Testing NATO

Flag of NATO

Putin just took things one step too far. After sending Russian drones and jets into NATO countries’ airspace (and denying responsibility of course), President Trump has said to shoot them down; several European leaders from NATO and the EU are standing by.

We’ve known all along that Russia was never going to stop in Ukraine. They need to secure more defensible borders, which means pushing into places like Poland and the Baltics. Russia has been testing the patience of Western leaders throughout the war, and it seems he’s finally found the limit.

While the US isn’t certain that allies can back them up in terms of force projection, many European powers are on the cusp of a massive military buildout…so we’ll find out soon enough what NATO’s capabilities look like. One way or another, there is a larger war on the horizon.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hello, Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado. And today we’re going to talk about what’s going on in Europe militarily. The Russians have sent several dozen drones into a number of of the eastern tier of nation states, including Estonia, Poland, Denmark and Romania. Just disavowing, of course, if it’s any of theirs. But they’ve also sent, monitoring aircraft and fighter jets into almost all of these places and more. 

And the discussion now is whether or not the NATO states should actually meet them with lethal force and shoot them down when they make airspace violations. Donald Trump is now publicly on record as saying, yep, do it. And normally when Trump says something, I just kind of wait for the action. But on this issue, it is a clear and present, danger to NATO because the Russians have always, always made it clear that when they’re done with Ukraine, they’re coming for Poland and Latvia and Romania and several others. 

And we’re now getting to the point in the war entering the fourth year now where it’s time to start taking things like that a little bit more seriously. But let’s understand what the Russians are up to, and then we can all judge about whether or not this is the right thing to do. I don’t have an answer here. 

All I can do is lay it out for you. The Russians see that the only way that they can secure their interior territory is to re anchor their borders in things that are more defensible, like the Carpathian Mountains. 

Or the Baltic Sea. Strategically, that’s a very sound argument, especially when you consider that demographically the country is dying and very soon having a broad, wide open front that’s over a thousand miles long, 2000 miles long, 3000. 

It’s a long front. It’s simply not going to be viable for them. So the idea of their doing this isn’t crazy. But, a few dozen drones is not going to move the border. That triggers a few hundred thousand troops. And first they have to destroy and then digest Ukraine. So what are they looking at here? 

Well, they’re trying to see what NATO is capable of. And to be perfectly honest, I kind of want to know what NATO is capable of as well. You’d think with the 20 year war on terror, that the United States would have a really good idea of what NATO countries were capable of, but we really don’t. Part of the deal that we struck with all of the allies after World War Two is we’ll take care of the big stuff, and we get to write your security policies. 

And because of that, no one developed long range projection based militaries. Except for maybe the French, who are always one step in, one step out. And the Brits, who were basically a very loyal ally. But we’re not in that world anymore. And we saw in the war on terror that the United States basically drove the carpool for everybody when everyone decided to provide forces. 

So we know that the Dutch and the Brits, not to mention the Australians, have pretty good special forces, if small. And we know that the Danes, with the handful of ships that they have, have actually surprisingly good long range deployment capability. And then the Turks have no problem throwing 10,000 troops into a country that they border, whether it’s Syria or Iraq. 

But beyond that, we really don’t have a good idea of what these countries are militarily capable of. There’s some promising things going on. The Germans are going through a big rearmament. The poles beat them to the punch and have been working on it for 3 or 4 years, but they haven’t necessarily recruited the people they need to man the equipment. 

And so we really just don’t know. And what the Russians are attempting to find out is what can be known. So if you get NATO countries to engage Russian forces, how do they do it? Do they do it with overwhelming force? Do they do it with tech? Do they fail to do it? Is it just an issue of political will, or is there no technical competence? 

We don’t know. And the only way that you can find out how is to poke the bear, or in this case, have the bear poke you. So, there’s not a lot of secret here. The Americans don’t know what their allies are capable of. So showing your cards to the Russians. It’s unclear if that is a good or a bad idea. 

What I can tell you is that at least the political will seems to be shaping up because within hours of Trump saying, yeah, go ahead and shoot them down. We got the NATO secretary general who’s Dutch saying, yep, we’re going to do that. We got the EU policy chief, Ursula von der Leyen, who is not in charge of any military. 

So yeah, we’re going to go do that. The EU is not a military institution, but Wonderland used to be the German defense minister, and she has some concept of what she’s talking about. And as the United States has become less involved in European defense, the Europeans are trying to find ways to pick up the slack. And the EU is probably one of the institutions that’s going to be repurposed with that in mind. 

We even have countries like Austria and Ireland starting to talk about military cooperation now, countries that have been neutral for quite some time. And now we’ve got politicians in both Sweden and Germany also saying that now is the time for us to actually do something. So, for those of you who are historically minded like me, the idea of the Europeans arming up to fight a major war is a terrifying prospect, because it always goes horribly, horribly wrong. 

Especially if the United States is not involved in a very big way. But one way or another, it looks in the next few weeks to months, we’re going to have some concept of the capabilities of the NATO states. And regardless of what we learn, good, bad or indifferent, it is going to start the process of a massive rearmament across the continent as everyone gets ready for the war that they know was coming.

What Does a Post US NATO Look Like?

A NATO flag with buttons of other countries flags on it

As the US steps back from NATO, which country is best suited to take the seat at the head of the table?

While the Germans have been the backbone of the EU’s financial model, they no longer have the people to keep up. So, who will step up? The French scratch this itch best, both militarily and as the future anchor of Europe. They have the most solid mix of everything necessary: population growth, nuclear arsenal, wine, etc.

