Example of using AI on a current political topic

I recently wrote an article on the use of AI by governments, today I propose a reflection around an open discussion with DeepSeek on the change in US policy towards its historical allies in the current global context. This text is neither for nor against this policy, it is just a questioning of the possible consequences for the USA and the EU. This discussion shows how the use of AI can lead to questions at the strategic level of a government.

This is a very long article, I'm sorry, but it gives a good idea of the possible enrichment of reflections at the government level by AI. You will also see that the questions asked strongly influence the answers. I deliberately chose to be politically incorrect in order to have extreme scenarios.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 1 - Just a question if I may, what could be the interest for the USA to cut the line with its historical friends ? Making business with other countries ? Not spending money into lost causes ? dodge a war ? please can you develop the pros and cons ?

DeepSeek :

The idea of the U.S. cutting ties with its historical allies is a complex and controversial topic. While the U.S. has maintained strong alliances for decades (e.g., NATO, partnerships with Japan, South Korea, and the UK), there are scenarios where such a shift might be considered. Below, I’ll break down the potential interests (pros) and risks (cons) of such a move, as well as the motivations behind it.

Potential Interests (Pros) for the U.S. Cutting Ties with Historical Allies

1. Economic Efficiency: Reduced Military Spending: The U.S. spends heavily on defending allies (e.g., NATO, South Korea, Japan). Cutting ties could reduce these costs, allowing funds to be redirected domestically. Focus on Profitable Partnerships: The U.S. might prioritize relationships with countries that offer better economic returns, such as emerging markets or resource-rich nations.
2. Avoiding Entanglements: Dodging Wars: Alliances often come with mutual defense commitments (e.g., NATO’s Article 5). Cutting ties could reduce the risk of being dragged into conflicts that don’t directly serve U.S. interests. Reduced Diplomatic Strain: The U.S. might avoid being caught in the middle of disputes between allies (e.g., tensions between NATO members and non-NATO countries).
3. Strategic Flexibility: Pursuing New Alliances: The U.S. could pivot to forming relationships with rising powers or neutral countries, adapting to a multipolar world. Focus on Rivals: By distancing itself from traditional allies, the U.S. might focus more on countering rivals like China or Russia without being constrained by allied interests.
4. Domestic Political Appeal: Isolationist Sentiment: Some segments of the U.S. population favor a more isolationist or "America First" approach, arguing that allies often take advantage of U.S. support. Reduced Foreign Aid: Cutting ties could mean less foreign aid to allies, which might appeal to taxpayers who prioritize domestic issues.

Risks and Drawbacks (Cons) of Cutting Ties with Historical Allies

1. Loss of Global Influence: Erosion of Soft Power: Allies amplify U.S. influence through diplomacy, trade, and cultural exchange. Cutting ties could diminish the U.S.’s ability to shape global norms and policies. Weakened Alliances: Allies might form their own coalitions without the U.S., reducing its leadership role in international institutions like NATO or the UN.
2. Economic Consequences: Trade Disruptions: Many allies are key trading partners. Cutting ties could lead to tariffs, sanctions, or reduced access to critical markets. Loss of Investment Opportunities: Allies often collaborate on technology, infrastructure, and innovation. Cutting ties could harm U.S. businesses and economic growth.
3. Security Risks: Increased Vulnerability: Allies provide strategic bases, intelligence sharing, and military support. Losing these could weaken U.S. defense capabilities. Rise of Rivals: Without U.S. support, allies might align with other powers (e.g., China or Russia), shifting the global balance of power against U.S. interests.
4. Diplomatic Isolation: Loss of Trust: Cutting ties could damage the U.S.’s reputation as a reliable partner, making it harder to form new alliances in the future. Global Instability: Allies often help stabilize regions. Without U.S. support, conflicts could escalate, leading to refugee crises, terrorism, or regional wars.
5. Domestic Backlash: Criticism from Pro-Alliance Groups: Many Americans value alliances for historical, cultural, and strategic reasons. Cutting ties could lead to significant political and public opposition. Impact on Military-Industrial Complex: Reduced alliances might mean fewer arms sales and contracts for U.S. defense companies, affecting jobs and the economy.

