Here’s your regular reminder: We’re not in Kansas anymore.
Once every two or three months, I revisit the narrative that says The Great Moderation’s over, the post-World War II global order’s dead and that there’s no way back.
Unfortunately, I see little in the way of evidence to suggest that narrative’s any less true than it was in 2025. On the contrary, the events of 2026 — from the denial of Venezuela’s sovereignty to America’s coveting of Greenland to dueling blockades in the Gulf to competition for advanced semiconductors — testify rather loudly to the notion that a new era’s not only upon us, but on its way to becoming entrenched.
The times they are a-changin.’ Multilateralism’s dead, the merits of democratic governance are being questioned and even if globalization’s not reversible in a strict sense, trade’s likely to exhibit “bloc-i-fication” along geopolitical fault lines.
Suffice to say many of the structural questions political scientists and economists long considered settled are reopen for debate.
Much of this sea change is attributable to the idea that scarcity’s a reality with which we must contend, not a problem we can solve. That mindset’s contagious, and it spread with the onset of the pandemic, when broken supply chains forced even the richest nations to do without, however briefly.
It’s undeniably true that we live in a world where resources of all kinds — from energy to compute to sustenance — are growing ever more dear. We used to believe in our species’ capacity to mitigate those circumstances. History’s replete with examples of our doing just that.
But in the 2020s, optimism’s giving way to fatalism. Nation-states are jealous about guarding what they have, and covetous when it comes to what they don’t. Hence barriers and conflict. Zero-sum thinking.
Admittedly, I’m less dogmatic than I once was when it comes to singing the praises of hyper-globalization and the neoliberal order.
Don’t get me wrong: Some things aren’t debatable. For example, free and open trade allows for specialization, and the benefits of specialization far (far) outweigh the drawbacks.
Even there, though, you can have too much of a good thing. Comparative advantage lowers prices, increases quality and increases overall economic output, but it can come at the cost of national self-sufficiency. That’s riskless for something like, say, pasta-making. Heavy industry, not so much.
Currently, the world’s two hegemons, along with most so-called “middle powers” as well as a handful of peripheral actors with leverage over chokepoints for some of the dearest of scarce resources, are locked in a bitter rivalry to ensure their own survival in an increasingly Hobbesian geopolitical milieu.
Iran — which, incidentally, is short on the one thing you absolutely can’t do without, water — is fighting tooth and nail to avoid becoming a vassal of what political scientists are now calling a “predatory hegemon.”
If that wasn’t an accurate description of Donald Trump’s America on January 2, it surely was as of January 3, when the US military kidnapped Nicolas Maduro and established a de facto American colony in Venezuela under hardline revolutionary-turned-acquiescent viceroy Delcy Rodriguez.
Xi Jinping’s China can likewise be described as a predatory hegemon. Xi, though, prefers subtle extortion dressed up as soft power and exploitation disguised as foreign investment, to the kind of overt bullying favored by Trump.
Mark Carney got a lot right in his news-making speech at Davos this year, but he was probably wrong to suggest the middle powers can band together in order to secure “a seat at the table” and thereby avoid being “on the menu” as the US, China and, to a lesser but still meaningful degree, Russia, carve up the world like a roast.
Yes, some middle powers have shared cultures and heritages, but most don’t. Other than being weaker economically, militarily or, vis-à-vis the US and China, both, they simply don’t have a lot in common. The only trait they share across the board is a lack of leverage in a world of great power competition.
All middle powers presumably want to avoid being “on the menu,” as Carney put it, but the surest way to avoid that fate is to ignore Carney’s advice. With all due respect, I doubt seriously that the whole of the middle powers is much greater than the sum of its parts.
The Carney prescription — negotiating as a group with major powers rather than bilaterally to avoid “compet[ing] with each other to be the most accommodating” — is a false choice.
Although Trump and Putin (and to a lesser extent Xi) do rank countries by their perceived level of obsequiousness, picking a side will suffice for the purposes of survival in a de facto state of nature. Put as a question: Whose protection racket do you pay into?
If you’re a middle power, the inescapable bottom line — or it seems inescapable to me — is that you do have to choose. You have to pay into one of the rackets and in such a way that it’s clear to the other rackets who you’re with.
Trying to play the superpowers off one another’s just as dangerous as trying to play the middle between mob families. Trying to go it alone’s likewise a suicide mission and Carney’s league of middle powers is a pipe dream on a generous description. Less generously, it’s a joke.
In an era defined by predatory hegemony as exercised by the US and China with a role for Russia (which, even as an economic backwater, still commands the “superpower” label on some vectors), you have to pick a side. That’s the best, and probably only, way to ensure your own survival.
Carney was right to say that’s “not sovereignty” but rather “the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.” But at least it’s a lease on life.
Looking ahead, resource scarcity’s only going to worsen. Energy, food, water, semiconductors and on down the list, will become ever more dear.
