>The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
The USA is going to stop bribing people to like them, an arrangement that suited the USA very well, but is difficult to articulate to seppos in general.
>This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there
This is a huge loss, but seems like a win for people who don't understand trade, supply and investment ie, seppos.
>Ergo we are looking at another American century
A Century of trying to keep a safe distance from the most armed nation doing its best north korea impersonation.
Let me make a prediction here.
1. The US is going to get more isolationist 2. Every time they face consequences of isolationism, they will simply declare that the problems were caused by not being isolationist enough, tearing up more trade agreements and generally just shifting away from the world. "If they wont sell us good at price we like, we will just abandon international patent agreements" seems like its not far off after the tariffs. 3. This is a spiral that will end the modern USA as anyone knows it.
I am quite happy with this, as long as the seppos keep the nukes to themselves while they remove themselves from the planet economically.
Big gamble, especially when we gut the DoE.
I mean, they already had to pay to rediscover fogbank once right?
But, the direction won't change: More isolationist, greater investment in homeland manufacturing and less global force projection, but still a significant and growing international trade presence, and a signatory to global security guarantees.
Here's how I put it: America bared the brunt three MAJOR, timeline-altering events in the past 25 years: 9/11, the global financial crisis, and COVID (I am not saying the rest of the world did not bare some of these, just that the US did). To think we'd just roll with the punches and there'd be no consequences of these is, frankly, ridiculous:
9/11 led to multiple forever wars that cost America an extreme amount of money and lives for almost no gain, not really even victory. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to project force globally.
The GFC led to massive debt spending and an ongoing financial crisis that America still hasn't fully recovered from. Just when we were ramping up to start recovery, COVID hits and we do it all over again. Its lasting impact will be an America that is more hesitant to give away free stuff or take the raw end of trade deals.
- Biden won more popular votes in 2020 than any candidate ever (81.2M, versus Trump's 62.9M in 2016 and 77.3M in 2024).
- Trump's second term was the first Republican presidential candidate since Bush's second term, 20 years prior, to win the popular vote; and Bush had 9/11 to campaign on.
- If you discount that you have to go back to his father in 1988 to find a Republican Presidential candidate that won the popular vote. Seriously, again, I cannot stress this enough: Americans prefer progressive policies. We just tend to prefer cults of personality more.
- Many congressional districts swung Republican in 2024 by only four or five figures of votes, and Republicans only gained Congressional majority by a couple seats.
- Its very likely the United States is currently experiencing or will soon experience a recession. Its likely this would have happened with or without Trump, but the person in charge gets the blame, and it'll be very difficult to fight that claim when tariffs have been such a hot topic.
- Its also the case that DOGE's cutting of the Federal workforce has alienated a ton of Trump supporters who worked for the Federal government or related NGOs.
I think this is pretty clear when looking at the administration's actions: They know that they have to move quick on a ton of stuff in these first two years, because they only have two years with Congressional majority. The last two years of Trump's presidency will be a Republican executive branch and Democrat congress, and nothing will get done. Then whatever happens in 2028 will happen; hard to predict that far out.
You can go read my other comments if you think this position is coming from some crazed TDS democratic lunatic; I'm not. I'm generally pretty moderate and understanding of the more complex macroeconomic and sociopolitical context which has influenced Trump's policies. This is just the facts; anyone with money to bet would absolutely be betting that the American left is more pissed than they've ever been, and the blue wave in 2026 is going to be pretty decisive.
Yes but until the trump era, things remained relatively consistent in terms of international relations.
Flipping on and off 25% tariffs (or even the threat of) is going to have a long term effect regardless.
Flipping on and off the level of interest in international norms, is going to have a long term effect.
And its already ratcheted, things are going to be worse this term than Trumps last term. The next MAGA presidents term is going to be worse again.
Just because its not a paved road doesn't mean you aren't going down a hill.
