Smokey Bear’s Best Friend: fire.airnow.gov

Wildfires with smoke and a car in the background

We’re talking about every hiker’s worst nightmare. No, not the feeling of slipping into wet boots that didn’t dry out overnight. We’re talking about smoke!

There’s a growing wildfire smoke problem across North America and there are three main drivers. The Western Rockies had an unusually dry year, causing large fires that could smolder well into the winter. Canada’s muskeg region is vast and swampy, but long-lasting and hard-to-control fires break out as the region dries out, sending waves of smoke across the US. And of course, Pineapple Express (no, not that kind of smoke); the atmospheric rivers that leave the PNW parched and fire prone. Surprisingly, the West Coast has fared much better than most years thanks to heavier rains.

The smoke situation is a recurring and hard-to-predict, but using FIRE.AIRNOW.GOV can help you track air quality and plan ahead.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hello, Peter Zeihan here coming from Colorado. And today we’re going to talk about smoke. This is a topic that is very near and dear to my heart as a backpacker. As you may have noticed, whether you’re living in Minneapolis or Chicago or Des Moines or Kansas City, we’ve had some crazy smoke outbreaks already this year. So I thought it’d be worth showing a tool to you, as well as talking through the three biggest things that shape the smoke forecast for the United States. 

First of all, the tool fire.airnow.gov tracks a several thousand air quality sensors scattered across the country and maps out the smoke plume. So you know what to anticipate. Also gives you an idea of the danger level based on the particulate matter in the air, so you can judge your day accordingly. A tool that I use every day, all summer long. Use it to plan my trips, because I don’t want to be in the middle of that smoke choke, when I’m backpacking. Anyway, that’s the tool. Let’s talk about the three big things. Number one, moisture conditions in the Rockies, specifically the Western Rockies. As you move up elevation, the land becomes more arid because the air density is lower, so it can hold less moisture. 

What that tends to mean is that as you move up, you get into a more and more arid environment where conditions can change very, very quickly from maybe adequate moisture to completely inadequate. And you introduce a spark weather through, some asshole with a cigarette or a lightning strike, and you can get a big forest fire very, very quickly. 

Now, this year, the Western Rockies did not get as much moisture as they normally do. So they started out the season pretty dry. And already in western Colorado, we have a series of fires that collectively are about 200,000 acres and going. And most of the air quality issues we’ve had in the Denver area so far this year are because of those fires. 

About the only good point I can say about these fires is because of the nature of the topography. Mountainous. Sometimes it’s difficult for the fires to jump from one valley to another, and they tend kind of, sort of to be somewhat self-contained. However, these are rugged areas. There’s low population density. It’s very difficult to fight fires in these areas. 

And so if a fire does start up, they tend to burn until winter. And sometimes they’re not completely out until after Christmas. So these are kind of a chronic issue that kind of needles air quality throughout the Rockies. That’s number one. Number two Canada. Okay. So Canada is a very weird place, topographically speaking, is a huge country with lots and lots of climate zones. 

But the one to watch the most is an area called the muskeg, which is a zone in northern Saskatchewan, in Manitoba, going over into the Canadian Shield, into western Ontario. These are areas that are almost completely unpopulated. And in the wet months they’re basically swamps. But if you have several months of low rainfall, the swamps start to dry out. 

And as soon as that happens, all it takes is a spark and you can basically get some sort of surface peat fire almost that can burn, burn, burn and burn. At the time that I’m recording this in the middle of what is this August, there are over 200 fires burning in this section of Canada. In many ways, it’s more dangerous and more problematic than what we have in the Rockies, because these zones are not mountainous. 

And so if you have an area that has become parched, it can just burn and burn and burning, burning, burn. And if you remember back in July when we had really poor air quality as far south as Kansas City and as far east as New York, almost all of that was because of these Canadian fires and because it’s swamp part of the year, and because it’s basically frozen tundra part of the year. 

These are not things where any sort of mitigation can really help. In the Rockies, you can go through foot by foot, acre by acre, clear out the Deadwood cut down the dead trees, haul it all off, put it into piles or whatever. That’s something I’ve done on my property for sure, because I live in a fire zone. You can’t do that. 

And the great untouched barrens of northern Canada, you just have to suffer through the fires and it’s going to be a bad fire. You’re up there. So for those of you in the Upper Midwest and the northeast part of the United States, expect more and more waves of smoke. All right. What’s the third one? Pineapple express? There are things called atmospheric rivers where you basically get channels of high altitude winds that suck moisture out of the oceans, and they just push them across the planet. 

And when these channels hit a mountain range, they rise and they drop a lot of moisture. So what we see in California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia is the atmospheric river whips around like a fire hose at the firemen has lost control of, and it will spray the area with massive amounts of rain in some years or in other years, it’ll miss you completely and you’ll just kind of get the suction effect. 

And as the wind goes down the other side of the mountains, you get a compression effect, which actually increases air density and temperatures and makes you more prone to fires. So you get these two extremes. You get sprayed down by the atmospheric river hose, or it avoids you completely and just sucks the moisture along in its wake. Drying you out this year is absolutely a hose year, and so we’ve seen almost no fires up and down the Pacific Northwest. 

But if you remember back to say, the year 2000, when it seemed the world was going to end, that time we actually saw the Amos River avoid this region completely desiccated. And we had some of the worst forest fires in recorded history. So for me personally, going to Yosemite and a couple of days, this is perfect because while there are fires in Canada, I’m not going that direction. 

There are fires in western Colorado. I’m leaving that area. I’m going to California, which has now experienced some of its best moisture conditions in several years. The chances of fire are minimal for the rest of you, fire air now.gov and keep ahead of it.

American and Indian Relations Sour

Made in India. Cardboard boxes with text made in India and indian flag on the roller conveyor. Licensed by Envato Elements: https://elements.envato.com/made-in-india-cardboard-boxes-with-text-made-in-in-8X3N3JR

The global rise of right-wing populist governments has complicated the relationships between many of the dominant countries and leaders. The latest is America and India.

That trade deal everyone was optimistic about hasn’t quite played out so smoothly. India is facing steeper tariffs due to its ongoing or persistent trade relationship with Russia. Trump and Modi both expected special treatment for…being themselves; obviously, that didn’t play out for either of them.