Motivations Behind Such a Move

1. Economic Pragmatism: The U.S. might prioritize relationships with countries that offer better trade deals or resources, such as China, India, or Gulf states.
2. Isolationism: A desire to focus on domestic issues (e.g., infrastructure, healthcare) rather than engaging in costly foreign interventions.
3. Strategic Realignment: Adapting to a multipolar world where traditional allies are less central to global power dynamics.
4. Political Ideology: Leaders or movements that favor unilateralism or nationalism might push for a break from alliances seen as burdensome.

Conclusion

While cutting ties with historical allies might offer short-term economic and strategic benefits, the long-term risks are significant. The U.S. has built its global influence largely through its network of alliances, which provide economic, military, and diplomatic advantages. Abandoning these relationships could lead to a loss of global leadership, increased vulnerability, and a more unstable world order.

However, in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape, the U.S. might seek to rebalance its alliances, focusing on partnerships that better align with its current priorities. This could involve reducing support for some allies while strengthening ties with others, rather than a complete break.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Question 2 - Imagine a scenario in which the USA would sign economic agreements with Russia while the latter is carrying out armed incursions in the countries of Eastern Europe, imagine that the USA signs trade agreements with Israel which would have totally annexed Palestine by exterminating the former local populations with bombs, imagine that the USA announces that it is leaving NATO, that it denounces all trade agreements with the EU, imagine that it also gets closer to China, what would you say about this scenario please?

DeepSeek :

This scenario you’ve described is highly provocative and would represent a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy, with far-reaching consequences for global stability, international norms, and the U.S.’s own position in the world. Let’s break it down step by step and analyze the implications:

1. Signing Economic Agreements with Russia During Armed Incursions in Eastern Europe

• Implications: Undermining International Law: By engaging economically with Russia while it carries out armed incursions, the U.S. would effectively condone aggression and violate principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity enshrined in international law. Alienating Allies: Eastern European NATO members (e.g., Poland, Baltic states) would feel betrayed, leading to a breakdown in trust and potentially pushing them to seek security guarantees elsewhere. Empowering Russia: Economic support could strengthen Russia’s ability to continue its military campaigns, destabilizing Europe further.
• Global Reaction: The U.S. would face widespread condemnation from the international community, including allies and institutions like the UN. It could embolden other authoritarian regimes to pursue similar aggressive actions, knowing that economic ties might shield them from consequences.

2. Signing Trade Agreements with Israel After Annexing Palestine Through Violent Means

• Implications: Moral and Ethical Crisis: The U.S. would be seen as complicit in what could be described as ethnic cleansing or genocide, severely damaging its moral standing globally. Regional Instability: Such actions would inflame tensions across the Middle East, potentially leading to widespread conflict and terrorism. Loss of Influence: Arab and Muslim-majority countries would likely cut ties with the U.S., aligning instead with rivals like China or Russia.
• Global Reaction: The U.S. would face international isolation, with possible sanctions or boycotts from countries and organizations opposed to such actions. It could trigger a global humanitarian crisis, with millions of displaced Palestinians seeking refuge.

3. Leaving NATO and Denouncing Trade Agreements with the EU

• Implications: Collapse of Transatlantic Alliance: NATO has been a cornerstone of global security since World War II. U.S. withdrawal would cripple the alliance, leaving Europe vulnerable to external threats. Economic Fallout: The EU is one of the U.S.’s largest trading partners. Cutting ties would disrupt supply chains, harm businesses, and likely lead to a global economic downturn. Power Vacuum: Without U.S. leadership, Europe might seek to build its own defense capabilities, potentially leading to a militarized and fragmented continent.
• Global Reaction: Allies would view the U.S. as an unreliable partner, accelerating efforts to reduce dependence on American leadership. Russia and China would likely exploit the situation to expand their influence in Europe and beyond.

4. Moving Closer to China

• Implications: Strategic Realignment: Closer ties with China would signal a shift away from the U.S.’s traditional allies in Asia (e.g., Japan, South Korea, Australia), destabilizing the region. Economic Dependence: While China offers significant economic opportunities, closer ties could make the U.S. vulnerable to coercion or exploitation by Beijing. Undermining Democratic Values: Aligning with an authoritarian regime like China would contradict the U.S.’s historical commitment to promoting democracy and human rights.
• Global Reaction: Allies in Asia and beyond would feel abandoned, potentially leading to new regional alliances without U.S. involvement. It could accelerate the decline of U.S. influence in favor of a China-dominated world order.