Acute scarcity’s synonymous with an existential strategic imperative: Commandeer the resources themselves and where that’s not possible, exercise control over extraction, production and supply routes. Make no mistake: That’s exactly what the US, China and Russia are going to do.
What the middle powers aren’t going to do is anything about it. They know as much, so why bother pretending? Just pick a side and pay the protection money. At least then you’ll survive. If you play your cards right, you might even be able to keep your national anthem.
Is Russia truly on equal footing with US and China? Decaying power? Economic and military power faltering. Nuclear power of course. My bias for Ukraine probably creates a blind spot. I think there is a case to be made US leadership, today, is internally predatory, same approach, this November will be like no other!
I kind of wish you hadn’t posted this one.
Oh here we go. It’s that thing where I’m supposed to say what you folks want to hear instead of what I actually think’s accurate. As a quick reminder, that’s not how it works here. I write what I believe to be closest to reality. If that doesn’t conform to how you think reality “should” be, I’m sorry but, again, my job isn’t to serve as a confirmation bias echo chamber. As for this article specifically: Look around, for God’s sake. Does it look, to you, like the world’s shaping up like Carney said it should? No? Me neither.
I am not saying your world view is wrong and I am in danger of asking you to fan my pessimistic alter ego. However it does seem this ‘backsliding’ as we have seen it is somehow normality reasserting iteself as it is wont to do.
I do notice that while recognition of my faults and failings does give me a measurable relief, I find backsliding is normal. In this view when applied governence experiments: it is pre-ordained we would either revert to the norm or we re-experience the norm in order to realize why we did the change (experiment) in the first place. I wonder what your take is on this phsychological phenomenon as applied to body politic?
“An increasingly Hobbesian geopolitical milieu. . . .” Nice!
“Carney was right to say that’s ‘not sovereignty’ but rather ‘the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.’ But at least it’s a lease on life. . . .” Likewise, a nice summation.
We have devolved into children fighting in a sandbox over who can play with what toys, rather than sharing and making everyone’s lives a little easier. (Now tell me, who’s philosophy of life does that sound like?) NATO may still exist, but the sense of trust that made it so effective is nearly gone. The U.S. has essentially moved from “protector” to “provocateur.” At some point, we may regain our “moral health” (to quote Winston Churchill), but that transformation cannot even begin until we have a new mandate from Washington, and that seems at least an election away from us now.
This is not something that hasn’t been tried before. Not only with the 1823 Monroe Doctrine but more recently in the lifetimes of my parents and those of at least a few readers.
In the 1930s they witnessed a similar movement towards the di vision of the earth’s spoils. My favorite was the cleverly-named “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” which Japan sought to “introduce” to other nations in the region. Wikipedia notes that: “The proposed objectives of this union were to ensure economic self-sufficiency and cooperation among the member states, along with resisting the influence of Western imperialism and Soviet communism.”
For some reason, the people of China, Phillipines, and Korea were not enthusiastic about joining. An even more striking parallel was the Japanese takeover of Indonesia to secure access to the colony’s oilfields which were the major source of oil in the region. (An interesting sidenote was that the people of Formosa, now Taiwan, for the most part did not resist it. And to this day there is little of the resentment that Koreans carry to this day.)
Meanwhile over in Europe, Germany launched the Third Reich. “Reich” translates to realm or empire. As a boy, I had some posters on my walls of the bombers of World War Two. One which stayed with me to this day was a rendition of US bombers on a nighttime raid on the refineries and oil prodction infrastructure around the oilfields in Ploie?ti, Romania. Hitler had grabbed them early in the war for the same reason the Japanese wanted to secure Indonesia.
It also helps explain the logic behind the US seizure of Venezuela and interest in Greenland and Canada. The president has explicitly said as much. The Iran fiasco suggests that Mr. Trump should have “stuck to his knitting” in the Western Hemisphere. As China is doing in their hemisphere.
“Spheres of Influence” date back to before the last turn of the century, and were a major cause leading us into WWI. Decades before Japan’s “Co-Prosperity Sphere,” the U.S. tried to impose its rather similar “Open Door Policy” in China.” At the end of WWI, Wilson’s Fourteen Points included: free trade, freedom of the seas, and the right to self-determination. As we now know, that didn’t take hold and we soon fell into a second WW. That’s precisely why our current descent is so discouraging: we have been here (twice) before and should understand where it can lead. Constant war footing also increases trade friction and can lead to diminished trade and higher inflation all-around.
Depressing but accurate, and it reminded me of the recent story of companies in Singapore supplying blacklisted AI services and hardware to Chinese subsidiaries, places like Singapore who have played both sides for decades , sure are in for a turbulent time.
‘New era’ going down the same well worn path with new scenery. It struck me that this same piece with a few modifications could describe party politics in the US.
A modern world order of slavery.
I think you exposed a true taboo with this post. Hence push back from some readers, including this one.
A “true taboo”? Says who? It’s my website.
I mean, some of you folks have known me for a decade by now. Surely to God you all realize this is not the outcome I wanted for the world. But it’s what we ended up with.
