Berliner, Jiu-Jitsu, Jupiter: Why Geopolitics is Squirelly and Nuts

There is a surreal disconnect between what is going on in geopolitics and what is being discussed about geopolitics. The military establishment now speaks openly about the adversary being a “near” competitor rather than the small, ill-equipped opponents that the US faced in the past. This is weird, given that the practical issue is that Russia is threatening to deploy and use nuclear weapons on Earth and in space, which means they are a peer, not a near-peer. Also, those pesky non-peers always end up forcing the US to withdraw or concede defeat: Iraq, Afghanistan, Houthis, Hamas. People in the financial markets and the military alike spend time comparing military capability, strategy, and tactics, assuming Russia or China can be easily defeated in a tank-to-tank or ship-to-ship scenario. China and Russia know they cannot defeat the US using traditional military means. Their strategy is simple. Force the US to deploy military assets, which will bleed America dry of cash at a time when the US budget deficit is already overwhelmingly too large and perhaps unfixable. Create inflation by any means because the US is very politically sensitive to inflation, especially in the run-up to an important election. Open multiple geopolitical fronts because the US can’t handle a multi-front conflict very well.

This is geopolitical Jiu-Jitsu. Instead of trying to beat the US as if in a boxing match, the idea is to rely on leverage to force the Americans and NATO to respond in ways that are harmful to themselves. By arming and supporting smaller, more aggressive militants, such as the Houthis, Hamas, and Iran, China and Russia compel the US to place the US Navy on high alert in the Middle East, call it Defcon 3, and force them to remain at that level of readiness for as long as possible. Why? Because that costs a bomb. China then sends a few warships to Japan and Taiwan and forces the US to do the same in the Pacific. Why, because that too costs a bomb. Keep this up by having proxies, including Iran, lobbing bombs (the ones that don’t do that much damage) and threatening to escalate. Then, the US doesn’t just stand up military assets but is forced to remain deployed in a state of high alert. The sound of this geopolitical Jiu-Jitsu is Cha-ching. You can hear the cash draining away.

It is worth reminding ourselves that excessive blood loss is the number one killer on the battleground. Americans can furiously debate military strategy and fall back on the belief that we would always win a military conflict, even as we are bleeding out, not even realizing the situation requires a tourniquet. Similarly, the markets debate Federal Reserve policy without making any reference to the fact that conflict is inflationary and fiscally mortal. This geopolitical Jiu-Jitsu is designed to deny the Fed any opportunity to cut rates and may well force them to raise rates.

All this has become especially surreal in the last few weeks as military planners have had to face terrible and profound questions like – will Israel nuke/bomb Iran? Will Iran nuke/bomb Israel? Will Russia use any of this as an excuse to nuke/bomb Ukraine? Will the US nuke/bomb anybody in response? While most of us are out choosing what is wise to have for lunch, strategic security specialists have been busy trying to figure out the options on the nuclear/war menu.

We all seem to have forgotten the purpose of all this military spending is deterrence. If we have to use the military, we have failed. But, I ask myself, can we spend this much money on deterrence capabilities and weapons, and never use them? How do you keep the military in a state of full alert with the most powerful military capabilities ever devised, taken all the safeties off, and make sure nobody actually pulls a trigger or pushes a button? This is heavy stuff. Most everybody feels they are not responsible for the outcome here. Military people say they are just taking orders. Political leaders say they are awaiting military advice. The general citizenry is ignorant of the events in play or the gravity of the situation. Even if they knew, they’d feel helpless. Those creating the technologies that will permit modern warfare are only focused on the commercial aspects of their endeavors and see the use of such tech as somebody else’s call. How is all this possible?

We got part of the answer from a brilliant writer and an editor at NPR, Uri Berliner, a few weeks ago. He unleashed a firestorm in American politics with an opinion piece entitled: I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust: Uri Berliner, a veteran at the public radio institution, says the network lost its way when it started telling listeners how to think. As a result of the article, Berliner was suspended for five days without pay. Politico points out that he broke NPR’s rules about not publishing on other platforms. But, “Let’s not kid ourselves. He was docked a week’s pay for his message, not his conduct.” His managing editor at NPR wrote,