Is the US Looking for a War?

*This video was recorded in May of 2024

The potential of dragging the US into a major conflict is top of mind for a lot of Americans, but what would it actually take to get us there?

The US isn’t just going to rush into a significant conflict, there has to be something major that occurs first. We’re talking a political leader with a strong international agenda or a major provocation (like Pearl Harbor). China (at least for now) knows better than to provoke the US due to Chinese reliance on maritime trade. Russia’s incompetence and aggressive actions in Ukraine pose a potential threat, but only if the conflict directly impacts US interests.

When looking at US military action within North America specifically, conflict with the Mexican drug cartels is top of mind. Although the situation in Mexico is dire, any action by the US without Mexico’s cooperation would be disastrous for the future of the US-Mexico trade relationship.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hi, thanks for joining us today. My name is Michael, and I’m your director of analysis here at Zeihan on Geopolitics. It’s my pleasure to have a conversation with Peter Simon about some of the questions you’ve sent us about what’s going on in the world. Let’s start with the big one: What would it take to pull the U.S. directly back into a major conflict or war?

Oh, wow. Okay, so the United States has not been in a major, major conflict since World War II. In terms of the conflicts we’ve had since then, they were either in the context of supporting the global order—basically bleeding for our allies so they would stay our allies, like in Korea and Vietnam—or it was our attempt to forge a new world post-Cold War, like Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

For us to get involved in anything on that scale would require one of two things. Number one, a political leader in the United States who sees international issues as the crucible in which a new identity could be forged. There’s no sign of that happening on either side of the political spectrum at the moment. Or, someone doing something really, really, really breathtakingly stupid and provoking the United States.

This has happened before. You could argue that Pearl Harbor, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Sputnik, and the Kuwait invasion all fit this description. But when I look around the world at the powers in play, I don’t think the Chinese are anywhere near dumb enough to do that.

At least a few years ago, Chairman Xi and the Politburo realized that if there were a fight with the United States, it would be a fight on the water, and China depends on freedom of the seas to keep its people alive. The entire economic model, the food imports, the energy imports—they would just stop, and they know that would be suicide.

So, the only country right now where that might be an issue would be Russia, and that’s because of Russian incompetence. We’ve learned over the last three years that Russia doesn’t have a classic army in the sense most people think of. They basically have a mob they put guns in the hands of and throw at things.

It’s not that this strategy has never worked for the Russians. The Russians have won half of the wars they’ve been in. But if the fight reaches a point where it’s hitting U.S. interests, that’s where you get the direct clash. As long as the United States is at least passively interested in NATO, should Ukraine fall, then we could be in a more direct fight.

But we’re not there now. Even if the Russians continue making the gains they’ve been making in the last year for the next five years, we will still not be there. The dynamism of this conflict is difficult to get your mind around because so many things are shaping both sides. I’m not suggesting for a moment that Russia is about to break through the lines in Ukraine and win. I’m just suggesting that it has to be something on that scale for the United States to consider getting involved, barring some idiot somewhere doing a direct attack on the United States. Remember, the United States has rested and recouped from the war on terror. Its military isn’t doing much from a military point of view right now.

There are no occupations. There are no hot deployments. So, if somebody did pick that fight, God help them because no one else will. But you mentioned that the U.S. military isn’t doing much broadly, and most of the conflicts you described aren’t within North America. There’s nothing within North America that looks viable at the moment, something targeting a U.S. strategic interest to the point that would motivate the U.S. to enter conventional warfare.

Stepping back a little bit, are there regions within North America, perhaps, or concerns that American strategic leadership has within North America that the military could be used for, to bring some kind of resolution or achieve a strategic gain? Not at the moment. The only issue where that theoretically could arise would be dealing with Mexican drug cartels. Americans’ preoccupation with cocaine—their love of cocaine—has basically destroyed the capacity for rule of law to exist in large portions of Mexico. Add to that the general incompetence of the AMLO administration, and Mexico is in a much worse position now in terms of public safety, public health, and infrastructure than it was five years ago. There’s plenty of fault to spread around.

I will just underline that if anyone thinks the United States can impose a military solution on the cartel situation, you are batshit. Mexico is a huge place, and the cartel situation is far more complicated than anything we had to deal with in Pakistan or Afghanistan during the war on terror. If there is a military angle to be played there, it will have to be hand in glove with the Mexican administration, something like what we did with Colombia.

But at the moment, with the current administration in Mexico City, that is not even under a hair of consideration. If the U.S. were to try to impose a military solution without active participation from the Mexicans, you can kiss the trade relationship goodbye, and then the United States would fall into an economic depression as the single most important economic, human migration, and manufacturing and energy relationship in human history all break at the same time.

Don’t do that.

The Gaza Conflict and Shifting Politics in Israel

*This video was recorded last week, prior to Peter departing on his backpacking trip.

The conflict in Gaza has been raging on for nearly 300 days, and there is no end in sight. However, Israel is heavily reliant upon American tech and weapons and that relationship could be changing.

