From that article I can only conclude that the author probably counts himself among the people who fully understand the core of international politics.
I'm not so smart, so my naive position is that all wars end up with the peace conference and I would like to see one sooner rather than later. That kinda implies that neither side would be annihilated, so there's no point in supporting any side until their final victory, even if someone can define what that victory would look like (who gets to own what after the war).
Hi, thanks for this. Very insightful. But I think there is a 5th category and most of the world (at least in the Global South) falls in this category, which is support for Palestine and neutrality as between Ukraine and Russia. There is little to like about the foolish Ukraine regime, which oppressed its Russian speaking peoples; had they upheld the Minks agreement and remained neutral (which Ukraine’s original constitution engaged), Russia would not have invaded. I know the Western mainstream media doesn’t report the full context of the Minsk accord, US overthrow of government the elected Ukrainian government and abrogation of Ukrainian neutrality.
There is in fact a way to uphold international law and respect Russia’s legitimate security needs. Ukraine should adopt China’s one country two systems approach. Make Crimea and Donbass part of Ukraine but have their independent police, judiciary, even their own armed forces. Maintain this for 100 years, then hold a referendum for whether to continue the one country two system for another 100 years.
If Ukraine wants to win back its territories, it has to create the conditions for peaceful reunification. Don’t disrespect its Russian speaking population.
What about those on the borders! Although there's enormous social pressure to get pushed into one quadrant or another, supporting neither Ukraine nor Russia, but wanting a peace agreement as soon as practicable that minimizes unacceptability to both sides seems to me to be the humane and realist position. I suspect a lot of people hold this view but are afraid to espouse it for fear of being accused of being Putin apologists or Western stooges. Maybe something similar holds for Israel/Palestine, but I don't see it myself...
The wars are most likely about the economic survival of the US - and they are probably not going to succeed. The Quadrants are primarily of interest for propaganda operators.
What do you mean under survival? The most even the worst outcome will achieve is to make the USA slightly worse off. That’s what so galling for anyone on the receiving end- it’s a question of survival for Russia, Ukraine, Israel and Palestine, yet the will just lose some chips on the table.
My argument is, that the US is engaging in the current wars, and probably planning one against China, in order to economically survive. The current business model of the US, based on the dollar as reserve currency (for details: see Michael Hudson: "Super Imperialism"), is coming to an end. Part of that scheme is the "Petrodollar" which appeared after the US bankruptcy in 1971. Some think, that its demise would mean poverty worse than the Great Depression for most Americans. Here a short overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmVeDeav0DI
Of-course, like so often in real life, things are in reality worse than they seem. Capitalism in the US has reached the third declining phase. This will not end well. Ever increasing inequality with an ever smaller middle class is one of the symptoms. Branko Milanovic here - https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/a-theory-of-the-rise-and-fall-of - reviews a book by Prof Bas van Bavel about this topic. A few months ago Prof van Bavel stated in an interview that the US is already irrevocably in decline. This is also so, because the billionaire class refuses to buy a better government for the Americans.
Even worse so, the Schannep Recession Index, which in the worst case in 1960 six was months premature, indicates, that the US has reached recession again. And there is something else to know about recessions in the US. Since 1950 the four year moving average of growth after each recession has never reached the same peak as after the previous recession.
And yes, you may worry about Ukraine and Palestine: both victims of the US.
The entire foreign trade of the US of A is 11% of GDP, mate. It's a closed economy. You are overdramatizing. They will have a severe recession, maybe a minidepression, a la 70's, and that's that.
You're right about that, but there is a question of public debt which is spiralling out of control. And the amount of interest that needs to be payed every year is also growing. And that is not the closed economy thing.
Same thing - recession, devaluation, lower rates, somewhat elevated inflation. Solves the problem in 5 years. As I said above - 70s. Dirty Harry, mean streets, taxi driver, for reference
I doubt it. Even the Fed's chair Powell said that the fiscal spending was unsustainable. Central banks usually don't go publicly against the government because that sort of thing has a tendency to cause panic and economic crises. Except when the government is really suicidal.
I think every reasonable person is jumping from quadrants 1-1, 1-2 and even 2-1, depending on the context, but never 2-2. And if they were pressed, based on reality, to choose only one quadrant, it would be 2-1
Indeed interesting reading about geopolitics philosophy of the wars and ideologies of the past and present, hardly applicable ideologies for the complex state of the world with multiple existential chalanges in the 21st century and beyond.
