"Pax" Americana wasn't all that peaceful, the United States maintaining hundreds of bases, launching dozens of interventions, and spending trillions of dollars, thereby neglecting basic public infrastructure and social safety nets that are taken from granted in nearly every other country with similar or even significantly inferior levels of affluence.
More peaceful than the alternative. And yes, the US was subsidizing European welfare states, but that era is ending. To be seen is if generous welfare states can be sustained by the Europeans if they have to be responsible for their own security.
As of my last knowledge the US was not subsidizing European welfare states in terms of funding their social programs or welfare budgets. The relationship between defense spending and domestic welfare policies is a matter of domestic political choice and can vary from one European country to another.
Some European countries with strong welfare states do maintain significant defense budgets, while others have chosen to allocate fewer resources to defense and rely on collective security arrangements like NATO.
Also, the US has global interests, and its military presence in Europe is not solely for Europe's benefit.
The US is indirectly subsidizing European welfare states by providing for a decent amount of Europe's defense.
I don't think you're aware of just how insubstantial many European militaries are. Please name those European countries with strong welfare states that spend more on their military (as a percentage of GDP) than the US does.
By this logic europe and other allies are also subsidizing the US. What a foolish idea that the only ones that benefit, monetarily or otherwise, are the non-americans in the alliances.
We're out of Iraq and Afghanistan (and Iraq) now. And "European defense" is really global (Western) defense. Do you think Europe wouldn't be affected by Red Sea pirates or wars starting out in Asia? The point I'm making is that European countries can more easily fund generous welfare states because they don't have to pay for a global policeman even though they definitely benefit from a global policeman. Would they be able to do so if they even had to contribute to the US defense budget?
No most definitely Not, US military presence in Europe serves US Hegemony over the region, reducing European countries tp controlled Vassal states who have now simply committed financial and economic suicide in their countries, from which the only possible recovery for them lies in becoming their own countries again and acting in their own best interest, outside of the influence of US Hegemony.
It's a weird leap to say that we caused them to commit financial and economic suicide. If I give my struggling brother money to turn his life around and he goes out and buys a gun to shoot himself, does that make me legally culpable for his death?
Putin's economy today is based only on the military-industrial complex.
Try to read or watch Russian-speaking economists, preferably not Putin's, in independent ones, and then maybe a lot of things will become clearer to you.
I have never read more idiocy and nonsense. Have you forgotten about the corroded Europe, the wall in Germany and other "pleasures" when Europe was under the hegemony of the soviet Union or Russia?
Speaking as a European, no thanks, we wish you to be vassals of Russia and other totalitarian countries.
Eastern Europe did suffer under the Soviet Union, as did Russia, but your reference to you being a European is absolute Bullshit, exposed by your gross ignorance about Modern Day Russia and the collapsing European economies, with Germany headed to a depression.
The US tax burden is roughly half of Europe’s, so the idea that the US “can’t afford” Euro-style welfare due to military spending is misguided.
And do you think the US spreads its defense umbrella over Europe out of just goodwill, not because it deems it ultimately advantageous to itself – more advantageous than a would-be peer competitor on the world stage in the form of a European superstate with its homegrown military-industrial base?
Given the regular attempts by countries like France to build up EU-level defense capabilities, it’s clear that not everyone in Europe is even happy for all those supposedly saved eurocents. You’re committing a fallacy by considering there to be some fixed amount of money irrespective of geopolitical conditions; a more powerful Europe could also better safeguard resources for itself. As it stands, “regulatory superpower” is Europe’s consolation prize.
And every dollarcent the americans dont have to spend because they are also part of the alliance can also be spent elsewhere. The idea that only europeans benefit from the alliance is trumpian levels of silly
It would be true if we put our share in, but we fall short. I’m all for Euro-Atlantic cooperation, it’s just that we even outnumber the US by a quarter, but even if our GDP is lower than that of the US, there is no excuse for not putting in our 2-4% into defense. Also a European Army would make more sense than every 10M state getting a fully capable army independently.
Sophomoric opinion that literally all data violently contradicts. You can hate the USA's manner of intervention while acknowledging that objectively the last 70 years were the most peaceful in world history.
The Crimean War was major. The Taiping Rebellion was major (perhaps 30 million dead). The Indian Mutiny (1857) was major. The continuation of the long genocidal war of conquest against indigenous Americans was major. The US Civil War was major. The Franco-Prussian War was major. The Boer War was major.
The post-Waterloo century was perfectly bloody. It only looks peaceful in contrast to the bloodbath of 1914-1949. It's like saying Bob's heart attack wasn't that bad because the following year he got cancer. (British imperialist apologetics likewise play a role). There's also more than a bit of Eurocentrism associated with this view of history (wars aren't "really" that bad or noteworthy unless they involve coalitions of white people duking it out, ie, so-called "Great Power" wars).
In the Crimean War you had some expeditionary forces from France and Britain. Peanuts.
Indian Mutiny it wasn't even a war, was a mutiny, with Brits having gatlings and canons against spears and slings. Same with the Taiping Rebellion - again, not a war, a rebellion.
Only the American Civil War had a true war, where the Americans have lost more people than in all the other wars combined. Again, a civil war.
Boer War? You must be kidding. A guerilla war, with Brits having to invent concentration camps for the farmer/fighters' families?
On the other hand, under Pax Americana, you had the Korean War, where US/UN turned to rubble North Korea, killed millions, and ultimately suffering a defeat at the hands of the Chinese.
Vietnam War? Much, much bigger than what you describe here.
In the history of humanity, very drenched in blood, as becoming for these omnivorous apes, 1814-1914 wasn't bad at all. Pax Americana on the other hand had a wiff of what was described about Romans: they made a desert and they called it peace
"These plunderers of the world [the Romans][US], after exhausting the land by
their devastations, are rifling the ocean: stimulated by avarice, if their
enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor; unsatiated by the East and by the West:
the only people who behold wealth and indigence with equal avidity. To ravage,
to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make
Calling the Crimean war not a major war is insane because you had great powers duking it out to determine the balance of power of an entire region.
To call the Indian mutiny just mutiny, as if India was an integral part of the British empire and had a say and not a colonial holding is deeply suspect
People seem to forget but the the Korean War was started by North Korea which is why there was such widespread support. And to say the war was lost well, I would encourage you to step foot in S. Korea today.
No one is saying Pax Americana was without conflict. It was. The key insight is that for the most part there was less interstate conflicts, less conflicts between great powers and no global wars. Wars for territorial conquest most ceased, and we have pretty good data and research about the decrease in interstate violence and violence as a whole.
The assault on Crimea ended with Russians opening another front and attacking directly the Ottomans through Caucasus. And the Turks called quits. By that point the Brits (harrased by Florence Nightingale) and the French were also fed up and called quits too. I know Romanians gained from the peace settlement. But no, it wasn't a major war. Light brigade! The Brits would call everithing major (and then they lost 57,000 people in one day on the Somme in 1916).
And no, it wasn't North Korea that started the war. It was the US and came to occupy Korea, hire all the Japonese managers back (and Japanese troops as well), to administer the territory, and try to impose their system there, despite the fact that in the North, the communists fought against the Japanese occupation for decades and were highly regarded by the population. And as the Japanese found enough collaborators (especially the upper classes, that only cared for their socio-economic position), Americans also found willing collaborators (who just changed the Japanese flag for the American flag). That war was a war of national liberation, the same way the Vietnamese fought against the French and then against the Americans.
And Pax Americana is anyway a misnomer. It was the Soviet power that kept the Americans more or less checked. Look how unhinged they became after the dissolution of the USSR.
Are you kidding me? What is the Scramble for Africa, Alex? The conquests in Asia? American westward expansion? These were all incredibly violent affairs. Does the war only count if its between peers?
what a ridiculous take. So belgium killing 10-15 million congolese isn't an invasion and doesn't matter? The millions of native americans who were invaded, killed and/or displaced don't matter? This is a truly worthless definition of peace.
By no account do I want to dismiss the lives of non-europeans killed by the conquering spree during the 19th century. But those were not wars. Same way all the peasant revolts in all Europe, including Russia, were not wars. Subjugation of little people has been going along for quite some time now. It still ongoing. And the rich still have the upper hand. Buffet did call it a war. But it is not a true war. In Real Wars, the rich also die and / or get impoverished.
The Crimean War (1853-1856) was pretty bad. Whether or not it was a major war depends on your perspective. Taiping Rebellion was really, really bad. But it was a civil war. Overall, I do agree that 1814-1914 was a time of relative peace all things considered.
That’s not peasant revolt, it’s an attempt at reestablishing an independent Hungarian nation state as per the Enlightenment ideas. Not really a class conflict.
Yeah, while trying to keep all the other nationalities in the claimed space under a heavy boot, eh? Was more like a fight on multiple fronts there, with March 15 coming as a commupence... And in history books 1848 in Europe is prezented as the Revolutionary Year...
That's not the issue at hand, US hegemony is, and the global damage to relationships it has done.
The biggest problem with the US defense budget has nothing to do with the size of the defense budget to but everything to do with how it is being wasted, with a large portion going to the upkeep of 750+ bases across the globe, and the major portion being spent on Shit quality, Overpriced weapons, with another portion being used to fund abortion, gender transitions, CRT indoctrination and other shit.
Despite your other pathetic responses, I notice you haven't responded to the overpriced junk equipment which most of the Pentagon budget is being spent on!!!
The Himars are practically Useless, as is that Shitty anti aircraft systems, the Patriot hasn't taken down a single Russian aircraft, whilst the Stingers took out 8 helicopters when first used, and since then Nothing, the Ukrainians have abandoned using the Javelins against Russian tanks after using a years worth of rocket supply to achieve virtually Nothing.
In fact the Ukrainians have resorted to using former Soviet weapons they have been able to scrounge up from other former Soviet countries.
So if that's your measure of quality, then you evidently don't understand theeaning of the word.
The Fact is, the Ukranians have lost four times as much equipment as the Russians, and more than ten times the manpower.
It's certainly possible that what comes next will be worse, but I'm not so sure. I'm not a big fan of China or Russia, and certainly not Iran, but all three of those countries have centuries if not millenia of history where they invaded fewer nations than we have in just the last 70 years. Western Europe is basically made of post-imperial sovereigns and the quality of life nearly everywhere there is higher in some important ways than it is here. I could see a relatively peaceful "flat" world where nobody is exactly in alliance with each other, but they aren't too eager to invade anyone else either.
I don't quite agree with you, each of these three countries has a place for revenge, especially putin's Russia, which constantly repeats that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical mistake, but in order to wage wars it was first necessary to gain strength, stock up on resources, finances, make some contacts and only then start acting. What we are witnessing now is the sagging American foreign policy, Europe itself is very weak in terms of militarism, people have no time for war here, and then all these countries have been revitalized and started swinging their policies and waging wars. putin's Russia dreams to restore control over all post-Soviet countries as it considers them its vassals, so the war in Ukraine is not the last, we are waiting for more wars on this large territory, no matter how sad it is.
In general, Russia should be fragmented and unequivocally deprived of nuclear weapons.
True that. But now that it has gone along this path, can it afford to stop and change its ways now? what about its allies who have made sacrifices to be blinded by the beauty of US guns? if the US backs up, then its allies risk being strangled by the forces wishing to end Pax Americana. The US will then face absolution all alone, much as the Greeks and Romans had before it. if there is no satisfactory resolution (or at the very least a stalemate), the US will need to find the source of the turmoil and face off against it directly.
This article is pretty off base. The basic model presented is that of conventional nation-states fighting in a Hollywood style struggle for power. The reality is that the basic nature of power has been and is now changing rapidly. The construct of large power control of populations died with Vietnam... reenforced with Afghanistan (Soviets/US). The biggest factor in Ukraine is in fact the resistance of the people to external rule. Even if Russia would have taken over all of Ukraine... it was 10X Afghanistan. The best they could hope for is another Chechnya... where they had to leave anyway.
