We have the Orange is the new POTUS thread, which is largely focused on the ongoing craziness, the suitability of the elected president, friction in his admin, and the logistics of effecting change if that is the result. I would like to propose a parallel thread that has to do with greater scale geopolitics and less focus on the absurdity of the US admin, gaffes and response, etc. I am interested in sharing perspectives on the longer game, the backdrop against which this administration is operating, and where things are going. (I am no expert in the area but do have interest, and hope that this will be not too broad for a single thread)
Post WWII, you could argue that US foreign was consistently interested, in large part, around security of access to energy resources in the Middle East. During my lifetime, especially pre Sept 11, it seemed election discourse was focused around domestic issues, while foreign policy was fairly consistent. Things have changed this century pretty dramatically.
The US emerged from WWII as a superpower, and in the Cold War era, there was a structure where there were basically 2 major powers and their networks of allies, and there was generally an understanding of how to avoid major conflict from escalating.
Several things have changed over the past decades. Economically, the US has been through a lot. After a post WWII economy which saw manufacturing and efficiency gains, gradually changing with globalization and wealth building through outsourcing of manufacturing, creative financial ventures that ultimately resulted in a crash and global financial crisis, it is now potentially energy self sufficient but not poised to sustain its position long term as the major global economic engine.
George HW Bush gave a speech in 91 proclaiming the new strategy as being a world moving towards globalization and diplomacy. This was the general direction through the Obama administration.
Meanwhile, Russia has found itself now with a regime with a leader more unopposed than any since Stalin, with a chip on its shoulder post USSR collapse and a desire to restore its place as a global power, and China has quietly (in terms of external assertiveness) been growing and making its own strategic advances.
The US has to make a strategic decision between hegemony or carving out its ultimate role in the new world order, whatever that ends up being. Technological advances have given it the potential to be energy self sufficient, which affords it the opportunity its to retreat from its long standing position in the Middle East. That move away from being a primary influencer to being more protectionist you could argue makes a lot of sense against the emergence of China and many other factors in play. The US will no longer be dominant economically so deciding how and when to assert its will morally and militarily at will is likely impractical.
So I ultimately had expected a general retreat from the US being the self appointed moral compass and police for the world, and would like a place to discuss the general destabilizing or challenging factors and where things go from here. (I did wonder at times if Trump was projected to be useful as a wild card / destabilizing force in government to act as change agent, but they underestimated the chaos he did actually bring).
It seems that the major players (power wise) now are the US, Russia, and China.
I would offer a few framing remarks (and welcome clarification and correction on any and all) with respect to a few items of note.
Iraq
The Bush administration, according to senior representatives, truly believed that, post 9/11 and the war in Afghanistan justified due to the Taliban refusing to give up Bin Laden, that there was an opportunity, ousting Hussein and providing the opportunity for democracy to take root would serve as an example to the region which could be built upon. Hindsight shows that the required follow up and commitment post intervention was complex, so this was ultimately not the case, and weakened the perception of the US globally.
Ukraine
Ukraine did not join NATO, and is particularly exposed being on the Russian border. In 2014, Russia quite quickly sent a number of troops and has been rotating them, and in the 2014 referendum asking the general population if they preferred to be part of Ukraine or join the Russian federation, elected to join. The Russian military moved in to Crimea, allegedly to deter and contain any attempts by Ukrainian nationalist radicals to disrupt the voting process. Also, as I understand, in Crimea, Russian outlets broadcast where Ukrainian feeds and influence do not, so an information war was being waged.
The referendum was regarded as illegitimate by most members of European Union, the United States and Canada because of the surrounding events, including the plebiscite being held while the peninsula was host to Russian soldiers. Thirteen members of the UN Security Council voted in favor of a resolution declaring the referendum invalid, but Russia vetoed it and China abstained. A UN General Assembly Resolution was later adopted which declared the referendum invalid and affirmed Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Russia officially recognized the results of the Crimean referendum and states that unilateral Kosovo declaration of independence has set a precedent, which allows secession of Crimea from Ukraine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crim...ferendum,_2014
Sanctions were imposed by the Obama administration against Russia as a result of civil rights
Syria
There was civil war in Syria for over 4 years before the Assad regime deployed chemical weapons on its own people, dissenting factions against the dictatorship.
Obama had given a speech where he noted that any use of weapons on mass destruction or chemical weapons would be unacceptable but his response was to pursue diplomatic avenues rather than military. One view is that this was due to the lessons learned in Iraq with respect to the ongoing obligations stemming from intervention, that diplomatic avenues may be an appropriate path forward. I don't know what the right answer is, but it seems that this was a failure to live up to the role as a strong leader. You could interpret and extrapolate that countries with WMDs, nukes or chemical weapons may take away the message that having and using these weapons is ultimately a strategic benefit and safeguard.
North Korea
North Korea is arguably the most isolated nation in the world, having been governed by the same family for over 70 years, and has been historically supported by Russia, while South Korea has been allied with the US.
North Koreans were originally optimistic when Kim Jong Un replaced Kim Jong Il. However he proved to be more assertive and unpredictable than his predecessor. North Korea has been lower on the US priority list during their years of strength and has improved its weapons capability significantly of late.
It is generally accepted that any war with North Korea would be won, but the cost is the question. Seoul is 20 million people and at most minutes away for third missiles. As they get the capability to reach the US, whether west coast or just Alaska and Hawaii, their primarily aggressive defensive posture becomes threatening.
China is N Korea's largest trading partner, and hence really the only nation with any real leverage, but has not asserted any power over them. There would be an impact of refugees from NK to China on the event of war but that can not be the whole story.
China
China has not been aggressive abroad but has been asserting its intentions and applying its strategy locally. In particular the South China Sea has been regarded by most countries including the US as international waters however China claims its rights to these waters over the other bordering nations such as the Philippines and Vietnam. Filipino fisherman are chased out of the waters as Chinese military increases its encroachment on these waters and it threatens their livelihood. In addition, China has been building islands and adding military buildings and airstrips on these islands, and the Chinese navy will challenge aircraft in the overhead vicinity and direct them to leave the area.
So we have China emerging as pretty much the most likely economic power, now being the second contributor to peacekeeping investment within the UN, and entitled to the influence associated with its level of contribution. They have been relatively docile in terms of global geopolitics but increasing their voice of late.
We have Russia who has a leader who believes in strength and force, disgruntled by the treatment of Russia post USSR dissolution, with ambitions to be regarded as a world power. They have made an art of creating questions and dissent via 21st century media avenues and influencing and destabilizing democracies is a key tool in their toolbox.
And we have the US in retreat or reevaluation mode, led at the moment by a frighteningly unqualified choice for a time where the world is pretty much in a more chaotic state than it has been since the end of WWII.
So what am I missing and where is this all going? Does an alliance with Russia make sense as a counter to the emergence of China, despite the different ideologies with Russia, and is Trump a short term pawn to accelerate a difficult transition that couldn't possibly be elegant in any way?
Geopolitics