For me however, this might just be the justification we need to close Pine Gap and US access to the joint submarine radio in WA.
Anyone who thinks the future is crystal clear is an extremely arrogant, and the narrative you present is inconsistent in ways which show an extremely poor understanding of the way international economics works.
> The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world
It hasn't granted "economic largesse" to the rest of the world, and to the extent that that term can be stretched to describe something that has been granted, it can't be clawed back; the (extremely small, compared to the size of the economy) amount of aid has largely been about establishing influence and soft power, and trade isn't largesse, its mutually beneficial. To withdraw from it weakens both sides, and the US generally withdrawing will hurt the US more than the rest of the world.
> This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world.
The kind of retreat from wide trade to mercantilist protectionism might be a relative "win" for the US (though it would still be an absolute loss for all parties, contracting the aggregate production possibilities curve as well as that for all nations), if the US engagement in "go it alone" idiocy convinced every other country to try the same thing, and if you were right that the US was the best prepared to go it alone.
But, more likely, were it to occur, while it would be an absolute loss for everyone compared to what things would be without it, it would end up a relative loss for the US, because most countries wouldn't try to follow the US in going it alone, and the US's retreat will just be looked at in mystified disbelief by other nations as they continue to reap the benefits of trade and the US fades and falls behind in every way.
1. I don't like the characterization of "go it alone" because it obviously implies adherence to some kind of extreme that simply isn't represented in reality. No one is shutting down the ports and firing ambassadors; if it were possible to quantify these things (it isn't), reducing global power projection from 100% to 80% is not "going it alone".
2. The true form of "economic largesse" the US has given the rest of the world is Security. Its come at great cost to the country; America has lost ~600,000 souls in conflict in the past 80 years. I'm not saying America has a unique claim to losing lives in battle, Russia and China and others can claim much more devastation, but America is unique in the sense that nearly none she's lost were in her home hemisphere.
9/11 was maybe the only attack since Pearl Harbor that a foreign adversary successfully executed on American soil; but the wars that followed were really a tipping point in American force projection. We'd already been fighting wars in the middle east, then you go back further with Vietnam... America is a country that's spent eighty years chasing the Moral Righteousness it felt when it helped win WW2 for the Allies. The American people are tired of it; her sons and daughters work two jobs, can't afford a home, yet are asked time-and-time again by the latest rich disconnected President to deploy across the world to fight for "Freedom". Or, now, to send a hundred billion in military aid to Ukraine.
I think that's the "clawing back" the poster was talking about: maybe the story of the next century is one where America still projects force globally, but toward the more specific goal of Peace rather than post-WW2-era Western Idealism, and with an expectation of economic cooperation. Money has, after all, been the American God for many decades now.
3. The idea that the rest of the world would simply continue on in the wake of some idealized "US full-on isolationist pull out" is not rooted in reality; and that's part of the reason why this is not happening on the extremes. The US has been a critical force for both War and Peace over the past 80 years. If the US hadn't sent a hundred billion dollars to Ukraine over the past three years, Russia would own the country and share a new, huge border with NATO ally Poland. Implicit and Explicit US security guarantees have stopped China from projecting naval power across Taiwan and other SEA countries. US Support of Israel has... well, the region would look very different if we weren't there, whether there would be more or less war is another debate. My point is: The suggestion that America would lose relatively to the rest of the world in this unrealistic, hypothetical scenario, is not rooted in reality. The far more likely outcome of this unlikely scenario is: War, amongst military peers, the worst and most bloody kind of war, while America enjoys massive oceans, a trillion dollar defensive military, the most economically prosperous natural resources on the planet, and neighbors who could never put up a fight.
No one wins, but America and her western hemisphere allies would lose the least. Fortunately: This is not what America, today, wants. Its not even what the Trump administration wants. Again, a reduction from 100% to 80% is not a "full-on isolationist pull-out".