The mega-trend to watch is the increasing power of an individual relative to the collective as enabled by technology. In this world, rule by force is almost impossible. Methods for cooperation (perhaps enabled by propaganda) are at the core of the power. This is not really about Pax Americana... as positioned by hard power. Rather, it is about Pax Americana as the demonstration of the methods which lead to positive individual economic outcomes. Vietnam being an interesting example ... one of the stronger allies today. Lost on hard power... won on soft power.
This does not mean that there will not be major power conflicts, and the formation of failed states (North Korea). There is a lot of settling to be done.
I’m with you. It reminds me of the sci fi novel Forever Peace, where increasing connection between humans makes it impossible to wage war. The internet has made violence against others on the internet largely unacceptable, and destruction of the internet would mean global economic catastrophe.
agree... also, the interesting fact is that aggregate productivity has given the human race a lot more freedom. In the "old" days, just the task of living was so tough that it imposed a large gravity on everyone's lives. This meant that controlling a population was relatively easy because 90-95% of their lives were focused on survival. If you used force, they had very little recourse.
Today, aggregate productivity is such that the individual is more powerful and has every ability to resist. The age of blunt-force methods for controlling population are largely gone. Technology is democratizing the world. This is certainly true in the information context, but even in warfare with cheap drones or guns. Today, we are in the world of the art of persuasion. Democracies naturally have some advantages here.
As I mentioned, this does not mean that populations cannot be put in survival mode (North Korea..large parts of Africa).
Relative to the analysis, I do find economists are often frozen by political structures and miss the underlying shifts in basic structure of society. Ecommerce/internet has done more to shift the world's fortunes around globalization than any political move. ...as an example.
The suggestion that technology is democratizing the world is a dangerously naive notion. Democracy today is under more threat than ever, much of it enabled by technology. China is using technology to not merely surveil its citizens but to coerce the population into frightened, mute acquiescence to the growing dictatorship there. Russia is moving in the same direction while using technology to attack it’s rivals and commit state terrorism and larceny. Technology has exponentially increased misinformation intended to undermine free elections by an informed electorate in places from the US to Hungary to India.
The coming wave of economic dislocation from AI will further stress liberal democracies while the availability of inexpensive lethal weapons in the form of drones and guns created with 3D printers will encourage tiny groups of extremists to project destabilizing attacks far beyond what they could mount in the past.
The money-driven avatars of technology today, from Musk to SBF to MBS, lack any moral or democratic impulse. They have moved on from the “don’t be evil” idealism of yesterday to the “get so big no one can stop you” ethos of today.
Agree... democratizing and helping Democracy is not the same thing. We are very likely to go through a destabilizing period as there is a level of adjustment driven by these technologies. Overall, I do think that democracies have a higher chance of making it though vs countries such as Russia/China... but we will see. Here is what I know.. control using blunt force is very unlikely to work.
Establish several personae and explore disparate topics. In one of mine, it's all optimism and rational positivity. In another, it's war. The internet has simply moved the violence from actual bombs to a virtual war in a seemingly "safe" locale. I do this to examine "bubbles" and it has been an eye opener that causes much distress.
Adding that if war of any kind depends to some degree on the willingness of a population, then the internet has provided means to develop a critical mass (on just about any topic) that is a largely unseen, unconsciously created "force."
Much depends on whether the now heavily commercialized web can deliver space for the growth of collaborative, positively oriented thought and learning. In that, much depends on our ability to understand each other, to discern motive and intent, to grasp the meaning of language that is evolving in unexpected ways. Terminology around biological sex and the extraordinarily diverse understanding of socially constructed gender is one example of many.
There are a number of holes in your argument here:
1) Your evidence that the US ability to project power (and thus peace) is declining seems to consist of
a) the fact that HAMAS *reacting* to US actions which seems like evidence of power and involvement. Indeed, the current level of violence in Israel is far below what it was through most of the 70s and 80s which on your view was the high water mark
b) Wars occuring in places where Russian military power was previously maintaining the peace (or at least not directly breaking it. It's hardly evidence of American lack of military power that it's primary geopolitical rival over most of the past century is no longer strong enough to maintain the peace in its own backyard (the difference between the Soviet period and now in Ukraine is that the Russians can no longer easily crush all resistance)
2) Your claim that the rise of a geopolitical rival (China) prevents the US role as peacekeeper is in tension with the fact thst your examples of how pax america was enforced and peaked seem to have occured during the rivalry between the us and the Soviet union and interventions like Vietnam happened because of those tensions.
a) If people start wars in response to American diplomatic efforts to foster peace, that's a demonstration of America's waning power to keep the peace, yes indeed.
b) Azerbaijan's ethnic cleansing is certainly an effect of Russia's waning power, but with Serbia and Kosovo you've got it exactly backwards here; Serbia is a Russian client state, and the U.S. was always the one protecting Kosovo. Read about 1999!
2) The Soviets probably made it harder to keep the global peace, and contributed to a lot of the interstate conflict in the Cold War period. But ultimately they were never as powerful as the U.S.-West Europe-Japan bloc. China is different because it's far more powerful relative to the West than the USSR ever was, even though as yet it has fewer nuclear weapons.
Sometimes people start wars because they think the Israeli government is distracted, Biden is weak and an appeaser who gives Iran (and its proxies) billions to buy weapons in addition to millions to Hamas directly with no controls, and will pressure Israel to cease hostilities before crushing Hamas.
The US was last a "peacekeeper" in immediate post WWII, simce then the IS has been nothing but a Bully and a Hegemon, imposing its will on others, which has led to these situations of rebellion arising.
Yes, and who started the shit in the Kosovo/ Serbian region again, Kosovo, the US vassal state, just like the Ukraine.
Be sire that the Serbians ate thrpugh with this Bullshit, and they're going to finish this Western sponsored Kosovo Bullshit.
The US is using Kosovo as a Proxy to cause a distraction for Russia, given the Absolute Bloody nose the Collective West and the Ukraine are getting from the Russians.
Exactly the same is happening in Azerbaijan, the Armenians were getting ready to stir up another colour revolution in the region, spurred on again by the promise of EU membership and undoubtedly with US backing, however the Eastern Countries have gotten used to reading these situations and attempts at revolutions and "regime changes" sponsored by the Collective West.
Wake Up Moron, your own country is causing Global strife, so burying your head in the sand and purporting otherwise, is not going to change the facts.
The US/ West is making the world smaller and a lot more unpleasant for itself, because your big stupid mouths and hubris.
>given the Absolute Bloody nose the Collective West and the Ukraine are getting from the Russians.<
You've GOT to be kidding me. Russia has taken at least 300,000 casualties en route to a horrendous quagmire. Putin thought it would take weeks. 1.5 years in Moscow barely controls, what, a tenth of Ukraine? The latter of which is now being considered for EU memberships. Meanwhile Russia has seen a huge exodus of STEM talent, frayed commercial relationships, and the seizure by Western states of tens of billions in financial assets. Russia now relies on North Freakin Korea for military hardware. And NATO expansion continues apace. And the potent energy weapon Vlad thought he wielded against Europe has proven to be...a dud. Oh, and almost forgot: a few months ago there were little mercenary tanks on the road to Moscow.
It is truly sad to see what the US has become because of Compulsive Liars like you, never willing to face up to the truth, but living a Lie.
Lies however don't change the facts, they merely worsten the end result for those like you, who actually believe them.
The effect of sanctions being just one of those, as the US economy falyers and the World Bank predicts an evonomic hrowth for the US for 2023 at between 1 and 1.1%, whilst the same World Bank has predicted an economic growth of between 2.5 and 2.8% for Russia, which melans that Russia is winning not only the conflict in the Ukraine, but also the economic war which the US launched against them.
There was no need for conflict in the Ukraine, but the US instigated and stoked the conflict, even when Russia and the Ukraine had signed a peace accord in January 2022, the Ukraine carrying outvthe orders of their US Masters, defied the agreement.
Then Russia gave them a second opportunity at peace in March of 2022, which the Ukraine again used to deceive Russia, for which they are now paying the price.
While Americans continue the Lie, Ukrainians will continue to Die.
You Moron your prior comment was overflowing with Bullshit, and here you are with the most ridiculous response possible, and no substantiation of any of the the Insane claimed you made.
It is not I that needs Novocaine, but you definitely need to lay off the shit you've been smoking.
Its not Russia conscripting people off the street and loading them into vans and sending them for a week's training at most before being sent to the front.
It's Not the Ukraine holding approximately 89 000 km2 of Russian territory.
Its Not Putin running around like a fowl without a head attempting to get NATO involved in the Ukraine conflict.
It's Not Russia begging the world for weapons and money.
It's Not Russia cheerleading the praise of NAZI's in the Canadian Parliament.
Its Not Russians surrendering to the Ukrainians en-mass.
Its not the Ukrainians outgunning the Russians with an artillery fire rate of 10 to 1.
It's not Russia that doesn't have an airforce left.
Its not Russia that has lost approximately 60% of the weapons and equipment supplied before the Spring/ Summer/ Never counter offensive.
Its Not Russia that hasn't gotten outvof the parking lot for their supposed counter offensive.
Its Not Russia who has suffered approximately 440 000+ dead since the beginning of the conflict.
Its Not Russia having suffered approximately 1 000 000 wounded.
Get your head put of your Ass and get the facts, and stop trumpeting Absolute and Ignorant Bullshit!!!
We, neighboring Hungarians among other European states begged the US for YEARS to intervene in the Balkans. There were ethnic cleansing going on that had to be stopped. You either don’t know what you are talking about, or are actively trolling.
PS!!! I can't seem to find a recorded incident anywhere of Victor Orban requesting US intervention in anything.
If anything in fact, all I find is the complete opposite, so I really would like to know which Hungary you're from, because it most certainly isn't the official Country of Hungary.
So I guess this confirms you to be the Troll here!!!
First of all, you have absolutely no idea about the politics of Eastern Europe, not today, and not after the fall of the Soviet Union. Hungary became Independent from Soviet rule in 1989, held its first democratic elections in 90 and the first administration was of the party MDF, with prime minister József Antall. (Viktor Orbán was a liberal party leader then.) He used any and every public forum to urge the international community to intervene in the conflict, for example, something you might find easy to look up in the US, he came to the US in October of 1991 and gave several public speeches in the UN general assembly, the University of Connecticut, on the Council of Foreign Relations dinner, the George Washington University, or his meeting with Bush in the White House on the 4th of October. It’s certainly kept in our records, and have been reported on by our foreign minister of the time Géza Jeszenszky. Antall also wrote a 6 page letter to Bush later that month about the issue. You can find most of his speeches in this book. (https://www.martenscentre.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/antall_jozsef.pdf)
Between 1994-98 there was an other administration, the socialist party came back to power because of economic hardship after the collapse of our former main foreign trade partner the Soviet Union, but after that, the first Viktor Orbán administration came between 1998-2002 when he was a mainstream European conservative. After the NATO ascension in 1999, we became the main base of operations for NATO air forces in the region, not against our will. To this day, the Hungarian contingent is one of the three biggest one in KFOR.
(The socialist MSZP came back to power instead of MDF also because József Antall died in 93 before his term expired, so MDF lost its most prominent leader.)
You're a Moron if you believe that US intervention, would ever have solved anything for anyone, and all you have to do is look at historical US interventions to understand that!!!
So tell me which ethnic cleansing to are you referring to, and why it couldn't be solved locally or even within Europe???
