Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on January 2, 2017

Bookmark and Share

Learning to love a multipolar world

Learning to love a multipolar world thumbnail

American foreign policy is at a crossroads. The United States has been an expanding power since its start in 1789. It battled its way across North America in the nineteenth century and gained global dominance in the second half of the twentieth. But now, facing China’s rise, India’s dynamism, Africa’s soaring populations and economic stirrings, Russia’s refusal to bend to its will, its own inability to control events in the Middle East, and Latin America’s determination to be free of its de facto hegemony, US power has reached its limits.

One path for the US is global cooperation. The other is a burst of militarism in response to frustrated ambitions. The future of the US, and of the world, hangs on this choice.

Global cooperation is doubly vital. Only cooperation can deliver peace and the escape from a useless, dangerous, and ultimately bankrupting new arms race, this time including cyber-weapons, space weapons, and next-generation nuclear weapons. And only cooperation can enable humanity to face up to urgent planetary challenges, including the destruction of biodiversity, the poisoning of the oceans, and the threat posed by global warming to the world’s food supply, vast drylands, and heavily populated coastal regions.Yet global cooperation means the willingness to reach agreements with other countries, not simply to make unilateral demands of them.

And the US is in the habit of making demands, not making compromises. When a state feels destined to rule – as with ancient Rome, the Chinese “Middle Kingdom” centuries ago, the British Empire from 1750 to 1950, and the US since World War II – compromise is hardly a part of its political vocabulary. As former US president George W. Bush succinctly put it, “You’re either with us or against us.”

Not surprisingly, then, the US is finding it hard to accept the clear global limits that it is confronting. In the wake of the Cold War, Russia was supposed to fall in line; but President Vladimir Putin did not oblige. Likewise, rather than bringing stability on US terms, America’s covert and overt wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, South Sudan, and elsewhere created a firestorm stretching across the greater Middle East.

China was supposed to show gratitude and deference to the US for the right to catch up from 150 years of abuse by Western imperial powers and Japan. Instead, China has the audacity to think that it is an Asian power with responsibilities of its own.

There is a fundamental reason, of course, for these limits. At World War II’s end, the US was the only major power not destroyed by the war. It led the world in science, technology, and infrastructure. It constituted perhaps 30 per cent of the world economy and formed the cutting edge of every high-tech sector. It organised the postwar international order: the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, the Marshall Plan, the reconstruction of Japan, and more.

Under that order, the rest of the world has closed much of the vast technological, educational, and infrastructural gap with the US. As economists say, global growth has been “convergent,” meaning that poorer countries have been catching up. The share of the world economy represented by the US has declined by roughly half (to around 16 per cent currently). China now has a larger economy in absolute terms than the US, though still only around one-fourth the size in per capita terms.

None of this catching up was a perfidious trick against the US or at its expense. It was a matter of basic economics: given peace, trade, and a global flow of ideas, poorer countries can get ahead. This tendency is to be welcomed, not shunned.

But if the global leader’s mindset is one of domination, the results of catch-up growth will look threatening, which is how many US “security strategists” view them. Suddenly, open trade, long championed by the US, looks like a dire threat to its continued dominance. Fear-mongers are calling for the US to close itself off to Chinese goods and Chinese companies, claiming that global trade itself undermines American supremacy.

My former Harvard colleague and leading US diplomat Robert Blackwill and former State Department adviser Ashley Tellis expressed their unease in a report published last year. The US has consistently pursued a grand strategy “focused on acquiring and maintaining preeminent power over various rivals,” they wrote, and “primacy ought to remain the central objective of US grand strategy in the twenty-first century.”

But “China’s rise thus far has already bred geopolitical, military, economic, and ideological challenges to US power, US allies, and the US-dominated international order,” Blackwill and Tellis noted. “Its continued, even if uneven, success in the future would further undermine US national interests.”

US President-elect Donald Trump’s newly named trade adviser Peter Navarro agrees. “Whenever we buy products made in China,” he wrote last year of the US and its allies, “we as consumers are helping to finance a Chinese military buildup that may well mean to do us and our countries harm.”

