It would be a hell of a lot less confusing if it were actually bipolar. With the ongoing collapse of American hegemony, pretty much everyone is on their own now.
American hegemony is pretty the same state that the British empire after Booer wars. Empire is definitely the most powerful nation in the world but it is fastly losing its momentum, it has some domestic policy problems and it is not invisible anymore.
The US won't enter first amongst equals til it's GDP per capita equals that of other developed western nations, their high GDP with a large population means they already punch way above their weight economically and militarily.
The British Empire was different, we owned a lot of territory but we didn't have a military build up like the US (adjusting for time period).
Perhaps. But in the 80's many thought that Japan would overtake the US so that dominated sci-fi and popular fiction. (see the cyberpunk tropes of Zaibatsus etc.)
Where's Russia in this mix? Russia has been meddling with European affairs for hundreds of years.
The world is definitely not bipolar, US's hegemony after the collapse of the USSR is quickly disappearing. China is the latest player to enter the game, but it's true that Europe is between the hammer and anvil and battered on all sides by the US, Russia and China.
>Where's Russia in this mix? Russia has been meddling with European affairs for hundreds of years.
More so than Britain, France, Austro-Hungary, Germany and so on meddled on European (and Russian) affairs?
Russia, for one, was twice invaded by European armies, with huge human toll.
Beyond that, Russia is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It was USSR that had a lot of power internationally (and that only because of WWII and its aftermath, it was quite unstable before that, and again after the 70s).
So? The parent was about the victimization of Russia. Your time line is about the allies caved in to the Reich and Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and as far as I can see has nothing to do with Russia, but I might miss something.
Then the Reich and Soviet Russia sat together cut Europe in halt. Stalin was by far the better strategist though, he talked to the French and English, waited until the Reich invaded Poland and then invaded Poland and the Baltic states second.
You must be very naive. I do not say that in an adversarial way, but because Russia always has been (and will likely continue to be) a major world power. It is the world's largest country, with a population of roughly one-hundred-fifty million. More importantly, Russia is, along with America, one of two potentially autarchic nations. They are the only two who can not only grow food but mine their own metal, drill their own oil, etc. without importing (at least, conceivably). Isolation would of course slow either significantly, but not halt.
Consider the pressure that was on the Soviet Union, consider the inherent instability of communism, and then reconsider how long it bore up under that pressure. Russia is and has always been remarkably stable under strong, authoritarian rule (i.e. Stalin, Ivan, etc.), and any nation in a similar situation would have collapsed much sooner.
Russia is not a world power economically or population-wise. And being a world power militarily without having the other two is probably not sustainable in the long run.
Russia is not a global player, it's a regional player. USSR only had global reach (e.g. to Latin America or Africa) through the communism ideology, and even that was little.
Economy wise, Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's or Canada's...
It just makes for a nice scapegoat (e.g. when losing elections), a nice Hollywood bad-guy store, and a hefty regional adversary (that sanctions etc try to constrain so that its regional influence dies and its assets are plundered by the highest bidders).
I would say that any power with nukes is not a regional player, considering they can blow up the whole planet. Russia also has significant influence in the middle east.
>I would say that any power with nukes is not a regional player, considering they can blow up the whole planet.
Well, any power with nukes doesn't want to use them and be obliterated in return. Their advantage is you can't be arbitrarily invaded and pushed over whenever some power feels like it when you have them...
Russia isn't really a global power. It's regional, and its global reach is only based on whatever legacy assets they held onto after the Soviet Union collapsed.
Russia isn't all that big in economic terms [0]. Really only China, America, Europe and maybe India are serious players in terms of how much real might they can marshal for sustained pressure.
Most countries are powerful players, but the economic giants are in a class of their own.
See that's the thing. It doesn't matter that Russia is an economical midget. They hold the keys for the energy sector in Europe - Russian fossil fuels supply Europe with energy. And as far as military power goes, many people underestimate Russia, but they took Crimea, they keep sowing disarray in Ukraine, Syria and now Georgia again.
And that's even before talking about their influence in elections and paid diplomats that push for pro-Russian agenda.
Energy sector? Renewable energy is actually becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. It doesn't matter. And foreign-policy-wise they're not even trying to seriously wield "influence" that could actually be positive for them in the longer run. They can "sow disarray" all they want, even on Twitter and Facebook for that matter but that's theater. It's a bit of cheap lulz at the West's expense.
I'm not saying this will continue in the future. I'm just saying that right now there are a lot of European countries that are at the mercy of Russia when it comes to energy.
In my home country Russian influence is very strong. Is not just cheap Twitter and Facebook tantrums. It's full scale invasion in every part of the government. They've been quite successful actually.
US doing US foreign policy things in the ME is entirely different subject. That's part of their foreign policy set in the 80's. US had unquestioned global authority for almost 20 years until very recently.
Russia isn't that big in economic terms, but Russia had enough autonomy to defy the US intelligence establishment by granting asylum to Snowden.