The political situation in Israel is complex. As the country grows more conservative and reactionary, tensions between the three largest population groups are rising. These groups are the Palestinians, secular Jews, and the ultra-Orthodox (Haredi).

The Haredi are gaining influence and have some hardline policies against Palestinians. In 25 years, their voting power will rival that of secular Jews and Israeli policies will be drastically impacted.

This shift in local politics is amplified by the shift in international relations with the Americans. The US remains a strong supporter of Israel, but shifting demographics and growing criticisms of Israeli practices in this war indicate that this could change in the coming decades.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey everybody, Peter Zeihan here. Today we’re going to talk about Israel. There is no reason to expect the Gaza war to end anytime soon. And while both Israel and Hezbollah really don’t want to have a military conflict, there are some factors that are pushing them more in each other’s face. So, we can’t rule out a specific war there.

But what this does is keep Israel top of mind for a lot of American security planners, especially for the White House, because at the end of the day, Israel relies on American tech transfer and weapon procurement in order to keep its own security in order. And the question is whether or not that is in a degree of danger.

Let me cut to the chase and say that the short answer is no, for now. There are two issues that kind of define this problem. The first is that the political evolution of Israel is towards a much more stodgy, reactionary approach to not just politics, but security.

If you consider Israel and the Palestinian territories as a single unit, there are three forces in play. The first, of course, is the Palestinians themselves, who are capable of resistance, but not in a traditional manner. What we saw back in October with the terror assaults, that’s about the most they can hope for.

There are no anti-tank rockets, no air forces, no tanks. So, from a security point of view, this is a pain and tragic, but it’s not a traditional state challenge. It is an ongoing, grinding issue of occupation and resistance that will always be there in the background. The second group are the Jews, specifically the secular Jews, who have controlled the governing system of Israel for the last 75 years.

Now, these, of course, break into different groups with different politics, just like any other country. But ultimately, they’re all drawn from a similar political stock, if you will. The third group, the one that is disrupting this balance, if that’s the right word, are the Haredi, the ultra-Orthodox, who are much more conservative and, for the most part, not integrated into Israeli life.

Until very recently, they were not even contributing to the military. We’ve recently had a change in law there, which we will link to that piece and the implications of it here. Anyway, this is a group that basically lives on the government dole and does what their rabbis tell them to do. It’s not that simple—don’t send me hate mail for that statement—but these are people who are not as sophisticated as the secular Jewish population.

And they have some very, very, very strong opinions on what should be done to and about the Palestinians. Much more hawkish, but they haven’t really contributed to the assets that are necessary to carry out that policy because they pay very little taxes. Most of them haven’t served in the military, and yet they want a very hardline response.

Well, for the last couple of decades, this ultra-Orthodox coalition has been a bigger and bigger factor in internal Israeli politics and has been the kingmaker in any number of governments, including the current one. Because they’re basically paid to exist by the state, their numbers are growing very rapidly, and we’re going to need a position within the next 25 years where they are going to be neck and neck in terms of voting power with the traditional secular Jews.

That transition from here to there is going to generate a very different set of policy options in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. So, the question is, how does this relate to the Americans? Well, in the short term, it really doesn’t. Donald Trump, when he was president, was very pro-Israeli, very anti-Palestinian. His policies reflected that, and the folks in charge of the Israeli government were very supportive of that.

Under Biden, there’s been a little bit more oblique criticism. The Palestinians, of course, would disagree with that assessment. But Biden is basically starting to call a spade a spade and has said that some of the things that the Orthodox-tinged government in Israel is doing are perhaps not legal internationally and border on, from time to time, a little bit genocidal. At times, that criticism has boiled up in international affairs and actually affected Israel’s ability to access American weapons.

It hasn’t gotten to a break point, because one of the advantages in the United States of having a president who’s older than dust is he remembers when the Jewish state was formed, which means he remembers personally the Holocaust. He remembers Abraham, and Isaac, and all the rest. So, he knows that in the long sweep of history, what’s going on right now is a bit of a bump.

But Biden will not be there forever. Trump will not be there forever. And we’re having a demographic shift in the United States as well. In Israel, right now in 2024, the majority of America’s baby boomers, who are probably the most pro-Israel generation we have, have already retired. Over that same transition period, while the ultra-Orthodox sects are going to rise to power in Israel, America’s baby boomers are going to die out.

And the younger generation coming up, the Zoomers and, to a lesser degree, the millennials, are not nearly as evenhanded when it comes to Israel versus the Palestinians. So, demographics are absolutely against Israel on this topic. But never forget that demographics are like a glacier; they move slowly. They don’t matter until the day they do. We’re not going to hit that day in the next four years, but we will hit it in the next four decades.

So, for now, the Israeli government, regardless of its makeup, can be assured of long-term American support. But long-term does not mean permanent.

Yes, We Have to Follow Elections in Europe Too

*This video was recorded last week, prior to Peter departing on his backpacking trip (and prior to Biden leaving the race).

Today, we’ll be looking at the recent European Commission presidential election and its broader implications for the Europeans.

Former German Defense Minister, Ursula von der Leyen, will remain as president for the next term. She has been in office through the Ukraine War and has kept a tight grip on many policies coming out of the Commission.

