It is quite possible that the superpowers – Russia, China and even the US – may break into smaller, more manageable groupings after the current leadership move on. Size matters. Nation-states and global companies have become too big to manage. Smaller is becoming better.
Excellent article, Dr. Malmgrem. As always, a pleasure to read what you write.
The following has been stuck in my mind for a while. I am well aware how how conspiracy-theory it sounds! I would be very honoured if you were to give it some thought, even if (or especially if) you concluded that it is baseless.
First I need to establish two premises:
1) Is there actually a plan? Or is the West being led by a senile old man and a gaggle of power-hungry clueless millennials? To make any arguments, we must presume there is actually a plan, otherwise it's chaos all the way down.
2) Was the current war in Ukraine intentionally instigated by Washington? This is a direct product of premise number 1, and seems to me blindly obvious, although no justification of Moscow's actions (but you cannot back a wounded bear into a corner and then get offended when it launches itself at your dogs. The answer is to not be one of Washington's dogs, easier said than done).
If these two premises are roughly accurate in concept, then a coherent explanation to events may be sought.
If there is a plan, then we must presume that this plan extends to the destruction of Germany's (and, therefore, Europe's) industry, since in the run-up to the final bear-baiting in Ukraine, the Nord 2 was finally shut down on Washington's determined insistence, despite Europe not having anywhere nearly enough LNG capacity to substitute cheap Russian natural gas for American LNG, nor will have (for industrial purposes) for some years to come, after which any industrial capacity would have to be rebuilt, not just restarted.
I will go so far as to posit that this - the second American destruction of German industry - might well be the whole point of this exercise (if, as premise 1 posits, there is indeed a plan at all). What on earth was to be gained by bleeding to a premature death a demographically dying yet nuclear-armed Russia? The Russian Federation was already mainly and increasingly a source of raw non-value-added material to the global industry, and - due to massive corruption of the oligarchy - not at 'risk' of re-industrializing in a serious way. If this, a second American destruction of German industry, was the whole point, then the added loss of Chinese industrial inputs and market would seem to be the logical next step, although arguably not necessary, given the severity of the damage caused by loss of cheap Russian natural gas.
In this light, the provocation of Beijing regarding their open wound of Taiwan makes perfect sense. (Again, not defending Xi nor Putin, just trying to see things from their perspective. I have not an ounce of love for Russia or China, for very concrete reasons). This - the end of German (ergo European and partially UK) industry - in the light of the ongoing American political deglobalization, would seem to point towards a reestablishment of imperial commercial boundaries, as before WWII.
Parallel to this, but not necessarily dependent upon it, might be the forcing together of Russia and Beijing into an alliance, to be the dearly-missed bogeyman that the American Military-Industrial complex so badly needs to continue justifying its existence, and that the regime de-jour needs to continue justifying foreign adventures (although the overlap would seem to be great, and growing). This latter is a bit too close to conspiracy theory for my comfort, but not necessarily wrong.
Perhaps the implication of these thoughts is that a (mostly) civil Civil War is ahead for the experiment that is the USA while China takes de facto control of Russia. The bipolar world returns with the two poles in slightly different forms.
As an opinion piece, this has its merits. As analysis, not much. Thoroughly unsubstantiated thesis, and in glaring denial of historical evidence:
"Can Putin really destroy all local political opposition? Can he arrest every Russian who expresses disgust at the cost of his adventure in Ukraine?" Well, how long did the soviet experiment last, exactly on the premises of destroying political opposition and arresting/killing dissidents?
You also fail to consider that, whiles today's technology does provide an entirely new means of strengthening the power of the Square (as in Niall Fergusson's allegory), it arguably provides an even great power of centralized coercion to those in the Tower. Evidence of this during the pandemic was ample.
All in all, there is absolutely no empirical evidence today that size is a handicap. In fact, as in the affairs of business, also in the affairs of state: scale brings enormous advantages.
It is, nonetheless, possible that businesses and states reach a tipping point whereby scale becomes a handicap. Yet, they can still lumber on, even in decadence, on the sheer strength of asymmetrical technological and financial resources.
Revolution or collapse is not always how "things" end. In fact, rarely.
But, again, this opinion piece has its merits, and is not a bad fit for a good round at the pub.
Brilliant, thanks. Interesting with the Chinese mafia. I heard it has been involved big time in the Chinese housing bobble and working through the regional banks.
Dr Malmgren, thank you for this analysis. On your recent Macro Voices interview you mentioned how you think China will shift to a strategy of growth by acquisition. How does that trend play out vs the possible trend of China splintering? Thanks!
An excellent piece of writing. Large businesses as well as large nations end up dominated by the egocentric. The result of this is so obvious around the world.