The reason Snowden had to quickly leave Hong Kong, in my opinion was that he learned that as soon as the US demanded that China hand him over, the Chinese government would have to comply or essentially run the risk their country falling apart.
In particular, the Chinese-speaking lands have been united under a single government for only 500 of the last 2500 years (and 300 of those years were under the Mongol yoke). When the Chinese-speaking lands have been fragmented, non-Chinese governments have been able to cause a lot of trouble by playing one Chinese-speaking polity against the other, so it is understandable that most rational Chinese people strongly prefer to prevent that from happening. The main thing preventing popular unrest in China at levels that risk bringing down the Chinese government has been the rapid rise in living standards and rise in the economic prospects of poor Chinese. That rise would've been impossible without the massive Chinese trade with large countries that are wealthy per capita. The Chinese would not have risked Chinese trade with the US over Snowden. (It turns out that they are now having to contend with a probable reduction in their ability to provide jobs internally through trade with the US anyways, for different reasons: even if the volume of trade returns to previous levels, the terms of that trade will be more favorable for providing blue-collar jobs in the US and less favorable for maximizing employment in China.)
No government on earth has as much ability to defy the US government or to inflict pain on the US as Russia does. (China might overtake it in that capacity in the future, but it is not close now IMO and in the opinion of professional strategists George Friedman and Peter Zeihan.)
North Vietnam was tiny in economic terms (even accounting for assistance by the Soviet Union and Communist China), but that didn't prevent them from conquering South Vietnam despite massive US efforts to stop them.
Well, that is because Russia IS Europe. At least a significant part of it.
All the culture, the history in Russia is European. It is for sure more European than the USA is.
Russia became isolated because of communism. Now the USA wants to isolate it because it is not in the economic interest of the US, but certainly it is for Europe.
Europe is a small old continent with lots of people but lacking natural resources like oil. Russia is the biggest country in the world, with very few people and lots of resources.
If Europe continue dancing to the US tune, Russia will go closer to China.
Russia isolated itself by reckless moves like using polonium and novichok against opponents in the West. Some of it like the takeover of Crimea are understandable reactions against a sense of encirclement from the West and NATO, but others like shooting down the Malaysian Airlines jet over Ukraine were completely unnecessary.
LOL! Polonium and novichok are reckless, but Crimea, and, more importantly, Lugansk and Donetsk regions are not?
I would say it is the other way around. The later led to thousands dead and millions displaced. On a net scale they are worse than Estonia, which threw 30+% of population into being stateless at the fall of Soviet Union.
Russia and China are natural allies for the time being, but in the event that the US loses it's global position as a leader that is subject to change. China is aggressive in it's dealings with Russia and there's a huge Chinese population in Siberia which might be used as an excuse to incite unrest and possible annexation of some territories in the not so far future.
There was a techno thriller realised after the end of the cold war about China invading Siberia for the resources it would afford then and the US helping the Russians because it didn't want Siberia in Chinese hands (because they'd develop the resources where the Russians economically couldn't).
The United States is still going to be a global power even if it loses its current hegemony.
If anything, Russia is the one trapped between China, Europe, and the United States, as it tries to maintain its EE sphere of influence despite declining resources to do so successfully.
That is irrelevant. What matters as far as international affairs is concerned is state capacity. And the ability of the Russian state to project power, both towards Eastern Europe but also predominantly in the Middle East is still immense.
If you look at how strongly the Russian influence has been on Kazakhstan very deeply into the personal life of citizens of a traditionally vastly different culture you'll be surprised how able the Russian state still is, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The same is still happening in Turkey, Syria and Iraq and Iran where Russia has pretty effectively replaced the US.
The very naive economic centric view is the same sort of logic people employed shortly before the collapse of the British empire. It's a very unreliable and short-termist metric.
> The very naive economic centric view is the same sort of logic people employed shortly before the collapse of the British empire. It's a very unreliable and short-termist metric.
The US empire collapsing is a different kettle of fish to this strange notion that Russia is a world power. Sure, Trump saying the US economy is strong isn't going to stave anything off that might happen geopolitically. But whatever happens it is unlikely that the world will be bowing and scraping to Russia in the way that China or America can demand. A huge economy is necessary to exert global power and be called a geopolitical pole.
> Russia has been meddling with European affairs for hundreds of years.
This again?
That's akin to complaining that New York has been meddling in North American affairs for hundreds of years. Please please remember that Russia is a transcontinental country, a significant part of Russia is distinctly European.
“European Russia is the western part of the Russian Federation, which is part of Eastern Europe. With a population of 110 million people, European Russia has about 77% of Russia's population, but covers less than 25% of Russia's territory. European Russia includes Moscow and Saint Petersburg, the two largest cities in Russia.”†
The distance from Helsinki in Finland to St. Petersburg is a mere 400km! The thing is, Russia is so large it is part of Europe but also borders China.