Broader Consequences of This Scenario

1. Loss of Global Leadership: The U.S. would lose its position as the leader of the free world, ceding influence to rivals like China and Russia. International institutions (e.g., UN, WTO, IMF) would likely shift away from U.S.-led norms, creating a more fragmented and less predictable global order.
2. Erosion of Trust: Allies would no longer see the U.S. as a reliable partner, leading to a breakdown in diplomatic and military cooperation. The U.S. would struggle to form new alliances, as its reputation for consistency and commitment would be severely damaged.
3. Global Instability: The power vacuum left by the U.S. would likely lead to increased conflict, as rival powers compete for dominance. Regions like Europe, the Middle East, and Asia could become flashpoints for war, with devastating humanitarian consequences.
4. Domestic Backlash: Such a dramatic shift in foreign policy would likely face significant opposition within the U.S., both from the public and political elites. It could lead to political polarization, protests, and a loss of confidence in government leadership.

Conclusion

This scenario represents a radical departure from the U.S.’s historical role as a global leader and defender of international norms. While it might appeal to isolationist or nationalist factions, the long-term consequences would be catastrophic for both the U.S. and the world. The erosion of alliances, loss of global influence, and rise of authoritarian powers would create a more unstable and dangerous world, undermining the very interests the U.S. seeks to protect.

If this scenario were to unfold, it would likely be met with widespread condemnation, both domestically and internationally, and could mark the end of the U.S.-led liberal international order that has shaped global politics since World War II.

Question 3 - I know you don't work in real time, but what if I told you that in March 2025 this is what is happening, that the EU is restructuring economically and militarily, that it has voted to deploy French nuclear weapons in Germany, that all the Scandinavian countries have joined an armed union that will replaced NATO, that weapons and munitions factories are secretly deployed all over Europe. The US has tried to establish direct diplomatic relations with various European countries on the condition that they free themselves from the EU for trade agreements and that all these countries have said no. India is getting closer to Europe.

DeepSeek?:

If this scenario were to unfold in March 2025, it would represent a seismic shift in the global geopolitical landscape, with profound implications for international relations, security, and economics. Let’s analyze the key elements of this scenario and their potential consequences:

1. EU Restructuring Economically and Militarily

• Implications: Economic Integration: A restructured EU could become more self-reliant, reducing its dependence on the U.S. and other external powers. This might involve deeper fiscal integration, a stronger euro, and coordinated industrial policies. Military Independence: The EU’s move to deploy French nuclear weapons in Germany signals a significant step toward military autonomy. This could lead to the creation of a unified European defense force, reducing reliance on NATO and the U.S.
• Consequences: The EU would emerge as a more cohesive and powerful bloc, capable of projecting power globally. This could strain transatlantic relations further, as the U.S. might view a militarily independent EU as a competitor rather than an ally.

2. Scandinavian Countries Joining an Armed Union Replacing NATO

• Implications: New Security Architecture: The formation of a Scandinavian-led armed union would indicate a loss of confidence in NATO and the U.S. This union could serve as a model for other regions seeking to create their own defense structures. Focus on Regional Security: The union would likely prioritize the defense of Northern Europe, potentially including the Arctic, which is becoming increasingly strategic due to climate change and resource competition.
• Consequences: NATO’s relevance would be further diminished, potentially leading to its eventual dissolution. The U.S. would lose a key pillar of its global security strategy, forcing it to rethink its approach to Europe.

3. Weapons and Munitions Factories Secretly Deployed Across Europe

• Implications: Military Buildup: The secret deployment of weapons factories suggests a rapid militarization of Europe, likely in response to perceived threats from Russia or other adversaries. Self-Sufficiency: Europe would be preparing for the possibility of prolonged conflict without relying on external suppliers, including the U.S.
• Consequences: This could escalate tensions with Russia, potentially leading to a new arms race in Europe. It might also strain relations with the U.S., which could view Europe’s militarization as a challenge to its own defense industry.