The Yugoslav war was started in 91, when Slovenia and Croatia broke away trying to win their independence. (There was already an incident when Yugoslav intelligence caught us selling Kalashnikovs to Croatia to help them. There is a big Hungarian diaspora around Hungary in both Croatia and Serbia, so there were many Hungarians conscipted by force by the Serbs. Many refused to fight against their brethren. We took in a lot of refugees, also from Serbs fleeing conscription.) The ethnic cleansing I referred to was in Srebrenica, where UN peacekeepers, mostly Dutchbat was unable to prevent the massacre of 6-8 thousand Bosniac men by Serb forces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre).
How does this have even the slightest relevance to the current situation???
In 91, the Soviet Union had just folded, of course there was chaos and power plays, as everyone was finding their way out of the former Soviet quagmire and was jockeying for position.
The US has continued to provoke among the weaker groups still in the region, causing conflict in a desperate attempt for these conflicts to be a thorn in the side of Russia.
This reflects the Psychopathic tendencies of the US, not to help anyone, but to use people against each other, and making promises to these people, of creating an expectation of gaining some sort of advantage, which will never be met.
So look to Cause Proportionate Dumbass
This just confirms the absolutely irrational Trash you purveyed in your initial comment!!!
In other, wiser peoples' words: "compare to the alternative, not to ideal". For some years after WW2, the US was the world's sole nuclear power: consider for a moment what the world would look like had it been Modi, Putin, Xi... Thanks, Mr. S. for pointing out, again, our not-so-great but pretty-good historical track record.
What does Modi have to do here? Sproadic cases of communal violence doesn't mean that India is going through civil war.. Check out the number of deaths in 2014-19 vs 2004-09. I wasn't able to find data to compare between 2004-14 vs 2014-2023.
What has happened due to social media proliferation is that one case of communal violence in far away are due to sensationalisation feels close to home.
Are you Peter Zeihan in disguise? Because this article is nothing but the same old tired bedtime story the American globalists like to tell themselves. But the reality is that the US was never a world policeman nor a benevolent "force for good". Just the sheer number of brutal dictatorships it covertly and openly supported throughout its existence is proof enough.
The US was always a hegemon, a string-puller and an empire hungry for other people's resources. The nations on the receiving end of that "Pax Americana" of yours know it best. Their pushback was long overdue.
Whatever happens in the future, it's not because the US was unable to prevent it, but because its blind and callous quest for domination made sure it would happen.
As the song goes, you don't know what you've got till it's gone. American hegemony is a mixed-bag, just like anything in life. But a world without American hegemony will be, well, a lot more mixed. You don't need to be blindly chauvinistic to see this.
Noah has written a very complicated overview of foreign affairs, and I found myself in agreement with about 40% of it. The US can do different things in the world, depending upon how accessible the country is to us. The Israeli thing is a blip— another malignant burp from an ailing Hamas whose only effective weapon is suicide attacks.
To respond to Noah's "War and Peace" post adequately, I would have to write a book. Maybe I'm starting to do that on my substack. Check out "XI makes sense to XI."
I'm enjoying your responses to Noah's posts. They add an extra dimension. I hope you're right about Taiwan. What a disaster for the world that would be.
I wrote a post a few weeks ago about how the last 80 years was an unusually wonderful period for America and most Americans. "History is Coming for Us and It's Going to Hurt"
Thanks for your kind words. If memory serves me well, you are already a subscriber to “As Time Goes By." I don't think that Pax Americana has ended at all—it has become somewhat more selective, which was necessary.
You're both Delusional, the fire within Hamas has been smouldering for a long time, and now supported by the Arab world which is starting to distance itself from the hegemoc influence of the US, and the damage inflicted by the US.
The current state of life for the average person living in Gaza could do nothing but fuel their desire to escape this, and lay down their lives in order to create a future for their children.
So if you think Hamas is in its dying throws, maybe 5000+ rockets all launched simultaneously without US or Israeli intelligence picking up on such preparations, should actually make you realise just how flase your assumption is.
American Hubris is a terrible debilitating disease which promotes US hegemony, false assumptions right down to the point of being Blatant Lies and Propaganda, whilst ignoring the Pertinent Truth and Facts, and Root Cause of all conflicts in which the US is either a directly or indirectly involved, and the US always is the common denominator!!!
To focus on your comments regarding Hamas, they have proven to be a disastrous leader for the people in Gaza. The misery endured by the people in Gaza comes from Hamas, not Israel. Now there will be more misery, because after this attack Israel cannot allow Hamas to stay in power.
Hint: to start a comment by calling the people you disagree with delusional does not further debate. I almost didn't respond because of that. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the hope you will choose better language next time.
Okay Delusional Fool, we've now heard the typical Moronic Bullshit American Propagandist perspective of Gaza and Hamas, now let's get the opinion of a few residents of Gaza.
The situation in Gaza exactly the same as Eastern Ukraine, where the Russian speaking Ukrainians have been treated like second class citizens.
It may be wrong to refer to this as the end of Pax Americana. In fact, it may be the other way around: the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia as well as the invasion of Ukraine signals definitive end of Russia in any form as a great power.
To quote a comment I found some time ago that I find interesting:
"In a 100 years, people will refer to the era of 1991 to the mid 2020s as "The Collapse of the Soviet Union." It will ignore all the other conflicts that happened in that time, and grossly oversimplify a period of 30+ years, but they won't really be wrong.
Serbia was one of the countries that relied on Russia as an external security guarantor, like Armenia, Belarus, Syria, and most of the Central Asian states. Now that its clear that Russia is incapable of even defending its own strategic interests, we have entered a time of poachers. Countries that relied on Russia are now either under siege or are going to try and grab what they can before reality fully sets in.
This is why Turkey is getting more bold near the Syrian border, why Azerbaijan invaded Armenia's occupation zone (and will probably keep driving to Armenia unless NATO gets involved), why Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan got into it over the Fergana valley, and why the rest of Central Asia is now talking to the US in the C5+1 talks to avoid similar catastrophes in their own region."
"At the same time, the U.S. was becoming militarily weaker. The War on Terror reoriented the U.S. military toward counterinsurgency and away from defeating enemy armies."
This has no longer been the case ever since 2011 though. In that year, the US withdrew from Iraq and ended major combat operations in Afghanistan, and military leadership were already reorienting the US military back to near-peer conflict.
And quote a veteran who is well-versed in defense-related subjects that I won't name here:
"When all the 2-4 star generals say Near Peer is the new normal and COIN is dead and to be forgotten, to say otherwise is heresy. These articles is Big Army laying the law, this is Moses showcasing the Ten Commandments so everyone knows what they are and ARENT allowed to mention anymore.
And is it really unusual? The US Army historically despises COIN and has since the middle half of the 20th century. They tried to turn the Vietnam War into a conventional conflict (Search and Destroy) for a reason, if the only tool they possess is a hammer, than every problem becomes a nail. After Vietnam, the healing began by formally declaring they won all the battles but lost the war because politicians, and then forgetting everything about Vietnam and refocusing on conventional warfare against Russkies. Remember, the 2-4 stars of today (including MG Donahue, who came in at the tail end of the Cold War, when the US Army was at its zenith in history), grew up in that era, that is the "good old days" they will always strive to return to.
Focusing on Near Peer not only allows them not to prep for the mission they hate nearly as much as peacekeeping, not only return to the Good Old Days, but it also earns them a much better budget than COIN ever provided with the potential to update/replace the Big Five (a MAJOR Military Industrial Complex Defense Industry victory), but best of all it ensures them the opportunity and funding to focus on the type of fighting they like: mechanized centric maneuver warfare, with no ROEs, in an All or Nothing conflict that decides the fate of the free world, where Big Army gets to be the primary strategic asset deciding victory and defeat, they are the main effort for the Stars and Stripes, the true American heroes!
If that doesn't get your dick hard, you're not a real American.
This shouldn't surprise anyone, this reshift started LONG before Afghanistan was over, they began starting their major reshift to Near Peer in the mid 2010s when the US Army was still regularly sending units into combat. Basically, as soon as OP Enduring Freedom was replaced by OP Freedom's Sentinel they were able to start going about the reset.
More so, Pepperidge Farm remembers Big Army types ranting about wanting to refocus on conventional warfare in the mid to late 2000s and early 2010s, when they were still neck deep in COIN conflicts they sucked at, while complaining about their degrading skills in conventional warfare. Mind you, that was BEFORE Cold War 2.0 even rekindled, and Russia could even really be declared a Near Peer threat."
Sorry if this takes too long, but this should remind you that the military, especially the army, has been focusing on near-peer threat ever since at the start of the 2010s. The leadership already reoriented the military toward that way because COIN truly sucked.
It is the supposed "War on Terror" and the accompanying False Pretences by the US, which has brought the US to this point.
You remember the " Weapons of Mass Destruction", a Lie which never existed, or the
War on Taliban terrorism, which took 20 years, and served only to promote the Opium Poppy trade, while countless civilians died, and the country returned to the hands of the Taliban.
There are countless other examples like these, including the conflict in the Ukraine, a US proxy war against a country which was never the enemy of the US in the first place, namely Russia.
So tell me why did the US make an enemy of Russia and launch a proxy war against them???
Karma might sometimes be delayed, but it will be enacted when you least expect it.
"why did the US make an enemy of Russia and launch a proxy war?
Western capitalism is driven by private debt, but its households have so much debt already they are averse to taking on any more.The Democrat / Wall Street model and true casus belli for proxy war in Ukraine is that Russia's private citizenry is the world's greatest untapped market for private debt expansion. Mineral resources are of secondary consideration.
Many people commenting on this article don’t seem to have the historical awareness that the last 30 years have been the most peaceful, the most prosperous (by orders of magnitude), the healthiest, the safest, the freest, and the most just in all of human history. And this isn’t just true of the Western nations, it’s almost universal. Instead, many here seem to be focusing on the small picture of regional conflict or (relatively) small scale injustice to celebrate the end of this remarkable (and brief) period of human history. The author is entirely correct -- what comes next will be a return to more war, more instability, a big loss of generalized prosperity, and much, much less freedom.
Those working to tear down the existing system are not working toward a more free, peaceful and prosperous future.
The “simplest and most parsimonious explanation” for the “long peace” — whose peace? Not Libya, Syria, Afghanistan (that the US continues to starve), Yemen, Iraq, or former Yugoslavia. This last you somehow paint as a US peace-keeping mission rather than the destruction of an entire nation’s infrastructure for ginned up claims of “genocide”. The doublespeak is so thick it would choke if we weren’t so damned used to it.
I dare you to challenge your own analysis some time. That chart you show -- I guarantee you it doesn't include the millions the US killed during the "War on Terror" years. Or the many that died of starvation thanks to US sanctions. The Pax Americana has been very bloody for a lot of weak nations across the globe for 80 years now. Take Guatemala where over 40 years starting with the CIA coup in 1954 fully 10% of the population was tortured and murdered to protect the profits of United Fruit. The US makes a desert and calls it peace.
This is the kind of glib and bullshit analysis that keeps the citizenry of the US pliant and stupid. It flatters all the prejudices while questioning none of the assumptions.
Also, if the successors to US power are a bunch of medium competitive powers, that is a recipe for intense conflict, great destruction, and lots of death and suffering.
Actually, with the existence of two great powers in the world today (China and the US), the idea that there would be medium jostling powers is quite remote, so I don't think it's worth addressing. Medium jostling powers is what we had in Europe from 1500 through 1945.
Noah paints the picture where America would prefer to rule as hegemon by request of the majority of the nations, and when this is revealed to be a fairy tale withdraws sulking from the global affairs.
US is slowly being forced to accept that strategy of 21st century being American century has failed and that future demands completely different approach and a lot of hard work and honest pay.
Similar to welfare states, that thrived as long as there was a communist opponent who promised a better world to working people...
