Unfortunately, I tend to agree. It's going to be an insane decade or two going by the current trajectories in geopolitics. The consensus you get is fecking bleak.
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
I think it should have been possible to bring China in to the rules based system and modify it according to their interests so a rule based system that worked for everyone was maintained, but I don't believe china under Xi wanted that. It's also worth pointing out that China's modern success was very much founded on American decisions in the 90s and 00s around trade liberalisation, access to markets, finance and technology. I dont blame the US or its supposed hegemony for Chinese behaviour, that is on china.
-China is already in the rules based system.
-There was no way the USA was going to alter the system to help a country that has the potential, democratic or otherwise, to overturn it as the superpower.
-There is no 'supposed' about the USA's hegemony.
-I didn't blame the USA for China's behaviour so not sure where that comment has come from?
I also think people grossly exaggerate US global hegemony.
It's at best a two continental hegemony with influence in a few others with almost no influence in certain areas:
Europe and North America are firmly in the hands of US hegemony that is certain.
Parts of East Asia, Japan, Korea, etc.
A small chunk of the Middle East.
North Africa, to an extent.
Even in South America, the "Monroe doctrine" is over, as Secretary of State Kerry declared. You have countries that are outright hostile to the US (Venezuela), to countries that have taken direct policy to be anti-american, such as Bolivia, to countries that happily engage with US geopolitical rivals such as Lula's Brazil.
Most of Africa is a combination of French post-colonial hangover, Chinese dominance or corporatism free for all. Most of Asia is a combination of Chinese generated rump states, none aligned countries or India. Then you have the Russian aligned former CCCP 'stans'.
For a so called Global hegemony, it's influence basically extends to the Anglosphere, Europe, some parts of Asia, some parts of North Africa and some middle eastern dictatorships.
From a total population perspective, Less than 1.5 billion, or about 1/5th of the world's population actually fall under some form of US hegemony.
It's at best a two continental hegemony with influence in a few others with almost no influence in certain areas:
Europe and North America are firmly in the hands of US hegemony that is certain.
Parts of East Asia, Japan, Korea, etc.
A small chunk of the Middle East.
North Africa, to an extent.
Even in South America, the "Monroe doctrine" is over, as Secretary of State Kerry declared. You have countries that are outright hostile to the US (Venezuela), to countries that have taken direct policy to be anti-american, such as Bolivia, to countries that happily engage with US geopolitical rivals such as Lula's Brazil.
Most of Africa is a combination of French post-colonial hangover, Chinese dominance or corporatism free for all. Most of Asia is a combination of Chinese generated rump states, none aligned countries or India. Then you have the Russian aligned former CCCP 'stans'.
For a so called Global hegemony, it's influence basically extends to the Anglosphere, Europe, some parts of Asia, some parts of North Africa and some middle eastern dictatorships.
From a total population perspective, Less than 1.5 billion, or about 1/5th of the world's population actually fall under some form of US hegemony.
I don't think it's exaggerated because this is typically what people mean. Other than Brazil, which still cooperates with the US, despite BRICS, and Venezuela, you still have the Monroe Doctrine in full force. The US, also, doesn't give a shit if the nations do not willingly cooperate with their military dominance of the hemisphere because that dominance remains and they will, as they have done, use everything available to maintain it. Harder to maintain moving forward, no doubt, but as of now it is what it is.
What is it? 800 military bases of varying size and importance the world over? China has about 4 or 5. Russia has 2 or 3. That is what is meant by hegemony.
The 800 military bases is a large misrepresentation of what those bases actually are.
For example, a contractual agreement for US military transport planes to refuel on a Kyrgyzstan airfield counts as a "base."
More than half of those bases are actually just lilypads. A.K.A, a random country wants security guarantees (aka US bases) in their country which the US does not want to spend money on/does not get anything out of.
As a compromise, the US will build a Lily pad there, which is just a small, hastily built bit of infrastructure, often just a makeshift controller tower, with a small airstrip or a quick assembly barracks, with one ammo storage facility or a supplies facility. More often than not, no actual soldiers are even there, and the facility is maintained by the native country. The idea is if actually something goes wrong in that country, the US can deploy a force there within hours, rather than have to plan everything out as the events unfold.