4. U.S. Attempts to Establish Direct Diplomatic Relations with European Countries

• Implications: Divide and Conquer Strategy: The U.S. appears to be trying to weaken the EU by negotiating directly with individual countries, offering trade agreements in exchange for distancing themselves from the bloc. Rejection by European Countries: The fact that all countries have refused indicates a strong commitment to EU unity and a rejection of U.S. attempts to undermine it.
• Consequences: The U.S. would face further isolation in Europe, with its influence significantly diminished. This could push the EU to strengthen ties with other global powers, such as China or India, further marginalizing the U.S.

5. India Moving Closer to Europe

• Implications: Strategic Partnership: India’s alignment with Europe would represent a significant shift in global alliances. This could involve trade agreements, technology transfers, and military cooperation. Counterbalance to China: India’s closer ties with Europe could serve as a counterweight to China’s growing influence in Asia and beyond.
• Consequences: The U.S. would lose a key strategic partner in Asia, as India’s focus shifts toward Europe. This could accelerate the formation of a multipolar world, with Europe and India emerging as major power centers alongside the U.S., China, and Russia.

Broader Implications of This Scenario

1. Decline of U.S. Influence: The U.S. would face a significant loss of influence in Europe, its traditional sphere of influence. This could lead to a broader decline in its global leadership role. The U.S. might pivot to other regions, such as the Indo-Pacific, but its ability to project power globally would be weakened.
2. Rise of a Multipolar World: Europe, India, and other powers would emerge as independent actors, challenging the U.S.-led world order. This could lead to increased competition and instability, as rival powers vie for influence.
3. Global Economic Realignment: The restructuring of the EU and its closer ties with India could lead to the formation of new economic blocs, reducing the dominance of the U.S. dollar and American financial institutions. The U.S. might face economic isolation, with its trade and investment opportunities shrinking.
4. Security Implications: The militarization of Europe and the formation of new defense unions could lead to a more fragmented and volatile security environment. The risk of conflict, both within Europe and between major powers, could increase.

Conclusion

If this scenario were to unfold in March 2025, it would mark a dramatic transformation of the global order. The U.S. would face unprecedented challenges to its influence and leadership, while Europe and India would emerge as major power centers. The world would likely become more multipolar, with increased competition and instability.

This scenario underscores the importance of alliances and international cooperation in maintaining global stability. For the U.S., it would serve as a stark reminder of the risks of isolationism and the need to adapt to a changing world. For Europe and India, it would represent an opportunity to shape a new global order, but also a responsibility to manage the risks of increased competition and conflict.

Question 4 - Two other recent news items to enrich the debate. The last BRICS summit held from October 22 to 24, 2024 in Kazan, Russia, was once again an opportunity to strengthen the project of creating a currency for emerging economies backed by gold reserves called “Unit”. Since the end of the Quincy Accords in June 2024, Saudi Arabia has marked a decisive turning point by ending the era of the petrodollar. This decision now allows the kingdom to sell its oil in any currency, thus weakening the dominance of the US dollar on the world market.

DeepSeek :

These two developments—the creation of a gold-backed BRICS currency (the "Unit") and Saudi Arabia's decision to end the petrodollar system—represent seismic shifts in the global economic and geopolitical landscape. When combined with the earlier scenario you described, they paint a picture of a world rapidly moving away from U.S. dominance and toward a multipolar system. Let’s analyze these developments and their implications in detail.

1. BRICS Gold-Backed Currency ("Unit")

• Implications: Challenge to the U.S. Dollar: The creation of a gold-backed currency by BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and potentially other members) directly challenges the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s primary reserve currency. The "Unit" could offer an alternative for trade and investment, reducing reliance on the dollar. Economic Power Shift: The BRICS nations represent a significant portion of the global population, GDP, and natural resources. A common currency could strengthen their collective economic influence and reduce their vulnerability to U.S. sanctions or financial policies. Gold as a Backing: By backing the "Unit" with gold, BRICS is appealing to countries wary of fiat currencies and the volatility of the dollar. This could attract nations seeking stability and an alternative to the current dollar-dominated system.
• Consequences: De-Dollarization: The global financial system could fragment, with countries increasingly using the "Unit" for trade and reserves. This would weaken the dollar’s dominance and reduce the U.S.’s ability to leverage its currency for geopolitical purposes. Impact on U.S. Economy: A decline in demand for dollars could lead to higher interest rates, inflation, and reduced borrowing capacity for the U.S. government. Geopolitical Realignment: Countries that adopt the "Unit" might align more closely with BRICS, further eroding U.S. influence in regions like Africa, Latin America, and Asia.