With just 4.4 per cent of the world’s population and a falling share of world output, the US might try to hang on to its delusion of global dominance through a new arms race and protectionist trade policies. Doing so would unite the world against US arrogance and the new US military threat. The US would sooner rather than later bankrupt itself in a classic case of “imperial overreach.”

The only sane way forward for the US is vigorous and open global cooperation to realise the potential of twenty-first-century science and technology to slash poverty, disease, and environmental threats. A multipolar world can be stable, prosperous, and secure. The rise of many regional powers is not a threat to the US, but an opportunity for a new era of prosperity and constructive problem solving.

Project Syndicate, Times of Oman

28 Comments on "Learning to love a multipolar world"

  1. onlooker on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 12:04 pm 

    Well, is that the best a supposedly professional writer can do. Duh. Of course the US must accept its new role and of course if it does not all hell will break loose. But empires usually do not go out like a whimper but with a bang. Lets hope for the sake of any livable future for humans and other creatures, the US is an exception to the rule.

  2. J-Gav on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 12:28 pm 

    Well, nobody has to “love” multipolar any more than they “loved” the idea of a unipolar world. But they will have to accept it because that is what’s on the way. What form(s) that might take is still up in the air but I wouldn’t expect it to be a smooth ride.

  3. Davy on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 1:10 pm 

    Yea, how about a bipolar world with the Russians and the Americans teaming up to run things! Trump and Putin as a team making things right again for old white guys…lol. “Make old white guys great again” will be the new slogan.

  4. J-Gav on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 1:58 pm 

    Ha! The ‘bipolar’ idea had crossed my mind too (the irony in that term!) – maybe there is some sort of vague plan along those lines in the making – who knows? If there is though, Poot would eat the Trumpster for breakfast, lunch and dinner – he’s been at it for a lo-ong time. And that counts when two Capos get together.

    Just to round things out, I don’t see anything that appeals to me coming from India, China, Brazil, etc either so: ‘What’s a poor, indebted nobody to do?’ is the question many people will be asking themselves shortly I’m afraid.

  5. Anonymous on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 3:08 pm 

    lols@the exceptionalist. Russia does not even necessarily want a ‘bipolar’ world. Neither their words or deeds suggest they even desire that much. That’s just you projecting (again).

    No, their main desire, atm anyhow, is for the uS to stop its ceaseless war against the Russian Federation. They would quite satisfied with that.

    As an aside, the president,(the real one), is in far better shape, both mentally and physically than president hair-piece could ever hope to be.

  6. Davy on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 3:17 pm 

    Dumbass can’t even tell when someone is laughing at him. Lol

  7. rockman on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 3:19 pm 

    Davy – “how about a…world with the Russians and the Americans teaming up to run things”. Toss in China and the idea starts sounding like the MADOR protocol: Mutually Assured Distribution Of Resources. The MAD protocol (Mutually Assured Destruction) didn’t make the US, Russia or China kissing cousins but it did prevent destoying the world with nukes.

    It’s not a pretty picture but the “bipolar” cooperation between the three super powerers might mean dividing up all those declining resources which the rest of the world currently has some access to. Russia already jumped first taking over the Crimian oil/NG resources. And China is lining up most of the S China Sea.

    Might be about time to officially make Canada the 51st state and stop pretending they are just a friend with benefits. LOL.

  8. J-Gav on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 3:26 pm 

    Anon – No, Russia is not necessarily looking for a bipolar world. Because they don’t need one. If, in the short term, such a prospect presented itself, they may be willing to go along for a while to see if any roll-back is possible in what you correctly call ‘the ceaseless war.’ What Russia wants is not ‘friends,’it is at least semi-reliable partners in managing the upcoming sh!,t-storm. Unfortunately, the U.S. and its NATO allies have never answered that call. The latter have, almost unbelievably, managed to hoodwink the people by trotting out the exhausted cold-war rhetoric of yesteryear time and time again. And it still works! So they’ll keep doing it – because they’ll always need scapegoats to deflect attention away from their massive financial Ponzi and their multiple war crimes. ‘Nuff said for now, I think you get my drift.

