6 ms·

My hunch is that the real geopolitical upheaval of the next 50-100 years will be post-decolonization. A number of these nations were thrown together by a compl

My hunch is that the real geopolitical upheaval of the next 50-100 years will be post-decolonization. A number of these nations were thrown together by a completely foreign power not just with an interest in splitting countries up or grouping them together but doing so in a way that prevents them becoming a peer level opponent.

pphysch 4y ago
50-100 years is quite a long time; it's already happening at an accelerating rate. Washington is rapidly losing its foothold in Latin America and SEA, France is losing West Africa. The West is in an unprecedented crisis right now and will be unable to compete with the next gen foreign policies coming out of China, Russia, and the many other "enemy states".
- HappySweeney 4y ago
  Could you elaborate on "next gen foreign policies"?
  - selimthegrim 4y ago
    Maybe he’s been listening to Zaid Hamid too much.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    Not OP, but I would offer "not sanctioning/embargoing a third of the world"...
  - pphysch 4y ago
    BRI, BRICS+, SCO, EAEU/"petroruble". the post-Washington Consensus
    - daemoens 4y ago
      The "post-Washingtion consensus" is too fragmented to have any real coordinated actions. BRICS is not some united force willing to work together. BRICS was meant for economies of similar scale to work together. China is already more than three times the size of the other 4 combined.The only thing that aligns all 5 now is generally anti-americanism which isn't much of a unifying force. China and India continue to worsen ties and Russia has become a bit of a pariah. Brazil and South Africa are too far apart from the rest for any meaningful cooperation.
      - pphysch 4y ago
        Judging by the global reaction to the Ukraine war, the post-Washington order is less fragmented than the Washington-centric order.
        daemoens 4y ago
        Yes because they have nothing to gain from sanctioning Russia. But they also have virtually no trade with it so whether they sanctioned it or not means nothing. Russia trades mostly with Europe and China, not BRICS. And the sanctions have already clearly dug in.
        pphysch 4y ago
        In theory, they have a lot to gain: brownie points with Washington. Unfortunately, almost no one respects Washington anymore. That ship has sailed. The end result is that the Russian economy is afloat while the transatlantic power structure is collapsing.
        daemoens 4y ago
        Brownie points mean less than nothing. Nations do not upon brownie points, just their self interests. If Brazil sanctioned Russia it would mean nothing and Washington would see it as such.
        4y ago
    - daemoens 4y ago
      What petroruble? Barely any countries are paying for gas in rubles, and the rest of the world certainly isn't.
      - binnerhn01 4y ago
- ta8645 4y ago
  China is in the midst of a demographic collapse, and will be struggling with internal issues for decades, they're not going to be a threat. Russia is isolated and may lose most of their energy export revenues. They're not going to be a threat to anyone but their immediate neighbours. But globalization, that has been enabled by the American military, may be coming to an end. The US armed forces are retooling in a way less geared to policing global merchant shipping. This signals a likely return to more local trade, controlled by regional powers. We have been lucky to live in the richest, most prosperous era of human history. But the party seems to be winding down, and most of us and our heirs, will be living more modest lives, with reduced travel, diversity of goods, diet, and wealth.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    Yeah, that is Zeihan's narrative, very sparsely backed by holistic analysis.
- jollybean 4y ago
  ? Did you miss the last 100 years of history? That already happened. 1/2 after WW1, the other 1/2 after WW2. That was the story of the 20th century. We're in a new era now.
  - pphysch 4y ago
    If you think the 20th century was the century of decolonization, you haven't dug very deep. The Congo is a good example. One year after achieving independence in 1960, its sovereign leader was assassinated and replaced with neocolonial puppets. In the last 60 years, that "independent" country has been brutally exploited by foreign profiteers. A microcosm of the global south during the 20th century.
    - jollybean 4y ago
      The DRC is not remotely in any way a colonial vassal. It's laughable to suggest they could be exploited by 'Colonial Powers' when they can't even get electricity where they need it. 'Outside Force' for exploitation, sure, but it's always been thus. 'Western Influence' - sure, but mostly in the name of 'stability'. The 'West' can really only benefit from these places when they are stable enough to start to form contracts for export, which most of these places are not. Those that are, and ruled by dictators, fine, as long as it's 'stable' and as a state they play well. Otherwise, the 'big prize' is when these places are stable enough that they have 'consumers' who can 'consume' iPhones and KFC. How many iPhones exported to DNC? How many iPhones can they buy when it's total rampant murder and chaos? How many can they buy when the are stable, have an industrial base, have banking, laws etc? Which situation do you think Apple, Google, Amazon, Disney prefer?
- kranke155 4y ago
robocat 4y ago
> splitting countries up or grouping them together [] in a way that prevents them becoming a peer level opponent. Any links to research that shows (a) this was the intent, and (b) shows that it works? Aren’t there plenty of counterexamples to that thesis (null hypothesis), of more homogeneous nations or island nations where countries haven’t become “first world”. Even the USA is rooted in non-homogeneous immigration.
- throw_m239339 4y ago
  > Even the USA is rooted in non-homogeneous immigration. USA used to be mostly Northern European and christian (protestant), black slaves who were moved there by force or pre European colonization inhabitants were never considered part of the foundations of US. US foundations were anything but non-homogeneous. Now after WWII, US attempted to replace the racial and religious identity at the heart of "americanship" with some idealistic identity based on american exceptionalism, the american dream and the cult of the american imagery (flag, eagle, colors...). No need to point out that this re-invention of "americanship" is slowly crumbling as we speak. Who knows what will remain of that cohesion in the next 50 years.
  - Calavar 4y ago
    You're applying a 21st century post-globalization lens to a 18th century world. Sure, today a German is welcome in France or the UK and seen as more or less equal. In the 1700s, there wasn't even a concept of equality for subcultures within a single country, let alone different cultures in different countries. See Scottish/English relations or Parisian/Occitan relations or Flemish/Dutch relations. The fact that people of Anglo-Saxon descent and people of Scots-Irish descent had an equal hand in the early US government was remarkable in and of itself, let alone the fact that the Catholic population in Maryland had equal rights under the law from day one.
    - throw_m239339 4y ago
      > You're applying a 21st century post-globalization lens to a 18th century world. because we're discussing 20th/21st century geopolitics at first place? Of course I am. Pakistan or India didn't exist in the 18th century, in fact these are British constructs. > The fact that people of Anglo-Saxon descent and people of Scots-Irish descent had an equal hand in the early US government was remarkable in and of itself, let alone the fact that the Catholic population in Maryland had equal rights under the law from day one. Yes, fighting against the British empire certainly was an efficient motivator. But still black people and indigenous populations were still left out of what you consider a feat.
spaceman_2020 4y ago
You’re 100% right. Democracies are going to collapse in a lot of places because the people in these places never really wanted democracy or even cared much for it. They were just handed it down because the people the colonizers left in charge were born and bred within the colonizer’s own political systems.
- rayiner 4y ago
  Good example: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial-india/ https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial... Although I think it's not quite about "democracy." Many people don't want liberal democracy. They might be fine with non-liberal democracy: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/08/shadi-hamid-on-islamic-exceptionalism.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/08/shadi-hamid-on-i...
- PradeetPatel 4y ago
  Which arguably may not be a bad thing. Letting the indigenous people of the land govern it according to their own cultural norms and values will allow new and diverse values to flourish.
  - xvector 4y ago
    "Cultural norms" and "diverse values" like the oppression and subjugation of women, or mass government censorship as above? Some nations don't deserve the sovereignty they have. I don't think anyone would shed a tear if the UAE was taken over and replaced by a government that actually guarantees some basic human rights.
    - dendriti 4y ago
      You do know that the oppression and subjugation of women and minorities was often brought by colonizers, right? Singapore's anti-homosexual laws, for example, were promulgated by the British. They didn't always bring enlightenment.
      - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jollybean 4y ago
N1) no, that phase mostly already happened. It's what took place after WW2 and was the battle ground for the cold war. That's a little bit Pakistan can into existence in the first place. Singapore, Jamaica, heck, even Canada made it's own constitution. Most of Africa (both sub saharan and north saharan), much of the Middle East. Huge portion of the world map. 2) This 'Colonials set everything pit one group against the other' is also wrong. Obviously, there were favourites and artifacts of that, but for the most part, left to their own devices, it would still be tribal chaos in most places. The presupposition in that anti-colonial statment is that somehow, before foreign intervention, things worked in some meaningful way. In most places, it did not, and, there were previous colonial/external interventions. i.e. Ottoman Empire ruled over much of the Middle East ruthlessly, previous Islamic Caliphates were all over NE Africa with the slave trade for many centuries etc. etc.. Relatively few places are like 'Thailand' with a fairly coherent history.
rajeshp1986 4y ago
Absolutely, the neighbor Afghanistan is an example. US tried so hard to enforce democracy but in the end it didn't work. Western Media might say it was unplanned and chaotic evacuation by US but large swath of population supported Taliban and welcomed them.
- sk0g 4y ago
  Conversely, when I was in Iran some 10-15 years ago, a few people mentioned wanting to be bombed/ freed from the government by the US. Our taxi driver in particular seemed to have a rosy mental image of what was going on in Afghanistan, which was quite surprising.

pphysch 4y ago

50-100 years is quite a long time; it's already happening at an accelerating rate. Washington is rapidly losing its foothold in Latin America and SEA, France is losing West Africa. The West is in an unprecedented crisis right now and will be unable to compete with the next gen foreign policies coming out of China, Russia, and the many other "enemy states".

HappySweeney 4y ago
Could you elaborate on "next gen foreign policies"?
- selimthegrim 4y ago
  Maybe he’s been listening to Zaid Hamid too much.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Not OP, but I would offer "not sanctioning/embargoing a third of the world"...
- pphysch 4y ago
  BRI, BRICS+, SCO, EAEU/"petroruble". the post-Washington Consensus
  - daemoens 4y ago
    The "post-Washingtion consensus" is too fragmented to have any real coordinated actions. BRICS is not some united force willing to work together. BRICS was meant for economies of similar scale to work together. China is already more than three times the size of the other 4 combined.The only thing that aligns all 5 now is generally anti-americanism which isn't much of a unifying force. China and India continue to worsen ties and Russia has become a bit of a pariah. Brazil and South Africa are too far apart from the rest for any meaningful cooperation.
    - pphysch 4y ago
      Judging by the global reaction to the Ukraine war, the post-Washington order is less fragmented than the Washington-centric order.
      - daemoens 4y ago
        Yes because they have nothing to gain from sanctioning Russia. But they also have virtually no trade with it so whether they sanctioned it or not means nothing. Russia trades mostly with Europe and China, not BRICS. And the sanctions have already clearly dug in.
        pphysch 4y ago
        In theory, they have a lot to gain: brownie points with Washington. Unfortunately, almost no one respects Washington anymore. That ship has sailed. The end result is that the Russian economy is afloat while the transatlantic power structure is collapsing.
        daemoens 4y ago
        Brownie points mean less than nothing. Nations do not upon brownie points, just their self interests. If Brazil sanctioned Russia it would mean nothing and Washington would see it as such.
        4y ago
  - daemoens 4y ago
    What petroruble? Barely any countries are paying for gas in rubles, and the rest of the world certainly isn't.
    - binnerhn01 4y ago
ta8645 4y ago
China is in the midst of a demographic collapse, and will be struggling with internal issues for decades, they're not going to be a threat. Russia is isolated and may lose most of their energy export revenues. They're not going to be a threat to anyone but their immediate neighbours. But globalization, that has been enabled by the American military, may be coming to an end. The US armed forces are retooling in a way less geared to policing global merchant shipping. This signals a likely return to more local trade, controlled by regional powers. We have been lucky to live in the richest, most prosperous era of human history. But the party seems to be winding down, and most of us and our heirs, will be living more modest lives, with reduced travel, diversity of goods, diet, and wealth.
- pphysch 4y ago
  Yeah, that is Zeihan's narrative, very sparsely backed by holistic analysis.
jollybean 4y ago
? Did you miss the last 100 years of history? That already happened. 1/2 after WW1, the other 1/2 after WW2. That was the story of the 20th century. We're in a new era now.
- pphysch 4y ago
  If you think the 20th century was the century of decolonization, you haven't dug very deep. The Congo is a good example. One year after achieving independence in 1960, its sovereign leader was assassinated and replaced with neocolonial puppets. In the last 60 years, that "independent" country has been brutally exploited by foreign profiteers. A microcosm of the global south during the 20th century.
  - jollybean 4y ago
    The DRC is not remotely in any way a colonial vassal. It's laughable to suggest they could be exploited by 'Colonial Powers' when they can't even get electricity where they need it. 'Outside Force' for exploitation, sure, but it's always been thus. 'Western Influence' - sure, but mostly in the name of 'stability'. The 'West' can really only benefit from these places when they are stable enough to start to form contracts for export, which most of these places are not. Those that are, and ruled by dictators, fine, as long as it's 'stable' and as a state they play well. Otherwise, the 'big prize' is when these places are stable enough that they have 'consumers' who can 'consume' iPhones and KFC. How many iPhones exported to DNC? How many iPhones can they buy when it's total rampant murder and chaos? How many can they buy when the are stable, have an industrial base, have banking, laws etc? Which situation do you think Apple, Google, Amazon, Disney prefer?
kranke155 4y ago

robocat 4y ago

> splitting countries up or grouping them together [] in a way that prevents them becoming a peer level opponent. Any links to research that shows (a) this was the intent, and (b) shows that it works? Aren’t there plenty of counterexamples to that thesis (null hypothesis), of more homogeneous nations or island nations where countries haven’t become “first world”. Even the USA is rooted in non-homogeneous immigration.

throw_m239339 4y ago
> Even the USA is rooted in non-homogeneous immigration. USA used to be mostly Northern European and christian (protestant), black slaves who were moved there by force or pre European colonization inhabitants were never considered part of the foundations of US. US foundations were anything but non-homogeneous. Now after WWII, US attempted to replace the racial and religious identity at the heart of "americanship" with some idealistic identity based on american exceptionalism, the american dream and the cult of the american imagery (flag, eagle, colors...). No need to point out that this re-invention of "americanship" is slowly crumbling as we speak. Who knows what will remain of that cohesion in the next 50 years.
- Calavar 4y ago
  You're applying a 21st century post-globalization lens to a 18th century world. Sure, today a German is welcome in France or the UK and seen as more or less equal. In the 1700s, there wasn't even a concept of equality for subcultures within a single country, let alone different cultures in different countries. See Scottish/English relations or Parisian/Occitan relations or Flemish/Dutch relations. The fact that people of Anglo-Saxon descent and people of Scots-Irish descent had an equal hand in the early US government was remarkable in and of itself, let alone the fact that the Catholic population in Maryland had equal rights under the law from day one.
  - throw_m239339 4y ago
    > You're applying a 21st century post-globalization lens to a 18th century world. because we're discussing 20th/21st century geopolitics at first place? Of course I am. Pakistan or India didn't exist in the 18th century, in fact these are British constructs. > The fact that people of Anglo-Saxon descent and people of Scots-Irish descent had an equal hand in the early US government was remarkable in and of itself, let alone the fact that the Catholic population in Maryland had equal rights under the law from day one. Yes, fighting against the British empire certainly was an efficient motivator. But still black people and indigenous populations were still left out of what you consider a feat.

spaceman_2020 4y ago

You’re 100% right. Democracies are going to collapse in a lot of places because the people in these places never really wanted democracy or even cared much for it. They were just handed it down because the people the colonizers left in charge were born and bred within the colonizer’s own political systems.

rayiner 4y ago
Good example: https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial-india/ https://unherd.com/2021/04/the-culture-wars-of-post-colonial... Although I think it's not quite about "democracy." Many people don't want liberal democracy. They might be fine with non-liberal democracy: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/08/shadi-hamid-on-islamic-exceptionalism.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/08/shadi-hamid-on-i...
PradeetPatel 4y ago
Which arguably may not be a bad thing. Letting the indigenous people of the land govern it according to their own cultural norms and values will allow new and diverse values to flourish.
- xvector 4y ago
  "Cultural norms" and "diverse values" like the oppression and subjugation of women, or mass government censorship as above? Some nations don't deserve the sovereignty they have. I don't think anyone would shed a tear if the UAE was taken over and replaced by a government that actually guarantees some basic human rights.
  - dendriti 4y ago
    You do know that the oppression and subjugation of women and minorities was often brought by colonizers, right? Singapore's anti-homosexual laws, for example, were promulgated by the British. They didn't always bring enlightenment.
    - 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jollybean 4y ago

N1) no, that phase mostly already happened. It's what took place after WW2 and was the battle ground for the cold war. That's a little bit Pakistan can into existence in the first place. Singapore, Jamaica, heck, even Canada made it's own constitution. Most of Africa (both sub saharan and north saharan), much of the Middle East. Huge portion of the world map. 2) This 'Colonials set everything pit one group against the other' is also wrong. Obviously, there were favourites and artifacts of that, but for the most part, left to their own devices, it would still be tribal chaos in most places. The presupposition in that anti-colonial statment is that somehow, before foreign intervention, things worked in some meaningful way. In most places, it did not, and, there were previous colonial/external interventions. i.e. Ottoman Empire ruled over much of the Middle East ruthlessly, previous Islamic Caliphates were all over NE Africa with the slave trade for many centuries etc. etc.. Relatively few places are like 'Thailand' with a fairly coherent history.

rajeshp1986 4y ago

Absolutely, the neighbor Afghanistan is an example. US tried so hard to enforce democracy but in the end it didn't work. Western Media might say it was unplanned and chaotic evacuation by US but large swath of population supported Taliban and welcomed them.

sk0g 4y ago
Conversely, when I was in Iran some 10-15 years ago, a few people mentioned wanting to be bombed/ freed from the government by the US. Our taxi driver in particular seemed to have a rosy mental image of what was going on in Afghanistan, which was quite surprising.