Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 on an unexpected upswell of populist sentiment. The alternative, Hillary Clinton, was seen as corrupt and self-serving. A change in the direction of the country was in order. To some, this was a moment of triumph, a sign that things may change. To others, this was a moment of despair, a sign of trials and tribulations to come.

After four politically chaotic years and the socially chaotic year of 2020, the election of Joe Biden was heralded as a return to normalcy. The adults were back in charge. However, such promises did not align with reality.

Over the course of these past four years, food prices increased 25%, housing prices increased 47%, and inflation raged at 9%. Instead of addressing this clear decline in standards of living, our elites dismissingly tell us that "you will own nothing, and you will be happy." This dystopian promise appears to be more inevitable with every passing day.

Meanwhile, the Biden Administration unilaterally implemented a policy of open borders by refusing to enforce immigration laws. Since 2020, over 8 million individuals, many of whom are military age males from countries of interest such as China, Iran, and Russia, have entered America via illegal channels. Venezuelan gangs are proliferating across the US. Nearly 6% of Haiti’s entire population has relocated to the US while retaining special payments from American taxpayers through the federal government and non-profits profiting from the open borders policy.

Those who oppose this policy of open borders that was implemented without a single vote cast are labeled a racist and a bigot.

The Biden Administration’s performance on foreign affairs follows same the pattern of incompetence and idiocy. Kabul fell in three days, not 90. Russia will likely maintain its hold over large swaths of eastern and southern Ukraine despite the over $100 billion dollars in aid sent by the American taxpayers. Iranian-backed jihadi militants have shut down the Red Sea shipping lanes for the past year, but not for Chinese or Russian vessels. The Pax Americana is over, and with it the entire system of globalization and commerce. We are running on fumes.

The U.S. is no longer a meritocracy but a neo-aristocracy. This is why, despite their sheer incompetence and corruption, ruling elites never experience consequences for their actions.

Every great civic virtue is founded upon a myth. It is an aspiration. It is propagandized. It is not reality. However, it is useful for society for it orients society towards a specific goal. The foundation myth of American elites is the myth of meritocracy.

For generations, Americans were raised to believe that no matter the status of a person’s birth, ethnicity, or religion, it was possible to rise through the ranks of society to achieve great things. Yet, the hallmark of American elites today is corruption and incompetence.

Many who still believe in the myth of meritocracy attempt to argue that there is still upward mobility in the U.S. Furthermore, they attempt to argue that since 70% of wealthy families lose their wealth in two generations and 90% lose it in three generations, the meritocracy must somehow still persist. However, does the presence of elite turnover mean that a meritocracy is present? How many noble families rose and fell in three generations during 15th Century England? Even in pre-Revolutionary France, the bankruptcy and demise of great families was no rare occurrence.

What makes a meritocracy a meritocracy is determined by two factors: the ability of ruling elites to lose and the methods by which elites obtain prestige.

To illustrate, consider a game of poker with four quadrants: you have a good hand played well, a bad hand played well, a good hand played poorly, and a bad hand played poorly. Obviously, the person dealt a good hand who plays it well is going to walk away a winner almost every time while the person who is dealt a bad hand and plays it poorly is going to have a tough time of things. Life is no different. The tail ends of society tend to have radically divergent outcomes.

The common misperception of meritocracy is it allows for a person with a bad hand and play it well to move up the social hierarchy. While a meritocracy does make this outcome more likely, that is not its hallmark. People from ordinary backgrounds have always risen to prominence. Even the Roman Empire watched several men start as lowly legionnaires and rise through the ranks to become Emperor. The indicator of a meritocracy is defined by the ability of those who have been dealt the perfect hand to play it poorly and lose. It is when elites face consequences for their incompetence and are forced to move down the social hierarchy.

The challenge in America is elites have rigged the game so that they can never lose. There is never any accountability for their actions no matter how bad they screw up. They only fail upwards. Is there any other interpretation for why Wall Street executives continued to receive multi-million bonuses in the aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis or why Obama refused to levy any charges against those responsible for the greatest financial catastrophe since the Great Depression?

No longer is America ruled by the competent, but by the credentialed sycophants. What matters for ruling elites is not a person’s competency and capabilities but whether or not they are “the right kinds of people.” Would the young lady from Fayetteville with a 130-IQ who stays home to go to school at Arkansas State be granted the same opportunities as the young man from urban Chicago with a 100-IQ admitted into Yale for being underprivileged? Of course not.

Success in America is increasingly determined by one’s credentials and branding, not by one’s merits. It is for this reason that the social order may be described as a neo-aristocracy for it is the American university system, supposedly the great symbol of liberal egalitarianism, that is the source of these modern titles of nobility.

For over a decade, the overwhelming majority of students currently attend college, not to further their knowledge of a particular subject, but to increase their earning potential. Meanwhile, universities are becoming increasingly centered, not around the goal of teaching, but around attracting research grants that can be turned into patents. This incongruence of interests creates a system which works for university faculty and for the students of the most prestigious institutions but condemns everyone else to a fate of indentured servitude in the form of student loan debt.

The median student loan debt is around $25,000 while the median salary of a college graduate is only $55,000. Compare this to the expectation of the average college student expecting to make six figures straight of the college. When new graduates enter the workforce, this rude awakening is often a moment of radicalization. These individuals soon become the shock troops for those wishing to overturn the status quo for their own benefit. The system is a feature, not a fluke.

Furthermore, while student loan debt has grown from $187 billion in 1995 to $1.77 trillion in 2023, the size of university administrations and endowments are disproportionately skyrocketing. From 1976 to 2018, full-time administrative and other university jobs ballooned by 164% and 452% whereas student populations only increased by 78%. Meanwhile, 132 universities in the U.S. commanded endowments of over $1 billion in 2022.

Just like in Washington, the leaders of American universities advance their own self-interests at the expense of the people they supposedly serve. Universities no longer teach students how to think but what to think. Universities used to challenge their students to consider the practical applications of ideas but now ask “I get how it works in practice, but how does it work in theory?” The Ivory Tower is literally training the next generation of American leaders to divorce themselves from the real-world consequences of their actions. Because of their position at the top of the social hierarchy, American elites have the luxury of indulging in this kind of thinking. Elite power, wealth, and prestige provides insulation from the consequences of their own bad ideas.

Without the establishment of counterbalances to elite power, without the establishments of feedback mechanism to punish elites for their inequities, the deterioration of American civic virtue will continue apace. Even now, elites seek to establish a new national myth for their power founded in ideas that once originated in the dark corners of academia such as Critical Race Theory; Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI); and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). Competence is no longer the metric for success, towing the party line is.

The consequence of abandoning meritocratic virtue is sowing seeds of woe across society. Boeing, the same company renowned for its bombers that helped win the Second World War, is witnessing failure after failure of its airplanes as it has intentionally suppressed the wisdom of its engineers in favor of financiers and “personality” hires.

Even the Secret Service, that once distinguished agency that protected America’s highest-ranking officials, is being exposed as its head, personally selected by First Lady Jill Biden, repeatedly refused to provide former President Trump with the additional security prior to a failed assassination attempt. What’s more, Secret Service officials had failed to secure a rooftop a mere 150 yards away from the podium and failed to respond as bystanders pleaded for action to be taken against the strange individual on the nearby roof.

There are but two of the plethora of examples which permeate every fabric of American society. Elites have insulated themselves from accountability and are now no different from the old European aristocracy who belittled all appeals of reform while flaunting their hedonistic lifestyles. Despite the remonstrances of today’s wisemen and astrologists - that is think tankers and economists - the emergence of social discord is always due to a failure of elites to respond to voice of the people. And in a representative republic like the United States, it is because the so-called representatives of the people advance their own self-interests at the expense of the best interests of the people.

It is for these reasons it should be little surprise that, despite his flaws and excesses, Donald Trump was reelected as president by overwhelming margins. Indeed, Trump's victory was the first time in 20 years a Republican has won the national popular vote with some minority groups swinging Republican by well over double digits. Just as in 2016, Trump’s election in 2024 is a repudiation and a rejection of the status quo elites. While Americans may disdain the more chaotic elements of a second Trump administration, this is preferable to things remaining the same. It is not the process, a thing so sacred to status quo elites, that matters to the average American: it is the policy outcomes which matter the most. Competence is the expectation.

The second Trump administration is expected to begin the process of reform and force accountability upon incompetent and self-serving elites. This will unquestionably result in acrimonious rhetoric and political actions as Trump and his team begin the process of firing incompetent individuals within the federal bureaucracy as well as pursuing criminal charges against those who have broken the law. The end result of such ventures is unknown, but it possible to discern how this process of populist reform followed by counter reform and ultimate resolution is but part of a cycle of human affairs.

And so, attention must be given to the demise of the Roman Republic and the lessons of the past.

Shatterpoints began some four years ago as an attempt to make sense of a world in chaos. Covid-19, the George Floyd riots, the 2020 election – all of these events took place in less than an 11-month window.

The reason for the silence is rather mundane: I moved for work.

A year ago, I moved to Washington, DC to begin a new journey in life. It was for a job opportunity that would allow me to leverage skills and passions honed over the course of a decade. While attempts were made to keep up with Shatterpoints, the realities of living in DC took its toll. No matter how corrupt, decadent, and incompetent you may think Washington, DC is, the reality is far worse. The most powerful country on earth is run by a bunch of self-righteous invalids concerned more with their own image and selfish ambitions than the best interests of the nation, much less the best interest of humanity.

It wasn’t a single interaction or moment that resulted in this conclusion, but a series of interactions and moments.

In almost every conversation, it’s clear individuals in DC are only interested in what can be gained from you. Are you someone important, can you provide introductions to someone important, do you know something important? Without an affirmative to at least one of these questions, you might as well not exist. Such realities weigh heavily upon the mind and soul.

What’s more, throughout these interactions with individuals working at various think tanks and for members of Congress, it became painfully clear the people in charge don't know what they're doing. There is no plan. Instead of prudent planning and careful introspection, there is an obsession of advancing oneself and avoiding the consequences for bad decisions. Accountability is for little people.

Under the shadow of such an existence, writing became impossible. How can one reflect upon the major trends driving humanity when it seems that those calling the shots seem hell-bent on driving us all off a cliff? Dissipation becomes far easier.

I fear this is the choice a great many of us make. In the face of such chaos, how can one ever hope to make a difference? The tensions, the anxieties that defined 2020 seem only to be amplified in 2024. The very questions we thought answered have turned out to be only postponed. We don't solve problems anymore, we collect them.

So what is one to do?

This is the question that haunted me for 11 months. While I thankfully no longer live in Washington, DC, the experiences linger. It remains difficult to dwell deeply upon the future of geopolitics for it is impossible to escape the feeling every word on the page has as much merit as chasing after the wind. To prescribe where we must go and what we must do is the matter of politics. While there are unquestionably macro forces at work which constrain the forces of politics, the choices of our political leaders and their individual vagrancies matter far more to the course of history than any political scientist wants to admit.

Even though there is much to be said about the forces that constrain political leaders, it's equally as important to understand how we got here. This requires understanding the patterns of history, from the Roman Republic to early modern Europe to the post-World War II order, each of these things must be inspected in detail and dissected so that we may learn from the lessons of the past lest we repeat their errors. Only by understanding our past can we ever hope to control our future, for a man with no past has no future.

So consider this a soft reboot. If I’m being honest, this is the second soft reboot I've had over these past four years. It’s what happens when the writing is only a passion project. However, I've come to realize Shatterpoints isn't just a passion project, it's a platform. People subscribe to this publication because they feel that there is value contained there within. As a result, I, the author, have a certain duty to you, dear reader. My duty, moving forward, is this: I will do my best to provide an article every month. While commentary on geopolitics is not going away, indeed there is an article forthcoming shortly, expect many articles to take on a more historical bent.

It is impossible to change our current self-destructive trajectory without fully reconciling ourselves with the tragic, brutal realities of our past. Only a fool at best and a self-righteous psychopath at worst would choose to condemn the entirety of human history while maintaining they offer the final solution to addressing the problems of evil, pain, and suffering in this life. To err is to be human.

There is no chance for us to make the world a better place, there is no chance of us making a difference without us first recognizing our frailties. We are not invincible. We are not God. We are but mere mortals. Our breath is but a vapor in the grand scheme of human history. Our life, our existence is but a drop in the bucket of the over 8 billion people alive today. We all have agency, we all have wills of our own, and we all must one day give an account of ourselves in the end. We are the product of the choices we make.

By identifying and understanding the grand patterns of human history, it is possible to recognize what is happening in the world and be better. Individually, it's impossible for any of us to truly change the world. The irony though is that if enough of us believe the same thing, and act in concert with one another, we can change the world.

In returning home from Washington, DC, I recognized that the most important thing I could do was to make my home better. It is far too easy to become fixated upon international and national politics only to forget how local politics and decisions play a far greater role in determining our futures. However, perspective remains important. The danger in focusing solely upon one's home community is perspective can be quickly lost. So while I strive for my day-to-day interactions to be fixated upon my local community, writing about geopolitics provides perspective.

Those who wish to play a role in influencing human history must strive to seek a balance between the particular interests of their home and the broader interests of humanity. One must seek to serve both the interests of one’s own and the interests of outside communities without losing sight of one’s true loyalties. This only comes through humility and servant leadership.

Shatterpoints is about wrestling with these paradoxes of human existence. It's about identifying the hidden fissures within every complex system so that the inflection points of human history may be better understood. These past four years have been an unprecedented time for both the U.S. and for the world. While it is impossible to predict what may transpire over the next four years, careful inspection of history will show that the past is the key to the present.

Anger is an often-overlooked human emotion. It can be triggered by multiple factors, but anger is frustration and discontent at the status quo. A mature human adult is taught to restrain this anger and to not act immediately upon it in their everyday life. This is the distinction between toddlers and adults, though it is a distinction that is increasingly blurred amongst our leaders in recent years. Nevertheless, a righteous anger can reshape nations.

Parents are biologically hardwired to want what's best for their offspring. Parents desire for their children to inherit better lives than their own. When such a prospect becomes impossible, there is great anger. The natural human tendency is to gravitate towards displacement, to blame someone else for one's own sufferings. Rightfully or wrongfully, parents will blame those in power for the inability to achieve their evolutionary aspirations.

This creates a predictable pattern where prolonged stagnation ultimately results in a status quo elite being forced out of power by aspirational elites. There is, however, a strange exception to this pattern. The general pattern of elite dynamics is interrupted when a nation's population starts dropping below replacement. When this happens, the elderly soon outnumber the young. There are immediate economic and political ramifications as well as psychological and social consequences.

It's almost trite to note the marked differences between the dispositions of the young versus the old. The young are entirely consumed by vision and potential. There is no obstacle that cannot be overcome, no possibility thar is not worth exploring, and no great risk that is not worth undertaking. The old, on the other hand, are of a different mood. Age has chastened the foolhardy while experience has taught that some obstacles cannot be overcome, some possibilities are not worth exploring, and some risks are not worth undertaking. This difference between the young and the old in political terms is best described as the difference between a liberal disposition and a conservative disposition, change versus the status quo.

When a society possesses a young demographic structure, society is transfixed by a vitality and overwhelming desire for change. But when the demographic pyramid is reversed, the opposite occurs. The overarching goal of a society dominated by the old is conservatism, that is maintenance of the status quo. Instead of vitality, there is stagnation. Those who are old wish to maintain what they have. Those who are old do not wish to sacrifice any more. And when you are in an individualistic society like that of Western Civilization, you find yourself at an especially difficult crossroads.

This is the great challenge facing globalization and modernity: there is not a single advanced economy with an above replacement birthrate. The world’s economic engines of the U.S., EU, and China are all facing significant economic and social problems as the Baby Boomer generation retires en-masse. Already, the strains on domestic economic, government, healthcare, and social systems are mounting.

One element of economic growth is a nation’s dependency ratio. This metric measures the ratio of workers to dependents in a society, that is the percent of working-age adults in the general population. When that ratio is low, a nation has more resources available to pour into infrastructure, education, technology, and industry. Furthermore, individuals without children possess higher levels of disposable income, which further fuels consumption spending and economic growth. Indeed, an unsung aspect of China’s meteoric growth is how it contained 27% of the world’s working-age population in the 1990s and how the One Child Policy drove down the dependency ratio. It’s easy to supercharge the economy when you don’t have to worry about childcare.

There’s a problem though. The ultra-low dependency ratios that advanced economies enjoyed for the past 30 years are unsustainable. As workers age, they eventually become dependents and the previous dependents - children - become the new workers. But what happens when there is no next generation of workers?

The reckoning.

Advanced economies are now entering a demographic doom loop where an ever-increasing percentage of the nation’s productive capacity is siphoned into old-age care and pensions. This trend is destined to continue until either the demographic pyramid normalizes by having more children or the society itself dies. The Children of Men isn’t a movie, it’s a documentary. What’s more is the structure of modern society is oriented in such a way that it discourages the formation of families and the bearing and raising of children.

Humans are biologically wired to reach their sexual peak in their 20s. It’s simply a lot easier to bounce back the next day after dealing with a crying infant all night when you're 22 as opposed to when you’re 32. It may be argued that it is the societal ideal to be married in one’s 20s and have children shortly thereafter. This is the most common pattern of human reproduction that stretches across recorded human history until recent decades.

Although marrying in one’s 20s may be the societal ideal, it is far from the societal norm. Let us consider the basic structure of modern American life for most young people.

From age 18 to 22, it is expected that you will go to college, otherwise, you’re a loser. From there, you’ll likely graduate with close to $30,000 student loan debt you now have to figure out how to pay off. The next move for most is you take the highest paying job in your field and move to big city that’s likely far from home. You find some roommates to split an apartment to make housing affordable, then you spend the next 5-6 years trying to decide if you even like the job you’re doing while hopefully making a decent enough dent towards repaying all those student loans.

At this point, you’re in your late 20s. If you’ve pitched a perfect game, you might just be in a position to start thinking about getting married and having a family. This becomes even harder if you’re like a lot of young people and end up moving from big city to big city in search of better opportunities to remove that mountain of debt and achieve financial independence. Thing is, your social network and community resets every time you move. Life can get pretty lonely pretty fast. It’s little wonder then that the average age for first marriage in America is 30 for men and 28 for women. Assuming you’re lucky enough to find someone.

Marriage rates in America are plummeting. The number of people who have never married are at record highs. This isn’t just a signal of a decline for respect of the institution of marriage, it’s a signal that American society as a whole is becoming less trustworthy and more lonely. Almost 10% of Americans say they have no close friends.

The structure of American society is oriented to maximize wealth. After all, “the social responsibility of a company is to increase profits.” Profit for the sake of profit is the moral ethos that permeates every aspect of American life from commerce to politics to culture to even family life. With childcare costing almost $9,000 a year, who can afford more than one kid when both parents have to work to begin with? It’s not that Millennials (for it is Millennials who are having kids these days) don’t want kids, surveys show we want more kids than we actually have, it’s that the current social structure of maximizing wealth turns children into a luxury.

