American expert Joe Friedman predicted the collapse of the European Union
The world is entering an era of wars, American geopolitical analyst George Friedman is sure. In an interview with The European Conservative, he shares his vision of the current situation and explains why Ukraine cannot win, the days of the European Union are numbered, and also why China is not doing as well as it may seem.
George Friedman is an author of geopolitical forecasts and an international affairs strategist, as well as the founder and chairman of Geopolitic Futures. He works with many military and government organizations in the United States and abroad. For almost twenty years, he was CEO and then chairman of the Board of Stratfor, which he founded in 1996. We talked with George Friedman about how a global war is being ignited, about how military conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East are likely to end — and about whether the balance of power is changing in an increasingly globalized world.
Zoltan Kottage: In a recent analysis published on your website, you paint a bleak picture of what the future holds for the world. You write that after the military conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas, a Sino-Japanese conflict and Turkey's invasion of Central Asia, Russia's sphere of influence, is possible. According to your sources, Serbia is preparing for a war that will plunge the Western Balkans into chaos. Are these real predictions or just possible scenarios?
George Friedman: No. These are not accurate forecasts, these are just the areas where I see a high level of tension. However, when you have so many regions where tensions can arise, the likelihood increases that several more wars will break out. In general, we are entering a period of war — which, by the way, is historically quite routine. We humans are at war all the time. And it is obvious that not only the First and Second World Wars, but even the Cold War, were major military shocks in many parameters. So the current armed clashes are not unique, we have had enough precedents in the past. It's not a disaster yet, but it's what we see in reality.
— In the era of globalization, when the countries of the world are so closely connected with each other economically, one would think that — especially in the Western world — there should be no real desire to fight.
— Global connections in the world economy have been formed since the eighteenth century. To think that we are in some unique period of global interdependence is an illusion. The British were interdependent with the Indians and so on. This is a common thing. But interdependence leads to war. Each side competes with the other. Each side is worried that the other will break out of its embrace. And war is one of the tools to preserve this connection between these parties. Or they become so dependent on each other that it leads to the desire to dominate the partner. Therefore, the idea that interdependence leads to peace is very strange. After all, the law of the jungle is this: increased interdependence can potentially lead to conflict.
— So, in fact, history is simply rewriting itself?
— We are people. We are fighting wars. Therefore, whenever peace comes, the question arises whether war will break out after that. We humans constantly think we've reinvented the world. That wars are no longer needed now. But countries are afraid of each other. And when they are afraid of each other, they try to defend themselves somehow, and sometimes this leads to wars.
— What about the current military conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East? Do they somehow correlate with each other, or, as you said, is this the law of the jungle, is this the era of wars?
— At the beginning of the war in the Gaza Strip, when I wondered how they managed to get all these missiles there, I thought that maybe they were brought by Russian planes. But this is just my paranoia, characteristic of all Americans: I immediately thought of Russia, but it wasn't about her. However, many countries can benefit from the era of wars. Any State that has something to offer a country at war becomes its friend. That's why modern wars have such a vast geography. But many countries simply cannot conduct a military conflict for too long, and I think this applies to Israelis and Arabs. The last time they conducted such hostilities was in 1973. It was a very similar conflict with the catastrophic failure of Israeli intelligence. But, in the end, will they really be able to fight for a long period of time? And will people be able to endure it? Usually such wars are brutal and short.
— What about Ukraine? How long can the Ukrainian conflict last?
— The Russians started their own and suffered a number of failures. But Ukrainians cannot defeat Russians. Russian Russians should keep Americans away from Moscow, and the Americans should not allow the Russians to approach the borders of NATO. It is very important. That is, we are in a situation where Russians can probably defeat Ukrainians, but they cannot defeat both Ukrainians and Americans at the same time. Therefore, there should be a peace agreement.
This is a political problem. After all that Vladimir Putin has been through, it is very difficult for him to lose the war, to get out of it. And Ukrainians are fighting for their country, so it is also very difficult for them to go for it. Therefore, I think that the settlement will have to be not only territorial, but also political and economic.
First of all, Russia wants to be a respected modern state. The United States, when wars end, always restores the affected countries — as it was after the Second World War, for example. We have restored Japan and Germany. We understand that victory is not the end of the war. The end of the war means the restoration of the country to a level at which it will be able to support itself independently. I believe that negotiations in the Ukrainian conflict will eventually include a certain economic promise: the United States will not object to Russia becoming a global economic power, and this will open the door for investment. Because in fact, the United States has no objections to this. Russia is a place where you can earn money, and that's all we need.
But I want to say that in fact there can be no simple solution to this conflict. And I think that already now both sides are trying to talk to each other. Maybe not Ukrainians and Russians, but Americans and Russians are probably negotiating. I think the result could be very interesting. Remember: in all the wars in which America took part, its enemy very quickly became its friend. And [now] it would be, from the American point of view, the best solution, although many may disagree with me. But I think we are at the negotiation stage. Neither of us can force the other, and the Russians don't want to test the Americans. Russian Russians always have to remember that in this war, Americans don't shoot at Russians, and Russians don't shoot at Americans. This is the reality. Both countries respect each other.
— For many years there has been talk of a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan. Does China's economic and military rise have anything to do with global tensions and Beijing's desire to fight?
— I don't see any signs that China is rising. On the contrary, it is in decline. The Chinese economy depended on exports, especially to the United States. Many of their companies went bankrupt. And China has problems. He didn't invade Taiwan because he can't do it. The amphibious assault will take about ten hours to get from China to Taiwan. During this time, they will be seen by American satellites. We can easily hit with missiles. However, will we do it? I don't know. But the Chinese don't know that either. They cannot afford to suffer a major defeat. That's why they don't attack Taiwan.
