If you were Europe and you wanted peace with Russia, China and the US how would you..

[PurpleTree]

.. do it?

I think Europe is already quite peaceful. Many European countries don’t partake in war. France and Brits are mostly outliers.

There a huge “beef” between Brits and Russians in a way which is ancient at this point although they also respect each in ways and theres a lot of Russian money in London etc.

But i guess Europe has to take Russias security concerns serious. Have an open honest serious dialogue. Russia has to stop meddling in European politics etc. Let’s make business. Ukraine can act as a buffer state. With a very strong army. Integrated into EU market and with security guarantees. Europe and Russia must go back to making serious business with each other so that there’s no incentive for conflict. And then at some point in decades  integrate Russia into EU (also Turkey) Tadaa superpower. And we lived happily ever after. The main issue is trust and diverging interests i guess. And the US who lives far away but has a lot of control.

[PurpleTree]

Also Europe “should” imo build a strong European army, with European weapons and jets and a strong nuclear deterrence. And imo they of course shouldn’t go on adventures abroad. Just for defence. 

[Salvijus]

I would start with a peace sign most importantly of course. 

 

[PurpleTree]

6 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

I would start with a peace sign most importantly of course. 

 

God your posts are so useless. Can a mod delete this crap? @OBEler

Edited August 11 by PurpleTree

[Salvijus]

You need to have some humor if you want bring peace imo. 

Edited August 11 by Salvijus

[MutedMiles]

8 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

.. do it?

I think Europe is already quite peaceful. Many European countries don’t partake in war. France and Brits are mostly outliers.

There a huge “beef” between Brits and Russians in a way which is ancient at this point although they also respect each in ways and theres a lot of Russian money in London etc.

But i guess Europe has to take Russias security concerns serious. Have an open honest serious dialogue. Russia has to stop meddling in European politics etc. Let’s make business. Ukraine can act as a buffer state. With a very strong army. Integrated into EU market and with security guarantees. Europe and Russia must go back to making serious business with each other so that there’s no incentive for conflict. And then at some point in decades  integrate Russia into EU (also Turkey) Tadaa superpower. And we lived happily ever after. The main issue is trust and diverging interests i guess. And the US who lives far away but has a lot of control.

By being strong, relevant and needed by China, US and Russia. They are very relevant and needed for sure, but I don't think they are strong enough at the moment.

[PurpleTree]

8 minutes ago, MutedMiles said:

By being strong, relevant and needed by China, US and Russia. They are very relevant and needed for sure, but I don't think they are strong enough at the moment.

The US, Russia and China unfortunately have an interest in not letting us get too strong. And we’re easily divided as there are many countries/cultures democracy and so on. But it’s on us.

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

A Strategic Blueprint for European and Global Peace

Hello everyone,

I'd like to share a strategic framework for the question that was asked by PurpleTree.

Traditional geopolitics often traps us in a cycle of managing rivalries and balancing threats. This proposal outlines a different path: a phased, "three-stage rocket" strategy that moves from pragmatic stabilization to a deep, systemic transformation of international relations itself. The vision is to build a world where great power competition becomes obsolete.

This strategy integrates practical, near-term actions with the visionary toolkit of the Global Governance Frameworks (GGF), a project I have worked on since around March this year. The GGF is a comprehensive, open-source blueprint for civilizational transformation, an ecosystem of interconnected frameworks designed to provide scalable solutions to our world's crises and guide humanity toward a regenerative future.

---

Stage I: Building the Launchpad - Forging Principled Autonomy (Years 1-5)

Before Europe can effectively mediate peace, it must become a strong, coherent, and autonomous global actor. This first stage is about building internal resilience to address the core challenge you (PurpleTree) identified: an over-reliance on the US, which 'lives far away but has a lot of control.' By forging principled autonomy, Europe creates the foundation for credible power.