The other equally important thing in my mind which seems to get a bit less popular attention is trade balances. There are certain countries the US is engaged with where A) the US puts very low tariffs on them and they do not reciprocate; meanwhile B) the US provides some form of economic assistance to them whether it may be through military support, contribution to NGOs etc.
Those specific relationships I think the US can and will eviscerate or at least play serious hardball when it renegotiates, because what is it gaining today? Do you want a CIA listening post in northern Thailand or do you want to home-shore production of some of the things you've been buying from them, creating some working class jobs along the way? The US is not a one party state so its direction on these questions may be unclear for a while, but I think I know how Trump, Gabbard, Rubio etc. will answer that question as the working class very much put them in office (and there are plenty of Democrats who would be sympathetic to this approach too -- they just seem to get sidelined by their party leadership a lot).
Endless misdirection of targeted greedy promises and opportunism did. The coins launched right before the election blew through the emoluments clause, and the tweet threatening removal of funding from universities with "illegal" protests is targeting the first amendment along with news organizations that are feeling the pressure.
The opposition will be but a token, and the bargaining power of the average person is the ultimate target for destruction.
You think we’ll still have elections?
If you throw away democracy do you still have a USA to speak of?
I think the answer to that is no, though perhaps I am mistaken that every US patriot has fealty to the constitution.
An America that successfully claws back, but does not address the internal weaknesses in time will have its own version of China's and Russia's demographic challenges.
The political faction pushing this kind of thing (and viewing it as a clawback) is also the one fanning the nativist (and racist!) embers as political cover for while advancing policies that entrench wealth inequality, There is literally no significant faction both interested in this kind of "clawback" and interested in dealing with, rather than exploiting and exacerbating, the other things you point to.
You need to address the nativist tendencies in your country. You can't just bulldoze through them.
You need to address the wealth inequality.
And yes, I think you -are- allowed some degree of "clawback", especially if it helps address the other two issues. I think America specifically is allowed some degree of "clawback" (for example, a reduction or drawdown of military support to Europe).
For a country to be just to its own citizens, it does need to respect the citizen body's wishes about immigration (though it can also choose to attempt to shape those views to some degree). And it does need to address wealth inequality. And it -should- prioritize the welfare of its own citizen to those of its allies and trading partners (at least at a 1:1 basis).
>You need to address the wealth inequality.
I'd suggest that you solve the former with the latter. The nativist tendencies are stoked by economic insecurity.
They have a plan for that: birth control will be made illegal or access highly curtailed, starting with the "abortive" ones as the foot-in-the-door.
> It also requires structural fixes within America (mostly looking at the wealth inequality)
I think the US will make some positive strides here soon - there is a real effort at the FTC and DOJ to reduce monopolization, consolidation and exclusive dealing, which are some of the primary drivers of wealth inequality. This began in a limited way under Trump's first administration (mainly tech focused), expanded in a big way under Biden, and every indication from the Trump admin is that they are substantially going to continue with the direction Biden went. Anti-trust is a dry topic so it doesn't get a lot of media attention. But the push here is real, it began in the executive branch, and we are starting to see it expand into the judicial branch as judges start to agree with the government's arguments. What is really significant is that both parties seem to support it to some degree so the momentum will be hard to stop.
> as well as properly address the nativist embers that are currently lit.
Could be a concern but as long as the US is a two party state, this is unlikely to become systemic, at least at the federal level, it is more likely to be a gory see-saw. The US will always be more immigrant friendly than its geopolitical rivals, it will always do a better job at importing new people and turning them into citizens and Americans than China or Russia does. Its native population also reproduces today at higher rates than the native populations of its rivals.
If you have the nukes why suffer weaker countries?
If you depend on Canada for oil why even have a Canada ?
If you have to pay to defend Taiwan for their chips bring the chips over, leave Taiwan outside
Why should Panama have a say in global trade ?
But there were losers, mainly in manufacturing, and USA didn't assist them in the right way, allowed unprecedented levels of political corruption, allowed unhealthy levels of wealth inequality, allowed housing crisis, allowed obesity and health crisis etc...