  9. onlooker on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 3:30 pm 

    Same as always. The Grand Game. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. haha. As AP says the maximum power principle of human evolution. We never have evolved have we.

  10. Anonymous on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 3:35 pm 

    Wow, two retards for the price of one.

    Russia did not ‘take’ over Crimea’s oil and or NG. Russia had had plenty of time to do w/e they wished in the previous 200 years+ with oil and NG in that area when it was part of Russia itself. Its Russian again(as it always has been, by a popular vote no less). Its already been explained to you, the idea Crimea was all about cashing in on some treasure chest of oil\NG is, fatuous at best.

    Second, its called the South CHINA Sea for a reason rocky. Not the South EXXON Sea. China is allowed to have interests in the South CHINA sea, as it you know, directly borders CHINA. It’s you amerikants that are the ones stirring the pot over there(again).

    Leave it a couple of low-brow exceptionalists to find nations asserting their own sovereignty in places neither can locate on a map, to be vaguely threatening to the u$ of a, somehow.

  11. J-Gav on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 3:43 pm 

    Rockman – On Crimea. Correct, several hundred billion cubic meters of natgas in the Black Sea. Who won the bid for the biggest block so far? Exxon. Problem: Exxon has also drawn up plans to cooperate with Russia in exploring the Arctic for FF. Nothing’s easy in a Pipelineistan world is it?

  12. J-Gav on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 3:50 pm 

    Oh, and I forgot to add this: any U.S. “geo-strategist” who thought Russia would just roll over and comply with the NATO ‘color-revolution’ take-over of Ukraine, including Crimea, should be interned and carefully monitored regarding his or her mental state.

  13. GregT on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 3:56 pm 

    “We never have evolved have we.”

    Nope. Never have, and never will. Somebody somewhere will still be fighting over the last remaining ‘resources’, as the Sun finally sets on the human experience.

  14. Davy on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 4:12 pm 

    Rock, It is pretty clear China and the US will be at odds economically soon. Russia is a different story. The issues with Russia are more militaristic. Solving military issues is a much easier game to play then conducting a trade war . Putin and Trump might get along making it that much easier for a Russian American detente. Trump does not like China making a trade war easier for him to push. The question is how would Russia adapt its relations with a China and US in an economic war. I can see Putin playing a grand diplomat which he loves to play attempting to mediate. Putin is going to win either way. They guy is living a charmed life.

  15. GregT on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 4:38 pm 

    “Trump does not like China making a trade war easier for him to push.”

    A trade war between the US and China would end very badly for both, but more so for the US of A. China has become the US’s manufacturing base. Take China out of the equation, and US retail is DOA. The knock on effect would completely destroy what little is left of the US economy. Trump has inherited an unmitigated disaster. His rhetoric, however, leads me to believe that he isn’t the real deal, and will continue the march towards a NWO. Interesting times ahead indeed.

  16. Davy on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 4:47 pm 

    Spoke with the true indoctrination of an anti-American Canadian. Lol. Everyone will lose even wonderful Canada that is already pathetic economically. No wonder board Canadians are constantly whining lately. You are losing the argument into irrelevance. Double lol.

  17. makati1 on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 4:52 pm 

    “… Doing so would unite the world against US arrogance and the new US military threat. The US would sooner rather than later bankrupt itself in a classic case of “imperial overreach.”


  18. GregT on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 4:58 pm 

    As per usual Davy. When I speak of the USA, I also include her little satellite branch, Canada. Unless of course, I am speaking about military adventurism, mass murders, assassinations, coups, or societal mayhem in general. For now, at least, the Canadian branch appears to be opting out. I’m sure that will change again in the not so distant future. I don’t have any faith in them either.

  19. makati1 on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 5:05 pm 

    ““Whenever we buy products made in China,” he wrote last year of the US and its allies, “we as consumers are helping to finance a Chinese military buildup that may well mean to do us and our countries harm.””

    Perfect example of the stupidity of our government leaders. Not a clue as to how much the U$ relies on/needs China;s goods. And, if they know, it is just more propaganda for the Koolaid guzzling sheeple.