South will have to be seduced, into the US dominated rules/dollar based order, manipulated, charmed, lured by promises, or real opportunities to live a better freer life.
Part of this giant seduce operation will be spreading fear, like horror vacui, what will happen if the US is not the guardian of the rules based order. Like Noah is doing in this essay.
But US will have to offer something better than threats of violence.
Thanks to internet global audience is watching US troubles, knowing that real, common sense, Yankee ingenuity is struggling to find the way out and forward, out of the cage of empire that strategists have created around US strengths
Rule of law, e.g.
A. letting US Navalny out of hypothetical prison - let the voters decide who wins 2024 election
B. keeping freedom of speech, stop interfering into efforts to protect the right of the citizen not to be manipulated in the, by the news, media
.... not to prolong the post. In short Noah is sulking that US is bad at the role of imperial power. To us who really like and love America that is a blessing and a promise
As economists, we know that competition is better than monopoly. I see as the most important form of competition is competition at the highest institutional level: interstate competition. Having US with monopoly on great power status was good in the short term for global trade, but if maintained it would eventually lead to erosion of competitive pressure at the highest level, with potentially disastrous consequences.
You raise an interesting point that I will ponder. But maybe a better model for International Relationships between nations is the family model, where parents oversee the maturation of children, and then eventually accept them as adults. I don't think we're at the point where every single nation can be accepted as an adult. Clearly, the United States, the European Union, China, and the Soviet Union are offering themselves as leaders/parents for developing countries.
US was never dominant enough to the point of stifling interstate competition though? It was likely never going to be. There were always alternatives and rivals even in eras of american dominance. There were people that would've wanted to stifle the growth of Japan or China at different points, but to the extent that those economies lost steam, american competition was only a small factor.
I believe I need to add an addendum to my comment. The idea that some nations currently need to act as mentor/parent nations to others would be best done with the most delicate touches. Listening, then suggesting. Setting boundaries, and giving nations that want our help choices that only they can make.
If you think Americans will bare the brunt of the suffering then your are sadly mistaken. More likely, middle countries will have more conflicts which cause more pain (see Azerbaijan/Armenia, Ukraine/Russia and the most recent Israel/Palestinian conflicts).
Noah, I enjoy your economics BUT i would say you might have a gap in Military & Defense, Hard power, IR.
US power projection is only limited by executive branch priorities not actual hard power operational planning, readiness, combat capacity & effects
1) US doctrine is built on " ops planning, readiness & effects" not volumetric drivers which the PRC/PLA or so called team bad guys. Having large numbers without a doctrine is just a waste of trillions of RMB
The PLA cannot have anywhere near the readiness, operational capability, human capital combat capability while expanding 2-5x.. the trade off is massive. I question how many effects they could sustain past the first 5-10 OODA cycles of engagement
3) Just focusing on very basic Naval effects..
The USN has anywhere between 4-8 battle carrier groups doing 1-2 rotations per year the last 60yrs so 500 cycles which is true blue water navy and millions of people cycled over 60yrs force generation from E1-E9, CW, O1-010.. this is not trivial.
PLAN replicating this is something they cannot buy or build in a plant but is developed thru doctrine, training, culture, cycles. PLAN has never generated a full strike group that can move into Eastern Pacific much less force projection across the Indo-Pac
I would argue as long as the PRC want to waste trillions of Renminbi on "OUT VOLUMING" the US, thats great.. Building a 400,600, 800 ship naval is great as they are not investing in actual naval full spectrum integrated combat effects given the human resources to do that would cost a Trillion Renminbi a year just in Ops, Training, mutations, Human resources etc..
I and many could detail 100s of these examples which are not minor.
Well said. The US is still the sole super power. No one can come close to America's ability to project power globally. China can barely project power in the SCS.
China is boxed in and surrounded by unfriendly nations. The US has competent allies all around the world. Not only is the number of allies growing, but those allies are increasing their defense spending, improving their interoperability with the US military, and getting more organized.
The US also has the world reserve currency, which despite what people selling crypto will tell you, isn't changing any time soon.
China's industrial capacity is nothing to sneeze at and the US's is under strain, but the US and allies still have tremendous capacity to produce and would be able to add to that quickly (enough) in a toe-to-toe with China.
Even a straight military-to-military comparison would show that America is much stronger - plus it has war-fighting experience.
China has peaked or is close to peaking while American power continues to grow. There was never a time in which America was omnipotent, so expectations of an invincible, infallible, and unchallenged US aren't reasonable. Much of the world has industrialized, perhaps reducing the power differential and definitely reducing the American appetite for world policing.
However, I doubt China will even try to invade Taiwan any time soon. And it certainly hasn't so far. That the US can deter the #2 military from invading an Island right next to it tells you all you need to know about Pax Americana.
There’s another theory for why interstate conflict has declined: the cost-benefit ratio on it has gotten progressively worse since the Industrial Revolution. Weapons got more and more destructive, and agricultural land got less and less valuable. It used to be that a state could increase its wealth and power by conquering someone else’s agricultural land, so war was profitable for the winner. Now, most economic value is in physical capital and skilled labor, which war destroys; so war can only make everyone poorer even if they win. It took people a while to realize this (hence the world wars) and some, like Putin, still haven’t internalized the lesson; but most countries have figured it out and aren’t interested in war anymore.
That’s quite a lot of opinion from noahpinion. I note references to WaPo and a wikipedia source that explores “American Imperialism” and I really don’t need to read more.
A weak US president, an overarching UN and WEF and this is what you get.
Great post. I think there is more to elaborate however. I would argue that Pax Americana was about a world system--one based on rules. Trade rules, human rights rules, arbitration rules and many other things.
This world grew on the substrate of American naval power, the silicon revolution and the agricultural green revolution as well as financial actions and so forth.
I think what follows is a de-globalized world where different regions have different rules and the US is unwilling to underwrite a global system.
I read that as still capable but not willing to underwrite the global system.
Clearly in Ukraine and Taiwan, the US is willing. It has become increasingly less willing in the ME, which could be why Hamas felt it was ok to invade Israel. However, just as Putin's invasion of Ukraine led to an expansion of NATO, the recent events in Israel might trigger the US to become more willing to intervene in the ME. America certainly has the capability to do so.
Recent US pressure on NATO members to increase military spending does indicate a growing unwillingness to underwrite European peace. It's not because the US is losing the ability to do so but because of relative importance. As European growth slows, at least as compared to Asia, it'll become increasingly less relevant to US interests.
The US isn't very engaged in SA or Africa, but was it really much more engaged during Pax Americana?
Where the US has increased engagement is Asia. America has arguably lost relative influence to China and that's because it was unable, not unwilling, to stop it. Ties with Japan, India, Australia, the Philippines and more are all growing and the US is very much involved in defining the new reality in Asia. I still expect the US to show up in full force wherever it's interests are even remotely impacted, but given China's strength, there are things it can't stop even if it wanted. One should remember, however, that there was never a world in which the US could write the rules carte blanche.
So, maybe it's not so much an unwillingness to underwrite the global system as shifting where the US does so? Maybe the old rules *are* being rewritten, but the US is definitely a dominant force in that process. The US wasn't writing rules by itself even during Pax Americana, although China represents a stronger adversary than any faced during that time.
No longer is Europe the only other developed economy. If there is multipolar anything, there are now two second best economies vying for America's attention.
"Pax" Americana wasn't all that peaceful, the United States maintaining hundreds of bases, launching dozens of interventions, and spending trillions of dollars, thereby neglecting basic public infrastructure and social safety nets that are taken from granted in nearly every other country with similar or even significantly inferior levels of affluence.
More peaceful than the alternative. And yes, the US was subsidizing European welfare states, but that era is ending. To be seen is if generous welfare states can be sustained by the Europeans if they have to be responsible for their own security.
As of my last knowledge the US was not subsidizing European welfare states in terms of funding their social programs or welfare budgets. The relationship between defense spending and domestic welfare policies is a matter of domestic political choice and can vary from one European country to another.
Some European countries with strong welfare states do maintain significant defense budgets, while others have chosen to allocate fewer resources to defense and rely on collective security arrangements like NATO.
Also, the US has global interests, and its military presence in Europe is not solely for Europe's benefit.
The US is indirectly subsidizing European welfare states by providing for a decent amount of Europe's defense.
I don't think you're aware of just how insubstantial many European militaries are. Please name those European countries with strong welfare states that spend more on their military (as a percentage of GDP) than the US does.
By this logic europe and other allies are also subsidizing the US. What a foolish idea that the only ones that benefit, monetarily or otherwise, are the non-americans in the alliances.
How so? The US clearly has a lot more military capability to protect Europe than Europe does to protect the US. Do you disagree?
And how much money would the US have to expend to exhert the same pressure on Russia were it not for the alliance?
To be fair, all of the US spending is not on European defense, I doubt if it's more than 2% of GDP (Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan....)
We're out of Iraq and Afghanistan (and Iraq) now. And "European defense" is really global (Western) defense. Do you think Europe wouldn't be affected by Red Sea pirates or wars starting out in Asia? The point I'm making is that European countries can more easily fund generous welfare states because they don't have to pay for a global policeman even though they definitely benefit from a global policeman. Would they be able to do so if they even had to contribute to the US defense budget?
By “chosen” you mean enabled
No most definitely Not, US military presence in Europe serves US Hegemony over the region, reducing European countries tp controlled Vassal states who have now simply committed financial and economic suicide in their countries, from which the only possible recovery for them lies in becoming their own countries again and acting in their own best interest, outside of the influence of US Hegemony.
It's a weird leap to say that we caused them to commit financial and economic suicide. If I give my struggling brother money to turn his life around and he goes out and buys a gun to shoot himself, does that make me legally culpable for his death?
What absolute Bullshit are you espousing ???
The World Bank has predicted an economic groth of between 2.5 and 2.8% for Russia, while their prediction for the US is between 1 and 1.1%
So we can definitely see who shot themselves in the Head, and it wasn't Russia!!!
And about the Russian economy, it's a laugh.
Putin's economy today is based only on the military-industrial complex.
Try to read or watch Russian-speaking economists, preferably not Putin's, in independent ones, and then maybe a lot of things will become clearer to you.
Everything else from you is pure populism.
I have never read more idiocy and nonsense. Have you forgotten about the corroded Europe, the wall in Germany and other "pleasures" when Europe was under the hegemony of the soviet Union or Russia?
Speaking as a European, no thanks, we wish you to be vassals of Russia and other totalitarian countries.
When was Europe under the Hegemon of Russia???
Eastern Europe did suffer under the Soviet Union, as did Russia, but your reference to you being a European is absolute Bullshit, exposed by your gross ignorance about Modern Day Russia and the collapsing European economies, with Germany headed to a depression.
If you have never been to "modern" russia 🤣🤣🤣🤣 here you can "go" you will be enlightened.
PS you can turn on the subtitles.
https://youtu.be/HXSlcecrOj0?si=U6ZYq5-YbN0aYuNR&t=281
Hahahaha 😄, modern russia, this is funny. One question, you have been once in „modern“ russia? That kind of garbage I haven’t never read.
You’re good to be measured in your tone. It’s like Germany is going to abandon healthcare because they shift defense spending from 1.4% to 2%?
South Korea apparently spends 2.9% and they still have universal healthcare that’s regarded as high quality.
*Insert rant*
"US was subsidizing European welfare states"
LMAO. WHAT?!
Every eurocent not spent on defense because of NATO (US) Article 5 guarantee is a cent that can be spent on welfare.
As you may be aware, that most of NATO in Europe doesn’t spend the minimum 2% despite assurances that now they really will, promise!
The US tax burden is roughly half of Europe’s, so the idea that the US “can’t afford” Euro-style welfare due to military spending is misguided.