When money becomes the god and wealth becomes religion
A human sacrifice is one of the conditions

There are a great many moralists and devout religious observers who rightfully bemoan the pitiful state of American society. Yet, despite their innumerous pronouncements and various prophecies coming true, the defenders of traditional morality find themselves more irrelevant with every passing day. Evermore these individuals cry out for a greater adherence to traditional morality. Evermore are these declarations treated with disdain and scorn by general society.

But why?

There is a growing recognition that society, at its core, is fundamentally broken. How many young people find themselves caught up in the hopeless cycle of hookup culture? Drunkenly stumbling from one night stand to one night stand, countless young people find themselves, in their most vulnerable moments, asking a dangerous question: is this all there is?

There's something in the human soul that recognizes that modernity is at fundamental odds with what it means to be human. Modernity isn't just defying our basic human impulses, it is seeking to redefine them. We all know, in our heart of hearts, that it is good, that it is admirable to be married when one is young. To cherish the love of one's youth is one of the greatest joys in life. Yet, the young people of today find themselves increasingly unable to find the very thing that every single man, woman, and child to walk the face of this earth has ever really wanted: to love and to be truly loved, to know and to be truly known.

A big reason the defenders of traditional morality are viewed with such disdain is because they often offer only condemnation without solutions. It is far easier to condemn the choices of today’s youth and applaud one’s own choices in a spirit of self-righteous superiority than it is to recognize that the social structures of today run contrary to human flourishing. Recognition of this fact would mean there is now a solemn duty to engage in the laborious and difficult process of reform lest one become morally complicit in the inequities of society.

Altering the economic, educational, and cultural systems which hinder the formation and flourishing of families requires older generations sacrificing some of their comfort and prosperity so that future generations may have a better tomorrow. It means acknowledging the current debt-fueled pipeline of high school to university is unsustainable. It means acknowledging that not only is housing never more unfordable but that housing markets continue to be disproportionately dominated by Baby Boomers pricing out younger generations with only 22% of houses in 2022 purchased by first-time homebuyers. It means acknowledging that, by age 35, Millennials are statistically less likely to be married, own a home, and enter high-status career fields compared to Baby Boomers.

We sit beneath the trees of which we did not plant, so why are today’s leaders hellbent on cutting down those trees to fuel their bonfire of vanities? The 17% of the U.S. population that is older than 65 holds over half the nation’s wealth, yet this bountiful blessing of $96.4 trillion appears destined not to be passed on as generational wealth, but squandered upon dissipations and pleasures much like the Prodigal Son squandered his own inheritance, except now it is the father squandering the inheritance of his sons.

It is difficult for younger generations to not be overcome by cynicism. We watched as the world we grew up with shattered over a few fall days. Even now, we watch our own youth and vitality transform into middle-age, yet we still find ourselves unable to change things for the better. The power and wealth of America remains with those who called the shots 30 years ago. And as fall turns to winter, so too are we entering into the twilight years of the Silent and Baby Boomer generations.

It is obvious America is headed in the wrong direction. Poll after poll confirms this. Jimmy Carter was once damned for even suggesting the best days of America were over, and yet, the majority of Americans secretly fear this may be true. So why is there no change? The responsibility of reform and change lies disproportionately with those who possess the numbers, power, and wealth to affect change.

Many leaders of the Silent and Baby Boomer generation have retained their power and authority for the greater part of the past 30 years. While some have performed admirably, they are sadly the exception and not the rule. If ye may judge a tree by its fruit, then what do the fruits of American cultural, political, economic, and religious life these past 30 years say about the tenure of today’s leaders?

The question of societal reform is not a matter of what is best for a single generation, far from it. Indeed, I would be remiss not to admit that there are collective desires of my fellow Millennials which run contrary to the best interests of the nation. The collective interests of my generation, of my own self-interest, should not be the guiding compass for my political beliefs.

And neither should it be so for the Silent and Baby Boomer generations.

With every passing day, the collective tension and anxiety rises. It sometimes explodes in moments of violent civil disorder. Yet, our leaders find themselves either unwilling or unable to do what is necessary to set society back on the track of greater peace and greater prosperity. Desperately do they hold onto power even as their birthday candle displays morph into blazing infernos.

It is impossible to escape the coming demographic and economic crisis. The time to avert disaster has long since come and gone. As the security order underpinning globalization erodes, so too do the global economic, financial, and political systems which dominated human affairs for the past 30 years deteriorate. Chaos is inevitable. The question is only how devasting the coming storm will be, and that is predicated on the willingness of those in power to implement reform.

The looming danger is elites will choose their own self-interests and the interests of their particular generation over the best interests of the nation. Sadly, this is the pattern displayed for the past three decades. It is difficult to shake the idea that unless there is a changing of the guard, the greater community will suffer grave consequences for its leaders’ selfishness. Elites remain delusional that the status quo can be saved. They would rather expend the remnants of their power, wealth, and prestige in a desperate attempt to hold on to what they have rather than build something new. They are, in the truest sense, conservatives.

Reform is not merely necessary, but inevitable. Either we choose to reform American economic, educational, and cultural systems, or the coming breakdown of the Liberal International Order will force a restructuring. The people cannot tolerate declines in their security and prosperity indefinitely. It is only a matter of time before the floodgates break.

Our post-COVID world is best described as discombobulated. It feels as if every institution from politics to business to culture - to even religion - remains disrupted in ways once thought unimaginable. It was said during the Russian Revolution that “there are years when weeks happen and then there are weeks where years happen”. Our age belongs to the latter.

It is one thing to write of the coming reckoning of American elites, the inevitable fragmentation of globalization, or China’s greying future but it is another to live these events. There may be trends driving the future of human civilization, but we mustn’t forget that we are not the mere passive observers of history, but also its agents. The human element of geopolitical analysis cannot be overlooked for sometimes the story of a single human life can provide insights into the greater tapestry of events.

Millennials often gets a bad rap in the popular discourse. My generation tends to be labelled as lazy, entitled, and directionless, yet such tropes overlook the reality that millennials experienced some of the most radical changes in American history during the most formative years of their lives.

My story is reflective of the millennial generation. Born in 1992, the year after the Soviet Union collapsed, my childhood is full of memories that characterize the classic middle-class child growing up in the 90s. I remember going to places like Discovery Zone and getting lost in the maze of tubes. I remember being forcibly dragged out of the ball pit at Chuck E. Cheese. I remember going outside every evening to play random games with the neighborhood kids - all without parent supervision! We didn't have a care in the world, and every day seems better than the next.

Then the unthinkable happens: 9/11.

I am homeschooled at the time. It is just another tranquil fall day in Central Florida as I begin my math homework. Then my mom gets a call from my dad to turn on the television. The first thing we see is the second plane hitting the World Trade Center.

My mom tries to shield me from what was on the TV screen, but to no avail. I have to watch. As I watch the buildings collapse before my eyes, the people leaping from the building to their certain doom. There is something in my eight-year-old brain that knows I am witnessing history. I write in my little journal that this is my generation’s Pearl Harbor. I was a strange child. I mean, what eight-year-old thinks like that?

Yet, time goes on.

Like every child, I progress from an age of innocence and begin experiencing the world. These experiences soon make me realize that many of the things I was taught as a child are but a comforting lie. Reconciling these harsh realities results in a time of frustration and rebellion.

And so too it is with the United States.

Throughout the 90s, Americans are told by their leaders we are witnessing “the end of history”. While there are still issues to resolve, the overall problem of tragedy is solved. We are now in an era of perpetual peace and perpetual prosperity. We are promised these things.

The promise of perpetual peace dies on 9/11.

We watch as America invades Afghanistan in spirit of terrible vengeance to depose the Taliban, to kill Osama bin Laden, and to eradicate Al Qaeda from the face of the earth. We watch as bin Laden escapes and our mission of righteous fury morphs into prolonged occupation and nation building. We all cheer as U.S. Marines capture Baghdad and topple Saddam Hussein, after all he is a very bad man. One Sunday morning my pastor announces to wild cheers "ladies and gentlemen, we got him." Nevertheless, Iraq becomes yet another protracted campaign of occupation, pacification, and nation building.

But what does this mission of “making the world safe for democracy” ultimately bring us? The feelings of angst and discontent begin to stir.

Just as the American people start questioning the wisdom of our prolonged War on Terror, disaster strikes at home. One fateful fall day in 2008, Lehman Brother declares bankruptcy. The promise of perpetual prosperity dies on 9/15.

I turn 16 as the economic and financial carnage unfolds. I watch as stocks markets are thrown in chaos. I watch as friends’ parents lose their jobs. I hear stories of those who’ve even lost their homes. Meanwhile, Wall Street receives a $700 billion bailout even as bankers receive record bonuses. A righteous fury builds.

But in the midst of the growing malaise, America is promised “Hope and Change.” Barack Obama is elected on the promise of being a transformational President, yet he actively chooses to not prosecute the individuals on Wall Street responsible for the financial crisis. He does nothing as millions of Americans lose their homes. Instead, President Obama uses his Democratic supermajority to overhaul the American healthcare system promising "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.” Another lie.

The age of optimism gives way to the age of cynicism.

As the 2010s unfold, I enter young adulthood and begin to see just how broken America really is. I witness as popular figures stoke outrage and anger, for they have nothing else to offer. Meanwhile, the gravy train for the political, cultural, and commercial elites never ceases. Income inequality continues to grow. Older millennials just graduating college discover that the college degree promised as a golden ticket to success doesn’t open that many doors after all. Yet, again, a lie. So maybe a few years of graduate school and some more student loan debt will fix things?

Yeah, about that.

Like many millennials, I find myself caught up in the academic arms race. It's not just a matter of having the degree anymore, you have to have the right degree from the right school if you want a chance at that ticket to success. Even then, you better work your butt off and network with the right kinds of people if you want even to get a look for that dream job after graduation. Is this what we were all promised us children?

As I move from city to city for my university education, I see that all is not well with the American people. Real working-class wages haven’t an increased since the 1970s. Deaths of despair and drug overdoses are endemic. The optimism and opportunity of 1990s America is replaced by a desperation and nihilism that is completely foreign. It is difficult not to become cynical and jaded.

Then the 2016 election happens.

Like most kids born in the 90s, I was raised in a culturally Christian home and witness the reactions as the various Bill Clinton scandals unfold. I am told time after time by my parents, my pastors, and my leaders that character matters in politics. I watch with dismay as many of those I looked up don’t just vote for Trump but provide moral cover for him. This is the individual who proudly proclaimed, “Why do I have to repent or ask for forgiveness if I am not making mistakes?”

Rejecting Hillary Clinton is one thing, she is, after all, one of the most dishonest and corrupt political figures in modern American history. From lying about inside trading agricultural futures in the 90s, to taking bribes through the Clinton Foundation, to letting the Russians buyout American uranium reserves, to letting an American ambassador die to terrorists in Libya, to illegally storing top secret military intelligence on home grown servers then destroying the evidence, Hillary Clinton doesn’t just deserve to lose the election, she deserves to rot in prison. That doesn’t mean endorsing and fully defending Trump is justified.

The classical Greeks possessed a much different understanding of history than we moderns do. Today, we call an event tragic when bad thing happens that are outside our control. To the Greeks, tragedy is when you make a decision you believe is right that is going to cost you something because you believe the alternative is far worse.

There is a tragic case to be made for voting for Donald Trump in 2016. There is no such case for unequivocally supporting and defending Trump and all his excesses.

I interpret the results of 11/8 in two lights. First, is the rejection of Hillary Clinton since her corrupt nature and unquenchable lust for power are rightfully appalling to the American people. Second, a vote for Donald Trump is a repudiation of the status quo. This rejection takes two forms: desperation and nihilism. Some are so desperate for change that they think they have no other choice but to support Donald Trump. Others, just want to watch the world burn of anger and malice for how they believe they are mistreated by "the system". Regardless, the outcome is ugly. Division and discord increase at a fervent rate.

From politics to culture to business, the events of these past eight years are the result of millennial's coming-of-age and collective realization that the leaders they held in such esteem as children – the leaders that call the shots to this day – are nothing but liars and hypocrites.

How many self-professing Christian leaders preached during the Clinton years that character matters in politics only to endorse and even defend the immoral behavior of Donald Trump? How many double standards are there for those in power when it comes to mishandling classified documents, conducting insider trading as a politician, or using one's political connections to enrich family members?

Having been raised upon the principles of servant leadership and Christian charity, I watch with disgust as leader after leader in politics, business, culture, and religion becomes the embodiment of what I was raised to despise. Selfish ambition at the expense of those they lead is the hallmark of ruling elites. One gets the idea that self-sacrifice for the greater good is for suckers. The people soon heed the cues from their leaders as many pursue their own personal agendas, consequences for the nation be damned.

It is impossible to reflect upon the events these past seven years and not become overly emotional. And yet, we have not even begun to discuss the events of 2020.

Angst. Fear. Uncertainty. Distrust. Rage. Heartbreak. What more is there to say such a terrible year? The choices made during that awful time define our lives in ways we will never fully comprehend. It remains one of those few true inflection points of history. For millennials, we watched several of our formative young adult years after college vanish into oblivion. Yet, in many ways, very little has changed.

America is presently obsessed with the upcoming 2024 presidential election, and it appears the election will be but a retread of 2020. At what point, do we stop and ask ourselves “is this the best we can do?” Is an 80-year-old pathological liar who can barely string together a complete sentence and a dishonest 77-year-old former reality tv star under 91 criminal indictments truly the two best candidates for highest office? Is it any wonder why millennials are so cynical and upset at the current state of affairs?

My generation was promised a better tomorrow and instead we spent the past 30 years watching our living standards and ability to raise a family decline precipitously. Home ownership has never been more unaffordable and unachievable. The promise of a college education has been forged into chains as the rising costs of education and dearth of well-paying jobs makes student loan debt unrepayable for many. And it’s not like the debt is dischargeable via bankruptcy or colleges are on the hook for their students’ misery, you can thank Joe Biden for that one. All these trends converge to create a society where young people fail to get married or have kids. What’s more, sexual activity among young adults, especially among young adult males, keeps dropping with each passing year.

People are alone, angry, and depressed. Something has to change. The world we're living in is simply unsustainable. The world that millennials were promised no longer exists. It is a lie to pretend otherwise. Millennials were raised to dream big, to believe that we could change the world. Now we are told that we are entitled for desiring more from this life, for asking for the things that we were promised growing up. We’re harangued that we should know our place before seeking to change things.

Yet, all the while, our elders, the Silent Generation and Baby Boomers, continue to cling onto power while keeping one foot in the grave. How else should one interpret the aging Senators who prefer to die in office of old age and terminal illness rather than relinquish their grip on power? Raised on the importance of competence and promoting the best-qualified people for the job, we watch as our President struggles to climb stairs and our Senate Majority Leader nearly has a stroke on live tv.

The abandonment of classical American civic virtues didn’t start with millennials, we merely mimicked what we saw in our elders. A few fall days, 9/11, 9/15, and 11/8, totally reshaped millennials’ perception of reality. The intervening years only solidified our cynicism.

There is a general sentiment amongst millennials, including myself, that recognizes that the status quo is far beyond the need of reform, it is in need of a reckoning. Is it so much to ask that our leaders be held to the standards they once preached so vigorously when we were children? Is it so much to ask that our leaders be forced to play by the same rules that we the people must follow? Is it so much to ask that we ask our leaders and institutions to just be better?

The outcome of America’s crisis of legitimacy is found in the answer to these questions.

The question is then, how is legitimacy earned? Whether it is commerce, politics, or culture, elites must demonstrate competence and excellence. The ancient Greeks called this arete.

Arete is granted when the actions of elites are deemed as excellent and praiseworthy. This may mean founding a multibillion-dollar company, successfully leading troops in battle, creating great works of art, or acting as an effective political administrator. Regardless of the area in which arete is demonstrated, the actions performed must bring some sort of benefit to the rest of society.

Unfortunately, elites are people, and so they prefer community with similarly minded individuals. The result is elite networks are usually cliquish and isolated from the broader community. When this happens, the society is primed for descent into despotism and tyranny. Thus, it is imperative for society to construct mediating institutions so that there are sufficient channels that provide “the voice of the people” with direct access to the networks of ruling elites.

Liberal democracy emerges out of the need to create institutions that both restrain and harness the popular will. Without adequate mediating institutions, society can quickly degenerate into violent, anarchic mobs followed by oppression to restore order. Properly constructed institutions can maintain a stable balance of power between elite interests and the interests of the people to establish a tolerable justice and a tolerable prosperity. Yet, these institutions must be constantly maintained and reformed so they can address the commercial, political, and cultural problems of the age. Furthermore, as the ability to transmit information increases, so too does the need for mediating institutions.

The hallmark of a successful moderating institution is it provides elites with the desired prestige and social recognition while also fulfilling the desires of the general populace. The surest method to achieve this happy balance is by harnessing elite self-interest to serve the best interests of the people. Ultimately, the people desire what every single human seeks: to live in a safe community capable of providing a decent and continuously increasing standard of living so that one's family may prosper and grow. This means a community must possess an ever-present sense of law and order, educational access for children to better themselves, affordable housing for people to call a home, and vocations capable of sustaining a family.

The great challenge America faces is its social institutions are no longer capable of harnessing elite ambitions for the benefits of the American people. Consequently, elites are actively pursuing their own self-interests at the expense of the best interests of the people. How has this happened? The answer, in part, lies with globalization.

Globalization is not the inevitable outcome of humanity’s evolution as a species. Instead, it is an artificial construct that is the result of convergent geopolitical trends that include advances in transportation and communications technology as well as the emergence of the U.S. as the unrivaled global hegemon. To justify its continued existence, global elites often argue that globalization is a boon to human prosperity and living standards across nations. However, globalization’s legitimacy is increasingly undermined due to the reality that it is fueling rising disparity and inequality within nations. The reason for this dichotomy is due to the Matthew Effect.

Deriving its name from Jesus’ Parable of the Sower in the Gospel of Saint Matthew, the Matthew Effect argues that individuals at the top of a social hierarchy are best positioned to capture the majority of benefits from new opportunities while individuals at the bottom of a social hierarchy are most likely to bear the costs of those new opportunities. This is supported by basic economics.

Macroeconomic theory argues that nations can use international trade to achieve better economic efficiencies by specializing in core competencies. There are, however, tradeoffs when it comes to international commerce. Even though the gains from trade might be dispersed across society, the costs tend to be concentrated in particular segments. For instance, just as the cost of basic consumer goods declined dramatically since the 1990s, so too did the proportion of Americans employed in manufacturing jobs also decline. Some studies suggest that international trade with China alone cost America several million manufacturing jobs.

What the Matthew Effect does is explain why the gains from globalization are more concentrated in the hands of national elites than what is commonly acknowledged. While social-wide benefits do certainly exist, they are not as prevalent as the elite proponents of globalization realize. This is not born out of any sort of malice but out of the simple reality that elites tend to congregate with other elites. As a result, elites fail to recognize globalization’s negative externalities simply because they do not experience these externalities in their daily lives.

