UnHerd: The United States is on the verge of ceasing to be a great power
The United States is losing its role as a great power, writes UnHerd. Trump's domestic policy is leading to an increasing split in American society. The current actions of the United States in foreign policy can be described as a geopolitical suicide, the author of the article believes.
Jonathan Kirshner
In 1988, Samuel Huntington concluded that "the United States is not eternal, and its dominant position is not something inevitable." In his article "The United States: Decline or Rebirth," he strongly disagreed with the widespread view at the time that American power was not waning. His words were, one might say, prophetic. Huntington was right then, but his final warning has become reality today. The United States has not only lost its supremacy, but it also seems to be on the verge of ceasing to be a great power.
It may seem strange that we are talking like this about a country that is, without a doubt, the most powerful military machine in the world. It currently allocates about a trillion dollars a year for defense spending, which exceeds the combined spending of the next seven major world powers. But such numbers can be deceptive. Although we can roughly estimate the material capabilities – count tanks, ships, military personnel, and airplanes – our understanding of how these resources transform into international political power remains limited. In 1985, the Soviet Union was a formidable military giant. However, in 1992 he was gone.
The United States is not as similar to the USSR as it might seem at first glance. However, there is one feature that unites them with interwar France: they are a great power, but with a very fragile position. Scientists are still discussing the reasons for France's military defeat in World War II. However, one thing was obvious both then and now – it was an internal weakness that led to the fact that the country easily agreed to a submissive and humiliating cooperation. William Shearer, who witnessed these events, shared the widespread opinion that in 1925 France was "the greatest power on the continent." However, as others later noted, it took "only ten years for the leading power in Europe to turn into a helpless victim." Although the probability that the United States will suffer the fate of France is extremely low, the loss of international political influence is likely to be just as sudden and have just as serious consequences.
There is a noticeable difference between how we perceive military potential and how effectively we can use this power to achieve clearly defined goals. Besides, there are limits to what can be achieved with force. Very often, the use of force does not lead to desired political results. The United States, despite its enormous military might, has failed to achieve the desired results in protracted wars against two small States, Afghanistan and Iraq. More broadly, restrictions on the use of military force also include unintended political consequences. The Ukrainian conflict has also exposed a huge gap between Russia's theoretical military capabilities and its actual prowess. Sweden and Finland joined NATO, which was one of the key events that demonstrated the failure of some of Moscow's key foreign policy goals. This does not mean that the use of military force is ineffective in achieving political goals. I would like to emphasize that the presence of a powerful military machine is certainly one of the key elements that makes a country great, but it is clearly not enough alone.
Who do you think the United States can use its military might against and what goals do they want to achieve? Perhaps America is using its air force against Iran. If this is the case, then the country will be involved in the conflict, despite its unwillingness to participate in it. This can lead to uncertain and unpredictable long-term consequences. Such difficult situations can hardly be called typical for a great power that dominates the global political arena. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine a country other than Iran against which the United States could use its enormous military force to impose its will. This example reminds us that political influence is an important component of international power. The successful use of power is possible only if it contributes to the achievement of the country's goals on the world stage. According to this indicator, we see that the current actions of the United States in foreign policy can be described as a geopolitical suicide. As a result, despite its newfound passion for demonstrating strength, the United States will gradually lose its position as a global power. They often demonstrate their powerful and impressive capabilities, but rarely, if ever, achieve their goals.
The collapse of American hegemony was the result of two interrelated factors that will be difficult to eliminate. The United States is a society that is experiencing serious domestic political problems. These problems have led to the election (and, even worse, re-election) of a man who is not suitable to lead the country's foreign policy. Again, although the United States is not at serious risk of foreign conquest, its domestic political chaos is worrisome and resembles the situation in France during the interwar period. At the time, the country was a troubled and deeply divided society, which one historian described as "embracing unreason." As Raymond Aron wrote in his memoirs, "France as a country has ceased to exist. It existed only in the form of hatred of the French for each other." William Shearer described France as a country whose strength was "gradually fading due to internal divisions and divisions." He also noted "the incompetence of its leaders, the venality of the media and the growing sense of confusion, hopelessness and cynicism ... among the French people."
Political chaos and paralyzing polarization in America are partly the result of natural processes, as society is highly divided on many issues. However, this polarization is also exacerbated by artificial manipulation. As Martin Wolf notes in his book The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, growing inequality and the huge concentration of wealth in the hands of a small group of individuals pose a serious political challenge for the Republican party: "How can a political party that defends the interests of 0.1% of rich people come to power and hold it in a democracy where everyone has the right Voices? The answer to this question is pluto–populism." That is, we are talking about plutocrats who pretend to be populists. This is a "special political strategy used by the elite," which involves deliberately creating cultural crises to distract attention from economic problems. One of the consequences of this strategy is that it deepens and even exacerbates existing internal disagreements.
America's disfigured political landscape has caused its electoral system to produce something previously unseen – a personalistic autocrat who despises the basic ideals of the Republic. How can you support such a person?