Most of the USA's wounds are self-inflicted, but any good demagogue would not pass the opportunity to blame somebody else for it.
Can't build chips, can't make ships, can't make furniture, can't make clothes, can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war. Globalization hollowed the capacity of the country.
True, but that's true for every country, even Taiwan. If ASML (Dutch company), Applied Materials, LAM Research, KLA, Synopsys, Cadence (US companies), Tokyo Electron, Shin-Etcu (Japan) and literally hundreds of other companies didn't cooperate, TSMC couldn't function either. BTW, that's why China can never "take over" TSMC - they can just make it defunct when all these other companies stop doing business with it after the invasion.
Basically, the planet is making chips, not any individual country.
> can't make ships,
I suggest you look-up the Jones Act and its unintended consequences.
And then think why American voters never consider this kind of stuff when voting.
> can't make furniture, can't make clothes,
Fair enough, though this is more a matter of what is economically viable vs. what is possible. There are economic losers, sure. But there are big winners too, most notably in the "tech" industry. It's incumbent on the US to smooth-out the transition for their own citizens, instead of allowing special interests and monopolies to run amok and incumbents to Gerrymander themselves into office.
Ultimately, American voters allowed this to happen, and when they saw the results, they fell for a demagogue.
> can't make enough weapons to supply Ukraine, let alone for any real war.
I hope you are not suggesting Russo-Ukrainian war is "not real". This is almost WW2-level stuff. I suggest you take a look at the photographic evidence of vehicle losses, keeping in mind that the actual losses are likely higher:
Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 3786, total: 20577) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine (main battle tanks: 1092, total: 7965) https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-docum...
And are we cranking up our industrial might to make more tanks? No, we aren't making any, not for Ukraine, not for US. Sometime in the 2030s we are supposed to have a modified and improved M1E3.
The success of the tech industry is orthogonal to globalization.
GDLS in the US is making new-build M1A2 SEPv3 tanks for Poland and Australia.
That means the problem is where the money is.
A sane alternative would have been for the government to spend the surplus on deliberate policy goals such as infrastructure development, preserving the industrial base, scientific research, forward looking renewable energy and less polluting processes, restoring the expectation of full time employment to 40 hours per household, etc. Distorting prices in those sectors in service of deliberate goals would have been much better than making housing unaffordable and calling it progress.
Americans will always do the right after they do everything else first
It seems accurate to our national history, in broad strokes at least
Except the rest of the world doesn't need to go it alone.
But who is better at it than the USA ?
When every nation fights against each other to prop up their population numbers, immigrants will choose the place that's the best for them. Think of it as product competition, and consumers are the immigrants that pick what's best for them.
Immigrants have always done this, that’s why they emigrate in the first place
Putin is busting out the US, Soprano's style. Trump has signaled acceptance of the Russian war of aggression and has also signaled that China can invade Taiwan. Russia and China are allies.
This is part of China getting a foothold in the American tech industry. Kind of a followup to Deepseek, but providing the Chinese government more access to US chips via a physical presence. The original Trump plan was for TSMC to literally take over Intel plants, but Intel told Trump to get stuffed.
Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason. It can also simply be a pragmatic decision.
The "getting stuffed" thing would be big words from a nearly bankrupt company, don't you think? Intel's investors will take whatever deal that gives them the biggest return on their dollar.
I find it so hard to take this point seriously. Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm. They have broken treaties before.
Even still, why should the US care if Ukraine wants to keep defending itself from Russian aggression? They are a primary geopolitical rival and the ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment to directly weaken them is massive compared to almost any other defense related use of it.
What’s more than this, we would be abandoning an ally and signaling that it is safe for countries to do these invasions without significant pushback. The destabilizing result of this will be felt around the world.
Plenty of time for Ukraine to re-arm as well. Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line.
> ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment
But that's not the only thing getting sent.
> we would be abandoning an ally
What alliance did US and Ukraine have? They were friendly but there wasn't any sort of alliance. No defense pact.
Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning.
> But that's not the only thing getting sent.
This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies.
Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum? Even if not official allies with a mutual defense pact, United States had commitments and more importantly the following dual interests that support aiding Ukraine:
1.) Weakening Russia 2.) Global stabilization / aggression deterrence
Having to rely on forcing men to the frontline is a clear indicator that the war is not going in your favour and you may need time to rebuild. It's also questionably immoral - forcing someone to fight.
> This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies.
US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the average American benefited?
Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable?
> Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum
Yes. And it's not a defense pact. US followed through on all commitments it made.
The US is not "sacrificing Ukrainian lives". Russia will keep the war going with or without us. American support saves Ukrainian lives and makes better outcomes possible.
Without American support, Russia doesn't stop, they grind faster and demand more consessions.
> Russia will keep the war going with or without us
Actually, Ukraine and Russia were close to signing a deal in Istanbul, but were pushed not to by US/UK - allegedly. but logically, without US(and EU) support, Ukraine would have been more inclined to sign the deal which would have avoided hundred of thousands of lost lives.
It was a surrender on a timer doomed to fail just like Munich 1938 did.
It would inevitably have been violated just like the two Minsk agreements were, just like the Black Sea grain initiative was, just like the humanitarian ceasefires in Mariupol and Debaltseve were, just like Prigozhin's deal was - and a dozen others.
Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense. Negotiations were called off because of what happened in Bucha + promises of arms supplies.
Your narrative is propaganda. Ukraine didn't want to sign that deal because it was a total shit deal made by someone who broke all their previous deals, and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.
> Black Sea grain initiative was
Citation needed. As far as I'm aware it was just not renewed.
As per Minsk, Ukraine also violated it. There were a lot of violations from both sides. It was not an agreement that would have worked long term.
https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/5...
> Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense
Which are as worthy source as Russian politicians.
> promises of arms supplies
From US and UK? Aka pressure from them?
> Your narrative is propaganda
Your narrative is propaganda.
> and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.
Where is that deal? So far a lot of Ukrainians have lost their lives for what exactly?
And again, do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire?
There were violations. They used the "inspections" process to continually delay & block ships from going to Ukrainian ports.
"Ukrainian Deputy Renovation Minister Yuriy Vaskov accused Russia of a "gross violation" of the agreement. All ships are inspected by a joint team of Russian, Ukrainian, Turkish and U.N. inspectors, but Vaskov said the Russian inspectors had refused to inspect ships bound for Pivdennyi since April 29."
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/ukraine-says-rus...
And then of course it wasn't renewed, followed up by immediate missile strikes on Ukraine's grain infrastructure over the following couple of days. Which does speak in some sense to Russia's willingness to do deals and hold them. (That didn't end up working out for them as expected, because Ukraine subsequently sank half of what remained of their Black Sea Fleet).
I notice you don't address all the other deals they violated either.
> Which are as worthy source as Russian politicians.
What source do you consider credible? Random tankies on twitter? Nobody who was actually involved in those discussions gives that narrative any credence.
>Where is that deal? So far a lot of Ukrainians have lost their lives for what exactly?
Ukrainians decide what deal they're willing to accept, not you.
>And again, do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire?
No, because Trump isn't trying to make Russia sacrifice anything, he's just trying to force Ukraine into submission. Which, by the way, will not work.
> What source do you consider credible? Random tankies on twitter? Nobody who was actually involved in those discussions gives that narrative any credence.
Reputable news sources, ideally multiple different sources that say the same thing. Ukrainian politicians will not say anything that would potentially harm their war effort.
> Ukrainians decide what deal they're willing to accept, not you.
They can do it without my aid then.
> No, because Trump isn't trying to make Russia sacrifice anything, he's just trying to force Ukraine into submission. Which, by the way, will not work.