Looking forward to your next interview with Erik T. I think you’re onto something with this article however the two countries operate at a different pace. The move on The leadership in Russia will get rotated out due to “health reasons” - however stability is valued by the world on Russia so that once again could open a different can of worms. On China, very glacial - that’s what folks don’t understand with Taiwan 20,years is fine to accomplish a goal. Xi however has solidified his position so a change there seems like a remote possibility. I see Russia as a convenient dance partner - Africa is the prize. 🙏
I wonder if we’ve seen this trend play out from the parts to the whole over the last decade or so. That would be fitting for this particular movement.
Large monoculture farms that grow one thing vs smaller farms that grow everything and support food needs for smaller communities (where this is possible). Ten years ago there were only a few CSAs in my area, now I have an option between 7-10 different farms. And even these have begun to specialise; a CSA for cultivated mushrooms, one for eggs and meat, another for veggies. Sometimes they collaborate but ultimately they are all individual smaller operations and they provide us with food we may otherwise buy at Costco.
Etsy is another example that comes to mind, a marketplace for small sellers providing much better and more interesting (in my opinion) versions of things you could get at larger stores. Also, customisation, what could be smaller in the retail space than 100% bespoke items? Etsy has grown immensely in terms of sellers and variety of products over the last decade. From all over the world. Did Etsy help I still the idea that smaller is better into the zeitgeist from the bottom up? I don’t know, but it’s an interesting idea.
An interesting thesis. Unquestionably many organizations have become too large to manage, be they governmental or corporate, but I fear that inertia, which is by far the most powerful force in the universe, will be very difficult to overcome. In other words, despite the fact that breaking things up may make the most sense, it will likely take a great shock to the system in order to accomplish that on any scale. Perhaps the denouement of the fourth turning will do the trick, but if that's what it takes, it will be a very messy process I fear.
Very interesting article. Government, like non-profits, are not subject to the same "sorting" mechanism of the market: incompetence and untrustworthiness are promoted to the top and illegal (and heinous) activities most often go unpunished in the U.S. Big Bureaucracy wants what makes its job easiest -- and that always requires the squashing of individual rights and the ruining of lives.
Excellent article, Dr. Malmgrem. As always, a pleasure to read what you write.
The following has been stuck in my mind for a while. I am well aware how how conspiracy-theory it sounds! I would be very honoured if you were to give it some thought, even if (or especially if) you concluded that it is baseless.
First I need to establish two premises:
1) Is there actually a plan? Or is the West being led by a senile old man and a gaggle of power-hungry clueless millennials? To make any arguments, we must presume there is actually a plan, otherwise it's chaos all the way down.
2) Was the current war in Ukraine intentionally instigated by Washington? This is a direct product of premise number 1, and seems to me blindly obvious, although no justification of Moscow's actions (but you cannot back a wounded bear into a corner and then get offended when it launches itself at your dogs. The answer is to not be one of Washington's dogs, easier said than done).
If these two premises are roughly accurate in concept, then a coherent explanation to events may be sought.
If there is a plan, then we must presume that this plan extends to the destruction of Germany's (and, therefore, Europe's) industry, since in the run-up to the final bear-baiting in Ukraine, the Nord 2 was finally shut down on Washington's determined insistence, despite Europe not having anywhere nearly enough LNG capacity to substitute cheap Russian natural gas for American LNG, nor will have (for industrial purposes) for some years to come, after which any industrial capacity would have to be rebuilt, not just restarted.
I will go so far as to posit that this - the second American destruction of German industry - might well be the whole point of this exercise (if, as premise 1 posits, there is indeed a plan at all). What on earth was to be gained by bleeding to a premature death a demographically dying yet nuclear-armed Russia? The Russian Federation was already mainly and increasingly a source of raw non-value-added material to the global industry, and - due to massive corruption of the oligarchy - not at 'risk' of re-industrializing in a serious way. If this, a second American destruction of German industry, was the whole point, then the added loss of Chinese industrial inputs and market would seem to be the logical next step, although arguably not necessary, given the severity of the damage caused by loss of cheap Russian natural gas.
In this light, the provocation of Beijing regarding their open wound of Taiwan makes perfect sense. (Again, not defending Xi nor Putin, just trying to see things from their perspective. I have not an ounce of love for Russia or China, for very concrete reasons). This - the end of German (ergo European and partially UK) industry - in the light of the ongoing American political deglobalization, would seem to point towards a reestablishment of imperial commercial boundaries, as before WWII.
Parallel to this, but not necessarily dependent upon it, might be the forcing together of Russia and Beijing into an alliance, to be the dearly-missed bogeyman that the American Military-Industrial complex so badly needs to continue justifying its existence, and that the regime de-jour needs to continue justifying foreign adventures (although the overlap would seem to be great, and growing). This latter is a bit too close to conspiracy theory for my comfort, but not necessarily wrong.
