The ultimate Macro issue is the world’s balance of powers since a World War can upset your whole day. Even on a smaller level, conflicts impact trade and defense spending.
The West’s Next Challenge Is the Rising Axis of Autocracies
U.S. and its allies consider whether to confront all rivals at once, or seek accommodation with some
By Yaroslav Trofimov, The Wall Street Journal, Updated Aug. 24, 2024
The coalescing partnership of autocracies led by China and Russia will impose strategic choices on Western democracies, no matter who wins the U.S. presidential election.
Can the U.S. and its allies deter all these rivals—including Iran and North Korea—at the same time, given the decay in the West’s military-industrial base and the unwillingness of voters to spend dramatically more on defense?
And if not, should, and could, an accommodation be sought with one of the rival great powers? If so, which one—and at what cost?
…
While China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are all increasingly cooperating in diplomatic, intelligence and military affairs, they still harbor mutual suspicions. And though they agree on the need to remove the U.S. as the pre-eminent world power, their priorities in their own regions don’t always overlap. China so far has declined to provide direct military help to Russia, and the partnership between these autocracies is nowhere near the interoperability and mutual defense commitment of a true alliance like NATO… [end quote]
And how! At times the bourses of the world are the dominant drivers, and at others (I would say now) various often competing politico-religio-socio mythic structures mobilize and drive and Do Not Give a Fig about money, nor at times even about survival except in some pseudo mystic self-righteous sense.
I find this lecture a superb summary of the last three decades that got us “here” in the flux Wendy’s post correctly identifies, and even more as a superbly informed speculation as to what might be coming next.
The lecturer, Rory Stewart, was the only member of the Tory Party that I respected, and he was banished under Boris Johnson and successors. I see him as my English equivalent — a conservative of a style at least a century out of date.
I hope to hear some commentary from our sharp community.
Ha. Yaroslave must have perusing old David Frum speeches. Remember"Axis of Evil"? Iran, Iraq & N Korea.
The US ginned up WMDs for an excuse to invade Iraq. And bin Laden presence in Afghanistan to invade there. And along the way pressured NATO in LIbya.
Brown University calculated an estimated total cost of the US War on Terror upon the US leaving Afghanistan oin August 2021.
$8 trillion & 900,000 deaths. To say nothing of of the millions of refugees in those nations. NYTimes estimates 37 million. Many of these refugees ended up in the EU disrupting those nations as many refugees wished to assimilate to the host nation’s culture. There are parts of Sweden that police will not enter due the fear of the Muslim gangs.
Libya has been turned into a cesspool of a breeding area of new terrorists.
Afghanistan has returned to Taliban rule.
Iraq is a nation plagued with corruption.
The hubris of the US government and journalists who largely parrot the propaganda of the federal government boggles my mind.
In any case, the “Indispensable” nation already in the process of ending the Russia military power by the Ukrainians in the Ukraine War. Even if Russia manages to gain some territory they are done due to demographic issues and losses to equipment & manpower.
The US is currently is in an economic war against China. I am guessing the doyens in the US government wish to have the PRC invade Taiwan to bleed that state further. China has no oil and the spigot can easily be turned off in event of war. But again the PRC is on its way out due to demographics. Our nation merely has to wait.
Iran & N Korea? Ha. With Russia & the PRC pail shadows of their former glory, Iran & N Korea nor the UN will be able to stand in the US’s way however we decide to deal with them.
We just have to count that our government can avoid a nuclear exchange with Russia or the PRC. I can’t say the characters in our government inspire much confidence in me.
Although I thought Mr. Stewart brought out many good points, he ignored a critical turning point of the world’s Macro economy in the 1980s to 1990s and especially after 2000.
While he mentioned the transition to a globalized economy he did not mention the immense impact of the transfer of manufacturing jobs from high-paid “developed” economies to low-paid “developing” economies. The U.S. lost millions of manufacturing jobs and has a growing trade deficit.
Although per capita real disposable income has trended upward in the U.S. there are large sections of the country which have lost well-paid jobs that can be done by people without an advanced education.
Mr. Steward himself ignores his own advice to be empathetic when he dismisses out of hand the very real concerns of populists who see benefits flowing to the elite but not themselves.
This perspective reflects an American propaganda narrative.
In truth, China maintains strong economic relationships with numerous countries across Asia and Southeast Asia. While China aims to establish similar connections with Europe, the United States actively obstructs these efforts in various ways.
China has long engaged in mutually beneficial trade with Ukraine and continues to do so despite the ongoing conflict. China aspires to foster positive relations and trade partnerships with all nations of the world, believing it can provide the best economic goods globally, as it has for the past three decades.
However, the United States seeks to disrupt this status quo to counter China’s rise. China’s growth extends beyond economics to geopolitical influence. Until recent years, China struggled to assert itself in its immediate region, but it is now striving to gain greater control over its neighborhood, much like the United States does in its own sphere of influence. While there may be questions about China’s methods, its desire to influence its surrounding region is understandable, and it is not believable that it has any hegemonic designs aside from showing its good will and competence.
