Germany's automobile industry is under fire. Western media point fingers at China, accusing it of sparking a fierce price war that’s forced Germany to hand over its once-secure auto market share to rivals.
What’s even more alarming is the industry’s backtracking on environmental promises. The EU set ambitious targets to go zero-emission with new cars by 2035. But with 55,000 German auto jobs cut since 2019 and another 90,000 on the chopping block by 2030, the transition is slower than hoped. Car makers fear they won't hit the fully electric target in time.
It’s a sad reality: a powerhouse in decline, struggling both industrially and environmentally—groundhog day in the worst way.
Lessons From History Matter
Back in 1896, Li Hongzhang of the Qing Dynasty made a pit stop in Germany during his trip to Russia for Tsar Nicholas II’s coronation. The country welcomed him warmly—Qing had been buying German military gear in bulk.
The China Merchants’ Steam Navigation Company still keeps the records online: On June 14, Li presented his credentials and thanks to Kaiser Wilhelm II for Germany’s help returning Liaodong, training Chinese troops, and supporting shipbuilding. The highlight of his trip was a special visit to former Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in Hamburg seeking his advice.
Li asked, “How should we go about reforming China?” Bismarck replied cautiously, “I cannot judge that from here.” Li said, “How can I be successful when everyone at home, government and country, is causing difficulties and constantly hindering me?” “You cannot go against the court," replied Bismarck, “The main thing is: if there is rocket science in the top management, then many things can be done; if there is none, then nothing can be done. No minister can rebel against the will of the rulers; he only carries out his will or gives his advice.”
That was 130 years ago. Germany enjoyed full sovereignty back then. The German Empire was a key player globally, powered by the emperor’s supreme military authority. Li admired German strength and lamented the Qing’s weaknesses. "We have the men," replied Li Hongzhang, "but the training is lacking. Since the Taiping rebellion, that is, for thirty years, nothing has been done in terms of military training.”
He added: “I have now seen the most excellent army in the world, the German one. Even if I myself can no longer use the resources of my own that were at my disposal as Viceroy, I will nevertheless work to ensure that what your Highness advises me to do happens. We must reorganize, and we must do so with Prussian officers and according to the Prussian model.”
Pointing Fingers, Lacking Guts
Now Germany faces tough times but seems to lack even a century-old reminder from the Qing era. Chancellor Merz, however, decides to warn of a rising ideological clash between liberal democracy and authoritarianism. He labels China and Russia threats — yet ignores Europe's role as a pawn handing sovereignty to the US, to King Donald the First. Truly a tragedy to behold.
Foreign Minister Wadephul recently said something like: you can’t trust a country built on ‘unfair trade and relentless tech dominance.’ He warns Germany’s wealth and freedom are in danger. Time and again, we see Wadephul singles out China over Taiwan and Asia-Pacific tensions, overlooking the real elephant in the room.
Europe’s ‘Great Powers’ of the past should really stop dwelling on their bleeding sovereignty and national pride. No matter how weak the Qing got back in the 1900s, leaders like Zeng Guofan, Li Hongzhang, Zuo Zongtang, and Zhang Zhidong fought hard for sovereignty and modernization, despite of final outcome. Talk about real politicians.
So, is Germany ready to throw in the towel? To borrow Bismarck: ‘I can’t judge that from here.’
Deep Blue
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
Trump is telegraphing a pivot: pull back to the homeland and the Western Hemisphere—a refurbished Monroe Doctrine in all but name. Some are already celebrating, saying the “US threat” can be shrugged off and it’s time to focus on growth and business; that is naïve. China’s resolve and kit are only now being readied precisely because a major showdown has long been judged unavoidable.
Is it really that serious though?
Obama, Chávez, a signal
On 18 April 2009 at the Summit of the Americas, Barack Obama drew global praise as he calmly shook hands again with Venezuela President Hugo Chávez and accepted a gift: “Open Veins of Latin America” (Spanish: Las venas abiertas de América Latina), the 1970 landmark by Uruguay’s Eduardo Galeano on Latin America’s colonial past and the exploitation by Western “great powers.” Asked what he thought of the book, Obama quipped: “I thought it was one of Chávez’s books. I was going to give him one of mine.”
Chávez’s choice was deliberate. A staunch anti‑US figure in Latin America, he often accused Washington of its “imperialist” policies in the region. Obama parried deftly—wry, quick‑witted, and assured. For the record, in 2006 he published “The Audacity of Hope,” a deep dive into core American political values that became a runaway bestseller.
What Washington believes
Here’s the point. America’s core doctrines—old or new—are not the democracy‑freedom‑human‑rights, knight‑errant stuff people imagine. As mainland scholar Zhang Xinping argued last year, historically the United States embraced the Monroe Doctrine, using interference and carrot‑and‑stick tactics to force Latin American states to serve US interests, driving economic decline and social turmoil across the region.
In recent years, under the banner of “promoting democracy,” Washington has pushed a “New Monroe Doctrine,” waving the flags of democracy, freedom, and human rights to mould other countries and the world order to American values and political systems. From Monroe to “New Monroe,” it is the through‑line of might‑makes‑right—naked hegemonism—that not only gravely harms democratic principles in international relations but also brings chaos and disaster to many countries.
Chávez died in 2013, and Nicolás Maduro promptly took over as Venezuela’s president. Now in his third term, he faces severe US threats. Even as Trump’s camp talks “retrenchment,” Washington suddenly struck Venezuelan merchant vessels, causing heavy casualties—the White House eager to proclaim Monroeism’s ancestral maxim: “America for Americans,” with the United States watching over and calling the shots across the entire hemisphere.
Blunt reminder: this is not the world of 200 years ago. We live in a globalized economy. Shut your door and decide as you wish—fine, but that applies only within US borders. Beyond that—any corner, any patch of ground—the United States must not step over the line. Remember, the global economy and technology require global energy and materials in combination, and the world must operate under one roof—one governance framework—to run smoothly.
Fight your own battles
Trump has rebranded the Pentagon as the War Department and boasted Chicago will soon learn why—because the White House is hell‑bent on “fixing a Democrat‑run city with crime through the roof”. That’s their lane, not ours. It’s an internal affair, period.
Beijing’s September 3 parade springs to mind. When the DF‑5C rolled by, the message was simple: a new liquid‑fuel ICBM with a reach past 12,000 kilometres, and a doctrine boiled down to three terms—“Nuclear trinity, global coverage, full-time alert.” In plain English: any target, anywhere, on call. There is no sanctuary, but assured retaliation.
People say, America’s power brokers are stubborn, and they don’t walk away from two centuries of hegemony on a whim.
Global minus America
Let’s hope there are grown‑ups in Washington who actually understand China’s nuclear mantra. If America wants to focus inward, be my guest: close the door, argue among yourselves, make what you use and use what you make—deliver a world that runs just fine minus America. Most people would happily live with that.
If Trump wants to play, China’s ready to clear the decks and give him the undivided attention—right to the bitter end.