Normally, national social institutions would redirect elite self-interest to address globalization’s growing problems. However, national social institutions, especially in the U.S., tend to curtail the political and cultural dynamics of elite power. Since globalization is a commercial phenomenon at an unfathomable scale, it overwhelms the mediating social institutions. As a result, the gains from globalization remain concentrated in the hands of elites who use their newfound commercial power to enhance their political and cultural power.

The social institutions that used to mediate elite self-interests and the best interests of the people are now fundamentally broken. The average NYC investment banker has more in common with and feels greater affection for another investment banker in Shanghai than with the American janitor cleaning his building. As America’s schools and infrastructure continues to deteriorate and cities become increasingly dangerous, elites are either indifferent or promote solutions absurdly out of touch with the average citizen. And so, disdain toward elites grows and their arete erodes.

Although the legitimacy of elites is diminishing, they still possess vast reserves of commercial, political, and cultural power. Moreover, the commercial power granted by globalization provides elites with seemingly limitless resources to capture and hold the key nodes of cultural and political power. Traditional social institutions are unable to prevent the further concentration of all forms of power into the hands of elites. Consequently, the U.S. continues to drift from the republican-federalist form of government of its founding into oligarchy.

There’s an insurmountable problem facing American elites though: globalization requires hegemony. The current global trading order isn’t possible except in a unipolar world led by the U.S. It doesn’t matter if the U.S. remains the strongest global power. The declining relative power distance between it and other revisionist powers means that globalization’s days are numbered.

Presently, there are three revisionist powers positioned at key nodes of the Eurasian landmass making plays for regional hegemony. Throughout history, Northeast Asia, Europe, and the Middle East produced some of humanity’s greatest empires. While nowhere approaching a formal alliance, the growing levels of diplomatic, economic, and even military coordination between Russia, Iran, and China is like a DDOS attack on the liberal international order and poses an existential threat to globalization.

This doesn’t just impact the future of great power politics. It also impacts the power of American elites. Without the near-limitless commercial resources granted by globalization, American elites will be unable to fend off challenges to their political and cultural power. It is, therefore, an imperative for American elites to preserve the status quo. Their power and position in the social hierarchy depends upon it.

Unlike in decades past, the U.S. no longer possess the reserves of strength capable of projecting power to every corner of the world simultaneously. Indeed, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is already revealing the irreparable fractures in the global order. What’s more is America’s historical cultural, ethnic, and economic ties with Europe results in a pathology where American elites are obsessed with making European - especially Western European - elites like them. Since elites drive foreign policy decisions, the U.S. is consequently hyper-focused on blocking Russian territorial expansion while underplaying the growing threats emanating from Iran and China.

It is this obsession with the opinions of Western European elites that best explains the combativeness of American elites towards Russia and their comparatively laissez-faire approach towards Iran and China. From the insistence of a nuclear deal with Iran by the Biden Administration to the inability of Wall Street to divest from China, there is a clear refusal to accept that the foundations of globalization are fundamentally unstable. Instead, American elites are doubling down through appeasement in the desperate hope of preserving the status quo. But globalization cannot be saved. The system will fragment, but it will eventually find a new equilibrium. The question is whether globalization will go out with a whimper or a bang.

The failure of American elites to recognize globalization’s inescapable end is ironically the greatest threat to their power and prestige. If elites wish to preserve their current position at the top of the social hierarchy, they ought to build alternative networks that are worthy successors to globalization. However, such a strategy is ideologically impossible as elites’ legitimizing myths are predicated on the status quo. Elites are thus left with no other choice but to attempt to further centralize power as a means of surviving the coming storm. But without a hegemon to maintain global order, globalization will fragment which, in turn, will cause the commercial, political, and cultural power of American elites to also shatter.

This doesn’t mean the end of American elites as a class though. Power abhors a vacuum, and a new group of elites will eventually emerge to reestablish order and stability. In their pursuit of arete, these new elites will promote their own unique founding myths that will directly clash with the values and myths of the old guard. It’s a process that will take a decade or more to complete. Arguable, the U.S. is in the opening stages of this process as factions of aspirant elites are coalescing.

The combination of intra-elite competition domestically and the return of great power politics internationally will force a dramatic restructuring of commercial, political, and cultural power within the U.S. How America chooses to handle the coming reckoning of elite legitimacy will likely define its trajectory for the remainder of the 21st Century.

Events can move faster due to humanity’s greater interconnectivity. COVID-19 went global in a matter of weeks once it escaped China. Contrast this with the Black Death which took months - if not years - to spread throughout Europe. Modernity means the butterfly effect has never been more real.

Nevertheless, there’s a downside to this interconnectivity: the overflow of information.

There is only so much information we can process. There is a limit to our attention spans in any given moment. In centuries prior, the dearth of information enabled us to focus on what was right in front of us and maybe a few big items such as politics and religion. Today, the ever-constant buzzing our of smart-phones vies for our unceasing attention. Indeed, some studies suggest social media may contribute to shorter attention spans in adolescents. Tik-Tok brains are a real thing.

The result of this overwhelming flow of information is warped expectations regarding the timing of events. We expect instantaneous results, yet life is not a video game. The mega-trends driving history often take decades to fully develop. Just consider the impact of demographics.

The average human life span is somewhere between 60 to 80 years, depending on the location. Regardless, there are roughly four movements of the human life which reflect the four seasons of the natural world. Spring is the time of youthful abundance and discovery. Summer is the time of primacy and joy. Fall is the time of celebration and acknowledgement of mortality. Winter is the time of sober reflection and, ultimately, the end of existence.

This is a pattern that must play out for every generation.

Demographics are the result of the individual decisions we each make. Who we choose as a mate, how many kids we have, the environment those kids are raised in - these personal choices, when aggregated, deeply influence the course of history. One of the core reasons for France’s near-complete domination of Continental Europe under Napoleon was the French accounted for 23% of Europe’s total population in 1810. By 1900 though, the balance of power shifted as France’s population numbered 38.5 million to Germany’s 56.4 million, giving Germany approximately 19% of Europe’s total population in the run up to the First World War.

None of these trends happened overnight. It took decades for demographic headwinds to ultimately rewrite the balance of power. Even though there is little question that China, Russia, and Germany are facing severe population crises in the coming years, these crises do not mean collapse is imminent or even guaranteed. The future is still being written by our individual choices and by the choices of elites calling the shots.

This is why geopolitical prophecies predicated on demographic destiny by Peter Zeihan and others are so frustrating. Forecasts are made simpler and flashier by purposefully ignoring and discounting human agency. An over-emphasis on demographics and geography at the expense of how individuals and ideas actively shape history causes forecasts to take the form of prophesies rather than analysis.

While it is undeniable that demographics are one of the most profound constraints that influences geopolitics, demographics are not destiny. If demographics were all that mattered to great power politics, then the ancient Greek city states would not have stood a chance against the collective might of the Persian Empire which ruled over 44% of humanity at the time. History is rife with examples of how the demographic underdog, through superior tactics, technology, and morale, can decisively beat geopolitical rivals.

Demographics are not the end-all be-all for geopolitical power. They are merely one component of the complex systems which comprise geopolitics. The best way to understand the impacts of demographics on the future of geopolitics is to forecast how they impact the systems of economics, security, culture, and politics.

Often geopolitical forecasters err in overestimating the immediate impacts of long-term demographic trends. Yes, China will likely lose half of its current population by the end of the century, but that doesn’t mean China is incapable of challenging the U.S.' status as global hegemon over the next 20 years. Advances in life expectancy and robotics could offset and mitigate China's looming demographic crisis. Besides, let's not forget the U.S. faces its own demographic crisis as the mass retirement of the baby boomer generation coupled with ballooning entitlements of over $123 trillion in unfunded liabilities will force the U.S. to choose between funding a global military or funding entitlements.

Demographic trends are influenced by the policy decisions we debate over the course of a human life. There may well be headwinds driving events in a particular direction, but that doesn't mean the future is set in stone. Human agency and the choices of governing elites matter. It is the policy decisions that national governments make in response to demographic trends that make or break the future of a great many nations, including the U.S.

However, demographics are not destiny because power on the world stage is relative. A nation with a rapidly shrinking demography may experience a subsequent hit to its absolute power, but this is irrelevant if its peer rivals suffer from even worse demographic crises. If a power controls the key nodes of global commerce and manages to monopolize the extraction of vital raw materials, it might be able to fortify, and even enhance, its geopolitical position despite sub-optimal demographics.

This is why the growing coordination between Russia, China, and Iran across Eurasia is a trend to carefully watch. U.S. power is no longer omnipotent, and the U.S. is struggling to shift its strategy from counterinsurgency back to traditional great power competition. There is a window for revisionist nations to make power plays. That is not to say the moves will be successful. That remains to be seen. After all, the U.S. and other nations across Eurasia also have hands with which to play the game of great power politics. What's important to realize is these things take time, and only time will truly reveal what lies ahead.

A prophecy, at its core, is a blanket proclamation of what will happen. Either the prophecy is right or it is wrong. It is a depiction of the future which comes solely from the mind of the prophet. That is not to say prophecy is never right, but the difficulty is that prophecy fails to provide mechanisms for predicting additional future events. You just have to trust the veracity of the prophet.

A forecast, on the other hand, deals with probabilities. It's not just a matter of if the forecast is accurate, it must also provide a confidence interval to determine the likelihood of alternative outcomes. The forecaster is subsequently driven to provide methods which may be tested and challenged. If a forecaster possesses sound methods, then the forecast should likewise be sound.

Last week, I republished an article written some five years prior when I was a graduate student at the University of Chicago. While the most visible change is my writing style, I find the change in my approach to forecasting even more striking.

At the time, I possessed strong doubts that the Euro would last another five years. This conclusion was drawn by an analyzing the failure of the Eurozone to address its structural weaknesses. Yet, here we are in 2023, and the Eurozone remains both united and arguably stronger than its been in quite some time. So, what did I miss?

The mistake I made back in 2018 is a common one. It is all too frequent an error as analysts often become overly fixated either on the relative strength or weakness of a particular system. It is rare an analyst is able to observe both. While my theory asserting Germany’s preference for the status quo seems to prove out, I sorely underestimated the stability and resiliency of the other Eurozone countries.

This is important. A geopolitical analyst must be capable of openly acknowledging one’s failures openly and explain why the mistake was made. In fact, while I still believe that the Eurozone is structurally unstable, collapse isn’t necessarily imminent. While the Euro may no longer be the guarantor of perpetual prosperity that it once was, the alternative – economic free fall and financial ruin – is a far worse outcome. Consequently, the Eurozone nations will go to great lengths to prevent the currency zone’s demise. After all, it is extremely difficult to collapse a system. Instead, stagnation is the most likely scenario.

So too is it with globalization.

Much has been written about how and why globalization is failing, yet little has been written about what comes next. This is likely because we are all still in shock and even mourning the passing of the age. Such a sentiment is normal, even necessary, but part of being human means acknowledging that life goes on after we’re gone. There will be a life beyond globalization’s end.

But what?

The transition between globalization and regionalization is bound to be rocky, and the path humanity takes is unclear. One of the ironies of history is it’s often difficult to tell the difference between stagnation and collapse until it’s too late. You can’t reach collapse without first passing through stagnation. So, will the equilibrium of the new system be found within stagnation or collapse?

Before attempting to answer this question, we must first define stagnation and collapse. In the same way that a prophecy and a forecast differ, so too does stagnation and collapse differ. These two terms describe radically different end states for when complex systems break down.

The best corollary to stagnation is the period from roughly 1920 to 1950 as the world transitioned from the pre-World War I Order to the Cold War Order. Although these 30 years were a time of unfathomable misery and devastation, civilization itself did not collapse. Collapse at the level of global systems equals civilizational collapse. It means de-industrialization. It means that the technological progress of humanity begins to move backwards.

Such a calamity isn't as rare as one might think. History is rife with examples of civilizational collapse. In his book 1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed, Eric H. Klein notes how the complex Bronze Age civilizations of the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean all simultaneously collapsed due to the perfect storm of mass migration, climate change, and political turmoil. Furthermore, it is speculated the early Indus River Valley civilization experienced a collapse for similar reasons.

Some 1,500 years later, Western Civilization underwent its most famous case of civilizational decline: the sacking of Rome in 476 A.D. and the ultimate demise of the Western Roman Empire. The mechanisms which triggered the end of the Roman Empire, as well as the end of the Mayan and Chacoan Civilizations, are outlined in detail by Joseph A Tainter in his book The Collapse of Complex Societies.

In short, these historical case studies reveal the necessary conditions required for civilizational collapse. A civilizational system must be highly complex, highly concentrated, highly interconnected, and highly interdependent while also being overly optimize for efficiency. This description should sound familiar. It’s how globalization is structured. However, unlike previous civilizational collapses which were regional in nature, we are discussing the possibility a global collapse encompassing all of humanity.

Although there are the structural similarities shared by globalization and the failed civilizational orders of history, this by no means destines modernity to a similar fate. Again, humanity must first pass through stagnation on its way to collapse and it has one advantage in the present era which it lacked in the times of old: the nation-state.

The nation-state is the most meaningful and sophisticated form of organization and geopolitics. As previously noted, we live in a world of nation-states. This, combined with modern technological advances, gives humanity greater resources to react to the threat of civilizational collapse. States seeing their national interests so threatened will mobilize the nation and all of its resources to prevent de-industrialization. Staring in the face of oblivion, many policies which were once seen as untenable may now offer salvation.

Another overlooked factor is the fact that humanity has now fully discovered planet Earth. In times prior to deepwater navigation and the circumvention of the globe, it was possible for civilizational threats such as hordes of invading barbarians to show up at your doorstep with little to no warning. We simply didn't understand how changing weather patterns could cause droughts which would spark mass migrations of populations which would then lead to conflict with existing civilizations as is noted by the Sea Peoples and the end of the Bronze Age civilizations. These gaps, caused by both a lack of communication and knowledge, hindered the ability of our ancestors to effectively and speedily respond to civilizational threats.

Modernity won't go gently into the night.

While the structure of globalization might lack resiliency and be extremely vulnerable to disruption, modernity is a different story. Modernity, as defined by technological sophistication and advanced living standards, is dispersed in some way, shape, and form across all nations. From agriculture to medicine to communications, humanity's way of life has been permanently changed. Indeed, while many villages in Sub-Saharan Africa lack proper sewage, they often still have access to cellular networks. There may be concentrated notes of commerce and education, but the primary components of modernity are still widely dispersed.

The best way to compare the structure of globalization to that of modernity is through the application of network theory. Whereas globalization utilizes a hub and spoke model where a single power our group of powers anchors the system modernity is more can to a spiderweb. A spiderweb undoubtedly contains several anchoring threads, yet the destruction of a single thread doesn't destroy the entirety of the web. It can still function, albeit less optimally. Contrastingly, the destruction of a single spoke on a wheel renders it inoperable. This is the difference between stagnation and collapse.

This idea of stagnation isn't all that popular though. More sensationalist narratives about future collapse and deindustrialization are simply more captivating. It’s why disaster movies and post-apocalyptic shows capture the imagination. There's something about oblivion which intrigues us even though we all pray we will never experience it firsthand.

It's also why prophets tend to be more popular than analysts.

Prophets have a good story. Analysts not so much. Whereas prophets are certain about their predictions, analysts will often answer "well, it depends." But charting the future course of globalization requires analysts utilizing prudent forecasting methods, not sensationalist prophets chasing after public notoriety. If anything, these prophets may inadvertently influence policymakers into making their doomsday prophecies self-fulfilling for we humans are not merely subjects to the forces of history we are also the agents of history. What we believe is possible will shape our future actions.

I strive to be an analyst. While I possess strong beliefs on how globalization and modernity arrived at this present moment and have opinions on how humanities core systems may evolve, the truth is no one knows for sure. We are all actively trying to understand how we got here and where we are going. Neither the prophet nor the analyst is capable of discerning with 100% accuracy each whether the future will be dominated by stagnation or collapse. Each of our answers and responses to what the future holds will subtly differ. It is ultimately the aggregate of these answers and responses which determines the course of history.

In recent years, there is increasing concern over the possible demise of the liberal international order. Many of these concerns stem from the two pivotal events of 2016: Brexit and the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. As uncertainty remains regarding the United Kingdom’s future in Europe and America’s commitment to the current configuration of the international system, it is understandable why these high-profile cases would be emphasized as the primary challenges to the stability of the liberal international order. Indeed, figures such as Colgan and Keohane have rightfully documented the gravity of these challenges. Yet, the greatest internal danger to the liberal international order is not Britain’s volatile Brexit negotiations with the European Union, America’s unpredictable foreign policy under President Trump, or even Europe’s worrisome flirtations with democratic backsliding; it is the possibility of the collapse of the Eurozone.

The Eurozone is one of the most vital entities within the global financial system. This currency zone comprises of some of the world’s most important powers and economies such as Germany and France. If the Eurozone were to collapse, this could potentially undermine the future of European integration while triggering an economic and financial crisis in the heart of Europe as well as the rest of the global economy. The consequences of such an event would unquestionably strike a heavy, perhaps even mortal, blow to the heart of the liberal international order. Certainly, the future of the Eurozone has been questionable in the aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis. However, since the 2015 crisis in Greece, it would appear that the Eurozone has stabilized. And despite the recent slowdown in economic growth, a strong 2017 performance has helped allay fears of fragility within the Eurozone. Nevertheless, the relative quiet within the Eurozone ought to be reason for concern as it indicates that the systemic problems which plague the zone still remain. To fully understand the Eurozone’s precarious status, it is necessary to review the history of Eurozone’s formation, the present status of the Eurozone, and the primary barriers to reform.

Since its official launch in 1999, the Euro has become one of the world’s leading currencies and is the official currency of 19 of the European Union’s 28-member states. It has served as a key instrument for helping create a common European market and ensuring “an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe.” As a result, the Eurozone must be considered an extension of the European Union’s political project to foster political integration rather than a purely economic project. This sentiment is reflected by scholars of the Eurozone such as Brunnermeier et. al who note that French President François Mitterrand desired to use the Eurozone as a tool to end Germany’s hegemony in the realm of monetary policy and spread French views regarding government’s role in the national economy. Additionally, France saw the possibility of a monetary union with Germany as an opportunity to enhance France’s power in monetary affairs instead of merely responding to Germany’s monetary decisions. Germany’s political goals for forming the Eurozone, however, were far different. For instance, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl advocated for a currency union within Europe in the hopes of binding Germany’s fate with that of the rest of Europe. This echoes the capitalist theory of peace that increased via economic interdependence will decrease the likelihood of war.

