you are making a fair point.

I think my position was that the game has changed, and the US power doesn't do much to change stability.

IE that even without PAX Americana, we'd have a PAX Global trade....

So yeah, more stable for the largest powers, no comment about everyone else.

Yes but a few bullies with lots of toys fucking everyone else over is not a very sustainable system. Somethings got to give eventually.

I think while bullies picking on the weak can be unfair, it isn't necessarily unstable nor unsustainable. I think it is part of human nature.
The state itself is the ultimate bully (if you get my drift - bully is a pejorative term).

that is a totally different conversation and point of view.

sustainable is an interesting word, and i'd have to agree. but i don't think it addresses what i was saying. Could you clarify, do you Sic think the power vacuum left by the US collapsing and disappearing from the world stage would lead to global instability, war and unrest? (this was the proposition with which is was disagreeing)

Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Regardless I dont think the potential consequences of a states failure are indicative of the nature of that state. Or, just because things might be bad if america was gone, doesnt mean they are good when it is here.

ok, well then we can agree not to talk about the original topic, and i'll address the entirely separate issue which you have taken with my description of how it think the world works...

fine, globalization can screw over all the less developed economies of the world. The people living in them and the environment and natural resources of those nations, and i mean without all the necessary wars... that is, if a country refuses to roll over and (take a cut of the profits) allow it be raped... hmm.. yeah, that means a war is necessary, right?

According to the worlds policeman, a country refusing to roll over and (take a cut of the profits) allow it be raped, means a war is necessary.

orathaic I am open to the idea that there has been a serious game changer in the past 100 years - to do with globalization and the power of cooperation. I am just not convinced but maybe I could be...

In the years leading up to WW1 a lot of people felt the same way as you describe - economies were too linked by trade and cooperation was more powerful than competition etc and thus there would be no great war. But it still happened.

I agree of course that we are better off without war, and that we all benefit from trade. But I suppose I view the US as the force that keeps the system secure, especially due to its naval domination keeping the sea-lanes open. The US benefits the most from this, and everyone accepts this because they don't really have a choice, and there are benefits.

But in a situation where there is no one dominating power: For a time free-trade will keep things sweet. But then some powers will start to benefit more than others, and they will start to manipulate things to their advantage (which is what the US does now). Then eventually one power in particular benefits the most, and really starts manipulating things. Internally that power justifies its actions as necessary to preserve its own security, and that if it doesn't take the initiative then someone else will. Meanwhile the other powers start thinking "that power is pushing its luck, and if we don't stop it right now, there will come a time when it will be too late". Eventually conflicts emerge, sometimes great wars. It is these forces that I see as part of human nature, and I don't think anything has changed.

But we shall see. If America's relative strength is in decline, we will have an opportunity too see if this does lead to instability and maybe you will be proven right orathaic - and I hope you are right.

Ok it seems to me your argument is that the US staying in power would decrease the chances of war and strife?

I can see your point, but it negates the fact that the US is an active destabilizer, invader, assassin, occupier, whatever, in most parts of the world. see largehams US military interventions list, and my cia's greatest hits in "America..." thread

Sicarius you are right about the USA being an active destabilizer, invader, assassin etc. There is good in the US and there is evil. It is hard to imagine a situation where any great power could be entirely good. The reason for this is that not all noble causes are compatible. What is good for some will be bad for others. Also politics is about compromise. That's reality.

As far as being an active destabilizer, one could argue that creating local instability (as US does), creates more "net stability" - much like minor tremors can help reduce that tension that would otherwise lead to a massive earthquake. (You could also argue that creating local instability just leads to ever escalating instability, but this will depend on a case by case basis).

I don't argue, however, that the USA should be excused for its actions. So when it makes massive human rights violations - it is right that people point this out. We also have to be careful that certain interest groups with the US don't manipulate the situation to advantage ahead of their fellow countryman (the weapons industry for example).

"We also have to be careful that certain interest groups with the US don't manipulate the situation to advantage ahead of their fellow countryman (the weapons industry for example). "

Eisenhower warned americans about the military industrial complex decades ago. It's too late friend.

I don't think the absence of military tension or conflict among larger powers has much to do with trade, in fact quite the opposite. The reason there is not much more military tension is because two of the largest economies are civilian powers - Japan & Germany. If Japan was allowed to militarize you'd see a much different picture in East Asia. As it is East Asia is one of the more militarily tense regions despite the large amounts of trade between the economies there. Likewise if Germany wasn't under NATO's command and had developed a normal military you might see a very different scene between say, Russia and Europe. As it is, yet again, Russia and Europe have had quite tense relations over Georgia, for example, and the oil pipeline issue with Ukraine. The very dependence of Europe on Russia oil makes conflict more likely, not less. Ditto the US and Mideast oil. If we didn't trade with middle eastern countries, there'd be no thought of war there. Colombia and Venezuela almost came to powers a number of times and Colombia is completely dependent on the latter when it comes to trade.

Trade creates dependence which creates vulnerability. There's a lot of teeth gnashing about Chinese "unfair trade" practices and whatnot, which wouldn't happen if we didn't trade with them. Our Congress is much more belligerent towards China than the President usually is. Relations could very easily become conflicting, and if it had not been for 9-11 we would have likely seen more US-China military posturing, since Bush made it clear his foreign policy goal coming into power was to go after China. Indeed, there was the spy plane incident on Hainan after all.

The connection between trade and lack of conflict is spurious. The world was heavily interdependent in the years prior to WWI, especially Britain and Germany, and yet that didn't end up mattering.