• Pillar 0: Social & Economic Cohesion: The foundation of all strength is internal unity. This involves implementing pilot programs for universal basic income and services (via the `AUBI framework`) to eliminate economic precarity, while deploying community healing programs (based on the `Kintsugi Protocol`) to build high-trust, resilient societies from the ground up.
• Pillar 1: Strategic Independence: Europe must achieve sovereignty in key domains. This includes a full transition to renewable energy, securing critical supply chains, and developing an integrated European defense pillar within NATO that can act as a credible deterrent on its own. This directly realizes the vision you mentioned of a 'strong European army... just for defence,' ensuring Europe's security is in its own hands. A central part of this is a clear Roadmap for Peace in Ukraine, using the methodologies of the `Peace & Conflict Resolution Framework` to pursue a just and lasting settlement. The goal aligns with your suggestion for a strong, sovereign Ukraine that acts as a bridge, fully integrated into the EU market and with robust security guarantees.
• Pillar 2: Economic Gravity: With a stable core, Europe can project influence through attraction rather than force. By scaling up its Global Gateway initiative and establishing a fair and transparent trade architecture, it becomes an indispensable economic partner for the US, China, and a post-conflict Russia.
• Pillar 3: The Innovation Bridge: This involves launching a "Helsinki-2" process to create new, updated security agreements for the 21st century, covering cyber, space, and AI, a formal venue for the 'open honest serious dialogue' needed to address the legitimate security concerns of all parties, including Russia. It also means creating a Peace and Transformation Index to transparently track progress towards a more stable world, measuring metrics of well-being (like the GGF's `LMCI` (Love, Meaning & Connection Index) alongside traditional security indicators.

---

The Bridge Phase: Proving the Model through Regional Piloting (Years 6-10)

This phase directly addresses what you correctly identified as the main issue: 'trust and diverging interests'. Having established its own autonomy, Europe begins to build that trust by testing the GGF's transformative models with a 'coalition of the willing,' proving their value through successful cooperation.

The centerpiece of this phase is the launch of the first Regenerative Trade Zone (RTZ). Governed by the `Gaian Trade Framework`, this zone pioneers an economic model where trade actively heals ecosystems and builds community wealth, using regenerative currencies like `Hearts` and `Leaves`. By demonstrating the superior stability, resilience, and prosperity of this model with partners in Africa, Asia, or the Americas, Europe creates a powerful "pull factor," making the regenerative economy an attractive, evidence-based alternative to the current extractive system.

---

Stage II: The GGF Endgame - Pioneering a New Global Paradigm (Years 11-25)

With the GGF model proven in the Bridge Phase, the final stage is to launch a new global system that transcends the logic of great power competition.

The core strategy is the "Regenerative Pull," creating a system so inspiring and beneficial that joining it becomes the most rational choice for all major powers.

• A Global Regenerative Economy: The RTZ is scaled globally, with access to the `Global Commons Fund` providing stability and funding for planet-wide public goods. This offers a path to prosperity for all nations based on healing, not extraction, and represents the 21st-century evolution of the idea to one day 'integrate Russia into EU,' creating a superpower rooted in regenerative economics rather than old political structures.
• Species-Level Security Cooperation: The `Aegis Protocol` is deployed, inviting the US, China, and Russia to transition their military capabilities into a shared Global Security & Exploration Trust. Their new, unifying mission becomes addressing species-level threats: planetary defense from asteroids, preventing pandemics, and managing existential risks from AI.

This final stage doesn't solve the old rivalries; it makes them obsolete by reframing global security as a shared, positive-sum mission for the survival and flourishing of humanity.

Conclusion

This strategy presents a coherent pathway from the complex realities of today's geopolitical landscape to a genuinely transformed and peaceful future. It begins with pragmatic steps to build strength and stability, then uses that foundation to pilot and scale a new system of global cooperation. By doing so, Europe can lead the way in demonstrating that a more regenerative and collaborative world is not only possible, but is the most realistic path to enduring peace.

[Link to the full, detailed strategy synthesis document as a blog post on the GGF website]

Edited August 12 by Bjorn K Holmstrom

[Basman]

Russia just needs to be stonewalled militarily. Very simple actually. NATO commitments needs to be ironclad and Europe needs to be able to wage war independent of the US. Russia poses a risk is to Europe's unity.