Whether India decides to lean into its ties with Russia, form a stronger relationship with the US, or remain independent, its decision will carry huge implications for the global order. As these populist leaders continue to reject the old ways of doing things and seek to build new ones, small disagreements are more likely to intensify.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan, I’m here coming to you from Colorado. And today we’re going to talk about relations between India, the United States, which have apparently just dropped into the crapper in the last couple of weeks. If you go back a few weeks, you know, maybe two months, there were very positive signals coming out of both Washington, DC and New Delhi that a meaningful trade deal was imminent. 

And it’s all falling apart. And not only is there no deal, India is now paying some of the highest tariffs of any country selling the United States. Right now it’s about 50%. And Trump has said it’s probably going to go up based on how relations with the Russians degrade. The Indians are saying this isn’t fair because lots of countries trade with the Russians. 

And so why should India be the only countries paying a penalty? And I’m not saying that there’s nothing to that point, but it kind of misses the point of how this works and where it’s leading, the United States and India right now, as well as a number of other countries that include China and Turkey and Russia, have rightist populist governments that focus on what makes their country special versus everyone else. 

These are not the sort of governments that normally get along. Normally, these are the type of countries that find themselves duking it out on the battlefield with one another. The reason that hasn’t happened is because we’ve been in this weird moment in the post Cold War environment where the old consensus has basically prevented it from happening. 

One of the things that, right wing governments, right wing populist governments hate is the idea of a transnational group of liberals who impose some sort of policy on things. And, you know, maybe there is something to that. But keep in mind what that means. If you have a multiple of countries that include, but are not limited to Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the United States, Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and on and on and on that broadly agree on the rules of the game and things like individual liberty and things like international cooperation and things like economic integration. 

Then there’s no reason for them to have an antagonist military approach to one another. There’s too many other things in the system that stabilize the relationship. But if you have countries that don’t see things that way, that focus on what makes countries different and unique, as opposed to on the same side, then you don’t have those are resting factors and you can get more conflict, not necessarily of the military form, but of any kind of form. 

And those are exactly the types of governments where you have rising in the world today. In the United States, we have Trump, in India, we have Modi in Turkey, we have a guy by the name of Erdogan who’s been dragging the country this direction for 25 years. In Japan, we are seeing a cracking of the post-World War Two consensus around centrist politics in, China. 

We’ve got chairman G who is now basically a tinpot dictator of a second world country. In Canada, we’ve had a bit of a hiccup where we looked like the government was going to go a different way in the last elections, in polls right now in Britain and in Italy and in France and in Germany, the hard right is the more popular than has ever been before. 

And of course, the Russians have been run by nationalists for quite some time. What this means is that consensus around liberal international values is breaking down in a way that we have not seen since the days before World War Two. And if you go back and look at your history, especially for the first half of the century and the period before World War one and World War two, we had a lot of governments that kind of fit the mold that we’re moving towards right now. 

Now, does that mean that we are doomed to have another major international conflagration on the scale, the World War? No, no different world? A couple big things to keep in mind. Number one, there are no countries, with the exception of the United States right now, that could fight in more than one theater. But if you don’t have things like trade and integration tying countries together, then it is really easy for small flaps to turn into big ones. 

What happened with India in particular is both Trump and Modi assumed that because the United States and India were so special that any deal would be done their way, and that’s just not how it works. Also, India has never really had a free trade agreement with anyone, so anyone who thought that a deal was imminent really hadn’t been paying attention to modern Indian economic structure or history. 

Where does this take us right now? Oh, India has to figure a few things out. During the Cold War, they were neutral, but broadly pro-Soviet. In fact, they were pro-Soviet. Even when the Soviets went away. And India now is a country that has agency in capacity. There are major refinery center. They are major stop on the path of all merchandise trade and energy trade between the Middle East and East Asia and between East Asia and Europe. 

They have a military that is capable for their needs. It can easily interrupt those flows, and they have an economy that is increasingly wealthier and increasingly diversified, increasingly technologically capable. What they don’t have is projection power, either economically or strategically. Their military is designed for the problems that they have. It’s designed for Pakistan, it’s designed for Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. 

It can’t project to the Middle East. It can’t project to East Asia. It is a unit to itself that defines how the Indians see themselves. They don’t see themselves as part of any coalition. They see themselves as their own thing. And if you put someone from a populist right in charge of that, if you accentuate that mindset, then the potential for arguments with everyone become very, very real. 

So India is one of those countries that matters, but it matters which side it doesn’t fall on because it empowers whoever is opposite. In the environment that we’re in today. We’re in this weird little situation where the country that the Indians are most dependent upon is China, which obviously makes Indian politics a little colorful these days. The Indians were thinking that their moment had arrived, that they had become strategically special and could have a leg in the American coalition without actually having to do anything that was never going to fly. 

But the Indians also, wherever they do put their foot, are going to matter. One way or another. So the debate right now is whether or not they should buddy up with the Russians again. If they do, they’re bearing almost all the risk. The Russians would get almost all of the reward. But this is what happens when you have a rightist government that sees themselves as special in a way that maybe doesn’t necessarily jive with strategic reality. 

Modi is learning that, Trump is learning that. And in time, pretty much all of governments like this will learn it. And when that happens, decision making becomes a lot more hostile because no longer are they rebelling against the existing order, they’re looking to build their own. And when that happens, we start getting new strategic relationships and hostilities. And that can boil up into something a lot more substantial.

The Alaska Summit: Putin and Trump Talk War

Putin and Trump shaking hands on the red carpet. Photo by Wikimedia Commons: http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/77790/photos/82627

Putin and Trump are planning to meet in Alaska in the coming days. Trump’s plan is to emphasize Russia’s losses in Ukraine (economically, strategically, and militarily), in hopes that Putin will pull back from the war in Ukraine.

Unfortunately, Putin doesn’t view the Ukraine War through the same lens as Trump. Putin knows Russia is facing terminal collapse, and Ukraine is just the first step in securing a future for the Russians. If Trump points out all the losses, along with stating that the US will be aligning closer with Western Europe, I wouldn’t be surprised if Putin responds with an even harsher war effort.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Colorado. Yeah. Humid. Cloudy with. Anyway, today we are going to talk about the upcoming summit between the Russian President Vladimir Putin and the American president, Donald J. Trump. We’ve had a lot of evolution in the American White House through the Ukraine war. And now we see the Americans starting to come around to what I could best call to be the the Western European opinion of things. 