Think about Russian culture for a second: ballet, classical music, Russian literature, a Latin-like alphabet (more recognisable than the Greek alphabet when you think about it), architecture – all recognisably European. Does it need to be pointed out that "Europe" has attacked Russia many times (the Napoleonic wars, the Wehrmacht) and that Russia was on the Allied side of WWII, the last hot war fought between great powers.
Russia has been demonised for too long for choosing the wrong ideology (communism) and becoming the sole 20th century political/economic/nuclear rival to the USA under the guise of the Soviet Union. I recommend the biopic Meeting Gorbachev by Werner Herzog for a perspective on the collapse of the Soviet Union by the person at its helm at the time‡. If you still think "evil empire" after watching it then I don't know what to say.
If by European you mean Western European please use that qualification.
All of Europe including Russia (but also India and others) are watching with trepidation as this geopolitical struggle between the US and China plays out.
I wouldnt argue it in isolation, but among other things, having experienced a transformative enlightenment, is largely what we use to label a country as Western. Russia Westernized under Catherine the Great.
I was born and raised in a country that was behind the Iron Curtain so please don't lecture me on the history. Russia has a lot to answer for even if we disregard communism entirely.
Russia culturally and historically IS part of Europe, but that's where the similarities end. They're not part of European society and are most definitely an enemy to it.
I'm very sorry for whatever you endured behind the Iron Curtain but I'm from Europe too and you don't get draw arbitrary lines between peoples. You can't really say that Russia is culturally and historically part of Europe but then with the next breath deny that they are part of European society.
I am not saying that there isn't a deep mistrust there and undeniably there is much friction and animosity. But Germany would hardly decide to construct an essential energy pipeline with an enemy, would it? In your mind you see Russia as an enemy of Europe but many people in Europe do not see Russia that way. Which group is correct? Maybe life isn't black and white and the truth is somewhere in the middle? There's a difference between being a geopolitical rival and an outright enemy.
It troubles me deeply that there is so much hostile speech on HackerNews for our brothers and sisters in Russia and China.
That's sort of what I'm getting at… It's odd to say that Russia is meddling in the affairs of Europe if they themselves are European.
Is the British public meddling in the affairs of Europe by Brexiting the European Union?
I get that people use language like this but it only serves to drive a wedge between people that have more in common with each other than they do with people from outside Europe.
Some countries in Europe had a good relationship with Russia. I would like to go back to it. Western operations in Eastern Europe were plain stupid and Ukraine had to pay for it.
A relation to Russia doesn't mean a divorce from the US. But any way for a more secure Europe has to get Russia to the table.
And frankly, Americans should get some therapy for their issues with Russia. You cannot blame everything on age here...
> its showdown with China didn't spark from an ideological or military rivalry, but an economic one
An ideological conflict would at least be understandable. But the best way for everyone seems to be to push China through its current development phase. A strong and independent China could help everyone.
Clarifying this situation is simple. European nations continue to benefit from the hegemony of the US via NATO but insist on sneering at America nonetheless. I would like to make Ms. Merkel happy and allow European nations to cede from NATO. If we're so dirty and uncooth, please provide for your own defense Ms. Merkel! If Europe is the new superstate she and Macron insist it is, I see no reason why they can't form an army (and pay for it).
In American eyes, Europe will revert to its previous capability of being a very low-tech continent-sized early warning system for Russian aggression. The Russian occupation of Ukraine hasn't impacted Americans one iota and at this point they might as well occupy Berlin too. Maybe it will help clarify "who your friends are" for average Germans.
Those obsessed with delusions of grandeur and globalists worry about the role of EU (which is a joke, and besides the EU will fall apart before the US and China).
Normal people are concerned about their personal and family affairs, and beyond that want to influence others by persuasion rather employ coercive power of state.
China is clearly a rising power in the world while US is on the way out. All the manufacturing is happening in China, their tech industry is growing rapidly, and their education system is much better. For the longest time US had the advantage of being able to attract top talent from around the world, but that's rapidly changing with the states becoming increasingly insular and jingoistic.
China is still a bit of a bet. Is anyone sure their growth will be built on solid foundations ? If so then yeah, they'll probably be the next pole.
Although, in a way, I'm not sure poles will be a good description. Manufacturing will decrease in China, while other countries are trying to relocalize. It might be a flatter network of ~peers in the future.
The idea that corrupt dictatorships don't work out in the long run is not based on the average American's favorite flavor of ice cream, it's based on the vast majority of countries in history.
>The idea that corrupt dictatorships don't work out in the long run is not based on the average American's favorite flavor of ice cream, it's based on the vast majority of countries in history.
What "vast majority of countries"? There were empires that lasted millennia far more corrupt or dictatorship like than modern China.
And those "corrupt dictatorships" that didn't last were more like Latin America "Banana Republics" or African rogue warlord dictatorships in backwards places, than a huge sophisticated state with a top-tier economy, an ancient culture, and its own way of doing things for millennia...