There are some support players rising in the background as well. Poland and the Scandinavian countries have economies, militaries, and enough resilience to weather the storm that is headed for the EU. Together, these countries will define the future of Europe.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here coming from, where am I? Bottom of the Tilden Canyon in northwest Yosemite. Taking another question from the Patreon crowd, specifically with the United States stepping back from NATO, do you think anyone will step up, most notably France? Yes, but probably not for the reasons you’re thinking. 

Europe has two institutions that define it NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, of which the United States and Canada are members. 

Everyone else is in Europe and the European Union, of which 27. I think it’s like people keep coming and going. 27 countries are members. NATO is a military alliance. The EU is a economic and financial grouping. The problem is, is the economic and financial grouping is failing for demographic reasons. The country that is paid for everything to this point has been Germany primarily. 

And Germany over the next ten years will basically age into an old folks home and convalescence can’t pay a lot of income. So, you’re going to have to see the entire European Union structure renegotiated away from the financial and economic union that we have right now. Because if there’s one thing the French are sure of, they’re not going to pay everyone to be part of the group. 

But if you make it a political and a military grouping, perhaps affiliated with NATO, perhaps not, then you’re talking about something that plays to French proclivities and their strengths. Remember, this is a country that has an aircraft carrier. This is a country that has an independent nuclear arsenal, and this is the only major country in Europe that has seen population growth. So whatever future Europe has ten, 20, 30, 40 years from now, France is going to be by far the most important piece of it. 

Second, there are a few other countries to look at. The number one is Poland. Poland is having a demographic moment. If they can’t get their birth rate up, they’re going to have some problems in 30 years. 

But that’s a problem for 30 years from now. For now, they’re a robust economy. They’re getting to the manufacturer in every possible way. They’re getting to defense industries courtesy of the South Koreans and since they have the Ukraine war going on right on the doorstep, they’re getting very big into drone technology as well. So whatever the future of warfare looks like, the poles are about as prepared as you can be. 

Everyone else is playing catch up. And then finally there’s a third group, the Scandinavians, mostly centered on Sweden. These are countries with better demographics, better financial situations. They’re not as dependent upon the European Union and the euro. In fact, some countries in the Scandinavian bloc aren’t even in the euro. So it could go away and they’ll probably be more or less okay. 

I mean, it’ll be a it’ll be a hard couple of years, but, it doesn’t define them in the way that it defines countries like the Netherlands or Italy. These are also countries that have always maintained an independent defense posture. Sweden and Finland, most notably. So whatever future defense issues in Europe bubble up. Sweden, Poland and France are by far the ones to watch the most. 

They’re also the ones to watch the most in terms of, economics, because their demographics are pretty good. And so if there is a post EU economic grouping in the region, these three are going to be part of it.

Finally, a Productive NATO Summit

Flag of NATO

I don’t know what was in the water at the latest NATO summit, but something got Trump to be cooperative. Perhaps it had something to do with Mark Rutte greasing his wheels.

Mark Rutte, the former Dutch PM, wasn’t just working his magic on Trump, he secured buy-in from several other leaders with his flattery and strategic diplomacy. This helped pre-summit defense spending agreements get formalized and saw countries like Germany step into a leadership role.

Even if all that comes from the summit is that the US stays (minimally) committed to NATO and Europe continues to ramp up defense, Russia is in trouble. The balance of power in this region is shifting, and should Europe continue navigating this diplomacy game effectively, the Russian position gets muddy quickly.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, Peter Zeihan here. Company from Colorado. And today we’re going to do a bit of a recap on the recent NATO summit in Europe. Donald Trump went there and everyone was concerned that it was going to be a blow up, like most of his international, events. And it was not, all of the pre-summit agreements that have been made on defense spending increases were basically codified. 

Basically everyone in NATO has agreed to double or triple the defense spending, bringing it up to a new threshold of 5% of GDP, up from the old number of 2% of GDP, with the Germans, who have long been one of the biggest laggards. Basically, picking up the baton and running with the topics, saying that we know that a war with Russia is coming in one way or another. 

We need to prepare, with Trump specifically, in past NATO’s summits, he’s basically blown up the alliance and said he doesn’t plan to defend anyone. And this time, I don’t mean to suggest thatTrump wasn’t on display. I mean, let’s not get crazy here. But most of the discussion about it was how he came as a friend and he left as a better friend. 

The person who was singularly responsible for everything going so well as former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. Who? Sorry, I’m not Dutch. Can’t roll my eyes. He was prime minister basically, since, what, 2010? Like, like from back when Biden was merely old and now is the secretary general of NATO. And he has spent the last few months courting not just Donald Trump, but all of the leaders of the alliance to get them to preemptively agree to this sort of defense increase. 

And while Trump was in town and in the lead up, he went out of his way to basically cozy up to Trump, saying all kinds of wonderful things about how nice he was and how powerful he was, and how decisive he was and how good his hair was and, how sometimes daddy has to be strong. 

During a European leader talk about the American president as a daddy, was a little disturbing, but whatever. Basically, the Europeans, ten years in are finally figuring out how to manage Donald Trump. You don’t do it with honesty. You don’t treat him like a friend. You don’t treat him like an ally. You stroke his ego, you kiss his ass, you slob as knob. 

You tell him whatever he wants to hear, and then you get your way. The Chinese leader XI Jinping figured this out years ago. Vladimir Putin of Russia figured out years ago. And this time around, an increasing number of Europeans are figuring it out as well. Italian Prime Minister Meloni is probably the first one that really got it going. 

