> Or, read what Stratfor (if you have a subscription) has been predicting for a decade now: Germany's slow decline, to be replaced as Europe's power center by Poland.
As a Pole, I cannot help but laugh at that. Why would that ever be the case?
As a Pole, I cannot help but laugh at that. Why would that ever be the case?
Stratfor employs many ex-US-intelligence-agency people who use the same geopolitical analysis methods for a corporate audience (though without classified data) and their views are a close approximation of the thinking of the US's intelligence community; in that sense, they are significant.
They do state it with an air of authority and "high caliber top secret intelligence" but still laughable.
Which means in that sense it will be very likely ridicously wrong?!
To reply (though you were perfectly capable of this thought yourself):
Obviously; but it gives us a frame to understand geopolitical behavior by the US as it happens, and before it happens.
Edward Gibbon described “secret intrigues of the palace” (palace intrigue) as “those trifling but decisive causes which so often influence the fate of empires.” Stratfor is the Pentagon's palace intrigue (several steps removed).
If you've ever read Stratfor you know they expect, and plan for, the disintegration of Russia and China into smaller republics; and you can tell I don't believe in that.
It is merely an indication that the US likely now sees Germany as a second-rate ally, irrelevant to its geopolitical future; and therefore doesn't care about the sanctions' effect on Germany. That is the only reason I brought it up.
Similarly, holding the passport of a country doesn’t automatically make someone a geopolitical expert
I mean no offense at all, I’ve simply observed way too many instances of online discourse beginning with “as a citizen of ____” to establish credibility in areas that don’t really benefit from citizenship.