The post-WW2 world order is over

[Dolan]

I'm calling it here before you're going to hear about it in the media. The post-WW2 world order is over



and that's a good thing.

[fightinfrenchman]

Grilled cheese

[iNcog]

dolan literally out-shitposting the ear lol

[Dolan]

I didn't want to post a wall of text in the OP, so I posted a wall of image. But, well, if that's not convincing, here's the text version.

I'm calling it here before you're going to hear about it in the media. The media and politicians are slow to adapt and react to changes in paradigm. Partly because institutions tend to work by inertia, they like to cuddle up under pre-existing comfy arrangements (such as NATO, UN, WTO) and try to keep things working using the familiar formulas, inscribed in laws that are slow to change. Partly because they're in denial, they lack the vision and leadership abilities to see beyond existing arrangements (treaties, alliances, institutions) and cling to the old ones, in the hope things will keep working like they used to. But also because change is expensive.

So what am I talking about specifically - you'll ask. At the end of WW2, "the West" became this alliance between Western Europe - that was ravaged by two world wars, which ended its empires and ascendancy over the rest of the world, turning the old lion into a domesticated mongrel - and the USA, one of the winners of WW2. The brown scare was put to rest once Hitler became an ashtray and the new embodiment of Evil in politics became communism and the USSR. At least for 44 years, until communism crumbled under the weight of its own delusions in 1989. Well, it was nudged a bit to go that way, but that's another discussion.

What was left standing was an unopposed, uncontested ideological winner, democratic capitalism, which seemed so unbeatable and inevitable it became fashionable to claim history ended: that's it, everyone needs to adopt democracy and capitalism, there's no alternative viable way. Until 11 September 2001 hit and sent the mega-ultra-superpower USA into shock: how could this happen, we're the greatest, how could this small and insignificant crew of cave-dwelling bandits bomb our holy of the holiest places: the Money temples (WTC towers), the heart of our military system (Pentagon), and get close to sinking an airplane into our rulers' dome. If anything, September 11 showed that you can't own power. Nobody ever does. The moment you fall into this delusion that it's yours, that's when the rot sets in. I won't dwell much on the subject of 11/9, even though there's a lot to be said, but I don't want to get sidetracked.

What followed was a global crusade against terrorism that was supposed to re-establish the West's moral and military credibility. After all, the collapse of the WTC towers exposed the West's internal fragility: even though it owned globalisation and spread it around as an absolute network of power and moral grandstanding, a network draws its power from its expansion, from how far it reaches across a space it invades. But just like any network, it's vulnerable at single points of failure.

What kept Western democracies in shape during the Cold War was having a common enemy. Once communism collapsed, the Western model started showing cracks in the facade too. You'd be tempted to think that 11/9 saved the West, as after more than a decade of self-flattery during which all the big brains were congratulating themselves how smart they were when they predicted the West would win the ideological post-war race and become the uncontested leader of the world, the balance of moral conflict was re-established again: we found a new devil that was worth fighting again in the name of Western moral superiority. “Alien” was rearing its head from some caves in Afghanistan and the West needed to send some troops there and extinguish it once again and claim victory against the forces of darkness. But as it happens in the actual Alien movie, the monster is not anywhere in particular, it lurks everywhere. It could jump at you from behind that wall. And just when you thought you're the hero fighting the villain, Alien pops out of your thorax.

The West didn't lose its credibility as the archetype of the optimal politico-economic system all at once, there was a gradual erosion of the Western model.
- The Iraq war which turned out it was initiated based on groundless motives left a country devastated to this day and made the West lose moral credibility.
- The 11 September 2001 terror attack broke the West’s image of invincibility.
- The 2008 US financial crash made the Western economic model lose credibility.