And if you do that, Trump says wonderful things about you and he turns his attention somewhere else. Clearly the Canadians have not figured that out yet. 

Rutha was famous for this, dur for the last 15 years in European politics, for being the marriage counselor to make it all work. The Netherlands sits in a spot equidistant between London, Berlin and Paris. And while it is actually one of Europe’s major countries, it’s like the seventh most populous country. 

It’s a small chunk of territory that is in a very invasion prone zone. And so the Dutch have always had to figure out how to manage all the neighbors around them. And they do so by being efficient and easy to work with and very, very direct. So if you’re German or French or British and you don’t want to deal with the Germans or the French or the British, you go through the Dutch and they’re kind of the middleman and Rita specifically has been very, very good at being the marriage counselor among these three countries and helping them reach agreement before then going to the broader European Union and 

selling whatever the deal happens to be. Doesn’t mean that the Dutch always get their way. Doesn’t mean that the Germans always get their way. But there’s always made sure. Ruto has always made sure that the conversation continues on at multiple levels, so that it doesn’t have a chance to evolve into a crisis. And if there’s one thing we’ve learned about the American press that he loves a good crisis, and so he really deserves credit for kind of lassoing this all together because the Europeans are not fans of Trump. 

Trump is not fans of the European. And lo and behold, we’ve just had an amazingly successful summit. 

What this means for the Alliance. If all that happens with the United States is a continuing verbal commitment to defend Europe in time of a war with the Russians, if we can hold that level of commitment, even if the rhetoric goes a little off the rails time to time, then the Russians are really in a pickle. 

Because if the Europeans double and triple the defense spending, if the Ukrainians keep pushing for a completely new type of warfare with drones, and if you start to marry Western economic strength to those new technologies, then the Russians aren’t simply outnumbered and outgunned, but they’re outclassed now. A lot can go on between now and then, and the influence of the Russian state and intelligence operations within the white House remains strong and is still growing. 

But if the Europeans have figured out how to play the game two, then it’s a different game.

The Future of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander + Live Q&A Reminder

Flag of NATO
We’re only one week out from the next Live Q&A!

Our next Live Q&A on Patreon is here! On April 9, Peter will join the Analyst members on Patreon for question time! In order to get in on the fun, join the ‘Analyst tier’ on Patreon before April 9.

You can join the Patreon page

The Supreme Allied Commander position in NATO allows the US to lead allied forces in wartime. However, the Trump administration is considering withdrawing the US from that position (mainly for cost-cutting reasons).

Stepping away from the Supreme Allied Commander position would signal America’s withdrawal from NATO, since US forces cannot legally be placed under foreign command. There must be some strategic misunderstanding of the power this title holds, a lack of expertise in Trump’s circle, a penetration into Trump’s thinking by Russian propaganda, or a combination of all of those.

Should the US move forward with leaving NATO leadership, US power projection in Europe would be crippled and another box on the Russian wish list would be crossed off.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide 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, so we can be sure that 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.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from a sunny Colorado. Today we’re going to talk about something that is making the rounds within the Trump administration as it relates to the NATO alliance. The idea is that the United States is going to withdraw from something called the Supreme Allied Commander position. Now, the Supreme Allied commander, as it sounds in times of war,  takes command of all local military forces that are affiliated with the Alliance. So in a hot shooting war, the US would take control of the world’s third, fourth, sixth and seventh largest navies and the world’s fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth and 10th largest armies, as well as that of all the smaller members of the European structures. And the question is, why would you give that up? 

Well, keep in mind that NATO is the most powerful alliance in human history, and it was founded by the United States, and it was run by the United States. And, yes, the lion’s share of the equipment and the troops come from the United States. But since all of the Europeans have regional militaries, while their militaries may be stronger, they’re all focused on one area as opposed to ours, which is spread out around the world. 

So collectively in the European theater, the rest of the European forces actually are on par with what the US can do. So a massive force multiplier there. The Trump administration says that the NATO countries, the European countries, have been taking advantage of the United States and trade. They need to defend themselves. But how? Giving this up would be a big deal. It would be the end of American ability to project power throughout all of Europe. 

You see, unlike the other NATO countries who can sublimate their military commands to American authority, the reverse is actually illegal here in the United States. So if we give up the ability to command Europe and say, a European has to take that position, we’re also saying that no American forces are now available for NATO use, and that’s functionally leaving the alliance. 

Now, I personally think that would be a horrible idea, but I think it’s going to happen anyway. The Trump administration seems fairly hellbent on leaving NATO. Three things going on here. Number one, the Trump administration seems has a very inaccurate idea of how militaries work. Because in a time of war, when you need the help to be able to automatically, reflexively just be able to take  control of everyone else’s militaries in the alliance and just go through. 

How much is that worth to you? How much is it worth to have that on standby the whole time? It’s worth the cost of a trade deficit, in my opinion. The second issue is that Trump doesn’t really have anyone in his circle telling him otherwise or correcting him on these things. One of the weird things about the Trump administration is, you know, normally when you lose an election, they’re out of power  for a few years. You try to learn from your past mistakes. You try to build a team that is competent, that fills in the gaps with the things that you don’t know. And you get people who are experts in legislation so that when you come back, you can get everything pushed through Congress as quickly as possible. 

Codify what you want and have it outlive you. Trump’s taken the opposite lesson, and he’s removed everyone from his circle who knows anything about anything, because people who know things tend to say that they know things. And that means that Trump is not always the person who appears as the smartest one in the room. It’s the difference between a good leader and a bad leader. 

That means that Trump is making the decisions based on the advice that comes to him from a handful of people he trusts, and the people trusts aren’t honest with him, which is bring us to the third problem. Russian  propaganda has penetrated up to and including the white House. Last week we had Donald Trump repeating some particularly interesting propaganda. 

Notice he was saying, in true social posts and in interviews that the Russians had surrounded several thousand Ukrainian troops, and he was pleading with the Russians to not kill them in what would be a bloodbath. Here’s the thing that never happened. 

In fact, that didn’t even occur in Russian propaganda in American political circles. That was Russian propaganda for Russian citizens to try to convince the Russian citizenry that the war in Ukraine was going very well. 

Somehow that little bit got lodged in Trump’s mind. And it didn’t come from the CIA or the FBI or the Defense Department. It either came directly from Vladimir Putin or through one of the other vectors that the Russians have been using to influence this administration. So we have a white House that is making public statements and policies, basing on an internal Russian propaganda. 

Now. And if I could think of one thing that the Russians want in the short term from this administration, it’s to destroy the NATO alliance, which was always formed to contain Russian aggression. And here we are.

Russia, NATO, and Negotiations

NATO flag with a Russian pin and ammunition

At the time of initial posting on Patreon, negotiations were just beginning between the US and Russia on the topic of Ukraine. US defense secretary Pete Hegseth began by conceding several points to the Russians and with blood in the water, the Russians are trying to roll back NATO’s involvement in Europe to pre-2007 levels…all based upon some he-said, she-said.

This is all part of the usual smoke and mirrors that the Russians love. As this next wave of propaganda hits, these claims will be amplified and figures like Tulsi Gabbard will likely make things worse.

The bottom line is that the Russians are betting on the Americans being dumb and gobbling up this narrative they’re pushing. Let’s just hope that US security policy isn’t so easily swayed.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide 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, so we can be sure that 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.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Forthcoming…

Trump 2.0 – NATO

Flag of NATO

Next on our list of things Trump 2.0 will have to deal with is NATO. Trump’s second term could reshape NATO dynamics, with a significant focus on defense spending, China, and European alliances.

Trump will try to push NATO members to significantly increase defense spending, up to 4-5% of GDP. Trump will also attempt to align NATO against Chinese trade practices. These efforts will be occurring as European dynamics undergo a shift of their own.

European security concerns are on the rise due to the Ukraine war. Eastern Europe is being led by Poland with strong defense spending and alignment with the US. In Scandinavia, these countries exhibit stable demographics and effective militaries, which make them reliable US allies. France and Germany will struggle with Trump 2.0’s demands for increased spending, since they are facing industrial shifts, energy crises, and demographic decline. An ally closer to home who might get some heat from Trump is Canada, who has been relying on US trade and spending very little on defense.

As geopolitical shifts take place across the globe, Trump 2.0 will be looking to squeeze NATO members for a bit more. This will likely strengthen ties with some countries, and strain it with others…

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Here at Zeihan on Geopolitics, our chosen charity partner is MedShare. They provide 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, so we can be sure that 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.

For those who would like to donate directly to MedShare or to learn more about their efforts, you can click this link.

Learn about medshare here

Transcript

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from New Zealand, specifically the Queen Charlotte walkway in marble Sounds. Today we’re going to do the next step of our Open-Ended series on Trump 2.0. The things that are waiting for him or that he’s going to choose to tackle in the early days of his administration. Today we’re gonna talk about the NATO alliance. 

Now, with the Europeans, there’s any number of things going on with trade, with demographics, with energy, with Russia, with Ukraine, with China. It’s a long list, but Trump only cares about two things on it. Number one, will they assist the United States in cracking down on Chinese trade on a global basis? And number two, will they up their defense spending to whatever target the Donald Trump administration establishes? 

Now, if this sounds kind of reminiscent of Trump one, it is. And the difference this time around is that there’s been a change of mindset in Europe itself. The Ukraine war has really sharpened a lot of minds and made people think differently about security. And so most of the European countries that were dragging their feet when it came to meeting defense expenditures and the Trump one term have done so voluntarily during the Biden administration because of the Ukraine war, that’s going to make hitting 2.0% very, very simple. 

That’s supposedly what everyone’s supposed to be doing anyway. But the world has changed. The situation is different, and Donald Trump is almost certainly going to insist on a 3%, maybe even a 4%, with some countries even openly talking about 5% when I say some countries, some countries in NATO. The bottom line is, is if Ukraine falls, then this war comes to Europe’s doorstep and there is no way that the Europeans can launch a meaningful defense without a significant build out of their defense capacity. 

And so say what you will about Donald Trump. He got the ball rolling on this conversation even before the Ukraine war started. The second thing to keep in mind, of course, is the China angle. The Europeans have always been more circumspect when it comes to putting tech restrictions or trade restrictions on the Chinese than the Americans have. 

But again, the situation has changed now that the Chinese are basically bankrolling and equipping the Russian military in Ukraine. Most of the Central Europeans have flipped completely. And now that the Chinese have gotten to a level of technological acumen that they don’t need nearly as much German equipment. The Germans are starting to look at this from a different angle as well. 

The French, for their part, were always for it. In fact, the biggest free trader in Europe, Britain, left with Brexit. So that quite a voice in the back that was whispering in America’s ears to dial it back. That’s gone. So we actually have a situation where the Europeans might, might, might, might, might be a little bit more willing to consider things. 