 

The President serves as a crisis mediator among European countries and handles issues requiring unanimity and majority voting. Ursula von der Leyen has prioritized the Green New Deal, cyber defense, and a common EU air defense system (which is top of mind for everyone).

There’s lots of moving parts throughout Europe right now, so von der Leyen will have her hands full. Specifically, we should expect to see significant changes to the EU-NATO relationship and European security dynamics.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. Today, we’re doing a video that’s a reminder that it’s not just elections in the United States that matter this year. We just had elections for the European Commission president. And I know, I know, I know, you’re like, really, the election of the chief bureaucrat in Europe? That’s what we’re going to talk about today.

But, hey, it matters. So, Ursula von der Leyen, a former defense minister of Germany, was elected to be the president of the Commission a few years ago. She’s now been reelected with a fairly strong majority. I would argue she’s done a decent job overall, considering that she’s been presiding over the European Union during the entirety of the Ukraine war and has emerged as a bit of a hawk on most policies.

The leader of the European Commission is basically responsible for two things. Number one is managing the bureaucracy that is in the European Union, which is very small by European standards, but technically it has legal authority over most of what happens in Europe. Second, to basically serve as a crisis mediator among the various European countries. There are a lot of issues in Europe that require unanimity.

And when you’ve got countries as small as Malta and as large as Germany all having functionally one vote, it requires a lot of proactive work on the part of the executive. Other issues in Europe are decided by something called qualified majority voting, in which it’s kind of a hybrid voting structure where states, based on their population size and their economic strength, have more of a say than others.

It still favors the small states a little bit like America’s electoral college, but it’s a lot more nuanced. And, of course, it’s done European style, so it’s more complicated than it needs to be, and someone has to ride herd over all of that. And that is von der Leyen’s job, and now will be for another few years. The reason I wanted to shortlist this topic specifically, though, is in her final pitch before the vote happened, she indicated what her priorities were going to be.

And, you know, a lot of it is the normal stuff: Green New Deal, cyber defense, all that good stuff. But one that really stuck out, both to me and to the members of Parliament, was her assertion that the EU now needed to create a common air defense space. Now, there are two institutions that have dominated Europe for the last 75 years.

The first is the European Union itself in its various forms, starting with the coal and steel community, turning into the European Community, and now the European Union. Its job has pretty much always been economic integration: the creation of a common trading bloc, the creation of a common market, eventually getting into banking and financial regulation, all that good stuff.

And in that, the European Union, in my opinion, has actually done a lot better than I thought it was going to do 25 years ago. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t problems. Oh, my God, there are so many problems. There’s so much drama. But it’s still there, and it’s still kicking, and they’ve been making more than incremental progress.

Especially since the financial crisis of the mid-2000s. So, you know, give credit where it’s due. The second big institution is NATO, which has always been American dominated. Or if you want to be really kind, American-British dominated, and it’s responsible for defense issues primarily, but not exclusively, versus the Soviet Union and now the Russians. Now, NATO was kind of on its back foot in the 2000s and 2010s, when most Europeans didn’t see any security problems anywhere. Even with the Russian invasion of Ukraine dating back to 2014, a lot of Europeans, the Germans most notably, just tried to pretend that didn’t happen.

And so NATO was fading because the Americans were getting frustrated. The Europeans weren’t taking European security seriously. And the Europeans didn’t think security was an issue at all. In fact, we got to a point just before the Ukraine war where the Germans were actually openly, publicly talking about dismantling their military completely, which would have been, you know, monumentally stupid, but anyway.

Von der Leyen’s discussion of an air defense space is really interesting. It’s not that it’s not necessary. It’s not that it’s not needed. The Europeans are looking at the Ukraine war and are getting a little pale. They realize that their system is much more integrated. It’s much more dependent upon energy and electricity than anything going on in Ukraine.

I mean, Ukraine, I don’t want to call it a failed state or anything like that, but on the technological scale, the industrial development scale, it is significantly below anyone in Europe. And so the Europeans know that if the sort of attacks that the Russians are doing daily against Ukrainian infrastructure would have happened somewhere else in Europe, the impact would be an order of magnitude bigger.

There’s just so many more important things in Europe that run on electricity than what you have in Ukraine. That the damage would be immense. And an air defense system, a missile defense system, is really the only way to make that happen. And if you have a Polish, a Slovak, a Latvian, and a Romanian system, that’s great.

But what you really need is integration, especially with things like radars. And since missiles, you know, from the point that they’re launched to the point that they hit, if it’s a few hundred kilometers away, you’re talking about, you know, single digits of minutes. Reaction time is really important. And that has to be all set up ahead of time.

What really stuck out in my mind, though, is that she wants this to be an EU prerogative.

And until now, we’ve only had a few little… well, let’s just call them temper tantrums. That’s what they were when a few countries decided they didn’t like what the United States was doing with its military, so they wanted to form a European answer to NATO.