The United States will attempt to prevent China from achieving this, framing the situation as a binary choice—“you are with me or against me,” akin to the Roman saying “Amici aut inimici.” and treating each as such. However, countries around China should not fall into this U.S.-centric mindset.
Asia is distinct from Europe and will not follow the same patterns. The United States may engage in such strategy in Europe—forcing Russia against the rest of Europe or pitting Iran against Israel and other Middle Eastern nations—but it is unlikely to succeed in Asia. These strategies should not work in Asia.
What West and specifically US needs to do is to invest more in diplomacy and not in military. In Ukraine, US explicitly opted against diplomacy and fighting a proxy war ($175 B current cost). US thinks it can fight a war of attrition and bleed Russia’s military inventory.
Now, when Russia is completely out of options, where does it go? West is actually creating lots of instability around the world.
Tell that to Tibetans, Uyghurs, Vietnamese, and Mongolians, just for starters. China is arguably the most ancient of the Imperial Powers, but the CCP’s totalitarian and even murderous ambitions are unmatched in history.
China’s relationship with its neighbors speaks volume about its intent.
For a country with 18 T GDP, it doesn’t even spend $5 B on aid. There are many individual charities in USA spend more than that on international AID. Most of what it calls as aid is actually “below market interest loans”. Do you know how many countries recently went into financial turmoil because of the so called “below market rate” loans taken from China?
China doesn’t believe in good will. It is unabashedly selfish.
Why does everything have to revolve around money? Is the Wall Street Journal being compensated to push this narrative? Maybe not directly, but why question the legitimacy of an alternative perspective? Is it so hard to believe that someone could naturally hold a different view?
I’m interested in understanding the truth and exploring the different sides of the coin. When it comes to China, it seems that no alternative viewpoints are allowed, while in the U.S., we argue endlessly over details that ultimately don’t amount to much. Essentially we argue about the same difference instead of something that has a real impact in the world at large. There’s no shortage of opinions, but truth still exists somewhere in the mix.
I don’t adhere to the ‘we are right and they are wrong’ story. It is never like that. I want to see the nuances and the truth rather than accepting what the ‘official’ media are touting.
That is what I am talking about.
Why are you grouping these people together? Tell them what?
Mongolia and Vietnam are neighboring states of China, and both have had along with Korea and Japan a long history of relations with China. The same thing can be said of Tibet which is now part of the PRC.
The Uygurs are a people and many of them are PRC citizens. They all have different relationships with the PRC and with once China. Do you understand and know anything about the history and the situation today?
Some take what Pompeo said about what is going on in Xinjiang at face value without any evidence while at the same time that same person can’t imagine that the Israelis are really doing it in Gaza. >2% of the population of Gaza have already been killed of that a large number of children and women. Israel will not stop. Not sure what Blinken is hoping for, or he is simply continuing the lie that there is any will for a cease fire on the part of Netanyahu.
2%. Is that a lie? Not a lot of people in this country are outraged about this. But they are readily outraged about things they can’t see and are figments of imaginations. What don’t you tell them to get real?
You should listen to the S-E asians. Many ASEAN states are not willing to definitely take any side. They want the US but are not going to stop economic ties with China. Some are even glad that China is there. Of course, like it or not China has always been there and will not fade away. We have to get used to it.
I know we want to have a black and white story so we can feel right but there is no such a thing when speaking about such issues.
the US invest in diplomacy? That is not serious. The US provoked the Russians into a war with Ukraine, and now they use Ukrainians to fight their own battle
Early in the war there was a chance for cease fire and to stop hostilities brokered by the Turks but the US and the British derailed those talks.
Oh I think not.
We should not ignore US criminal meddling in other nations affairs including decapitation of foreign government leaders.
This is hardly the first time a country has tried to influence the outcome of another country’s election. The U.S. has done it, too, by one expert’s count, more than 80 times worldwide between 1946 and 2000.
SHAPIRO: How often are these interventions public versus covert?
LEVIN: Well, it’s - basically there’s about - one-third of them are public, and two-third of them are covert. In other words, they’re not known to the voters in the target before the election.
SHAPIRO: Your count does not include coups, attempts at regime change. It sounds like depending on the definitions, the tally could actually be much higher.
LEVIN: Well, you’re right. I don’t count and discount covert coup d’etats like the United States did in Iran in 1953 or in Guatemala in 1954. I only took when the United States is trying directly to influence an election for one of the sides. Other types of interventions - I don’t discuss. But if we would include those, then of course the number could be larger, yeah
As special counsel Robert Mueller continues his probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, we take a look back at Washington’s record of meddling in elections across the globe. By one count, the United States has interfered in more than 80 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000. And that doesn’t count U.S.-backed coups and invasions.
US efforts to tip foreign elections have gone far beyond hacking — including financial support and assassinations.