The reason why countries request US for this and not other countries isn't to do with hegemonic pressure, but reliability. In 2016, Chinese forces in South Sudan were tasked with guarding a civilian shelter for refugees. When the Government forces arrived, the PLA force, totalling over 800 soldiers, quite literally dropped their weapons and fled and retreated, leaving behind all their weapons and ammo to be picked off by the marauding government forces. In the aftermath, the Civilian camp was massacred with hundreds dead, with mass rape including rape and murder of aid workers. Of course if you want local security guarantees you're not going to ask China after this episode.
A lot of these countries (mainly in Africa), want nothing to do with US influence, have nothing of interest to the US, but pay the cost of having a lily pad and because inevitably if a region goes entirely to shit, people will ask the US amongst others to help with the aid/provide support for a side which the US is entirely tired of having to do. Lily pads is just the cheaper alternative.
Finally, you can see the limits of US "hegemony" quite clearly. For example, Niger was couped by Russia and it is in absolutely no interest for the US to have Russian rump states running amok in central Africa. All US Military personnel are being forced to leave and there is nothing they can do about it. The same with Mali, who now have Wagner running wild there too. Despite the US having interests there, there is nothing they could do. There is nothing the US could do about the Spratleys, or the Pakistani government blatantly becoming a Chinese proxy state, or the Myanmar situation. All which hold key interests for the US.
As of now, in some cases the US literally cannot protect it's vital interests in a lot of places. That doesn't scream dominant power to me.
Has anyone ever used hegemony to mean in control of every single country in the world?
The USA is one of a very small handful of countries than can conduct not only military strikes but military campaigns across the entire world. It can conduct wars (2 of them) simaltaneously! In countries nowhere near any of their territory.
It has bases in a huge number of countries, around the world.
It has the largest economy. Largest military. Global currency.
Dominant power in North America, Europe, Indo-Pacific and MENA (vs the only world powers who are theoretical peers). Subsaharan Africa less so (though I don't think this area is anywhere near as much of a priority as other regions). The Asian subcontinent you'd say probably India. Central Asia is Russia/China. South America I don't know enough about to say whether you'd just Say Brazil or whether the USA still dominates overall.
The USA is one of a very small handful of countries than can conduct not only military strikes but military campaigns across the entire world. It can conduct wars (2 of them) simaltaneously! In countries nowhere near any of their territory.
It has bases in a huge number of countries, around the world.
It has the largest economy. Largest military. Global currency.
Dominant power in North America, Europe, Indo-Pacific and MENA (vs the only world powers who are theoretical peers). Subsaharan Africa less so (though I don't think this area is anywhere near as much of a priority as other regions). The Asian subcontinent you'd say probably India. Central Asia is Russia/China. South America I don't know enough about to say whether you'd just Say Brazil or whether the USA still dominates overall.
No, but there is a huge over-exaggeration of US hard power and soft power.
I'd say that a true global hegemon is atleast able to protect it's key vital interests, in which case US has failed to do so on multiple occasions in the past decade.
On a perhaps more interesting note, though still tangential, Japans ruling party have elected a man as leader (Sigeru Ishida), formerly a defence minister.
He's less of a hawk than some of the other candidates but amongst his thoughts on foreign policy include an Asian NATO, a more equal relationship with the USA (including talking about stationing Japanese troops in Guam) and maintaining the tech and knowhow to build a nuclear weapon rapidly if needed.
Some interesting views, especially if Trump also wins.
He's less of a hawk than some of the other candidates but amongst his thoughts on foreign policy include an Asian NATO, a more equal relationship with the USA (including talking about stationing Japanese troops in Guam) and maintaining the tech and knowhow to build a nuclear weapon rapidly if needed.
Some interesting views, especially if Trump also wins.
That wouldn't be a terrible idea to be honest - saves logistics costs for the US and another layer of protection for Guam.
Who would be in the Asian NATO, other than Japan and potentially Australia/NZ if it stretches that far. Philippines maybe?
Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand and if Vietnam can get over the huge influx of Chinese political meddling, potential Vietnam too.