And do you think the US spreads its defense umbrella over Europe out of just goodwill, not because it deems it ultimately advantageous to itself – more advantageous than a would-be peer competitor on the world stage in the form of a European superstate with its homegrown military-industrial base?
Given the regular attempts by countries like France to build up EU-level defense capabilities, it’s clear that not everyone in Europe is even happy for all those supposedly saved eurocents. You’re committing a fallacy by considering there to be some fixed amount of money irrespective of geopolitical conditions; a more powerful Europe could also better safeguard resources for itself. As it stands, “regulatory superpower” is Europe’s consolation prize.
And every dollarcent the americans dont have to spend because they are also part of the alliance can also be spent elsewhere. The idea that only europeans benefit from the alliance is trumpian levels of silly
No one said that the US didn’t benefit from it; it’s just the Europeans disproportionately do
It would be true if we put our share in, but we fall short. I’m all for Euro-Atlantic cooperation, it’s just that we even outnumber the US by a quarter, but even if our GDP is lower than that of the US, there is no excuse for not putting in our 2-4% into defense. Also a European Army would make more sense than every 10M state getting a fully capable army independently.
The real question I have is about a European army. Most pundits seem to be supportive but I can’t tell if actual European citizens want such a thing
Sophomoric opinion that literally all data violently contradicts. You can hate the USA's manner of intervention while acknowledging that objectively the last 70 years were the most peaceful in world history.
Have you heard of the long century, going on between 1814 to 1914? When there were few wars, and none major?
The Crimean War was major. The Taiping Rebellion was major (perhaps 30 million dead). The Indian Mutiny (1857) was major. The continuation of the long genocidal war of conquest against indigenous Americans was major. The US Civil War was major. The Franco-Prussian War was major. The Boer War was major.
The post-Waterloo century was perfectly bloody. It only looks peaceful in contrast to the bloodbath of 1914-1949. It's like saying Bob's heart attack wasn't that bad because the following year he got cancer. (British imperialist apologetics likewise play a role). There's also more than a bit of Eurocentrism associated with this view of history (wars aren't "really" that bad or noteworthy unless they involve coalitions of white people duking it out, ie, so-called "Great Power" wars).
No, they don't even come close to being major.
In the Crimean War you had some expeditionary forces from France and Britain. Peanuts.
Indian Mutiny it wasn't even a war, was a mutiny, with Brits having gatlings and canons against spears and slings. Same with the Taiping Rebellion - again, not a war, a rebellion.
Only the American Civil War had a true war, where the Americans have lost more people than in all the other wars combined. Again, a civil war.
Boer War? You must be kidding. A guerilla war, with Brits having to invent concentration camps for the farmer/fighters' families?
On the other hand, under Pax Americana, you had the Korean War, where US/UN turned to rubble North Korea, killed millions, and ultimately suffering a defeat at the hands of the Chinese.
Vietnam War? Much, much bigger than what you describe here.
In the history of humanity, very drenched in blood, as becoming for these omnivorous apes, 1814-1914 wasn't bad at all. Pax Americana on the other hand had a wiff of what was described about Romans: they made a desert and they called it peace
"These plunderers of the world [the Romans][US], after exhausting the land by
their devastations, are rifling the ocean: stimulated by avarice, if their
enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor; unsatiated by the East and by the West:
the only people who behold wealth and indigence with equal avidity. To ravage,
to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make
a desert, they call it peace."
Calling the Crimean war not a major war is insane because you had great powers duking it out to determine the balance of power of an entire region.
To call the Indian mutiny just mutiny, as if India was an integral part of the British empire and had a say and not a colonial holding is deeply suspect
People seem to forget but the the Korean War was started by North Korea which is why there was such widespread support. And to say the war was lost well, I would encourage you to step foot in S. Korea today.
No one is saying Pax Americana was without conflict. It was. The key insight is that for the most part there was less interstate conflicts, less conflicts between great powers and no global wars. Wars for territorial conquest most ceased, and we have pretty good data and research about the decrease in interstate violence and violence as a whole.
Your benchmark is 1939-1945. Yeah, everything was lower than that.
Crimean war was done with British and French EXPEDITIONARY forces. Napoleon's attack on Russia was order of magnitude greater: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Minard
The assault on Crimea ended with Russians opening another front and attacking directly the Ottomans through Caucasus. And the Turks called quits. By that point the Brits (harrased by Florence Nightingale) and the French were also fed up and called quits too. I know Romanians gained from the peace settlement. But no, it wasn't a major war. Light brigade! The Brits would call everithing major (and then they lost 57,000 people in one day on the Somme in 1916).
And no, it wasn't North Korea that started the war. It was the US and came to occupy Korea, hire all the Japonese managers back (and Japanese troops as well), to administer the territory, and try to impose their system there, despite the fact that in the North, the communists fought against the Japanese occupation for decades and were highly regarded by the population. And as the Japanese found enough collaborators (especially the upper classes, that only cared for their socio-economic position), Americans also found willing collaborators (who just changed the Japanese flag for the American flag). That war was a war of national liberation, the same way the Vietnamese fought against the French and then against the Americans.
And Pax Americana is anyway a misnomer. It was the Soviet power that kept the Americans more or less checked. Look how unhinged they became after the dissolution of the USSR.
Are you kidding me? What is the Scramble for Africa, Alex? The conquests in Asia? American westward expansion? These were all incredibly violent affairs. Does the war only count if its between peers?
Only when it is between peers it truly becomes bloody, and on both sides. If it is not between peers, is just a more dangerous hunting expedition.
what a ridiculous take. So belgium killing 10-15 million congolese isn't an invasion and doesn't matter? The millions of native americans who were invaded, killed and/or displaced don't matter? This is a truly worthless definition of peace.
By no account do I want to dismiss the lives of non-europeans killed by the conquering spree during the 19th century. But those were not wars. Same way all the peasant revolts in all Europe, including Russia, were not wars. Subjugation of little people has been going along for quite some time now. It still ongoing. And the rich still have the upper hand. Buffet did call it a war. But it is not a true war. In Real Wars, the rich also die and / or get impoverished.
The Crimean War (1853-1856) was pretty bad. Whether or not it was a major war depends on your perspective. Taiping Rebellion was really, really bad. But it was a civil war. Overall, I do agree that 1814-1914 was a time of relative peace all things considered.
1814-1914 was a peaceful century? You’re joking, right?
America:
American Civil War
Mexican American War
Wars of Independence throughout Spanish America
Ongoing wars between the US settlers and US Army and the American Indians
War of conquest in Mexico and subsequent Mexican war of independence
Mexican Revolution
War of the Pacific (Chile, Peru, Bolivia)
Constant violent coups
Spanish American War
Europe:
Crimean War
Franco Prussian War
War between Russian and Ottomans in the Balkans 1878 (I think there are several other Russo-Ottoman Wars, too)
Balkans War (1912-13)
Africa:
Boer War
European subjugation of the continent by force
Asia:
Taiping Rebellion
Boxer Rebellion
Sino Japanese War
Russian Japanese War
Russian conquests in central and Eastern Asia
British conquest of India and 1857 Mutiny
European (and Japanese) colonial conquest of Asia
Philippine rebellion against Spain and subsequent war with the US
Opium War
Several wars between Thailand and its neighbors
Many others I am either forgetting or else don’t know about
literally entire continents were subjugated by force and people want to say it was 'peaceful' compared to the limited conflicts after WWII.
Good Lord. We had Russian military intervention in the Hungarian war for independence from the Habsburg empire in 1848-49 for one.
That’s not peasant revolt, it’s an attempt at reestablishing an independent Hungarian nation state as per the Enlightenment ideas. Not really a class conflict.
Yeah, while trying to keep all the other nationalities in the claimed space under a heavy boot, eh? Was more like a fight on multiple fronts there, with March 15 coming as a commupence... And in history books 1848 in Europe is prezented as the Revolutionary Year...
That just makes our point about the state of things in Europe between 1814-1914. :)
Yeah, that was a big mistake, denying Croatian independence. Freedom for me but not for thee.
Most of the bases have amounted to an extremely successful peace project. Western Europe is the most obvious example.
With out cost of servicing US debt larger than the defense budget, the future will be interesting
That's not the issue at hand, US hegemony is, and the global damage to relationships it has done.
The biggest problem with the US defense budget has nothing to do with the size of the defense budget to but everything to do with how it is being wasted, with a large portion going to the upkeep of 750+ bases across the globe, and the major portion being spent on Shit quality, Overpriced weapons, with another portion being used to fund abortion, gender transitions, CRT indoctrination and other shit.
Eh, nope. Those bases are aren't even 10% of the budget. Your abortion and CRT stuff is pure dialectical nonsense. A lie your trying to sell.
Despite your other pathetic responses, I notice you haven't responded to the overpriced junk equipment which most of the Pentagon budget is being spent on!!!
Considering how well that “overpriced junk” has performed against Russia i think it’s fine
How well has it performed Dumbass???
Where did you hear that Bullshit???
The Himars are practically Useless, as is that Shitty anti aircraft systems, the Patriot hasn't taken down a single Russian aircraft, whilst the Stingers took out 8 helicopters when first used, and since then Nothing, the Ukrainians have abandoned using the Javelins against Russian tanks after using a years worth of rocket supply to achieve virtually Nothing.
In fact the Ukrainians have resorted to using former Soviet weapons they have been able to scrounge up from other former Soviet countries.
So if that's your measure of quality, then you evidently don't understand theeaning of the word.
The Fact is, the Ukranians have lost four times as much equipment as the Russians, and more than ten times the manpower.
Here's the Real Cost in every respect you Moron.
https://quincyinst.org/report/drawdown-improving-u-s-and-global-security-through-military-base-closures-abroad/
All of our systems have become corrupted. It starts with government and then creeps into science, food, medicine, academia, media and more.
This is how we fix it:
https://joshketry.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-corrupt-government-in
It seems to me that we will still remember the Pax Americana and think what good times we had, as there is a black canvas ahead.
If countries like China, Russia, Iran, etc. take over, it will be years of disappointment, if not worse.
It's certainly possible that what comes next will be worse, but I'm not so sure. I'm not a big fan of China or Russia, and certainly not Iran, but all three of those countries have centuries if not millenia of history where they invaded fewer nations than we have in just the last 70 years. Western Europe is basically made of post-imperial sovereigns and the quality of life nearly everywhere there is higher in some important ways than it is here. I could see a relatively peaceful "flat" world where nobody is exactly in alliance with each other, but they aren't too eager to invade anyone else either.
I don't quite agree with you, each of these three countries has a place for revenge, especially putin's Russia, which constantly repeats that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the biggest geopolitical mistake, but in order to wage wars it was first necessary to gain strength, stock up on resources, finances, make some contacts and only then start acting. What we are witnessing now is the sagging American foreign policy, Europe itself is very weak in terms of militarism, people have no time for war here, and then all these countries have been revitalized and started swinging their policies and waging wars. putin's Russia dreams to restore control over all post-Soviet countries as it considers them its vassals, so the war in Ukraine is not the last, we are waiting for more wars on this large territory, no matter how sad it is.
In general, Russia should be fragmented and unequivocally deprived of nuclear weapons.
True that. But now that it has gone along this path, can it afford to stop and change its ways now? what about its allies who have made sacrifices to be blinded by the beauty of US guns? if the US backs up, then its allies risk being strangled by the forces wishing to end Pax Americana. The US will then face absolution all alone, much as the Greeks and Romans had before it. if there is no satisfactory resolution (or at the very least a stalemate), the US will need to find the source of the turmoil and face off against it directly.