    Blockade China and every electronic piece of I-junk would disappear from U$ store shelves. That cell phone in your pocket would be the last one you own. That TV, microwave, DVD player, etc.

    No? OK, tell me where the electronic components are made. I said ‘MADE’ not where they were assembled and tagged “MADE IN _______”. I can tell you that most components and/or materials come from … CHINA. And there are NO ‘alternate’ sources. China knows who holds the biggest stick(s), and it ain’t the u$.

  20. Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 6:07 pm 

    Maybe next time the retarded states of America could elect a cartoon character or a porn star instead of a WWE character. You fucking retards have are the laughing stock of the planet. Seriously! Nobody gives a fuck about you. Much of the world would laugh if North Korea nuked you. It’d make most people chuckle. I hope someone slams a commercial plane into one of your nuclear power plants.

  21. rockman on Mon, 2nd Jan 2017 6:49 pm 

    Greg/Davy – That’s my proposition (i.e. not a prediction). What country would be a worse choice for the US to have a trade war: China or any other country? What country would be a worse choice for the China to have a trade war: the USA or any other country? Who would be a worse choice for the Russia to have a trade war: Germany or any other country? Who would be a worse choice for Germany to have a trade/resource war: Russia or any other country? Who would be a worse choice for any major oil importing country to have a bad trading relationship: OPEC or any other group of countries?

    I think you understand my proposition: pick any permutation of that “what of” and what countries would you not include as significant component? Probably every other country that in the world that’s not one of the main players. I hate to pick one country as an example. But if Italy burned to the ground tomorrow how much sleep would China, Russia or the USA lose? And the time frame I have in mind isn’t today or even 5+ years. But when resources (fossil fuels, food) are truly insufficient to satisfy most of the world.

    Consider symbiotic relationships. It matters not if the participants hate each other’s guts: if the gain is sufficient those differences will be set aside. That’s the “mutual” part of MADOR. But mutual doesn’t mean the parties are similar on a variety of levels…just enough to make the relationship worthwhile.

    Of course that doesn’t mean the relationship might not have positive changes on one or both of the parties. Consider dealing with Putin. It would appear that the sanctions “inflicted” against him at best did not improve his dealings with the world. And at worse he’s become an even bigger pariah as a direct result. OTOH if there’s something he very much desires but needs US support then that could provide some leverage for the US. At the moment Putin doesn’t seem to have lost anything of value from his relationship with the US that he misses. So ExxonMobil can’t play with Russia in the Arctic. Big f*cking deal! LOL. If there’s anything to do there that makes economic sense some Chinese company or Norway’s Statoil would buddy up with Putin.

    So far the US “big stick” doesn’t seem to be having any impact on Putin. And we don’t have any carrots we’ve been sharing with him that we could threaten to take away.

    Simply put: have you ever modified anyone’s bad attitude without the potential of doing something good or bad to them? So far the US doing “bad” to Putin hasn’t improved any situation in the world as far as I can tell?

    Some say doing the same thing repeatedly with bad results expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. OTOH it could just be the actions of an arrogant ass to stubborn to admit he doesn’t know what the f*ck he’s doing. LOL.

  22. Davy on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 4:34 am 

    We have multiple 20th century trends and beliefs that are breaking down in the transition to the 21st century. One of these is globalism itself because of limits and diminishing returns from progress. The comparative advantage of globalism is breaking down with increasing comparative disadvantage. Globalism is failing to produce what is expected of it and the results are narrow gains for an increasingly smaller group of people. These people are clearly the global wealthy. They are in every nation but primarily in the US, Europe, Russia, and China. Just look at a map of billionaires globally then nationally with small pockets of affluence. The US elections and Brexit showed this is also with sentiment which translates into confidence. There is widespread loss of confidence and disaffection.

    Nationalism is increasing and with it an assured decline in global GDP. No other system can manage the tools of production like globalism to produce. It is unclear if nationalism can manage a positive degrowth. We know there are many issues where degrowth is considered a positive force. We want the excesses of globalism lowered like pollution and overdevelopment. Unfortunately we want our cake and eat it with more positive development and less of the bad. Our global population needs sustainable development. We can’t have both without pain and no one in power will peruse effective polices that involve pain. Can we manage a degrowth with a system that must grow? That is an unknown but probably not longer term and still maintain the status quo. The short term is a different story.