Although there is strong evidence to suggest the formation of the Eurozone was driven by political goals, economic interests certainly played an instrumental role. The Euro was created by Eurozone countries pegging the value of their currencies to one another. For Germany, this provided the opportunity to institutionalize its export advantage. Germany also saw the Eurozone as a prospect to institutionalize its national preference for price stability and low inflation rates across Europe, thus enhancing Germany’s economic wellbeing. France likewise saw the economic benefit in low inflation rates and sought to benefit from Germany’s fiscal discipline. Additionally, France and other Eurozone nations in the periphery saw the currency order as an opportunity to help relieve competitive trade pressure from Germany.

Despite the clear political and economic benefits of the Eurozone, the currency order contained a potential fatal flaw due its failure to form an optimal currency area (OCA). It is precisely this flaw which haunts the Eurozone today. A currency order provides the legal and regulatory framework for a currency system to operate and, consequently, all nations within the Eurozone utilize a fixed exchange rate and collectively form a regional currency order. For a currency order to qualify as an OCA, it must meet the following four conditions: 1) Members must possess similar economic structures 2) Members must possess similar economic cycles 3) Members must share a common market 4) Members must share a similar economic culture. Even though the economic interests of its members converged, the Eurozone was still primarily a political project and not an economic project. From the start, it was obvious the Eurozone members had different economic cycles. For instance, whereas Germany’s trade surplus in 2016 represents 8 percent of its total GPD, Greece had a trade deficit of 0.7 percent. In addition to possessing different economic cycles, there was a significant divergence of economic philosophies between the Eurozone’s core members, France and Germany. Furthermore, although the Eurozone had restrictions regarding deficit spending and macroeconomic policy, there lacked an adequate enforcement mechanism to make these restrictions viable. As a result, the Eurozone was created in a haphazard manner that overlooked its structural deficiencies.

The strong indication that the Eurozone is not an OCA has profound implications for Eurozone members. If a currency order is not an OCA, then it is possible for one area of the currency order to flourish while another area is languishing. This unfortunate reality is reflected by the systemic problems the Eurozone faced and continues to face in the aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis. In years preceding the financial crisis, the structure of the Eurozone allowed Germany to increase its dependency upon exports and enabled peripherally nations such as Spain and Greece to borrow funds at extraordinarily low, and sometimes negative, interest rates. After the 2008 financial crisis undermined economy growth in peripheral nations, a Eurozone debt crisis rapidly emerged. Eventually, this debt crisis morphed into a balance of payment crisis which threatened to unravel the entire Eurozone.

Although the Eurozone is not an OCA, there are three adjustment tools which the currency order may employ to remain solvent. These three mechanisms include devaluation via austerity, increased capital and labor mobility, or the creation of Eurozone fiscal union. The great challenge of deflationary pressure is that it is particularly devastating to a nation’s standard of living. This makes deflationary adjustments politically unpopular. Similarly, entrenched interests in Europe’s labor and capital markets make significant domestic reforms well-nigh impossible. Additionally, these two types of reforms must be implemented in nations which are currently languishing economically, thus further increasing the difficulty of reform.

While the Eurozone exists within the framework of the European Union and thus possesses regulatory qualities that encourage capital and labor mobility between states, there is little evidence of meaningful movements of capital and labor. Based on data on foreign direct investment flows from the OCED, foreign direct investment originating from other Eurozone nations has amounted to less than one percent of gross domestic product for Germany, France, Italy, Greece, and Spain since the 2008 Financial Crisis with only minor exceptions. In fact, Italy witnessed capital outflows. Despite the most recent data running until only 2012, it is unlikely these figures have changed significantly. Thus, due to the importance of these economies within the Eurozone, it is reasonable to conclude that capital is relatively fixed within the Eurozone.

Similarly, inspection of national unemployment rates in the same five nations suggests labor is also relatively fixed. Germany, the Eurozone’s largest economy, has the best unemployment rate of under four percent, full employment. Meanwhile, France and Italy, the second and third largest Eurozone economies, have unemployment rates hovering around ten percent. And disturbingly, Greece has persistent unemployment rates over of 20 percent while Spain’s unemployment rate has only recently dipped below 20 percent. The data also shows that unemployment rates in these five nations have been static for the past several years, thus indicating labor is not moving to regions with better economic opportunities.

The realities of the lack of capital and labor mobility coupled with the political unpopularity of austerity measures makes the creation of a Eurozone fiscal union the only remaining option to ensure the currency union’s long-term survival. In its simplest form, a formal fiscal union is an arrangement which features permanent financing in the form of transfer payments via debt relief for banks and sovereign governments. The creation of a formal fiscal union provides Eurozone nations the opportunity to escape the present economic malaise without having to enact politically unpopular austerity measures or labor reforms. Therefore, the Eurozone nations faced with costly domestic economic adjustments could effectively utilize the international institution of the currency union as a form of redistributive cooperation to externalize the cost of adjustments.

Though the creation of a Eurozone fiscal union would potentially solve the zone’s systemic problems, there is significant resistance from Germany, the Eurozone’s economic hegemon. From the Eurozone’s founding, there was evidence that suggested Germany’s economic hegemony due to other countries pegging their currencies to the Deutsche Mark prior to the creation of the currency order. Additionally, following the recent Eurozone crisis, Germany’s status as the economic hegemon is unquestionable. Due to the Germany’s status at the economic hegemon, it has the final say in the creation of Eurozone fiscal union. This reflects the ability of an economic hegemon to set the pace and tone of negotiations and the reality that it must also bear the disproportionate level of costs when enacting reforms.

Due to Germany’s reliance upon exports and the competitive advantage it gains through its membership in the Eurozone, the Germans have a strong economic incentive to preserve the currency union. Indeed, the value of Germany’s exports is equal to 46.1 percent of its GDP, 36.3 percent of which go to EU countries. It is likely that if the Eurozone collapsed and Germany readopted the Deutsche Mark, Germany’s economic heft would make its currency appreciate relative to its neighbors, thus causing Germany to lose its competitive export advantage. Nevertheless, Germany faces also economic pressures which cause it to resist the creation of a Eurozone fiscal union.

Because of German economic theory’s premium on fiscal restraint and responsibility, Germany possesses a stable economic system and is willing to undergo short-term economic hardship in order to make necessary economic adjustments. Since France and other Eurozone nations do not similarly value fiscal restraint and responsibility, Germany fears that if it were to enter a fiscal union and provide continual financial assistance to the rest of the Eurozone, a moral hazard would emerge. This moral hazard assumes that France and other Eurozone nations would take German emergency assistance for granted and subsequently be willing to engage in risky macroeconomic policy. Therefore, in the advent of another Eurozone crisis, Germany would incur the costs of saving the Eurozone. If such a crisis were severe enough, then it is possible that the costs incurred by Germany’s membership in the fiscal union outweighs the benefits it gains through export competitiveness within the Eurozone. There is also the danger that, in the worst-case scenario, Germany may not possess the financial wherewithal to save the Eurozone. Consequently, Germany would incur the cost of the fiscal union in the short-term and still lose the benefits to its exports in the long-term.

This examination of Germany’s conflicting economic interests helps explain Germany’s interest in preserving the status quo. Yet, the lack of reforms means that the structural problems that emerged after the 2008 Financial Crisis still haunt the Eurozone today. As one of the pivotal actors within the global economy and the financial system, the continued stability of the Eurozone is paramount to the longevity of the liberal international order. Additionally, the collapse of the Eurozone could possibly undermine the future of European integration, thus further fragmenting the international system.

Unfortunately, it would appear that the prospects of fiscal union are increasingly unlikely. In Germany, Angela Merkel’s fragile position as Prime Minister makes agreement upon any drastic Eurozone reforms which would cost Germany highly doubtful. And while French President Emmanuel Macron has made great strides in implement labor reforms, stiff protests from French unions will likely limit his ability to make further domestic reforms designed to counterbalance the Eurozone’s adverse effects. Additionally, it is expected the stunning victory of the anti-EU populist Five Star Party in Italy will further complicate reform efforts.

Although collapse is by no means a foregone conclusion for the Eurozone, the inability to address its deep system problems raises serious concerns. In the face of growing political complexity within the Eurozone, leaders in both Europe and the United States must recognize the inherent fragility of the currency union and work together to help promote economic and financial stability. If the Eurozone is to survive, its member states must be willing to make mutual sacrifices for the collective good. Ultimately, just as the creation of the Eurozone is rooted in European politics so shall its survival rest upon the future of European politics.

Creating a complex system takes a tremendous amount of energy from a hegemon. It is the hegemon’s responsibility for not only bringing each player to the table, but also for establishing and maintaining the norms and rules that keep the system functioning. Consequently, there is a cost to hegemony which is sometimes referred to as “imperial overstretch.” Eventually, the costs of maintaining hegemony and the order aren’t equal to the benefits received.

Striking a balance between costs and benefits is always a challenge for complex systems. Take for instance infrastructure. In a simple society that is developing, one dollar invested in roads may reap thousands of dollars in benefits. Compare this to NYC where subway construction costs $3.5 billion per mile. The more complex the system, the higher the cost of maintenance.

The tragedy of complex systems is there eventually comes a point in which each additional unit of complexity yields less benefits. People tend to look at the sunk cost of an investment as well as the previous returns and immediately want to double down. The problem is past performance is never a guarantee of future results. You gotta know when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em.

When the marginal costs of complexity outweighs the marginal benefits, a system tries to find a new equilibrium by devolving and fragmenting. A central authority may be able to temporarily delay this devolution, but it ironically makes the inevitable adjustment far more drastic. That’s because when the hegemon puts more resources into preserving a failing systems, there is less of a backstop for the system’s new equilibrium.

While it is clear that the era of the U.S. as the uncontested global hegemon is coming to an end, it is less clear what this new equilibrium will look like. However, applying network theory to map out the nodes of globalization provides useful insights into the coming fragmentation.

As with any complex system, globalization contains several key nodes that serve as anchors. The most important node is the U.S. while the other two core nodes are the European Union and China. Auxiliary nodes such as Japan, Brazil, India and other G-20 members provide support and resiliency to the system. The more concentrated a system, the less resilient it is. Therein lies the problem for globalization.

Globalization is a highly complex, highly concentrated, highly interdependent, highly interconnected system that is overly optimized for efficiency, I.E., profit. Maximizing economic gains is what matters most for the order. This results in a system that lacks resiliency. Furthermore, since the U.S., EU, and China comprise an astonishing 60% of global GDP, these actors have outsized impacts on the future of globalization.

The end of the U.S.’ unipolar moment combined with the looming challenges of deficits and demographics in the EU and China means the core nodes of globalization are almost certain to fail. The status quo cannot hold. Globalization will devolve.

The end of globalization is by no means the catalyst for a systems collapse akin to the end of the Bronze Age Civilizations or the Western Roman Empire. This view ignores the drastic changes in technology which have altered the baseline possibilities for commerce. Indeed, the past 150 years have bore witness to greater changes in technology and living standards than the other 6,000 years of recorded history put together. Three technologies in particular have altered the course of history: the internal combustion engine, the microchip, and the shipping container.

The internal combustion engine fundamentally changed the human experience. Suddenly, humanity could move materials in quantities and at speeds that would seem magical to our forefathers. What might take a dozen teams of oxen weeks to move could now be hauled by a single truck in the matter of hours. Commerce across vast distances became possible.

Meanwhile, the microchip granted humanity the ability to instantly access treasure troves of information that surpass even the esteemed Library of Alexandria. What's more is the same technology enabled humans from across the world to truly to communicate with and learn from one another in real time. Digital technology enabled humanity to coordinate its efforts at scales once unimaginable.

Finally, the shipping container created a standard format for goods to be speedily and cheaply shipped across long distances. Standardization improved efficiency and efficiency reduced complexity. A simple metal box generated a revolution of shipping and logistics which fueled the growth of global commerce and trade.

Put together, the internal combustion engine, the microchip, and the shipping container permanently changed both the possibilities and expectations for standards of living. Consequently, much of what we label “globalization” or “globalism” isn’t due to a particular political order but to advances in technology.

That’s not to say that political decisions don’t matter, of course they do. What this means is that technological progress plays a greater role in the human existence than many geopolitical theorists care to recognize. After all, technological progress isn’t something that can be cleanly forecasted, especially when you start conducting forecasts a decade out or more. At that point, it become pure speculation and science fiction.

The reality of technological progress is the end of globalization doesn’t mean a total collapse of global living standards. The world today is too interconnected for that to happen. Instead, the more likely scenario is for trade to become less globalization and more regionalized. A decline in the global order means a rise in regional orders. Power abhors a vacuum. Systems will seek a new equilibrium. The great challenge facing humanity is that this transition from globalization to regionalization takes time, and typically times of transition are punctuated by acute chaos.

We are now entering a period of geopolitical chaos and uncertainty.

No one quite knows what the 2020s will bring. Nevertheless, there is a sense of ominous foreboding that permeates the public discourse. The future appears murky, and out of the murky fog comes a whisper which gnaws relentlessly at one's conscience. The reckoning.

What do I mean by the reckoning?

The reckoning is not a moment nor a series of moments, it is the spirit of the age. It is the time in which everything humanity has taken for granted for decades is fundamentally challenged. Ideas regarding government, economics, society, and even religion will be questioned in ways once thought unimaginable. Old institutions will either reform or die as new institutions rise to take their place. The way we interact with one another and process events will consequently change dramatically. The next decade promises to be an era of unprecedented flux.

As globalization unravels, people will be searching for answers. They will be seeking stability in the midst of chaos. While order will inevitably be reestablished, there are several questions plaguing everyone’s mind: How painful will the shift from globalization to regionalization be? How big is the gap between the current and future system equilibrium? What does this new order look like?

That is the debate currently consuming geopolitics. It is a debate worth further exploration.

The 1990s witnessed the birth of globalization through the demise of the Soviet Union, the creation of the European Union, and the rise of China. It was The End of History. The 2000's manifested a classic coming-of-age story. After going through some rocky teenage years as reflected by the War on Terror and the 2008 Financial Crisis, globalization transitioned into its prime. People no longer feared the worst. The European Union survived crises, the U.S. maintained its superpower status, it felt inevitable that China would become a liberal democracy, and while powers like Iran, Russia, and North Korea posed periodic nuisances, they were not an existential threat to the order.

Then this thing called Covid-19 happened.

In the blink of an eye, the world changed. In just a few short years, humanity now recognizes this order we enjoy is coming to an end. Globalization is dying, and there's nothing we can do about it.

This is due to the basic structure of the international system.

One of the great fundamental truths of the past 500 years is that the most powerful ideology is not liberal democracy, but nationalism. We do not live in a world of liberal democracies. We live in a world of nation-states. This is of critical importance.

The idea of the nation reflects that a distinct group of people has their own traditions, laws, and beliefs which are uniquely their own. The idea of the state is that a government apparatus is designed to provide law, order, and security. The nation-state is the fusion between national identity and state power. We call this nationalism.

This world of nation-states is inherently anarchic. There is no authority above the nation state. Forget the UN, it's a joke. The UN only has power because nation-states choose to grant it power. No one is going to die for the idea of the UN, but you can be sure that people will die for their country.

The problem with anarchy is that “life is nasty, brutish, and short.” It is order that provides the necessary conditions for civilization to flourish. However, order can only be established by the strong. In an anarchic world, this means “the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.” The tragedy of the anarchic system of nation-states is that “might makes right.” It is the victor who gets to write history.

Such an idea is abhorrent to those who come from any tradition of universal morality, but history is rife with examples of great moralists justifying their own hypocrisy for the sake of advancing the national interest. A strong state must recognize this tragic reality and execute plans to prevent itself from becoming a victim. It must maximize its power on the world stage. The nation must have secure borders, a growing population, a vibrant economy, and access to critical natural resources. Most importantly, the state must secure the nation from foreign attack. A fear of the other is always in the back of the mind.

There are those who will likely take offense to this description of the "the other." Yet, fear of the other, fear of the unknown, is a natural human response. As humans gain more information about the unknown, their fear and insecurity is often assuaged. In the modern age, the seemingly endless variety of information exchanged between different nations gives the illusion that we know all that is needed to prevent misunderstandings, particularly misunderstandings that might lead to violence. This view ignores a harsh reality of the human existence: no matter how good your communication skills may be, there is no escaping there are times your interests will create conflict with others. And when conflict arises, especially when your interests are of primal importance, you had better be ready to fight to protect those interests.

Nation-states are no different.

When national interests collide, the threat of war emerges. If the conflict surrounds periphery interests, a peaceful resolution may be established. If it is a matter between a core interest and a periphery interest, the state with the core interest, unless faced with insurmountable odds, will almost always seek to escalate diplomatically to secure that interest, even if that escalation involves violence. But if it’s a matter of core interests at stake, general warfare is all but inevitable.

The inherent anarchy of the international system means that nation-states must undertake aggressive actions to secure their interests. While each country is its own sovereign entity, there are undoubtedly vast differences in power and prestige. Some nation-states are more equal than others.

Nation-states are comprised of different, overlapping, dynamic systems. These systems are demographics, economics, politics, security, environment, and culture. Each of these systems are shaped by the geographic boundaries of the nation-state as well as its level of technological sophistication. Additionally, interactions with neighbors will also drastically shape a nation-state’s development and relative power. It is the global aggregation of these systems and interactions which creates the international system. This is the essence of geopolitical theory.

When it comes to international relations, relative power is all that matters. Power hierarchies are a zero-sum game. Some states are strong while other states are weak. The goal of any nation is to be strong. If that's not possible, then the goal is to find a patron to protect you from becoming a victim. However, not all patrons are created equal. Some are lenient and offer a semblance of autonomy while others are tyrannical puppet masters. As a weak state, who you align with matters.

This brings us to the 800-pound gorilla: the United States.

For reasons of both geography and culture, the U.S. found itself situated as the world's preeminent power. Geography endowed the U.S. with the ingredients to become an absolute juggernaut, but it is America’s unique culture and government, as outlined by the Founding Fathers, that enabled it to provide coherent governance across the entirety of the North American continent. Through a complex and often contentious series of events, the U.S. found itself as the world's sole superpower at the beginning of the 1990s.

This global hegemony created the perfect conditions for globalization to flourish because only a global hegemon has the power to enforce a global order.

Commerce is a risky enterprise. If I'm going to trade goods with you, I better have some guarantees. For instance, I need guarantees that my goods will not be stolen in transit and that you will actually pay for the goods. In short, commerce requires order, but order requires power. The greater the distance of commerce, the greater the order required, so the greater the power required. Thus, to stitch together any sort of commercial trading relations across vast distances, there must be a sole hegemon capable of enforcing order in a world of anarchy.

In the Western tradition, hegemony took forms such as the Pax Romana, the Pax Hispanica, Pax Britannica, and now the Pax Americana. Each of these eras featured a global hegemon to enforce order, but when the hegemon's power faded the existence of that commercial order quickly evaporated.

So, is U.S. hegemony eternal? Of course not. But, if U.S. hegemony is required for the existence of globalization, what happens when U.S. hegemonic power begins to fade? It means we’re witnessing the death throes of globalization.

