Einar Tangen

[Carl Zha @CarlZha]

The face of Chinese soft power

[Einar Tangen @ehtangen]

Chinanomics 3.0

The most consequential mistake many make is considering Beijing's policies separately as opposed to carefully calibrated parts of a strategic masterplan.

https://t.co/1zjKE8jRAh

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

This is extraordinarily rare.

In fact, according to a key figure in the German business community (who is a dear friend of mine), it's unprecedented.

An op-ed, two pages, centerpiece, in Germany’s most important economic newspaper (the Handelsblatt) that begs the German establishment to stop looking at China via the prism of propaganda. And it's by their Shanghai bureau chief - not some outside contributor.

The title is "The China debate cannot continue like this!" and the article makes the case that it's suicidal, from a German and European standpoint, to keep reducing China to false caricatures rather than facts.

In effect it's rubbish in, rubbish out: if you tell people lies about China - whichever direction they go (anti or pro) - then obviously the policies that come out will be rubbish, designed for a mirage of a country that exists only in people's imagination.

Needless to say, this is absolutely music to my ears because it's literally the main point I've been making in my advocacy around China for now almost 10 years. Some are finally seeing the light...

I also believe, as I argued in my article "Are Western media turning China-friendly?" last year (https://t.co/Xg1hoSRtNy) that this type of coverage was bound to happen, and there will be more and more of it.

Why? For a very simple structural reason: China is now too powerful to coerce. The West, and Europe in particular, just don't have the leverage anymore. Which means that if you tell China to do something and they don't want to, they just won't do it. Period.

In this situation, incapable of coercing, your only remaining choice is... convincing. And what do you need if you want to convince someone? Well, you need to understand them: understand how they think, how they behave, what drives them, what they actually want.

In other words: the moment coercion stops being an option, not only does propaganda stop being useful, it begins to be actively harmful as genuine understand becomes a strategic necessity. Reality is finally becoming profitable again.

Which means, if you're a journalist reading this and you're peddling some of your usual lies, describing China as some sort of cartoonish dictatorial dystopia that's simultaneously on the verge of collapse yet a "threat" to the whole world (in short, if you write on China for The Economist or the FT), be on notice: the real threat to your country isn't China. It's you.

[Alice Zhao @zhaomanfeng]

@Acyn I called her a liar, stormed off, and ended the interview. But it was raining, so… good times.

[Alice Zhao @zhaomanfeng]

@Linahuaa Haha, so true! When I was in Berlin, I fell in love with two things:
🥙 Kebabs – amazing value, delicious, and everywhere
🥨 Pretzels – simple, salty, perfect bites for morning, noon, evening.

No disrespect to BMW – but give me a good kebab over a luxury car any day. 😄

[𝘊𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 @OopsGuess]

The EU has mastered one trick:
When it wins, it calls it free trade.
When China wins, it calls it overdependence.

For decades, European cars, appliances, luxury goods, chemicals, machinery, and high-end consumer products entered the Chinese market. China did not cry that Europe was “distorting” its market or creating “dependency.”

China competed.
China learned.
China upgraded.

But the moment Chinese industries became competitive, Europe suddenly discovered “strategic risk.”

Solar panels?
Europe blocked and punished Chinese solar for years with tariffs and trade barriers. Did that revive Europe’s own solar industry? No. It only made Europe’s energy transition more expensive until it eventually had to reopen the door.

Huawei and ZTE?
Europe followed Washington’s pressure campaign, ripped out Chinese telecom infrastructure it had already deployed, spent more money, delayed its own networks, and called that “security.”

Energy?
Europe chose geopolitical obedience, cut itself off from cheap Russian energy, raised its own industrial costs, became more dependent on the U.S., and then watched its companies move across the Atlantic under American subsidies and tariffs.

But somehow the problem is still China.

Please.

Europe’s crisis was not created by Chinese overcapacity.
It was created by European complacency, American dependency, ideological industrial policy, expensive energy, and decades of mistaking moral lectures for competitiveness.

Now Chinese industries are faster, cheaper, more integrated, and more efficient — from EVs to batteries, solar, electronics, ports, logistics, and manufacturing ecosystems.

