Ian in his last post mentioned that our Asian allies are slipping away from us. While we pretend to strategically re-orient the Japanese are engaging in massive rearmament begun by Abe and being continued by the current government. Japan has lost confidence in the American security umbrella because of the deceit we’ve displayed in foreign relations. The Koreans? I lived in Korea. They’re simply apoplectic. Some are even at the point where they are willing to consider a loose confederation with the north, an entente of sorts so the South has the protection of the North’s nuclear umbrella and the North gains goods and services from the South.
This is simply unheard of. When I talked to one of my former students who now works in the foreign ministry and he told me this I was gobsmacked.
Ian’s correct. For 400 years the balance of payments from the rest of the world went to the Littoral seapower states. For the last 50 years the balance of payments has been reversed. All that gold is going back home. In one generation the United States has squandered all the goodwill and wealth it received during WWI and WWII. China in the last 50 years has lifted more people out of poverty than the rest of the world did during all of recorded history. Chew on that stat for a moment.
I will be visiting China and South Korea to do a 20 year retrospective tour and a 30 year retrospective tour on the former and the latter. I don’t know what to expect, but I remember China 20 years ago and being blown away.
The USA is in deep strategic shit. For 200+ years our power has been based on our complete hegemony of this hemisphere. For 75 of the last 100 years our main strategic goal has been the prevention of one power or an alliance of powers attaining hegemonic power over the Eurasian landmass. In the last six years we’ve abandoned that VITAL national interest for what? We’ve driven Russia into the arms of China. India lost all confidence in us. Now East Asia has.
If a single power or coalition of powers dominate the Eurasian landmass our two oceans will not protect us.
It appears I might have been wrong about the Israeli-Iran pissing contest being the opening act of WWIII. Good. What it really feels like is the first Balkan War in 1912. The calculus is being made in Beijing. And Tokyo. And Seoul. And Taipei. We lack the ability to protect our allies conventionally. And no one wants nukes.
I don’t have any smart quip to conclude with except a Spanish expletive, “la puebla es jodida.”
You get the idea.
cc
In this post by Sean Paul Kelley:
> “For 75 of the last 100 years our main strategic goal has been the prevention of one power or an alliance of powers attaining hegemonic power over the Eurasian landmass. In the last six years we’ve abandoned that VITAL national interest for what?”
Are you suggesting that it’s somehow a “VITAL national interest” for the US to constantly interfere with the sovereignty of the countries of Eurasia? That it’s a vital national interest for the US to maintain its global hegemony?
Is it your view that the US and the West – the Golden Billion – must seek to maintain global hegemony over the Global Majority? That 400-500 years is not enough and must be prolonged indefinitely? Isn’t seeking global hegemony a zero-sum game that will only end in the end of humanity?
> “If a single power or coalition of powers dominate the Eurasian landmass our two oceans will not protect us.”
Are you suggesting that Russia and China would attack North America? Just why would they do that unless we constantly seek to hold them down, to hold them back, to “contain” them?
Are you projecting the Anglo/European/Western mindset of hegemony onto other countries and peoples?
Feral Finster
Japan is rearming because they expect that they’ll be pressed to fight in America’s wars and as a payment of tribute to ensure US protection.
SK is an interesting case, especially as it seems plain that, even if the US hadn’t directly sponsored the coup last year, they Americans at the same time wouldn’t have minded, if it had been successful.
Mark Level
Thank you, cc! You said it quickly and succinctly.
“Are we the baddies?” Most of us know the answer.
Projection is hard to avoid for many people. The thing about “the West” as the UK ruling the majority of the world showed was that they were right out in the open about their need for CONTROL (as William S. Burroughs put it). Control of the “Eurasian Land Mass” the leadership thought and said ad nauseum would guarantee control of the World. Thus the importance of Russia, even part of Ukraine, the Caucuses and large areas of China.
I believe up to a point that human nature doesn’t vary much over time, not even in many respects (apart from technology development and use) since ancient times. So any Empire that runs for a decade or more will have a Leadership Class that will inevitably gravitate toward greed and evil, pillaging and war. An apex predator creates a predator state and culture, Leviathan.
That said, it takes time. And as Pogo said long ago, “We have met the enemy and he is ourselves.” A more likely dystopia will come from Collapse here and Civil War. An external enemy is not on the immediate horizon. We’d better get our own house somewhat in order before looking for sinister, lurking, “inscrutable” enemies from the East or the South.
Sean Paul Kelley
“Are you suggesting that it’s somehow a “VITAL national interest” for the US to constantly interfere with the sovereignty of the countries of Eurasia? That it’s a vital national interest for the US to maintain its global hegemony?”
No, I am not suggesting that. Was WWII worth fighting? Was it in our vital national interest to do so? I believe so. If such a situation should arise again, I’m saying it is in our vital national interest to prevent it. Not by meddling. By being smart.
I’m a realist in foreign policy situations. Every intervention we’ve made in my lifetime except Grenada, and Desert Storm has been a failure. We’ve left the countries worse off than before. That’s not smart foreign policy.
Fact: we are the hegemon of the Western Hemisphere. We will be for the foreseeable future.
But a hostile coalition, as FDR said, could harness the resources of Eurasia and put us at risk. That’s reality too.