Here's the thing: the end of American hegemony doesn't mean the end of American preeminence. The international system is in the process of transitioning from a hegemonic, imperial structure to a multipolar system where the U.S. remains the Principate, that is the first among equals. America may face challenges from up-and-coming power such as China, but its position on the North American continent provides incomparable opportunities.

Despite the advantages of geography, U.S. power isn’t permanent. America is a nation-state after all. There is such a thing as the American people. It is the American people who, through elections, choose the officials of the American state. While the ethnic origins of the American people may shift over the centuries, it is undeniable there is such a thing as an American identity.

Unfortunately, even acknowledging such a reality is often deemed as beyond the pale. It is an unfathomable to acknowledge that there is even such a thing as the American people – past, present, or even future. People are just a blank slate according to many. Yet, such thinking ignores the basic realities of human existence. We all have histories, we all have families, we all have ideas, and our ideas have consequences.

The challenge for the U.S. today is the interests of those who make up the American state are fundamentally at odds with the interests of those who comprise the American nation. The people no longer have a voice in government. An inspection of American political economy from 1981-2002 reveals that every major policy outcome represented not the best interests of the people but the self-interests of economic and political elites. This social structure is more representative of an oligarchy not a democratic republic.

It is an understatement to say that American politics these days is rather tense. Each area of disagreement must be vigorously fought over and decided upon, yet the difference in American political opinion is increasingly no longer a difference in political economy preferences but a difference in worldviews. The idea of neutrality in the public square - and good faith debates - is only possible when both parties share a common worldview.

The domestic cultural, economic, and political dynamics of the U.S. have international consequences. Rising social discord, both present and future, will hamstring America's ability to project power abroad. For this reason alone, the era of hegemony is coming to an end. The rising economic and military strength of other powers is but the nail in the coffin. Globalization as we know it is dead. So, what comes next?

There is a way, however, to reconcile the overarching imperatives of the nation-state with the particular policy preferences of leaders: distinguish core and periphery interests.

This framework can be seen as a sort of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs transposed onto foreign affairs: a nation-state must provide for the needs of its people through the provision of security from outside threats, easy access to food and water, opportunities for economic mobility, and ability to enter into meaningful community. Meeting these needs looks different for each country, but the imperatives remain the same. Periphery interests, on the other hand, are dictated by the cultural beliefs of the nation's elite class. When the nation sufficiently fulfills its core interests, elites are then free to shamelessly satiate periphery interests.

The past 30 years of American foreign policy are evidence of how elites vigorously pursue periphery interests once the nation’s core interests are satisfied.

This may seem odd at first. If Russia's interests are an enigma, then American interests are bouts of schizophrenia. Seriously, American foreign policy strategy is a bit of an oxymoron. There doesn’t seem to be a rhyme or reason for America's actions abroad. Its leaders appear motivated by pure impulse rather than by clear strategic thinking. If there is any deep thought that goes into American foreign policy, it doesn't go beyond "what will get me reelected?"

But there is a deep irony to America's schizophrenic foreign policy: America has been so successful in achieving its core geopolitical objectives that it can afford to act like a drunken sailor on the world stage.

Think about that. American power is so overwhelming that it can suffer foreign-policy blunders without significant consequences to its status as the world's sole superpower. That's not to say these setbacks don't add up over time. Certainly, America's relative power compared to the rest the world is diminishing at an alarming rate. Nevertheless, despite the missteps of the past few decades, America remains humanity's preeminent power.

So what are America's core geopolitical interests and what are elite passion projects? How do we tell the difference? The answer can be found first within the peculiarities of American geography and second within the pathologies of American elites.

The most exceptional thing about America isn’t its founding principles nor the spirit of its people, it’s its geography. There are more navigable water ways in the U.S. than the rest of the world put together. North America is home to the largest stretch of contiguous arable land on the planet. The U.S. not only controls most of that arable land, its inland water ways, the Mississippi River Basin, overlays perfectly. It's the Louisiana Purchase.

What's so astounding is this isn't the end of American geography. The U.S. hosts more natural deep-water ports than anywhere else in the world, and it borders both the Atlantic and Pacific which gives it a key advantage when it comes to trade. All these ingredients prime the U.S. for success as a great power. But geographic endowments aren't enough, there must be a strategy to capitalize on these blessings.

What's surprising is there are clear geopolitical imperatives which have driven American foreign policy since its founding. George Friedman, in his 2009 book The Next 100 Years, does perhaps the best job of highlighting these imperatives. The points are summarized as follows:

1. Achieve hegemony of North America.

2. Prevent any outside power from exerting influence in the Western Hemisphere.

3. Establish control of the maritime approaches to the U.S.

4. Achieve domination of the world's oceans.

5. Prevent the rise of any power capable of challenging U.S. naval supremacy.

Upon examining these objectives, it's truly remarkable to reflect upon the rapidity at which the U.S. achieved its core geopolitical goals. America declares independence from Great Britain in 1776. Within a mere 130 years, the U.S. controls the core of North America from the Atlantic to the Pacific, neutralizes any possible threat emanating from Canada or Mexico, ejects the Spanish from their colonial holdings in the Caribbean, and manages to become the world's premier industrial power. Fast-forward another 40 years: the sleeping giant is awake, the Arsenal of Democracy is operating full tilt, and the U.S. Navy rules the waves. Even the once mighty British Navy leases obsolete destroyers from the Americans in exchange for basing rights.

However, threats remain in the form of the growing power of the Soviet Union. Soviet manpower, industry, and natural resources, if merged with the demographic, technological, and manufacturing prowess of Western Europe, could pose an existential threat to the power of the U.S. Navy. Thus, America's Cold War strategy begins to evolve.

Although not explicit, the U.S. pursues a strategy of offshore balancing. Later popularized as containment, offshore balancing utilizes regional allies to counter the power of a possible regional hegemon. This is because only a true regional hegemon can build a blue water navy capable of challenging the U.S.

The strategy of offshore balancing is as American as baseball and apple pie. The U.S. just doesn't have the demography capable of waging sustained, large-scale warfare on the Eurasian landmass. The U.S. would rather use its industrial and technological heft to support local allies. Then, if the need arises, the U.S. can come in over the horizon like the Rohirrim charging to save Minas Tirith. This is precisely the strategy the U.S. employed in both the First and the Second World Wars. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

For 40 years, the Americans and the Soviets square off against one another. For 40 years, humanity stands at the precipice knowing that a single miscalculation could result in nuclear annihilation. Then this reality vanishes as if it were but a dream. The Soviet Union's complete and utter collapse at the end of 1991 is so sudden and so complete that it utterly stuns humanity. The Cold War is over, so what now?

It's at this point that America, having accomplished its core geopolitical objectives, begins to pursue a foreign policy chasing after periphery interests rather than core interests. But what were these periphery interests? The answer resides in the pathologies that dominate the worldview of American elites.

Americans are often described as possessing a "missionary mindset". This is a cultural outlook that is traceable to early 17th Century Puritanism. Within the past 60 years, American presidents as varied as JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Barack Obama have each quoted Puritan preacher John Winthrop who described America as "a shining city on a hill". Indeed, many Americans see their nation as exceptional and charged with some greater purpose for all of humanity. This self-conception is deeply embedded within the American psyche.

Nowhere is this missionary mindset on display than with elite pronouncements seeking to make the world "safe for democracy". From Woodrow Wilson’s creation of the League of Nations, to the creation of the United Nations, to the declaration of “the End of History”, this dogma lurks in the background of American foreign policy. Yet, because the Soviet Union was such a threat to American security, it was impossible to pursue elite pet projects at the expense of America's core geopolitical interests. The implosion and fragmentation of the Soviet Union changes all of this.

The end of the Cold War presents American elites with an unprecedented opportunity: a chance with both the means and the opportunity to pursue periphery interests. And pursue they did.

American power in the 1990s is as close to omnipotent as ever experienced by any nation in history. From the creation of the World Trade Organization to govern global commerce upon the principle of free trade, to backing the creation of the European Union, to the financial harmonization agreements of the Basel Accords, to military intervention campaigns in Somalia and Kosovo, American elites and their European counterparts use this power to erect a new international order founded upon the principles of human rights, neoliberal economics, and liberal democracy.

The 2000s and 2010s witnesses a doubling down of this liberal international order. From the nation-building exercises of Afghanistan and Iraq, to NATO’s toppling of Muammar Gaddafi, to the admission of China into the WTO, to the Paris Climate Accords, American elites continue down the path of pursuing periphery interests. But history didn’t stop. America can only pursue periphery interests for so long, and we are at an inflection point.

The stark reality of the international situation is that the world is transitioning from a unipolar moment of absolute American hegemony to a fragmented, multi-polar order. The future of international relations will look more like the concert of Europe than the Cold War. The rise of China, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the continuing chaos in the Middle East means that the ability of the United States as the global hegemon to enforce world peace is completely and utterly broken. The post-Cold War order is dead, elites just don't know it yet.

Great power politics is back with a vengeance. Consequently, America must once again prioritize its core geopolitical interests. The era in which elites could unequivocally pursue periphery interests is over. Every single elite pet project is dead.

As the United States comes to grips with the return of great power politics, there will be a fundamental re-structuring of America’s elite class. The status and prestige of today’s elites are predicated upon the continuation of globalization as we know it. Consequently, American elites will do everything they can to stymie change because their self-interests demand it.

It is in this tension between the self-interests of elites and the best interests of the nation that the future of American politics will play out.

Most of the time, individuals who dabble in forecasting either make vague prognoses that are impossible to disprove, or they make stupendous prophecies, usually regarding some doomsday event, to attract attention. In both instances, the individual refuses to acknowledge when they've made mistakes and is incapable of providing practical insights for daily living. Indeed, the best geopolitical forecaster is capable of succinctly explaining why their forecast is relevant to the life of an average American. If that average American doesn't burst out laughing, then perhaps the prediction holds some water.

Building a rigorous geopolitical forecast is awfully like building a choose-your-own-adventure RPG that factors in the choices of different characters, except the different characters are countries. Oh, and the decisions made by these characters can be influenced and triggered by things like demographic collapse, economic free fall, financial crisis, or the threat of nuclear war. Just to make things even more complicated, all of these characters are interacting with one another which is going to directly impact the ending of the game. If you're a video game designer trying to program such a game, this is your idea of hell.

So how does one even go about constructing a halfway decent geopolitical forecast? There are three basic elements that go into a forecast: an understanding of constraints, systems thinking, and risk probabilities.

The best explanation for understanding geopolitical constraints can be found in George Friedman's book The Next Hundred Years. Geopolitics is like chess. Upon first inspection, it would appear that there are infinite possibilities. Yet, it quickly becomes evident that each piece has limited moves and the consequences of certain choices create harsh constraints. A similar phenomenon is at play regarding the actions of nations.

Just as the greatest chess masters use constraints to mentally play out entire games based on their next move or even their opponents next move, so too do experienced practitioners of geopolitics game out different possible futures for the international system. This begs the question though, what are the constraints of geopolitics? The answer can be found in systems thinking.

The world is comprised of multiple overlapping, interdependent, complex, dynamic systems. This is important to recognize because the overwhelming majority of subject matter experts are knowledgeable in only a single system. What's more, these experts tend to view each system as independent and static. Consequently, subject matter experts are often incapable of providing accurate forecasts because they fail to recognize how events in adjacent systems can directly impact their immediate system.

As a geopolitical forecaster, I've identified six distinct systems, each of which is centered around geography. These systems are as follows:

• Demographics: A nation requires a people. It is people that make up the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the nation. It is people that will determine the fate of the nation. Consequently, the age, birth rate, sex ratio, and life expectancy within a state has dramatic ramifications for the future of the nation. Demographics are destiny.

• Economics: If money is the sinews of war, then commerce is the lifeblood of the nation. It's not just aggregate GDP that matters for nation-states, GDP per capita is also of the utmost importance. A country's standard of living will directly shape the priorities of the national government and the desires of the people. Furthermore, the national distribution of wealth is an indicator of elite, oligarchic rule versus more democratic, egalitarian rule.

• Politics: There is always a tension between the elite class and the rest of the populace. Furthermore, there is always a core group of elites that presides over the majority of the nation's wealth, power, and prestige and an out group of elites that desires to become part of the national ruling class. Typically, these aspirant national elites seek popular support of the many so that they can become part of the few. It's in this power dynamic that we see national politics play out.

• Security: National security encapsulates several dimensions. Firstly, the nation must be secure from threats posed by external rivals. Next, the central government must possess the preponderance of power within the state. All other governments within the territory must be subordinate otherwise there is anarchy and perhaps even civil strife. There must also be a semblance of order and justice. Order requires regularity and consistency in the application of the law. Justice, on the other hand, requires enforcement of recognized social norms of right and wrong. Lastly, the people's basic needs of food and water must be met. Without sufficient food and water, civilization breaks down. Food and water security are matters of national security.

• Environment: Every nation-state is endowed with certain natural resources. The natural resources may vary. Some nations are gifted with the abundance of farmland while others an abundance of oil and extractable minerals. Regardless, each state is granted a unique ecosystem that is to be respected. Humans are simultaneously dependent on their environment for their basic needs, yet their very actions and decisions also directly impact the environment. Therefore, a delicate balance must be struck between the demands of human prosperity and environmental sustainability.

• Culture: Ideas have consequences. What a people believes about itself regarding its origins, nature, and destiny has grave ramifications for how a nation governs itself and how the nation interacts with outsiders. Culture is a complicated and also delicate thing. Culture is shaped by both the internal dynamics of a nation and by interactions with other nations. Culture is constantly evolving because while culture imposes certain expectations upon its people, it is the aggregate of the actions of the same people that produce culture. Thus, as the people change so too does culture change.

All six of these unique, dynamic, complex systems are rooted in a particular geography. The existence of planes, rivers, mountains, jungles, etc., directly influences how nation-states evolve. That's why we must root these six systems within the context of immutable geography.

Some acute observers may have noticed that technology is strangely omitted from these systems. That is because technology is not a system in of itself. Technology is an amplifier of systems. The invention of the airplane did not remove the existence of mountains, it merely mitigated some of the effects. The invention of automation did not remove the need for human labor, it merely transitioned some humans from laborers into machinists and engineers. The Internet may allow near instantaneous communication with all of humanity, but it did not remove the distinctions of human culture and community. Technology can either accelerate or mitigate the impact of particular systems. It is an independent variable.

These are the constraints of geopolitics imposed by the existing dynamic systems. Such an overview of said systems may be interesting and illuminating, but it's insufficient for providing a framework for forecasting future geopolitical events. What is needed is an understanding of risk.

There is a strong misconception of risk that dominates the public mind. Many perceive risk as being normally distributed, that is risk is shaped like a typical bell curve. The majority of the curve is contained within one standard deviation of the mean at the center. There are tails at either end which represents the improbable. This is how risk is taught and conceptualized within the modern university system. This conceptualization of geopolitical risk is, at its core, fundamentally wrong.

When you flip a coin, what are the odds of landing heads? It's 50-50. What's the odds of landing heads 100 times in a row? Cause I'm too lazy to calculate the numbers, let's just agree that it’s stupidly improbable, almost impossible.

But what are the odds when you land heads 10 times in a row? What about 50 times in a row? What are the odds of flipping heads 100 times when you’ve already flipped heads 99 times? With every subsequent landing of heads, the probability of flipping heads 100 times in a row becomes more and more likely. This is the nature of geopolitical risk.

Geopolitical risk is not normally distributed, it's logarithmic and path dependent. When one black swan event occurs the odds of a second black swan event increases exponentially. And heaven forbid if you incur two or three black swans in rapid succession because that means you’re living history.

Let's bring these elements together. Constraints, systems, and risk. Three unique and key elements for creating a verifiable geopolitical forecast.

Every system provides a constraint. The nature of the dynamic, interdependent systems necessitates that a change in one system generate change in other systems. Understanding risk enables the forecaster to assign probabilities to different outcomes and trace how a seemingly insignificant event within one system can set off an uncontrollable chain of events across multiple systems. In layman's terms, it’s the butterfly effect.

Of course, geopolitics is a lot more complicated than that. Geopolitics is an interdisciplinary field of study. It requires expertise across systems. It requires hundreds of hours to become knowledgeable in a single system, thousands if you want to become an expert. Few manage to become experts in several systems, even fewer become experts across all the systems. This is the challenge for geopolitical forecasters.

It is impossible to escape the reality that geopolitical forecasting is still as much an art as it is a science. There is without question a scientific process to making observations about the past as well as the present. It's even possible to formulate theories that can explain what has happened. It's another matter altogether to predict what will happen. That's why forecasting is also an art. It's not a skill that everyone can master.

However, we must remember that every forecaster has a bias. Despite their best efforts to remain unbiased, forecasters are still shaped by sincerely held beliefs. After all, they’re still agents of history. No matter how good the forecaster, deficiencies can still be found.

The human mind is far from omnipotent. We are but finite creatures. Some forecasters are more honest about their inadequacies than others. Those that acknowledge their insufficiencies openly are the ones that ought to be trusted most. Their honesty and humility is to be valued for even the greatest artist is capable of making glaring mistakes.

At the heart of geopolitics is the importance of geography. To the geopolitical forecaster, geography is the one constant, immutable element that remains fixed across the ages. The Swiss Alps were as much a barrier to invasion for Hannibal trying to reach Rome as it was for the allies trying to cross from Italy into Germany during WWII. The majestic Amazon River transfixed the imagination of early Portuguese explorers just as it transfixes our imagination today. Some things don't change.

Geopolitics tries to understand, describe, and forecast politics among nations. Yet, achieving this objective requires knowledge of both complex domestic systems and the subsequent aggregation of these same systems globally. These systems include demographic outlooks, political dynamics, economic projections, technological developments, environmental sustainability, and military power. The geopolitical forecaster must be an interdisciplinary thinker.

There are, however, pitfalls to geopolitical forecasting. The most common mistake made by geopolitical forecasters is the neglect of the human element. Many forecasters rely solely upon analyses of mega-trends. Some even go so far as to actively discount the ability of individuals to drive history. A cursory glance of American history reveals such a view to be utterly ridiculous.

Would America have won the Revolutionary War without George Washington as its lead general? How would American history have unfolded differently if James Monroe and David Livingston had not gone beyond their initial diplomatic mandate by signing the Louisiana Purchase? Would America have survived the Civil War if Abraham Lincoln was not President? How would Reconstruction been different if Lincoln had not been assassinated?

These are just a few examples of how individuals in the right place at the right time can change history. At the end of the day, the actions of people do shape history. Geopolitical forecasters who rely on impersonal forces such geography and demography but don’t account for the human element describe a future so deterministic that it might as well be predestined.

This brings us to the tension between geopolitical forecasting and the vagrancies of the human existence.

There’s a young man I follow on Twitter who goes by the pseudonym of Cole Summers. Cole’s 14, homeschooled, and has a passion for solving water scarcity problems in the American West. He died tragically in a kayaking accident.

While I didn’t know Cole beyond sporadic interactions on Twitter, I was always struck by his sharp mind and conviction. I had no doubt he would do great things. And so I find myself impacted by Cole’s death. I not only mourn on behalf of his family and friends, I also mourn the loss of his potential.

