography that is practiced in the West. The completely false portrayal of World Wars 1 and 2makes the Collective West look good, but clothes only make the man until the wardrobe needs renewing, which is the case now. The claimed strength of the West is also based on historical lies, myths and hubris. If people in the Collective West had an awareness of history and knew the facts, they would be less driven by hubris and would have a better chance in this competition, because a realistic self-assessment is the foundation stone of success.

It is thanks to China that, since the 1980s, many countries in the Global South have been motivated to become powerhouses in this region. The strategies that have been implemented are aimed at success in a hundred years’ time. Furthermore, China’s alliance with Russia, brought about by the West, has formed an alliance that could not be more complementary.

The current storm, Europe’s rebellion, is loud, but neither sustainable nor purposeful, because it is based on destruction rather than construction. It rages against Russia and China and is stupid enough to even oppose the US. Friedrich Merz has no reputation for using cocaine, but his behavior would make such a diagnosis seem stringent. He is doing everything he can to drive the once great Germany completely to the wall instead of looking after society and the economy – bad prospects.

Comparing the way exponents of the different sides communicate, it is striking that the two most important exponents of the Global South – China and Russia – are the calm ones, in stark contrast to the leaders of the Collective West. It’s like in real life: screamers have bad cards.

At some point, the West will realize that influence and success are based on education, know-how, industry, social cohesion and stable finances. This can be achieved with a plan that must be implemented consistently over decades, which is tantamount to a peaceful revolution. China and Russia have shown the way, China since 1980, Russia since 2000. Such constructive efforts will determine supremacy, not bombs.