Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

Q: “IS ZEIHAN WRONG ON CHINA, AND JUST WRONG ALTOGETHER AS A CONSEQUENCE?” (No)
( cc: @PeterZeihan )

Ok. Well if you want to overzealously criticize the man for one issue, which is that he uses limits based reasoning which plays out always and everywhere OVER TIME, but that he doesn’t appear to account for popular sentiment and political will IN TIME, that’s an observation I’ve made as well.

That said, the numbers say he’s right. Or rather, it’s a question of whether CN can build the capacity and alliances to bait the west into a war that causes the US naval attrition and therefore power projection given our rather minimal stores of missiles and ammunition and the logistics of remote vs coastal warfare, then yes. In the near and intermediate term CN can achieve it’s strategic goals in its region before demographic collapse. And even demographic collapse doesn’t guarrantee the end of the CCP (forced north-south imperial control, vs south-north food and economic productivity.)

Even with that said, everything he (and everyone else) is depending upon, is the USA not devolving into some semblance of civil war between now and 2050, which is increasingly likely. And the consequential ‘radical reordering’ of world strategic power, influence, and trade’ that would result as power rebalanced in a rapid expansion for control of resouces and trade routes.

Even with that said, everything he, (and everyone else) is depending upon is a return to the imperial spheres of influence and the constant threat of world war again, between the industrial federal west and the remaining agrarian imperial old world, when it’s not clear (as I assume you’re suggestiong) that without the US continuing it’s pursuit of free trade, human rights, and sovereignty for all nations, that the imperial and authoritarian systems won’t be favored by all of humanity given the chaos that they fear otherwise – even in the west.

That doesn’t mean you can dismiss what he says. You can only say that he’s working from the data and the data is pretty clear, and that barring some disruptive events like I’ve just stated above, that data not only will, but MUST play out.

He’s providing exactly what we we expect from scientists. He’s doing his job. And he’s not (to the public) directly taking sides on those political questions – just the deterministic ones. And leaving it up for the rest of us to decide to act or not to change that determinism. He’s very cautious to play the “I’m innocent here” position of neutrality by taking a mainstream moral position himself.

I am on the side of ‘no one will do anything smart because the entrenched incentives are such that Peter will be right unless the military scenario I mentioned defeats the USA while the USA remains politically intact. Why? China may be willing to bear a naval siege of their population and economy and threaten nuclear war, rather than let the Taiwan issue go – because taiwan is evidence that the CCP is inferior to democratic capitalist institutions.

And just as history was determined by the outcome of great battles in the past, history might be determined by this particular battle (or war) – including by not having that battle or war.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Natural Law Institute

Reply addressees: @bankmankrieg