Technology invades the modern world

Chapter 461 The Outdated G2
After Obama's eight years and Joe's four years, the legacy of the Donald Party has been almost completely squandered.

Faced with the powerful slogans of the "Big T" (a derogatory term for a large number of people), the "Donald Party" (a derogatory term for the Democratic Party) had almost no chance to fight back.

Unless they are willing to support Sanders.

The problem is that if Sanders' social democracy approach tries to work in America, it's tantamount to offending the major financial backers of the Democratic Party.

They didn't dare.

And Sanders is getting old.

Supporting Sanders would mean losing the support of capitalists in exchange for a possible chance of winning, but without supporting Sanders, the Democratic Party lacks a slogan and vision to attract voters.

However, even a centipede with a hundred legs will not die easily. Taking advantage of this opportunity, the Donald Party rummaged through the arsenal of history and found something called G2.

Today, the Donkey Party believes this might be the solution.

"Global View" is a talk show on NBC New York that airs primarily on Saturday nights at 9 p.m.

It focuses on depth and targets a highly educated audience who can think for themselves, most of whom are liberals in the traditional context.

In other words, they are supporters of the Donkey Party.

Host Ellison Reed is known for his sharp tongue and unwavering globalist stance.

At the outset, he faced the camera, his tone serious and somber: "Welcome to Global Outlook. We have witnessed an unprecedented deep-space rescue, in which three American astronauts, thanks to the precise interception by China's Queqiao spacecraft, returned safely."

But behind the joy of this victory lies the complete collapse of America's political narrative.

Mr. Henderson, after the current White House administration's narrative of a lunar rivalry has completely collapsed, what do you think we must admit? Does this humiliating bailout mean we must re-examine the controversial strategy of the previous president—G2, the co-governance of China and America?

The person he was asking the question to, Cameron Henderson, is a senior strategic advisor to the Democratic Party and a former member of the White House National Security Council.

These people have a flexible identity; when the Democrats are in the White House, they are think tank members, and when the Democrats are in opposition, they tend to be mouthpieces.

Advance to attack, retreat to defend.

They're responsible for releasing some information that the bigwigs of the Donald Party can't say publicly, just to sound out what they're thinking.

Will Donald Party voters support a strategy similar to G2's, and what will the feedback be from swing voters?

Based on the feedback, their next steps will be formulated.

Henderson was lean, with a deeply lined face and gray hair; he was the kind of capable, white old man you could tell at a glance.

He clenched his fist and placed it on the table: "Ellison, I think the word 'humiliation' is very accurate."

We must acknowledge that the era of unipolar dominance is over, even in space.

The White House has repeatedly told us that we have established a base at the lunar north pole. They are obsessed with planting their flag in the Arctic, but completely ignore the infrastructure barriers that China has built in Antarctica.

When China can use its technology to decide whether your astronauts can return home, the idea of ​​a power struggle becomes a joke.

The revival of G2 is a pragmatic choice, not an idealistic concession.

After Henderson finished speaking, Ellison immediately realized what was going on. He glanced at the prepared script in his hand and asked, "Mr. Henderson, you mentioned the resurgence of G2."

But we must face reality: the G2 proposal from the previous president's era was based solely on shared responsibility for economic and climate governance.

Today's China will never be content with co-governance limited to these two "soft" areas.

After they demonstrated their deep-space interception capabilities, what can we use to persuade them to return to the negotiating table? What new bargaining chips can we offer?

Henderson replied without hesitation, "Ellison, you've raised the core issue."

Yes, the old G2 framework has gone bankrupt after witnessing the muscle show in lunar orbit.

We can no longer use sweet talk about economic cooperation to appease a country with space dominance.

Our bargaining chip must be power.

We can rediscover one of America's greatest strategic ideas in history.

President Roosevelt's vision for the global order at the end of World War II.

At that time, President Roosevelt foresaw the rise of Soviet Russia and proposed the concept of the "Four Policemen," namely, the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, and China sharing global security responsibilities, which eventually evolved into the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

President Roosevelt's original idea was to divide responsibilities based on power.

Today, China hopes to have a greater voice in the world.

Therefore, through the G2 framework, we can enable them to assume greater responsibility and oversight power in Asia-Pacific economic security and global supply chain stability.

Ellison immediately asked, "Is it a division of power at the institutional level, like the United Nations?"

Henderson nodded: "That's right."

Generally, for shows like this, there will only be one guest if the guest is a big star.

Clearly, a character like Henderson is definitely not a big star.