I don't see these four positions as exhaustive. You don't have to support any government at all. You can support any group that tries to keep violent states or other mafias at arm's length to create a space for living in. I don't know what the Chinese author would call that position.
I suppose that position would support the Palestinians, since the Israeli state seems hellbent on destroying them physically. But I don't think it will support any in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, just try to get a peace as soon as possible.
I think the 2x2 table is not only oversimplifying things but also relyes on deep misunderstanding of events, facts history. Wich it is justifiable if people take their information only from the news. As such I am dissapointed that Mr Milanovichas not provided any criticism on this approach, which, also provides an intersting glimpse at the Chinese thinking and fact availability.
Forget palestine, the coflict is widely recognized as israel v iran. Hamas is an owned & operated subsidiary of the iranian irg (islamic revolutionary guard), the ayatollah's version of hitler's infamous ss
Actually for the longest time Hamas was funded by Arab Sheikdoms and EU under the watchful eye of Israel that wanted to insure a valid opposition to the Palestinian Authority - following the divide and rule concept.
Did you know, that Hamas supported the opponents of Assad? There are lots of other things you obviously don't know. Therefore you have to resort to clichés .
Interesting indeed. I would assume that the aspiring hegemons (e.g. China) would belong to the Multipolar world quadrant but if they become true hegemons, how long would it take for them to move to a "free world" position with their own definition of "free". Do I sound like a social Darwinist?
Absolutely wrong - China has zero intentions to become a global hegemon. China is not in the slightest an imperialist country in the mold of Europe or the US empire. This is a vicious ideological statement.
You might find it interesting- your 2×2 grid is very similar to one that Bruno Macaes made over on Twitter, just with slightly different labels:
https://twitter.com/MacaesBruno/status/1793079301010858179
From that article I can only conclude that the author probably counts himself among the people who fully understand the core of international politics.
I'm not so smart, so my naive position is that all wars end up with the peace conference and I would like to see one sooner rather than later. That kinda implies that neither side would be annihilated, so there's no point in supporting any side until their final victory, even if someone can define what that victory would look like (who gets to own what after the war).
I would support the cease-fire in both wars.
Hi, thanks for this. Very insightful. But I think there is a 5th category and most of the world (at least in the Global South) falls in this category, which is support for Palestine and neutrality as between Ukraine and Russia. There is little to like about the foolish Ukraine regime, which oppressed its Russian speaking peoples; had they upheld the Minks agreement and remained neutral (which Ukraine’s original constitution engaged), Russia would not have invaded. I know the Western mainstream media doesn’t report the full context of the Minsk accord, US overthrow of government the elected Ukrainian government and abrogation of Ukrainian neutrality.
There is in fact a way to uphold international law and respect Russia’s legitimate security needs. Ukraine should adopt China’s one country two systems approach. Make Crimea and Donbass part of Ukraine but have their independent police, judiciary, even their own armed forces. Maintain this for 100 years, then hold a referendum for whether to continue the one country two system for another 100 years.
If Ukraine wants to win back its territories, it has to create the conditions for peaceful reunification. Don’t disrespect its Russian speaking population.
That ship has sailed. Ukraine will be partitioned -- the only question being where the dividing line will fall.
What about those on the borders! Although there's enormous social pressure to get pushed into one quadrant or another, supporting neither Ukraine nor Russia, but wanting a peace agreement as soon as practicable that minimizes unacceptability to both sides seems to me to be the humane and realist position. I suspect a lot of people hold this view but are afraid to espouse it for fear of being accused of being Putin apologists or Western stooges. Maybe something similar holds for Israel/Palestine, but I don't see it myself...
Agree.
The wars are most likely about the economic survival of the US - and they are probably not going to succeed. The Quadrants are primarily of interest for propaganda operators.
What do you mean under survival? The most even the worst outcome will achieve is to make the USA slightly worse off. That’s what so galling for anyone on the receiving end- it’s a question of survival for Russia, Ukraine, Israel and Palestine, yet the will just lose some chips on the table.