This article is pretty off base. The basic model presented is that of conventional nation-states fighting in a Hollywood style struggle for power. The reality is that the basic nature of power has been and is now changing rapidly. The construct of large power control of populations died with Vietnam... reenforced with Afghanistan (Soviets/US). The biggest factor in Ukraine is in fact the resistance of the people to external rule. Even if Russia would have taken over all of Ukraine... it was 10X Afghanistan. The best they could hope for is another Chechnya... where they had to leave anyway.
The mega-trend to watch is the increasing power of an individual relative to the collective as enabled by technology. In this world, rule by force is almost impossible. Methods for cooperation (perhaps enabled by propaganda) are at the core of the power. This is not really about Pax Americana... as positioned by hard power. Rather, it is about Pax Americana as the demonstration of the methods which lead to positive individual economic outcomes. Vietnam being an interesting example ... one of the stronger allies today. Lost on hard power... won on soft power.
This does not mean that there will not be major power conflicts, and the formation of failed states (North Korea). There is a lot of settling to be done.
I’m with you. It reminds me of the sci fi novel Forever Peace, where increasing connection between humans makes it impossible to wage war. The internet has made violence against others on the internet largely unacceptable, and destruction of the internet would mean global economic catastrophe.
agree... also, the interesting fact is that aggregate productivity has given the human race a lot more freedom. In the "old" days, just the task of living was so tough that it imposed a large gravity on everyone's lives. This meant that controlling a population was relatively easy because 90-95% of their lives were focused on survival. If you used force, they had very little recourse.
Today, aggregate productivity is such that the individual is more powerful and has every ability to resist. The age of blunt-force methods for controlling population are largely gone. Technology is democratizing the world. This is certainly true in the information context, but even in warfare with cheap drones or guns. Today, we are in the world of the art of persuasion. Democracies naturally have some advantages here.
As I mentioned, this does not mean that populations cannot be put in survival mode (North Korea..large parts of Africa).
Relative to the analysis, I do find economists are often frozen by political structures and miss the underlying shifts in basic structure of society. Ecommerce/internet has done more to shift the world's fortunes around globalization than any political move. ...as an example.
“Today, we are in the world of the art of persuasion. Democracies naturally have some advantages here”
Very good observation. The rise of intelligence agencies as the most important defense apparatus of the government supports this idea.
The suggestion that technology is democratizing the world is a dangerously naive notion. Democracy today is under more threat than ever, much of it enabled by technology. China is using technology to not merely surveil its citizens but to coerce the population into frightened, mute acquiescence to the growing dictatorship there. Russia is moving in the same direction while using technology to attack it’s rivals and commit state terrorism and larceny. Technology has exponentially increased misinformation intended to undermine free elections by an informed electorate in places from the US to Hungary to India.
The coming wave of economic dislocation from AI will further stress liberal democracies while the availability of inexpensive lethal weapons in the form of drones and guns created with 3D printers will encourage tiny groups of extremists to project destabilizing attacks far beyond what they could mount in the past.
The money-driven avatars of technology today, from Musk to SBF to MBS, lack any moral or democratic impulse. They have moved on from the “don’t be evil” idealism of yesterday to the “get so big no one can stop you” ethos of today.
Agree... democratizing and helping Democracy is not the same thing. We are very likely to go through a destabilizing period as there is a level of adjustment driven by these technologies. Overall, I do think that democracies have a higher chance of making it though vs countries such as Russia/China... but we will see. Here is what I know.. control using blunt force is very unlikely to work.
Establish several personae and explore disparate topics. In one of mine, it's all optimism and rational positivity. In another, it's war. The internet has simply moved the violence from actual bombs to a virtual war in a seemingly "safe" locale. I do this to examine "bubbles" and it has been an eye opener that causes much distress.
Adding that if war of any kind depends to some degree on the willingness of a population, then the internet has provided means to develop a critical mass (on just about any topic) that is a largely unseen, unconsciously created "force."
Much depends on whether the now heavily commercialized web can deliver space for the growth of collaborative, positively oriented thought and learning. In that, much depends on our ability to understand each other, to discern motive and intent, to grasp the meaning of language that is evolving in unexpected ways. Terminology around biological sex and the extraordinarily diverse understanding of socially constructed gender is one example of many.
Russia hasn’t faced any serious insurgency in Ukraine.
They will rule their new territories there with ease.
The one thing that every successful insurgency (Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Yemen, Afghanistan) has had in common was a young population.
The median age in Yemen is something like 19 years old. The median age in Ukraine is over 40, and that before the war.
LOL
There are a number of holes in your argument here:
1) Your evidence that the US ability to project power (and thus peace) is declining seems to consist of
a) the fact that HAMAS *reacting* to US actions which seems like evidence of power and involvement. Indeed, the current level of violence in Israel is far below what it was through most of the 70s and 80s which on your view was the high water mark
b) Wars occuring in places where Russian military power was previously maintaining the peace (or at least not directly breaking it. It's hardly evidence of American lack of military power that it's primary geopolitical rival over most of the past century is no longer strong enough to maintain the peace in its own backyard (the difference between the Soviet period and now in Ukraine is that the Russians can no longer easily crush all resistance)
2) Your claim that the rise of a geopolitical rival (China) prevents the US role as peacekeeper is in tension with the fact thst your examples of how pax america was enforced and peaked seem to have occured during the rivalry between the us and the Soviet union and interventions like Vietnam happened because of those tensions.
a) If people start wars in response to American diplomatic efforts to foster peace, that's a demonstration of America's waning power to keep the peace, yes indeed.
b) Azerbaijan's ethnic cleansing is certainly an effect of Russia's waning power, but with Serbia and Kosovo you've got it exactly backwards here; Serbia is a Russian client state, and the U.S. was always the one protecting Kosovo. Read about 1999!
2) The Soviets probably made it harder to keep the global peace, and contributed to a lot of the interstate conflict in the Cold War period. But ultimately they were never as powerful as the U.S.-West Europe-Japan bloc. China is different because it's far more powerful relative to the West than the USSR ever was, even though as yet it has fewer nuclear weapons.
In response to a), I would like to submit Latin America, 20th century.
Everyone’s at peace, just some are more peaceful than others.
Sometimes people start wars because they think the Israeli government is distracted, Biden is weak and an appeaser who gives Iran (and its proxies) billions to buy weapons in addition to millions to Hamas directly with no controls, and will pressure Israel to cease hostilities before crushing Hamas.
The Abraham accords have been around for years
lol when did a) ever not happen. You're talking about it as if american diplomatic efforts being thwarted are some remote occurrence.
The US was last a "peacekeeper" in immediate post WWII, simce then the IS has been nothing but a Bully and a Hegemon, imposing its will on others, which has led to these situations of rebellion arising.
Yes, and who started the shit in the Kosovo/ Serbian region again, Kosovo, the US vassal state, just like the Ukraine.
Be sire that the Serbians ate thrpugh with this Bullshit, and they're going to finish this Western sponsored Kosovo Bullshit.
The US is using Kosovo as a Proxy to cause a distraction for Russia, given the Absolute Bloody nose the Collective West and the Ukraine are getting from the Russians.
Exactly the same is happening in Azerbaijan, the Armenians were getting ready to stir up another colour revolution in the region, spurred on again by the promise of EU membership and undoubtedly with US backing, however the Eastern Countries have gotten used to reading these situations and attempts at revolutions and "regime changes" sponsored by the Collective West.
Wake Up Moron, your own country is causing Global strife, so burying your head in the sand and purporting otherwise, is not going to change the facts.
The US/ West is making the world smaller and a lot more unpleasant for itself, because your big stupid mouths and hubris.
>given the Absolute Bloody nose the Collective West and the Ukraine are getting from the Russians.<
You've GOT to be kidding me. Russia has taken at least 300,000 casualties en route to a horrendous quagmire. Putin thought it would take weeks. 1.5 years in Moscow barely controls, what, a tenth of Ukraine? The latter of which is now being considered for EU memberships. Meanwhile Russia has seen a huge exodus of STEM talent, frayed commercial relationships, and the seizure by Western states of tens of billions in financial assets. Russia now relies on North Freakin Korea for military hardware. And NATO expansion continues apace. And the potent energy weapon Vlad thought he wielded against Europe has proven to be...a dud. Oh, and almost forgot: a few months ago there were little mercenary tanks on the road to Moscow.
If Xi pulls the plug it lights out for Putie.
It is truly sad to see what the US has become because of Compulsive Liars like you, never willing to face up to the truth, but living a Lie.
Lies however don't change the facts, they merely worsten the end result for those like you, who actually believe them.
The effect of sanctions being just one of those, as the US economy falyers and the World Bank predicts an evonomic hrowth for the US for 2023 at between 1 and 1.1%, whilst the same World Bank has predicted an economic growth of between 2.5 and 2.8% for Russia, which melans that Russia is winning not only the conflict in the Ukraine, but also the economic war which the US launched against them.
There was no need for conflict in the Ukraine, but the US instigated and stoked the conflict, even when Russia and the Ukraine had signed a peace accord in January 2022, the Ukraine carrying outvthe orders of their US Masters, defied the agreement.
Then Russia gave them a second opportunity at peace in March of 2022, which the Ukraine again used to deceive Russia, for which they are now paying the price.
While Americans continue the Lie, Ukrainians will continue to Die.
Would you like some Novacaine for that nerve I struck?
You Moron your prior comment was overflowing with Bullshit, and here you are with the most ridiculous response possible, and no substantiation of any of the the Insane claimed you made.
It is not I that needs Novocaine, but you definitely need to lay off the shit you've been smoking.
You're a totally Dilusion Ignorant Moron!!!
Its not Russia conscripting people off the street and loading them into vans and sending them for a week's training at most before being sent to the front.
It's Not the Ukraine holding approximately 89 000 km2 of Russian territory.
Its Not Putin running around like a fowl without a head attempting to get NATO involved in the Ukraine conflict.
It's Not Russia begging the world for weapons and money.
It's Not Russia cheerleading the praise of NAZI's in the Canadian Parliament.
Its Not Russians surrendering to the Ukrainians en-mass.
Its not the Ukrainians outgunning the Russians with an artillery fire rate of 10 to 1.
It's not Russia that doesn't have an airforce left.
Its not Russia that has lost approximately 60% of the weapons and equipment supplied before the Spring/ Summer/ Never counter offensive.
Its Not Russia that hasn't gotten outvof the parking lot for their supposed counter offensive.
Its Not Russia who has suffered approximately 440 000+ dead since the beginning of the conflict.
Its Not Russia having suffered approximately 1 000 000 wounded.
Get your head put of your Ass and get the facts, and stop trumpeting Absolute and Ignorant Bullshit!!!
You okay?
Charles please read with comprehension; US promised to crush Russia with sanctions, didn‘t succeed
US trained and armed UA army
barely reached first line
We, neighboring Hungarians among other European states begged the US for YEARS to intervene in the Balkans. There were ethnic cleansing going on that had to be stopped. You either don’t know what you are talking about, or are actively trolling.
PS!!! I can't seem to find a recorded incident anywhere of Victor Orban requesting US intervention in anything.
If anything in fact, all I find is the complete opposite, so I really would like to know which Hungary you're from, because it most certainly isn't the official Country of Hungary.
So I guess this confirms you to be the Troll here!!!
It’s pretty hard to not call you names back.
