4 ms·

Niall Ferguson on why the end of America’s empire won’t be peaceful

23 points by baybal2 5y ago

edrxty 5y ago
Ok, maybe I'm just out of the loop but this read like a long list of completely unsupported assumptions that I absolutely cannot justify with any version of present reality. Also the comparison with Britain, by his own admission, makes basically zero sense. Am I missing something here or is he just rambling for ad money?
- paulpauper 5y ago
  Agree . Just because two things seem similiar does not mean share the same outcome
paulpauper 5y ago
This historian has a pretty poor track record of predicting things. The fact the us cultural and economic and militaristic hegemony only increased following the fall of saigon refutes the premise of this article. dominance is more than physical occupation; it has to do with cultural spread and values.
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  The US only has one major problem at the moment: Biden appears to have dementia (reported since 2012), which allows people behind the scenes to gain control of US policy, and foreign countries to perceive the US as weak. Those people behind the scenes are Marxists, but at least they will not be able to pass any bills after the 2022 mid-terms. Biden is old enough to remember (if being of sound mind?) both the Benghazi attacks and the Iran hostage situation, so today's Afghanistan situation is ridiculous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack (Mortars are pretty big and heavy, usually taking 2-3 people to carry and set them up, so calling those "spontaneous attacks" is laughable.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis When you have 5,000 nuclear weapons pointed at you, you simply cannot have a President with dementia.
bushbaba 5y ago
It fails to mention china’s debt to gdp (much worse than the us) or demographic issues (aging population).
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  - China imports up to half of its food. Since Xi is a clone of Mao, he doesn't care if half the population dies of a famine, but there is a high risk of civil unrest over food. - China is totally reliant on fast chips from external vendors. All of their local high-end fab programs have failed, with around $30 billion just disappearing. - China uses forced organ harvesting (mainly Uighur) to pay for its national hospital system. This is corrosive for foreign relationships long-term, with Europe becoming aware of this. - China risks war with all of their neighbors after seizing the Himalayan headwaters. Since half of those countries are Muslim, combined with the above item, this get could ugly (go nuclear.) - China stopped capital repatriation around 2016, so there's huge financial risk in building or operating factories there since profits cannot be withdrawn. Ths risk today is 100% in fact - you can't get your money out for sales in the China market. In addition, China is copying car designs, etc. and selling into the Russian market, making mfgs. like Volkswagen re-think their China strategy. - China relies on a US Marxist government to turn a blind eye to the above. Another Republican or Trumpist government will destroy China with just Trump/Pompeo's 2020 policies, let alone a total ban from US capital markets. - In a war, a lot of the one-child policy males would die. Since those men are needed to support their parents in retirement, there would be a huge backlash against the govt. (The reason for all the naval exercises reported in the press is that the CCP has no confidence in their unproven navy. But note that the CCP has had operational nuclear submarines with MIRVs since 2010.)
- einr 5y ago
  "China’s population is ageing even faster than anticipated; its workforce is shrinking. Sky-high private-sector debt is weighing on growth."
  - shsbdncudx 5y ago
    That’s weird, they age faster in China?
Barrin92 5y ago
Typical piece for a 20th century historian with a conservative bent but I think the comparisons between Russia/China/Iran and historical enemies etc are deeply misplaced and if you're looking for the end of the American empire much more focus ought to be spent on the state of liberal democracy in the US. China and Russia today are fundamentally not comparable to the Soviet Union or even Nazi Germany which is an insulting comparison when one considers the damage done by the Axis forces to either country. Today even though there is conflict there's no stark ideological opposition as such, there is no real cold war. The global economy is still integrated, climate change is a global issue, and so on. The aging population, strength of conventional weaponry and so on make great power war seem absurdly costly. When he starts quoting Churchill on the intelligentsia engaging in 'self-hatred' it becomes very obvious that Ferguson isn't interested in questioning the weaknesses of liberal democracy but rather demands loyalty to 'king and country' in the face of external threats. Activism is portrayed in the same light, even compared to Soviet sympathizers during the cold war. This narrative of self-reflection as weakness is I think one of the big reasons why the US struggles. There is little reform, little intellectual capacity to envision alternative futures, and secular malaise and stagnation.
- peakaboo 5y ago
  You put it in a much better way than I ever could. But there is something fundamentally wrong with how the leaders of America thinks of themselves in relation to the public. They act like Kings, not servants.
  - euroderf 5y ago
    Yes it is neofeudal. There are broad swathes of the population (mainly in goverment & business) that are apparently immune to meaningful oversight and/or criminal prosecution.
webmobdev 5y ago
What many people don't realise is that the United States adopted and follows the old British empire's "divide and rule" policy. The aim of the "divide and rule" policy is to sow discord among your opponents and ensure that they don't unite and find a common cause against you. We indians are quite familiar with it, as it was most successfully used by the British against India - they exaggerated and nursed the fears and distrust in the Hindu and muslim community to divide us religiously (mostly in the north), they used the anger of the lower caste against the upper caste to create a political schism between them in south india, they used bribes and the fear of the masses with rich former rulers to ensure they wouldn't support the growing mass political movement demanding more rights and ultimately freedom, and so on. While the leaders of the Indian National Congress, especially Gandhi, did manage to politically unite them, there were political failures too that ultimately lead to partition of India and the formation of muslim Pakistan and secular India amidst one of the most horrible communal violence in the history of the sub-continent whose scars still haven't healed fully (which right-wing politicians in both India and Pakistan continue to try and exploit even today). The United States refined the "divide and rule" policy and took it one step further - they also started to use it to train and improve their military. Thus, they deliberately create conflict in every part of the world, and feed and exploit historical feuds to ensure that peace eludes these region and that the conflict ensures the countries involved don't settle their difference and work together (which can possibly mean against US interests). Towards this goal, they prefer to support dictators and despot, who support US goals, over democratic leaders who care more about their own nation. And if a conflict could be made worse, and lead to military conflict, the US did so and it provided a fertile ground to test new military munitions and provide experience to the new recruits (battle experience is a must to have a powerful military). Thus, the US (and its western allies) have continued to exploit and fuel the divisions and conflict between - Russia against NATO Europe, Pakistan against India, India against China, Japan against China, Korea against Japan, Saudi Arabia against Iran, Israel against the Middle East. South America and Africa also have seen a lot of violent conflicts, created by the US and the British respectively. Ofcourse, I am not ignoring the fact that some of the conflicts weren't started by the US (while some are actually a continuation of the British empires policy), even if it sought to exploit them. Nor am I naive enough to believe that another world power would do things differently. One other thing I find very interesting, historically, is that the rise of the US coincides with the move of the British to reign in corporates, like the East India Company (who had their own private army matching that of the British empire). Many businessmen thus sought to counter the might of the British monarchy, and they found an alternative in the US, which kind of explains why the US is so corporate friendly and something we need to also watch in trepidation - the US is already experimenting with privatising the Army (private mercenary contractors were hired in Middle-East during the gulf war, and in Afghanistan). After managing to privatise spying and building the largest surveillance network in the world, will the BigTech corporate from the US also succeed in getting their own private Army in the future? To me, that seems like the most likely future of the "US empire".