The average dictator was terrible for Rome, and the successful dictators achieved their success through the conquest of local countries. Rome's economy was basically an engine that ran on slaves and resources brought back from conquest. The majority of Rome's rulers weren't very good at conquest. It may be a little excessive to suggest that Xi will double the size of China through war in the next few decades.
That's basically what US is right now. The slaves have been replaced by third world countries that US exploits. There are endless wars that are driven by politics and the military/industrial complex. And the country is run by a corrupt oligarchy.
I think China has a pretty solid foundation in my opinion. While the socially authoritarian nature of the Chinese government is obviously abhorrent, the centralized planning approach has shown itself to be very effective when it comes to managing the economy and the industry. For example this [1] documentary on Shenzhen talks about how it grew from a fishing village into a major tech hub in a few decades. There are lots of other examples of China doing these kinds large scale modernization and industrialization projects. China has clearly demonstrated its ability to execute long term plans over the past few decades.
Also, a lot of it depends on how much of it's culture China is able to export. I could see certain places accept the Chinese language, ideologies, arts etc. in exchange for greater trade/economic benefits. How openly and rapidly the world accepts/imports Chinese culture(and not just it's money) will determine if it has a legitimate hegemonic future.
China's #1 position will likely prove to be short-lived because of demographic decline caused by the one-child policy. Whether India or the US will succeed it is anyone's guess (mine is the US, India has a pattern of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory).
If this is true, this is very bad news. You can criticize the government in America; you take quite a risk by doing so in china (particularly depending on in which you are). This extends to most other freedoms of religion, association, etc.
I have no doubt that as usual, some one will come running to point out something America did wrong. I claim not that she is perfect, but that she is better than china. This is obviously true.
There are also cultural issues: china is based on the Confucian philosophy that power flows from the top down; from the father to the son. Western philosophy is based on the idea that the individual is sovereign over himself, and delegates power up into local->state->federal gov'ts. One is inherently equipped to protect freedom and foster innovation; the other is not.
The Chinese education system is certainly not MUCH better than the one in the US. It is in fact terrible.
China is just enormous. Over 1500 million people(officially 1200 million), 4x, 5x times more than the US.
Lots of Chinese people are just very intelligent, just simple math tells you there is 4x 5x more intelligent people in China than in the US.
The math does not work because most brilliant people in China go to the States, as their quality of life increases. But they love their country.
The world is changing because most of the world population lives in Asia, just taking into account Indonesia and India.
What the US are doing is just reacting to this fact, they just want to maintain their hegemonic power in the world, like any other empire that came before.
U.S. is not at all "on the way out", I don't know why people are saying this. Europe and China could both do well in many ways, but China, as "rising" as it may be, is still way lower than even Europe, never mind the U.S. And then there are all sorts of other places that are real wildcards but have a lot of hidden potential too, by and large they're just holding themselves back with terrible policies - nothing that can't be fixed with relative ease.
One of the things that brought home to me how far China has to go was an episode of The Grand Tour in which Jeremy Clarkson was driving along one of its countless new highways, only for a rain shower to render the road virtually undriveable because said road had apparently not been designed to shed water quickly enough.
But each time I've gone back to the US between 1993 and 2017 things have seemed just that bit worse, and the people just a little less positive about the future. It is sad.
It would be a hell of a lot less confusing if it were actually bipolar. With the ongoing collapse of American hegemony, pretty much everyone is on their own now.
American hegemony is pretty the same state that the British empire after Booer wars. Empire is definitely the most powerful nation in the world but it is fastly losing its momentum, it has some domestic policy problems and it is not invisible anymore.
The US won't enter first amongst equals til it's GDP per capita equals that of other developed western nations, their high GDP with a large population means they already punch way above their weight economically and militarily.
The British Empire was different, we owned a lot of territory but we didn't have a military build up like the US (adjusting for time period).
Top Talent tends to strive for freedom, so there is no immediate threat from China yet.
Its interesting when you read any science fiction or watch movies and TV e.g. Firefly, Blade Runner, Altered Carbon, Fifth Element etc.
In all of those there is this common theme of a major melding of Western and Chinese culture.
Will life imitate art in this case?
Perhaps. But in the 80's many thought that Japan would overtake the US so that dominated sci-fi and popular fiction. (see the cyberpunk tropes of Zaibatsus etc.)
Didn't turn out that way though.
Where's Russia in this mix? Russia has been meddling with European affairs for hundreds of years.
The world is definitely not bipolar, US's hegemony after the collapse of the USSR is quickly disappearing. China is the latest player to enter the game, but it's true that Europe is between the hammer and anvil and battered on all sides by the US, Russia and China.
>Where's Russia in this mix? Russia has been meddling with European affairs for hundreds of years.
More so than Britain, France, Austro-Hungary, Germany and so on meddled on European (and Russian) affairs?
Russia, for one, was twice invaded by European armies, with huge human toll.
Beyond that, Russia is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. It was USSR that had a lot of power internationally (and that only because of WWII and its aftermath, it was quite unstable before that, and again after the 70s).