Therefore, there was another guest present, Mills Heimer, a professor at the University of Chicago specializing in international relations, who is very famous on the Chinese internet.

The greatest advantage of Mearsheimer is that his ideas are easily understood by Chinese people.

Chinese people cannot understand concepts like LGBT. China has no history of such practices, no history of enslaving or discriminating against Black people, and no history of treating other ethnic groups differently. Therefore, they simply cannot understand the concept of LGBT.

Mearsheimer, on the other hand, argued that realism is paramount, which can be simply put as "truth exists only within the range of cannons."

In his approach to international relations, he strongly opposed any additional conditions based on metaphysical factors such as dreams, ideals, ideologies, religious fanaticism, or political correctness, and believed that the focus should be solely on the balance of power.

Ellison turned the conversation to Mills Hammer, asking, "Professor Hammer, what are your thoughts on China's lunar rescue operation? And what are your opinions on Ellison's views?"

Millsheimer was frustrated; his remarks were based on realistic considerations, yet the Americans perceived him as a China sympathizer.

After a moment's thought, he said, "China's rescue is a projection of its capabilities."

They demonstrated the ability to conduct precision deep-space interception, which is extremely deterrent from a military perspective.

But they chose humanitarian action, which was a signal to Washington: We have the ability to restrain you, but we choose to cooperate.

Washington should indeed seize this opportunity to transform this potential threat into a framework for rule-making and shared responsibility.

We should do this, but there are a few points I think we need to be aware of.

At this point in time, such a concept is not a gift to China, but a strategic retreat based on realistic factors.

Mr. Henderson just now still described this as a favor to China.

I believe that even if the Democratic Party comes to power and truly wants to implement G2, they won't be able to reach an agreement with this mindset.

I have traveled to many countries, and China is very special. The people there have an extraordinary obsession with returning to their rightful place.

During 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, and Annam for 96 years. There are countless similar cases.

These are countries that are developing relatively well now. Only China would emphasize that this is a humiliation. They have a special term, "a century of humiliation," to describe this period of history.

If Democrats continue to treat the G2 as a favor, as something we offered voluntarily, the Chinese people will not accept it.

Upon hearing this, Henderson retorted, "Professor Haimer, isn't this a voluntary offering? Isn't this a gift to show our sincerity?"
If we do not retreat, then we will inevitably have to use force or other means to redefine our spheres of influence.

This is a long and arduous process.

This is not a good thing for either side.

We are willing to voluntarily back down.

After a moment of silence, Millsheimer said, “No, you’re wrong. This isn’t a gift; it’s a price we have to pay. We need to gain space and time to resolve our internal problems.”

To put it simply, aside from nuclear weapons and military bases around the world, do we have a military advantage over China?
At least in the Asia-Pacific region, is our winning rate very low?
In the event of war, spheres of influence will be redrawn. China excels at development, that much is undeniable, isn't it?
China excels at construction, while we are not. Rebuilding a city might take us twenty years, but China only needs five.

Moreover, due to the war, these were all rebuilt from scratch, so the governance costs were very low.

China is able to digest these things well, and the resulting expansion of its sphere of influence will be much smoother than in the past.

And what about us? Our sphere of influence in the Asia-Pacific region will be in complete disarray, and we will lose our economic vitality.

After the war, we were left with bleeding wounds, while they received nourishment.

From this perspective, war would be a better gift, unless Washington dares to start a nuclear war.

And what I mean by G2, giving up a portion of its sphere of influence, is not something that happens for no reason.

Instead, the goal is to increase China's governance costs in these regions through covert means, thus depleting their resources.

For America, building the G2 framework doesn't mean she can rest on her laurels and continue playing the same old game.

This is unrealistic.

After China gains this expansion of power, when internal problems arise, they will only want more. Will we give them more then?

G2 is a strategic retreat, the purpose of which is to address the critical problems within our internal and traditional spheres of influence.

Our core objective is to restructure regions like Europe, Canada, and South America, integrating them into a competitive supermarket of 15 billion people.

This is not a simple trade agreement; it requires a Cold War-era Wilsonian reshaping, a grand project centered on America and involving structural reforms.

What we need first is an organizational structure that can translate political will into concrete action.

The existing G7 and G20 are too loosely structured, and the EU is too internally divided.

We must take the lead in establishing a Transatlantic-American Economic Security Committee.

I call this concept an Economic NATO.

This requires the White House and Congress to have enormous political mobilization capabilities.

We must provide technical support and financial guarantees as start-up capital for integrating the European and South American markets.

This is a reinvestment in the alliance system.