There is a divine spark contained within the human soul that makes human existence so surprising and so beautiful. Within every human life resides incredible potential, but not all possibilities are virtuous. It is impossible to separate humanity’s creative and destructive impulses. The human heart contains both innocence and instinct. A man is capable of both beauty and rage.

A human life contains possibilities within possibilities that are impossible to predict. Yet, if geopolitical forecasting taken to its extreme results in secular prophesies, then an overemphasis on human activity results in delusional thinking. After all, if anything is possible then nothing can ever be predicted. Any rational person knows this is not the case.

In our everyday lives, we routinely assign probabilities to the occurrence of particular events. From weather forecasts to the result of sporting events to the outcome of elections, probabilistic forecasting is all around us. But as anyone who ever put together a March Madness bracket has learned, improbable upsets are inevitable.

So how then do we strike that balance between geopolitical constraints and human possibilities?

If all the world's a stage and all the men and women are merely players, then history itself is but one giant play. Geopolitical constraints are the backdrop and props that form the stage. It provides the context for the play. Every person has a role in this play. Some are leading stars while some are merely extras in the background, but all pour their heart and soul into the role that they are given.

Nevertheless, a stunning backdrop and ensemble cast isn't enough for award-winning play: there must also be a compelling narrative. The narrative of history is formed by our ideas. What’s more, the ideas and beliefs that we hold today fundamentally shape our understandings and interpretations of the past. If that seems a bit too uncomfortably relativistic, then consider the following.

The human mind is surprisingly malleable. There are multiple studies in which individuals have confessed to crimes which were completely fictional. Vivid memories can turn out to be completely fake. Even traumatic experiences, such as the loss of a loved one, can take on different meanings over time. The actual event is unchanged, yet our interpretation of that event can shift dramatically as the years pass. Sometimes what matters is not what happened but our interpretation of what happened.

This is by no means an endorsement of relativism. There is, of course, such a thing of absolute truth. Instead, this is a warning that ideas have consequences. Our ideas, our dreams, our visions have the ability to reshape reality. There is power in our ideas. Thus, what is needed is a framework to understand these complex interactions between geopolitical realities, human activities, and our ideas.

Let's go back to the idea of history is theater but now consider improv instead of a scripted play. The same elements exist. We have the backdrop of geopolitical realities. There is the cast of all of humanity. Yet, instead of ideas serving as the narrative, ideas are the mood that fuels the actors on stage. Ideas are the spirit of the age.

As the improv progresses, there are breaks in the action where the backdrop shifts which consequently shifts the mood. Conversely, shifts in the backdrop can also be the result of the shifts in the overall mood of the actors.

This is what history looks like: geopolitical realities create constraints to human activity, but it is what we believe about these realities and how we react that drives our future actions. In turn, the aggregate of all of these actions fundamentally shifts the geopolitical landscape.

We now find ourselves where we began: what is geopolitics? Geopolitics is merely a framework. It is a tool for helping us understand the world around us. Yet, we must never forget that this tool is, in itself, an idea. What is a forecast but an idea that is formed by the mind of one human and communicated to another? The idea may be well-researched, but it is still an idea.

A proper view of geopolitical forecasting requires an understanding that compelling ideas can sometime reshape reality and create new possible futures. Yes, there are forces outside of anyone's control that are driving history, but there is still meaning and significance to our actions. We do have the ability to shape the future, but only within limited parameters.

This is but one of the many paradoxes of human existence.

So where are we going with all this? Where is this chaos taking us? That's the question on everyone's mind. The answer is simple: we are witnessing the end of an era. The past 30 years of peace and prosperity are a historical anomaly. All we are witnessing is a reversion to the mean.

The reason the experts are incapable of understanding and navigating this present chaos is precisely due to the reason they’re experts. The modern university trains experts to think within a single, narrow field of knowledge. Graduate students are encouraged from day-one to “find their niche” within the greater field of knowledge. Universities intentionally silo expertise into quadrants and discourage the kind of “renaissance thinking” that made them famous in the first place. The result is experts are knowledgeable in only a single discrete, system.

Unfortunately for the experts, reality is comprised of multiple, interdependent dynamic systems. The consequence is experts are unable to process how exogenous shocks to a single system create ripple effects across multiple systems. Furthermore, experts lack perspective on how imperatives in other systems create constraints to action.

Understanding this quandary is key to unlocking the experts’ abysmal response to COVID-19.

Healthcare leaders sought to optimize only on the variable of zero-COVID infections. The policy of choice became lockdowns. Instead of halting COVID, lockdowns didn’t significantly alter the rate of spread. Additionally, lockdowns ruined the economy, destroyed the public’s mental health, and wrecked the educational outcomes of a generation.

Lockdowns are what happens when you let one group of experts rule.

That brings us to the future of globalization and modernity. The world is made up of multiple overlapping, dynamic systems. These systems include the economy, demographics, the environment, culture, government, technology, and security. Understanding how and where the systems interact to generate events is key to forecasting the future. In every system, there are a few fulcrums that, if pressured, can create a system-wide meltdown. That fulcrum is a shatterpoint.

Globalization is a highly complex, highly concentrated, highly interconnected, highly interdependent system that is overly optimized for efficiency, that is profit. This is a system that is highly fragile and lacks resiliency. Our experts looked at the system and said that it was very good because “the social responsibility of business is to increase profits."

The goal of globalization and modernity is to maximize wealth. Indeed, for a time, this system worked. It generated immense wealth, yet the wealth was not shared with the majority of humanity. Instead, the wealth was funneled into the hands of ultra-elites. No other institution is more indicative of elite decadence in the age of globalization than the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Held every year in Davos, Switerland, the WEF is a gathering of the world’s biggest companies and billionaires who congregate to discuss the future of humanity. But beneath the lip-service to human rights by companies employing child sweatshops is the clear desire to further leverage globalization to increase profits. Similar to healthcare experts’ singular focus on zero-COVID resulting in disastrous lockdowns, the singular focus of Davos elites on wealth maximization is the very reason globalization will not survive the decade.

Globalization was never something that was going to last. It is a system that requires maintenance by a single hegemonic power. It requires a superpower. The only nation on earth that can fulfill the hegemonic role required for the sustainability of globalization is the United States of America.

It is the United States that created and sustained globalization these past 30 years. Now, that unipolar moment is coming to an end. While the United States remains the world's preeminent power, its relative power is rapidly diminishing as evidenced by the rise of China, Russia's brazen invasion of Ukraine, and the continual chaos in the Middle East.

Over the past 17 months, I've highlighted three key elements of globalization and modernity: globalization's origins in the post-World War II order, Europe's attempt to escape tragedy through the EU, and China's rise as the world's factory. As the old order decays, revisionist powers such as Russia are attempting to carve out spheres of influence. Even this is just the beginning of birth pains.

These subjects cover only a fraction of the chaos unfolding before our eyes. From fertilizer shortages to a looming global food crisis to the rising threat of another financial meltdown, the threats to globalization and modernity are legion. Unfortunately for me, it’s impossible to cover all these events in the current format.

It's time for Shatterpoints to enter into a new era. At present, I tend to publish every couple of months. That's because every article is extensively researched and takes approximately 30 hours to write. To expedite the process, I’m changing some things.

First, you, the reader, can expect a greater frequency of shorter articles. These articles should be seen as standalone pieces meant to brief you on a topic.

Second, the long-form articles that tell the story of how we got here and where we’re going aren’t disappearing. You can expect a semi-normal publishing schedule for this style of articles to continue.

Finally, I want to announce a slight rebrand: Shatterpoints is becoming Shatterpoints Geopolitics. The reason for the change is simply due to search engine optimization. Shatterpoints has always been about geopolitics and changing the name to reflect that will help attract new readers.

What we’re experiencing isn't unprecedented. History tends to move in cycles, and today is no different. That isn't to say we’re not experiencing difficult times. There’s no question that we live in a dangerous and chaotic age. Nevertheless, we should recognize that there is a path forward. It is possible to predict where and why things will shatter. So buckle up and get ready, cause we ain't seen nothing yet.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unquestionably one of the most geopolitically significant events of the decade. The ramifications for the future of globalization cannot be understated. For the first time since WWII, a major power is engaged in full-scale war on the European Continent. The promise of permanently escaping the tragedy of great power politics is forever broken.

But there’s one lingering question in the minds of many observers: why did Russia choose to invade Ukraine? The answer is a paradox: Russia is acting out of fear and desperation, not strength.

To understand this conundrum, it’s useful to reflect upon the words of Winston Churchill who famously remarked, “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”

Russian national interests are discoverable by inspecting its historic and geographic realities. 

Russia’s psyche is deeply shaped by its near-indefensible geography. There are two main invasion routes into Russia: the Eurasian Steppe, which stretches almost completely uninterrupted from Hungary to Manchuria, and the North European Plain, which stretches from the Pyrenees Mountains on the Franco-Spanish border to the Ural Mountains in the heart of Russia.

In the 12th Century, the medieval kingdom of the Kievan Rus, centered around Kiev and occupying much of western Russia, is destroyed and occupied by Mongol invaders traversing the Eurasian Steppe. When Muscovy emerges as a new sovereign territory in the 15th Century, it seeks to prevent a repeat of the Mongol nightmare through its subsequent invasions of Siberia and eventual domination of the Eurasian Steppe. 

Although the Muscovite (later Russian) state achieves remarkable success in protecting itself from invasion to the east, it suffers numerous near-catastrophic invasions from the west through the North European Plain. The Swedes in the 1700s. Napoleon in the 1800s. The Germans twice in the 1900s. In World War I, Russian defeat on the battlefield triggers the overthrow of the 204-year-old Romanov dynasty and results in the creation of the Soviet Union. In the second, invasion from Hitler’s Nazi war machine threatens the total annihilation of the Russian people.

With the exception of WWI, the logistical challenge of invading and occupying Russia, particularly in the winter, proves to be the undoing of invaders. These traumatic events impress upon Russia the importance of dominating the North European Plain and Eurasian Steppe to protect itself from hostile powers and to provide strategic depth in the advent of another invasion.  

Russia nearly succeeds in this objective following WWII. However, sensing a major geostrategic threat from the communist Soviet Union, the United States forms a global military and economic system to counter Soviet ambitions. Ironically, the formation of the American-led liberal order reinforces Russian fears of great powers amassing near its vulnerable borders.

After the fragmentation of the Soviet Union, the Russian people witness economic and political calamity. Virtually overnight, the population and territory under Russian control decreases by 52 and 24 percent respectively. From 1991 to 1999, the Russian economy contracts by an estimated 35.6 percent.

In the midst of this unprecedented collapse, Russians are fearful. In an attempt to assuage these fears, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Warren Christopher promises the Russian Federation that NATO will never expand eastward. Then, to Russia’s abject horror, NATO admits Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as members in 1999. Furthermore, NATO engages in an aggressive strategic bombing campaign against Serbia, Russia’s historical friend and ally. This is the same Serbia that served as the catalyst for WWI, and Russia’s opinion is never even considered.

From the Russian perspective, this expansion of American power into Russia’s historic Near Abroad represents an existential threat. It is for this reason that Vladimir Putin calls the demise of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”

But out of the ashes of catastrophe emerges the modern Russian state. After his rise to power in 1999, Putin's Russia experiences a dramatic reversal in fortunes. By the end of the 20th Century, Russia is economically destitute, politically unstable, and facing secession movements in the Caucuses. Fifteen years later, Russia’s economy grows by 94 percent, government order is restored, and the Caucuses are under firm Russian control. Yet all these successes feel threatened when events suddenly change in January 2014.

Throughout the 2000s, Ukraine lobbies the EU for some sort of trade agreement. Finally, in late 2013, a breakthrough appears. There’s just one problem: the Russians.

From Ukraine’s eastern border, it’s only a 300-mile jog to Kazakhstan, about the same distance as Washington, DC to NYC. Seizing control of this corridor would effectively cut off Russia’s access to key oil producing regions and to the Black Sea. It’s this Eurasian Steppe corridor that bore witness to some of WWII’s bloodiest battles. Names such as Stalingrad and Kursk are etched into history with the blood of millions of Russian dead. Under no circumstances can Russia allow Ukraine to fall under EU and American influence.

To the shock of the Ukrainian people, President Viktor Yanukovych refuses to sign a trade deal and alignment pact with the European Union in November 2013. Instead, Yanukovych opts to improve relations with Russia. Immediately, the Kremlin offers Ukraine a $50 billion aid package and cheaper energy prices.

With this news, protests erupt in Kiev in late November. Soon, barricades go up in the Maidan Square as protestors seek to defend themselves from Ukrainian military forces deployed to break up the protests. Russian assets join the Ukrainian authorities.

These barricades become the locus of a peaceful revolution. After months of tense showdowns that result in the deaths of over 50 Ukrainians, the government of Yanukovych is toppled on February 22, 2014, as Ukrainian security forces refuse to slaughter their fellow citizens.

Russia is absolutely furious at these events. To rub salt in the wound, U.S. Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy visit Ukraine to meet with Ukrainian opposition leaders during the Maidan Square protests. In the mind of the Kremlin, there is no doubt that the U.S. orchestrated these events.

Not taking this setback lying down, Russia executes a series of moves designed to alter the geopolitical balance of power. In rapid secession, Russia illegally annexes Crimea and initiates a proxy war in Eastern Ukraine. Furthermore, Russia does its best to tie down the Americans in the Middle East by intervening militarily to save the murderous Assad regime while simultaneously threatening NATO allies in the Baltics and conducting clandestine operations to sow discord during the 2016 American presidential election.

On the surface, it would appear these moves by Russia signify a growing strength and self-confidence. But beneath all the bluster is the reality: Russia is in terminal decline.

Just like Germany and China, Russia is getting old. Like, really old. That’s because the collapse of the Soviet Union didn’t just impact the economy, it impacted the Russian people’s willingness to survive past today.

While the willingness of couples to have kids varies for a plethora of reasons, there’s one issue that stands out above the rest: economics. If would-be parents are staring down the gun of economic ruin, there’s a lot of hesitancy to have kids. So, in the wake of Russia’s economic free fall in the 1990s, Russian birthrates plummet catastrophically. In 1987, the average Russian woman is having 2.2 kids, around replacement. Fast-forward 10 years to 1997 and Russian women are having only 1.2 kids. Such a decline in birthrates is apocalyptic for a society.

Unfortunately for Russia, this flirtation with oblivion is but the opening act.

Russia’s Great Depression 2.0 drives millions into depression. Alcoholism soars. Things get so bad that 25% of Russian men die before reaching 55. Since 1992, deaths have outnumbered births with the exception of 3 brief years from 2013-2015. And that’s if you believe Moscow’s official data. But even the Kremlin acknowledges Russia’s population could contract 9.1% by 2035. The Russian Federation is literally dying.

In addition to Russia’s demographic dance with death, the Russian economy is collapsing.

Since 2014, Russia’s GDP is down 28%. Comparatively, Russia’s standard of living is also down 28%. Remember how Costa Rica’s standard of living is higher than China’s? Well, Russia’s standard of living is only $10,126 compared to China’s $10,434. Furthermore, the national poverty rate is up to 12.1% in 2020 from 10.8% in 2013.

But the strange irony of Russia’s decline is a weakening Russia is a more dangerous Russia. With every passing year, Russia’s economy and demography worsens. Russia right. now. is as powerful as it’s ever going to get this century.

This is a reality not lost upon the new Russian Tsar, Vladimir Putin. In his autobiography, Putin reflects:

“There, on that stair landing, I got a quick and lasting lesson in the meaning of the word cornered. There were hordes of rats in the front entryway. My friends and I used to chase them around with sticks. Once I spotted a huge rat and pursued it down the hall until I drove it into a corner. It had nowhere to run. Suddenly it lashed around and threw itself at me. I was surprised and frightened. Now the rat was chasing me. It jumped across the landing and down the stairs. Luckily, I was a little faster and I managed to slam the door shut in its nose.”

This excerpt goes a long way in explaining the psyche of Russia’s despot, but what is known about the former KGB agent’s rise to political power is shrouded in mystery. Following the end of the Soviet Union, Putin serves in a variety of capacities for the St. Petersburg government. After his political benefactor loses an election, Putin moves to Moscow in 1996 where the next stages of his career are an enigma. All we have are the following details.

• Between 1996-1998, Putin advances quickly within the power hierarchy of the Kremlin.

• In July 1998, Putin becomes head of the FSB - the successor to the KGB.

• In August 1999, President Boris Yeltsin appoints Putin as Prime Minister, Yeltsin’s fifth PM in two years.

• In September 1999, a string of bombings across the cities of Moscow, Buynaksk, and Volgodonsk kills 300 Russians. The attacks are blamed on Chechen terrorist groups and serve as justification of the Second Chechen War.

• On New Year’s Eve 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigns, making Putin acting President.

• In March 2000, Putin is elected to his first term as President of the Russian Federation.

This rapid rise to power baffles outside observers. There are too many “coincidences” that seem to align in Putin’s favor. Indeed, there is even strong evidence that suggests Putin is responsible for terrorist bombing attacks in Moscow, the event instrumental to his rise to power.

Putin’s death list goes on. It’s expected that he is responsible for the killing of multiple Russian dissenters such as Sergei Yushenkov in 2003, Paul Klebnikov in 2004, Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, Anna Politkovskaya in 2006, Natalya Estemirova in 2009, Stanislav Markelov and Anastasia Baburova in 2009, Boris Berezovsky in 2013, Boris Nemtsov in 2015, and Mikhail Lesin in 2015. In 2004, unknown agents poisoned Ukrainian politician Viktor Yushchenko who just so happened to hold views contrary to those of the Kremlin. Lacking all shame, Russian agents deployed nerve agents in middle of Salisbury, UK in an attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia back in 2018.

Putin is a bloodthirsty murderer.

Putin also styles himself as Russia’s contemporary savior. In an infamous speech days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Putin mourned the demise of the Russian Empire and declared a right to Russia’s “ancestral lands.” In doing so, Putin denied the existence of not just Ukraine, but also Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova, and Poland. Putin’s speech represents an urge, not to merely establish a permanent a buffer zone in Ukraine, but a Nietzschean will-to-power seeking to create a new Russian Empire.

Russia’s justification for invading Ukraine is further proof of Putin’s megalomaniac power grabs.

In a playbook almost identical to Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, Putin declared a duty to stop “genocide” in Eastern Ukraine. Indeed, Russia doesn’t acknowledge its actions in Ukraine as a war but, in true Soviet style, says it’s engaged in “special military operations.”

While there are some arguments that the invasion of Ukraine was inevitable due the threat of NATO and EU advances into Ukraine, these arguments deny the legitimate self-determination of the Ukrainian people. Ukraine finds itself threatened by a hostile neighbor that is much larger and more powerful. Of course it would seek allies in NATO and the EU! Ukraine merely seeks to protect its sovereignty from the newest iteration of Russian despotic tyranny.