With Obama's election in the USA, right when the thick of the financial crisis events broke out, it became clear that, for the first time in decades, the USA was focusing inwards. Such a president could not have been elected in good times, in times of exuberance, he was a figure of national mass therapy, of soul searching. of "change we can believe in". Trump's election only made things official, it put an orange face on the message delivered to Europe and the rest of the world that the post-war world order was over. And European leaders continued to live in denial and just banish the thought by telling themselves: “it's gonna pass, it's just some orange clown in the White House. Once he leaves, things will just get back to normal again”.

They really needed things to be spelled out to them, like the USA, the UK and Australia did by just signing this trilateral alliance, which left France in a state of disbelief that Australia just cancelled a $50 billion defence contract, breaking previous commitments. What this new alliance means is that there is no West anymore, there's no single entity that speaks in one voice and acts jointly. The West has fractured and that marks the end of the world order established by the end of WW2. This is good news, though, Europe needed to detach itself from its colonial outgrowths. "The West" has just become a meaningless tag that doesn't coextend with any tangible geopolitical reality.

[princeofcarthage]

Ok

[duckzilla]

I didn't want to post a wall of text in the OP, so I posted a wall of image. But, well, if that's not convincing, here's the text version.

I'm calling it here before you're going to hear about it in the media. The media and politicians are slow to adapt and react to changes in paradigm. Partly because institutions tend to work by inertia, they like to cuddle up under pre-existing comfy arrangements (such as NATO, UN, WTO) and try to keep things working using the familiar formulas, inscribed in laws that are slow to change. Partly because they're in denial, they lack the vision and leadership abilities to see beyond existing arrangements (treaties, alliances, institutions) and cling to the old ones, in the hope things will keep working like they used to. But also because change is expensive.

So what am I talking about specifically - you'll ask. At the end of WW2, "the West" became this alliance between Western Europe - that was ravaged by two world wars, which ended its empires and ascendancy over the rest of the world, turning the old lion into a domesticated mongrel - and the USA, one of the winners of WW2. The brown scare was put to rest once Hitler became an ashtray and the new embodiment of Evil in politics became communism and the USSR. At least for 44 years, until communism crumbled under the weight of its own delusions in 1989. Well, it was nudged a bit to go that way, but that's another discussion.

What was left standing was an unopposed, uncontested ideological winner, democratic capitalism, which seemed so unbeatable and inevitable it became fashionable to claim history ended: that's it, everyone needs to adopt democracy and capitalism, there's no alternative viable way. Until 11 September 2001 hit and sent the mega-ultra-superpower USA into shock: how could this happen, we're the greatest, how could this small and insignificant crew of cave-dwelling bandits bomb our holy of the holiest places: the Money temples (WTC towers), the heart of our military system (Pentagon), and get close to sinking an airplane into our rulers' dome. If anything, September 11 showed that you can't own power. Nobody ever does. The moment you fall into this delusion that it's yours, that's when the rot sets in. I won't dwell much on the subject of 11/9, even though there's a lot to be said, but I don't want to get sidetracked.

What followed was a global crusade against terrorism that was supposed to re-establish the West's moral and military credibility. After all, the collapse of the WTC towers exposed the West's internal fragility: even though it owned globalisation and spread it around as an absolute network of power and moral grandstanding, a network draws its power from its expansion, from how far it reaches across a space it invades. But just like any network, it's vulnerable at single points of failure.

What kept Western democracies in shape during the Cold War was having a common enemy. Once communism collapsed, the Western model started showing cracks in the facade too. You'd be tempted to think that 11/9 saved the West, as after more than a decade of self-flattery during which all the big brains were congratulating themselves how smart they were when they predicted the West would win the ideological post-war race and become the uncontested leader of the world, the balance of moral conflict was re-established again: we found a new devil that was worth fighting again in the name of Western moral superiority. “Alien” was rearing its head from some caves in Afghanistan and the West needed to send some troops there and extinguish it once again and claim victory against the forces of darkness. But as it happens in the actual Alien movie, the monster is not anywhere in particular, it lurks everywhere. It could jump at you from behind that wall. And just when you thought you're the hero fighting the villain, Alien pops out of your thorax.