South America is our backyard, but it has long been neglected by us.

This region possesses immense strategic resources and a young population.

We cannot continue to engage in political intervention as we have in the past.

We must shift the costs of stability and governance to the countries of South America.

By providing long-term, stable infrastructure financing, South America can secure a reliable supply of resources, people, and markets.

Incorporate South America into the unified standards system of North America.

The USMCA agreement needs to be expanded to include major South American economies, forming a truly unified production and consumption system for the Americas.

The sign of success in revitalizing our 15 billion-person market is being able to solve our internal problems faster and more effectively than our competitors.

If we cannot prove within ten years that this super-large Western market surpasses China in technological research and development, supply chain resilience, energy independence, and market efficiency, then all our strategic retreats and G2 plans will be seen as appeasement, just like Chamberlain's.

It must be said that Mearsheimer is an expert in international relations, but that's all he is—an expert.

His idea is simply impossible for America's current organizational and mobilization capabilities to implement.

Things took an unexpected turn. Henderson dismissed Millsheimer's strategic vision, and he too did not believe that the Democrats could pull it off.

However, when the talk about "reorganizing Europe, North America, and South America to build a super market of 15 billion people" was broadcast, Big T, sitting in Mar-a-Lago, initially watched it with typical anger.

This is a show hosted by the Donkey Party.

When Mearsheimer set his strategic goal on “building a super market of 15 billion people that can compete with China,” his expression froze.

This number, 15 billion, is a magic that no scale-obsessed person can resist.

This is even greater than the combined economic influence of China and India.

He grabbed his phone and immediately posted a series of messages, turning this idea into his own strategy.

"The stupid fake news experts at MSNBC finally got one thing right on tonight's TV show!"

We must integrate Europe, North America, and South America immediately! I've been talking about this for years, but the foolish politicians of the Democratic Party have been too slow! It's a huge market!

We need an economic NATO, a system that is more powerful, fairer, and larger than the old NATO! This would be the most successful economic system in human history!
This is victory! This is final victory! I will do it, and I will do it quickly! Let's be great again!

Mearsheimer's strategy was originally a relatively unknown one, but after being retweeted by Big T, it suddenly became a hot topic of discussion worldwide.

Why did Mearsheimer's strategy gain the appreciation of Big T?
Although Mearsheimer's views are based on a cold, hard realism of international relations, his long-term strategic visions perfectly align with the core needs and psychological preferences of the Big T political philosophy.

The core of the political psychology of the Big T is scale and victory.

The allure of scale—this number itself represents absolute victory and supreme market dominance.

For a president obsessed with "huge" and "unprecedented" deals, this is the highest-level deal he can boast to his voters.

The concept explicitly requires America to take a leading role in the integration process and to develop unified technical and financial standards.

This is not the globalism he so vehemently denounces, which means America should submit to multilateral institutions, but rather the Regional Hegemony he pursues, where America sets the rules and allies abide by them.

Moreover, Mearsheimer's approach is highly transactional rather than ideologically driven.

Abandon ideals and return to trading.

Mearsheimer's approach is to remove ideological impurities and focus solely on power, markets, resources, and efficiency.

This aligns perfectly with the mindset of prioritizing large-scale trading.

The concept of an economic NATO directly echoes his criticism of the old NATO.

His logic was: allies cannot take advantage of America.

This new architecture requires Europe and South America to bear the governance costs, eliminate internal barriers, and provide returns for America's financial and technological investments.

This aligns with Big T's understanding of fair cost-sharing and paid services in alliance relationships.

Most importantly, this space interception made him realize that the risk of war in the Asia-Pacific region is extremely high, and the cost of war would be unfavorable to America.

Therefore, a supermarket with economic efficiency and scale as its core is the safest and most effective weapon to compete with China.

Mearsheimer's realist strategy provided him with a grand, tradable, and overwhelming economic vision for China, perfectly satisfying all his political demands for power, scale, and victory.

The ripples from this space rescue are still spreading.

Lin Ran was also being interviewed at this time.

He was in Shanghai, accepting an interview arranged by Bilibili.

Actually, it started with Chinese officials who wanted to talk to him about the story behind this space rescue.

Lin Ran politely declined, saying that the atmosphere at CCTV was too serious and that many things he said would be cut out.

However, Lin Ran did want to chat for a bit, so he chose Bilibili.

　Watching the opening match of the S-series made me depressed. It was the classic scenario of being completely crushed by T1. We've been watching this kind of domestic drama for thirteen years. Can't we have some new drama this year?
　　
　
(End of this chapter)