My first post for 2025 is a Q&A with Professor Hal Brands on his new book, The Eurasian Century. His book explores the events and people of the first Eurasian century, and the contours of the second.
Enjoy reading your insights, thanks for taking the time to share them. Aren't we seeing the 3 major powers arrayed against the West (China, Iran, Russia) taking a beating right now?
Iran's entire foreign initiative has disintegrated in the last year and they face a leadership struggle as the leader passes from the scene.
China's economy is collapsing even before Trump can apply any sanctions, driven by a demographic collapse on a scale that is difficult to comprehend. How aggressive can they be militarily, especially considering their oil and raw material supply chain exposure?
Russia is being bled economically, militarily, and demographically by their Ukrainian war, and now are struggling to keep control of their southern flank. Their military supply post in Syria is gone, and a fallback to Libya is very uncertain and risky, with follow-on impacts on their African expeditions. Strategically doesn't the U.S. just need to keep them bleeding in Ukraine as long as possible?
Mike, you make some cogent points. As far as the US “strategy “ of just keeping Russians bleeding in Ukraine, that keeps Ukraine bleeding as well. Biden’s great failure in Ukraine policy seems to have been not giving our brave allies all the support they need when they needed it to defeat the aggressors. I suppose this is through some misplaced fear of destabilizing Russia, a rogue nation running a low grade war against the rest of Europe as well. After two devastating world wars, the Pax Americana has keep the peace in Europe for almost 80 years. Should that finally fail, the planet could well be in for another round of war sooner than later.
For those interested in further analysis of current geopolitics, I recommend Alfred McCoy’s To Govern the Globe:World Orders and Catastrophic Change.
"I spend more time thinking and worrying about this than any other subject. I want to be fair to Trump and the people around him: I think it is very likely that this administration will pursue strong, necessary policies in a variety of areas. If Trump rolls back Iran's nuclear program and its power in the Middle East, if he hikes defense spending, if he pushes the allies--hard--to do the same, all of those things would leave the free world better positioned for the hard fights ahead.
But with Trump, there's also the possibility that he will spend his time brawling with allies over tariffs or host-nation payments, or that his administration will simply be a conflicted, disorganized mess. People who don't like Trump's policies might be tempted to root for that outcome, but that would be a mistake.
The US and its friends need Trump to be a successful foreign policy president if we are all to get through the dangerous years ahead."
A clarifying and scary statement. The Trump administration on foreign policy is akin to high stakes trading in volatile stocks. The upside could be big, but the downside could wipe out all of your life savings.
You are correct. This "axis of resistance" to the US and our allies is doing very badly. I think Trump will crush Iran, and help send Communist China into the scrapheap of history.
I have avoided Hal Brands because his views seem so extreme.... and indeed, the very premise of his book is incorrect: the Eurasian continent "heartland" has been dominated by Europe for centuries. World War I was NOT the beginning of the European century, it was a catastrophic conflict which broke Europe's power. Europe had dominated the world for centuries!
MacKinder's theories are only useful up to a point. But it is far more likely that Russia will break apart than dominate the Heartland.
Putin's War on Ukraine has been a disaster. The Russian air force (which has been billed as an existential threat to us for half a century) has shown itself to be useless. And half of Russia's Black Sea Fleet has been sent to the bottom by a poverty stricken country with no navy! The "second most powerful" army on Earth cannot conquer a former province!
Remember, Russia was the military power, and China was the economic power in the partnership. Most Chinese weapons are pirated copies of Russian weapons.
Very succinct. It's a mystery to me that these points even need to be made, but alas they do. I'm afraid we don't have the luxury of four years of drift.
Thank you for the interesting review of the interesting book. In my view this Assumption that you and BRANDS mention is correct:
“ They outlined how aggressive powers would try to conquer Eurasia's vital regions and use them as platforms for global expansion--and how worldwide coalitions, made up of onshore and offshore nations, would try to hold them back. That's a pretty good template for understanding”
This aggressive power is off course the declining U.S.-NATO trying to expand and conquer Eastwards and Southwards. This imperial Mission is stated in the U.S. Grand Strategy and is not secret.
