Comments by "Ralph Bernhard" (@ralphbernhard1757) on "WION"
channel.
-
444
-
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
71
-
41
-
22
-
19
-
12
-
9
-
8
-
Divide and rule.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
There are examples of the "division of Europe" on several levels and an advantage for the "alpha". These examples are not isolated cases, but form a pattern in a political game (in Geopolitics/Grand Strategy = avoid the unity of the "others", because unity = strength).
Strategy during the Cold War: Just like Japan on the other "side" of the SU, Germany was "allowed" to grow more during the Cold War: the "masters of the world" in Washington DC looked happily at the "German miracle" (1950-90s) as they encircled the SU.
The Cold War is over.
Today, Germany must now shrink in order to adapt to the "new order".
From now on, the "new encirclers" (Poland, Ukraine, etc.) must grow (see "Intermarium Eastern Europe"), and German growth must end...
The "Masters of the World" have commanded...
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@DonovanAenslaed The idea that people have that their own countries are "fighting for the weak and powerless" is a misconception.
States and empires fight for their own benefit, and there is always a "price tag" for "help".
States and empires don't "fight to help weak countries/people".
In case there is a power imbalance: The grand strategy is called "the proxy".
The "big brother" is the benefactor.
The "little brother" is always in danger of becoming a proxy, involuntarily sacrificed for the gain of "the big brother".
Unless the "big brother" and the "little brother" are in the same boat by means of a binding treaty, there is no equality in outcome.
Unless the "brothers in arms" are exposed to the same or similar level of danger and are facing the same or similar potential ill-effects due to own actions/inactions, then it is an unequal relationship. Unless all parties suffer similar percentages of financial and human losses, and risk a similar percentage of destruction to their property and territory, then it is in effect "a proxy" which has been set up for the fall.
The ones losing most are always the "proxies" of course (historical analysis, with multiple examples).
Nobody cares much about "poor brutalized Mapuche", but just wait and see what happens in case a sh*tload full of oil is discovered underneath their feet: The poor brutalized Mapuche will be on every single front page for years to come, whipping up sentiment...
Their plight, will be turned into gain ("the proxy" = the tool = the "narrative").
In politics and big business, nobody does anything for free.
How one writes history is more a matter of framing: for example the widespread misconception of "good empires on the right side of history, fighting for the little guy" (aka "the poor people"-argument): notice just how...ahem..."coincidentally" these "poor people" just happen to live in regions of the planet with raw materials/strategic value. Empires are suspiciously very keen on "fighting for democracy/freedom" or "poor people" when these battles take place in areas of the planet benefitting own gain in some or other form, or if it is beneficial to the own rise in power.
In strategy, the so-called "fighting for the little guy/democracy/freedom" is nothing else than "creating a proxy" or "proxy wars" for own gain.
It's the same thing, simply using different words or "putting a spin" on words by changing the perspective, thereby making it more palatable and advantangeous to the own cause, which is own gain.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What lessons can we learn from history.
Today, we watch on while history repeats itself in the Ukraine, because leaders make the same mistakes again and again.
A virtual repeat of the leadup to WW1, as history "rhymes" in eternal cycles.
On the micro level, only a fool would try to ensure own safety, by making friends 200 miles away. No, of course, a strong neighborhood, and support of a competent local police is what people choose. Yet, when it comes to states, and empires, leaders become erroneous in their decisions on alliances or co-operation. Choosing a faraway state or empire to ensure own interests, is simply not a good idea.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt.
Re. the British Empire at the time, and their self-appointed role of Pax Britannica "defenders of the world" (lol) Lord Palmerston stated: “Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
And regarding the post-WW2 Pax Americana as the new alpha USA took over the role of "protectors of the world" (lol again), Henry Kissinger repeated the policy almost verbatim for the American Century: “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests”.
Has anybody ever explained what such a policy meant in practice?
It means that if the safety of "poor you" wherever you live, doesn't serve the "interests" of these kind eternally smiling gentlemen, you'll be coldly written off with a few "thoughts and prayers". It means the slimy deceitful "Albions" and their modern associates and political inheritors expect you (personally) to be there to advance their interests today, but that they probably won't be around to protect you tomorrow...
Solution: If they won't be around to protect you tomorrow, to hell with them today.
A lesson I fear which will never be learnt...