First of all, you have absolutely no idea about the politics of Eastern Europe, not today, and not after the fall of the Soviet Union. Hungary became Independent from Soviet rule in 1989, held its first democratic elections in 90 and the first administration was of the party MDF, with prime minister József Antall. (Viktor Orbán was a liberal party leader then.) He used any and every public forum to urge the international community to intervene in the conflict, for example, something you might find easy to look up in the US, he came to the US in October of 1991 and gave several public speeches in the UN general assembly, the University of Connecticut, on the Council of Foreign Relations dinner, the George Washington University, or his meeting with Bush in the White House on the 4th of October. It’s certainly kept in our records, and have been reported on by our foreign minister of the time Géza Jeszenszky. Antall also wrote a 6 page letter to Bush later that month about the issue. You can find most of his speeches in this book. (https://www.martenscentre.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/antall_jozsef.pdf)
Between 1994-98 there was an other administration, the socialist party came back to power because of economic hardship after the collapse of our former main foreign trade partner the Soviet Union, but after that, the first Viktor Orbán administration came between 1998-2002 when he was a mainstream European conservative. After the NATO ascension in 1999, we became the main base of operations for NATO air forces in the region, not against our will. To this day, the Hungarian contingent is one of the three biggest one in KFOR.
I tried to get you some English language articles, here (https://gazetadielli.com/hungarian-foreign-policy-and-wars-of-the-1990s-in-former-yugoslavia/).
Please, don’t try to sound more knowledgeable in affairs than you actually are.
(The socialist MSZP came back to power instead of MDF also because József Antall died in 93 before his term expired, so MDF lost its most prominent leader.)
You're a Moron if you believe that US intervention, would ever have solved anything for anyone, and all you have to do is look at historical US interventions to understand that!!!
So tell me which ethnic cleansing to are you referring to, and why it couldn't be solved locally or even within Europe???
Why involve any country from off the continent???
The Yugoslav war was started in 91, when Slovenia and Croatia broke away trying to win their independence. (There was already an incident when Yugoslav intelligence caught us selling Kalashnikovs to Croatia to help them. There is a big Hungarian diaspora around Hungary in both Croatia and Serbia, so there were many Hungarians conscipted by force by the Serbs. Many refused to fight against their brethren. We took in a lot of refugees, also from Serbs fleeing conscription.) The ethnic cleansing I referred to was in Srebrenica, where UN peacekeepers, mostly Dutchbat was unable to prevent the massacre of 6-8 thousand Bosniac men by Serb forces (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre).
In 91 you say???
How does this have even the slightest relevance to the current situation???
In 91, the Soviet Union had just folded, of course there was chaos and power plays, as everyone was finding their way out of the former Soviet quagmire and was jockeying for position.
The US has continued to provoke among the weaker groups still in the region, causing conflict in a desperate attempt for these conflicts to be a thorn in the side of Russia.
This reflects the Psychopathic tendencies of the US, not to help anyone, but to use people against each other, and making promises to these people, of creating an expectation of gaining some sort of advantage, which will never be met.
So look to Cause Proportionate Dumbass
This just confirms the absolutely irrational Trash you purveyed in your initial comment!!!
In other, wiser peoples' words: "compare to the alternative, not to ideal". For some years after WW2, the US was the world's sole nuclear power: consider for a moment what the world would look like had it been Modi, Putin, Xi... Thanks, Mr. S. for pointing out, again, our not-so-great but pretty-good historical track record.
What does Modi have to do here? Sproadic cases of communal violence doesn't mean that India is going through civil war.. Check out the number of deaths in 2014-19 vs 2004-09. I wasn't able to find data to compare between 2004-14 vs 2014-2023.
https://prsindia.org/files/policy/policy_vital_state/1308201190_Vital%20Stats%20-%20Communal%20Violence%20in%20India%2014Jun11%20v2.pdf
https://www.news9live.com/india/ram-navami-clashes-not-the-first-in-indias-history-but-maybe-part-of-a-rising-graph-in-nda-20-168736
What has happened due to social media proliferation is that one case of communal violence in far away are due to sensationalisation feels close to home.
Are you Peter Zeihan in disguise? Because this article is nothing but the same old tired bedtime story the American globalists like to tell themselves. But the reality is that the US was never a world policeman nor a benevolent "force for good". Just the sheer number of brutal dictatorships it covertly and openly supported throughout its existence is proof enough.
The US was always a hegemon, a string-puller and an empire hungry for other people's resources. The nations on the receiving end of that "Pax Americana" of yours know it best. Their pushback was long overdue.
Whatever happens in the future, it's not because the US was unable to prevent it, but because its blind and callous quest for domination made sure it would happen.
Yes, because the US has infinite resources and will makes all the decisions for countries.
Maybe other powers will rise that you think will be better. I doubt it.
Who said "infinite"?
As the song goes, you don't know what you've got till it's gone. American hegemony is a mixed-bag, just like anything in life. But a world without American hegemony will be, well, a lot more mixed. You don't need to be blindly chauvinistic to see this.
Noah has written a very complicated overview of foreign affairs, and I found myself in agreement with about 40% of it. The US can do different things in the world, depending upon how accessible the country is to us. The Israeli thing is a blip— another malignant burp from an ailing Hamas whose only effective weapon is suicide attacks.
To respond to Noah's "War and Peace" post adequately, I would have to write a book. Maybe I'm starting to do that on my substack. Check out "XI makes sense to XI."
https://kathleenweber.substack.com/p/xi-makes-sense-to-xi
Kathleen,
I'm enjoying your responses to Noah's posts. They add an extra dimension. I hope you're right about Taiwan. What a disaster for the world that would be.
I wrote a post a few weeks ago about how the last 80 years was an unusually wonderful period for America and most Americans. "History is Coming for Us and It's Going to Hurt"
https://robertsdavidn.substack.com/p/history-is-coming-for-us-and-its
Thanks for your kind words. If memory serves me well, you are already a subscriber to “As Time Goes By." I don't think that Pax Americana has ended at all—it has become somewhat more selective, which was necessary.
You're both Delusional, the fire within Hamas has been smouldering for a long time, and now supported by the Arab world which is starting to distance itself from the hegemoc influence of the US, and the damage inflicted by the US.
The current state of life for the average person living in Gaza could do nothing but fuel their desire to escape this, and lay down their lives in order to create a future for their children.
So if you think Hamas is in its dying throws, maybe 5000+ rockets all launched simultaneously without US or Israeli intelligence picking up on such preparations, should actually make you realise just how flase your assumption is.
American Hubris is a terrible debilitating disease which promotes US hegemony, false assumptions right down to the point of being Blatant Lies and Propaganda, whilst ignoring the Pertinent Truth and Facts, and Root Cause of all conflicts in which the US is either a directly or indirectly involved, and the US always is the common denominator!!!
To focus on your comments regarding Hamas, they have proven to be a disastrous leader for the people in Gaza. The misery endured by the people in Gaza comes from Hamas, not Israel. Now there will be more misery, because after this attack Israel cannot allow Hamas to stay in power.
Hint: to start a comment by calling the people you disagree with delusional does not further debate. I almost didn't respond because of that. But I gave you the benefit of the doubt in the hope you will choose better language next time.
Okay Delusional Fool, we've now heard the typical Moronic Bullshit American Propagandist perspective of Gaza and Hamas, now let's get the opinion of a few residents of Gaza.
The situation in Gaza exactly the same as Eastern Ukraine, where the Russian speaking Ukrainians have been treated like second class citizens.
What were you expecting???
Hamas will no longer be around in a few months.
Russia is doing so poorly eventually China will invade it.
The US is using Ukraine to bleed Russia dry and stupid Putin is falling for it.
Pax America is over but Pax America 2.0 will be ushered in after we finish China.
Keep Bullshitting yourself you Dumbass, you're lost on all accounts.
The US is bleeding itself dry, or are you too Thick to figure that out???
It may be wrong to refer to this as the end of Pax Americana. In fact, it may be the other way around: the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia as well as the invasion of Ukraine signals definitive end of Russia in any form as a great power.
To quote a comment I found some time ago that I find interesting:
"In a 100 years, people will refer to the era of 1991 to the mid 2020s as "The Collapse of the Soviet Union." It will ignore all the other conflicts that happened in that time, and grossly oversimplify a period of 30+ years, but they won't really be wrong.
Serbia was one of the countries that relied on Russia as an external security guarantor, like Armenia, Belarus, Syria, and most of the Central Asian states. Now that its clear that Russia is incapable of even defending its own strategic interests, we have entered a time of poachers. Countries that relied on Russia are now either under siege or are going to try and grab what they can before reality fully sets in.
This is why Turkey is getting more bold near the Syrian border, why Azerbaijan invaded Armenia's occupation zone (and will probably keep driving to Armenia unless NATO gets involved), why Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan got into it over the Fergana valley, and why the rest of Central Asia is now talking to the US in the C5+1 talks to avoid similar catastrophes in their own region."
good point
"At the same time, the U.S. was becoming militarily weaker. The War on Terror reoriented the U.S. military toward counterinsurgency and away from defeating enemy armies."
This has no longer been the case ever since 2011 though. In that year, the US withdrew from Iraq and ended major combat operations in Afghanistan, and military leadership were already reorienting the US military back to near-peer conflict.
https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/613843/dempsey-us-forces-must-adapt-to-deal-with-near-peer-competitors/
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2011/1/5/army-chief-gen-casey-a-bigger-portion-of-the-army-now-training-for-conventional-war
To quote one of the most respected US presidents in history, "The 1980's called, and they want their Cold War back." - 2012
And this article pretty much confirms the sealing of the fate of COIN training in the US military:
https://mwi.usma.edu/a-status-check-on-the-armys-preparation-for-the-next-war/
And quote a veteran who is well-versed in defense-related subjects that I won't name here:
"When all the 2-4 star generals say Near Peer is the new normal and COIN is dead and to be forgotten, to say otherwise is heresy. These articles is Big Army laying the law, this is Moses showcasing the Ten Commandments so everyone knows what they are and ARENT allowed to mention anymore.
And is it really unusual? The US Army historically despises COIN and has since the middle half of the 20th century. They tried to turn the Vietnam War into a conventional conflict (Search and Destroy) for a reason, if the only tool they possess is a hammer, than every problem becomes a nail. After Vietnam, the healing began by formally declaring they won all the battles but lost the war because politicians, and then forgetting everything about Vietnam and refocusing on conventional warfare against Russkies. Remember, the 2-4 stars of today (including MG Donahue, who came in at the tail end of the Cold War, when the US Army was at its zenith in history), grew up in that era, that is the "good old days" they will always strive to return to.
Focusing on Near Peer not only allows them not to prep for the mission they hate nearly as much as peacekeeping, not only return to the Good Old Days, but it also earns them a much better budget than COIN ever provided with the potential to update/replace the Big Five (a MAJOR Military Industrial Complex Defense Industry victory), but best of all it ensures them the opportunity and funding to focus on the type of fighting they like: mechanized centric maneuver warfare, with no ROEs, in an All or Nothing conflict that decides the fate of the free world, where Big Army gets to be the primary strategic asset deciding victory and defeat, they are the main effort for the Stars and Stripes, the true American heroes!
If that doesn't get your dick hard, you're not a real American.
This shouldn't surprise anyone, this reshift started LONG before Afghanistan was over, they began starting their major reshift to Near Peer in the mid 2010s when the US Army was still regularly sending units into combat. Basically, as soon as OP Enduring Freedom was replaced by OP Freedom's Sentinel they were able to start going about the reset.
More so, Pepperidge Farm remembers Big Army types ranting about wanting to refocus on conventional warfare in the mid to late 2000s and early 2010s, when they were still neck deep in COIN conflicts they sucked at, while complaining about their degrading skills in conventional warfare. Mind you, that was BEFORE Cold War 2.0 even rekindled, and Russia could even really be declared a Near Peer threat."
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/0902/p09s01-coop.html
https://jpia.princeton.edu/sites/jpia/files/learning-not-to-kick-with-our-achilles-heel.pdf
Sorry if this takes too long, but this should remind you that the military, especially the army, has been focusing on near-peer threat ever since at the start of the 2010s. The leadership already reoriented the military toward that way because COIN truly sucked.
It is the supposed "War on Terror" and the accompanying False Pretences by the US, which has brought the US to this point.