2. End of the Petrodollar System

• Implications: Historical Shift: Since the 1970s, the petrodollar system has underpinned the dollar’s dominance by requiring oil sales to be conducted in dollars. Saudi Arabia’s decision to end this arrangement marks a historic turning point. Flexibility for Oil Producers: Saudi Arabia and other oil-exporting countries can now sell oil in currencies like the euro, yuan, or even the new BRICS "Unit." This reduces their dependence on the dollar and aligns with their geopolitical interests. Weakening of Dollar Hegemony: The petrodollar system has been a key pillar of dollar dominance. Its end could accelerate the decline of the dollar as the world’s primary reserve currency.
• Consequences: Global Trade Shifts: Oil-importing countries might diversify their currency reserves, reducing their reliance on the dollar. This could lead to a more multipolar currency system. Impact on U.S. Financial Markets: Reduced demand for dollars could lead to capital outflows from U.S. markets, higher borrowing costs, and economic instability. Geopolitical Implications: Saudi Arabia’s decision signals a shift in its alliances, potentially moving closer to BRICS or other non-Western powers. This could further isolate the U.S. in the Middle East.

Combined Impact of These Developments

1. Accelerated Decline of U.S. Global Dominance: The end of the petrodollar system and the creation of the BRICS "Unit" would significantly weaken the U.S. dollar’s role in global trade and finance. This, combined with the earlier scenario of U.S. isolation in Europe, would mark a dramatic decline in American influence.
2. Rise of a Multipolar World: The BRICS currency and Saudi Arabia’s move would empower emerging economies and reduce their dependence on Western financial systems. This would accelerate the shift toward a multipolar world, with multiple power centers (e.g., BRICS, EU, India) competing for influence.
3. Fragmentation of the Global Financial System: The world could see the emergence of competing financial blocs, with some countries using the dollar, others the euro, and others the BRICS "Unit." This fragmentation could lead to increased volatility and uncertainty in global markets.
4. Geopolitical Realignment: Countries like Saudi Arabia, India, and others might pivot away from the U.S. and toward BRICS or other emerging powers. This could lead to new alliances and partnerships that further marginalize the U.S.
5. Economic Challenges for the U.S.: The combination of de-dollarization, reduced influence in Europe, and the rise of alternative financial systems could lead to significant economic challenges for the U.S., including higher inflation, reduced investment, and slower growth.

Broader Implications for Global Stability

1. Increased Competition and Conflict: A multipolar world with competing financial systems and alliances could lead to increased geopolitical tensions and the risk of conflict, both economic and military.
2. Opportunities for Smaller Nations: Smaller countries might benefit from greater flexibility in choosing their economic and political partners, reducing their dependence on any single power.
3. Uncertainty for Global Institutions: Institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, which have been dominated by Western powers, might face challenges to their relevance and authority in a multipolar world.

Conclusion

The creation of the BRICS "Unit" and the end of the petrodollar system, combined with the earlier scenario of U.S. isolation in Europe, would mark a profound transformation of the global order. The U.S. would face unprecedented challenges to its economic and geopolitical dominance, while emerging powers like BRICS, the EU, and India would gain influence.

This new world order would be characterized by increased competition, fragmentation, and uncertainty. While it offers opportunities for some countries to assert their independence, it also poses significant risks for global stability and cooperation. The U.S. would need to adapt quickly to this new reality, potentially by rethinking its foreign policy, strengthening domestic economic resilience, and seeking new partnerships to maintain its relevance in a rapidly changing world.

Question 5 - Thank for your analyse, it's exactly where I am with other people. In Europe we didn't ask for it, but we are moving as fast as we can to protect our borders at the East facing an expansionism Russia dreaming of a came back of USSR more all the countries of the ex-Yugoslavia and between.