It would have little value given that the other local countries don't have much power. What would be of more value would be to expand NATO proper into the Asian-Pacific (change the acronym) and make it an organization based around democratic norms as the barrier to entry. That would expand collective security to encompass threats by both Russia and China.
Korea, maybe Vietnam and Thailand?
The value that those countries would bring would be more basing, more angles of attack, more places to have missile platforms that can reach China, more airbases and more naval bases.
Interesting (I forgot about South Korea somehow). I wonder what China’s response would be to Taiwan joining. It would be Russia-Ukraine x 100 I think,
From the US's perspective, they are already in Japan, Korea, Phillipines, Diego Garcia, Guam, Hawaii, have access to Australia etc., so they could just as easily do individual sofa agreements with other countries in the region. The real value of collective security would be through a collective security organization like NATO that has the full US arsenal at its disposal along with UK and French nukes and the collective armies of European nations. Without that, if China wanted to wipe out any particular regional country, it could easily do that if not for current US forces in the region.
It would be a red line for China.
Is this a Putin red line or an actual one?
They're both the same thing. Putin won't stand for Ukraine in NATO and Xi won't stand for Taiwan to be a part of a non-Chinese collective security agreement.
I hope you’re right. There are a lot of unknowns when it comes to China-Taiwan, and US responses.
All this talk of red flags, I wish the West would actually balls up and defend their national interests with as much fervour as China/Russia do.
Putin and Russia invaded Ukraine over some fetishization of a blah blah blah same peoples same countries blah with a national security scenario that didn't even exist because Ukraine wanted to join EU, not NATO because apparently that's their red line.
Meanwhile when other countries encroach actual serious security concerns for the West, they just often roll over.
Putin and Russia invaded Ukraine over some fetishization of a blah blah blah same peoples same countries blah with a national security scenario that didn't even exist because Ukraine wanted to join EU, not NATO because apparently that's their red line.
Meanwhile when other countries encroach actual serious security concerns for the West, they just often roll over.
Thought this was interesting to share.
A permanent integrated command, integrated defences, coordinated equipment purchases, training, integrated exercises...
I think the usa/the west should have been quite a bit more aggressive and decisive in their extent of support for Ukraine, a country suffering a truly unjustified act of imperial conquest, but I don't see too much rolling over when it comes to national interests post WW2, even when the circumstances are murkier and could have benefited from less belligerence. I don't see much difference in geopolitical aggression compared with China either.
Wishing for more of a Russian/Putin inspired outlook to "national interests" is just moronic, unless you genuinely just want a might is right, 18th-19th century style rampage of military and economic warfare around the world, under flimsy, cooked up pretexts. Aren't you the guy that was huffing and puffing about being ex-military intelligence? It's the feckups and outlook of your profession that has historically had a solid part to play in the world being in the state it's in; ever the willing accomplices and instigators to the political ambitions that cause conflict after conflict, but you still crave an even heavier hand, more aggression, more fervour?
You've wound yourself up for no reason, given I've not once said the West should follow Putin style geopolitics. Putin style geopolitics is at one end of the spectrum, an extreme that I hate, especially since you know, I've lost family and friends to his bullshit.
European style geopolitics is on the other side of the spectrum. US is a bit better but still doesn't have the actual political capital nor the stable domestic politics to actually protect it's interests. I don't mean since WWII either, I mean in the past decade Western foreign policy has been very...lacklustre, weak and tame, and it has been a failure after failure in securing their vital interests. I'm asking for something in the middle.
Case in point, look at the South China Sea.
Xi literally promised Obama that there would be no militarization of that region, given that it's disputed seas, with some contentious diplomacy going on. Within 6 months Xi began to build military bases on reclamation islands. It's a huge point of national interest for the United states, one of the most populous and import trade routes in the world is that region on a country that literally lives off trade. What does the US do? Increase spending on the State department to focus more on China and deploy an extra THAAD battery to Guam and an extra F-15C squadron to Okinawa. Yeah, great. That certainly showed Xi that completely being unilateral to Western interests will be met with a stern response.
As for the bolded; I'm not really sure what you think our jobs are and what we should do.
Refuse to provide intelligence on a specific region or interest because I don't politically agree what the intelligence is going to be used for and then get court martialled?