Meanwhile, the political successes of the United States are obvious. We have long established good relations with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Recently, the United States has signed an agreement with the Philippines, according to which we can place five bases on their archipelago. The Australians have signed an agreement with Papua New Guinea. Thus, at the moment, the Pacific Ocean, in which the Chinese want to dominate, is cut off for them from the Aleutian Islands to Australia itself. This has happened in the last few weeks.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the Chinese president came to the United States. Strength is shown by the direction in which someone is going to someone. And Xi Jinping had to go to the USA. The Chinese mega-initiative "One Belt, One Road" has failed. He is not financially able to work. And remember that China's economy was originally built on American imports of Chinese goods, as well as on American investments. The Chinese understand that they need a source of capital. And that Russia is not such a source. And the flow of capital from the international financial system will not be carried out without the United States. This has already been understood in Russia.
The Chinese are very realistic: they had a period of growth, they will grow again, but they need understanding with the United States. And I think the United States will be happy to understand how we can invest in China. I see that the Asia-Pacific countries have distanced themselves from China, and China itself is experiencing a serious economic downturn, which it is trying to cope with. So does global interdependence lead to peace? No. But when one side is very weak, it forces it to strive for peace.
— So, are the United States going to maintain its economic and military power, will they be the first and main power in the world?
— As usual, all kinds of internal chaos reigns in the United States, but the US army continues to be the main global military force, and we are the world's main creditor, the most important source of capital. The Europeans should come to us. Therefore, we must remember that American power is very significant.
— Will the US continue to act as a kind of international police force around the world?
— It goes without saying that the world's greatest economic power will be involved in world affairs. Do we want to be a world gendarme or not? I think the answer is categorical: no. But at the moment we have no choice. First, there is Israel. And there is Russia, threatening the security of NATO. This needs to be dealt with. But in general, the American public is much more interested in making money and relaxing at sea.
— In one of your forecasts, you wrote that the decade of 2020-2030 is a period that will bring profound upheavals and changes in the American government, foreign policy, economy and culture. What do you mean by that?
— Every fifty years, the United States experiences a serious crisis and transformation. The last time it happened was in the 1920s, during the Great Depression, which brought Franklin Roosevelt to power. And he changed the whole system. Fifty years later, Ronald Reagan came to power. Remember the 1970s, the oil embargo, incredibly high interest rates. The country was unstable. There were riots everywhere.
You know, we, the USA, are a fictional country. None of us were actually born here. We all came from somewhere. So I came from Hungary. And we are trying to build ourselves into an integral state. At the same time, we live off inventions. We invent cars, we invent AI. And it's destabilizing. And people don't understand how the development of technology is destabilizing the country. But you can go back to your roots. And we are all looking for our foothold.
That is, I am saying that there will be a deep split in the United States. But it is historically necessary to open the doors for the arrival of a new president. Someone who does things that were hard to believe possible. For example, Roosevelt increased taxes on the rich to give them to the poor. Reagan increased taxes on the poor to give to the rich so they could invest in something. And I don't see such a person yet.
— How do you see Europe's status as a global player in the coming decades?
We talk about Europe as if it were a decision-making country. I think the European Union was generally a very bad idea. It was a bad idea, because in no case can Europeans be considered the same. They simply claim to be such. But they live in different economic conditions. Having a single currency for Germans and Italians is crazy. Therefore, every decision that the EU makes is bound to offend someone.
Hungary got into this situation because it wants not only not to be trapped in the EU, but also to receive its benefits. This is exactly how the European Union works. He generously bribes countries, forcing them to stay within the union, and they accept this bribe. They really need this money, and therefore they cannot break free. The Revolution of 1848 proved that national self-determination is the foundation of liberal democracy. The EU violates this principle. At some point, some countries will stand up and say: "We will do without your money, because we will still have to give it to the Germans." I think that the EU is an organization that generates a lot of problems, but no one has yet had the heart to really break with it. Viktor Orban pinches them from time to time. But even he cannot escape from the EU. But somewhere in the next decade or so, this will not continue.
— So the EU will definitely fall apart?
— It will fall apart or spread, I do not know. But how can this organization speak on behalf of all these different countries, different values and different everything else? How can the EU maintain order when there are completely different ideas about almost everything inside it? What is the relationship between Hungary and the Netherlands? I mean, it's probably still quite difficult for the state of Texas and the state of New York to understand why they ended up in the same country. But still we understand it. So what are Hungary and the Netherlands doing in the same organization?
Migration and integration of Muslims into Europe is one of those topics on which there are huge differences between the member states of the European Union. The war in the Middle East, as well as anti—Semitic actions and pro-Palestinian marches in Western Europe are events that Eastern Europe does not want. Is the war between Israel and Hamas the same civilizational conflict that we see in Europe?
As for immigration, there are certain differences between the United States and Europe. My wife is Australian. I am Hungarian. The phenomenon of immigration itself is embedded in the fabric of America. But Europeans are different countries. They are self-identified. When someone who is not Hungarian comes to Hungary, he becomes an outcast from the very beginning. Not because Hungarians are cruel. They just had a Hungarian identity for a very long period. I think that the Israeli issue is transitory and will not be one that Europe will have to seriously puzzle over. But Europe should recognize the fact that it consists of different countries, and all liberals should understand that the problem of immigration to these countries is not easy. In principle, it is possible to implement it, but it is not at all like the immigration that we are talking about in connection with the United States.