The amazing self-delusion of Western theorists and intellectuals cocooned in their bubble remains an endless source of surprise and failure…
Enjoy reading your insights, thanks for taking the time to share them. Aren't we seeing the 3 major powers arrayed against the West (China, Iran, Russia) taking a beating right now?
Iran's entire foreign initiative has disintegrated in the last year and they face a leadership struggle as the leader passes from the scene.
China's economy is collapsing even before Trump can apply any sanctions, driven by a demographic collapse on a scale that is difficult to comprehend. How aggressive can they be militarily, especially considering their oil and raw material supply chain exposure?
Russia is being bled economically, militarily, and demographically by their Ukrainian war, and now are struggling to keep control of their southern flank. Their military supply post in Syria is gone, and a fallback to Libya is very uncertain and risky, with follow-on impacts on their African expeditions. Strategically doesn't the U.S. just need to keep them bleeding in Ukraine as long as possible?
Mike, you make some cogent points. As far as the US “strategy “ of just keeping Russians bleeding in Ukraine, that keeps Ukraine bleeding as well. Biden’s great failure in Ukraine policy seems to have been not giving our brave allies all the support they need when they needed it to defeat the aggressors. I suppose this is through some misplaced fear of destabilizing Russia, a rogue nation running a low grade war against the rest of Europe as well. After two devastating world wars, the Pax Americana has keep the peace in Europe for almost 80 years. Should that finally fail, the planet could well be in for another round of war sooner than later.
For those interested in further analysis of current geopolitics, I recommend Alfred McCoy’s To Govern the Globe:World Orders and Catastrophic Change.
"I spend more time thinking and worrying about this than any other subject. I want to be fair to Trump and the people around him: I think it is very likely that this administration will pursue strong, necessary policies in a variety of areas. If Trump rolls back Iran's nuclear program and its power in the Middle East, if he hikes defense spending, if he pushes the allies--hard--to do the same, all of those things would leave the free world better positioned for the hard fights ahead.
But with Trump, there's also the possibility that he will spend his time brawling with allies over tariffs or host-nation payments, or that his administration will simply be a conflicted, disorganized mess. People who don't like Trump's policies might be tempted to root for that outcome, but that would be a mistake.
The US and its friends need Trump to be a successful foreign policy president if we are all to get through the dangerous years ahead."
A clarifying and scary statement. The Trump administration on foreign policy is akin to high stakes trading in volatile stocks. The upside could be big, but the downside could wipe out all of your life savings.
You are correct. This "axis of resistance" to the US and our allies is doing very badly. I think Trump will crush Iran, and help send Communist China into the scrapheap of history.
I have avoided Hal Brands because his views seem so extreme.... and indeed, the very premise of his book is incorrect: the Eurasian continent "heartland" has been dominated by Europe for centuries. World War I was NOT the beginning of the European century, it was a catastrophic conflict which broke Europe's power. Europe had dominated the world for centuries!
MacKinder's theories are only useful up to a point. But it is far more likely that Russia will break apart than dominate the Heartland.
Putin's War on Ukraine has been a disaster. The Russian air force (which has been billed as an existential threat to us for half a century) has shown itself to be useless. And half of Russia's Black Sea Fleet has been sent to the bottom by a poverty stricken country with no navy! The "second most powerful" army on Earth cannot conquer a former province!
Remember, Russia was the military power, and China was the economic power in the partnership. Most Chinese weapons are pirated copies of Russian weapons.
Would YOU want to start a war with Chinese arms?
This was written in support of Mike Snow's comment, but it ended up as a stand alone. "You are correct" is in response to Snow, NOT Hal Brands!
Very succinct. It's a mystery to me that these points even need to be made, but alas they do. I'm afraid we don't have the luxury of four years of drift.
Thank you for the interesting review of the interesting book. In my view this Assumption that you and BRANDS mention is correct:
“ They outlined how aggressive powers would try to conquer Eurasia's vital regions and use them as platforms for global expansion--and how worldwide coalitions, made up of onshore and offshore nations, would try to hold them back. That's a pretty good template for understanding”
This aggressive power is off course the declining U.S.-NATO trying to expand and conquer Eastwards and Southwards. This imperial Mission is stated in the U.S. Grand Strategy and is not secret.
The amazing self-delusion of Western theorists and intellectuals cocooned in their bubble remains an endless source of surprise and failure…