Everyone has their own view on how the war is going, why it’s going the where it the way it is. I’ve recently recorded a video. We’ll send some links out here for how this looks from the Russian point of view, and what people who are new to the topic should think about when they’re evaluating. Short version is the Russians see this war as part of an existential fight for survival. 

They know their borders over the long run are completely indefensible. They know their demographics are collapsing, and they know that if they don’t change the rules of their neighborhood now, they’re going to lose all hope of doing that in the future. So for them, it’s almost impossible to contemplate stopping the war, because that means paying all of the costs of a conflict without getting any of the benefits. 

And that is signing up Russia for midterm national dissolution. That’s something you try to avoid. What the Trump administration’s talking point seem to be, forming up or to try to convince the Russians to look at all of this from an economic and a structural point of view. So the the argument goes like this. Mr. Putin, here’s your problem. 

You’re not winning this war. You’re grabbing territory not by miles, but by inches. You’ve already lost at least a half a million men, some people say it’s closer to a million. And that’s before you consider the economic damage from sanctions or the economic transformation of going to a war economy. This has just been a huge cost. You’re not doing well. 

You’re not going to win. And from a strategic point of view, you’ve actually made your situation worse. If you look at the period from 1989 until 2022, when the war started, the Europeans were basically disarming, with a number of countries spending not just less than 2% of GDP on defense, but in many cases functionally less than 1%. 

You basically the entire continent was allowing itself to hollow itself, out strategically. Now, things have changed by launching this major war, by engaging in all of these atrocities, by bombing everything that you can. You have motivated the Europeans not simply to rearm, but to rearm to a level that could potentially exceed what they did in the Cold War. 

And Russia is many things, but it no matter what it is, it’s weaker than the Soviet Union was. In addition, while the Europeans may disrespect look down on loathe Donald Trump, they are now, from a strategic point of view, tighter to the United States than they’ve ever been. With bigger defense budgets. So you’re getting autonomous European decision making in defense, which is a nightmare for Russia. 

At the same time, the United States is threatening to re-up its military support for Ukraine directly. There’s no part of this where you appear to come out a winner. So let’s find a middle ground where you can back off and save some face and not just completely wreck your system. There’s nothing wrong with that line of approach. 

It is perfectly reasonable. It’s broadly accurate. But that’s not how the Russians see it. The Russians see this as an issue of demographics and borders. They know that they cannot defend the borders that they have with the men that they have. But they know if they expand by roughly 1,000,000mi², then instead of having wide open borders on the Ukrainian steppe, they actually reach things like the Carpathian. 

The Baltic Sea and their external lands shrink to something that they could manage. Right now they’ve got roughly 3 to 5000 miles, based on very where you draw the lines of open terrain. But if they expand to absorb Ukraine and a handful of other countries, all of a sudden they can concentrate their forces between geographic barriers and their external barriers shrink down to 500 miles. 

So the economic argument doesn’t make sense to the Russians because they’re looking at economics from a different point of view. In addition, the general idea that the West is starting to pull together more and even under the leadership of Trump, if anything confirms the Russians worst fears, dealing piecemeal with the Western countries, making sure that the Germans don’t support militarization, making sure the French are at Arms Lake, making sure that there’s a breach between the United States and the Europeans. 

These have all been the goals of the Kremlin. Going back to initial communist days in the 1920s and 1930s, and to have the American president say that this is basically what we’re looking at now. This confirms every concern that the Russians have ever had about the strategic nature of the western borders. And so if this is the Trump administration’s approach, basically the Western European approach, talking about numbers, this is something that isn’t simply going to fall on deaf ears. 

This is going to something that is going to ring every alarm bell that exists in the Russian system and do so very, very loudly and guarantee that the Russians are going to take a much harsher approach to the war in the future. 

A couple things from this. Number one, it’s interesting watching the Trump administration learn things that administrations in the United States have known for decades. 

The Trump administration basically fired anyone with any historical knowledge how negotiations with the Russians really work, and now they’re learning it bit by bit from the ground up, and seeing what is basically the French German position on the war now coming out of the white House is kind of colorful from my point of view. It’s better than it was, because if you go back just three months ago, the, the Trump administration’s position was basically the Russian position. 

So this is this is much improved. But that doesn’t mean that it’s any more realistic when it comes to evaluating what motivates the Russians. We’ll see what the next step will be. That brings us to number two, the next step. We know that Putin is going to flat out reject everything that Trump says if this is the approach. 

So the question is then what does Donald Trump do next? Because there are other views of what is actually going on here beyond France and Germany, for example, if you go with the Swedish view or the Polish view or the Romanian view, it’s an understanding that the Russians, this is who they are, this is how they see the world. 

And the only way you can stop that is forcefully, and proactively. And that means a much more American military involvement than we have seen under, say, the Biden administration. Is that the next step for Trump? I have no idea. He hasn’t figured that out yet, but he’s going to be presented with either a flat refusal or another bald faced lie from Putin at the Alaska summit. 

And then he will have to decide what his next step is. In the meantime, the military picture in Ukraine is evolving fairly substantially, but we’ll deal with that next time. 

Featured Photo by Wikimedia Commons

Trump Trade Talks: NAFTA Deals Stall

A USA-marked shipping container on a truck, illustrating American international trade from Envato Elements: https://elements.envato.com/a-usa-marked-shipping-container-on-a-truck-illustr-HMKHD83

To nobody’s surprise, trade talks with Mexico and Canada have stalled. Reminder that these are America’s top two trading partners and export markets, so securing a favorable deal isn’t just a nice-to-have, it’s a necessity.

With US manufacturing on the line (and severe economic damage), I suspect a deal isn’t far off. North American production is growing in importance as China declines. Mexico offers a nice growth opportunity and some potential for political wins as the fentanyl trade is disrupted. To the north, deal progress has been slowed by some unrelated speed bumps.

If there was ever a trade relationship that needed to get hammered out ASAP, it’s NAFTA. Since Trump has already stamped his name on NAFTA 2 during his first term, I’m hopeful we’ll see some progress here soon.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Colorado. We’re going to continue with our open ended series on the nature of the trade relationship that the United States is building with the rest of the world under Donald Trump. And today we’re going to talk about trade deals that have not yet happened. And that’s Canada and Mexico. According to the Trump administration, both of these countries are going to require significant additional time to negotiate at least 90 days with Mexico and a kind of an indefinite hold on everything with Canada. 