In order to effectively maintain security Europe needs to likewise resist authoritarian sentiment at home and checks and balances of power being eroded. There is a growing fatigue with technocratic incompetence. We could have more severe setbacks on a societal scale like with Brexit in the UK which make it impossible to effectively resist Russian escalation in the future. It will be security and economic downturn for everyone involved. 

I don't know about China relative to Europe. Isn't that more America's problem? I can imagine that Europe is broadly interested in maintaining the status quo relative to regional stability in the Pacific but doesn't want China as an enemy necesarilly. China is a valuable business partner. 

[Elliott]

Europe needs to turn against the U.S., it's the reason why Russia is threatened.

Build up a massive military, turn against Israel and improve grounds with Iran and China.

[BlueOak]

Build a strong military, engage Russia directly, and go on the offensive with a cultural and economic push. 

China by its proxy Russia, is trying to interfere in European affairs and the European continent. This needs to be cut off with a show of force.  Instead of me constantly reading about Chinese spies stealing tech, or Russian agents meddling in elections, BRICS buying up X or Y country, its about time I saw news stories of us doing exactly the same.

Peace isn't found by cowering away from a threat. This is a time for a strong but balanced masculine response to aggressive neighbors. We are still too feminine in how we deal with threats.

Edited August 15 by BlueOak

[Hatfort]

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Build a strong military, engage Russia directly, and go on the offensive with a cultural and economic push. 

China by its proxy Russia, is trying to interfere in European affairs and the European continent. This needs to be cut off with a show of force.  Instead of me constantly reading about Chinese spies stealing tech, or Russian agents meddling in elections, BRICS buying up X or Y country, its about time I saw news stories of us doing exactly the same.

Peace isn't found by cowering away from a threat. This is a time for a strong but balanced masculine response to aggressive neighbors. We are still too feminine in how we deal with threats.

I read this, and I think you are right in some ways, but in the inverse, it's Russia that applied your pathway. Sick and tired of NATO and the US sneaking into their close neighbor countries, changing their regimes from allies to militarily hostile ones towards them, including countless destabilization techniques and cues, trying a diplomatic route in Minks where their cosigners repeatedly lied only to buy time, they finally said enough of this shit, and went on a real offensive. Good for them, because nothing else would have worked. They've always let ways out though, because they know the price of war is high for them too, but they have shown to be ready to fight and win. 

So you want to see new stories of the US meddling in foreign elections? What world have you been living in? Man, they've been doing that shit for decades. I see a lot of medium-tier countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, or Ethiopia tired of the Western ways and joining BRICS because it's better for their political and economic sovereignty. In BRICS there's a win-win approach, with the US you get a corrupt puppet in your country, and your national resources disappear.

I do think Russia has been meddling in some ways too, they have been found to have funded many ultra-right-wing parties in Europe. Not going into the Russiagate rabbit hole, but just last year some YouTube channels were found to have been funded by Russia. It wasn't the ones like the Majority Report, but the ones like Tim Pool. Because they've found out the recipe, you want to fuck a country, fund their right-wing extremists. Trump himself is the worst that could have happened to the US internally, they had reasons to incentivise that as a geopolitical opponent. 

Europe has to wake up to the reality that the US is not behaving like an ally. The best example is what they did to the Nord Stream, which was a good and cheap energy supply for Northern Europe, it was blown up by the US, both Biden and Trump took credit for that. Europe can build a military for itself, that's fine in the world we live in, but going into war with Russia is stupid as fuck. Russia doesn't want to conquer Europe, and Europe doesn't want Russia either. Does Europe have to cut with the US? No, but they have to make clear that they are independent from it, and if the market in the East with Russia and China is good for their interests, they should make their own decisions about how they engage with them, the same way they do with the US.

 

Edited August 15 by Hatfort

[BlueOak]

@Hatfort , I agree with you in part.

You're right to say that Russia has been responding to what it perceives as Western encroachment. But the idea that Russia is only reacting, rather than pursuing a coherent and aggressive grand strategy, misses the larger pattern. If we understand geopolitics, and history, we must take states at their word and at their actions. I do, I was stupid not to previously.