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can deny that it exists, because just like gravity, it cannot be seen.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity, one can ignore that it exists, yet benefit from it at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like gravity exposes its own existence, by simple observation, anyone can observe the existence of divide and rule...
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that just like giant vacuum cleaners, it creates multiple systems on multiple levels, each with its own benefactors, and sucks of the hard labor from a base, and funnels it to the top.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that 99% of the participants who are involved, are blissfully unaware how they are actors in a game and can claim innocence while defending the systems at the same time.
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can mask it behind innocuous policies, like meritocracy, and still claim to be doing the best politics possible.
The same way one can plausibly explain how one is a state of isolationism, yet be peculiarly in a state of constant interventionalism and war at the same time: invisible magic...***
The cool thing about a divide and rule strategy is that one can plausibly deny its existance, yet constantly profit from it.
The cool thing about divide and rule, is that at the very top, the systems of empire, it creates a giant vacuum cleaner that funnels power to the top. "Alvin Hansen envisioned a joint Soviet-American domination of Europe that anticipated Henry Kissinger’s subsequent “Partnership of Strength.” Hansen observed in 1945, at the outset of his study of America’s Role in the World Economy, that the great new postwar fact would be “the rise of Russia on the one side of the globe and the economic and military power of the United States on the other. A happy geographical accident – two great powers occupying vast continents and controlling vast resources in areas that are noncompetitive – this fact must be set down as a dominating and directing force in the future course of history. We are confronted here with a completely new constellation of forces. Within this framework the role of France, Germany and England of necessity must be something very different from that set by the European patterns of past generations. . ."
The fruits of hard consistent invisible labor.
Divide and rule.
"During the war its diplomats had come to recognize that given America’s economic supremacy, a more open international economy would not impair the U.S. economy, but would link the economic activity of other non-Communist countries into a satellite relationship with the United States. It was unlikely that in the foreseeable future foreign countries dependent for their reconstruction on the inflow of U.S. resources could interfere in U.S. domestic policies. On the other hand the reverse, an extension of U.S. influence over other countries, was visibly possible. Thus, whereas America had boycotted the League of Nations after the First World War as a threat to its domestic sovereignty, it no longer feared multilateralism. Quite visibly, the more open and interlinked the postwar international economy became, the greater would be the force of U.S. diplomacy throughout the world." Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire. - Michael Hudson, 2nd edition 2003
The fruits of hard consistent unseen effects.
Divide and rule.
***With regards to Interventionalism: the USA was supposed to be Isolationist: John Quincy Adams delivered a speech in 1821 stating the USA's founding foreign policy of non-intervention and the US government's premise not to get entangled in or meddle in the affairs of another state. Adams issued the dire warning: Should America ever abandon her founding principle of non-interventionism, she would become "the dictatress of the world."
Just like Eisenhower issued a dire warning about Military Industrial Complexes, everybody knows how effective such warnings are.
The two-tier approach: get some people to say one thing, while others do the opposite...
Divide and rule.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sanjugupta7887 Crises and wars is what one gets if one wants to rip/deceive a "sphere of influence" out of the hands of a rival.
WW1 came about because Imperialist Russia wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" Austria-Hungary.
It "started" with a slug-out between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, and "ended" in WW1.
WW2 came about because of Hitler/Nazi Germany and Stalin/the SU wanting to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence out of the hands of" the West/empires (GB/France)".
It "started" with a slug-out between Germany and Poland, and "ended" in WW2.
The War in the Ukraine came about because the USA/West/NATO wanted to "rip/deceive a sphere of influence" out of the hands of Russia.
It "started" with a slug-out between the Ukraine and pro-Russian seperatists proxies (fueled by the USA/West/NATO), and will end in a "2nd Cold War" (hopefully "only" a "cold war").
An eternal game...
Friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next, friends one day, enemies the next...
Why bother trying to read "25,000 books" (Christopher Clark) only about a specific topic, say WW1?
Why philosophize endlessly about whether it is "one left arm" or "only one ball" which "starts wars", if one can simply point at "greed" or the desire to "rule" over others?
Irrelevant of the context and time (truisms). Leaders "defending the indefensible" will always be around.
"Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible – there will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain." - 06/09/2022 Rep. Elizabeth Cheney (R) Wyoming
They were there 100 years ago, and they were there 20 years ago when war could have been avoided by simply being honorable and stopping the ongoing process of "sphere of influence" stealing, using every trick in the book to disguise their actions.