My argument is, that the US is engaging in the current wars, and probably planning one against China, in order to economically survive. The current business model of the US, based on the dollar as reserve currency (for details: see Michael Hudson: "Super Imperialism"), is coming to an end. Part of that scheme is the "Petrodollar" which appeared after the US bankruptcy in 1971. Some think, that its demise would mean poverty worse than the Great Depression for most Americans. Here a short overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmVeDeav0DI
Of-course, like so often in real life, things are in reality worse than they seem. Capitalism in the US has reached the third declining phase. This will not end well. Ever increasing inequality with an ever smaller middle class is one of the symptoms. Branko Milanovic here - https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/a-theory-of-the-rise-and-fall-of - reviews a book by Prof Bas van Bavel about this topic. A few months ago Prof van Bavel stated in an interview that the US is already irrevocably in decline. This is also so, because the billionaire class refuses to buy a better government for the Americans.
Even worse so, the Schannep Recession Index, which in the worst case in 1960 six was months premature, indicates, that the US has reached recession again. And there is something else to know about recessions in the US. Since 1950 the four year moving average of growth after each recession has never reached the same peak as after the previous recession.
And yes, you may worry about Ukraine and Palestine: both victims of the US.
The entire foreign trade of the US of A is 11% of GDP, mate. It's a closed economy. You are overdramatizing. They will have a severe recession, maybe a minidepression, a la 70's, and that's that.
You're right about that, but there is a question of public debt which is spiralling out of control. And the amount of interest that needs to be payed every year is also growing. And that is not the closed economy thing.
So, how long can that go on?
Same thing - recession, devaluation, lower rates, somewhat elevated inflation. Solves the problem in 5 years. As I said above - 70s. Dirty Harry, mean streets, taxi driver, for reference
I doubt it. Even the Fed's chair Powell said that the fiscal spending was unsustainable. Central banks usually don't go publicly against the government because that sort of thing has a tendency to cause panic and economic crises. Except when the government is really suicidal.
But we'll see in 5 years, I guess.
It used to be the dogs of the imperialists, not of the US empire. But I suppose all other imperialists have become irrelevant. The end is nigh.
Yes, I originally wrote it so myself, but it could be that the Chinese author did not know the exact Maoist translation in English.
I think every reasonable person is jumping from quadrants 1-1, 1-2 and even 2-1, depending on the context, but never 2-2. And if they were pressed, based on reality, to choose only one quadrant, it would be 2-1
Indeed interesting reading about geopolitics philosophy of the wars and ideologies of the past and present, hardly applicable ideologies for the complex state of the world with multiple existential chalanges in the 21st century and beyond.
Sorry. of course I know what the Chinese would have called that position: Followers of Mozi.
I don't see these four positions as exhaustive. You don't have to support any government at all. You can support any group that tries to keep violent states or other mafias at arm's length to create a space for living in. I don't know what the Chinese author would call that position.
I suppose that position would support the Palestinians, since the Israeli state seems hellbent on destroying them physically. But I don't think it will support any in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, just try to get a peace as soon as possible.
Sorry. of course I know what the Chinese would have called that position: Followers of Mozi.
I’d say that 1,2 is a subset of 2,2, which is a more general case. But in terms of opinion differentiation I guess it works
I think the 2x2 table is not only oversimplifying things but also relyes on deep misunderstanding of events, facts history. Wich it is justifiable if people take their information only from the news. As such I am dissapointed that Mr Milanovichas not provided any criticism on this approach, which, also provides an intersting glimpse at the Chinese thinking and fact availability.
Forget palestine, the coflict is widely recognized as israel v iran. Hamas is an owned & operated subsidiary of the iranian irg (islamic revolutionary guard), the ayatollah's version of hitler's infamous ss
Actually for the longest time Hamas was funded by Arab Sheikdoms and EU under the watchful eye of Israel that wanted to insure a valid opposition to the Palestinian Authority - following the divide and rule concept.
That is indeed the case--then. But the situation has changed as sunni petro-states align (sorta anyway...) with israel against iran
Did you know, that Hamas supported the opponents of Assad? There are lots of other things you obviously don't know. Therefore you have to resort to clichés .
Interesting indeed. I would assume that the aspiring hegemons (e.g. China) would belong to the Multipolar world quadrant but if they become true hegemons, how long would it take for them to move to a "free world" position with their own definition of "free". Do I sound like a social Darwinist?
True. It depends where one is. One actually might run through all four quadrants, depending on the evolving situation.
Absolutely wrong - China has zero intentions to become a global hegemon. China is not in the slightest an imperialist country in the mold of Europe or the US empire. This is a vicious ideological statement.