Power Fills Vacuums

Russia's pattern of behavior: Covert interference, overt military aggression, and systemic undermining of democratic institutions, is not new. It is a continuation of centuries of power projection toward Europe. The Tsars, Soviets, or Putin, the aim has remained generally constant: security through expansion, influence, and buffer zones. - I wish people could look at patterns inside Europe itself, after ww2 we just had a respite with America's military power which is now going away.

Putin doesn’t hide his agenda. His speeches, policies, and military campaigns point toward a desire to reassert Russian dominance over what he calls the 'Russian world', which includes not just Ukraine, but the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and beyond. This is not just me speculating; it is strategic doctrine and state propaganda that I can cite and point to. 

Yes, NATO expanded. But it did so voluntarily by states fleeing Russia's sphere, not through forced military action. Russia sees democracy on its borders not as a threat from military movements, but because it undermines its autocratic narratives at home.

^Moreover this was Russia getting weaker, NATO getting stronger. What we see today is the opposite: America removing itself more from NATO, and Russia backed by China is able to push the opposite way, only more violently - Zero-sum, sphere of influence politics. Same - Same.

Passive Idealism

You said peace is found through disengagement? Show me where that has worked in history with an aggressive authoritarian power. Appeasement only buys time, often for the aggressor. Truth is it doesn't work for either side, sphere's extend till they are stopped.

Europe's peace has not been guaranteed by pacifism but by a strong deterrent. That present-day deterrent is eroding away, previously, the great powers within Europe fought each other. Europe needs to rebuild strategic sovereignty, to give diplomacy real leverage. Soft power without hard power is simply wishful thinking.

A European defense framework, autonomous, modern, nuclear-capable, and independent of the US's hand is long overdue. Not to use offensively. Power projects stability. Weakness invites meddling.

Zero-Sum Spheres

BRICS doesn’t represent a post-Western utopia; it is a coalition of transactional national interests with deeply authoritarian outlooks. China's 'peaceful rise' comes with intellectual property theft, debt diplomacy, and surveillance exports, not to mention cultural genocide. Russia backs far-right groups and individuals, fuels disinformation, and wages hot war. These aren’t 'win-win' partners, they're states playing a hard game and using an opportunity.

You mention U.S. meddling, and yes, it exists. But don't confuse past hypocrisy with present passivity. If others are playing the game, Europe must too. That doesn’t mean neocolonialism, but it does mean actively defending its values, interests, and technological edge.

Conclusion: Power with Purpose

If Europe remains divided, dependent, and in deference, it will become a playground, not a player.

We need a Europe that projects stability through strength, builds alliances through respect, not subordination, and protects its future through strategic autonomy. Not nostalgic imperialism. Not blind Americanism. But a real European renaissance, culturally confident, militarily credible, and economically resilient.

We either stand up, or we get rolled over.

Edited August 15 by BlueOak

[PurpleTree]

 

I thought this talk wasn’t too bad. Although i don’t agree with his assessment that Europeans were basically the worst party in the conflict. He says it not because the Europeans were the most evil or anything but because the Europeans didn’t and don’t have a clear strategy and bad leadership. And i agree mostly Europe is fumbling around. And the leadership is bad, i don’t think anyone likes Von der Leyen and also the French, German and British leaders aren’t very popular. Macron had some good ideas about Europe i think. European army and It etc.

[PurpleTree]

I mean Von der Leyen always kind of seemed like an American bootlicker.

 

God it’s gross ^ and Mark Rutte? Gosh what an ass hat. I thought he was a decent Dutch PM maybe I’m wrong but how he’s stroking the orange plague’s ego. 😬 

[zazen]

Europe needs bold leadership and tact to extricate itself from US vassalization and develop strategic autonomy + start acting in its own interest.

It mainly needs strength and sovereignty in energy, military and industry (tech included). Those form the basis for political/diplomatic sovereignty - without the former the latter have no teeth as their structurally limited and constrained by hard power. Your softness (good hearted values) need the backing of hardness (grounded power in the material world).