    We know globalism must grow because it is based on a fractional reserve system of debt creation. We have gone into an unhealthy range of excess debt from this system that has made it dysfunctional. All nations are part of this dysfunction. We also have a global system with various forms of welfare and wealth management. This is the stock and bond markets where wealth settles into. It is the systems governments have in place to maintain those who retire. Markets are many multiples overpriced and government systems underfunded many times. The global banking system is tied to this dysfunction. Nationalism will aggravate this and could cause a financial collapse.

    Trading arrangements are breaking down with 21st century globalism and a natural area for impact by nationalistic trends. The biggest dangers are potentially with China and the US but the rest of the world is tied to this through the dollar. It’s called the dollar problem when dollar denominated debt destabilizes. There is no alternative to the dollar. The only potential is the Chinese Yuan and it is in dangerous devaluation now. It is clear Trump has two policies of hire and buy American. China is increasingly asserting itself as an alternative to the US which is just another form of nationalism. These two policies are on a collision course. In this case two negatives are not a positive longer term but what about shorter term? The important question at least short term is can some positive effects result from Sino American nationalism?

    My thinking is not status quo because I believe we have entered a shift and a turning. In this respect nationalism (lite) may be what is needed. The big disclaimer is the militaristic side of it that is usually a result of it. Can we tune down globalism through nationalism and not ignite wars that will destroy our support systems present in globalism? We have a growing population and a growing problems that demand ever greater effort. We have fragile systems and networks supporting us. Most of these are global or dependent on global support. The key unanswerable question is can nationalism of the right kind slow down globalism in the short term to help us in our fight against decay and decline? Longer term I fear this trend and others is the end of our civilization as we know it with grave consequences. No amount of progress is likely to be enough to overcome this macro trend of reaching planetary limits. It is also species limits with our complexity that is now in many cases destructive. Yet, can we effect good in the short term through an unintended managed degrowth from nationalism?

    If Trump and Putin take a dangerous and wasteful cold war off the table we will have a chance. If Sino American nationalism can avoid turning into a dangerous and wasteful cold war we will have a chance. It is unclear how or if the Chinese and Americans can lower their symbiotic relationship. It is clear the dangerous imbalances are between them more than anywhere else. Can these imbalances be rebalanced without destroying their economies? Both have unrealistic debt. The US has consumption as a major driver of the economy that will be affected. Dropping this consumption will lower living standards not increase them and only so much can be resourced back. China after decades of malinvested heavy manufacturing has yet to scale this back in a recession. A forced rationalization will dislocated many millions. The Chinese have the worst imbalances of debt of any nation. Much of it is internal so can they impoverish millions in this process and not ignite a social catastrophe? It will happen so the question is will nationalism make it less badly?

    This destructive process will not happen for at least a year or more. In the next year these polices will form and be implemented. There are many obstacles with certain failures. The road blocks are within and without. Globalism has interconnected all nations. Nationalism is about advantage not comparative shared advantage. This is also internal and will cause forces within nations who prosper on globalism to attempt to blunt this process. This is especially true of the wealth classes. This is a destructive process with more destroyed then is created. Yet, can this be creative destruction like capitalist like to preach with new technology. The jury is out but I say no longer term. Yet, the shorter term is what matters to us. Humans don’t live in the longer term. Globalism is too far a conclusion and too far into decline. This nationalistic process will likely only be good in the respect of allowing some necessary degrowth in the short term but longer term it is dangerously destructive for a civilization in overshoot.

