Hot wars, cold wars, lukewarm wars, trade wars, 3rd party wars, cyberwars, proxy wars, whatever -- they're all, as Clausewitz might put it, 'a continuation of politics with an admixture of other means'. The mistake is in thinking that the dividing line between any of these various adversarial 'conditions' is black & white.
To say the Cold War was over is to confuse a moderate change in the 'temperature' of antagonism with a seismic sea change in Global Relations. It wasn’t that at all. The literal & metaphorical collapse of the ‘Berlin Wall’ simply indicated that the historical over-extension of the Soviet Union had triggered a long-anticipated retrenchement in Moscow’s global strategies. As a result, the world entered a slightly different phase in the post-war Pax Americana in which American global dominance (military & economic) post-collapse had no clear or reasonably equivalent challengers.
Life was good.
But in the intervening 36 years, Russia has regained a certain & definitely aggressive global footing (especially in the face of a ‘soft’ Western Europe) while China’s economic and military might has exponentially expanded. As described in a 2024 summary: “China’s military is on a wartime footing, underpinned by a defense industrial base rapidly developing and producing weapons systems intended to deter the U.S. – or, should deterrence fail, to position Beijing for victory in a great-power conflict. Defense spending has surged this year, with official Chinese data indicating a 7.2 percent increase, the third consecutive year of growth exceeding 7 percent. China has become the world’s largest shipbuilder, with a capacity 230 times greater than that of the U.S. Its navy is the largest globally, and its arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles is expanding at an unprecedented rate, with its nuclear stockpile growing faster than any other nation.”
Why do we think they’re doing that?
As Americans we prefer the clarity of hard-edges with ideological winners & losers quite clearly and permanently defined...but the world does not typically work like that. So when Trump applies the same kind of 'realpolitik' logic which drives both Russian & China, America (especially its globalist elite) tends to find its harshness somewhat disconcerting.
Glenn says, “I don’t fear the onset of a new world order” ... but perhaps he should? I would suggest that China’s policy is very clearly the creation of that new, and very Sino-centric world order in which the world we’ve all grown-up in diminishes and in many ways, goes away. In such a place the West would most probably enter a condition that some would call, ‘Dhimmitude’ in which the Judeo-Christian ethos and Western Culture in general no longer would serve as the de-facto cultural template for the globe.
I would also suggest that ‘we would not like this, not one little bit’.
Glenn fears – we all fear – the unthinkable devastation of nuclear war...and hot war in general. No one wants to plunge over that cliff. But we live in a multi-cliff world, and plunging over any of them – either in a horribly misguided attempt to assert dominance, or in an equally horrible attempt to avoid conflict over the assertion of dominance (as typically sent in Left Progressive administrations) – ends in disaster. The difference being, as Eliot put it: One with a Bang, and one with a Whimper. We would hope and pray that the priority of those in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing is to avoid BOTH.
Thanks for taking my question. To clarify my own view, I think US involvement in international conflict has at times, esepcially in recent years, been disastrous. I think the cost of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan for example was extremely high and the US is still paying for it.
Ukraine goes in a different category for me than Iraq for 2 important reasons: 1) In Iraq, we were testing out the disastrous theory of "preemptive war," attacking someone to stop them from being able to attack us some time in the future, while Ukraine was attacked. 2) No US troops in Ukraine.
I agree that war in Iran would be disastrous for the US, but I also think that any President (Trump included even though the normal rules of politics often don't apply to him), who commits US forces to war will quickly lose the support of the public. So I am not too worried about that. I am more worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons.
I think the international norm that I am most concerned about Trump smashing is the post-WW2 norm that countries stay within their borders rather than launching wars of aggression against weaker neighbors. That norm was good, and Trump ending it is awful. The US has no moral standing to oppose wars of aggression by other nations while we are saber rattling about expanding our territory at the expense of Canada, Denmark, Panama, and even Gaza.
Hot wars, cold wars, lukewarm wars, trade wars, 3rd party wars, cyberwars, proxy wars, whatever -- they're all, as Clausewitz might put it, 'a continuation of politics with an admixture of other means'. The mistake is in thinking that the dividing line between any of these various adversarial 'conditions' is black & white.