*blows, not powers.

Good post Putin. Interesting points you have raised. Germany and Japan's situation is unusual. That must surely change eventually.

well germany's position in Europe has changed from that of a nation-state to the position of being a pretty powerful player in the EU. A member state of an organisation run for the collective interest of the members.

i do agree that economic constraints are the major cause of most wars. but i think a 'fair' trade arrangement can result in less wars.

I don't think economics is the proximate cause of most wars these days. I mean, why would Germany risk major war to take a single city - Danzig? Or the Sudatenland? Maybe the Sudatenland was economically fairly significant, but I think the German population was the bigger issue. Ditto the Austrian crisis with Italy and Germany. People forget that Germany wanted Austria in 1934 but Mussolini made the Germans back off by threatening military action. Similarly, why would Russia give a damn about a small Balkan country which it had largely sold out a decade earlier? There was little economic benefit, but much more of an ethnic solidarity on the line, especially since Russia got absolutely nothing from selling out Bosnia in 1908.

Why have India and Pakistan fought multiple wars (and risked nuclear war) over an area of the country which is not particularly economically valuable - Kashmir? Why have Arab countries fought Israel over West Bank and Gaza?

It only makes sense when you consider ethnic solidarity.

Im sorry Putin, but i think your mayor ethnic solidarity example does not make sense.
Chamberlain thought the ethnic germans outside germany ware Hitlers aim, so thats the reason he gave in. But how would you explain the attacks on Poland, Denmark, Norway etc etc? That was all because Hitlers idea's about the glory of National Socialism, and a great Germany, so it was Nationalism, not ethic solidarity.

related, but still different things. He just used the ethnic card to hide his real intentions.

and what do you mean with a small Balkan country? Gergia? Matbe that was related with ethnic solidarity, but i think Russian aim was to show strenght en to impressing the own population. Because it looks like most Russians still fall for a strong man aproach. ( or they just don't get other options to vote for)

Gergia = Georgia of course

I think Putin was talking Serbia before WW1.

I think you are wrong Putin, economics still plays a large part in todays wars.WW2 wasn't fought purely over Danzig, Hitler did have a larger design which included annexing the USSR up to the Urals and making Germany the most powerful state in Europe. The Sudetenland contained the vastmajority of Czechoslovakia's fortreses and defences, the removal of these border defences greatly helped the Nazis.

Russia before WW1 desperately wanted access to the Mediterranean, as the Dardenelles were blocked off bya hostile Turkey.

Kashmir contains several key passes into India, and I think a number of rivers start in that area. That said I don't believe that all conflicts are fought for purely economic reasons, but it is a large factor in large majority of wars.

"I don't think economics is the proximate cause of most wars these days."

From a Marxist?

"But how would you explain the attacks on Poland, Denmark, Norway etc etc? That was all because Hitlers idea's about the glory of National Socialism, and a great Germany, so it was Nationalism, not ethic solidarity."

I'm not seeing how nationalism is a different motive than ethnic solidarity. Hitler's aim was a greater Germany, with all Germans living in one country.

"But how would you explain the attacks on Poland, Denmark, Norway etc etc?"

The attack on Poland was about taking Danzig, and since Poland resisted he got the added "bonus" of the old Prussian cities that had been transferred to Polish rule after WWI. The invasions of Norway and Denmark had more to do with the overall strategy of defeating Britain and France, particularly Britain. Germany felt that if it had bases in Norway during WWI it would have won the naval war then. Britain itself was violating Norwegian neutrality so there really wasn't any moral outrage about it.

Georgia is not a Balkan country, so I was referring to Serbia and why Russia went to its aid. Turkey joined the Central Powers well after the July crisis, so I don't see control of the Dardanelles as the primary motive. Although of course that is what they wanted in 1908, but the principle opponent to that move had always been Britain anyway.

As for outright annexing Soviet territory up to the Urals, I'm not sure about that. Surely in Mein Kampf he didn't suggest this, but a ring of pro-German statelets much like the period after Brest Litovsk for sure, and with German ruling classes of course. That's effectively what the European Union is now in that there is a bunch of Germanized statelets in eastern Europe that act as cheap labor for German manufacturing from which they dump their exports on the rest of the world and from which German banks can completely control their economies.

the 'nationalism' here is indistinguishable from economics. The german leadership felt it was in their economic interest to subdue the danes and the poles.

Danzig was important why?

For the Germans, it wasn't very important economically, as it had numerous Baltic Sea ports like Hamburg, Lubeck and Rostock. For the Poles more so, but even they were busily decreasing trade through Danzig by building a new port - Gdynia.

Denmark wasn't really subjugated, there was barely any resistance. I mean c'mon the invasion took 6 hours. There was pretty much zero partisan activity during the occupation. Easiest invasion of the war.

ok, so Denmark was entirely a strategic decision in the larger war for economic hegemony over europe (the other powers being france, Britian and Russia)

I said proximate cause. There may be background economic issues at play, but they seem to rarely be what ignites the fire.

ok, so in this i disagree with you.

The powers that be may use ethnic rivalries and nationalistic tendencies to stoke the fires which power their war machine, but the decision to go to war is usually not made by a populous who feels for these causes.

Russia may not have wanted to let let Serbians be abandoned, but Russian leaders would not have gone to war if they didn't see economic gains - whether they be territorial (in the balkans or further north in europe) or any other gains which might be made (like control of oil supplies from the Ottoman empire)