The West didn't lose its credibility as the archetype of the optimal politico-economic system all at once, there was a gradual erosion of the Western model.
- The Iraq war which turned out it was initiated based on groundless motives left a country devastated to this day and made the West lose moral credibility.
- The 11 September 2001 terror attack broke the West’s image of invincibility.
- The 2008 US financial crash made the Western economic model lose credibility.

With Obama's election in the USA, right when the thick of the financial crisis events broke out, it became clear that, for the first time in decades, the USA was focusing inwards. Such a president could not have been elected in good times, in times of exuberance, he was a figure of national mass therapy, of soul searching. of "change we can believe in". Trump's election only made things official, it put an orange face on the message delivered to Europe and the rest of the world that the post-war world order was over. And European leaders continued to live in denial and just banish the thought by telling themselves: “it's gonna pass, it's just some orange clown in the White House. Once he leaves, things will just get back to normal again”.

They really needed things to be spelled out to them, like the USA, the UK and Australia did by just signing this trilateral alliance, which left France in a state of disbelief that Australia just cancelled a $50 billion defence contract, breaking previous commitments. What this new alliance means is that there is no West anymore, there's no single entity that speaks in one voice and acts jointly. The West has fractured and that marks the end of the world order established by the end of WW2. This is good news, though, Europe needed to detach itself from its colonial outgrowths. "The West" has just become a meaningless tag that doesn't coextend with any tangible geopolitical reality.

In the background, in the dark, you can hear a hushed, nearly inaudible laughter and chair being moved a way. It looks like a barely visible human figure in the twilight. With a sort of symbol towards its stomach. Is it a cross? No. It is a shape similar to... a diamond? A triangle?

[fightinfrenchman]

So what am I talking about specifically - you'll ask.

Very presumptive on your part

[Dolan]

In the background, in the dark, you can hear a hushed, nearly inaudible laughter and chair being moved a way. It looks like a barely visible human figure in the twilight. With a sort of symbol towards its stomach. Is it a cross? No. It is a shape similar to... a diamond? A triangle?

Maybe it's Klaus Schwab

[Dolan]

Already spending WW2 emotional capital, as a last resort, hehe



That EU - Australia trade agreement looking a bit doomed rn ngl

[iNcog]

I don't understand what the big deal is with the subs, I'm sure there will be opportunities to sell them to other countries. American gunboat diplomacy at its finest but honestly whatever. There should be better ways to make money than selling war machines

[harcha]

@iNcog the economy doesn't have a ready substitute for those subs. they're probably gonna have to discount them now for anyone to buy not-new subs, fire some people in the factory and worst of all - the board will not get that juicy bonus for a few years.

[iNcog]

and worst of all - the board will not get that juicy bonus for a few years.

Realistically the only people who lost from this deal are the French wealthy. Hardly a loss. The money would have gone to Switzerland or off shore accounts. The French people lost almost nothing

[Dolan]

The whole global order works based on alliances, but these alliances are more than just legal acts or ideological and cultural affinities. They work like protection rackets.
For example, the US offers security guarantees to some small country and that country later just happens to make big purchases from US weapons manufacturers.
Typically, the US sells previous generation weapons to make sure nobody has an edge over the US military and that they always know how to neutralise a state to which they sold weapons and which later went rogue.
That's why the US made such a big fuss when Turkey bought an S-400s missile system made by Russia, because NATO is not just a defence pact, it's also a protection racket. And if Uncle Sam contributes most to NATO missions, they expect these client states to put money in the pockets of US corporations like Lockheed and Northrope.

France tried to play a similar role, to become a supplier of nuclear subs, but got played by this agreement made in the Anglosphere. To my understanding, France had been working on these subs for some years, so they probably spent some money already and were using classified French technology that they were willing to share with Australia. And then Aussies told them they changed their minds. So, imo, this is another fracture in NATO, after Turkey started playing their own geostrategic games, as if they're on their own. NATO looks like a zombie organisation right now that keeps limping on, because there are no strong enough interests to break it up yet.