  23. Davy on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 5:03 am 

    These are not my forecast but these general conditions fit my view of a destabilizing globalism. Anti-Americans can refer to the article for multiple downsides for the US. Anti-Americans highlight US problems daily and this is the reason I am not redundantly listing them here.
    “A Biased 2017 Forecast, Part 2”

    “Obama, in a despicable act of trying to fence Trump in, has introduced further sanctions against Russia and Putin based upon no solid evidence other than the opinions of the same people who were sure there were WMD in Iraq. The MSM and the neo-con faction of his party are all on Obama’s side. I expect Trump to override Obama’s childish display of antagonism, while showing the neo-cons there is a new sheriff in town, by developing a working relationship with Putin and lowering the tensions between the two countries.”
    “Trump and Putin will come to an agreement regarding keeping Assad in power in Syria while turning both nations’ attention to obliterating ISIS and the so called “moderate” Al Qaeda terrorists in the Middle East. General Mattis and Trump’s team of rational thinkers will develop a feasible plan to destroy ISIS once and for all. Safe zones will jointly be created in Syria and Iraq by the U.S. and Russia to stem the tide of refugees pouring into the EU and U.S.”
    “The U.S. dependency on Saudi oil will continue to decrease, further reducing their influence on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Saudi failure in Syria, Yemen and keeping Iran contained will lead to further discontent in the kingdom. Financial woes, declining oil output and religious tensions will fray the fabric of their insular society and lead to a religious uprising and civil war.”
    “Turkey has been pushed into the Russian sphere of influence by U.S. meddling. The country is falling apart. A civil war on par with the Syrian conflict is likely to breakout. Russia would likely support the dictator Erdogan against rebel forces supported by NATO. Religious and sectarian violence will tear the country apart and create further tensions between Russia and the U.S.”
    “Israel will pre-emptively take action either covertly or overtly to damage the Iranian nuclear program without informing the U.S. of its actions in advance. This will be supported by the neo-con factions in the U.S. government, but will strain relations between Netanyahu and Trump.”
    “The crackpot efforts at demonetization by Modi in India will destroy the Indian economy and cause societal upheaval among his 1.25 billion mostly poor citizens. With the eighth largest economy on the planet imploding, the economic reverberations across Southeast Asia will be enormous, possibly being the trigger for the next step down in this ongoing global recession. India’s weakness could spur their enemy Pakistan to take aggressive border actions which could lead to military conflict.”
    “With the fourth largest economy in the world in near permanent recession for the last twenty years, Japan’s debt to GDP ratio of 230% portends financial collapse. In the midst of a demographic implosion, with negative interest rates, and a central bank buying all the newly issued debt and billions in stocks, Japan is a bug seeking a windshield. When this Ponzi economy crashes, the worldwide impact will be significant. If Japan doesn’t trigger the global eruption, it will be a major contributor as the detonation spreads around the world.”
    “China continues to steadily devalue the yuan against the USD and has eliminated all the gains since 2010. At the same time they have reduced their foreign reserves by over 20% since mid-2014. China’s third largest economy in the world is slowing rapidly as more bad debt builds up in their system. They have a real estate bubble that makes the U.S. bubble seem like a pimple on the ass of a fly. A trade war initiated by Donald Trump would be the pin bursting the Chinese debt bubble. The situation could intensify into a bond selloff and panic. If derivative positions of over-leveraged or poorly-hedged globally systemic banks begin to unravel, cascading losses could lead to a vicious cycle and a tragic outcome.”
    “Potential military conflict between China and Japan/U.S. over the islands in the South China Sea ramps up by the day. No one wants a war, but all it would take is a careless stupid act by a low level military officer to create a crisis. China is already bent out of shape by Trump acknowledging the existence of Taiwan. China is still essentially a dictatorship. The country is racked by corruption. An economic collapse could be met with distracting the public through a military adventure against Taiwan. These scenarios are unlikely in 2017, but not out of the question.”
    “The most likely and potentially most dire event which could affect the world in 2017 is the disintegration of the EU. Greece is still a basket case. Italy is on the brink. The EU area economy barely registers positive after years of negative interest rates and debt issuance. Unemployment rates, excluding Germany, range between 10% and 25%. Brexit and Trump’s victory portend a further shift to the right in the EU. The right wing party will win the French presidency. Merkel will be defeated in the upcoming elections. France and Italy are likely to have a referendum on leaving the EU. The departure of either will end the failed experiment. The insolvent Italian, French and German banks, specifically Deutsche Bank, will collapse in an EU disintegration scenario.”
    “The influx of Muslims into Europe is destroying their culture and leading to violence, terrorism, bloodshed, and now retribution. The left wingers have made a dreadful mistake in allowing hordes of Muslims to invade their countries. Their already fraying social welfare states are now completely bankrupt and citizens are afraid to go into the streets for fear of being attacked by members of the religion of peace. With the right gaining power in France, Germany and Italy, the blowback against Muslims will be violent and bloody. European cities will be rocked with violence throughout 2017.”