The key is to prevent a hostile coalition by being smart, not arrogant duplicitous shitheads like we have been since, oh, say, 2003. Really even before when we fucked Serbia out of Kosovo. The Russians begged us not to do it, to break precedent of partitioning a nation, that had been established with the UN in 1945.
shagggz
The so-called West have been “arrogant duplicitous shitheads” for the entire time after they stole Russian valor in WW2 to puff themselves up and proceed to piss away the largest material advantage in world history. The fourth reich has run its course.
Sean Paul Kelley
You obviously do not know me well or my view of Russian history at all or you would not have said something so childish. And I am not going to waste time explaining it in the comments. Go search the site and read my essays on Russia.
shagggz
I stand by my assessment, and am more interested in Ian’s opinions on Russia and its history than yours, to put it politely. I submit that the basic shape of how WW2 and subsequent history played out bolsters my case: that the USSR did the preponderance of the dying to defeat Nazi Germany, that America falsely claimed they were behind in the “missile gap” to justify endless military spending and adventurism, that America quietly rehabilitated and absorbed various Nazi battalions and personnel, and that America’s goal has been permanent global dictatorship that it euphemistically calls “the rules-based order.” Better understood as a ghouls-based ordure, this pointed deference to “rules” rather than law is structurally identical to what the Nazis were going for, if all the support for aggressive wars and genocide hadn’t made that clear enough.
Sean Paul Kelley
I will put it very unpolitely. You wrote. “I submit that the basic shape of how WW2 and subsequent history played out bolsters my case: that the USSR did the preponderance of the dying to defeat Nazi Germany, that America falsely claimed they were behind in the “missile gap” to justify endless military spending and adventurism, that America quietly rehabilitated and absorbed various Nazi battalions and personnel . . .” Well no fucking shit. Dip me in a vat of melted cellophane. I’ve said all of this multiple times. It’s like fucking duh. Where we differ is America went off the rails when the so-called unipolar moment occured. Instead of being wise and creating a new Marshall Plan for the third world with peace dividend after the Cold War we focused on the Rubinomics–as James Carville famously said, “when I am reborn I want to come back as the bond market.” We all went shopping. Then came 9/11 and all the ugly angels of the spoiled Baby Boomers came out and the rest is history.
When it comes to Russia Ian and I are pretty much of like mind. So, I encourage you to educate yourself a little about me and my opinions before you shoot your mouth off in ignorance.
And I am happy you are more interested in Ian’s opinions. It’s his blog and he is much smarter than me. As it should be.
shagggz
I agree with your assessment of the squandering of the unipolar moment. But you also agree with my assessment of the preceding history, dismissing it as obvious. Well, then, on what grounds do you disagree that the entirety of post-WW2 Western history can be fairly called the work of arrogant, duplicitous shitheads? The unipolar moment being an increase in intensity of it does not negate the preceding era falling into the same bucket. I find your irritation puzzling.
Oakchair
What concrete actions has any of America’s Asian “allies” taken that suggest America is losing them?
The only thing remotely close is that “some” South Koreans are “considering” a “loose confederation with the north”
Canada’s new prime minster campaigned –to put it bluntly and crudely– as an “anti-American”. Yet he still decided to fork over a few more billion to assist America’s proxy war against Russia.
—–
We lack the ability to protect our allies conventionally.
——
That is one way to look at it. Another way is that America’s insistence on them being proxies in our forever wars is why they need protection at all.
Donald
The linked article
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-warships-fire-top-missile-interceptors-alarming-rate-admiral-says-2025-6
reports that the Navy is running low on interceptor missiles. So that supports both what Sean is saying and bolsters the theory that the U.S. and Israel agreed to a ceasefire because they were afraid more Iranian missiles would get through.
I had been wondering about that because one gets diametrically opposed views of how the war was going, depending on who one reads, but if the Navy is concerned about this that tips the balance in my mind.
Eric Anderson
Great work Sean.
“May you live in interesting times.”
— Ancient Chinese Curse
“May you live in hegemonic times.”
— Modern American Curse
cc
You call for preventing a “hostile coalition by being smart”. So it sounds like you support the long-time Anglo stratagem of divide-and-conquer, only please be smarter and more cunning about it than how the West has done so in the recent past. I have trouble seeing how “being smart” about poisoning or sabotaging relationships between other states is not foreign meddling or duplicitous right off the bat …
How do you define “hostile”? Is a country that refuses to bend the knee to the West, but seeks to maintain sovereign independence in a multi-polar world “hostile”? Must they be subjugated militarily-occupied vassals like Japan, South Korea, or the Philippines, that bend the knee – euphemistically called “allies” – to be considered non-“hostile”? Must their elites and institutions have been bought off and captured by the West to be considered non-“hostile”?
If Japan or South Korea or the Philippines were to one day regain their sovereignty and eject the US military bases occupying their countries, would you consider them to be “hostile”?
Do you deem Russia or China or Iran or Korea or India (or any other Eurasian country) to be “hostile” to the US or the West at the moment? Based on what definition and what credible evidence? Is that evidence from the CIA, MI6, Mossad, or Five Eyes Plus One?
Do you also call for preventing a “potentially” hostile coalition by being smart? If so, must all the Eurasian countries be forever controlled by the US and the West, just on the off-chance that one of them could some day potentially become “hostile”?