You remember the " Weapons of Mass Destruction", a Lie which never existed, or the
War on Taliban terrorism, which took 20 years, and served only to promote the Opium Poppy trade, while countless civilians died, and the country returned to the hands of the Taliban.
There are countless other examples like these, including the conflict in the Ukraine, a US proxy war against a country which was never the enemy of the US in the first place, namely Russia.
So tell me why did the US make an enemy of Russia and launch a proxy war against them???
Karma might sometimes be delayed, but it will be enacted when you least expect it.
"why did the US make an enemy of Russia and launch a proxy war?
Western capitalism is driven by private debt, but its households have so much debt already they are averse to taking on any more.The Democrat / Wall Street model and true casus belli for proxy war in Ukraine is that Russia's private citizenry is the world's greatest untapped market for private debt expansion. Mineral resources are of secondary consideration.
Yeah love Noah but this post feels a little mid 2010s. Weapon systems like the F35 aren’t for counter terrorism, they’re for air superiority.
Many people commenting on this article don’t seem to have the historical awareness that the last 30 years have been the most peaceful, the most prosperous (by orders of magnitude), the healthiest, the safest, the freest, and the most just in all of human history. And this isn’t just true of the Western nations, it’s almost universal. Instead, many here seem to be focusing on the small picture of regional conflict or (relatively) small scale injustice to celebrate the end of this remarkable (and brief) period of human history. The author is entirely correct -- what comes next will be a return to more war, more instability, a big loss of generalized prosperity, and much, much less freedom.
Those working to tear down the existing system are not working toward a more free, peaceful and prosperous future.
The “simplest and most parsimonious explanation” for the “long peace” — whose peace? Not Libya, Syria, Afghanistan (that the US continues to starve), Yemen, Iraq, or former Yugoslavia. This last you somehow paint as a US peace-keeping mission rather than the destruction of an entire nation’s infrastructure for ginned up claims of “genocide”. The doublespeak is so thick it would choke if we weren’t so damned used to it.
I dare you to challenge your own analysis some time. That chart you show -- I guarantee you it doesn't include the millions the US killed during the "War on Terror" years. Or the many that died of starvation thanks to US sanctions. The Pax Americana has been very bloody for a lot of weak nations across the globe for 80 years now. Take Guatemala where over 40 years starting with the CIA coup in 1954 fully 10% of the population was tortured and murdered to protect the profits of United Fruit. The US makes a desert and calls it peace.
This is the kind of glib and bullshit analysis that keeps the citizenry of the US pliant and stupid. It flatters all the prejudices while questioning none of the assumptions.
This has the odor of *justification* of the US's particular flavor of hegemony, which could have come in many other varieties.
Good riddance, I'll take my chances.
Perhaps you imagine that the end of Pax Americana will usher in domination by hegemons you like better.
Well, it probably won't.
Also, if the successors to US power are a bunch of medium competitive powers, that is a recipe for intense conflict, great destruction, and lots of death and suffering.
Perhaps you will address the mechanics of this in a future substatic post.
Actually, with the existence of two great powers in the world today (China and the US), the idea that there would be medium jostling powers is quite remote, so I don't think it's worth addressing. Medium jostling powers is what we had in Europe from 1500 through 1945.
Noah paints the picture where America would prefer to rule as hegemon by request of the majority of the nations, and when this is revealed to be a fairy tale withdraws sulking from the global affairs.
US is slowly being forced to accept that strategy of 21st century being American century has failed and that future demands completely different approach and a lot of hard work and honest pay.
Similar to welfare states, that thrived as long as there was a communist opponent who promised a better world to working people...
South will have to be seduced, into the US dominated rules/dollar based order, manipulated, charmed, lured by promises, or real opportunities to live a better freer life.
Part of this giant seduce operation will be spreading fear, like horror vacui, what will happen if the US is not the guardian of the rules based order. Like Noah is doing in this essay.
But US will have to offer something better than threats of violence.
Thanks to internet global audience is watching US troubles, knowing that real, common sense, Yankee ingenuity is struggling to find the way out and forward, out of the cage of empire that strategists have created around US strengths
Rule of law, e.g.
A. letting US Navalny out of hypothetical prison - let the voters decide who wins 2024 election
B. keeping freedom of speech, stop interfering into efforts to protect the right of the citizen not to be manipulated in the, by the news, media
.... not to prolong the post. In short Noah is sulking that US is bad at the role of imperial power. To us who really like and love America that is a blessing and a promise
As we sow, so shall we reap.
As economists, we know that competition is better than monopoly. I see as the most important form of competition is competition at the highest institutional level: interstate competition. Having US with monopoly on great power status was good in the short term for global trade, but if maintained it would eventually lead to erosion of competitive pressure at the highest level, with potentially disastrous consequences.
You raise an interesting point that I will ponder. But maybe a better model for International Relationships between nations is the family model, where parents oversee the maturation of children, and then eventually accept them as adults. I don't think we're at the point where every single nation can be accepted as an adult. Clearly, the United States, the European Union, China, and the Soviet Union are offering themselves as leaders/parents for developing countries.
US was never dominant enough to the point of stifling interstate competition though? It was likely never going to be. There were always alternatives and rivals even in eras of american dominance. There were people that would've wanted to stifle the growth of Japan or China at different points, but to the extent that those economies lost steam, american competition was only a small factor.
I believe I need to add an addendum to my comment. The idea that some nations currently need to act as mentor/parent nations to others would be best done with the most delicate touches. Listening, then suggesting. Setting boundaries, and giving nations that want our help choices that only they can make.
It will usher in an America Americans like less well. If we fix our country we could lead the world again.
Americans already don’t like America. In fact, people are as unhappy as ever and maybe more so.
I don't imagine that, no. If the suffering of Americans/Westerners increases, it pleases me. Time for us to earn our comfort I say.
If you think Americans will bare the brunt of the suffering then your are sadly mistaken. More likely, middle countries will have more conflicts which cause more pain (see Azerbaijan/Armenia, Ukraine/Russia and the most recent Israel/Palestinian conflicts).
Well, assuming cause and effect is a thing, we will all reap as we have sown.
We already are. That's why our economy is as big as it is.
The economy isn't all that's going on....also note that in the past, large economies did not always remain large.
Noah, I enjoy your economics BUT i would say you might have a gap in Military & Defense, Hard power, IR.
US power projection is only limited by executive branch priorities not actual hard power operational planning, readiness, combat capacity & effects
1) US doctrine is built on " ops planning, readiness & effects" not volumetric drivers which the PRC/PLA or so called team bad guys. Having large numbers without a doctrine is just a waste of trillions of RMB
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/focusing-on-quality-over-quantity-in-the-us-military-budget/
2) There are many examples: there are literally 100s ,
Readiness
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46559
US Army equipment on average has mission-capable rates today exceeding 90 percent, a historically high level.
USAF mission readiness is 70+%
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/breaking-down-usafs-70-percent-overall-mission-capable-rate/
The PLA cannot have anywhere near the readiness, operational capability, human capital combat capability while expanding 2-5x.. the trade off is massive. I question how many effects they could sustain past the first 5-10 OODA cycles of engagement
3) Just focusing on very basic Naval effects..
The USN has anywhere between 4-8 battle carrier groups doing 1-2 rotations per year the last 60yrs so 500 cycles which is true blue water navy and millions of people cycled over 60yrs force generation from E1-E9, CW, O1-010.. this is not trivial.
PLAN replicating this is something they cannot buy or build in a plant but is developed thru doctrine, training, culture, cycles. PLAN has never generated a full strike group that can move into Eastern Pacific much less force projection across the Indo-Pac
I would argue as long as the PRC want to waste trillions of Renminbi on "OUT VOLUMING" the US, thats great.. Building a 400,600, 800 ship naval is great as they are not investing in actual naval full spectrum integrated combat effects given the human resources to do that would cost a Trillion Renminbi a year just in Ops, Training, mutations, Human resources etc..
I and many could detail 100s of these examples which are not minor.
Well said. The US is still the sole super power. No one can come close to America's ability to project power globally. China can barely project power in the SCS.
China is boxed in and surrounded by unfriendly nations. The US has competent allies all around the world. Not only is the number of allies growing, but those allies are increasing their defense spending, improving their interoperability with the US military, and getting more organized.
The US also has the world reserve currency, which despite what people selling crypto will tell you, isn't changing any time soon.
China's industrial capacity is nothing to sneeze at and the US's is under strain, but the US and allies still have tremendous capacity to produce and would be able to add to that quickly (enough) in a toe-to-toe with China.
Even a straight military-to-military comparison would show that America is much stronger - plus it has war-fighting experience.
China has peaked or is close to peaking while American power continues to grow. There was never a time in which America was omnipotent, so expectations of an invincible, infallible, and unchallenged US aren't reasonable. Much of the world has industrialized, perhaps reducing the power differential and definitely reducing the American appetite for world policing.
However, I doubt China will even try to invade Taiwan any time soon. And it certainly hasn't so far. That the US can deter the #2 military from invading an Island right next to it tells you all you need to know about Pax Americana.
There’s another theory for why interstate conflict has declined: the cost-benefit ratio on it has gotten progressively worse since the Industrial Revolution. Weapons got more and more destructive, and agricultural land got less and less valuable. It used to be that a state could increase its wealth and power by conquering someone else’s agricultural land, so war was profitable for the winner. Now, most economic value is in physical capital and skilled labor, which war destroys; so war can only make everyone poorer even if they win. It took people a while to realize this (hence the world wars) and some, like Putin, still haven’t internalized the lesson; but most countries have figured it out and aren’t interested in war anymore.
That’s quite a lot of opinion from noahpinion. I note references to WaPo and a wikipedia source that explores “American Imperialism” and I really don’t need to read more.
A weak US president, an overarching UN and WEF and this is what you get.
It’s really that simple.
Noah,
Great post. I think there is more to elaborate however. I would argue that Pax Americana was about a world system--one based on rules. Trade rules, human rights rules, arbitration rules and many other things.
This world grew on the substrate of American naval power, the silicon revolution and the agricultural green revolution as well as financial actions and so forth.
I think what follows is a de-globalized world where different regions have different rules and the US is unwilling to underwrite a global system.
Too early to tell in my opinion.
I read that as still capable but not willing to underwrite the global system.
Clearly in Ukraine and Taiwan, the US is willing. It has become increasingly less willing in the ME, which could be why Hamas felt it was ok to invade Israel. However, just as Putin's invasion of Ukraine led to an expansion of NATO, the recent events in Israel might trigger the US to become more willing to intervene in the ME. America certainly has the capability to do so.
Recent US pressure on NATO members to increase military spending does indicate a growing unwillingness to underwrite European peace. It's not because the US is losing the ability to do so but because of relative importance. As European growth slows, at least as compared to Asia, it'll become increasingly less relevant to US interests.
The US isn't very engaged in SA or Africa, but was it really much more engaged during Pax Americana?
Where the US has increased engagement is Asia. America has arguably lost relative influence to China and that's because it was unable, not unwilling, to stop it. Ties with Japan, India, Australia, the Philippines and more are all growing and the US is very much involved in defining the new reality in Asia. I still expect the US to show up in full force wherever it's interests are even remotely impacted, but given China's strength, there are things it can't stop even if it wanted. One should remember, however, that there was never a world in which the US could write the rules carte blanche.
So, maybe it's not so much an unwillingness to underwrite the global system as shifting where the US does so? Maybe the old rules *are* being rewritten, but the US is definitely a dominant force in that process. The US wasn't writing rules by itself even during Pax Americana, although China represents a stronger adversary than any faced during that time.
No longer is Europe the only other developed economy. If there is multipolar anything, there are now two second best economies vying for America's attention.