Perhaps the implication of these thoughts is that a (mostly) civil Civil War is ahead for the experiment that is the USA while China takes de facto control of Russia. The bipolar world returns with the two poles in slightly different forms.
As an opinion piece, this has its merits. As analysis, not much. Thoroughly unsubstantiated thesis, and in glaring denial of historical evidence:
"Can Putin really destroy all local political opposition? Can he arrest every Russian who expresses disgust at the cost of his adventure in Ukraine?" Well, how long did the soviet experiment last, exactly on the premises of destroying political opposition and arresting/killing dissidents?
You also fail to consider that, whiles today's technology does provide an entirely new means of strengthening the power of the Square (as in Niall Fergusson's allegory), it arguably provides an even great power of centralized coercion to those in the Tower. Evidence of this during the pandemic was ample.
All in all, there is absolutely no empirical evidence today that size is a handicap. In fact, as in the affairs of business, also in the affairs of state: scale brings enormous advantages.
It is, nonetheless, possible that businesses and states reach a tipping point whereby scale becomes a handicap. Yet, they can still lumber on, even in decadence, on the sheer strength of asymmetrical technological and financial resources.
Revolution or collapse is not always how "things" end. In fact, rarely.
But, again, this opinion piece has its merits, and is not a bad fit for a good round at the pub.
Brilliant, thanks. Interesting with the Chinese mafia. I heard it has been involved big time in the Chinese housing bobble and working through the regional banks.
Dr Malmgren, thank you for this analysis. On your recent Macro Voices interview you mentioned how you think China will shift to a strategy of growth by acquisition. How does that trend play out vs the possible trend of China splintering? Thanks!
Excellent top level view. If you want to descend into the Matrix to understand the memetic flows at play, here's a start. We all move to stable societal attractors. https://empathy.guru/2021/10/24/societal-attractors-and-long-term-prosperity/
An excellent piece of writing. Large businesses as well as large nations end up dominated by the egocentric. The result of this is so obvious around the world.
Ain’t it true!
Does this explain Brexit?
or is it more of...
Anglosphere to Eurasia: "Let's break up, much easier to manage"
Eurasia:" OK, you go first, break Scotland, N. Ireland, the US, and the EU (aka NATO)?"
Anglosphere: "@#$%^&! Moth__!@#$%^__"
I'm guessing it's more Orwell than Grand Chessboard.
provocative and interesting as always. Another inflationary trend if things get smaller and supply chains longer
Looking forward to your next interview with Erik T. I think you’re onto something with this article however the two countries operate at a different pace. The move on The leadership in Russia will get rotated out due to “health reasons” - however stability is valued by the world on Russia so that once again could open a different can of worms. On China, very glacial - that’s what folks don’t understand with Taiwan 20,years is fine to accomplish a goal. Xi however has solidified his position so a change there seems like a remote possibility. I see Russia as a convenient dance partner - Africa is the prize. 🙏
I wonder if we’ve seen this trend play out from the parts to the whole over the last decade or so. That would be fitting for this particular movement.
Large monoculture farms that grow one thing vs smaller farms that grow everything and support food needs for smaller communities (where this is possible). Ten years ago there were only a few CSAs in my area, now I have an option between 7-10 different farms. And even these have begun to specialise; a CSA for cultivated mushrooms, one for eggs and meat, another for veggies. Sometimes they collaborate but ultimately they are all individual smaller operations and they provide us with food we may otherwise buy at Costco.
Etsy is another example that comes to mind, a marketplace for small sellers providing much better and more interesting (in my opinion) versions of things you could get at larger stores. Also, customisation, what could be smaller in the retail space than 100% bespoke items? Etsy has grown immensely in terms of sellers and variety of products over the last decade. From all over the world. Did Etsy help I still the idea that smaller is better into the zeitgeist from the bottom up? I don’t know, but it’s an interesting idea.
An interesting thesis. Unquestionably many organizations have become too large to manage, be they governmental or corporate, but I fear that inertia, which is by far the most powerful force in the universe, will be very difficult to overcome. In other words, despite the fact that breaking things up may make the most sense, it will likely take a great shock to the system in order to accomplish that on any scale. Perhaps the denouement of the fourth turning will do the trick, but if that's what it takes, it will be a very messy process I fear.
thank you for another thought-provoking article
Very interesting article. Government, like non-profits, are not subject to the same "sorting" mechanism of the market: incompetence and untrustworthiness are promoted to the top and illegal (and heinous) activities most often go unpunished in the U.S. Big Bureaucracy wants what makes its job easiest -- and that always requires the squashing of individual rights and the ruining of lives.
Brilliant, as always. El Niño, next year will put additional stress on Chinese ability to grow food as another heat wave is most likely.
Oh, I forgot to mention that I liked the cheeky title!