There’s also been a change of diplomatic positions. The Europeans always had this view that they were friends and allies and family of the United States. And you don’t lie to your friends and your family and your allies. Well, Donald Trump really doesn’t care what you say as long as it makes him look good. The Russians figured that out. 

The Chinese figured that out, but the Europeans tried to be good actors. Not this time around. It’s going to be a very different situation with the Europeans blowing a lot of smoke to cover their asses and whatever the topic happens to be. But at the end of the day, cooperation is going to be a lot more doable because the situation has changed. 

Now, of course, you look at this country by country, you get a very different view. 

So let’s break this into three groups. At the top of the list, the countries they’re going to be doing really well. Either they get along with Trump or they’re going to have a problem meeting those thresholds. Or they’re nervous about the Chinese already. Poland at the very top of that list. Poland actually takes over the European Union’s executive arm. 

Robert chairs the meetings. I overstated that, this January, and will hold it for the six first six months of the year. So coinciding with the honeymoon period for Donald Trump. The poles are on the front line with the Russians. They are already well over the 2% threshold. They have plans to reach 4% within a few years. 

And, on everything from trade to illegal immigration, the poles are actually on a similar page with most of the things that Trump believes in. Also, we have this weird thing going on where Polish politics are starting to mirror US politics as they used to be. So the two main forces in Poland are, Civic Platform, which is a centrist group, kind of leans right on economic issues. 

Which currently runs the government and a group called Law and Justice, which is far more populist, right. More populist, in conservative than Donald Trump. And the two of them disagree on everything, American style. But on the big stuff, most notably Russia and relations with the United States, they’re almost in lockstep. So you get this scream fest and Polish politics. 

But when it comes to the big stuff, it means very, very little. Sound familiar? Anyway, a good time to be Polish. Scandinavia is going to do pretty well, too. Here you’ve got countries that are more demographically stable, have very capable expedition based militaries. They work together extraordinarily well, and they share the poles general view of all things Russian and all things American. 

So, Trump will, of course, try to with the fact that he’s got a Swedish descent and the Swedes will not and smile and try to push their agenda through, for all of these countries, the key issue is that we are cooperating. We’re doing everything that you say we should do on defense. And, China, let’s talk Russia and make sure we’re on the same page on Ukraine. 

That will be their goal. And of course, they have to make it look like it was Trump’s idea. Second group of countries, France and Germany, the old core, both of them are utterly screwed at the moment. 

The German problem is not simply political. It’s also demographic and economic. The economic system is in the early stages of demographic collapse. As they simply run out of workforce. They’ll basically be a nonfunctional economic system within a decade. And so increasing defense spending at a time when they have to rapidly adapt their entire society heavy carry, second, their industrial base is linked in with a lot of countries in central Europe who are a little bit behind them in terms of the demographic decay, but it is very real. 

I got a friend here and try to keep up with, and the energy situation is a disaster because I used to get a lot of cheap energy from the Russians. And now that’s gone, and the Chinese are now starting to compete them in some of the sectors that they consider themselves good at it. Increasing defense spending in that environment is really, really tough. 

But if they don’t do it, and the Americans do lose interest in Europe, then they’re gonna have to increase defense spending by a lot more just to keep the country coherent. So there’s a lot of ways that that can go wrong. But, as bad as it is, for the Germans, it’s a known problem. The new problem, the worst problem is actually going to be, by a non-European country that is in NATO. 

Keep in mind that the United States is not the only North American country in the NATO alliance. The other one is Canada. And under Justin Trudeau, the Canadian government has basically slimmed defense spending to almost a rounding error to zero. 

Let me give you the Canadian point of view than everybody else’s. 

So, the Kenyan point of view is, they’ve got more at the coast, a Pacific coast, an Arctic coast, one ninth, the population of the United States, but actually more frontage. So if Canada was to try to build a military, those right size so it can project power, it would break the country. And so they don’t try they’ve basically focused on a couple things like Special forces and everything else is kind of wasted. 

That doesn’t fly for the rest of the Alliance. The Canadians have been freeloading, on the global order, ever since the wall came down and the joke in diplomatic services is after the Cold War ended, Canada basically became an NGO and was more part of the problem. And part of the solution might be a little bit cruel, but not by a whole lot, because if Canada were to expand its defense spending and try to excel in 3 or 4 things and then plug those into the NATO alliance, it would basically be under the command of the United States in all meaningful ways. 

And it would lose its sovereignty even as meaning what Donald Trump says he wants them to do. That is a really ugly political career in Canada. And so they’ve just kind of looked forward. And while we or are likely to have, elections this year, and that way we will have elections this year, we will probably have a change in government that doesn’t change the underlying structure. 

If the Canadians just spend money to spend money that really doesn’t do anything for anyone, including Canada. And so Donald Trump is going to be angry no matter what. And unlike Germany or France, there’s a lot that the Trump administration can do to Canada if it wants to because of the trade relationship. Canada is utterly dependent on the United States for its trade, well-being and trade. 

Trump loves to use trade as a cudgel. So it’s difficult for me to see a way that this can be managed, under the current government of Justin Trudeau. Trump broadly likes Justin Trudeau because Justin Trudeau is the only world leader the global media is ever considered to be dumber than Donald Trump. 

And that, you know, rings a couple of bells here and there. The new guy, if it is one, is unexperienced in the United States on this scale. We just don’t know. So, one way or another, we’re looking at Scandinavian Polish relations with the Americans, probably improving significantly. Germany in a pickle where there’s no easy fix and maybe not even a fix at all. 

And Canada, basically desperate to change the topic whenever the Americans are in the room. What the Canadians are gonna discover real soon is that, during the cold War, and they were, like, the 45th most important country on America’s list. That was a comfortable place to be. And now, because trade is becoming more regionalized and because defense is a little bit higher up the agenda for this incoming administration, Canada’s like third or fourth on the list. 

And whenever the Americans are paying attention to you, it gets uncomfortable both real fast.

Russia: Threats, Deterrence, and the War of Numbers

Today is the last day before we officially launch the Patreon page! If you want to continue receiving timely videos and newsletters (as well as some exclusive extras) every weekday, then head on over and join the fun on Patreon. For those of you who have already subscribed, we appreciate your support and feel free to scroll down to today’s video! For those who haven’t, keep reading to learn more about the next chapter here at Zeihan on Geopolitics.

My team and I have decided that to continue releasing the same quality and quantity of content that you have come to know and love, some changes were needed. Beginning on October 1, our daily newsletters and videos will be available for early release on Patreon for a small monthly subscription fee. In addition to the daily newsletters and videos, you’ll also be getting some new content and perks exclusive to Patreon subscribers, including the daily news digest that Peter reads every morning, a private community forum where you can ponder life’s mysteries with other subscribers, and live Q&A sessions for our premium subscribers. Signing up for the Patreon will ensure you’re getting the most current and up-to-date content, before anyone else sees it. You can learn more about the different tiers and offerings at the link below.

Learn more on patreon

We value all members of this community and understand that adding a paid subscription (even if it’s well worth it) isn’t in the cards for everyone. To accommodate those readers and ensure you still get your dose of Peter Zeihan, we will be offering the newsletters and videos on a delay for free. While you might not get the most current information (and you’ll be missing out on all the new bonus content), your morning routine doesn’t have to change.

Okay, now that all the housekeeping is out of the way, let’s move on to today’s video.

So far in the Ukraine War, the Russians have threatened Finland and Sweden with nuclear annihilation for joining NATO, Germany with nuclear annihilation for providing tanks, Britain with nuclear annihilation for providing missiles, France with nuclear annihilation for merely discussing the possibility of troops, and America with nuclear annihilation because it was a Tuesday. Needless to say, the credibility of Russia’s threats leaves something to be desired…

Russia has struggled to maintain a credible “red line” (referring to the point at which Putin will push the shiny red button) for quite a while now. With the US ready to launch a counter attack should nukes fly, the Russians are already hesitant to pull the trigger, but their recent failed missile test and refusal to enter negotiations means they don’t have a ton of options.

In all likelihood, Russia’s only path to victory in Ukraine relies on sheer manpower. Which means they’ll keep sending wave after wave after wave of their population into the meat grinder until something shifts in their favor…because that’s all they know how to do.

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 free and we 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 Kolar, Wisconsin. I love this place, except in the winter when—oh my God. Anyway, back on the 26th. The 26th. The 25th. I can’t remember the exact date. Anyway, sometime in September, the Putin government, Putin himself, announced a new nuclear doctrine for the threshold of when they would actually hit the big candy-like red button.

The Russians are having a problem because they have established all kinds of red lines—dozens of them—over the last two and a half years. Whenever someone has crossed them, whether it’s Ukraine in the war, or weapon supplies from the United States, Germany, Britain, or Turkey, the Russians have ignored their own red line.

So they’re having a credibility problem with their deterrence policy. Putin’s announcement a couple of days ago was about trying to reestablish that. He said that now any non-nuclear country who has an ally who is a nuclear country, should the non-nuclear country use a non-nuclear weapon against Russia, it justifies a nuclear strike on the nuclear country.

This is a stupid, pointless press release—kind of reminds me of the Obama era—because it’s already been violated a few hundred times. The Russians have had a real problem establishing or reestablishing deterrence because they keep saying stupid things like this, which are nonsensical. Immediately, the world goes on, and it’s shown to be a bluff.

Now, the issue is that the Russian conventional military is not all that. By the numbers, Ukraine should have been gone a long time ago, but it’s still punching well above its weight. And that’s before you consider that most of the Western alliance is providing the Ukrainians with ammo and weapons. So, how do you reestablish deterrence?

Well, the first, easiest, most direct, and most reliable way is to have a conversation—to basically call up the United States, establish a summit, and talk about strategic issues, of which nuclear weapons are one.

The Russians have firmly refused that option because if they do that, they have to talk about Ukraine. They have to talk about war crimes. They have to talk about mass kidnappings. They have to talk about the weaponization of sexual violence. They have to talk about encouraging migrants to go to Europe by breaking countries in Africa and the Middle East. They have to talk about all the things they’ve been doing over the last 2 or 3 years that they see as giving them a little bit of leverage.

Of course, the Europeans and the United States have acted, and so the Ukraine war is continuing. Ukraine still exists. For the Russians to establish deterrence by negotiation, they have to put everything else on the table, and they are not willing to do that. As a result, we’ve had no meaningful summits in the last three years with anyone.

What’s the second thing you can do? You can do a demonstration nuclear test. The problem is that the Russian nuclear force has degraded just as much as the Russian conventional force. Less than a week ago, the Russians tried to test out one of the new intercontinental ballistic missiles, and it blew up in the silo.

Now, this is really bad—not just from an embarrassing point of view or a deterrence point of view—but most of the avionics for Russia’s ICBM arsenal were built in Ukraine. This new missile that the Russians were testing was their effort to build a domestic supply chain. It is now apparent that, at least at the moment, that is not possible.

It begs the question of just how reliable the rest of the Russian nuclear arsenal is. If they hit the big candy-red button, will anything happen? If countries aren’t confident that things will launch, deterrence can’t happen.