The problem is that the resources were never there. And anything that you dedicate to a NATO project is automatically not available to be dedicated to an EU project. Well, with the Russians basically launching a genocidal war next door that is a combination of forward scorched earth and kidnapping and sexual assault, the Europeans have found themselves motivated to massively expand their defense spending.

So not only is this likely to help NATO quite a bit, but there actually could be the resources necessary for the European Union to do something in defense on its own. Whether it’s enough is an open question, which means that this is going to go one of two directions. Either number one, the Europeans are going to massively expand the defense spending.

And the worse Ukraine does in the war, the greater the push for that is going to be in order to build a kind of parallel capacity. Or number two, the European Union is going to sign a series of agreements with NATO that basically merge the two from a certain point of view. Now, most of the countries that are in the European Union are also in NATO and vice versa.

And the holdouts are countries like the United Kingdom, which isn’t going to leave NATO, but has a pretty strong position on European defense. The sticklers are going to be the four countries that are members of the EU, but are not members of the military alliance. One of these, Malta, doesn’t have a security concern aside from illegal migration from Africa.

So we can put that one to the side. Another one is Ireland, which kind of has a Canadian approach to defense or like, by the time anything gets to us, the world’s already ended. So we’re just going to free ride on this. The Irish hate me. I’m sure I’ll get that here in no time. But the other two matter a little bit more.

One is Austria, which has been a neutral country because everyone wants it to be neutral. The last time the Austrians started to get into security policy, we got Hitler. So, you know, it’s like the more they simmer down, the better. They’ve got a good relationship with NATO that will probably mean that they can just abstain on everything and let it sail through.

And then the last country that matters is Cyprus, which, you know, has very little to do with the Ukraine war. But if you’re going to have a European defense network, the idea is it’s going to protect against countries that are not in the European Union.

And while everyone’s eyes right now are on Russia, and that’s the whole thing that von der Leyen’s trying to get people agitated about, Cyprus’s primary security concern is Turkey. And so you have this one country that has under a million people who has deep, abiding cultural and military conflicts with a major trading partner of the EU, Turkey, but probably is going to have veto power over all of this.

So even if von der Leyen is able to get the Europeans to come up with the money, even if they can figure out a format in Europe that allows NATO and the European Union to do this side by side, we have one hell of a fly in the ointment here as regards the Cypriots. How will that be sorted out?

God knows. Keep in mind that the last time Cyprus really made the news from a global point of view, it was in the financial crisis of the late 2000s. And in that time, we had huge bailouts for Italy, for Spain, for Hungary, for Greece. There was one for Cyprus too. It was the smallest of all of them.

But because Cyprus is a money laundering center, it became very quickly the most controversial, the most complicated of all of them. And we’re going to see something like that in defense as well. So stay tuned.

Major Protests Break Out in Bangladesh

*This video was recorded last week, prior to Peter departing on his backpacking trip.

There have been significant protests in Bangladesh over a law reserving a significant portion of government jobs for supporters of the 1971 independence revolution and their descendants. The job quota has been suspended, but protests continue.

For context, Bangladesh has a young population of over 100 million and accounts for nearly a tenth of the global textile supply. The current protests revolve around the chokehold on opportunities that this job quota has caused, forcing many college grads into low-wage textile jobs or something of similar stature.

The protestors have been met with curfews, arrests and worse, but it appears they will continue to push back against the government. Depending on the resolution of these protests, the Bangladeshi textile sector could be in trouble…which would be amplified by the technological advances hitting the industry.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey everybody, Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. Today, we’re talking about a country we hardly ever talk about, and that is Bangladesh. There are nationwide protests going on there right now. At least 20 people have been killed, and the protesters are literally saying that they’re trying to shut down the country, and they’re doing a pretty good job.

For those of you who don’t know what Bangladesh is, it’s a small, physically small country kind of nestled into the armpit of India, to the northeast of Delhi. It’s that little chunk that kind of wraps around India, and Bangladesh is there at the mouth of the Ganges, right in the Bay of Bengal.

It’s got a huge population, very young, over 100 million people. And it is textile central. As China moved out of textiles, or at least out of mass market textiles over the last 20 years, Bangladesh has picked it all up. Now, roughly 20% of textile supply chains involve Bangladesh in some way, and really 8% of global supply comes from there.

Anyway, the protesters are attempting to do nothing less than overthrow the constitutional order of the country. So, you know, kind of a big deal. The short version is that back when Bangladesh got independence in 1971, one of the founding laws for the country was that roughly 30% of all government jobs, regardless of what they are, were guaranteed to go to people who supported or fought in the revolution in the first place, or their families and descendants.

Well, that has basically given some very, very politically connected people a chokehold over government contracts and jobs. And if you are, say, a college graduate in Bangladesh, your options are to try to compete for what’s left. You can go into the textile industry and be a wage slave, or you can work on a beach breaking old ships, and that’s it.

That is the entire economy of Bangladesh. So there are several millions of people who are skilled and kind of have no prospects whatsoever because, you know, Bangladesh. You can walk to maybe India, but Indian labor laws aren’t exactly welcoming for migrants, just like most countries where migrants are a portion of the workforce. So they’re trying to shut the whole place down.