23 points by baybal2 5y ago

Ok, maybe I'm just out of the loop but this read like a long list of completely unsupported assumptions that I absolutely cannot justify with any version of present reality. Also the comparison with Britain, by his own admission, makes basically zero sense. Am I missing something here or is he just rambling for ad money?

paulpauper 5y ago
Agree . Just because two things seem similiar does not mean share the same outcome

paulpauper 5y ago

This historian has a pretty poor track record of predicting things. The fact the us cultural and economic and militaristic hegemony only increased following the fall of saigon refutes the premise of this article. dominance is more than physical occupation; it has to do with cultural spread and values.

redis_mlc 5y ago
The US only has one major problem at the moment: Biden appears to have dementia (reported since 2012), which allows people behind the scenes to gain control of US policy, and foreign countries to perceive the US as weak. Those people behind the scenes are Marxists, but at least they will not be able to pass any bills after the 2022 mid-terms. Biden is old enough to remember (if being of sound mind?) both the Benghazi attacks and the Iran hostage situation, so today's Afghanistan situation is ridiculous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack (Mortars are pretty big and heavy, usually taking 2-3 people to carry and set them up, so calling those "spontaneous attacks" is laughable.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis When you have 5,000 nuclear weapons pointed at you, you simply cannot have a President with dementia.

bushbaba 5y ago

It fails to mention china’s debt to gdp (much worse than the us) or demographic issues (aging population).

redis_mlc 5y ago
- China imports up to half of its food. Since Xi is a clone of Mao, he doesn't care if half the population dies of a famine, but there is a high risk of civil unrest over food. - China is totally reliant on fast chips from external vendors. All of their local high-end fab programs have failed, with around $30 billion just disappearing. - China uses forced organ harvesting (mainly Uighur) to pay for its national hospital system. This is corrosive for foreign relationships long-term, with Europe becoming aware of this. - China risks war with all of their neighbors after seizing the Himalayan headwaters. Since half of those countries are Muslim, combined with the above item, this get could ugly (go nuclear.) - China stopped capital repatriation around 2016, so there's huge financial risk in building or operating factories there since profits cannot be withdrawn. Ths risk today is 100% in fact - you can't get your money out for sales in the China market. In addition, China is copying car designs, etc. and selling into the Russian market, making mfgs. like Volkswagen re-think their China strategy. - China relies on a US Marxist government to turn a blind eye to the above. Another Republican or Trumpist government will destroy China with just Trump/Pompeo's 2020 policies, let alone a total ban from US capital markets. - In a war, a lot of the one-child policy males would die. Since those men are needed to support their parents in retirement, there would be a huge backlash against the govt. (The reason for all the naval exercises reported in the press is that the CCP has no confidence in their unproven navy. But note that the CCP has had operational nuclear submarines with MIRVs since 2010.)
einr 5y ago
"China’s population is ageing even faster than anticipated; its workforce is shrinking. Sky-high private-sector debt is weighing on growth."
- shsbdncudx 5y ago
  That’s weird, they age faster in China?

Barrin92 5y ago

Typical piece for a 20th century historian with a conservative bent but I think the comparisons between Russia/China/Iran and historical enemies etc are deeply misplaced and if you're looking for the end of the American empire much more focus ought to be spent on the state of liberal democracy in the US. China and Russia today are fundamentally not comparable to the Soviet Union or even Nazi Germany which is an insulting comparison when one considers the damage done by the Axis forces to either country. Today even though there is conflict there's no stark ideological opposition as such, there is no real cold war. The global economy is still integrated, climate change is a global issue, and so on. The aging population, strength of conventional weaponry and so on make great power war seem absurdly costly. When he starts quoting Churchill on the intelligentsia engaging in 'self-hatred' it becomes very obvious that Ferguson isn't interested in questioning the weaknesses of liberal democracy but rather demands loyalty to 'king and country' in the face of external threats. Activism is portrayed in the same light, even compared to Soviet sympathizers during the cold war. This narrative of self-reflection as weakness is I think one of the big reasons why the US struggles. There is little reform, little intellectual capacity to envision alternative futures, and secular malaise and stagnation.

peakaboo 5y ago
You put it in a much better way than I ever could. But there is something fundamentally wrong with how the leaders of America thinks of themselves in relation to the public. They act like Kings, not servants.
- euroderf 5y ago
  Yes it is neofeudal. There are broad swathes of the population (mainly in goverment & business) that are apparently immune to meaningful oversight and/or criminal prosecution.

webmobdev 5y ago

What many people don't realise is that the United States adopted and follows the old British empire's "divide and rule" policy. The aim of the "divide and rule" policy is to sow discord among your opponents and ensure that they don't unite and find a common cause against you. We indians are quite familiar with it, as it was most successfully used by the British against India - they exaggerated and nursed the fears and distrust in the Hindu and muslim community to divide us religiously (mostly in the north), they used the anger of the lower caste against the upper caste to create a political schism between them in south india, they used bribes and the fear of the masses with rich former rulers to ensure they wouldn't support the growing mass political movement demanding more rights and ultimately freedom, and so on. While the leaders of the Indian National Congress, especially Gandhi, did manage to politically unite them, there were political failures too that ultimately lead to partition of India and the formation of muslim Pakistan and secular India amidst one of the most horrible communal violence in the history of the sub-continent whose scars still haven't healed fully (which right-wing politicians in both India and Pakistan continue to try and exploit even today). The United States refined the "divide and rule" policy and took it one step further - they also started to use it to train and improve their military. Thus, they deliberately create conflict in every part of the world, and feed and exploit historical feuds to ensure that peace eludes these region and that the conflict ensures the countries involved don't settle their difference and work together (which can possibly mean against US interests). Towards this goal, they prefer to support dictators and despot, who support US goals, over democratic leaders who care more about their own nation. And if a conflict could be made worse, and lead to military conflict, the US did so and it provided a fertile ground to test new military munitions and provide experience to the new recruits (battle experience is a must to have a powerful military). Thus, the US (and its western allies) have continued to exploit and fuel the divisions and conflict between - Russia against NATO Europe, Pakistan against India, India against China, Japan against China, Korea against Japan, Saudi Arabia against Iran, Israel against the Middle East. South America and Africa also have seen a lot of violent conflicts, created by the US and the British respectively. Ofcourse, I am not ignoring the fact that some of the conflicts weren't started by the US (while some are actually a continuation of the British empires policy), even if it sought to exploit them. Nor am I naive enough to believe that another world power would do things differently. One other thing I find very interesting, historically, is that the rise of the US coincides with the move of the British to reign in corporates, like the East India Company (who had their own private army matching that of the British empire). Many businessmen thus sought to counter the might of the British monarchy, and they found an alternative in the US, which kind of explains why the US is so corporate friendly and something we need to also watch in trepidation - the US is already experimenting with privatising the Army (private mercenary contractors were hired in Middle-East during the gulf war, and in Afghanistan). After managing to privatise spying and building the largest surveillance network in the world, will the BigTech corporate from the US also succeed in getting their own private Army in the future? To me, that seems like the most likely future of the "US empire".