  24. dissident on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 8:07 am 

    The current situation for the US regarding China is really bad. The US needed the middle east to hold China by the short and curlies since China depends on oil imports. But Russia can supply China with all the hydrocarbon energy it needs (both oil and gas). China escapes US mafia control and Russia gets a superpower ally that actually has the US by the short and curlies in terms of near total product import dependence.

    For the US to escape its dependence on China there will have to be a lot of near term pain. Americans are not good at handling short term pain for long term gain. They will throw a collective tantrum and Trump will be impeached he tries to follow this path. So all the attempts to isolate Russia by McSh*tstain and other US whackjob politicians has resulted in a nightmare Russia-China alliance.

  25. rockman on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 9:37 am 

    Davy – Your comment about globalism got me thinking how that might fit with the idea of MADOR. Maybe the future will be Globalism 2.0.
    IOW a very focused and selective globalism. China can no more separate its economy from the US then the US separate its economy from the oil exporting countries. Same reality with Russia and Germany (and to a lesser extent the rest of the EU).

    And lesser known synergisms like Mexico’s dependency on NG and refinery products from the US and the advantage of having that Mexican market by US fossil fuel producers. But that’s today when US consumers have abundant supplies at current prices. And the US does get a significant amount of produce from Mexico.

    So what happens to that bit of globalism when NG and refinery products supplies shrink and prices boom in the US? Along with the rest of global trade relationships the US will have to pick and choose which ones to maintain and which strings to cut. IOW which relationships fit into the Mutually Assure Distribution Of Resources model…MADOR?

    At the moment it seems a major potential sea change could appear in the trade between Russia and the EU, especially with fossil fuels, with a potential shift towards China by Russia. What happens when Russia, with finite energy resources, decides its global trade relationship with China overrides benefits from EU trade?

    As I posted earlier global trade is easier to spread around when there are sufficient supplies and buyers with the capital to make those trades. But what happens in the inevitable future when that won’t be the situation? The list of countries critical to the trade of the major economies with grow short.

    IOW there will still be globalism. But just like a game of Musical Chairs as time passes there will be fewer and fewer seats at the big MADOR table.

  26. Davy on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 9:48 am 

    Rock, I see a range of possibilities. You make some good points regarding the mutual use of resources by major powers. I am afraid weak and overextended nations are facing a bleak future. Everyone is facing hard times but places that are low on the food chain are especially vulnerable.

  27. makati1 on Tue, 3rd Jan 2017 6:04 pm 

    Dis, at least you see the real China/U$ reality. Over $1,400. per American in imports from China annually. And that is only finished product, not parts in other stuff imported from other countries. Probably another $1,000. per American.

    Meanwhile, the U$ exports about $170. per Chinese to China annually. See the imbalance? And the stuff China exports is electronics electronics and clothes while they import raw materials.

    China is sourcing those same materials all over the world. Does it really need the U$ trade? I don’t think so.

  28. Cloggie on Wed, 4th Jan 2017 2:57 am 

    Well, it’s good to see that our friends from the Gulf have enough pride in their own culture for them to desire to shield themselves off from the West. Because shielding our precious Western selves off from them is precisely what we want as well.

    So Europeans and Muslims marching together against the One World intentions of Washington and its commie multicult? All for it.

    Let’s reinstall the borders and close down the UN and create new (very thin) global institutions, tailor-made for a multipolar-world and not the hegemonic ideas from Wallstreet/Washington.

    Location? Let’s say halfway Greater Europe and China, in Astana-Kazakhstan. One seat for Euro’s (US+EU+Russia, 0.8B), one for China 1.3B, one for Islam 1.5B, one for South-America 0.4B, one for dark Africa 1-4B.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *