4 ms·

Interesting, elaborate?

pram 4y ago
Seems to me shifting the narrative to an emerging 'multi-polar' world from the 'uni-polar' US hegemony might solidify alliances more than they otherwise would have been. Kinda like during the cold war you were on one team or another, no trying to play multiple sides.
- erikerikson 4y ago
  Shifting to a multi-polar that in essence agrees to the best possible outcome, even as we explore it, seems perfectly within the interests of all. Such an alliance can be more stable and productive while guarding against misuse of the single point of control.
  - spamizbad 4y ago
    Not sure I agree with that in practice, but maybe my understanding of history is flawed. Was the humanity better off during the Bi-polar era of the Cold War, with continuously escalating nuclear threats and proxy wars vs 1991-2010? What about the multi-polar world of 1919-1938?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > a multi-polar that in essence agrees to the best possible outcome, even as we explore it, seems perfectly within the interests of all Multi-polarity is generally code for regional hegemony. That's great if you're the regional hegemon. Not so much if you're the hegemon's neighbor. America is a maritime power. These (think: Carthage, Venice, Portugal, the Dutch and Britain; counterfactual: Japan) have historically relied on trade, and trading outposts, to project power. As such, they're a natural friend of small countries resisting regional hegemony.
    - tdba 4y ago
      So it's better to be dominated by an even bigger hegemon from further away? >natural friend of small countries resisting regional hegemony Consider Cuba or Venezuela and their relationship to the USA.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > it's better to be dominated by an even bigger hegemon from further away? Objectively, yes. In no small part because maritime powers tend to knit together alliances, not annex and colonise the way land powers do. > Consider Cuba or Venezuela and their relationship to the USA In both these cases, we are the regional hegemon.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    This is the exact opposite of the truth. Multi-polariry always leads to war because there's no hegemon with a monopoly on force. States are in anarchy, after all. In an anarchic situation in the presence of information asymmetries and opposing interests, you always get war. Aside from nukes, unipolarity is the only reason for the unprecedented levels of peace we've seen since 1990. This is realism 101.
    - SyzygistSix 4y ago
      >States are in anarchy, after all.
  - quickthrowman 4y ago
    World War I and World War II happened because of a multi-polar geopolitical power balance. I’d prefer not to live through World War III, now that nuclear weapons exist. There is no organization that can prevent one state from going to war with another, I believe a multi-polar world would inevitably lead to a global scale conflict.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  > Kinda like during the cold war you were on one team or another, no trying to play multiple sides. Tangential to your comment, but in fact there was another path, spearheaded by, among others, India. It's where we get the term "third world", which became shorthand for "developing" because basically no developed countries joined this "third world" movement ("first world" being the so-called West, "second" being the Soviets).

pram 4y ago

Seems to me shifting the narrative to an emerging 'multi-polar' world from the 'uni-polar' US hegemony might solidify alliances more than they otherwise would have been. Kinda like during the cold war you were on one team or another, no trying to play multiple sides.

erikerikson 4y ago
Shifting to a multi-polar that in essence agrees to the best possible outcome, even as we explore it, seems perfectly within the interests of all. Such an alliance can be more stable and productive while guarding against misuse of the single point of control.
- spamizbad 4y ago
  Not sure I agree with that in practice, but maybe my understanding of history is flawed. Was the humanity better off during the Bi-polar era of the Cold War, with continuously escalating nuclear threats and proxy wars vs 1991-2010? What about the multi-polar world of 1919-1938?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > a multi-polar that in essence agrees to the best possible outcome, even as we explore it, seems perfectly within the interests of all Multi-polarity is generally code for regional hegemony. That's great if you're the regional hegemon. Not so much if you're the hegemon's neighbor. America is a maritime power. These (think: Carthage, Venice, Portugal, the Dutch and Britain; counterfactual: Japan) have historically relied on trade, and trading outposts, to project power. As such, they're a natural friend of small countries resisting regional hegemony.
  - tdba 4y ago
    So it's better to be dominated by an even bigger hegemon from further away? >natural friend of small countries resisting regional hegemony Consider Cuba or Venezuela and their relationship to the USA.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > it's better to be dominated by an even bigger hegemon from further away? Objectively, yes. In no small part because maritime powers tend to knit together alliances, not annex and colonise the way land powers do. > Consider Cuba or Venezuela and their relationship to the USA In both these cases, we are the regional hegemon.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  This is the exact opposite of the truth. Multi-polariry always leads to war because there's no hegemon with a monopoly on force. States are in anarchy, after all. In an anarchic situation in the presence of information asymmetries and opposing interests, you always get war. Aside from nukes, unipolarity is the only reason for the unprecedented levels of peace we've seen since 1990. This is realism 101.
  - SyzygistSix 4y ago
    >States are in anarchy, after all.
- quickthrowman 4y ago
  World War I and World War II happened because of a multi-polar geopolitical power balance. I’d prefer not to live through World War III, now that nuclear weapons exist. There is no organization that can prevent one state from going to war with another, I believe a multi-polar world would inevitably lead to a global scale conflict.
yamtaddle 4y ago
> Kinda like during the cold war you were on one team or another, no trying to play multiple sides. Tangential to your comment, but in fact there was another path, spearheaded by, among others, India. It's where we get the term "third world", which became shorthand for "developing" because basically no developed countries joined this "third world" movement ("first world" being the so-called West, "second" being the Soviets).