For one, Soviet Russia together with the German Reich sliced Europe in two parts on the map and then invaded Poland together with Germany.
After that one mad dictator was faster than the other.
As they say, get your facts straight ;)
29 September 1938 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
23 August 1939 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
So? The parent was about the victimization of Russia. Your time line is about the allies caved in to the Reich and Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and as far as I can see has nothing to do with Russia, but I might miss something.
Then the Reich and Soviet Russia sat together cut Europe in halt. Stalin was by far the better strategist though, he talked to the French and English, waited until the Reich invaded Poland and then invaded Poland and the Baltic states second.
> Russia is insignificant
You must be very naive. I do not say that in an adversarial way, but because Russia always has been (and will likely continue to be) a major world power. It is the world's largest country, with a population of roughly one-hundred-fifty million. More importantly, Russia is, along with America, one of two potentially autarchic nations. They are the only two who can not only grow food but mine their own metal, drill their own oil, etc. without importing (at least, conceivably). Isolation would of course slow either significantly, but not halt.
Consider the pressure that was on the Soviet Union, consider the inherent instability of communism, and then reconsider how long it bore up under that pressure. Russia is and has always been remarkably stable under strong, authoritarian rule (i.e. Stalin, Ivan, etc.), and any nation in a similar situation would have collapsed much sooner.
Russia is not a world power economically or population-wise. And being a world power militarily without having the other two is probably not sustainable in the long run.
>You must be very naive.
Yeah, either that or well studied.
Russia is not a global player, it's a regional player. USSR only had global reach (e.g. to Latin America or Africa) through the communism ideology, and even that was little.
Economy wise, Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's or Canada's...
It just makes for a nice scapegoat (e.g. when losing elections), a nice Hollywood bad-guy store, and a hefty regional adversary (that sanctions etc try to constrain so that its regional influence dies and its assets are plundered by the highest bidders).
I would say that any power with nukes is not a regional player, considering they can blow up the whole planet. Russia also has significant influence in the middle east.
>I would say that any power with nukes is not a regional player, considering they can blow up the whole planet.
Well, any power with nukes doesn't want to use them and be obliterated in return. Their advantage is you can't be arbitrarily invaded and pushed over whenever some power feels like it when you have them...
Like South Africa in the 1980s or whenever they had nukes? Or possibly North Korea now?
It seems reasonable to classify a country as a regional power while still having nuclear weapons.
Just because you could wreck the world doesn't really mean that you can get anyone else to do what you want.
Russia isn't really a global power. It's regional, and its global reach is only based on whatever legacy assets they held onto after the Soviet Union collapsed.
ICBM's mostly.
Russia isn't all that big in economic terms [0]. Really only China, America, Europe and maybe India are serious players in terms of how much real might they can marshal for sustained pressure.
Most countries are powerful players, but the economic giants are in a class of their own.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
See that's the thing. It doesn't matter that Russia is an economical midget. They hold the keys for the energy sector in Europe - Russian fossil fuels supply Europe with energy. And as far as military power goes, many people underestimate Russia, but they took Crimea, they keep sowing disarray in Ukraine, Syria and now Georgia again.
And that's even before talking about their influence in elections and paid diplomats that push for pro-Russian agenda.
Energy sector? Renewable energy is actually becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. It doesn't matter. And foreign-policy-wise they're not even trying to seriously wield "influence" that could actually be positive for them in the longer run. They can "sow disarray" all they want, even on Twitter and Facebook for that matter but that's theater. It's a bit of cheap lulz at the West's expense.
I'm not saying this will continue in the future. I'm just saying that right now there are a lot of European countries that are at the mercy of Russia when it comes to energy.
In my home country Russian influence is very strong. Is not just cheap Twitter and Facebook tantrums. It's full scale invasion in every part of the government. They've been quite successful actually.
Mercy? Do they not have alternative suppliers?
> Syria
umm. how about those 'moderate rebels'?
pretty sure the US and its regional allies were the ones stirring the pot in the middle east since hussein/gaddafi/mubarak..
US doing US foreign policy things in the ME is entirely different subject. That's part of their foreign policy set in the 80's. US had unquestioned global authority for almost 20 years until very recently.
Russia isn't that big in economic terms, but Russia had enough autonomy to defy the US intelligence establishment by granting asylum to Snowden.
The reason Snowden had to quickly leave Hong Kong, in my opinion was that he learned that as soon as the US demanded that China hand him over, the Chinese government would have to comply or essentially run the risk their country falling apart.