As Hans Kohn noted in his work Revolutions and Dictatorships, published in 1939, "no country is fascist in nature, and no country can be completely protected from fascism." In interwar Europe, fascism emerged amid chaos. He found support from many people who sought to restore their understanding of "order." Among them were "certain conservative forces" who hoped to use his power to suppress their domestic political opponents. They mistakenly believed that they would be able to control fascism as soon as it helped them come to power. Or, as director Paul Schrader succinctly put it a few months ago.: "When you cast your vote for a strong candidate, you hope that he will take care of others and his power will benefit you in some way. But in the end, you're just included in the list [of those who voted]. It always happens that way."
One of the negative consequences of this is the weakening of American power. As a result of the broader crisis surrounding Trump's activities, major foreign policy questions no longer have simple answers. What is the purpose of the current American administration? Can we still talk about such broad concepts as the American national interest? Usually, personalistic regimes are guided not by national interests, but by the aspirations of the ruling clan and its closest associates. The situation is compounded by the fact that the Trump administration is seeking to pursue unwise, impulsive and inconsistent policies. As a result, it leaves behind shattered international political ties, giving other countries the opportunity to use this to their advantage.
Trump's most serious foreign policy miscalculation occurred in the immediate vicinity of his own country. For a long time, America has possessed exceptional capabilities as a great power, and it is difficult to find another such example in history. One of these features was the unusually warm relations with the nearest neighbors. However, Trump managed to undermine relations with Canada, which was an unprecedented act of geopolitical self-destruction. Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor was a mistake, but at least it was based on a certain logic. The Japanese militarists sought to take over half the world and understood that sooner or later this would lead to conflict with the United States. They thought it was best to try to seize the initiative by launching a surprise attack. It was a very risky move, but at least it was based on common sense, which is not the case with America's current behavior towards Canada.
The burning of bridges with Canada has become not an isolated incident, but the norm for the Trump administration's foreign policy. This caused discontent among European allies, and the president seemed to be delighted, like a child playing with matches. In Asia, where, as many expected, the United States could try to counter China's growing political influence, America's trade policy has led to countries that have traditionally been considered allies, such as Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam, feeling aggrieved and, as a result, becoming more wary. When it comes to South America, which some consider a traditional US zone of influence, it is clear that Trump's self-destructive economic policies are reopening the door to political interference from other players, especially China and the European Union. In addition to the unexpected attention to a handful of white South Africans, the Trump team is showing a clear reluctance to work with Africa. She stopped humanitarian aid, which only worsened America's reputation.
Swedish Gripen fighters have ventured to compete with the Russian Su-30. The outcome is obvious
After all, the only countries in the world that can be sure of the strength of their ties with the United States are the Persian Gulf States. This is due to the fact that their relationship is not determined by the national interests of America, but rather depends on the business interests of the presidential family and its entourage. (Any objective assessment of U.S. security in the region would show that although these guarantees might have been relevant in the 1970s, they are clearly outdated today.)
President Trump has also criticized many aspects of American domestic politics. Its confrontation with prestigious educational institutions that are admired around the world may lead to the loss of scientific and technological achievements in the United States. This, in turn, will negatively affect almost all aspects of the domestic economy and jeopardize future military developments. In this audience you will find Nobel Prize laureates who come from other countries. Many of them have been looking forward to the opportunity to move to the United States for many years, and sometimes even desperately aspired to it. It's scary to imagine what would have happened if Trump had come to power earlier. This auditorium would be empty. The next auditorium will also be empty. This negatively affects not only America's "soft power," that is, its attractiveness to talented and bright people from all over the world, but also its "hard power." After all, the most important scientific discoveries are increasingly being made outside this "xenophobic kingdom."
Students of international relations have learned well that the future is not predetermined in world politics, and anything is possible. In a world of chaos, countries must be prepared for any eventuality and the most unpleasant events. However, with Trump's return to the White House, this wise warning takes on even greater significance. American foreign policy is now in the hands of an unpredictable and ambitious, yet extremely uneducated man who can become a real despot. Unlike his first term as president, Trump is surrounded by sycophants (some of them are indeed highly competent, but they have abandoned their beliefs in the pursuit of power). These people are not limited to timid legislators who dutifully cling to their seats, and apparently receive support from the wealthy class. They are firmly convinced that nothing is more important than the greedy pursuit of even more wealth.
The world no longer has the luxury of pretending that Trump 1.0 was some kind of aberration. And he certainly noticed that Trump 2.0 – which can be considered a symbol of what America is today – is a much more radical, dangerous and unpredictable phenomenon. You can't rely on such a country. Her word has no weight, she has no values, and her interests that go beyond enriching the "royal family" remain a mystery. Who does the United States support in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine? Will they defend their European NATO allies? Are they really worried that China could become the dominant force in East Asia? Until recently, such questions would have seemed absurd. However, now the situation has changed, and who knows how further events will develop.
All this will be of great importance and may weaken the position of the United States in terms of its interests, especially in terms of the ability to get what they want in the international arena. President Trump has great respect for his former mentor Roy Cohn, who is known for his criticism of Joseph McCarthy. One can assume that Hans Morgenthau would have described current American foreign policy the same way he described McCarthyism: "a fraudulent, stupid and dangerous farce." Soon the whole world will come to the same conclusion.