Now, this is both not a big deal and a very big deal. There’s nothing magical about textiles, especially when you’re talking about the relatively low tech level that the Bangladeshis do. However, the integration of textiles, typically a garment, especially things that involve a lot of stitching and maybe something sewn on or stamped in, like a button or a rivet, involves a dozen different countries.

And if you have a significant disruption within what is actually the single biggest node in the world, any number of supply chains are simply going to break completely. It’s not that they can’t be repaired. It’s not that they can’t be rerouted. But none of that can happen quickly because Bangladesh really has emerged as the singular node. So we’ve got a lot of cheesed-off college graduates who are basically trying to overthrow what is like one step removed from the constitutional order of the country.

And no matter how this goes down, we’re looking at disruption in global textiles for at least the next couple of years. For those of you who have been watching China, there are a couple of interesting years upcoming. As the Chinese system hits the skids and the second-largest concentration of textiles has problems, in the background, we have a change technologically in how textiles are being done, which is undermining both the Bangladeshi and the Chinese systems, specifically here in the United States.

We figured out a way to automate a lot of the process and take everything from raw cotton to turn it into thread and yarn, turn it to cloth, cut it into sections, and all of that is now cheaper than what goes on in Bangladesh. We’re probably only a few years away from actually being able to stitch the clothes together into a semi-finished process and make that cheaper as well.

So this is the economic sector that matters in the country, and this is potentially the next big source of outmigration as this sector fails. Anyway, what’s going on right now with the protests could simply make it fail faster.

Of Course Biden Drops Out While I’m Deep in the Mountains…

The news of President Biden dropping out of the 2024 Presidential race managed to reach me in the mountains of Yosemite National Park; however, I won’t have strong enough service for the foreseeable future to give any kind of update. So, I’ve asked my team to send out an interview I did last week that covers the US political transition and all of its fun inner workings.

In this interview on Liberal Values Lab, we walk through geopolitical trends that affect America’s Political Transition, providing insight into America’s domestic turbulence, and the realignment of America’s political parties.

We discussed the changing dynamics of evolving American political alignments, including the flux of unions, the business community and national security coalitions, surprising new alliances, where they are finding a new home and with whom they are now partnering, the possibility of an open convention for the Democratic Party, the aftermath of the Trump shooting, changing global dynamics, China and Russia’s decline, increasing American isolationism, and when personalities matter.

I hope you enjoy and I look forward to releasing an update on all this when I return from my time in the mountains.

Some more info on the Institute for Liberal Values

The Institute for Liberal Values is a non-partisan and non-sectarian consortium focused on the promotion of individual freedom, rights, and liberty in everyday life. We provide the skills and support required to build community where there has been division, encourage free expression where there has been censorship, and foster optimism where there is fear.

Learn more

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Official portrait of President Joe Biden courtesy of The White House

The End of the World Is Coming to Spain, France, Japan and More

We have some very exciting news for our international readers! We are releasing translated versions of The End of the World Is Just the Beginning in a handful of new languages and countries, including: Spain, France, Japan and more!

Spain

Available now!

France

Releases soon!

Japan

Releases soon!

Looking for another language? The End of the World has been released in a number of different languages, including Korean, Portuguese, Thai, Polish and more…

CLICK HERE FOR OTHER LANGUAGES AND PURCHASING OPTIONS

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Stop Obsessing Over the Polls and Take a Hike Instead

Everyone wants to know if the assassination attempt on Donald Trump is going to impact the outcome of the election. I hate to break it to you, but no one knows. The only historical precedence is from 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt was shot, finished his speech, and then proceeded to get smoked in the elections

If you’re one of the nerds who is analyzing every poll that comes out to get a sense of how this election will play out, I feel it prudent to tell you to just stop – at least for another month or so. Most polls disregard the Independents’ influence, look at a national-level as opposed to state-level, and the role of third party candidates isn’t factored in. This goes without saying, but you should at least wait until the DNC wraps up in August.

Now, if you’re dying to look at some poll data, I would recommend using the site 270towin.com. It aggregates reliable poll information and allows you to manipulate how you view the data. Or you could just draw a name out of a hat…

Click the image to view 270towin.com
Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. We have had a lot of you write in asking about how the attempted assassination of Donald Trump affects my forecast for the 2024 presidential elections. The answer is very simple: I have no idea.

I can only think of one instance in American history where somebody who was clearly going to get the nomination was the target of an assassination attempt. That one person is Teddy Roosevelt. Before those of you who are pro-Trumper say, “Yeah, yeah, compare Trump to Roosevelt,” it didn’t end well for Roosevelt. Number one, he finished his speech. Second, he went on to have one of the most catastrophic losses in American history to none other than Woodrow Wilson.

So, you know, careful what you wish for. That is not my prediction that this is how it’s going to go. What I’m saying is American experience with political violence at this level is very, very limited. Knowing the impact it’s going to have on the election, it’s not that it’s a non-factor. It’s something that we just don’t know how to predict.