2
-
2
-
ASIANS BEWARE:
Robert Blackwell (2015 quote from an article): "...since its founding the United States has consistently pursued a grand strategy focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals first on the North American continent then in the Western Hemisphere and finally globally..."
Asians beware: The ex-Imperialists powers' of the "oh-so-superior West" are using divide and rule strategies over Asian nations, trying to set your nations up against each other so these outside systems can "surf in and skim off the profits". It is as alive and well as during the Age of Imperialism, and they are using exactly the same techniques of "dividing Asians" as they used 200 and 300 years ago.
WARN EACH OTHER REGARDLESS OF YOUR OWN EMOTIONS OR PERSONAL PRIORITIES
European peoples are far to daft or preoccupied to understand how their own leaders scheme and deceive them too, so do not expect any help from westerners. Most are so obsessed with their own so-called "superiority", that they end up thinking everything they do is justified, with "only a few exceptions" in order to seem fair...
Has your nation, or a leader already been "chosen as a favorite son of the West"?
Then you have already subscribed to the divide and rule scheme, of outside powers...
Set whatever differences you might have with neighbors aside, or settle them fast, and don't think you can personally gain from co-operating in such a "divide and rule/conquer"-scheme. Actively set out to start warning ALL Asian peoples across all borders.
Don't expect anybody in the so-called "superior West" to warn you.
YOU personally have the POWER, via social media, to spread this message.
Do YOU have an account? Then start spreading this message.
Just do it, before it is too late.
You must REALIZE yourself, and actively become engaged in your own defence, and this is regardless of where you live in Asia.
YOUR own defence, is across the often artificial borders these Imperialists imposed on Asia, hundreds of years ago, and your emotions are still a "slave" of decisions made by these Western "overlords" hundreds of years ago.
Divide and rule will sacrifice YOU today, for the gain of the outside Western Powers, just like divide and rule sacrificed your grandparents and previous Asian generations during the Era of Imperialism...
------------------------
P.S.: I cannot personally post this message myself too often, since YT autoblocks it as "spam" if I copy and paste it under videos too often. I need YOUR help. In your own interest of safety, please spread this message with regards to the age-old "divide and rule"-strategy of outside (non-Asian) powers. Thank You.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jb3883 The "arc" stretches far beyon´d that.
Divide and rule can be revealed to have existed for a long time, and even classical historical cases bear clear hints regarding the existence of such strategies. According to Lindy's Law, things which have been around for a long time, tend to stay around for a lot longer. In the analogy of the jigsaw puzzle, we finally come to the "blue sky" as the most difficult of all analyses. Using the previous examples in history of "history rhyming" and information combined with reasoning, to make future most likely predictions. Of course nobody can predict the future, but since geopolitics and grand strategy follow standing policies which are mostly known today, the directions the future might steer are known. Individual decisions are not known, and are the inconsistent factor which makes future predictions at best educated guesses.
The hegemons go about setting up tectonic plates as systems of united power, and the fracture zones between these plates are then the "earthquake zones" of future conflict.
FRACTURE ZONE 1: EASTERN EUROPE
This fracture stretches from the North Pole, via Scandinavia to the MENA region (see below). In case of the most likely scenario of an officially declared "2nd Cold War", Eastern Europe and Russia as the fracture zone between Western- and Central Europe, and this time it is China which will need to be contained (in 1914 it was Germany/Austria-Hungary). Limited resources must be directed away from the western parts of Europe towards Central Europe to create powerhouses here for the functions of "battering rams" and "icebreakers". The new direct encirclers of Russia in the west being Poland, the Ukraine, and the Baltic States must grow in power...
FRACTURE ZONE 2: THE WAR IN THE UKRAINE
As an extension of the above, there is another fracture running through Central Europe and Russia. The critical question with regards to the war in the Ukraine today: why should Germany step forward, and do more than the alpha Washington, D.C., or any other state, especially the nuclear powers? The attempt to coerce through "shaming" (strategy) to get a non-nuclear power to step forward to face a much larger power, resembles the attempt to use sheep to encircle a bear: the effect can only be "mincemeat". Such dubious attempts in strategy to set up "lightning rods" to attract the venom of another power, and direct the "strike" away from the own core, also have historical examples, as stated in the previous chapters. In 1939/40 Plan R4 was the British and French attempt to draw the bull away from the own core heartlands, by holding the red cape in front of Scandinavia, as easily spotted by the strategists here. Unfortunately, telling history the correct way is sacrificed for the sake of alliances, since these weak powers know that the powers trying go misuse them (grand strategy), are also the only ones who could save them in an emergency situation.
