World disorder will only grow, Robert Kaplan argues:
The weakening and dissolution of small- and medium-size states in Africa and the Middle East will advance to quasi-anarchy in larger states on which the geographic organization of Eurasia hinges: Russia and China. For the external aggression of these new regional hegemons is, in part, motivated by internal weakness. They’re using nationalism to assuage the unraveling domestic economies upon which their societies’ stability rests. Then there is the European Union, which is enfeebled, if not crumbling. Rather than a unified and coherent superstate, Europe will increasingly be a less-than-coherent confection of states and regions, dissolving into the fluid geography of Eurasia, the Levant and North Africa. This is demonstrated by Russian revanchism and the demographic assault of Muslim refugees. Of course, on a longer time horizon there is technology itself. As the strategist T.X. Hammes points out, the convergence of cheap drones, cyber warfare, 3D printing and so on will encourage the diffusion of power among many states and nonstate actors, rather than the concentration of it into a few imperial-like hands.
[...]
After all, globalization and the communications revolution have reinforced, rather than negated, geopolitics. The world map is now smaller and more claustrophobic, so that territory is more ferociously contested, and every regional conflict interacts with every other as never before. A war in Syria is inextricable from a terrorist outrage in Europe, even as Russia’s intervention in Syria affects Europe’s and America’s policy toward Ukraine. This happens at a moment when, as I’ve said, multinational empires are gone, as are most totalitarian regimes in contrived states where official borders do not conform with ethnic and sectarian ones. The upshot is a maelstrom of national and subnational groups in violent competition. And so, geopolitics — the battle for space and power — now occurs within states as well as between them. Cultural and religious differences are particularly exacerbated: as group differences melt down in the crucible of globalization, they have to be reforged in a blunter and more ideological form. It isn’t the clash of civilizations so much as the clash of artificially reconstructed civilizations that is taking place. Witness the Islamic State, which does not represent Islam per se, but Islam combusting with the tyrannical conformity and mass hysteria of the Internet and social media. The postmodern reinvention of identities only hardens geopolitical divides.
Kaplan’s chutzpah is stunning. He and his wife (the infamous Amb. Nuland) had a very large hand in the destabilization of the Ukraine, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. They and the other neocons have pushed to world to the edge of world war.
Bob, there are two Robert Kaplans that are easy to mix up. If I remember correctly, you’re thinking of the other one. (This is Robert D. Kaplan).
Victoria Nuland’s husband is Robert Kagan.
And Robert S. Kaplan is a business professor.
Thanks, Isegoria. I had forgotten the Kagan confusion that comes up as well. The Kagans could properly be described as Neoconservative, but Robert D. Kaplan is an outspoken member of the Realist school in foreign policy and international relations, akin to what most people perceive as Realpolitik.
He is definitely in favor of US military involvement overseas, but because realists believe that hegemony is a zero-sum affair and that the periods of transition between hegemonies tend to produce incredibly violent and destructive wars. Realists differ from the Neoconservatives on many core issues, though, so should not be confused for them.
This was predicted quite a while ago. There was a series of books by James Dale Davidson and Sir William Rees-Mogg. They are based on the idea of Meapolitics. Namely that power and politics are based on the Technology of defense and offense. Mao, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” An example; gunpowder brought about the rise of large states due to cost of cannon. It also destroyed castles which collapsed smaller states. It lowered the power of defense. Followed by “the Right of Kings”. The main idea being until the technology supported it “the Right of Kings” was just so much nonsense. The authors claim the microprocessor is decreasing the power of offense which decreases the power of large States. During the World Wars you needed a large population with lots of guns to prevail. Now a small group armed with advanced weapons can attack at will hitting their targets every time. From this they concluded the welfare state and the USA was doomed. The books are also investment books. They did not do so well on this because they were just too soon. Who knew the US could stay afloat in such dire circumstances. They’re well worth reading. I’m like probably most of the people here, a book worm, and these are some of the best books I’ve read ever on BIG ideas with far reaching ideas. The books are old so most only cost a penny plus shipping.
Blood in the Streets: Investment Profits in a World Gone Mad (1987)
The Great Reckoning: How the World Will Change in the Depression of the 1990′s (1994)
The Sovereign Individual: Mastering the Transition to the Information Age (1999)
Another good book The Squeeze by James Dale Davidson (1980) that is good. From a long time ago talking about how we got into this shape.
I forgot to add all Kaplan’s books are great. If we’re talking about the guy that wrote The Coming Anarchy.