So, what's the end goal, as far as you see?
Ukraine now faces almost total destruction because they didn't take the deal.
It should be a clear lesson to other countries - don't be belligerent with your much stronger neighbors.
The US and Europe getting involved simply increased the death and destruction.
I'm not saying it is fair or right or just. It simply is.
It’s the terms of how it ends that need to be reasonable.
Do you think the allies should have just given the axis the territory they demanded to prevent war?
I am finding it tremendously hard to take you seriously.
Why are you okay with USSR controlling those territories but not the axis?
In international relations, power is relative (see: the security dilemma). A weaker adversary means a more powerful USA. USA Spends much more than that every year on its military. I claim the ROI is much better here.
> Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable?
We’re not sacrificing any lives. Russia is stealing them by illegally continuing their a war of annexation. If Mexico invaded Texas, should USA “sacrifice” no lives to take it back?
Should Europe offer no aid because “the war really should end”.
> We’re not sacrificing any lives. Russia is stealing them by illegally continuing their a war of annexation. If Mexico invaded Texas, should USA “sacrifice” no lives to take it back?
Mexico is considerably weaker. Here's a more accurate analogy; if USA decided to annex Canada, should Canada throw millions of lives in trying to take it back? against a significantly stronger opponent?
> Should Europe offer no aid because “the war really should end”.
The aid should only be until a deal can be made, like one with Trump. It should not be given to prolong the war indefinitely. I do not want to suffer economically so that Ukraine can kidnap men to send and die to keep some eastern territory.
I can’t figure out if you’re being serious. They are the adversary of USA because they directly seek to oppose USA and the rules based world order it leads. Russia is the adversary of USA because wars of conquest in Europe are diametrically opposed to the interests of the United States.
> if USA decided to annex Canada, should Canada throw millions of lives in trying to take it back?
It’s up to the invaded country to decide how long. I know that if China invaded Florida, I would be very comfortable with UK sending USA weapons for as long as USA wants to try to fight the foreign invaders.
> I do not want to suffer economically so that Ukraine can kidnap men to send and die to keep some eastern territory.
Are you being serious? I’m sorry if you are, I just find it hard to imagine someone who is generally aware of the world could think this, especially since they are known Russian propagandists talking points. To be clear: America is absolutely not suffering economically as a result of supporting Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion.
> They are the adversary of USA because they directly seek to oppose USA and the rules based world order it leads
How so?
> I know that if China invaded Florida, I would be very comfortable with UK sending USA weapons for as long as USA wants to try to fight the foreign invaders.
USA is more powerful than China in military - not to mention UK is an ally of USA. And sure, it's up to the invaded country, but at a certain point countries don't want to keep sending money into a blackhole.
> Are you being serious? I’m sorry if you are, I just find it hard to imagine someone who is generally aware of the world could think this, especially since they are known Russian propagandists talking points
It's so easy to call something a Russian propagandist talking point or Russian bot instead of actually addressing points. Let's have a discussion without resorting to calling the other side propagandists.
> To be clear: America is absolutely not suffering economically as a result of supporting Ukrainian resistance to Russian invasion.
I can't comment on America because I don't live there, but European countries have suffered hard. Especially by not buying gas from Russia. Our industrial economy takes a massive hit due to increase in power. A lot of residential houses pay a lot more for gas/heating/electricity - and those are European, already a lot poorer than the Americans.
Wars of aggression in Europe are against the interests of the USA.
I’be been addressing your points. It’s just hard to take them seriously as known Russian propaganda.
You have not provided any reasoning, just talking points.
This is what I call the "just let Hitler have Poland" theory.