DeepSeek :

You're absolutely right to highlight the urgency and complexity of the situation facing Europe. The continent finds itself in a precarious position, caught between a resurgent Russia with expansionist ambitions and the need to protect its own sovereignty, stability, and values. The collapse of U.S. influence and the rise of a multipolar world have forced Europe to take unprecedented steps to secure its future. Let’s break this down further and explore what this means for Europe and its role in the world.

1. Russia’s Expansionist Ambitions

• The Threat: Russia’s actions in Eastern Europe, including its incursions into Ukraine and its influence in the Balkans, signal a desire to rebuild a sphere of influence reminiscent of the USSR. This poses a direct threat to European security and stability. The Balkans, particularly the former Yugoslav states, remain a fragile region with ethnic tensions and historical grievances that Russia could exploit to destabilize Europe further.
• Europe’s Response: Military Buildup: The deployment of French nuclear weapons in Germany and the establishment of weapons factories across Europe indicate a serious commitment to deterring Russian aggression. Defense Alliances: The formation of new armed unions, such as the Scandinavian-led alliance replacing NATO, shows Europe’s determination to create its own security architecture. Eastern Border Protection: Countries like Poland, the Baltic states, and Romania are likely bolstering their defenses, with support from Western European nations.

2. The Fragility of the Balkans

• Historical Context: The Balkans have long been a flashpoint for conflict, as seen in the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s. The region’s ethnic and religious diversity, combined with unresolved tensions, makes it vulnerable to external manipulation.
• Russia’s Role: Russia has historically used the Balkans as a lever to exert influence in Europe, supporting nationalist movements and undermining EU and NATO integration efforts.
• Europe’s Challenge: Europe must work to stabilize the Balkans by promoting economic development, supporting democratic institutions, and countering Russian disinformation and interference. The EU’s enlargement process, though slow, remains a critical tool for integrating Balkan states and reducing their vulnerability to external threats.

3. Europe’s Rapid Transformation

• Economic and Military Restructuring: The EU’s efforts to restructure economically and militarily reflect a recognition that it can no longer rely on the U.S. for security or economic leadership. The creation of a more integrated and self-sufficient EU defense system is a necessary step, but it comes with challenges, including coordinating diverse national interests and ensuring adequate funding.
• Strategic Autonomy: Europe is moving toward greater strategic autonomy, seeking to reduce its dependence on external powers for defense, energy, and technology. This shift is driven by necessity, as the U.S. withdraws from its traditional role and global power dynamics shift.

4. The Broader Geopolitical Context

• U.S. Withdrawal and Isolation: The U.S.’s decision to abandon NATO, cut trade ties with the EU, and pursue unilateral agreements has left Europe with no choice but to fend for itself. This has accelerated Europe’s efforts to build its own defense capabilities and strengthen ties with other global powers, such as India.
• Rise of Multipolarity: The emergence of new power centers, including BRICS and a more assertive China, has created a more complex and competitive global environment. Europe must navigate this new reality by balancing its relationships with emerging powers while protecting its own interests.

5. The Path Forward for Europe

• Strengthening Unity: Europe’s ability to withstand external pressures depends on its unity. Divisions within the EU, such as those between Eastern and Western Europe or between pro-Russia and pro-Western factions, must be addressed.
• Investing in Defense: The rapid deployment of weapons factories and the creation of new defense alliances are positive steps, but they must be accompanied by long-term investments in technology, training, and coordination.
• Diplomatic Engagement: Europe must engage diplomatically with both its neighbors and global powers to prevent conflict and build partnerships. This includes working with countries like India to counterbalance China and Russia.
• Economic Resilience: Reducing dependence on external energy supplies (e.g., Russian gas) and strengthening economic ties within the EU and with other regions will be critical for Europe’s long-term stability.

Conclusion

Europe is indeed moving as fast as it can to protect itself in a rapidly changing world. The combination of Russian expansionism, U.S. withdrawal, and the rise of new global powers has forced Europe to take bold and unprecedented steps to secure its future. While the challenges are immense, Europe’s efforts to build a more integrated, autonomous, and resilient continent are essential for maintaining peace and stability in the region.

The road ahead will not be easy, but Europe’s history of overcoming adversity and its commitment to democratic values provide a strong foundation for navigating this new era. By working together and adapting to the realities of a multipolar world, Europe can emerge as a powerful and independent actor on the global stage, capable of defending its interests and shaping the future of international relations.