The great tragedy of Ukraine’s situation is that it finds itself standing alone in the face of Russian aggression.

The harsh reality is that while the West cannot allow Ukraine to fall back under Russia’s orbit lest it enable Putin’s aims of reconstituting the Russian Empire, a direct Western involvement would trigger general warfare between Russia and NATO and risk nuclear escalation.

And so, while the West cannot intervene militarily, it will do everything short of military intervention to support the Ukrainian people’s defense of their homeland in the face of Russian invasion. This includes sending weapons, sanctioning oligarchs, and cutting Russia off completely from the global economy.

But there is something more at stake than just Ukrainian sovereignty, something that directly threatens globalization and modernity. The great question underpinning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is this: Can a nation use military force to rewrite the rules of the international system?

Globalization is the result of the Cold War American-led alliance system. But that structure is reliant upon a unipolar world. The resurgence of Russia along with the rising ambitions of China and Iran threaten the stability of the post-Cold War Order.

If Russia is able to successfully accomplish its aims in Ukraine, this would encourage Iran and China to possibly engage in their own military campaigns. And so, globalization’s future depends on the ability of Ukraine to inflict enough casualties and for the West to inflict enough pain on Russia’s economy so that other revisionist powers hesitate to begin their own conflicts.

The war in Ukraine is far from over, but it appears that Putin severely miscalculated by invading Ukraine.

Prior to invading Ukraine, Russia’s active-duty military estimated at 900,000. Four weeks into the war, Russian dead could be as high as 10,000. In modern war, it’s typical for there to be three times as many wounded as killed. That means there could be as many as 40,000 Russian casualties. Russia is about to burn through 5% of its active-duty manpower and it hasn’t even accomplished any major objectives yet.

Meanwhile, as major oil and gas companies suspend operations in Russia and the entire country is declared persona non grata by Western sanctions, Russia’s economy is likely to disintegrate in an eerie echo of the 1990s.

As the last flowers of Russian youth die in the fields of Ukraine and what’s left of the Russian economy implodes, it is possible Putin is beginning to recognize his blunder. Russia may never be able to conduct offensive ground operations again. There is no second Russian comeback story. But a wounded bear only becomes all the more dangerous.

The new Tsar may very well feel like he’s being cornered. Having risked his entire legitimacy on forcefully bringing Ukraine under Russia orbit, Putin is likely to escalate the conflict rather than back down. There’s no telling how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ends, but one thing is certain: the war is going to get a whole lot bloodier and we’re nowhere close to the end.

But let’s hold up a moment. We’re getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s rewind about 50 years back to 1971.

It’s the height of the Cold War. The US and Soviet Union are both staring down the gun of nuclear annihilation. Both sides are looking for any edge that might give them an advantage in the game of great power politics.

An opening presents itself with Maoist China.

Despite the rhetoric of global communism, the Soviets and Chinese relationship status is closer to “it’s complicated” rather than “bffs”. A few years back, in 1969, Soviet and Chinese border forces clash resulting in hundreds dead. The Soviets briefly consider nuclear retaliation. Sino-Soviet relations plummet.

Sensing the opportunity, American President Richard Nixon announces his intention to visit China the following year. What follows in 1972 is nothing short of world changing. With a single meeting, Communist China is pulled into the American bloc opposing the Soviet Union. The strategy of containment is now complete.

There is, however, a tradeoff for the Americans. Sure, there’s now one more power opposing the Soviets, but there’s also a cost. That cost is trade concessions. China is given access to U.S. markets.

At first, this isn’t really much of an issue. China is an economic backwater. The Chinese people are still reeling from the 45 million dead to Mao’s Great Leap Forward and the additional 1.5 million dead to the terror of the Cultural Revolution. In 1972, China’s GDP is only $113.6 billion. For comparison, the U.S.’ GDP is $1.3 trillion, 11 times larger than China’s.

But twenty years later, two unexpected things happen to radically alter China’s trajectory, and, by extension, the world’s.

First is the unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. After a tense geopolitical standoff that lasts almost 50 years, the U.S. suddenly finds itself as humanity’s undisputed hegemon. There is no nation on Earth that comes close to rivaling America’s overwhelming, political, economic, and military might. It’s widely expected the U.S. will use this opportunity to reevaluate military commitments and demand trade concessions. But the Americans do the opposite: they double down.

To combat the Soviet threat, the U.S. constructed a series of military and economic alliances. Fundamental to the U.S.’ economic strategy is the principle of free trade. Indeed, American elites believe free trade will make all countries richer, create a global middle class, and result in the spread of liberal democracy worldwide. War will be forever abolished since elites also believe that democracies never go to war with one another and are inherently more peaceful. It is the end of history.

As the Americans are using free trade to open up global markets, a second momentous change occurs: China’s economy begins to liberalize. Under the rule of Chairman Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) begins a series of economic reforms. While operating with the permission of the CCP, private enterprise flourishes. By the mid-1990s, China’s economy begins to boom.

Operating within the geopolitical context of the 1990s, China is given the perfect economic opportunity. But there’s another element to China’s rise that’s often overlooked: demographics.

In the 1990s, China is the world’s most populous country. More importantly, China manages to hit the demographic jackpot - and it’s completely by accident. After peaking at 6.39 births per woman in 1965, China’s birthrates begin to plummet due to suffering inflicted by the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Fearing overpopulation and continued famines, the CCP implements the One Child Policy in 1980. By 1995, birthrates are 1.66.

The consequence of China’s rapidly declining birthrates is paradoxical. Population trends aren’t felt overnight. It takes 40 to 60 years for rising or declining birthrates to fully impact a country’s demographics. When global trade opens up in the 1990s, China is still riding the highs of its own baby boom following World War II. As a result, Chinese labor is cheap, massive, and growing. In 1990, China’s possess a workforce of 641 million. That number jumps to 735 million in 2000. China alone accounts for around 27% of humanity’s entire workforce in the 1990s.

But China’s massive labor pool isn’t its only edge. Remember those declining birthrates? Fewer kids means fewer dependents. That’s good for an economy as it means more productive workers and lower social welfare spending. In 1980, China’s ratio of workers to dependents is 68.3%. In 1990s, it’s 52%. By 2000, China’s dependency ratio drops to 46.2%. Concurrently, China’s GDP skyrockets from $191 billion in 1980 to $1.2 trillion in 2000. Yet this isn’t the end of the Chinese growth miracle. It’s just getting started.

In 2001, the World Trade Organization (WTO) admits China as a member. With trade barriers removed, particularly to the U.S., Chinese exports begin to dominate global commerce. The resulting shift in global political economy is startling.

In 2000, China accounts for 3.7% of global trade. By 2018, China accounts for 12.1% of all trade. Furthermore, while 80% of countries trade more with the U.S. than with China in 2000, by 2018 China is the main trade partner of 67% countries. China is the center of global trade.

At the height of America’s emergence as a superpower in 1948, America accounts for 30.5% of global manufacturing. In 2019, China accounts for 28.7% of global manufacturing compared to the U.S.’ 16.8%. Furthermore, China’s chemical industry captures 40% of all global sales. China is the world’s factory.

China’s manufacturing and trade power is quickly leveraged to generate economic growth. From 2000 to 2020 China’s economy grows 12 times from $1.2 trillion to $14.7 trillion. Its GDP ranking jumps from the sixth largest economy to the second largest economy behind the U.S. Many experts predict that China’s economy will be the world’s largest by 2030.

Despite the unprecedented and miraculous growth of China’s economy, there’s a problem. China is still poor. Yes, there’s incredible wealth in China, especially along the coast, but it’s not evenly distributed. China’s GDP per capita is only $10,500. For comparison, Costa Rica’s standard of living is 15% higher than China’s.

The CCP’s fundamental challenge is it must ensure continual economic growth. The CCP’s legitimacy is rooted in its ability to increase standards of living and establish China as the world’s superpower. Only continual economic growth can make this dream a reality. But time is not on the CCP’s side.

Remember China’s birthrates and dependency ratio? Well, the very thing that helped power China’s rise from 1990 to 2020 is quickly becoming an anchor. Because of China’s one child policy, there is no next generation. China is home to one of the world’s fastest aging populations.

By 2030, it’s estimated over 25% of China’s population will be older than 60. But these estimates are relying heavily upon the CCP’s “official” data. And “official” CCP data is about as reliable as predictions of the Detroit Lions winning the Super Bowl.

Shortly after reports of Chinese births being at record lows, the CCP mysteriously "discovers” new data saying it underestimated China’s population. Simultaneously, COVID-19 deaths and infections statistics remain suspiciously low and unaltered for months. It’s obvious China is trying awfully hard to disguise its actual population numbers.

There are serious cracks in the CCP’s narrative regarding “official” population data. China maintains a strict population registry called the hukou. Every person in every family must register their status with the state to obtain access to education, healthcare, and other government benefits. The hukou registry data conflicts with Beijing’s official population narrative.

Just consider the data surrounding first-graders. While Beijing reports 104 million first graders back in 2009, only 84 million are registered in the hukou for 2010. This inconsistency is leading some to assert China’s population will peak in 2022. Others believe China’s population is actually 115 million smaller than reported. Some argue China’s population may already be contracting. Even the Chinese Academy of Science warns that China’s population could halve by the end of the century.

Regardless what China’s true population is, its rapidly aging populace is devastating to China’s growth model. If its labor pool is shrinking, then that means labor is getting more expensive. In fact, China is no longer the world’s source of low-cost labor. Labor is cheaper in Mexico than it is in China. And without a future generation of workers, China’s future is looking less like Wakanda and more like Children of Men. China will get old before it gets rich.

China’s situation is very much like Germany’s. With a declining consumer base, the only way the Chinese economy can grow is by exporting. But unlike the Germans, China’s economic model revolves around being the lowest-cost producer. China must automate if it wants to remain competitive on the world market.

There’s one problem with this strategy. Automation is expensive. Replacing China’s massive labor force with machines is a multi-decade effort that represents the greatest investment project in human history.

Under normal circumstances, China might be able to re-direct investment capital into automation. But China’s been using investment spending to supercharge growth for decades. That leaves little left-over to power investment into automation. Furthermore, China’s greying population will cause investment capital to be increasingly diverted toward social welfare spending and elderly care. To make matters worse, the emergence of the Evergrande bankruptcy suggests that all’s not well with China’s financial system. Something feels off. And signs seem to point that China’s sputtering financial system is poised to make 2008 look like a walk in the park.

Despite Germany’s strengths, there is also weakness.

Sitting at the center of the Northern European Plain, there are no natural barriers to protect Germany from invasion. While perfectly capable of defeating the French or Russians in a single-front war, Germany fears envelopment on two fronts. This causes Germany to wage two total wars in 30 years in a desperate attempt to alter its geopolitical constraints. After the first attempt, Germany experiences mass hunger, regime change, and economic ruin. After the second, Germany is destroyed, partitioned, and occupied.

Chastened by its experiences in the First and Second World Wars, West Germany seeks a new path forward for security and prosperity. The Americans provide. Under NATO, West Germany find security. Under Breton Woods and the Marshall Plan, West Germany finds prosperity.

There is an issue for the West Germans though. While they don’t want to rely solely on the Americans for peace and prosperity, a strong, independent Germany is intolerable to the French. The solution is found with European integration. Indeed, a desire to bind Germany’s fate economically and politically with the rest of Europe serves as a sign of good faith that Germany intends to never again dominate European affairs.

European integration is put to the ultimate test upon the reunification of Germany in 1990. In an instant, the populous, economic juggernaut that once threatened the whole of Europe is back. All that’s lacking is a military force, and Germany’s history of rapid military buildups haunts Europeans and Americans alike.

But rather than renewed great power competition, the opposite happens. Germany pushes for greater integration.

Working closely with the rest of Europe, Germany offers to limit its potential power by granting authority to a new supranational institution, the European Union. Here, Europeans could curtail the possibility of renewed German ambitions. The Germans even take this one step further by pushing for the creation of a shared currency, the Euro.

Yet the Euro unknowingly contains the seeds of renewed German dominance.

The Euro is a basket currency which requires each Eurozone country to peg the value of its currency to one another. This means that the Euro functions as a fixed-rate currency order in which relative advantages for each country are institutionalized. There are two major consequences to this new regime.

First, low interest rates set by the European Central Bank – and guided by German monetary preferences – enables a boom in borrowing by Southern Eurozone nations. The subsequent debt-fueled growth generates relatively higher inflation rates which allows for Southern Eurozone countries to borrow at negative interest rates, further fueling the cycle of borrowing and economic growth.

Second, the Euro’s creation causes Germany’s currency to depreciate due to the relative economic weakness of Southern Eurozone members. In addition, rapid economic growth in the Southern Eurozone and corresponding price increases further enhances Germany’s competitive edge in trade. Because of the Euro, Germany gains a permanent export advantage. Indeed, Germany becomes more dependent upon exports in the subsequent years, particularly exports to the Eurozone. Flush with financial capital from exports, Germany funds the deficit spending of Southern Eurozone members.

It is then a supreme irony emerges: the very institution designed to constrain German power becomes a vehicle to assert German dominance.

After the 2008 Financial Crisis, it becomes obvious that Southern Eurozone countries are borrowing at unsustainable levels. Soon, a crisis emerges as Southern Europe is unable to pay its debts. This rapidly morphs into a balance of payment crisis threatening to unravel the entire Eurozone.

Due to its status as the Eurozone’s largest economy and its surplus of capital generated from trade, Germany emerges as the indisputable economic hegemon. Furthermore, because of its aggressive lending policies, Germany is the owner of much of the bad debt in the Eurozone. The Germans now call the shots.

There are two cross-cutting interests for Germany. First, the Germans, renowned for their fiscal responsibility, are in no mood for bailing out those they deem fiscally irresponsible. Second, because of German banks’ exposure to bad Euro debt, there is concern that a sovereign debt default abroad might trigger a financial crisis at home. Given Germany’s importance, this could trigger a domino effect that undermines the very existence of the Eurozone.

Preserving the Eurozone is an utmost priority for Germany for one simple reason: its importance to Germany’s economy. Germany exports nearly 45% of its GDP and 36% of all exports go to the Eurozone. Consequently, 16% of Germany’s entire economy is dependent on exports to the Eurozone. This number further increases when considering Germany’s export advantage due to its devalued currency which is the result of the economic weakness of countries such as Greece, Italy, and Spain.

Germany’s strategy to preserving the Euro is simple: maintain the status quo. The Eurozone cannot be allowed to collapse so Germany will force other nations to bear the costs of saving the currency union.

The epicenter of the Euro Crisis quickly centers around Greece. The Greeks, unable to maintain interest payments, are in desperate need of a bailout. However, the Germans make harsh austerity measures a condition for any financial assistance. This means Greece must undergo a painful contraction of its economy and a stark decline in living conditions to avoid a potentially worse outcome due to bankruptcy of the entire Greek financial system.

Unfortunately for the Greeks, their woes continue. Since the Eurozone does not form an optimal currency zone, it’s possible for Germany’s economy to flourish while Greece suffers. And that’s exactly what happens.

In 2010, Greece undergoes austerity reforms but is unable to escape its misery. So time and time again, Greece falls into crisis. This occurs in 2011, 2012, and finally in 2015. The 2015 crisis is only resolved after Greece initially defaults on its debts and, staring down the barrel of economic oblivion, caves to German demands at the last moment.

Six years later in 2021, Greece’s economy still languishes. Compared to 2007, Greece’s GDP is 30% smaller. Germany, on the other hand, is doing fine. From 2012 to 2020, Germany hovered around full employment and its economy grew from $3.26 trillion to $3.75 trillion. The status quo works perfectly fine for Germany, but not for anyone else.

So where does this leave the Eurozone? Is the status quo tenable? No.

The Eurozone is supposed to create a system where all the peoples of Europe can prosper together as one. A system where only the Germans can prosper at the expense of everyone else is not a union, it’s imperium. And German mercantilism is about to get a whole lot worse.

Germany’s median age is 47.8. It’s the second oldest population in the world right behind Japan whose median age is 48.6. Compounding matters, Germany’s birthrate is only 1.54. That means Germany is aging rapidly.

Currently, 21.7% of Germany’s population is above 65. That number is projected to jump to 25.4% by 2030. Furthermore, estimates suggest Germany’s overall population declines by 2.6% to just under 84 million by 2030. While these estimates assume a low fertility rate, experience shows that birthrates decline during times of economic stress. Given the economic destruction wrought by COVID, this trend is unlikely to change.

Germany’s demographic situation will trigger a restructuring of its economy which has major repercussions for the Eurozone.

The increasing elderly population means investment spending declines as retirees draw on their savings. Less capital causes interest rates to go up. The German government will have to spend more on entitlements for retirees. Deficit spending increases. To maintain spending, Germany must tax its declining population even more. Consumer spending goes down.

To avoid this vicious macroeconomic cycle and for the German economy to grow, there’s only one path: Germany must find consumers elsewhere. Germany. must. export.

The most immediate impacts will be felt by the Eurozone. Remember how the Euro gives Germany an inherent advantage when it comes to trade? Expect Germany to further leverage these advantages at the expense of the weaker Eurozone nations. Plus, it’s unlikely Germany will want to divert its scarce fiscal resources to aid the Eurozone instead of supporting its aging population.

Problem is, the status quo cannot hold. Germany is afraid of underwriting the Eurozone. It doesn’t have the financial resources for that endeavor. But the weaker Eurozone countries can’t afford the current regime either. Plus, it’s one thing for Germany to bully Greece. Good luck trying to bully the French.

Either the Eurozone fragments or it moves closer to a fiscal union. Thing is, fragmentation of the Eurozone comes with enormous economic and political costs. Collapse would be an unmitigated monetary, economic, and political disaster. Think Brexit but 100x worse. No one wants this option.

Best case scenario for the Euro? Germany comes to an agreement with the other Eurozone powers that involves some sort of fiscal union. But that doesn’t mean it’s all sunshine and daisies. This scenario is very messy.

Given the deep structural problems facing the Eurozone and Germany, the Continent’s future looks a lot like Japan’s. It’s possible to avoid the worst of a major contraction by printing money like crazy and exponentially increasing government debt, but the trade-off is sacrificing long-term growth. The economy stagnates. And with Europe as a whole aging rapidly, there is no consumer-driven bounce back.

There is only one way for the Eurozone to possibly escape this fate. Perhaps Germany - and by extension the Eurozone - can improve its trading position outside the Eurozone.

Germany’s top 5 export destinations are the U.S., China, France, the Netherlands, and the UK. But of these partners, only the U.S. and China have the economies and populations to absorb German exports. Unfortunately for Germany, China is also an export-driven economy whose #1 customer is the U.S. This means that China is unwilling to import vast amounts of German goods or to lose market share in America. German and Chinese trade interests don’t align.

To make matters worse, China’s economic miracle is starting to stall out. The dragon is sputtering smoke instead of flames. To keep to the Chinese economy going, Beijing must increasingly rely even more on exports. China’s mercantilist state capitalism model is about to go into overdrive. The new era of trade wars is just getting started.

