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.
the “gentlemans agreement” you speak of isn’t perfect
That’s what I’m trying to illustrate. The post that I’m replying to suggests that a multipolar world is fine, “we” should stay out of the other poles’ spheres of influence, and that there’s a hard distinction between economic, philosophical, and military jockeying. I don’t think that’s the case. The gentleman’s agreement that I’m referring to would be between poles.
You bring up a great example how “we” fuck our allies even when we have a gentleman’s agreement with them. Which is a great point.
Fuckery is going to happen: we need to keep our friends close, and we need to build our international agreements in a way that keeps us safe. Assuming other governments will adhere to rules-based order with siloed areas of competition is unlikely to succeed.
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?
In India’s case, I think careful diplomacy can still accomplish our goals to the satisfaction of both parties.
Like what? Canada was (apparently) tipped off about the assassination by big bro to the South. In response, the Canadian government shot it’s mouth off naming India as the attacker. India Modi promptly punished Canada economically for the audacity of bitching. That’s it.
Countries, like people, aren’t rational actors. They are punitive, emotional, and will try to get away with whatever they can. (As a Canadian, I can name a long litany of illiberalism my country has committed)
Don’t get me wrong - I love the idea of a multipolar world, where international order is decided solely in the marketplace of ideas. But every pole in this multipolar world is a dick. They are actively trying to destabilize each other economically, politically, and militarily.
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
This paints information warfare as a nothing burger that is distinct from a physical assault. It really isn’t. Russia (allegedly) took down parts of the Ukraine grid for a few hours during their ongoing assault against the country. Saudi refineries have been taken offline. Stuxnet did significant damage to the Iranian nuclear program.
Misinformation is arguably worse, since it can significantly damage social cohesion in victim countries. I don’t think we have a very good handle on the role of foreign actors in the rise of populism in the past decade, but you can bet your polling booth it’s nonzero.
Do we really need to talk about economic espionage like it’s nbd? Imagine Taiwan without fabs. Or Canada without Nortel (oh wait, you don’t need to). So much of our economic growth is driven directly through innovation, and national power/prosperity comes from that growth. It’s a big deal.
I agree, it’s a very big deal. I never said it was nothing and we shouldn’t respond. I said we should respond in kind, as we can.
I merely draw a distinction between these kinds of attacks, and the actual invasions of places like Gaza or Ukraine. Information warfare has a culpable deniability to it, similar to espionage, that makes it inherently harder to tackle.
It’s just not so simple as bomb the people that fuck with us or something like that. That would not fix the problem. It’s trickier.
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.
That’s what I’m trying to illustrate. The post that I’m replying to suggests that a multipolar world is fine, “we” should stay out of the other poles’ spheres of influence, and that there’s a hard distinction between economic, philosophical, and military jockeying. I don’t think that’s the case. The gentleman’s agreement that I’m referring to would be between poles.
You bring up a great example how “we” fuck our allies even when we have a gentleman’s agreement with them. Which is a great point.
Fuckery is going to happen: we need to keep our friends close, and we need to build our international agreements in a way that keeps us safe. Assuming other governments will adhere to rules-based order with siloed areas of competition is unlikely to succeed.
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?
Like what? Canada was (apparently) tipped off about the assassination by big bro to the South. In response, the Canadian government shot it’s mouth off naming India as the attacker.
IndiaModi promptly punished Canada economically for the audacity of bitching. That’s it.Countries, like people, aren’t rational actors. They are punitive, emotional, and will try to get away with whatever they can. (As a Canadian, I can name a long litany of illiberalism my country has committed)
Don’t get me wrong - I love the idea of a multipolar world, where international order is decided solely in the marketplace of ideas. But every pole in this multipolar world is a dick. They are actively trying to destabilize each other economically, politically, and militarily.
Which is why diplomatic tools should be attempted first, then escalation to economic tools. Military deterrence is too big a jump, currently.
This paints information warfare as a nothing burger that is distinct from a physical assault. It really isn’t. Russia (allegedly) took down parts of the Ukraine grid for a few hours during their ongoing assault against the country. Saudi refineries have been taken offline. Stuxnet did significant damage to the Iranian nuclear program.
Misinformation is arguably worse, since it can significantly damage social cohesion in victim countries. I don’t think we have a very good handle on the role of foreign actors in the rise of populism in the past decade, but you can bet your polling booth it’s nonzero.
Do we really need to talk about economic espionage like it’s nbd? Imagine Taiwan without fabs. Or Canada without Nortel (oh wait, you don’t need to). So much of our economic growth is driven directly through innovation, and national power/prosperity comes from that growth. It’s a big deal.
I agree, it’s a very big deal. I never said it was nothing and we shouldn’t respond. I said we should respond in kind, as we can.
I merely draw a distinction between these kinds of attacks, and the actual invasions of places like Gaza or Ukraine. Information warfare has a culpable deniability to it, similar to espionage, that makes it inherently harder to tackle.
It’s just not so simple as bomb the people that fuck with us or something like that. That would not fix the problem. It’s trickier.
Well said