These two matter more, I would argue, than all of the other deals put together. Mexico is our top trading partner. Canada is number two. Both of them, a few years ago surpassed China and are not looking back. Both are also our number one and our number two export markets. 

So unlike China or Europe where the trade imbalance is pretty significant here, while there is a trade imbalance, it’s not nearly as large because we send them lots of stuff. Basically these are integrated economic spaces. And if we sever our relations with either Mexico, Canada, it would be like severing our relationship with California or Texas. What that means in real terms is roughly 14 million jobs in the United States are directly, dependent upon trade with our immediate neighbors. 

That’s about 10% of the total labor force. So if we can’t get a deal that favors Canada, Mexico versus the rest of the world, we’re going to not just see a significant drop off in local economic exchange. We’re going to see a significant hit to U.S. employment in manufacturing in general, unlike products that come from Europe or East Asia, which are largely completed when they hit U.S stores, products that come from Canada and Mexico are part of an integrated manufacturing system, with different pieces of the end product being made in different parts. 

Of the three country union that is NAFTA. And if you cut that out, then the American manufacturing model fails from the inside. And all that’s left is to import things from further abroad. Now the smart money remains on a meaningful deal for a couple of reasons. Number one, the economic catastrophe that would hit the United States if there wasn’t a deal would be horrendous. 

And Trump will definitely go down in history as the worst negotiator we’ve ever had on trade. Number two, the Chinese are dying. And if we can’t build out manufacturing in North America, then we just won’t have product. So we really are on the clock here. And every day that passes that we don’t have clarity in the Mexican, Canadian and American tri relationship is a day that we fall a little bit further behind and basically set up China to succeed in the short run. 

But us to fail in the long run. The third issue, of course, is employment. We will build this very, very quickly. And the fourth is growth markets. Canada has a very similar economic and demographic to us where we’re steadily aging. And so consumption is probably approaching peak levels. Mexico is not in that category. It already has $1 trillion consumption market, and it has a population bulge for people aged roughly 5 to 35, which is exactly where you want it. 

If you want people buy in more and more and more and more. So of all of the consumption led economies in the world outside of the United States, Mexico is the one that has the strongest growth trajectory, not just for employment and stability, but for product consumption, which is something that in a world that is rapidly aging, is something you want to get Ahold of. 

Another big reason to think that this is probably going to go somewhere is when Trump made his 90 day delay on the Mexico announcement, he specifically mentioned that there’s a fentanyl tariff in place. Well, fentanyl imports into the United States have been dropping for the last couple of years. Thank God for a mix of reasons. It has very little to do with policy. 

But Trump has inadvertently adopted a tariff policy that’s actually going to speed that process along and give Trump the opportunity to call a win. And that has to do with something called the de minimis exception. So when you purchase something on line that is less than $800 and is sourced from another country, it comes into the country without basically customs declaration or taxes. 

That is now over under the Trump administration. We now have a really steep tax. So everything that used to get from China say, is basically over. And that is how most of the precursor materials that are used in fentanyl made it to North America. They’re shipped via de minimis to the United States, and they’re repackaged and trucks to Mexico be to be turned into fentanyl. 

Anything that interrupts that process, anything that puts friction in that process, is going to raise the relative cost of fentanyl. It’s still wildly profitable, but, you know, every little bit helps. There is one complication in all of this, and that is ironically, Gaza. Oh my God. So there are a number of countries that include France and Britain and Australia and Canada that are talking about imminent recognition of the Palestinian state. 

As a formal country. Now, there’s a number of reasons why I think this is silly. We have a video we did on that relatively recently in case you want to review. But Trump has singled out one of those countries as this being a problem for trade relations. And that’s Canada. So there’s supposedly a deal with the European Union. 

There’s supposedly a deal with the United Kingdom, a supposedly one with Australia is coming in. Trump doesn’t seem to care about any of those, but Trump really has a bee in his bonnet when it comes to Canada about pretty much everything. And so he’s chosen to make the Palestinian recognition issue a subject that falls now under trade talks. 

And that has basically put relations with Canada on hold again. It’s very arbitrary, which means it could be going away arbitrarily tomorrow. But for the moment, it’s another issue that Trump has picked up on that has stalled relations that in the past is something that U.S administrations wouldn’t even blink out because they really don’t matter anyway. 

That’s the bottom line here. The two relationships that we need most for now, for the future, for American growth, for North American stability to beat down the drug war, to ensure high levels of American employment, to prepare for a post China world, they are still in limbo. One other reason to think that it might work out NAFTA two was negotiated by the first Trump administration. 

So it really wouldn’t take much for Trump to say I’m putting my name on something because he already has.

Trump Wants a Second Opinion on Labor Statistics

Businessmen figurines standing and sitting on top of colorful plastic blocks forming a bar chart from Envato Elements: https://elements.envato.com/businessmen-figurines-standing-and-sitting-on-top--2YBGNE8

Imagine you go to a doctor and run some blood tests. A few days later you get the results and don’t like them. What do you next? Maybe you start eating more Cheerios to help with your cholesterol. Well, Trump would just dump that doctor and find a new one who would tell him he’s perfectly healthy…at least that’s what he did to the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

The US is known for having the world’s most respected, apolitical data systems. Trump’s undermining of this system could jeopardize US policymaking for decades and is eerily reminiscent of what Hugo Chávez did during his rule in Venezuela.

Getting rid of the BLS commissioner is scary enough on its own, but couple that with the echo chamber in the White House and you have a full-on horror movie brewing.

Rewatch the video on Economic Indicators here

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado today. We’re talking about the U.S. economy from a numbers point of view. The issue is that a couple of weeks back, Donald Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is basically the institutional in the US government that generates a whole lot of the data that guides policymaking from a global point of view. 

U.S. government statistics are generally considered to be above world class. They’re by far the best on the planet because they’re differentiated, they’re apolitical, and the United States government collects touch points from local, state, and national policymakers in order to build a really good picture that businesses and government can use to help make decisions. Well, a number came out on new job creation that Trump hated, so he fired the head of the BLS within hours and says he’ll replace her with someone who can actually do the work, which is anyway, the idea are three things here. 

Number one, the idea that one person just decides what the day is going to be is beyond asinine. The only place that happens with any reliability is places like Russia, where they decide what the numbers are going to be before they publish them, and then just make them up. And they don’t even have a functional statistics section in the government anymore. 