“exercise control over extraction, production and supply routes”.
Absolutely.
The list of sovereign countries that have been irreparably harmed by this sentiment is quite long, and growing.
Isn’t that one of the main purposes of a superpower’s military?
On a lighter note, good to find out you are a Bob Dylan fan. 🙂
How apropros!
Prepare for a world of ad hoc coalitions
Neither wishful multilateralism nor cold realpolitik will do. Mark Carney and Alexander Stubb suggest a third way
https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2026/07/08/prepare-for-a-world-of-ad-hoc-coalitions.
I can’t open it, but I have faith in your crew, here.
https://x.com/elerianm/status/2076399848086221044?launch_app_store=true&ct=google-app
What you write might make sense if the US were led by a rational actor, but instead it is governed by a senile lunatic, so choosing a side makes little sense. As soon as a country aligns itself withTrump he goes off on a tangent and that alignment becomes worthless.
Carney knows better than anyone that Canada must manage its relationship with the US, but diversifying trade and partnerships is nevertheless the right strategy for Canada which is rich in natural resources and geography and has much to offer. For many years Canada has been lazy in its reliance on the US. It can grow and become stronger by working with other partners and being less connected with the US. That is the way of the future.
In the meantime, many of us wonder how long the US can survive being governed by a senile lunatic. How long will it take for it to suffer irreversible damage? Or has that already happened? One thing is certain — trust, once broken, takes a long time to repair, and trust in the US has been broken.
It makes sense precisely because the US is “governed by a senile lunatic.”
This discussion’s only happening because of that very development.
“Just pick a side and pay the protection money” doesn’t work when the mob boss can’t even remember what he’s said or what’s happened from one day to the next. It’s just money down the drain. Trump’s word is meaningless.
It’s essential for countries like Canada to build as many relationships as possible with other countries.
Well, the good news is, we’ll be able to evaluate the success and effectiveness of Carney’s non-existent middle powers league as time passes. Let’s see how it goes. My guess is you’ll hear less and less about that and see a more and more conciliatory approach from Carney towards the unhinged man in the Oval Office as time passes. Because, again, there really isn’t a choice.
Don’t want to drag this out. I agree with “Let’s see how it goes.”
Am I to read into this that you don’t think he’s leaving office or the R’s will make sure an win the next few elections? My thought is that doesn’t matter as the Pentagon has wanted this for awhile (I’ve seen interviews with top brass over the last few years talking about lack of resources due to China dependence and wanting to tap resources south of the US) and they finally found an administration to bite on the idea and bully it through! Once the ball starts rolling, it will be even harder to stop it. Not that I think it’s all bad, as we need to expand our supply lines and get off the China teat, it’s just that we could’ve probably done it in a way where we kept some friends along the way.
Maduro’s Venezuela picked a side. Zelensky’s Ukraine picked a side. Khamenei’s Iran picked a side. Bashar al-Assad’s Syria picked a side. Kim Jong Un’s North Korea picked a side. Look how things turned out when you picked the “wrong” side.
This all kinda feeds into the philosophy/ narrative of Mark Fisher , who argues that we are in this cul de sac of postmodernism capitalism, the just of which is to say we cant seem to imagine a future anymore , not just economically , art , politics , protest.. its evidenced by the thriving of nostalgia , the movies which are just copies of an idea from 40 years ago… perhaps all of us from a certain age can remember the sound of the 80’s ,, which is very different from that of the 70.s or 90’s … the year 2010 onward ,, can anyone distinctly say there is music genre ?
Getting back to topic .. we are reverting back to almost ‘cold war’ of great powers , because we are at this cul de sac… the fun question comes from ‘why’ are we stuck
Mark in the Middle is sure trying this month “with Canada and 11 European nations (including the UK, France, Italy, and Turkey) agreed to jointly invest $50 billion over the next ten years to build new deep precision strike capabilities. The flagship project aims to develop advanced missiles with ranges up to 1,250 miles”
Yeah, that’s an example of what I’m talking about. That seems unrealistic to me. Does he seriously believe, given the political environment in the UK and France and who’s likely to be leading those countries over the next five or so years, that something like that’s going to get prioritized? I can’t wait to see the grand unveil. Carney, Farage, Bardella, Le Pen, Salvini and Erdogan standing next to a missile silo in Greenland.
And that amount. $50 billion over 10 years?! The Pentagon spends as much as $4 billion every, single day.
Yeah that spend kinda made me chuckle, if it was one year maybe I’d perk up. Like you wrote, that $4 billion is the Pentagon’s lunch money
Just curious, did you intentionally leave out Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla?
Middle powers best play is to diversify alliances, export markets and supply chains. Btw Great Britain is regretting the day they left the EU. Polling suggests old England is dying off and the under 50 cohort wants to either rejoin the EU or at least have a much more open trading/immigration relationship. Farage and the far right in Great Britain has peaked. Best guess, the US is about 6 months behind.