So Europe invents new language:
“Diversification.”
“De-risking.”
“Overdependence.”
“Fair competition.”

But strip away the diplomatic costume, and it is just protectionism with Brussels paperwork.

China did not force Europe to deindustrialize itself.
Europe made its choices.

It followed Washington.
It sanctioned its own energy base.
It taxed its own consumers.
It slowed its own innovation.
It lectured China while China built.

And now it wants China to pay for Europe’s failure to compete.

No.

China-EU trade is not a charity program for declining European industries.
If Europe wants competitiveness, it should build it.
Not rename protectionism as “diversification” and expect China to applaud.

[Einar Tangen @ehtangen]

Given the divergence of politics and the underlying threat of military force. This essay points to the possibility of a middle way that recognizes the necessity of economic bridges between not just the US and China, but the rest of the world.
https://t.co/c6XpuJS6M5

[Einar Tangen @ehtangen]

Given the divergence of politics and the underlying threat of military force. This essay points to the possibility of a middle way that recognizes the necessity of economic bridges between not just the US and China, but the rest of the world.
https://t.co/c6XpuJS6M5

[Einar Tangen @ehtangen]

Late but at least he finally got there

[Alice Zhao @zhaomanfeng]

Francis Fukuyama @FukuyamaFrancis just admitted he got China wrong.

The "End of History" author now says: if China keeps its current momentum, his four‑decade‑old predictions about China would be incorrect.

He also called China's model "a remarkable model" that could become "a real alternative" to Western democracy.

History didn't end. It just stopped following the script they wrote.

[Einar Tangen @ehtangen]

The Utopia moment comes when explinations make your case worse

[Warwick Powell | 鲍韶山 @baoshaoshan]

I thought this was a new episode of Utopia at first.

It’s not. It’s real life.

The greatest risk to national security is actually coming from those ostensibly responsible for it.

🤔 🤷‍♂️

[Sony Thăng @nxt888]

The Tank Man image is so powerful that most people believe tanks crushed protesters at Tiananmen.

They didn't. The tanks stopped for Tank Man. He lived.

The Israeli bulldozer did not stop for Rachel Corrie.

She was 23.

She was American.

She was wearing an orange vest.

She died on March 16, 2003.

Marco has never posted about March 16.

[Carl Zha @CarlZha]

Tank Man photographer describing how violence started on the night of June 3rd, 1989 during the Tiananmen protest;

[Daniel Dumbrill @DanielDumbrill]

Over the past 7 years I've gotten used to being called a China agent for debunking propaganda against China. Now my American friends get to enjoy this opportunity too — and you don't even have to try as hard!

All you need to do is question data centers going up in your neighbourhood.

Question the electricity demands that spike bills and hammer the grid? You're a CCP agent.

Call out the millions of gallons pulled from your water supply for cooling? You're a CCP agent.

Mention the nonstop fan noise wrecking sleep? You're a CCP agent.

Object to diesel exhaust from backup generators? You're a CCP agent.

Worry your property values will take a hit? You're a CCP agent.

China becomes the all-purpose scapegoat. Legitimate local concerns get waved away as a foreign plot because politicians and corporations refuse to admit regular people might actually care about their own communities.

Watch full episode with @CarlZha here: https://t.co/UuAYt6ceAN

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

Thank you so much to everyone who voted for me, and thank you @96Stats for organizing!

In truth, what really keeps me writing on this app is the incredible community of people here who seem to care about what I write! It was definitely not a given as someone who grew up in rural southern France that I'd somehow become someone people turn to for insights on China - but that's the beauty of life!

Speaking of RV, by the way, I'm about to spend the whole summer touring Western China with my wife and two daughters, so expect plenty of tweets from the road! 😊

[Einar Tangen @ehtangen]

This is the second of a three part series. 

Part 1 was about how America has evolved over the last 62 years 

Part 2 is about how China evolved over the last 47 years. 

Part 3 will be about how economic opportunities are evolving as the geopolitical evolves

[Occupy Democrats @OccupyDemocrats]

BREAKING: RETALIATION! A DOGE whistleblower had his brake lines cut the day after Elon Musk called him a criminal on X — and he's now suing for defamation.