The third thing you can do is nuke someone. The problem here is, while the Russians have bled away and pissed away their deterrence, the United States has not.

The United States continues to test, fine-tune, and deploy its weapons. It made very clear to the Russians in the early weeks of the Ukraine war that if Russia were to throw a nuke into Ukraine or anywhere else, the first thing the United States would do is use its conventional forces to destroy every Russian military and civilian asset—shipping around the world, every single port within range of conventional force, every single port the Russians have.

If that nuclear weapon were to hit a NATO ally and not just Ukraine, the first few weapons the United States would send back would target Putin personally. So that’s not an option either.

So, what’s left?

What’s left is nothing good. You get Obama-style pointless press releases and Trump-style bluster. That is what passes for strategic policy in the Kremlin these days. Now, whether or not any of that is sustainable over the long run is really not the point. The question, ultimately, is how will the Ukraine war play out?

Remember, Russia is still a large country, and even on its back, it still has a huge amount of resources and manpower to throw at the situation. They’re not bottomless anymore—this is not 1920 or 1980—but the Russians still outnumber the Ukrainians at least 3 to 1. They have an industrial plant that, while atrophied, is still an order of magnitude bigger than anything the Ukrainians have.

They have the Chinese providing huge amounts of components. Probably half of all the weapons systems the Russians have built in the last two years are majority made with Chinese components. Upwards of one-quarter of the artillery shells being used by the Russians on the front are coming from North Korea.

And, of course, all the Shahed drones are coming from Iran. So, there are very real flows here. It’s ultimately a question of whether the Russians can put the numbers to play. To that end, the Putin government, just before that disastrous failed nuclear missile test, announced that they were expanding the military to make it the second-largest standing army in the world.

If Russia is going to win, that’s how—through numbers, by ignoring the casualties, and just steamrolling them. If that sounds inhumane, it’s because this is how Russia has won every single war in its nearly thousand-year history. So far, in this war, they haven’t really put their weight into it. We might be seeing that change now.

If the Russians are going to win, this is how it’s going to go. It’s not going to be because of nukes.

Sweden In NATO (Recap)

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has indicated that Sweden accession to NATO shall be ratified by the Hungarian Parliament before March 1, which means Sweden will soon be welcomed into the alliance as a full member.

Sweden will be a very capable addition to NATO, as opposed to some other nations’ lackluster contributions. Between Sweden’s military prowess and strategic position on the Baltic Sea, there’s potential that Sweden has some immediate influence over NATO policies regarding Russia and Baltic states.

I suspect that Sweden will emerge as a prominent voice within the alliance and play a large role in the coming years.

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

Europe Goes Nuclear: Is America Leaving NATO?

Flag of NATO

During a rally last week, former President Donald Trump stated that European allies that do not contribute enough to NATO (in his eyes) would not receive support if Russia were to attack them. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, we need to consider the repercussions of the US stepping away from the NATO alliance.

Trump can smell the populist/nationalist sentiment in the air and he’s going all in. While he might be on the extreme end of it right now, there’s ever-growing momentum in America taking us down that path. We’ve enjoyed decades of a largely peaceful Europe, but what happens if the Americans leave?

I would expect the Europeans to revert to their old ways, including renewed military competition and something even scarier for us Americans, nuclear proliferation. We all know how quickly places like Germany can ramp up military production.

Trump’s statements may seem wild and disconnected at the moment, but there’s more than just an election on the line here; all it would take is one country’s knee-jerk reaction to send us back to a not-so-peaceful Europe.

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

Let’s Talk Turkey

Flag of Turkey being flown in front of a building

There’s been a lot of movement in Turkey’s neck of the woods, so the Turks have had to change their stance on several issues. Given Turkey’s strategic positioning and importance, expect huge regional implications.

Turkey has said it will intervene with grain shipments regardless of what Russia does. Turkey won’t operate as Russia’s middleman anymore, meaning the Turks won’t be the weak link in NATO’s chain. Turkey gave Sweden the green light to join NATO. That’s not even scratching the surface of the issues Turkey has faced.

The Sea of Marmara and eastern Thrace are some of the world’s richest chunks of agricultural land. They also happen to be surrounded by regional trading routes. Turkey will be a significant regional player if it continues to hold these areas. But there are limits to the power this gives them…

While Turkey can project a great deal of power, it can’t be done everywhere. Choosing where to focus will be done through careful evaluation of the neighborhood; given the constant change in this region, it would be foolish not to expect Turkey’s strategy to adapt and evolve regularly.

Prefer to read the transcript of the video? 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.

CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT MEDSHARE’S UKRAINE FUND

CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT MEDSHARE’S EFFORTS GLOBALLY