To say the Cold War was over is to confuse a moderate change in the 'temperature' of antagonism with a seismic sea change in Global Relations. It wasn’t that at all. The literal & metaphorical collapse of the ‘Berlin Wall’ simply indicated that the historical over-extension of the Soviet Union had triggered a long-anticipated retrenchement in Moscow’s global strategies. As a result, the world entered a slightly different phase in the post-war Pax Americana in which American global dominance (military & economic) post-collapse had no clear or reasonably equivalent challengers.
Life was good.
But in the intervening 36 years, Russia has regained a certain & definitely aggressive global footing (especially in the face of a ‘soft’ Western Europe) while China’s economic and military might has exponentially expanded. As described in a 2024 summary: “China’s military is on a wartime footing, underpinned by a defense industrial base rapidly developing and producing weapons systems intended to deter the U.S. – or, should deterrence fail, to position Beijing for victory in a great-power conflict. Defense spending has surged this year, with official Chinese data indicating a 7.2 percent increase, the third consecutive year of growth exceeding 7 percent. China has become the world’s largest shipbuilder, with a capacity 230 times greater than that of the U.S. Its navy is the largest globally, and its arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles is expanding at an unprecedented rate, with its nuclear stockpile growing faster than any other nation.”
Why do we think they’re doing that?
As Americans we prefer the clarity of hard-edges with ideological winners & losers quite clearly and permanently defined...but the world does not typically work like that. So when Trump applies the same kind of 'realpolitik' logic which drives both Russian & China, America (especially its globalist elite) tends to find its harshness somewhat disconcerting.
Glenn says, “I don’t fear the onset of a new world order” ... but perhaps he should? I would suggest that China’s policy is very clearly the creation of that new, and very Sino-centric world order in which the world we’ve all grown-up in diminishes and in many ways, goes away. In such a place the West would most probably enter a condition that some would call, ‘Dhimmitude’ in which the Judeo-Christian ethos and Western Culture in general no longer would serve as the de-facto cultural template for the globe.
I would also suggest that ‘we would not like this, not one little bit’.
Glenn fears – we all fear – the unthinkable devastation of nuclear war...and hot war in general. No one wants to plunge over that cliff. But we live in a multi-cliff world, and plunging over any of them – either in a horribly misguided attempt to assert dominance, or in an equally horrible attempt to avoid conflict over the assertion of dominance (as typically sent in Left Progressive administrations) – ends in disaster. The difference being, as Eliot put it: One with a Bang, and one with a Whimper. We would hope and pray that the priority of those in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing is to avoid BOTH.
Good points here. But a lot of words to essentially say we're letting them beat us at our own game.
That does seem shorter!
(I figured I'd add the rest for those who still 'want to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony!')
??? This makes no sense.
Ah, sorry. Figured you'd recognize the reference. Too young I guess!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib-Qiyklq-Q
Def not too young! Lol. (was in high school when that came out)And my bad...had your point a bit twisted around. Age, I suppose.
Thanks for taking my question. To clarify my own view, I think US involvement in international conflict has at times, esepcially in recent years, been disastrous. I think the cost of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan for example was extremely high and the US is still paying for it.
Ukraine goes in a different category for me than Iraq for 2 important reasons: 1) In Iraq, we were testing out the disastrous theory of "preemptive war," attacking someone to stop them from being able to attack us some time in the future, while Ukraine was attacked. 2) No US troops in Ukraine.
I agree that war in Iran would be disastrous for the US, but I also think that any President (Trump included even though the normal rules of politics often don't apply to him), who commits US forces to war will quickly lose the support of the public. So I am not too worried about that. I am more worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons.
I think the international norm that I am most concerned about Trump smashing is the post-WW2 norm that countries stay within their borders rather than launching wars of aggression against weaker neighbors. That norm was good, and Trump ending it is awful. The US has no moral standing to oppose wars of aggression by other nations while we are saber rattling about expanding our territory at the expense of Canada, Denmark, Panama, and even Gaza.