At the moment, it’s kind of in the wind. What I can tell you is that you should absolutely not be paying any attention to the polls, especially now. There are three things in play. Number one, most polls basically interview 1,000 or 2,000 people. They have a margin of error. They say, “Do you want to vote for candidate A or candidate B?” Then they give you the results. That’s a horrible way to do the polling in the United States for three reasons.

Number one, independents, people who are only 10% of the electorate but who have decided most of the elections in the last 50 years, don’t pay any attention to the polls and don’t even answer them until after the political conventions are completed. Now, just this week, we have completed the Republican National Convention. But the Democratic one is not until, I believe, the 19th of August. So you shouldn’t be looking at any polls for any reason until you get to the first week of September.

Second, the way Americans do polling is very different from the way Americans vote for their candidates. It’s not like everybody goes into a single pool and whoever gets the most votes wins. No, no, no, no. You do it by state with the Electoral College. Each state has a certain number of electors. The way it works, by combination of law and tradition, is if a state registers that one candidate got one more vote than whoever came in second place, that candidate gets all of the electors.

For example, my home state of Iowa has seven electoral votes. I believe it’s been a while since I’ve been there. If you have 14 candidates running for president and one of them gets 20% and that’s more than everybody else, they get all seven of those electoral votes. Until you get to a situation where you’re looking at state polling as opposed to national polling, and you can look at it on a map, the polls are pointless.

Third, third-party candidates. Right now, they’re really not included in the polling. If you go back to, say, the 2000 race between Gore and Bush, all the polls indicated that Al Gore was going to walk away with it because they ignored that Ralph Nader was on the ticket in a lot of states. Nader wasn’t a popular candidate, had no chance of winning, and really only got a few single digits of the national vote that was concentrated in enough states that it drew away support from Al Gore and then gave the election to George W. Bush by a relatively narrow margin.

We have a third-party candidate running this time by the name of RFK Jr., who is absolutely a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist. Donald Trump thought he had that part of the electorate courted already. Now, having RFK in the mix means that even in places where Donald Trump was expected to get a really strong win, all of a sudden there might be enough support bled off for RFK Jr. that Biden will get the state.

Anyway, none of this can be registered until such time as the polling changes. That won’t be until September. Let me give you a little hint as to what I look for. There is a website that does all the aggregation for you and only includes the polls that are of high quality. It’s called 270 to Win. It’s 270towin.com. It does it by state. The best part of this website is if you don’t think because you feel you know better for whatever reason, maybe you live there, maybe this is your job, you can go through and click through and change the alignment of each individual state to see how it shakes out.

This screenshot that you’re seeing right now, this is how it is on the 18th of July. This is my last day here. I head backpacking tomorrow, so you guys can all scream into the void if you don’t like what I have to say. Right now, the polls have registered the impact of Biden’s atrocious debate performance a few weeks ago. As you can see, it’s still kind of a hung race.

We have not yet seen the impact of the appointment of JD Vance as Donald Trump’s running mate. But again, if polls matter yet, wait until September. Look at this in September. Look at this especially after the Democratic convention concludes in late August. I would have normally done this video then, but I’m not going to be back by then.

So this is to give you guys something to chew on while I am doing anything but following American politics.

America’s Changing Republican Party

The Republican Party is undergoing some evolutions at the moment, moving away from many of its traditional stances. This is part of a broader cycle in which American political parties shift and realign every few decades. On issues as diverse as abortion, international involvement, and the balance between business and labor, what it means to “be a Republican” is changing in ways that would have seemed silly just a few years ago.

With the future of the party uncertain, just about every faction and big name is trying to twist the future of the conservative movement in their own preferred directions. Which version will emerge when the dust settle? Only time will tell.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. It is the 17th of July, and it is the last day of the Republican National Convention, which I’ve been watching pretty closely because the Republican Party is in flux. For those of you who’ve been watching me for a while, you know that I’ve been saying for several years now that we’re in the late party structure for what is called the sixth party structure.

Basically, every generation or two, American politics goes into a period of flux where the factions that make up our parties move around. For the last few years, we’ve been in that process. It’s happening for both parties, but the Republicans are further along, so they’ve been the ones I’ve been following most closely. Donald Trump is obviously part of this process and has been accelerating it. Now with the convention, we’re starting to get a pretty good idea of what the next possible iteration of the Republicans will be.

Quick review. Most people associate the Republicans with a degree of social conservatism, international involvement, relatively hawkish positions on foreign affairs, especially military affairs, and a fairly pro-business outlook for businesses of all sizes. Every plank of that is now being challenged and rewritten by Team Trump as American society, demographics, trade, technology, and everything else evolve. It makes sense. Whether or not this new structure that’s evolving is the one that is going to stick remains to be seen, but we now have a pretty good idea of what the Trump Republican Party would be.

Three big changes. The first one is a bit of a surprise: a softer position on some social conservative issues like gay rights and abortion. Basically, the Trump Party is now saying that these are issues that should be decided by the states rather than at the national level. There are a lot of hardcore social conservatives who are pretty unhappy with that. But Donald Trump is betting that his cult of personality-like hold over the Republican Party is going to be sufficient, that no one can outflank him. Considering that he sailed to the nomination without even showing up at any of the primaries, that’s probably a safe bet, at least for this election cycle.