The statistics are the end results of not just dozens of people, but thousands of people across the country. And the only way you can get a politicized justice stick is if you don’t just go after people at the head, but you go after the rank and file statisticians, which is something the Trump administration has already started, not just for jobs data, but GDP data. 

And that’s something that’s going to make it much harder for the US government to target policies for decades to come. It will take us a generation to rebuild that expertise. That’s problem one. Number two, if you’re going to get cheesed off about a statistic, this isn’t even the one you should be angry about. The jobs report is an estimate based on a series of estimates based on a series of surveys, which are in themselves estimates. 

It’s not a very realistic picture of the economy from my point of view. And it goes through phases of, revisions over three months. And so the idea that the number that Trump didn’t like is what it’s going to be like three months from now. I think it’s kind of silly in the first place. Anyway, if you’re looking for a more accurate statistic, you want to look for first time unemployment claims. 

So the jobs report indicates jobs that have been created, but based on estimates and estimates and estimates, the first time unemployment claims is based on people who have lost their jobs because they file for coverage. And that is a hard number. That’s a real number. So here’s the QR code. If that is a statistic you’re interested in. 

The fact that Trump doesn’t know this is concerning, because anyone who is working in, say, the Commerce Department is going to know which statistics are better than others, and the Commerce secretary is a guy by the name of Howard. Let make it will basically tell Trump anything he wants to hear. And so we have just gotten a very good example of the echo chamber that is developed in the Trump White House, where it’s not just that no one is speaking truth to power, it’s just the truth. 

Can’t even make it in the room in paper form. Okay, third thing, the president that is most similar to Donald Trump and going after the statisticians, isn’t g of China. Those people are dead. It isn’t Putin of Russia. Those people were let go 20 years ago. It’s Hugo Chavez, the deceased leader of Venezuela. When he became president in 1998. 

He basically went through the entire institutions of Venezuela, which at the time was generally considered to be the best well run of the Latin American states. High standard of living, good educational system, good infrastructure, pretty good policy. They basically had an oil largesse and they used it on the people. You’re crazy idea. And he basically went after the entire set of institutions that supported that system, root and branch, until the only information he got was the information he wanted to hear. 

It’s very similar to what we’re seeing right now. And if you look at some of the things that Donald Trump is doing with, say, energy policy, wanting to produce more crude, say, from public lands and only sell it to countries that he has a handshake deal with. This is very Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez would sell the crude at a discounted rate, only to markets that he was ideologically aligned with wherever they happen to be. Cuba, of course, with the top of that list, 

Donald Trump personally is basically setting up, trying to set up something similar where the crude is only sold to specific markets, where he feels he’s beaten them into aggressive submission with European Union. Be at the top of the list. That means less income by a significant amount and de facto subsidization of those countries for personal and political reasons. 

So this is not simply an issue of a few numbers. This is something that allows the US government to function, and allows it to function in a way that benefits the president. But until some people in the white House grow some spines and speak truth to power, which means I’ll probably be fired the next day, we’re probably not going to get a lot of that. 

The Revolution in Military Affairs: Recruitment

Cadets marching in the military

Most of the conversations in this series will revolve around technology, but recruitment is a large component of keeping a military productive. We’re not talking about the high school pull up competitions that the recruiters do, but more of the systemic ideology around recruitment itself.

As military technology evolves, we’re seeing the equipment on the battlefield change overnight. However, finding the people to operate this tech and fill out the ranks needs a refresh as well. Considering that 2/3 of the American population are not straight white dudes, the DEI conversation is about to get a new angle.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Capitol Reef National Park. We are continuing our series on the future of military technology. And today we’re going to talk about staffing and recruitment. What is the United States or really any country need if it’s going to succeed in this changed era of warfare? 

Well, the short is that we really don’t know yet because we haven’t invented the future. 

What we know for sure is that the military is going to have to be more flexible. And if you look at the Ukraine war, it’s easy to see why, as little as a year ago in the Ukraine conflict, it was all about fighter jets and bombers and artillery and tanks. But in that time, it’s evolved completely, with most of those platforms no longer being able to hold their own against evolutions in drone technology. 

And drones are just leading edge of this revolution that combines new types of digitization and energy transfer material science to completely new packages. We now have, for example, our first rocket drones, which have a range of over a thousand miles that can easily take out a refinery. The world is changing. What we do know is that the old style of doing war, which is basically throwing a bunch of bodies at something else and see who comes out on top, isn’t going to work. 

One of the biggest problems that I have with the current administration, most notably Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, is he doesn’t seem to understand how the numbers work. Hegseth is on a roll, basically on the warpath against something that he calls Dei diversity, equity, inclusion and the idea that one group should have favoritism over the other. I agree is silly, but in the military context, that’s not how Dei has ever been implemented. 

Dei in the military is a recruitment tool based on how you look at the numbers. At most, 30% of the American population are straight white males, and on average, straight white males are older than the average American population. 

So no matter what your definition is of what a good soldier, marine sailor, airman happens to be. The bottom line is, if you’re drawing from a small pool that it’s getting smaller and you’re fighting a war of numbers, by your own definition, you’re going to lose and lose badly. And that’s before you consider the changes that are coming to the technology. 

We need better skill sets embedded within the system, and that means recruiting people there in a different way than how we do it now. right now we generally bring in people in the age bracket of roughly 17 to 25, and we break them down. 

We indoctrinate them into the system, train them on systems that have existed not for years but for decades. Well, that’s not going to work when the technological time to target is measured in weeks to months. We also need to change procurement. The idea that the military goes out there and says what it wants, and then private military contractors go out and design the system, basically parade it in front of the military to see what works. 

And then years from now, we get a prototype, and years after that we get mass production. That won’t work because this all has to go from the point of imagination to the point of deployment in less than a year. So everything about how we fight right now needs to evolve, 

And that means a broader skill set with as wide of a diversity of backgrounds as possible. 

And so why, while we’re going through these transitions, will you tell anyone in the United States who is a woman or who is black, or who is Hispanic, or who is gay, that they have limitations on how they could choose to serve their country? It just doesn’t make any sense from a strategic point of view. 

About the only argument that I have seen that argues for a different direction in order to maintain power is basically the Elon Musk approach, which is to basically go out for everyone who is a white, straight male who has employees go out, sleep with 12 of them and start generating a new white race. 

