Skip Navigation
58 comments

  • To be fair, a multipolar world is fine. It's not in our, or anyone else's really, interests to try to dictate to other overseas peoples how they should structure their lives and governments. We did give it a shot, make no mistake, but it doesn't tend to work out all that well.

    We have no ability to stop the rise of places like China and India though, so fine, rise. We'll only run into problems if this whole "spheres of influence" thing makes them think they can attack someone we have a security treaty with. That would be a problem.

    You want to use economic or social power instead of military power though? Try to convince people instead of force them at gunpoint? Fine. No big deal. These methods honor their freedom. That's a multipolar world we can work with.

    • In principle I agree, but the other poles are fucking with "us" though. Let's define "us" as the NATO-aligned countries.

      India is offing political dissidents in Canada and the US (that's an honorable mention, since the US assassins were caught). China is setting up "police stations" in Western countries to intimidate ex-pats, not to mention the ongoing industrial espionage thing. Russia and North Korea seem to be conducting regular cyber attacks against NATO members (including civilian targets). And we've resigned ourselves to constant misinformation campaigns (+ election meddling) from Russia, China, and Iran.

      If other poles follow the same gentleman's agreement, that works out. But I'm not sure how "we" can take the high road when other countries aren't.

      • To play devils advocate - the "gentlemans agreement" you speak of isn't perfect. The US was caught spying on Germany. I'm pretty sure the US & UK are only such tight allies because of shared intelligence gathering.

        Also the US has shown twice (WWI & II) that allies are expendable until America is threatened directly.

      • Fair arguments. I would say, though, that none of these rise to the level of military hostility, they're still forms of economic and social contest, with a healthy dose of espionage. Thus, we can respond in kind. This will not prevent their rise, nor the return of some kind of Cold War mentality. But it will still allow us to protect ourselves as an alternative to authoritarianism, which is what is most important.

        Nothing wrong with self defense, or defense of ones allies, or responding to subtle hostilities with other subtle hostilities. The key is to understand how different these are from outright, full-blown warfare, and to maintain that distinction for the sake of planetary stability and not all dying in a hot war, potentially going a little extra-hot.

        The trickiest part is the information warfare, since we can't always respond in a similar way due to intense authoritarian controls of their local information spaces. We're largely on the defense in that arena, though we should counter as best we can while we build up our own defenses. Economic counters like Trump's trade war are an option, but need to be more carefully calculated at strategic "chokepoints" than just broadly slapping down a bunch of tariffs and calling it a day. The microchip restrictions were a good move in this direction.

        An important thing to remember is we can't control everything. There is zero possibility of success for a ground invasion of the Chinese mainland, for instance, so we do need to work within what is realistic and able to be accomplished.

        In India's case, I think careful diplomacy can still accomplish our goals to the satisfaction of both parties. I would expect any rising power to "test the waters", so to speak, they're not supposed to just cower before our might or something. But we can handle this in a more civil manner, so far.

        edit: Didn't expect the complex middle-ground position to be popular, but nobody wants to actually respond?

    • Well said

  • This is the best summary I could come up with:

    With a divided electorate and gridlock in Congress, the next American president could easily become consumed by manifold challenges at home — before even beginning to address flashpoints around the world from Ukraine to the Middle East.

    In campaign speeches, Trump remains skeptical of organizations such as NATO, often lamenting the billions the U.S. spends on the military alliance whose support has been critical to Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s invasion.

    Politics at University College London, said that whoever wins the presidential race, the direction of travel will be the same – toward a multipolar planet in which the United States is no longer “the indisputable world superpower.”

    Germany is the second-largest donor of military aid to Kyiv, behind the U.S., but Scholz recently told Die Zeit that the country couldn’t fill any gap on its own if “the U.S.A. ceased to be a supporter.”

    China, where leaders’ initial warmth toward Trump soured into tit-for-tat tariffs and rising tensions, little changed under Biden, who continued his predecessor’s tough stance toward the United States’ strategic rival.

    Associated Press writers Jiwon Song in Seoul, South Korea, Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin, Dasha Litvinova in Tallinn, Estonia, Suzan Fraser in Ankara, Turkey, Nomaan Merchant in Washington, and Jill Colvin and Michelle Price in New York contributed to this story.

    The original article contains 1,206 words, the summary contains 214 words. Saved 82%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

58 comments