FRACTURE ZONE 3: NORTH AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST AS THE PERIPHERY OF EUROPE
This region will remain in an eternal state of war, unless local leaders can finally unite. This fracture goes from the Atlantic, via North Africa towards the Indian Ocean. "To establish any mode to abolish war, however advantageous it might be to nations, would be to take from such government the most lucrative of its branches." - Thomas Paine. That was not only true when he stated it. The revolving door between industry and government, or as Eisenhower stated in his farewell address to the nation, the Military Industrial Complex, will keep on sending men to war.
FRACTURE ZONE 4: RISING POWERS IN ASIA
This fracture goes from the North Pole, via Japan, Philippines, Thailand and the Indian subcontinent further westwards towards the MENA area. The big question today is whether China and India will allow post 16th/17th Century history to repeat itself. Will their leaderships bow to pressure, and allow outsiders repeat the divide and rule policies they had already played 300 or 400 years ago? Will outside powers again be able to enter the stage, set up internal and domestic systems against each other as a repeat of age-old colonial practices, and be able to steer Russia, China, and India against each other, so that one overpowers the other (strategy).
On such fracture zones, expect eternal strive as revealed by past history: gravitiating minor powers (like Serbia before 1914), becoming turncoats with regime change opps (Serbia 1903).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Divide and rule.
Maybe "rule" is the incorrect word in regards to the USA, and divide and "gain an advantage" if others struggle, fight, and then lose, is closer to what happened. The word "rule" also constitutes a "trigger", or natural aversion, which would mean psychologically oposing a theory, simply based on the words used.
At the turn of the previous century ("around 1900") Washington DC set out to "divide (Europe)" and "gain" (from collective European madness).
Note how such a policy doesn't necessarily have to be co-ordinated politically.
So no "your a conspiwacy theowist"-allegations please, lol.
In regards to Europeans, the policy basically carried itself, and today still carries itself, because Europeans are already sufficiently divided on multiple levels. Any actions by a strong enough 3rd party wishing to gain simply needs to avoid any form of unity in Europe, or to "nip in the bud" any signs of formal/informal agreement between Europeans (the Cold War was of course an exception, when Western European unity was useful to stand up to Eastern European Communism/SU/Warsaw Pact).
One of the key strategies in "divide and rule" is to fund and support both sides in a world full of rivals for dominance, influence and markets.
Once "divided", and kept divided, there is no "single voice" to stand up to a stronger entity.
From wiki, and regarding the theory: "Divide and rule policy (Latin: divide et impera), or divide and conquer, in politics and sociology is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy."
Elements of this technique involve:
- creating or encouraging divisions ...
- to prevent alliances that could challenge ...
- distributing forces that they overpower the other
- aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate
- fostering distrust and enmity
Historically, this strategy was used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories."
[editted for clarity re. the states/empires level of things]
"Divide and gain" would work exactly the same way.
There is an entire palate of examples of "dividing Europe" on multiple levels, and gain an advantage (see below comments thread for a few). These multiple examples are not "anecdotal", or "cherry picked", but form a pattern in a political game (in geopolitics/grand strategy = avoid the unity of "others", because unity = strength).
Regarding this policy, it needs a keen sense of observation by a nation's gatekeepers, so as not to inadvertently become a part of it.
"Defeat Them in Detail: The Divide and Conquer Strategy. Look at the parts and determine how to control the individual parts, create dissension and leverage it." - Robert Greene
And "observe the details" and "leverage" is what the American Internationalism fans (US corporatism) in Washington DC did, opposed by the ever-waning forces of US Isolationism, re-inspired by Donald Trump ("Trump Doctrine") and others...
All of these terms can be googled for more context.
Note that in order to play this game, the "divider" must have some form of advantage. In regards to Washington DC, this advantage which it could use to attract suitors was their own rapidly increasing power. Ever important markets acting like a lighthouse for capitalist ventures. But with a geographical advantage which made it virtually impossible to invade by the late-19th Century (grand strategy), the USA already had little to fear militarily.
