Who Wins Or Loses When Global Order Breaks Down?

As the US Empire recedes due to overextension and internal implosion, it seems the emerging multipolar world order will look something like this:

In North America, the US will obviously be the hegemon with Canada and Mexico as its satellites.

In South America, the richest country, Argentina, will be the hegemon (perhaps in partnership with Chile, or these two could become rivals), with Paraguay and Uruguay as its satellites, and Brazil being a lesser regional power that rivals Argentina.

In Western Europe, France will be the hegemon, with England essentially being a US satellite.

In Central Europe, the traditional rivalry between Germany and Russia will be revived.

In Central Asia, Turkey’s neo-Ottoman expansionism is clearly in line to be the hegemon.

In the Middle East, the rivalry between Iran’s axis of resistance and the Saudia/Israeli alliance will continue to play out. Iran desperately needs a nuclear arsenal as Israel is already nuclear-armed and Saudi Arabia has a good chance of obtaining nukes from Israel, Pakistan, or, indirectly, the US.

In South Asia, the rivalry between India and Pakistan will continue. This is serious business given that both powers are nuclear-armed.

In East Asia, the rivalry will obviously be between China and Japan. If China tries to exercise its muscle in the region, assuming China remains stable enough to do so,  it is likely the Japanese will move to assemble an alliance of Pacific Rim and South Pacific countries, e.g. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand. Although China may move to bribe some of these countries to switch sides, and Japan and South Korea will likely maintain strong ties with the US as well.

It seems that within a multipolar geopoltical world order of this kind, what we would really need is a “new Non-Aligned Movement,” although one that is not focused specifically on states but on self-determination movements generally, i.e. a global revolutionary alliance (albeit one far more radical than what the Russo-centric Eurasianists envision) that is oriented toward micronations, startup societies, intentional communities, indigenous peoples movements, decentralist movements, countercultures and subcultures, i.e. basically the ATS program extended on a global scale.

If analysts like Joel Kotkin and Peter Zeihan are correct, the US will not suffer from internal collapse but will continue to be a major economic power albeit one with a more traditional class structure. If so, then it seems that a revolutionary movement could potentially emerge in the US that was similar to the class struggle movements that existed in the late 19th and early 20th century, but in a way that also resembled the cultural revolutions that emerged in the 1960s, and which was oriented toward forming a comparable revolutionary alliance on a global scale similar to the anarchist and communist internationals that existed in the early 20th century as well.

Leave a Reply