Well, you know, I don’t know if you knew how math works, but if that all happens today, you’re not going to get your new crop of your new race for 18 years. And we will be on the other side of this military transition by then. We need to work with what we have, and that means using the skill sets of absolutely everyone who has an interest of being in the US military.

Keep an Eye on Industrial Construction Spending

View above an industrial construction site

We’ve got another economic metric for y’all to keep an eye on. Today, we’re looking at total construction spending for US manufacturing capacity.

This metric helps us understand how quickly the US is preparing to rebuild its industrial base. Which, as we’ve discussed extensively, is going to be essential as the US faces deglobalization…and China going bye-bye.

But things are stalling. Trump has created a construction purgatory, and businesses are holding investments until they know the rules of the game. And as we prepare for the next chapter of the global order, a drop in construction spending could spell serious problems.

Link: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TLMFGCONS

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all. Good morning. From the Front Range foothills above Denver. Today I’m going to talk about one of these other economic statistics that I’m following very closely in the current environment. And it is something that is collected by the Federal Reserve. It is called total construction spending for manufacturing capacity. Basically, it tracks how the United States is spending to expand its industrial plant. 

Now, if you’ve been following me for any time whatsoever, you know that I am concerned that we are not getting ready for the Chinese collapse fast enough and that we only have a certain number of years left, probably no more than eight. And that’s before you consider the trade war and some of the policies of the Trump administration, which are greatly accelerating China’s fall. 

So basically, if we still want manufactured goods stuff, we’re gonna have to make a lot more of it here locally. And that means a lot more factories. This statistic tracks exactly what we’ve been doing for the last several years. And if you start at the beginning in 2019, 2020, it’s Trump one. You’ll see that it was really low. 

And honestly, that’s pretty historically normal. But that number makes it Trump look worse than he is by far. And part of it is simply Covid. We didn’t know what the rules of the game, where we didn’t know how long it was going to last. We didn’t know if was gonna be a lockdown. We didn’t know how many people were going to kill, because if you remember back to the early days, something like 3 to 4% of the people who were getting infected were dying. 

And none of the treatments we had, especially in that early outbreak in New York, were working. It was it was awful. And nobody knew what to invest for. Then we have the Biden years where we had a lot of government spending to boost industrial production. And this makes Biden look better than he is, because while things like the Chips act and the IRA did put money into the system and did build industrial plants, only about 20% of that rise can be attributed to government spending. 

Most of that was actually American corporations realizing that something was happening with globalization that was not just a one off. It was a trend, and they needed to build more capacity here. And so we saw a steady increase for those four years. More lately, you’ll notice that it has flatlined again. And this you can blame on Trump. This is the tariff policy. 

At the time of this recording, we’re now at our 149th tariff policy since the 20th of January. And the rules of the game are changing every day, sometimes every hour. And so while everyone is completing the greenfield projects that they started, very, very few new projects have actually began. Any sort of construction and all of the deals that Trump likes to brag about. 

None of them have moved at all. So this is the number that matters from my point of view. Here’s a QR code so that you can watch it yourself with live releases. Whenever the fed updates its data. This number goes up. You know we’re moving in the right direction. We’re getting ready for a future that is inevitable, 

And if it goes down, then we are well and truly screwed.

The Future of US Monetary Policy + The Live Q&A Starts Soon!

The Live Q&A starts soon! Become an Analyst member on Patreon now!

Join Peter Zeihan's Patreon

For the month of July, all the proceeds from new memberships will be donated to our chosen charity partner—MedShare. To learn more about MedShare, click the link below:

More Info on Medshare

When a country’s monetary policy begins to resemble the likes of Venezuela and Turkey, it might be a good time to pump the brakes.

Trump and his Treasury Secretary have called for reform in the Federal Reserve, claiming the Fed has failed. The conversation is a good one to have, but the monetary policies suggested by Trump are just foolish. He has called for the firing of the Fed Chair and wants to force interest rates down to 1%…all for the sake of political gain. If we wanted inflation, asset erosion, and to damage our economy in the long-term, that would be a good way to get there.

The US has long prioritized keeping inflation low, even if that meant slower growth, because it would protect economic stability in the long run. But the global economy is shifting. Deglobalization and the demographic crunch are going to wreck traditional economic models. So, a conversation around what’s coming and how to handle it is worth being had. We just need people who are chasing meaningful change, instead of cheap credit for political gain.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from Colorado on a bright, sunny, hot morning. Going to hit 80 today. Weird. Anyway, today we’re going to talk about the newest thing out of the American Treasury secretary guy by the name of percent. And he says that it is time to reevaluate the Federal Reserve as an institution, specifically noting that it has failed in many of its mandates. 

And he doesn’t know what they’re doing over there. A lot of this is just normal Trumpian exaggeration and putting the fault on other people when there is a lack of policy in the white House. There’s two sides to this one that is really, really dumb, and one of them that actually merits evaluation. So let’s start with the one that’s dumb, because that’s what everybody is talking about already. 

The Federal Reserve is the monetary authority for the United States. It determines the cost of capital within the American system at the government level, determining what interest rates are going to be in. And the market takes its cues from that. Folding its own stuff into the situation. Donald Trump is now on record multiple times saying that he wants to dismiss the Federal Reserve chair and put somebody who’s more pliable for his policy preferences in place. 

And he says he wants interest rates to go down to 1%. This is a very Turkish Argentine in Venezuelan, Zimbabwe, an approach to monetary policy. The idea that the government wants to spike growth in the short term in order to generate more political support, and to hell with the long term, because that’s somebody else’s problem. Every country that has ever done anything like this will get growth. 

And then you will artificially spike inflation, and you will lead to a decade or more of Mali’s and either high inflation, low growth, or both. And considering the stage of the United States in this part of the cycle, it would probably be both. But by the time we get to the other side of that, Trump is no longer president. 

And that is literally somebody else’s problem. One of the reasons why the United States is the global superpower is going back to the formation of the Federal Reserve back in 1913, is we’ve treated inflation as something that is a bigger threat than a lack of growth. And so as the Federal Reserve Charter is established by Congress, as built, it basically says that you try to keep inflation low. 

And if that means growth is lower, that’s fine. But that way you don’t inflate away the value of everyone’s assets, because if you have a long period of inflation, not only does that kill purchasing power, it erodes the value of all of your assets, whether they’re financial, physical or otherwise, and generates a lot more long term problems that are a lot more difficult to solve. 

