Zeihan is an interesting counterweight to the "America is a declining empire" crowd of analysts, but IMO he goes too far in the other direction even while he makes some good points. This article doesn't even feel objective to me - it feels like a paroxysm of America-worship.
Statements like "America has a near-infinite capacity to act, a near-immunity to blowback, and a near-zero concern for consequence" are silly given that there are multiple independent nuclear powers in the world which are capable of striking the US mainland.
I don't think that the US could prevent a full-scale Russian or Chinese strike from causing massive damage. And I think that even the UK, France, and Israel could probably at least wipe out a couple of US cities.
Or at least more civilized than they would otherwise be. They make the US more civilized as well.
But I think my point stands - given that there are several countries that could destroy multiple US cities within minutes, the US does not have "a near-immunity to blowback, and a near-zero concern for consequences".
The US can elect the less-qualified candidate almost every time, wage simultaneous, ill-defined, decades-long wars, all while passing some of the worst laws on the planet, yet somehow still enjoys unprecedented levels of domestic peace and prosperity the vast majority of the time. Its margin of error is the biggest on the planet and by a very, very large margin.
No other significant power could do any of those things for terribly long without experiencing consequences, much less all of them simultaneously for extended periods.
While Zeihan's style may tend a little towards the hyperbolic, his counterweight is to the endless number of commentators who talk about China as if it's a cohesive entity, Europe as thought it's one big happy family that hasn't spent nearly all of its history at war with itself, and Saudi Arabia as an actual country with more than one asset, and not as a landed family with a large payroll of disgruntled house help.
In that context, his statements are more instructive than they seem out of context.
Zeihan is an interesting counterweight to the "America is a declining empire" crowd of analysts, but IMO he goes too far in the other direction even while he makes some good points. This article doesn't even feel objective to me - it feels like a paroxysm of America-worship.
Statements like "America has a near-infinite capacity to act, a near-immunity to blowback, and a near-zero concern for consequence" are silly given that there are multiple independent nuclear powers in the world which are capable of striking the US mainland.
We sell Patriot anti missile systems.
Do you think we have nothing to counter ICBM hidden somewhere?
Also, any country striking the US mainland would be quickly removed from the map - several times if necessary.
The statement stands: near-infinite capacity to act, a near-immunity to blowback, and a near-zero concern for consequences
I don't think that the US could prevent a full-scale Russian or Chinese strike from causing massive damage. And I think that even the UK, France, and Israel could probably at least wipe out a couple of US cities.
They could certainly try to, and maybe even succeed! But a day later, no more UK, France, and Israel. So they may think "well... maybe we shouldn't"
Weapons make everyone civilized.
Or at least more civilized than they would otherwise be. They make the US more civilized as well.
But I think my point stands - given that there are several countries that could destroy multiple US cities within minutes, the US does not have "a near-immunity to blowback, and a near-zero concern for consequences".
The US can elect the less-qualified candidate almost every time, wage simultaneous, ill-defined, decades-long wars, all while passing some of the worst laws on the planet, yet somehow still enjoys unprecedented levels of domestic peace and prosperity the vast majority of the time. Its margin of error is the biggest on the planet and by a very, very large margin.
No other significant power could do any of those things for terribly long without experiencing consequences, much less all of them simultaneously for extended periods.
While Zeihan's style may tend a little towards the hyperbolic, his counterweight is to the endless number of commentators who talk about China as if it's a cohesive entity, Europe as thought it's one big happy family that hasn't spent nearly all of its history at war with itself, and Saudi Arabia as an actual country with more than one asset, and not as a landed family with a large payroll of disgruntled house help.
In that context, his statements are more instructive than they seem out of context.
Interesting perspective. The Homer Simpson to the rest of the world's Frank Grimes.