I just read a Time's article saying the Ukraine crisis is not signalling a new cold war and that it's a local problem only, but at the end it mentioned that this isn't a necessarily a good thing because without global leadership (the USA) the conflict can go on for much longer and deteriorate. I just thought it interesting how Time's article casually mentioned that the US is no longer the global leader, and that regional powers will take its place. Article here: http://time.com/2809352/bowe-bergdahl-deserter-army-taliban/ I also read another article (can't find it) again saying we are not in a new cold war, but in fact we are seeing the sinking of the US as it can no longer hold its hand against large, but inferior, regional powers. Both of these articles came from trusted sources and both just very casually assumed that the US can no longer hold onto its global reach. I feel only a few years ago that would have been the subject of the article, not the accepted truth mentioned casually as if everyone should know. The implied point of both of the articles was that the US is itself falling in on itself and with no domineering world power the new world order will be "the rise of the rest." The US seems to be purposely putting itself in the background while other relatively large powers are growing. We have no great super power to replace the US and instead we have regional superpowers reaching out around them. The obvious ones are Russia and China prodding at their neighbours while the US does nothing. India and Brazil are two more on the rise while the EU remains a strong economic union but lacks the power to replace the US just yet. The US itself looks more set become a regional power at its own choosing. The theory is that the next political age will be one of chaos, the post Tyson era of politics with the title being tossed around like a volleyball and no one to keep the others under control. With no "world police" to interfere the regional power can lash out at their neighbours all they want, as we are starting to see with Russia and China.
Seems a bit odd to put this at the USA's feet since the countries generally being talked about are ones that are emerging after having been under the shadow of the USSR.
We aren't in a cold war. Period. Russia simply doesn't have an iota of economic or military power to compete with us and China, while showboating, needs us. That doesn't mean we have the same presence we did in the 90s. Bush kind of killed that by giving the finger to the world and going into Iraq.
We've gradually ceded that responsibility by taking on conflicts without the willpower to see them through. As the American people have generally punished their leaders for these choies, foreign powers know that they can often wait out America. Economically, we'll see a decline in our power for many reasons. Suddenly I'm too lazy to really type...aw shucks.
The period after WW2 was a pretty unique on in history. Essentially the whole developed world other than the US was destroyed leaving us the only superpower. The USSR maintained a facade of equality for a while, but after 1990 the world was basically unipolar. I'm not sure though why anyone thought that condition would continue indefinitely. I don't really see a time when America isn't one of the most powerful nations in the world and dominates our neighborhood, but to expect that a country of 330 million would maintain superiority both economic and military over the rest of the world combined for an indefinite period of time is ludicrous. I don't think the US is ceding any sort of control voluntarily, we're just recognizing that we can't extend power over all other nations worldwide anymore because they've recovered from the worst of the 20th century and are catching up. I don't think there's anything we can do to stop that short of invading other countries which would be pointless and expensive.
I am okay with this. We can better use our tax dollars without worry of them being increased later because of increasing deficits. We don't need to be a super power. If anything we can still maintain a great military at much lower cost.. Especially if we sell arms instead of giving them away and stop fighting the wars. Cutting off Israel would be good start. The "War on Terror" is won by pulling back on our aggression and not drawing lines and taking sides.
Other countries are rising in status but there is still no one great threat to the US as a global power in the way we are now. The threat from China is exaggerated by the media and Putin has more of a regionalized focus that will keep him busy. The EU is always questioned if it will stay intact. I just don't see us being multi-polar for awhile. Will there be more relevant players in geopolitics soon? Yes. Will they be on par with the US? No.
The threat by China may be exaggerated, but we've reached a point where the US can no longer boss them around. Russia has realised this too. They don't have to be super powers just powers large enough to spread influence over big areas. For example it's easy to say China and Russia are only regional powers, but if you look at the map their combined influence covers a huge chunk of the planet just along their borders alone.
Duh. Did anyone think we'd be able to boss the rest of the world around in perpetuity? Would that even be a good thing? If we really believe in self governance and autonomous sovreignty of nations then we have to be willing to accept that nations who achieve those things will act in ways contrary to our intersts and desires from time to time. I think in 50 years the world will mostly be regionalized with large powers ruling their neighborhood. We're actually lucky in this sense in that we don't have a big rival in North America, whereas Russia, India, and China all have overlapping areas where they'd like to be the major power.
Militarily for sure. Economically...I doubt it. It's pretty hard to beat a nation of 1.4 billion. The average American would have to be 5x as productive as the average Chinese person just to keep pace. Historically we were, but as technology and education increase the productivity of the average 2nd world worker we're going to lose that lead.
The "world police" is not really a world police. US was/is a police for countries that are total shit holes, middle east and Africa for example. US was never a police in post-soviet regions. So the fact that US is powerless/indifferent in post-soviet regions is nothing new.
Outside of a period of time post USSR where Russia was in an utter state of chaos, when could we ever push them around?
America is still the dominate power and will be for some while. America also wants regional powers to step up so America doesn't feel compelled to get involved in every conflict. Certain countries will grow and become regional powers, but America is still the dominate power in pretty much every corner of the globe. Having 1.4 billion people is a liability and not an asset. That's 1.4 billion people you need to food, house, heat, and clothe. More importantly that's 1.4 billion people that want satisfying and economically stable lives. china raised 300-500million people out of poverty and into the middle class or better since the 1970's , but that still leaves close to a billion people that are dirt poor and eager for a better life. Keeping these people employed and happy will be China's biggest problem as they don't want a huge middle class. A strong middle class is who will push for reforms the most, and that's what China wants to avoid, is letting go of their police state. But at the same time, if they don't do something to keep these people employed they risk extreme destabilization. China already has thousands of riots a year and they're experiencing rapid growth. What if things slowed down? Expect massive turmoil. And when people try to tell me that China is some super power rivaling USA, I ask them this one question... What would happen to China if Wal-Mart suddenly decided they no longer wanted to do business? It would seriously fuck them. and once people realize this, you will see how much of a paper tiger China is.
this. ridiculous wars have cost America quite a bit. a trillion dollars of infrastructure or education or energy development would have left us in far better condition as a country. instead we wasted it bombing people barely out of the stone age.