So most of what the world Bank and International Monetary Fund have done over the last 50 years is try to convince the countries that they’re helping out, that you have to keep the cost of capital relatively high. So it’s treated as an economic good, because if you keep it low and treat it as a political good, people will splash it onto everything. 

It throws everything out of whack. And this, at its core, is one of the like 17 reasons why China is going to collapse in the next few years. They’ve treated capital as something that can be politically dictated instead of driven by supply and demand mechanics. So overall, really bad idea why I think we should talk about it anyway. 

The world is changing, the model shifting. We’re moving into a globalized world where the globalized world of, say, manufacturers are energy or agriculture are breaking down. And we’re moving into a world where it’s more regional, even more national, and in that sort of environment, we need to build a lot of things physical infrastructure, industrial plant processing capacity. Those are the big three power grid, if you want a fourth one. 

All of this costs money. And if we follow a normal model that is responsible, it is not clear to me we will be able to get there. That’s problem one. Problem two is demographic. for the first time in human history, in the advanced world, and I’m actually lumping in a lot of the advanced industrialized world like China. And with us, we now have more people in their 60s, in their 50s and their 40s and their 30s in the 20s, in their teens and children. And that is changing the balance of what is possible financially. 

Most financial strength, most private capital comes from people as they’re approaching retirement. Their expenses have gone down because their house has been paid for, and their kids have moved out, and they’re preparing for retirement, and they’re at the height of their earning experience. So high incomes, low expenses tends to generate a lot of fiscal wherewithal. And that one decade of your life is when you generate the most capital. 

Well, in the period from 2025 to 2035, it was always, always we’ve known this for decade. It’s going to be the period where the bulk of the people who were in that last ten year group go into mass retirement, and birth rates have been so low for so long. The replacement generation has come in at that ten year block is insufficient. 

So we’ve always known that this was about the window when the rules of the game are going to change and we enter a period of prolonged capital shortage. What we’ve seen with capital cost in the United States, roughly the quadrupling to quintuple in since 2000. It’s not because of things that the Federal Reserve has done. It’s not been because of the spendthrift policies of the Trump administration or the Biden administration. 

It’s simply America’s boomers, our largest generation ever, aging out of that 55 to 65 year block and into mass retirement, already two thirds are retired. And when you retire, you tend to shift your holdings into more conservative assets. So your stock and your bond markets tend to get liquidated. And you go into things like T-bills and cash and property that’s now happening on a global basis, which means that the balance among supply and demand and capital and labor is in the process of going through the greatest shift since at least the Columbus expeditions. 

And the idea that the economic models that we know and understand capitalism, fascism, European style socialism, the idea that those are still going to work on the other side when the balance of inputs has all changed, it’s kind of silly. So we need to try something new. And that means that the mandate for our monetary authorities, such as the Federal Reserve, are going to have to evolve. 

So having this conversation before we hit a crunch point, I think is a great idea. But the people who seem to want to lead that conversation are only interested in cheap credit for political reasons. And that’s a really bad starting place for all of this down, right? Chavista from Venezuela. 

So the question is, is whether or not there are enough people left in Congress, which is where this change would have to be adapted to lead a conversation. That is more talking about the future and the mechanics of how the world is going to be, rather than just worried about the two year election cycle. Color me dubious.

Key Economic Indicators to Watch: Retail Sales

Photo of a economic chart trending downward

The last time we discussed numbers to watch, we talked about first-time unemployment claims as a recession indicator. This time, we’re talking about retail sales as a key economic indicator.

Consumer activity accounts for some 65-70% of the US economy, so it is probably worth paying attention to. Retail sales give us a slice of the pie, covering purchases of goods and services. Sure, it doesn’t include housing, healthcare, and B2B transactions and it comes with a 6-week delay, but hey, beggars can’t be choosers.

Below is a link to the website where you can look at retail sales in the US.

Link: https://www.census.gov/retail/sales.html

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from Colorado. And today we’re going to take another question from the Patreon crowd. Specifically, how do I do what I do? And we’re going to talk about one of the economic statistics that I use to figure out where the world is going and what’s going on in the country at the moment. 

And that statistic is retail sales roughly 65 to 70% of the American economy is based on consumer activity. So anything that gives me some insight into that is something I’m all about. Retail sales is arguably the single largest chunk of that, but it’s nowhere near all of it. Retail sales is everything that you purchase, whether a goods or a service, up to and including vehicles. 

But it does not include things like health care and most importantly, housing, which for most people is their single largest expense. What it does is it gives us a relatively accurate picture in a sectoral breakdown on what Americans are spending their money on over a long period of time. So from a positive point of view, retail sales tells us what is up and how people are operating. 

But there are a couple really big drawbacks on the statistic. That means that you have to look at as one of a constellation of factors, rather than just the one thing that you look at. The first problem, in addition to, of course, the fact that it doesn’t include all spending like housing is it doesn’t include any sort of business activity. 

If it’s a business selling a service or good to another business that’s not in retail sales, it only covers business activities that go to consumers. So if you’re like me and you’re very concerned about an industrial and a manufacturing slowdown because of the Trump administration’s tariff policies, it’s not going to get you anything in retail sales. For that, you have to look for industrial construction spending. 

Second issue. It’s not a hard number. It’s an estimate based on surveys of thousands of companies. Which means that not only are you not getting a hard data point like you would with, say, first time unemployment benefits, which is another video we’ve done recently. 

It also means that it takes time to put it all together, because you have to wait for the month to complete, and then you do your surveys and your survey data back, and then you compile that into the overall number of retail sales. And so from the point that you start the process at the end of the month to the point that you have your final data point, it’s about six, almost seven weeks. 

So in just this last week, we got data finally about what went down in June and the June data was pretty good. It was a pretty strong expansion of retail activity, and after two months of negative growth, it was kind of a relief to see some activity with that probably meant is that we were on the backside of Trump’s just kidding. 

Tariffs where he originally had US high tariffs in April, which suppressed activity that continued into May, which suppressed activity. And then in May, he said, you know what, we’re going to give everybody a couple months to adapt to this, and we will revisit this in August. And so in June, the tariffs came off, people started spending again, and we got back to some version of normal, although I’m not sure what that word even means anymore. 

Anyway, June numbers came in looking pretty good, but we didn’t find that out until halfway through July. And again, it’s an estimate. So by the time we get to the other side of Trump’s tariff break in August, it’s not going to be until September that we have some idea of what’s going on. So it’s a great data point. 