I don't think you understand what the job is, it isn't to provide consulting advice to politicians on what foreign policy should be, it's to provide technical information, sometimes esoterric in scope, sometimes very broad in scope.
As for the last part of that sentence, you think the west has acted with a heavy hand, with aggression and fervour? Part of the reason shits falling apart is because the world thinks the West is weak and can't/won't respond to the erosion of their interests hence can start doing 'whatever they want.' (I'm literally including Israel in this list of belligerents too).
Let me put it to you this way, the top brass from 30 years ago would be rolling in their grave if the response to 30 missiles being fired on a US fleet was to put out a press conference and to say, "don't worry, nobody got hit." This literally happened earlier this week.
We're taking punches and just going, "meh." The military is hugely underfunded, Poland seems to be the only NATO country actually recognising this and put in a good amount of investment, everyone else is slowly whittling to their demise because of political inertia.
@Kaos there's absolutely no point in comparing Russian 5th gen and Turkish 5th gen to US 5th gen.
One is absolute Vapourware (Turkey) and one is slightly better than vapourware and so underwhelming the Indians ran away from the project because it was so shit. Despite being in development for 17 years, the SU-57 hasn't even started serial production yet. SU-75 Checkmate is also complete vapourware.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/04/india-pulls-out-of-joint-stealth-fighter-project-with-russia/
One is absolute Vapourware (Turkey) and one is slightly better than vapourware and so underwhelming the Indians ran away from the project because it was so shit. Despite being in development for 17 years, the SU-57 hasn't even started serial production yet. SU-75 Checkmate is also complete vapourware.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/04/india-pulls-out-of-joint-stealth-fighter-project-with-russia/
Didn't the Turks recently do a test flight with the TAI? Or did I misremember that?
Also apologies for the misinformed questions, genuinely curious and of course I appreciate the answers considering your military know how.
Sorry if the answer came across as a bit aggro!
Wasn’t my intention, just anytime someone brings up Russian 5th gen’s my reaction is always
“Pfff if only Russians technical know how were as good as their marketing”
Which reminds me, recently India complained about performance of some sukhois and they didn’t meet to spec, and the Russian response was literally “everyone knows specs are just marketing material to sell planes”
I'm not sure how this even works -
Can the UN dictate who a country can and cannot do trade/business with?
No, they can't, which is why the vote itself is absurd. Ending the embargo is well overdue, but it won't be happening by way of the powerless UN.
Yeah I agree the end of the embargo is due.
But like, countries voting on how US should conduct its internal trading policies is absurd to me. You cannot force a country to do business with another.
All the other countries there are free to trade with Cuba, and many do.
UN shouldn’t ever have mandate over things like this.
The embargo is only in place because Republicans want to keep south florida Cubans on board. Once the next generation of cubans in Miami become more politically active, they are probably going to have a more pragmatic view than their rabidly anti-communist parents. At that point, it won't be politically expedient to keep the embargo anymore imo.
The US sanctions any (non-US, non-Cuban) companies that do business with Cuba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms–Burton_Act
Its anyway funny to call anything the US does "internal" when, after the end of the gold standard, the entire world economy only works through the US dollar.
Is quite the oposite. The US tells everyone not to do business. If a Spanish business wants to do business with Cuba, then this Spanish business might be penalized to do business in US. If I visit Cuba I am not allowed under the ESTA program and I might have programs to enter to the US
The embargo is not only about US companies and citizens but blackmailing on how to behave towards Cuba to third countries and its citizenship.
And I agree, UN shouldn't have any mandate because it can't enforce anything by itself and is a useless institution. But saying that all the other countries are free to trade with Cuba is disingenuous
Spain is cubas second largest trading partner
It is an absurd voting in the first place. Countries can decide to do embargoes against other countries, it is not other countries business to interfere with that.
No one is stopping those countries who voted for that resolution to do business with Cuba.
Point is that Spanish companies have to decide if they want to trade with Cuba or the US. They can't do both.
It won't end the embargo but every nation on the planet being (registered) against it is a large signal. Israel doesn't count (if the vote was to bomb the moon the US was in favour Israel would also follow).