In particular, the Chinese-speaking lands have been united under a single government for only 500 of the last 2500 years (and 300 of those years were under the Mongol yoke). When the Chinese-speaking lands have been fragmented, non-Chinese governments have been able to cause a lot of trouble by playing one Chinese-speaking polity against the other, so it is understandable that most rational Chinese people strongly prefer to prevent that from happening. The main thing preventing popular unrest in China at levels that risk bringing down the Chinese government has been the rapid rise in living standards and rise in the economic prospects of poor Chinese. That rise would've been impossible without the massive Chinese trade with large countries that are wealthy per capita. The Chinese would not have risked Chinese trade with the US over Snowden. (It turns out that they are now having to contend with a probable reduction in their ability to provide jobs internally through trade with the US anyways, for different reasons: even if the volume of trade returns to previous levels, the terms of that trade will be more favorable for providing blue-collar jobs in the US and less favorable for maximizing employment in China.)
No government on earth has as much ability to defy the US government or to inflict pain on the US as Russia does. (China might overtake it in that capacity in the future, but it is not close now IMO and in the opinion of professional strategists George Friedman and Peter Zeihan.)
North Vietnam was tiny in economic terms (even accounting for assistance by the Soviet Union and Communist China), but that didn't prevent them from conquering South Vietnam despite massive US efforts to stop them.
Well, that is because Russia IS Europe. At least a significant part of it.
All the culture, the history in Russia is European. It is for sure more European than the USA is.
Russia became isolated because of communism. Now the USA wants to isolate it because it is not in the economic interest of the US, but certainly it is for Europe.
Europe is a small old continent with lots of people but lacking natural resources like oil. Russia is the biggest country in the world, with very few people and lots of resources.
If Europe continue dancing to the US tune, Russia will go closer to China.
Russia isolated itself by reckless moves like using polonium and novichok against opponents in the West. Some of it like the takeover of Crimea are understandable reactions against a sense of encirclement from the West and NATO, but others like shooting down the Malaysian Airlines jet over Ukraine were completely unnecessary.
LOL! Polonium and novichok are reckless, but Crimea, and, more importantly, Lugansk and Donetsk regions are not?
I would say it is the other way around. The later led to thousands dead and millions displaced. On a net scale they are worse than Estonia, which threw 30+% of population into being stateless at the fall of Soviet Union.
> like shooting down the Malaysian Airlines jet over Ukraine were completely unnecessary
do you seriously think this was a deliberate action?
if so, what would be the rationale and goal of doing it?
ps: why is noone blaming the airline for flying over a warzone? this to me is the real 'culprit' in that one..
Russia and China are natural allies for the time being, but in the event that the US loses it's global position as a leader that is subject to change. China is aggressive in it's dealings with Russia and there's a huge Chinese population in Siberia which might be used as an excuse to incite unrest and possible annexation of some territories in the not so far future.
There was a techno thriller realised after the end of the cold war about China invading Siberia for the resources it would afford then and the US helping the Russians because it didn't want Siberia in Chinese hands (because they'd develop the resources where the Russians economically couldn't).
Wish I could remember the name of it.
>and there's a huge Chinese population in Siberia which might be used as an excuse to incite unrest
Russia is also quite good at making 're-education' camps, and can be quite prickly when prodded.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/world/europe/chinese-lake...
The United States is still going to be a global power even if it loses its current hegemony.
If anything, Russia is the one trapped between China, Europe, and the United States, as it tries to maintain its EE sphere of influence despite declining resources to do so successfully.
Russia and China are largely on the same page as far as global affairs are concerned.
Not economy-wise.
Russia’s economy is smaller than Italy’s.
That is irrelevant. What matters as far as international affairs is concerned is state capacity. And the ability of the Russian state to project power, both towards Eastern Europe but also predominantly in the Middle East is still immense.
If you look at how strongly the Russian influence has been on Kazakhstan very deeply into the personal life of citizens of a traditionally vastly different culture you'll be surprised how able the Russian state still is, even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The same is still happening in Turkey, Syria and Iraq and Iran where Russia has pretty effectively replaced the US.
The very naive economic centric view is the same sort of logic people employed shortly before the collapse of the British empire. It's a very unreliable and short-termist metric.
> The very naive economic centric view is the same sort of logic people employed shortly before the collapse of the British empire. It's a very unreliable and short-termist metric.
The US empire collapsing is a different kettle of fish to this strange notion that Russia is a world power. Sure, Trump saying the US economy is strong isn't going to stave anything off that might happen geopolitically. But whatever happens it is unlikely that the world will be bowing and scraping to Russia in the way that China or America can demand. A huge economy is necessary to exert global power and be called a geopolitical pole.
This applies even if they do control Kazakhstan.
It's bigger in PPP terms, but yes, Russia is a mostly irrelevant in economics terms, apart from commodity markets like oil.
> Russia has been meddling with European affairs for hundreds of years.
This again?
That's akin to complaining that New York has been meddling in North American affairs for hundreds of years. Please please remember that Russia is a transcontinental country, a significant part of Russia is distinctly European.
“European Russia is the western part of the Russian Federation, which is part of Eastern Europe. With a population of 110 million people, European Russia has about 77% of Russia's population, but covers less than 25% of Russia's territory. European Russia includes Moscow and Saint Petersburg, the two largest cities in Russia.”†
The distance from Helsinki in Finland to St. Petersburg is a mere 400km! The thing is, Russia is so large it is part of Europe but also borders China.