What was "in it" for Washington DC in her favoratism of mostly Paris and London?
London was Europe's only power that could effectively unite Europe, by acting as a unifying power as a matter of policy, rather than as an aloof divider herself.
Regarding any form of united Europe, by whomever or for whatever reasons, the "gatekeepers of Empire" sat in London. A "united Europe" either with or without GB/Empire could only go through London and with London's approval. Ask Napoleon I. He knows what it resulted in when "gatekeepers" stepped forward to avoid any form of single continental unity or hegemony. These "gatekeepers" followed policies which made any form of unity impossible (per treaty, political, or as a result of wars between continental powers). At the first signs of unity/friendship on the continent, London would step in and divide using a variety of age-old, trusted and well-honed political skills up to the point of declaring preventive wars.
A divided continent also suited London just fine: the newly united Germany, was wedged in between her two main historical rivals for territory and gain: France and Russia (geopolitics/grand strategy).
The above is also known as the "avoid a single hegemony on the continent"-narrative, and is not disputed by most historians.
A disunited Europe at this point, also suited Washington DC just fine.
It should not have "suited" London, because the world was changing.
The USA's first really big attempt at expanding beyond the limits of the own Monroe Doctrine, and the "promises made" not to meddle in European affairs was Spain. With the Monroe Doctrine Washington DC stated: "Don't worry Europe, we are satiated..."
A declaration which would not last long.
LOL, no. They were not satiated.
After a period of strategic consolidation, leaders here were looking for easy targets whose spheres of influence could be expanded into with the formula "little ventured/a lot gained", and excuses which could be made for expanding which could be sold as "acts of benevolence".
The rapidly sinking Spanish Empire offered the territories as a "gateway to China" in the form of already annexed Hawaii, the Philippenes and Guam and protection for the seaways in between. The 1898 Spanish American War was then simply the torero sticking a sword into the neck of the dying bull...a fitting allegory. Obviously "triggered" by the Japanese annexation of Formosa in 1895.
To achieve all of this Washington DC needed European indifference for the cause of "weak failing empires" (Darwinism/Spain), and divided Europe happily complied...
How to succeed here if Europe decided to unite and stand up to US expansion, by offering political support to Spain?
Answer: favoratism.
"Favor" one "empire" (in this case France and GB) above others...temporarily.
It would be a mistake to think that these "divide and rule/conquer"-strategies and tactics started with the Roman Empire, and ended when the British left India in 1947 (Two examples usually referred to when historians examine this as a political practice). It is alive and well.
It surrounds every aspect of power politics and has been ever-present on all levels of society and politics ever since the dawn of mankind.
Today the US military doctrine of "Flexible Response" is nothing else but "divide and rule" in the disguise of "divide and gain": Divide Europeans, to enable the continued US domination of world affairs. It is the same strategy London/British Empire used as it tried to hang on to Empire. A flexible response = "hopping" onto a crisis or war without having to have done much to avoid it. Some of the rare historical anomalies are Chamberlain (Munich 1938) or Boris Jonson (Finland/Sweden 2022) because try as one might, one cannot find any other strategic incentive for these missions, other than the noble cause and an effort keep the peace, in the face of previous total failure.
Notice that one of the key strategies in "dividing" others is to take opposing positions in political issues, without these positions being based on moral standards or principles. Simply strengthen the position of one side in an issue at one time, then make a 180 degree about turn and support the other side another time. An example here is for the two Moroccan crises (1905 vs. 1911). In 1905, Washington DC actually tacidly supported the German position and insisted on Morrocan independence, protecting it from being carved up by France/Spain. In 1911, the USA chose the side of the colonial powers against Berlin's position, and signed Moroccan independence away to "the wolves" of colonialism.
Divide and gain: Historically the funding of opposing European ideologies, leaders and states. For example, US private funding of European dictators in the 1920s and 1930s, and at the same time supporting Stalin's Five-Year Plans, was a strategy which carried through to today.
A geographical advantage meant that whatever happened in Europe would be a "win" for Washington DC power mongers.
Or, one could state that if one is far enough away, one can "sit on the fence and await the outcome" when the shtf somewhere else.
Strategists can always count on a plethora of enablers who carry out such division, mostly for entirely independent causes: from "humanism" to "big business", one can become a tool of strategists. Politicians, business elites, journalists, historians, teachers...they can all contribute, without even being aware of the fact.
1