The second one, of course, is something that’s near and dear to my heart: a shift from international involvement to isolationism. The idea is that the problems over there are problems over there, and we should just stick to our own issues, but still arm ourselves to the teeth. We saw a lot of this in Trump’s first term, where he might talk tough on countries like Russia and China, but really on every major issue, whether it’s trade or security, he basically just let them do whatever they wanted. If it couldn’t be negotiated and stuck to in a single afternoon of talks, he really wasn’t interested. We saw that with Ukraine, and we’ve also seen it with trade policy with China, where we got this phase one trade deal, but then Trump couldn’t bother to enforce it. So the Chinese basically just walked all over the United States as regards trade. Things like that are definitely being codified into the Republican Party’s new platform.

The third change has to do with business versus labor. For the past several decades, really going back to the 1930s, the Republican Party has always sided with the business community over labor. But one of the highlight speakers of the convention this time was none other than a representative of the Teamsters Union, which is probably the most militant and throwback of America’s unions. He talked about the Chamber of Commerce basically being a welfare club for businesses. This was something that was on the stage of the Republican National Convention. For a while there, I was wondering if I was watching the right convention. These are issues that are usually trumpeted not just by the Democrats, but by the really leftist groups of Democrats, like, say, the Squad. Now it’s becoming core to the Republican Party platform.

In essence, we are entering a golden age for organized labor in the United States. The United States is in the process of doubling the size of its industrial plant. Most of those jobs are blue-collar, and so they’re very amenable to being organized into labor unions. The Teamsters, of course, are all for that. What the Trump Republican Party seems to be doing is basically ditching the entire business community and going whole hog towards organized labor. Among the new things in the Republican Party’s platform is the challenge to things like right-to-work laws in places like the American South and Texas that prevent or at least dissuade unions from forming in the first place. It’s now the official Republican Party platform that that’s a bad idea.

Now, will this new trifecta stick? It’s way too soon to tell. The old Reaganite and Lincoln Republicans are not dead yet. There were some hilarious moments on stage from my point of view. Ron DeSantis, who ran for president and is, of course, governor of Florida, was just angry, and it was pretty obvious. But I would say that the highlight for awkwardness goes to Nikki Haley, who came in second in the primaries against Donald Trump. She still lost, of course. She came on stage to endorse Trump, and not only was she booed when she showed up, but her endorsement speech was really awkward. It was kind of like a woman being asked to toast her ex-husband who had an affair with the secretary and was now marrying her. It was that level of awkwardness.

Anyway, Nikki Haley has already joined a think tank to reimagine what the next version of conservatism looks like in the United States now that the old Republican Party is truly dead. Mike Pence has formed a think tank to do the same thing. Now, I’m not suggesting that one of these three visions—Pence, Haley, or Trump—is the one that’s ultimately going to stick. I’m just highlighting that right now for this election cycle, we have a very different Republican platform and a very different Republican Party. Everything is still in flux. This is not the final form. We won’t get that probably until the next presidential cycle. And there’s a lot of folks who have irons in the fire to try to figure out what that is going to be.

America’s Cold War Missiles Return to Germany, Thanks to Russia

Picture of a Tomahawk cruise missile mid-flight

Well, it looks like the Germans are going to be celebrating Christmas in July. That’s due to the US and Germany’s decision made at the NATO conference to redeploy American mid-range weaponry to Germany. And yes, this hasn’t happened since the Cold War for…historic reasons.

Russia is the country to blame here. They’ve been violating arms treaties for the past 15 years, so the US got fed up and bailed on the INF treaty five years ago; this triggered the redeployment process. There are a whole boatload of reasons that this is happening, but defense against the Russians tops the list.

While the Russians may have opened this can of worms, the fallout isn’t going to be confined to them. Since the treaty that barred the US from taking actions globally is now kaput, the Chinese will be feeling some of the heat too. You can expect to see some intermediate-range American weapons in close proximity to China and throughout East Asia, which should help limit China’s global economic influence.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts

Transcript

Hey everybody, Peter Zeihan here coming to you from the Lake of the Ozarks. It is Thursday, July 12th, and today we’re going to be talking about security in Europe. Specifically, the United States at the NATO conference has announced, with the Germans, that American mid-range weaponry is returning to Germany in a position that hasn’t been seen since the Cold War.

A combination of hypersonics, mid-range missiles, including the Tomahawk cruise missile system, is being deployed. The reason this is happening is because we had a series of Cold War and post-Cold War arms treaties between the United States, NATO, and the Soviet Union, like the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, or more specifically for this conversation, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). The Russians started bit by bit either violating or withdrawing from those treaties as far as 15 years ago and even started developing weapons systems that are expressly barred by the treaty and then deploying them.

Under the Trump administration, five years ago, the United States formally withdrew from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty and has been moving bit by bit to redeploy these weapon systems ever since. The INF specifically bars weapons systems with a range of 500 to 5,500 km, roughly 300 miles to 3,000 miles, which basically covers the entirety of the hot zone now between NATO and Russia, including all of Ukraine.