Is it a good idea? You can't evaluate that without having an understanding of why an independent Ukraine is considered important internationally, what the function and reason of NATO is, what a third world war would realistically look like, what Europe and Asia would look like with an expanded totalitarian Russian empire, what AI-driven done warfare will look like, what the actual (vs merely rhetorical) threat of nuclear arms use is, what will happen with global climate goals if Russia is unopposed (considering Russia considers itself a potential "winner" if climate change intensifies), and what the famine/disease/refugee situation looks like if climate change does intensify.
There are simply too many variables for random internet commenters to have an informed opinion on most of these things. And I would guess that even world leaders with full access to all the classified information can't be certain about most of these questions.
But it does seem to me that an independent Ukraine (with its natural resources intact) is the ultimate Chesterton's Fence right now.
Now that it’s become untenable for great powers to fight and they’re all facing regional instability and domestic unrest (EU, US, RUS, CN), we’ll see a century of consolidation and realignment at the regional/continental scale.
ASEAN, China, E Asia, India, Russia; Middle East and South Asia; EU, UK, Russia; US, Canada, Latin America; South America (eg, Argentina, Brazil, and Ecuador); Africa (though, I’m less familiar with specifics there).
We’re seeing political upheaval in each region as states jockey for position in this new world order — now that international global order is dead (or at least, mortally wounded).
Exciting times!
I consider US to be like brain of earth / humanity. Dollar Reserve Currency is like nerve signals. It can give that printed money to an African nation and make it buy wheat from Ukraine. Or give that money to Myanmar so that it can buy weapons from other countries. The whole setup is brilliant. Making one hand cooperate with another or hurt another if we extend the brain body analogy. US is holding a structural proverbial gun to other nations' head.
It is only a matter of time, when the body of humanity revolts against the excesses of brain's unrealistic demands.
The more accurate framing, to me, feels like: America is going to ask for more from the world in return for its security guarantees. We're seeing this with the mineral rights in Ukraine, and now this TSMC investment. The world does not like this, because no one likes being asked to pay the bill at dinner when you're used to dad picking it up for the past 80 years, but that seems to be the priority.
This is ultimately healthy; as Starmer said this week, Europe needs to lead the effort in Ukraine, with US backing. A Europe that spends more on its own defense and is more independently capable of defending itself is a stronger Europe; this is what America wants, America wants strong allies across the pond, and it should be what Europeans want too.
But, as you allude to: Russia is not the threat some think they are, today. This war has decimated their offensive capability, thanks to US support over the past three years, and the geopolitical situation in eastern Europe right now is in a place where Europe, even with its diminished military capacity relative to the US, can actually lead security guarantees with Ukraine. But, the US will be there; America will get some mineral rights, and there will be some kind of peace deal organized in tranches where violation of tranche 1 means the EU military gets involved but violation of tranche 2 means you've woken the beast and the US gets involved too.
You're 100% right that there will be more wars, though. It just won't be the ones people expect. I don't think Taiwan will happen in the next decade; both sides have too much to lose. Ukraine & eastern Europe will calm down in the next six months. Longer term, I'd be more concerned about India and Pakistan or China, as that's an area of the world where the US has few existing security guarantees and direct allyships, but the military spending is ramping up.
If anything it's the other way around - the world has granted America incredible economic concessions. America has decided it doesn't want them.
* The USA is going to claw back whatever economic largesse it has granted to the rest of the world, and ultimately renege on many of its security guarantees, with the underlying reason being that it can no longer afford to be world police and pay for all its entitlements
* This is a net relative win for the US economically because once it claws back what it needs, it has a better ability to "go it alone" than any other country in the world. US stocks will continue to be the best buys out there
* Ergo we are looking at another American century, or perhaps some kind of isolationist/Cold War-esque type of century since American political influence will decline, but China and Russia's colossal demographic problems will hinder them from making any serious bids for dominance
Objectively - it looks like another American century, but one where the whole world is diminished due to global collapse in the birth rate, and some nations are just less diminished than others (unless I am severely underestimating the impact of automation and AI)
And yes, many people will be unhappy, and there will be more war, and globalization has peaked