Within the nation-state, there is a national government that serves as the ultimate authority. This government possesses the power to keep countervailing interests in check by serving as the final arbitrator. If the government is righteous and responsive to its citizens, a tolerable justice and tolerable peace might be established to where liberty and prosperity takes root.

Within international relations, there is no authority above the sovereign nation-state. This makes global politics inherently anarchic. It is a world where, as Thucydides poignantly notes, “the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.” Consequently, the only entity capable of blocking the will of a great power is the will of another great power. And if war is seen as necessary to further the self-interest of the great powers, violent hostilities are inevitable.

Modernity is an attempt to escape the tragedy of great power politics. By creating international institutions and endowing them with ultimate authority, globalization hopes to create a tolerable justice and tolerable peace and establish a truly global community. The chaos of geopolitics might be transformed into order.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the Eurozone.

The Eurozone originated as a means to escape the horrors of war. This institutional extension of the European Union is meant to be the cement that binds together of the peoples of Europe. By sharing a currency and monetary policy, the nations of Europe would align their economic and political interests. Through economic and political integration, peace and prosperity might be permanently secured.

Despite these lofty intentions, there are basic economic and political realities which undermine the Euro’s long-term goals. These problems originate in the Euro’s failure to form an optimal currency area (OCA). To qualify as an OCA, a currency order must meet the following four conditions: 1) Members must possess similar economic structures. 2) Members must possess similar economic cycles. 3) Members must share a common market. 4) Members must share a similar economic culture.

The Euro only meets the third condition.

Germany’s economy is driven by manufacturing and exports while Greece’s economy is centered around agriculture and tourism. While German economic theory places a premium on fiscal restraint and responsibility, France believes in economic stimulus via deficit spending. The Eurozone just doesn’t share similar economic structures, cycles, markets, or cultures.

In theory, this shouldn’t be an issue. The Eurozone requires members to follow specific standards regarding deficit spending and macroeconomic policy. In practice, there are no enforcement mechanisms for these standards. The consequence is that the Eurozone isn't an OCA which means it’s possible for one region to flourish while another region stagnates.

Despite these issues being known, the Euro is approved and launched in 1999. This leads Markus.K. Brunnermeier et. al to note in The Euro and The Battle of Ideas that “the currency union was a high-minded European political project that went way beyond economic realities.” In other words, the Euro is an act of pure ideological hubris.

At first, it doesn’t seem to matter. Throughout the 2000s, the Eurozone makes considerable improvements in the areas of fostering price stability, facilitating economic integration, and improving financial certainty. And while Germany’s economy is relatively stagnant, the economies of Southern Eurozone nations, such as Spain, grow rapidly. The Euro’s goal of creating peace and prosperity is an overwhelming success.

Until fate intervenes.

On September 15, 2008, the day Lehman Brothers collapses. As the 2008 Financial Crisis spreads, it is revealed that borrowers worldwide are over-levered and are unable to payback their debts. But it’s not just mega-corporations that find themselves in a liquidity trap, it’s sovereign nation-states.

The dark truth behind the rapid growth of Southern European economies in the 2000s is that the growth is fueled by government debt. This can work when the debt is used to finance high-return commercial projects, less so when the debt is used to increase government jobs and pensions. Which is what happened in Southern Europe.

When the Financial Crisis hits, the supply of funds for new debt dries up overnight. Suddenly, Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain find themselves facing massive government deficits while being unable to service existing debt payments. This is the beginning of the Eurozone Crisis.

As Southern Europe spirals into economic depression in the early 2010s, Germany remains relatively unscathed and emerges the undisputed economic hegemon of the Eurozone. Compounding matters, while Germany possess a surplus of financial capital, it demands that any needy country undergo painful austerity measures before receiving financial assistance. This causes much political turmoil. Many think the Euro would collapse.

But it didn’t.

Since the Euro Crisis’ final dramatic game of chicken between Greece and Germany during the summer of 2015 that ended with Greece’s full capitulation to German demands, the currency union remains somewhat calm. While there are periodic bouts of instability caused by political developments, particularly in Greece and Italy, the Euro doesn’t face existential crisis. It appears that the combination of bailouts and austerity measures worked. But these measures are just band-aids. The Euro’s original sin, its failure to form an optimal currency area, remains unaddressed.

Thing is, this shouldn’t be the end of the Euro. Currency unions that don’t form an OCA can survive. The U.S. isn’t an OCA. When one state languishes economically and another experiences rapid growth, capital and labor can migrate to take advantage of new economic opportunities. This is seen today as capital and labor flees states like California, Illinois, and New York in favor of states like Florida, Tennessee, and Texas. Issue is that doesn’t happen in the Eurozone.

People share different languages and cultures, so they don’t want to leave home to move to another country. From 2012 to 2020, Germany experiences unemployment of 5.5% or lower - nearly full employment. Meanwhile, Greece and Spain’s unemployment hovers between 15-25%. France and Italy routinely experience unemployment rates of above 10%. Labor isn’t moving.

Compared to the U.S., Europe is awash in regulatory red tape. This over-regulation is a deterrent to outside business investment, and this is reflected in foreign direct investment. According to Eurostat data from 2013-2019, foreign direct investment (FDI) flows originating from other Eurozone nations as a percentage of GDP is relatively small. For Germany and France, FDI flows fluctuate between 0.5-2.5% of GDP. For Italy, Greece, and Spain, FDI flows rarely get above 0.5% of GDP and are sometimes negative. Capital isn’t moving.

So what then? How does the Eurozone overcome these challenges? The only solution is “an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe.” Despite the fact there is mobility of capital and labor in the U.S., Washington often directs investment to economically depressed states. These actions function as transfer payments which are supposed to prevent a situation where one region is permanently flourishing while another region is permanently depressed.

The Eurozone doesn’t have transfer payments, and there’s not an easy way to create transfer payments.

Establishing transfer payments would likely require the creation of a fiscal union. For the U.S., this means the 50 states surrender some of their sovereignty to the federal government and to their fellow American states. For the Eurozone, this means 19 countries surrendering some of their sovereignty to a supranational entity and to other nation-states. It means that the French would let the Germans legislate French spending policies. It means the Germans would let the Italians determine German tax rates.

If that idea seems laughable, that’s because it is.

Fiscal union is like a marriage. It requires mutual self-sacrifice in working towards the same goal. Yet, the only commonality within the Eurozone is each nation has done its best to murder the other numerous times over the past 1,500 years. Not exactly the best of foundations.

The problem the Eurozone faces is each member is pursuing contradictory political goals. The French want to maximize their political power, the Italians want to stabilize their economy, the Greeks want to escape their poor fiscal decisions, and the Germans want to maintain the status quo. It’s impossible for every country to achieve what it wants at the same time. It’s the tragedy of great power politics.

None of this means the Euro is about to collapse though. Far from it. The consequences of the Eurozone fragmenting would likely plunge most of Europe into a prolonged depression. No one in the currency union wants that outcome. And there are some encouraging signs.

In the aftermath of COVID-19, the European Union as a whole is launching a €750 billion recovery fund for its members. While this is unquestionably a dramatic step for the EU, the COVID-19 relief fund passed by U.S. President Biden is valued at €1.56 trillion. And that doesn’t include the COVID-19 relief bills passed under President Trump. Europe has a long way to go before becoming a true fiscal union.

This leaves the Eurozone - modernity’s grand attempt at escaping the tragedy of great power politics - at a crossroads. The Euro’s structural problems make it fundamentally unstable, but there is no political will for reform. On the other hand, while the status quo is untenable, the costs of letting the Euro collapse are too high. And since Germany is the economic hegemon of the Eurozone, its policy preferences win out. The status quo holds.

That is, until the German twilight turns to nightfall.

The invention of deepwater navigation by Portuguese, Spanish, and Italian sailors revolutionized humanity’s understanding of the world. With the Age of Exploration came the promise of a truly global human civilization. While this promise would quickly become marred by the ravages of colonial conquest and disease, the possibility remained.

Whether dominated by the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Dutch, the French, or the British, control of the world’s sea lanes by a single power resulted in the inexorable integration of global commerce, politics, and culture with Western Europe at its center. Yet all would change in the 20th Century.

The conflagrations of World War I and World War II didn’t just destroy Europe physically, they destroyed Europe psychologically. Germany, Europe’s most scientifically and economically advanced nation, is the author of industrialized murder factories. The entirety of the Northern European Plain, stretching from Normandy through the heart of Central Europe to the Ural Mountains, is in ruins.

The consequence of these conflicts is Europe no longer controls the world’s sea lanes. That mantle of responsibility now falls to the Americans. To make matters worse for Europeans, the United States is the world’s manufacturing superpower. Europe’s once great foundries are a smoldering wreck. Globalization and modernity are an American-led initiative.

Caught up in the American-led, post-World War II anti-Soviet alliance system, Europe bristles. After ruling the world for 500 years, it is now stuck between Washington and Moscow. Europe no longer controls its own destiny. So Western Europeans, spearheaded by the French, begin hatching a plan to reduce their dependency on the Americans and protect themselves from the Soviets all while mitigating the risk of renewed warfare on the Continent. It’s a dream of escaping the tragedy of great power politics.

The first attempt, in 1952, takes the form of the European Coal & Steel Community, a loose trading community comprised of Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany. To the surprise of Western Europeans, the Americans wholeheartedly support this venture. Washington believes that anything encouraging greater economic and political cooperation among Europeans reduces the chance of the anti-Soviet alliance fragmenting.

Over the subsequent decades, European integration progresses in various forms. The European Economic Community is launched in 1957 to further streamline trade. Over the subsequent decades, new members are added, most notably the United Kingdom in 1973. Yet, this is not enough for Europeans. For Europe to truly regain some of its lost glory on the world stage, it must unify into a sovereign entity.

One key aspect of sovereignty is currency. Indeed, each great national civilization throughout the 500 years of European supremacy is known for its currency. The Spanish Doubloon. The English Pound Sterling. The French Livre and Franc. The German Deutschmark. But now the American Dollar reigns supreme.

The European Monetary System is created in 1979 as a fixed-currency regime designed to better stabilize European monetary policy and promote trade. This also serves the purpose of better aligning Europe’s monetary affairs among member states. National sovereignty is slowly be given up in favor of a greater European collective.

Everything changes after the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Upon reunifying in 1990, the hegemonic potential of a reunified Germany once again haunts the conscious of Europeans and Americans alike. It is at this moment that full European integration appears to be the best prospect at securing peace and prosperity for the Continent.

In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty is signed. Like its predecessors, the European Union (EU), seeks to create a common European market and foster greater political integration. But the Maastricht Treaty goes even farther, creating multinational, institutional bodies to write regulations for EU members and even lays the foundation for further political and economic integration via a currency union, the Eurozone.

The leading driver of this quest for European integration is reducing the chance of war. During negotiations, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl is adamant about the Eurozone as he sees this as a mechanism of thoroughly binding Germany’s fate with the rest of Europe. By linking currencies and economies, European nations would be so interdependent that violent conflict becomes an impossibility.

France, continental Europe’s other great power, is also adamant about moving forward with a currency union. Reunification makes Germany the unquestionable dominant economic and monetary power. The French, wary of German power, seek to use the Eurozone to end Germany’s economic and monetary hegemony.

Despite the Euro’s political underpinnings, there is also an economic impetus. For Germany, currency union means a devaluation of its currency and institutionalization its export advantage. For France and other Eurozone members, currency union means benefiting from the low inflation and low interest rates stemming from Germany’s fiscal discipline.

With the alignment of political and economic interests, it appears that the currency union is poised to be an unrivaled success. The Euro would be the key to creating a perpetually stable, peaceful, and prosperous Europe. Launched in 1999, it soon becomes one of the leading reserve currencies alongside the American Dollar and British Pound Sterling.

The Euro is unquestionably one of the greatest triumphs of globalization and modernity. For neoliberalism, it showcases the superiority of supranational institutions over individual nation-states. But for Europeans themselves, the Euro is something greater: it is a dream come true. The Euro manifests the hope of ending war on the European continent. It is the promise of peace and prosperity for the peoples of Europe.

That is not to say the Euro does not face serious obstacles. Indeed, the immediate aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis witnessed some of the greatest dangers to the continuity of the Eurozone as countries such as Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal faced systemic financial, economic, and political crises. Yet, despite these grave challenges, the Euro survived. And so, it would seem that the Euro is a permanent fixture of modernity.

Or is it?

The Eurozone doesn’t form an optimal currency area. Without serious structural reform, the issues that plagued the Euro in the 2010s will inevitably return. Furthermore, the linchpin of the Eurozone, Germany, is overly dependent on exports and its population is rapidly aging. In fact, all of Europe is aging rapidly. Demographics are destiny and Europe is dying. So what does this mean for Europe’s dream of peace through prosperity? What we know about Europe’s economic vitality is about to change.

Consider the events of the past 12 months. What about the world’s political, economic, health, cultural, and environmental systems are stable? Was anyone certain of what was going to happen? Of course not. The idea of certainty and stability is laughable. Uncertainty and instability are increasingly the norm.

Modernity’s problem is it was designed for a different world. Globalization is breaking down because it is rooted in geopolitical realities that no longer exist.

The foundations of globalization are found in the ashes of the Second World War. Europe is in ruins. The depths of human suffering surpass the imagination. From Paris to Warsaw to Rome to Berlin to London the landscape is the same: bombed out ruins of once proud capitals. Fifteen million soldiers dead. Twenty-five million civilians murdered - over 2.7 million slaughtered in Nazi death camps. This is Europe in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, a continent ruined and traumatized by the horrors of war.

Despite these horrors, there is little reason to hope the looming specter of war is banished. The Soviet Union shows no sign of relinquishing its occupied territories in Europe. In fact, Stalin’s militaristic occupation of Eastern Europe and East Germany in the post-war period signals the possibility of renewed conflict on the Northern European Plain.

A brutal reality confronts the Americans in late 1945. The Soviet Red Army numbers over 11 million soldiers. In comparison, the U.S. Army numbers only 8.2 million and is spread across the European and Pacific Theaters. Even with nuclear weapons, which are few and difficult to produce, the Americans lack the sufficient forces to resist a Soviet attack in Western Europe. And the Allied powers know it.

The great powers of Western Europe are compromised. Germany is demilitarized and partially occupied by the Soviets. France’s remains a shattered husk of former greatness. The British Empire, overextended by its efforts in the First and Second World Wars, is on the verge of total collapse. The only Allied Power with the resources capable of defeating the Soviets is the United States, and yet it is an ocean away. In the advent of war, Western Europe would be absolutely steamrolled by the terrifying death machine of the Soviet Red Army that raped and pillaged its way through Eastern Europe into the heart of Germany.

Given these realities, it appears that all Europe might rapidly fall behind the iron curtain of communism. Something must be done to deter Stalin’s ambitions of a global communist state. The Americans, being the ultimate pragmatists, decide upon a simple, straightforward solution: Uncle Sam would become Uncle Sugar. America would buy a global alliance to contain the Soviet Union.

American strategy is simple: grant preferential trade agreements to friendly powers so they can use exports to the U.S. to rebuild their manufacturing capacity, rapidly enrich their populaces, and, most importantly, field a modern military to deter the Soviets.

Western Europeans are offered a very transparent deal: you can either be filthy stinking rich by siding with the Americans and get annihilated by the Soviets or you can be poor and miserable by siding with the Soviets and get annihilated by the Americans. The Western Europeans, being supremely reasonable people, choose the option that makes them filthy stinking rich. If extermination is inevitable, might as well enjoy the ride.

What unfolds next is the most ambitious series of multi-lateral agreements in human history. To guide and formalize this new democratic bloc, the Americans oversee the Bretton Woods Conference and subsequent creation of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) to govern international monetary policy, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to direct trade, the Marshall Plan to stabilize Bretton Woods and jumpstart economic growth in Western Europe, and finally the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to consummate the anti-Soviet military alliance. Ultimately, this improvised system of global finance, trade, and military security would be expanded to include almost every major power not formally aligned with the Soviet Union.

What’s so crazy about this unprecedented, ad-hoc, unholy concoction of military alliances, trade agreements, and monetary policy is that it worked.

On Christmas Day, 1991, the Soviet Union fragments, shocking the world and signifying an end to the Cold War. The Americans manage to defeat the Soviets without firing a shot. World War III is averted.

That’s not to say Soviet defeat is without cost to the Americans. The Americans lost over 54,000 soldiers fighting the North Koreans and Chinese on the Korean Peninsula in the 1950s. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Americans fought the Vietcong and their Soviet and Chinese allies to a tactical draw but lost the political war at home.

The cost to the U.S. economy is also steep. Faced with cheap exports emanating from Western Europe and Japan, the once great Arsenal of the Democracy slowly transforms into the Rust Belt. Real wages for most Americans stop growing in 1973. Government deficits balloon to maintain military expenditures and to provide social welfare spending to placate a growing number of economically disenfranchised citizens.

But given the alternative of nuclear apocalypse and the possible annihilation of the human species, it’s not a bad trade. Getting nuked is no one’s idea of a good time, so the Americans went with the option that didn’t make the Fallout video games series a reality.

Here’s the thing: despite the costs the Americans incurred to defeat the Soviets, it wasn’t crippling. America at the end of the Cold War is the indisputable military and economic superpower. There is no rival to American hegemony. The only possible rivals of France, the United Kingdom, and Japan are all subsumed by the American alliance and economic order. China is a nonfactor at this point. All that is left is for the U.S. to reevaluate its economic and military commitments and address ongoing domestic political problems.

Then a strange thing happened. Instead of rebalancing commitments, the U.S. doubled down. The alliance system designed to defeat the Soviet Union was supersized by American elites to create the Liberal International Order.

This order, sometimes referred to as globalism, is defined by its commitment to multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the IMF. These institutions in turn promote neoliberal ideas that seek to reduce the barriers to the movement of capital, goods, and labor across international borders. Furthermore, these institutions seek multilateral consensus on everything, from human rights to regulatory standards to election laws. The goal, in a sense, is a future where The World Is Flat. It is The End of History. It is an Order where the global economy is guided by neoliberal economists and politics are guided by liberal democratic principles emanating from American and European elites.

But globalist ambitions are all predicated upon one assumption: the post-World War II Order is permanent.

But how realistic is this assumption?

The post-World War II Order was created to defeat the Soviet Union. It was designed to avert World War III not to further globalist dreams of a Liberal International Order. Globalization was a happy accident, not the overriding goal.

For the experiment of the Liberal International Order to continue, the status quo must hold. The U.S. must continue to be the world’s policeman by guaranteeing security for all members of the Order. The U.S. must continue to be the world’s largest importer to allow the rest of the world to get rich. But with the resurgence of Russian power, the rise of Chinese global ambitions, the constant instability of the Middle East, and the rise of populism in the West, the Order is facing challenges across multiple fronts.

The great question facing globalization and modernity is this: can the status quo hold? The answer is increasingly no.