The idea of these treaties, which dates back to Reagan and Gorbachev, was that if you take the weapons that are actually useful off the field, then you won’t have a tactical engagement or a tactical escalation. That just leaves the big strategic missiles, like the intercontinental ballistic missiles that are based in the United States. The desire to not use those is quite strong, so you take away the usable day-to-day missiles, and it forces both sides to basically come to the peace table. Well, the Russians have repeatedly moved away from that system, and now they’re going to find themselves facing weapons systems that, while maybe designed 50 years ago, are perfectly serviceable.

The United States is dusting off things like hypersonics that it developed back in the ’70s and ’80s but never deployed. Now they are being deployed. The balance of forces for the Russians across the entire theater is about to go from problematic to catastrophic. Keep in mind that one of the many reasons why the Cold War ended when it did is because NATO and, to a greater extent, the United States, defeated the Russians in an arms race. The Soviet Union simply couldn’t keep up with the economic power of the United States. While Russia today is significantly economically weaker than the Soviet Union ever was, the United States is significantly economically stronger than it was back in the ’70s and ’80s. So there’s really no contest here. The Russians have proven over and over again that while they can’t innovate, they can’t develop new weapons systems that are particularly capable, and they certainly can’t produce them at scale. Meanwhile, the United States, in many cases, is just literally dusting off things that have been in storage for 20-30 years and bringing them back online while also developing new systems.

The strategic picture for the Russians is a direct consequence of some very bad decisions they’ve made. A lot of the Russian position for the last 15 years has really been a bluff, and it worked until 2022 with the Ukraine war, which mobilized pretty much everyone in Europe. The Germans were the country that was most in support of the INF when it was negotiated because they were the ones in the crosshairs, and they were the country that was the most willing to overlook all of the Russian violations of the treaty because they lived in this kind of strategic nirvana that they didn’t want to end. Now, it’s the Germans who are actually arguing that the United States needs to deploy more and more weapon systems, not just to Europe, but to Germany specifically.

Okay, that’s kind of the big first piece. The second piece is the INF provided handcuffs on what the U.S. could do, not just in Europe, but globally. The country that has arguably benefited the most from the Americans refusing to deploy intermediate-range weapon systems isn’t Germany, it’s Russia. It’s China. If you look at a map of East Asia and consider all of the U.S. allies, especially Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, Indonesia, and Singapore, the distance from those countries to the Asian mainland is in that 500 km to 5,500 km range.

So for the entirety of the post-Cold War period, the United States has been barred from deploying appropriately ranged weapon systems to counter the Chinese rise. Well, not anymore. Over the course of the next 2-3 years, we’re going to see a mass deployment of American weapon systems off the Chinese coast that are perfect for boxing in the Chinese. The Chinese have always argued strategically that this was the goal of the United States all along, which, of course, is horse crap. But keep in mind that unlike the United States, China is a trading power, and not having these weapon systems has allowed the Chinese to, from a strategic and economic point of view, become a global economic player.

If these weapon systems are in place, everything that the Chinese do could literally be shut down within an hour. The capacity of the Chinese to import and export could be ended almost overnight. So while it may have been the Russians who were the ones who were messing around, it’s absolutely going to be the Chinese who are the ones who are going to find out.

Photo by U.S. Navyderivative work: The High Fin Sperm Whale – Tomahawk_Block_IV_cruise_missile.jpg, Public Domain, Link Wikimedia Commons

Can the French Lead the EU into the Future?

The EU was established to promote unity and peace, but times have changed and priorities have shifted. So, what does the future of the European Union look like and how does France fit into the mix?

The EU’s expansion throughout the years has involved integrating some diverse countries, at first for stability and later for economic and political strength. Recent challenges like Brexit, a financial crisis, and the Ukraine War have demanded a shift from an economic focus, to a political and military focus.

France is well suited to lead this transition, thanks to its centralized government and strong military. In order to ensure long-term stability, the French will have to decide what their role is in all of this and where to go from here.

Here at Zeihan On Geopolitics we select a single charity to sponsor. We have two criteria:

First, we look across the world and use our skill sets to identify where the needs are most acute. Second, we look for an institution with preexisting networks for both materials gathering and aid distribution. That way we know every cent of our donation is not simply going directly to where help is needed most, but our donations serve as a force multiplier for a system already in existence. Then we give what we can.

Today, our chosen charity is a group called Medshare, which provides emergency medical services to communities in need, with a very heavy emphasis on locations facing acute crises. Medshare operates right in the thick of it. Until future notice, every cent we earn from every book we sell in every format through every retailer is going to Medshare’s Ukraine fund.

And then there’s you.

Our newsletters and videologues are not only free, they will always be free. We also will never share your contact information with anyone. All we ask is that if you find one of our releases in any way useful, that you make a donation to Medshare. Over one third of Ukraine’s pre-war population has either been forced from their homes, kidnapped and shipped to Russia, or is trying to survive in occupied lands. This is our way to help who we can. Please, join us.

Support medshare's ukraine fund
Support medshare's global efforts