It’s an estimate, it’s somewhat backward looking and it doesn’t give you the whole picture, but it’s better than nothing. So I watch it. And now with this QR code you can watch it to.

The Revolution in Military Affairs: Wars Without People

Image of a drone firing missiles

Unless we figure out how to make wights from Game of Thrones or find the Dead Men of Hunharrow from The Lord of the Rings, we’re going to have to figure out how to fight wars without (living) people.

As populations shrink and demographic structures grow top-heavy, military strategies will have to shift. We’re seeing drone tech control the battlefields in the Ukraine War, but defensive tools are limited to jamming or hoping someone makes a lucky shot on the damn things.

This has created huge swaths of uninhabitable marches; areas too dangerous to live in, but too contested to control. As drone tech proliferates and new wars breakout, these marches will likely become the new standard. Wars will be less about holding ground and more about denying function. That is, until the tech evolves again.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from an aspen glade in Colorado where it’s definitely hiking season. So I’m out and about. Today we are taking a question from the Patreon crowd that’s also going to apply to our drone series, A Future of Warfare series. The question is, in an age of terminal demographics, how does that shape military strategies and tactics? 

That goes perfect with the military? Revolution? We’re experienced with drone technology as new technologies, information transfer, energy transfer and digitization and material science combined to enter a completely new world of warfare. But before we talk about where we’re going, let’s talk about where we’ve been, because it’s really instructive. So if you dial back the clock like, really dial back the clock to the late dark ages, early Middle Ages, when the Mongols were starting to boil out of the eastern Eurasian steppe and sweep across the world, the new technology of the day massed cavalry charges and cavalry, information transport and cavalry driven trade, gave the Mongols a degree of speed, lethality that no one had experience in the human condition to that point. And over the course of a few decades, they just absolutely rampaged across, China and eastern Russia and eventually knocked off the Russian government in Moscow itself, as well as all of the areas in the step to the south. The issue was pretty simple. A bunch of dudes on horse, if they know what they’re doing, can go fast and free over the plains, come in, raid, kill a bunch of people and take what they want, and then gallop away and be over the horizon before any sort of interpretive infantry or archer force can ever do anything. 

So they do this over and over again, through over government, after government, after government, and eventually discovered that they could pack a little water with them and actually cross short periods of desert and attack from directions that no one had seen before. And there just weren’t any good defensive technologies to counter them. Well, eventually, after they killed enough people and destroyed enough governments, including what was the Russian government of the day, people started to develop counters, by hook or by crook? 

By accident. The first one was developed by the Russians, and that was basically just going to hide in the forest, because if you’re in a forest, it’s really hard to get a good straight line for a cavalry charge. The people would have to dismount. And since there were never more than a few tens of thousands of Mongols in the entire space of the former Mongol Empire, any time they did dismount to pursue people into the woods, they were always wildly outnumbered and wildly hated. 

And they didn’t last. So we got this zone where the Russians had retreated. Some of the Russians, the true Russians, if you want to use that term, had retreated north of Moscow into the Tay guy, where they were basically living off of lichen for three generations, and the Mongols, who controlled the open flats by the time the Mongols got to Europe proper, a different strategy, had been developed. And that was to be perfectly blunt. Fortifications. Doesn’t matter how fast your horses, doesn’t matter how good you are with a boar or a lance, if someone is behind a stone wall, you’re kind of out of luck and they’re just raining arrows down on you. So Europe entered their fortification era initially in Poland because of the Mongols or other reasons to have fortifications. 

But in this sort of system, you basically developed feudalism where everyone would run into the fortification when the Mongols or some dudes on horseback or bandits would show up, you’d wait them out, and then you’d go out, back out to your house and tend to the fields. And so everyone tried to store about a year of grain within the fortification so they could wait out a siege. 

That was the technology, the offensive versus defensive development of the day enter a world of demographic decline. And we are literally running out of people aged 50 and under who can say, pick up a rifle or a base plate in a mortar and march out into the field and do things. One of the problems when it comes to military technology is what happens the next day after the battle. 

And if you have a long, grinding conflict like most conflicts are, you have to be able to hold the ground and protect the civilian infrastructure that is necessary for the civilian population to exist. Otherwise, there’s no point in having a military in the first place. So back in the day, people would live in the forests. Not a great option, but the Russians have lower standards. 

Or you would run into the fortifications. In today’s world, the new horses of the plains are drones which can, on a tether, go ten kilometers out from launch point or without a tether can go maybe a thousand, even 1500. Those numbers will only go up. And if you have an opposing force that is in range of you, that has a lot of drones, they can basically make your terrain completely unlivable. 

So we’re probably going to see a resurrection of an old term that dates back to Roman terms, the march, areas that are on the edge of your terrain that you cannot reliably protect. But the opposing force coming in cannot reliably occupy. They’ll become a no man’s zone. 

We already have extensive territories like this in eastern and northeastern Ukraine, where the Russians have basically made it impossible for people to live or farm or maintain basic civic services. 

And the Ukrainians lack the manpower that’s necessary to reoccupy these lands to provide a buffer for the civilians. And so we’re getting an ever widening band that is becoming unlivable. Some version of that is in our future, unless and until we develop a better defensive technologies. Now, at the moment, if you want to take down a drone, your only option is a really good rifle shot, good luck or jamming, which generally only has a range of a few hundred meters if that. 

So we are very early into this transition, and the combination of less manpower to establish that buffer, combined with an insufficient defensive envelope to provide passive cover for that buffer, means that more and more territory across the planet is simply going to be unlivable because of conflict. You think that’s not going to come to a town near you? 

I hope you’re right. But keep in mind, we’re already seeing the echoes of the Ukraine war technology percolating throughout the European militaries across Africa. And really, the laggards here are everyone in the Western Hemisphere, where we haven’t had a meaningful war in well over a century. And honestly, we’re a little out of practice when it comes to actually protecting terrain. 

All of the conflicts that the United States has been involved in since World War One have been on a different continent, and that means we have prepared for different sorts of things. We have been the functional Mongols. We have been the ones that been writing fast but not really bothering to protect very much, with the exception of nuclear cover during the Cold War, which is a very important exception. 

But what it does suggest is that the state, the power of the state, is going to become significantly more potent as the ability to man an army becomes less capable. It’s going to be more about denying the other side the ability to function. Then it’s going to be about protecting your own until the technologies change again.