Every state or entity has to use its own advantages - for Europe that would be its geographic positioning (not such its geology). It’s connected to the largest landmass on earth connecting it to the rising (already risen) powers of Asia (China) and resource rich Russia and Middle East. It’s also north of Africa with plenty of resources and an ocean away from the US (largest consumer market).

Europe actually benefits greatly from peace and connections it’s already positioned for - rather than a continent of confrontation against Russia. It needs to put itself first before US alignment - and embrace multi-polarity - recognizing and embracing itself as one of those poles rather than being in the shadow of the US.

It should re-engage with Russia (regardless of US dictates) and benefit from cheap energy for its industry, whilst investing in energy connections to North Africa (to diversify), whilst investing in domestic sustainable energy for the long term (to not become so dependent). It should re-shore critical industries (for national security) and go all in on technology which is critical for the world we live in.

On the political front it’s probably best it doesn’t act so brashly and defiantly (speaking openly against US reliance) - but just build quietly in the background to not invite any hostility or US resistance that will try to maintain the status quo (hence I started by saying it will require tactfullness).

Edited August 15 by zazen

[PurpleTree]

 

[Elliott]

Trump is destroying the progress with China and the next Chinese administration could absolutely be another Putin type regime if Europe doesn't bridge with China right now. The crossroads right now could have serious global impact for the next century at least.

Edited August 17 by Elliott

[zazen]

Claude:

- The Geological Constraint
Both Europe and China face the same fundamental geographic limitation: high population density relative to domestic energy and agricultural (mainly lacking in China) resources. This creates an inherent vulnerability - both regions must secure external supplies to maintain their civilizations at current scales. This isn’t a temporary policy choice but a permanent structural reality that shapes their strategic imperatives.

- Historical Responses to Resource Constraints
Europe’s solution was expansionist - colonialism, mercantilism, and later financial imperialism allowed it to extract resources globally while maintaining control over supply chains. This worked for centuries but required military dominance to sustain.

China’s response was the opposite - retreat into autarky, accepting lower material living standards in exchange for strategic autonomy. The Middle Kingdom model prioritized self-sufficiency over expansion, but at the cost of technological and economic development.

- The Modern Convergence
Today’s situation presents both powers with the same optimal strategy: peaceful trade relationships that secure resource flows without the costs of military enforcement. Both would benefit enormously from stable, long-term commercial partnerships with resource-rich nations like Russia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America.
Europe’s Strategic Confusion

Europe is acting like a would-be hegemon while lacking hegemonic capabilities. It’s adopted American-style rhetoric about “rules-based order” and primacy, but lacks the military, energy, and financial independence to back up such posturing. This creates several problems:

    •    Resource Security: Antagonizing suppliers (Russia) while lacking alternatives creates vulnerability
    •    Strategic Autonomy: Following US policies that may not serve European interests
    •    Economic Efficiency: Sanctions and trade wars increase costs for resource-dependent Europe
    •    Diplomatic Capital: Hectoring developing nations about “values” while lacking leverage

China’s More Rational Approach
China, having learned from its isolationist mistakes, now pursues what Europe should: commercial partnerships without ideological demands. Belt and Road Initiative, BRICS expansion, and resource deals with sanctioned countries all reflect recognition of China’s geological constraints and the need for diverse, stable supply relationships.

- The Tragedy of European Policy
Europe could be China’s natural partner in creating a multipolar world based on trade rather than domination. Both need resources, both have technology and capital to offer in exchange, both benefit from stable international commerce. Instead, Europe has chosen to play junior partner in American primacy games it lacks the power to win.

This misalignment between Europe’s structural position (resource-dependent, militarily weak) and its policy stance (primacy-seeking, sanctions-heavy) creates the very instability that threatens European interests. A resource-constrained region picking fights with suppliers while lacking energy independence is strategic suicide.

The irony is that Europe’s colonial history should have taught it that resource extraction through coercion requires overwhelming force - something it no longer possesses in a multipolar world.

[Raze]

They should have resisted NATO expansion and fought against US wars in Libya, Syria, and Iraq.