There's a lot of interesting stuff happening these days. Just now, Japan came out with this message:



Obviously, USA's allies in Asia and the Pacific have other interests than Europe, so they side more with the USA. They're trying to put pressure on Europe to join this anti-China movement. So far Europe has said nope, because they know where this leads. It leads to war and Europe wouldn't want to burn bridges with China just because the whole Anglosphere and their Asian sidekicks shine the USA's shoes and do their bidding.

This is not the only case in which the USA and its Anglosphere allies have done this. They did this with Russia too. Europe, despite sanctioning Russia doesn't want to burn bridges with Russia either. But the USA keeps trying to make Europe become just another wheel in its global diplomacy. That's why Biden came to Europe, he was hoping to make everyone here just fold and follow the USA's interests. Why would Europe do that. We need to tell them to fuck off, tbh. I don't see any reason why we should get attracted in yet another artificial conflict just because the USA wants to play wargames and their military industrial complex wants new wars to test new weapons. China is a problem of their own making, we shouldn't participate in anything military against China. We should keep any anti-China measures stricly to an economic level, like we need to wean off our economies from Chinese manufacturing.

[harcha]

The West is really just a convenient term politicians can use to manipulate peoples feelings of "belonging" or "brotherhood" or whatever.

[Cometk]

the concept of a unified "west" was always mythological - that the empires of the world bicker about over slices of imperial pie isn't all too surprising - & the inexorable decay of the empire was destined to happen, and should

[Dolan]

As it happens right now. I made this post because I feel like the world order that was established at the end of WW2 is slowly melting. And this will have some big consequences.
Because all the pieces will be rearranged into something new. Currently the Anglosphere through its efforts to contain China is detaching from Europe.
While at the same time this alliance headed by the US is pressuring Europe to isolate and counter both China and Russia.
And Europe can't do that because we're literally on the same big plate with Russia and China.
It's cheap to talk tough like the USA when you're isolated from other continents by two oceans.
When the USA bombed some Middle Eastern country, the fallout was millions of refugees trying to flee to Europe.
To US generals all these wargames must look like they have some pretty cool graphics.

[Jam]

China has been kicked around by other imperial powers for a long time and now act like it's their turn to be the imperial power.

[princeofcarthage]

No, they are just trying to reclaim their stolen status. For thousands of years China and India have been the richest, strongest, and the most advanced nations on the planet. Then came 19th century. Even during peak colonialism China and India were as distinct empires richer than Britain. That slowly changed towards late 19th and Early 20th century. Britain practically fought world wars on its colonial resources. By the end of ww2 India and China's share of world economy which was more than 40%+ had fallen to less than 1%. We just want back what's stolen from us.

US knows other than war there is no way China could be contained. Unless forcefully stopped China will surpass US, and so will India in due time. US did the same to Soviets, actively tried to undermine them and destroy them. They succeeded there. What happens between US and China remains to be seen. But China has already surpassed US as regional power, anything short of nuclear war that is.

[Cometk]

@Dolan you had a good post some years back re: the nature & quality of chinese economic expansion, i think something to do with the way they leverage ownership over some ports over a 20 year period was involved in your writing... do you remember that post? i don't know which thread it was in or what search terms could be used to find it

[Dolan]

@Dolan you had a good post some years back re: the nature & quality of chinese economic expansion, i think something to do with the way they leverage ownership over some ports over a 20 year period was involved in your writing... do you remember that post? i don't know which thread it was in or what search terms could be used to find it

Might have been one of these posts:
viewtopic.php?f=315&t=16266&p=359772&hi ... ts#p359770
viewtopic.php?f=315&t=16266&p=443319&hi ... ts#p443319
viewtopic.php?f=315&t=16266&p=359784&hi ... ts#p359784

From the BBC link

Sri Lanka has signed a $1.1bn (£837m) deal with China for the control and development of the southern deep-sea port of Hambantota.
Sri Lanka's government says money from the deal will help repay foreign loans.
Under the proposal, a state-run Chinese company will have a 99-year lease on the port and about 15,000 acres nearby for an industrial zone.
The plan envisages the eviction of thousands of villagers but the government says they will be given new land.
China has pumped millions of dollars into Sri Lanka's infrastructure since the end of a 26-year civil war in 2009.