Think about Russian culture for a second: ballet, classical music, Russian literature, a Latin-like alphabet (more recognisable than the Greek alphabet when you think about it), architecture – all recognisably European. Does it need to be pointed out that "Europe" has attacked Russia many times (the Napoleonic wars, the Wehrmacht) and that Russia was on the Allied side of WWII, the last hot war fought between great powers.
Russia has been demonised for too long for choosing the wrong ideology (communism) and becoming the sole 20th century political/economic/nuclear rival to the USA under the guise of the Soviet Union. I recommend the biopic Meeting Gorbachev by Werner Herzog for a perspective on the collapse of the Soviet Union by the person at its helm at the time‡. If you still think "evil empire" after watching it then I don't know what to say.
If by European you mean Western European please use that qualification.
All of Europe including Russia (but also India and others) are watching with trepidation as this geopolitical struggle between the US and China plays out.
† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Russia
‡ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_Gorbachev
edit: add religion to the common heritage as well
It also went through an enlightenment within the same window as the rest of Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Enlightenment
I wouldnt argue it in isolation, but among other things, having experienced a transformative enlightenment, is largely what we use to label a country as Western. Russia Westernized under Catherine the Great.
I was born and raised in a country that was behind the Iron Curtain so please don't lecture me on the history. Russia has a lot to answer for even if we disregard communism entirely.
Russia culturally and historically IS part of Europe, but that's where the similarities end. They're not part of European society and are most definitely an enemy to it.
I'm very sorry for whatever you endured behind the Iron Curtain but I'm from Europe too and you don't get draw arbitrary lines between peoples. You can't really say that Russia is culturally and historically part of Europe but then with the next breath deny that they are part of European society.
Russia is not an enemy of Europe, looks like Russia is returning to the Council of Europe: https://www.ft.com/content/dee5c792-9731-11e9-8cfb-30c211dcd... – It'd be a strange thing for a non-European country to be part of the Council of Europe.
I am not saying that there isn't a deep mistrust there and undeniably there is much friction and animosity. But Germany would hardly decide to construct an essential energy pipeline with an enemy, would it? In your mind you see Russia as an enemy of Europe but many people in Europe do not see Russia that way. Which group is correct? Maybe life isn't black and white and the truth is somewhere in the middle? There's a difference between being a geopolitical rival and an outright enemy.
It troubles me deeply that there is so much hostile speech on HackerNews for our brothers and sisters in Russia and China.
> European society
If one defines 'European Society' as Bretton Woods + EU/EEC, then yes, you can make a case, although 'enemy' is likely debatable in strength.
If however one takes the view that EU is essentially the current incarnation of the 'western roman empire' then the discussion gets more interesting..
Russians are Europeans, but they see themselves distinct from Europeans.
That's sort of what I'm getting at… It's odd to say that Russia is meddling in the affairs of Europe if they themselves are European.
Is the British public meddling in the affairs of Europe by Brexiting the European Union?
I get that people use language like this but it only serves to drive a wedge between people that have more in common with each other than they do with people from outside Europe.
They see themselves as distinct from Europe. It's more like...Russia is meddling in the democratic systems of Europe.
Some countries in Europe had a good relationship with Russia. I would like to go back to it. Western operations in Eastern Europe were plain stupid and Ukraine had to pay for it.
A relation to Russia doesn't mean a divorce from the US. But any way for a more secure Europe has to get Russia to the table.
And frankly, Americans should get some therapy for their issues with Russia. You cannot blame everything on age here...
> its showdown with China didn't spark from an ideological or military rivalry, but an economic one
An ideological conflict would at least be understandable. But the best way for everyone seems to be to push China through its current development phase. A strong and independent China could help everyone.
Clarifying this situation is simple. European nations continue to benefit from the hegemony of the US via NATO but insist on sneering at America nonetheless. I would like to make Ms. Merkel happy and allow European nations to cede from NATO. If we're so dirty and uncooth, please provide for your own defense Ms. Merkel! If Europe is the new superstate she and Macron insist it is, I see no reason why they can't form an army (and pay for it).
In American eyes, Europe will revert to its previous capability of being a very low-tech continent-sized early warning system for Russian aggression. The Russian occupation of Ukraine hasn't impacted Americans one iota and at this point they might as well occupy Berlin too. Maybe it will help clarify "who your friends are" for average Germans.
Those obsessed with delusions of grandeur and globalists worry about the role of EU (which is a joke, and besides the EU will fall apart before the US and China).
Normal people are concerned about their personal and family affairs, and beyond that want to influence others by persuasion rather employ coercive power of state.
China is clearly a rising power in the world while US is on the way out. All the manufacturing is happening in China, their tech industry is growing rapidly, and their education system is much better. For the longest time US had the advantage of being able to attract top talent from around the world, but that's rapidly changing with the states becoming increasingly insular and jingoistic.
