334 Comments

"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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

How so? The US clearly has a lot more military capability to protect Europe than Europe does to protect the US. Do you disagree?

Expand full comment

And how much money would the US have to expend to exhert the same pressure on Russia were it not for the alliance?

Expand full comment

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....)

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

By “chosen” you mean enabled

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

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!!!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

Hahahaha 😄, modern russia, this is funny. One question, you have been once in „modern“ russia? That kind of garbage I haven’t never read.

Expand full comment

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*

Expand full comment

"US was subsidizing European welfare states"

LMAO. WHAT?!

Expand full comment

Every eurocent not spent on defense because of NATO (US) Article 5 guarantee is a cent that can be spent on welfare.

Expand full comment

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!

Expand full comment
Dec 5Edited

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

No one said that the US didn’t benefit from it; it’s just the Europeans disproportionately do

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Have you heard of the long century, going on between 1814 to 1914? When there were few wars, and none major?

Expand full comment

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).

Expand full comment

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."

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

literally entire continents were subjugated by force and people want to say it was 'peaceful' compared to the limited conflicts after WWII.

Expand full comment

Good Lord. We had Russian military intervention in the Hungarian war for independence from the Habsburg empire in 1848-49 for one.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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...

Expand full comment

That just makes our point about the state of things in Europe between 1814-1914. :)

Expand full comment

Yeah, that was a big mistake, denying Croatian independence. Freedom for me but not for thee.

Expand full comment

Most of the bases have amounted to an extremely successful peace project. Western Europe is the most obvious example.

Expand full comment

With out cost of servicing US debt larger than the defense budget, the future will be interesting

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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!!!

Expand full comment

Considering how well that “overpriced junk” has performed against Russia i think it’s fine

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

“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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Russia hasn’t faced any serious insurgency in Ukraine.

They will rule their new territories there with ease.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

In response to a), I would like to submit Latin America, 20th century.

Expand full comment

Everyone’s at peace, just some are more peaceful than others.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

lol when did a) ever not happen. You're talking about it as if american diplomatic efforts being thwarted are some remote occurrence.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

>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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Would you like some Novacaine for that nerve I struck?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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!!!

Expand full comment

You okay?

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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!!!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

(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.)

Expand full comment

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???

Expand full comment

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).

Expand full comment

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!!!

Expand full 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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Who said "infinite"?

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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!!!

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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???

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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???

Expand full comment

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."

Expand full comment

good point

Expand full comment

"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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

"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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Perhaps you imagine that the end of Pax Americana will usher in domination by hegemons you like better.

Well, it probably won't.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

Perhaps you will address the mechanics of this in a future substatic post.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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

Expand full comment

As we sow, so shall we reap.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment

It will usher in an America Americans like less well. If we fix our country we could lead the world again.

Expand full comment

Americans already don’t like America. In fact, people are as unhappy as ever and maybe more so.

Expand full comment

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.

Expand full comment