The Brave New World

[paxamericana]

With the collapse of the Soviet Union and China’s imminent collapse (next 5 years) America finds itself for the first time without a strategic rival. Most of the world hasn’t realized that America no longer has interests in the wider world yet will be painfully aware of its absence. America is shifting focus more domestically and near shore, but still packing the firepower of the greatest global superpower in human history. Make no mistake, there will be more wars, famine and pestilence because of America’s absence, not less. The world will look back and realized how good the days of yesteryear under the old hegemon. 
 

Mark Carney describe this new dystopia: “middle powers must act together because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu.”

Edited January 21 by paxamericana

[John Stone]

The difficulty with foreign policy crafted by old men is that they won't be around to reap the benefits of what they crafted. 

There is no doubt Trump is sowing the wind (throwing the dice) - the question is to what effect.

Global instability does not work for an economic giant like the U.S. 

Global instability and withdrawal leaves a geo-vacuum, but not for long................ never for long. 

 

 

 

[paxamericana]

25 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Global instability does not work for an economic giant like the U.S. 

actually I would argue otherwise. The US share of GDP from international trade is limited in relative terms. It’s as insular as can be in a modern economy. But the bigger picture here is the cost. What is the cost for global instability to the US( we don’t care about others). What I’m suggesting is that America doesn’t really care about the economics of globalism anymore because it’s not an export economy. Without globalism it just means cost would be higher for some input. But we were already headed there with the demographic cliff from Europe and Asia anyways. So the cost then is security, what would it take for the US to remain globally engaged? In the short term just China’s potential play for Taiwan but in the medium term not much. The long term looks more like the 1920s with everyone armed to the teeth creating a potential for world conflagration.

Edited January 21 by paxamericana

[John Stone]

4 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

actually I would argue otherwise. The US share of GDP from international trade is limited in relative terms. It’s as insular as can be in a modern economy. But the bigger picture here is the cost. What is the cost for global instability to the US( we don’t care about others). 

I've never believed the U.S. ability to project power was 100 percent routed in a concern for humanity. haha

I don't condemn it at all,  on the contrary, that ability has allowed the U.S. to be the global economic power that it has become.............. 

Global instability, hegemony by hostile Nations, war ......... disrupts international trade ....... specifically sea routes.

Russia desire is to dominate Europe

China desires to dominate Asia (for a beginning)

The U.S. desires to dominate the West............. it's doing that now and has been doing it since post wwII - Marshal Plan. 

Arguably one of China's biggest concern is the Malacca Strait - and the USN ability to project power - but the ChiCom shipyards are busy

If it is possible - Taiwan will be even less secure when the ChiCom can secure this waterway. 

 

[CITIZEN_2015]

It is not a brave world now. It is a coward world witnessing a massacre of a nation of Iran in which over 30,000 unarmed young men, women and children were gunned gun by a bunch of terrorists and armed mercenaries and he whole world witnesses that and is silent because either they are sacred of the terrorist regime's missiles or they have trades with the regime in that country and need its oil and gas flowing.

[paxamericana]

17 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It is not a brave world now. It is a coward world witnessing a massacre of a nation of Iran in which over 30,000 unarmed young men, women and children were gunned gun by a bunch of terrorists and armed mercenaries and he whole world witnesses that and is silent because either they are sacred of the terrorist regime's missiles or they have trades with the regime in that country and need its oil and gas flowing.

The Persian make up 50% of the ethnic population. They crack down on the other 50. They’ve only had 6 regime change in their entire recorded history because they all live on a mountain strong hold. 2 regime change in the last 100 years. This is just a sample of what the Persian will do. It gets a lot bloodier than this if you read their history.

[CITIZEN_2015]

22 hours ago, paxamericana said:

The Persian make up 50% of the ethnic population. They crack down on the other 50. They’ve only had 6 regime change in their entire recorded history because they all live on a mountain strong hold. 2 regime change in the last 100 years. This is just a sample of what the Persian will do. It gets a lot bloodier than this if you read their history.

The first sentence is true but the rest are nonsense.

This crackdown was not Persian against the rest of minorities but brutal crackdown by a bunch of f*cking islamic clergy and their thugs against the entire population (90% who oppose islamic rule) or their corrupt murderous islamic regime. This brutal religion (cult) invaded Persia 1400 years ago and ever since Iranians are trying to kick these bastard invaders out and victory is very near.

There has been many regime changes. I can list at least two dozen. Please don't teach a Persian about the history of Persia..

Edited January 22 by CITIZEN_2015