China is still a bit of a bet. Is anyone sure their growth will be built on solid foundations ? If so then yeah, they'll probably be the next pole.
Although, in a way, I'm not sure poles will be a good description. Manufacturing will decrease in China, while other countries are trying to relocalize. It might be a flatter network of ~peers in the future.
>China is still a bit of a bet. Is anyone sure their growth will be built on solid foundations?
Is anyone sure the kind of foundations the west considers "solid" are the only solid ones?
The idea that corrupt dictatorships don't work out in the long run is not based on the average American's favorite flavor of ice cream, it's based on the vast majority of countries in history.
>The idea that corrupt dictatorships don't work out in the long run is not based on the average American's favorite flavor of ice cream, it's based on the vast majority of countries in history.
What "vast majority of countries"? There were empires that lasted millennia far more corrupt or dictatorship like than modern China.
And those "corrupt dictatorships" that didn't last were more like Latin America "Banana Republics" or African rogue warlord dictatorships in backwards places, than a huge sophisticated state with a top-tier economy, an ancient culture, and its own way of doing things for millennia...
Recent history. The idea was proven out by the Romans and Egyptians on 1-2 magnitude larger times scales than which western society has existed.
The average dictator was terrible for Rome, and the successful dictators achieved their success through the conquest of local countries. Rome's economy was basically an engine that ran on slaves and resources brought back from conquest. The majority of Rome's rulers weren't very good at conquest. It may be a little excessive to suggest that Xi will double the size of China through war in the next few decades.
That's basically what US is right now. The slaves have been replaced by third world countries that US exploits. There are endless wars that are driven by politics and the military/industrial complex. And the country is run by a corrupt oligarchy.
Good point
I think China has a pretty solid foundation in my opinion. While the socially authoritarian nature of the Chinese government is obviously abhorrent, the centralized planning approach has shown itself to be very effective when it comes to managing the economy and the industry. For example this [1] documentary on Shenzhen talks about how it grew from a fishing village into a major tech hub in a few decades. There are lots of other examples of China doing these kinds large scale modernization and industrialization projects. China has clearly demonstrated its ability to execute long term plans over the past few decades.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJ5cZnoodY
Also, a lot of it depends on how much of it's culture China is able to export. I could see certain places accept the Chinese language, ideologies, arts etc. in exchange for greater trade/economic benefits. How openly and rapidly the world accepts/imports Chinese culture(and not just it's money) will determine if it has a legitimate hegemonic future.
China's #1 position will likely prove to be short-lived because of demographic decline caused by the one-child policy. Whether India or the US will succeed it is anyone's guess (mine is the US, India has a pattern of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory).
The One Child policy is gone now, and China is actively trying to reverse it in many cases.
If this is true, this is very bad news. You can criticize the government in America; you take quite a risk by doing so in china (particularly depending on in which you are). This extends to most other freedoms of religion, association, etc.
I have no doubt that as usual, some one will come running to point out something America did wrong. I claim not that she is perfect, but that she is better than china. This is obviously true.
There are also cultural issues: china is based on the Confucian philosophy that power flows from the top down; from the father to the son. Western philosophy is based on the idea that the individual is sovereign over himself, and delegates power up into local->state->federal gov'ts. One is inherently equipped to protect freedom and foster innovation; the other is not.
The Chinese education system is certainly not MUCH better than the one in the US. It is in fact terrible.
China is just enormous. Over 1500 million people(officially 1200 million), 4x, 5x times more than the US.
Lots of Chinese people are just very intelligent, just simple math tells you there is 4x 5x more intelligent people in China than in the US.
The math does not work because most brilliant people in China go to the States, as their quality of life increases. But they love their country.
The world is changing because most of the world population lives in Asia, just taking into account Indonesia and India.
What the US are doing is just reacting to this fact, they just want to maintain their hegemonic power in the world, like any other empire that came before.
U.S. is not at all "on the way out", I don't know why people are saying this. Europe and China could both do well in many ways, but China, as "rising" as it may be, is still way lower than even Europe, never mind the U.S. And then there are all sorts of other places that are real wildcards but have a lot of hidden potential too, by and large they're just holding themselves back with terrible policies - nothing that can't be fixed with relative ease.
One of the things that brought home to me how far China has to go was an episode of The Grand Tour in which Jeremy Clarkson was driving along one of its countless new highways, only for a rain shower to render the road virtually undriveable because said road had apparently not been designed to shed water quickly enough.
But each time I've gone back to the US between 1993 and 2017 things have seemed just that bit worse, and the people just a little less positive about the future. It is sad.
outsider viewpoint, I heard reports of:
'on the way out' is hyperbole, but the days where USA were the world's beacon are gone[0]. Unless they prove me wrong.[0] they used to be unquestionably the leader to run after in so many domains..
Lower in what dimension and why is it the one that matters more than the ones already discussed?
good to know more about bipolar. as i was growing up i always thought that bipolar is a condition https://finance.uonbi.ac.ke/node/907