Dan Berulis did everything right. He saw something alarming, filed a proper Congressional whistleblower complaint, and went public through legitimate channels. Then someone taped threatening photos of him walking his dog to his front door. Then Elon Musk called him a criminal to 200 million followers. Then his brake lines were cut.

Berulis was an IT staffer at the National Labor Relations Board who filed a whistleblower complaint in April 2025, alleging that DOGE had accessed the agency's systems and appeared to be exfiltrating data — and that minutes after DOGE accessed those systems, login attempts appeared from a Russian IP address.

Five days after he went public, on Easter Sunday, Musk reshared a post from a right-wing influencer claiming Berulis' complaint was false, writing: "Filing a deliberately false whistleblower claim is a serious crime." Musk's followers responded by calling for Berulis's prosecution, arrest, and harm. One wrote, "Snitches get stitches."

The next morning, Berulis got in his car. His brakes didn't work. He ran off the road into a stop sign. A mechanic later found his brake lines had been cut — and that a safety sensor had also been removed and its wires carefully spliced to prevent the car from detecting the missing component or alerting the driver.

Fingerprints were found on the car. The police case is now "inactive."

Berulis never went back to his home. He moved out, stayed in hotels, and has lived carefully ever since.

He is now suing Musk for defamation — knowing, in his own words, that it's "kicking the hornet's nest" against someone with nearly unlimited resources. If he wins, he says he'll use the proceeds to defend other whistleblowers.

"I'm not expecting to win this. The asymmetry here is real," Berulis said. "But I am trying to get something positive out of it."

One more detail that should terrify everyone: Berulis had moved to his address just three months before the threatening note appeared. He hadn't updated his bank, his phone, his car registration, or his driver's license. The only entities that had his new address were his utilities and the Office of Personnel Management — one of the first agencies DOGE accessed.

The atrocities that DOGE inflicted upon the US government may have faded from the immediate consciousness of most people, but the fallout continues. Let’s hope that this whistleblower sees the justice he deserves.

Please like and share this post everywhere to spread the news!

[Glenn Diesen @Glenn_Diesen]

There is a strange development in which academics of international politics are expected to publicly condemn adversarial countries before they are allowed to participate in public discourse. The complexity of international politics is reduced to a moral question of good versus evil, and academics must make moral declarations before even discussing facts, history, strategy, and interpretations. Academics should explain why states behave as they do; they are not moral validators.

What value does it bring to an analysis if the analyst "condemns" one side? After Russia invaded Ukraine, the former Norwegian foreign minister actually argued that "this is not the time to understand, but to condemn". This ridiculous position is pushed on academics. However, understanding is not endorsement, explanation is not advocacy, and ignorance is not strength. I argue it is in Russia's security interest to push NATO away from its borders, it is in Iran's interest to control the Strait of Hormuz, and it is in China's interest to create a new international economic architecture. This is not advocacy, nor is it a normative position about how the world should work; rather, it is a recognition of how the world actually works.

An academic should examine interests, capabilities, and strategic calculations that produce such policies—not participate in ritualised declarations of virtue that contribute absolutely nothing. Furthermore, moralism and condemnation often lead to a lack of understanding and increased conflict. When the conclusion is always that the good guys are confronting the bad guys, then the solution is always "peace through strength", "weapons are the path to peace", and defeating the latest reincarnation of Hitler. If you want war, condemn the other side as pure evil. If you want peace, the first step is to understand the other side.

[Martina Navratilova @Martina]

Yup

[Carl Bildt @carlbildt]

I find the concept of “overcapacity” ridiculous. Does Germany have an overcapacity in cars? France one in wine? Sweden in heavy trucks? Italy in fashion? And don’t tell me that European food exports aren’t subsidized. https://t.co/Bl2yiF8hdg

[Warwick Powell | 鲍韶山 @baoshaoshan]

The west would have far less to bleat about if it brought financialisation to heel, reduced consumer credit & focused on its myriad problems rather than pretending that it’s always someone else’s fault.