TRANSCIPT

Hey everybody. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from just below James Peak in the James Peak Wilderness. Today we’re going to talk Turkey. There’s been a lot of motion in that part of the world in the not too distant past, in the lead up to the NATO’s summit in Vilnius, during the summit and days after in the lead up to the NATO’s summit in Vilnius, during the summit and days after in the lead up to the NATO’s summit in Vilnius, during the summit and days after the Turks have changed their positions on a number of significant issues with huge regional implications. So just a quick rundown. The Turks have said that they’re going to intervene

in green shipments coming out of Ukraine. Now, there has been a deal that the Russians, Ukrainians and the U.N. have agreed to that allows Ukrainian grain to leave Ukrainian ports and not get shot at by Russian ships as long as the Russian ships can inspect the ships on the way in and on the way out to make sure that they’re not engaged in any sort of smuggling. The Russians have been backing away from that agreement and it’s basically done at this point. The Turks are no longer serving as a middleman for a lot of financial transfers and good transfers from the rest of the world to Russia.They have traditionally, I should say during the war to this point, they have been the weak spot in the NATO wall, if you will. And anything that the West used to sell to Russia or something that’s under sanctions would be sold to Turkey first and forwarded on to the Russians in violation of the sanctions, or at least to an end run. But they’re no longer doing that. In addition, the Turks gave the green light so that Sweden can join NATO. They’ve been blocking that now for over a year and all of a sudden it just evaporated. Now, there are a lot of people talking on the West about how the Turks are back in the club.Both of those statements are at best premature, but they’re probably just completely wrong and the reason is that the Turks are their own thing. Now, unlike the Western world or the Russian world, with a very clear geography that binds everyone together, the Turks have their own the Sea of Marmara region and Eastern Thrace are one of the richest chunks of agricultural land in the world. It’s got a navigable waterway system, and it straddles a number of regional trade routes. So the Turks are always going to matter. Whoever controls this area is always a going to be a significant regional power, iif not a global power. But this area is not endless. This is not the American Midwest, something that allows the United States to project power globally. This is a zone that is bracketed by a number of other regions that all matter. The Agean, the Caucasus, southern Ukraine. The Crimean Peninsula. The Balkans. Mesopotamia. The Levant. The Turks can project and do project power into all of these regions. But the Sea of Marmara region is not sufficiently powerful to give the Turks the ability to project in all of them. And so Turkish foreign strategic policy has always been about making choices, and that means they have to evaluate their neighborhood on a case by case basis, and those evaluations have to be updated from time to time. Well, if you go back to ten or 15 years ago, we had the start of the Syrian civil war, and the Turks were very upset with the entire Western coalition because of the war and what had led to it. The Turks didn’t want to see an independent Kurdistan, but the Americans relied upon the Kurds of northern Iraq in order to fight part of the war against Saddam Hussein

and with the Syrian civil war. You had, again, a Kurdish enclave, northeast Syria, that basically existed under western de facto sponsorship. There were also spats with the Israelis

to a degree backed by the United States and the Europeans. And so the Turks entered into a period where they found it easier to project power south into areas where the Americans

and the Europeans were not being very successful. In that sort of environment, There is a softness in relation with the Russians because the Russians were perceived at the time as being a bit on a roll. And so the Turks found it easier to accommodate the Russians

rather than to stand against them. Well, in the last year and a half, a whole lot of things have changed. Number one, the Americans are losing interest in Iraq and to a lesser degree, Syria, meaning that the de facto sponsorship of the Kurds has weakened quite a bit. The Russians have shown themselves to be not nearly as impressive as they look like they were. And with the Ukrainians doing better, better and better day by day by day. The Turks are wondering whether or not it’s really worth the effort, especially in the face of strong American opposition. During and leading up to the summit, the Biden administration and from the very top we’re talking here, the president and Secretary Yellen, the treasury secretary, made it very clear to the Turks what would happen to their banks if they continued serving as middlemen for the Russians. And since then, many of those banks are linked to the ruling party. That message was taken loud and clear. So the costs and benefits have changed. And all of a sudden the Turks are looking at this in a different light. So all of a sudden the South is not wide open and open to fissures that they can exploit. Suddenly, relations with the Israelis are a little bit better. Suddenly the Turks are evaluating the Russians from a different point of view and seeing them as perhaps the weak spot in their periphery these days. And so we’ve seen a lot of changes. And of course, with the summit, everyone was together and everyone had to have these conversations in real time. As regards to the United States negotiations about the transfer of F-16s to Turkey were off the table  because there were concerns they were going to be used against the Kurdish minority or against countries that the United States really didn’t with the Turks going to war with. All of a sudden, that’s back on the docket. The Canadians had restarted negotiations on drone transfers, military technology to help make drones. Now, these are the same drones that the Turks have been transferring to Ukraine over the last year and a half. But the reason the Canadians had had an embargo on it is because two years ago, the Turks had transferred them

to the Azerbaijanis in their war with Armenia, all of a sudden everyone’s getting along again

and we’ll probably see some warming in relations between the Europeans and the Turks as well on a number of issues that deal with the visas, the migration, everything else. Anyway, the bottom line of all of this isn’t so much that Turkey has flipped. It’s that Turkey’s evaluation of its neighborhood changes regularly based on the strength, the power, the accession or the fall of every country in their region. And in the last two years, we’ve had a massive shift in the power balance and it would be strange to think that the Turks would not adjust accordingly. Now, winners and losers, it all depends upon who you are and what you care about. Obviously, the West broadly is pleased with the direction that the Turks are going right now, and there’s reason to believe that this has some legs. But if you’re on the other side of the equation, especially if you’re in interest of the Russians, all of a sudden this is really scary. So, for example, Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijanis are ethnically Turkic. The Turks consider them their ethnic brothers and their friends. Armenians, on the other hand, are the complete opposite. And now that you’ve got countries like Canada saying, It might be okay for you to use your weapon systems in the

Armenia – Azerbaijan conflict. If you are Armenia in many ways this is the worst of all worlds, an Azerbaijan that is coming high off of the last war win. A turkey That’s probably going to start shipping weapons in mass again. And a Russia who has been your security guarantor

who all of a sudden is up to its eyeballs in a problem that it can’t solve in Ukraine. Things like this are going to be shaking out across the entire region as the larger geopolitics evolves. Okay. That’s it.