From another link quoted in that post:

China has become a generous, ready and easy lender to African countries and a key investor. Researchers say its line of credit to the continent has stretched considerably since 2000 and the money is flowing faster.
Beijing's cumulative loans to Africa since 2000 amounted to $124 billion by 2016, according to figures compiled by the China-Africa Research Initiative (CARI) at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in the United States.
"Half of those loans were given in the past four years," Janet Eom, an associate researcher at CARI, told DW. "So Africa's debt to China is becoming more of a concern moving forward.”
Chinese companies wanted to be exempted from local labor laws and given the first rights to mineral exploration. "Some mineral rights were almost sold off to the Chinese as part of the loan," said Gumede.

[Cometk]

ah, thank you

interestingly to me what the posts are describing is explicitly capitalism

[wardyb1]

Please stop talking about anything related to Australia and the submarine deal when it is quite clear you do not understand what you are talking about. If you are going to try and post paragraphs of your takes, at least make sure they are researched and not based of headlines and assumptions. Please. Thank you.

[princeofcarthage]

Why don't you explain then instead of asking him to shut up

[fightinfrenchman]

Why don't you explain then instead of asking him to shut up

It's funnier to tell people to shut up in various ways than to explain complex situations to them

[Dolan]

Please stop talking about anything related to Australia and the submarine deal when it is quite clear you do not understand what you are talking about. If you are going to try and post paragraphs of your takes, at least make sure they are researched and not based of headlines and assumptions. Please. Thank you.

I don't think I posted anything about the internal reasons why Australia decided this. I'm sure there's a long backstory on why things turned out this way, but I didn't claim I'm familiar with it. My post talked about mostly how this decision looks like here in Europe and how France reacted.
Here are the two chunks where I mentioned Australia:

They really needed things to be spelled out to them, like the USA, the UK and Australia did by just signing this trilateral alliance, which left France in a state of disbelief that Australia just cancelled a $50 billion defence contract, breaking previous commitments.

I suppose you take issue with this formulation that Australia broke a previous commitment.
According to the Australian National Audit Office, which audited the Department of Defence (here's the document: https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/f ... 020_22.pdf):
Page 7

Following a competitive evaluation process to select a designer for the Future Submarine,
on 26 April 2016, the Prime Minister announced that:
... the next generation of submarines for Australia will be constructed at the Adelaide shipyard,
securing thousands of jobs and ensuring the project will play a key part in the transition of our
economy.
DCNS [now Naval Group 4] of France has been selected as our preferred international partner for
the design of the 12 Future Submarines, subject to further discussions on commercial matters.

So the French company DCNS (now called Naval Group 4) was publicly announced as the official partner. Was this just an announcement without any contractual obligation? The same document clarifies this two pages later:

The Strategic Partnering Agreement negotiated with Naval Group establishes a
contractual basis to meet the Commonwealth’s objectives for the Future Submarine Program. To
guide its negotiation of the Agreement, Defence established clear negotiating objectives and
fit-for-purpose governance and oversight arrangements.

So it was contractual, after all. Then what I said is also what the Australian government says.

The second para in which I mentioned Aus:

To my understanding, France had been working on these subs for some years, so they probably spent some money already and were using classified French technology that they were willing to share with Australia. And then Aussies told them they changed their minds.

Not much controversial stuff here. This is what French officials declared.

But yeah I read some things mentioned about the Australian government changing their minds because they did some analysis and it resulted the subs built with French designs didn't have enough range, or something like that. Didn't invest much time into researching this on Australia's side, though, because I'm not sure that changes much about the subject of this topic.