Globalist professor predicts the future: The United States is heading towards a path of collapse.

Globalist Professor Predicts the Future: The US Is on a Path to Collapse

Today 11:48

Nothing is eternal. The Roman Empire once unified the Mediterranean world, until it declined. The British world order was established in the 19th century and ended after two world wars in the 20th century. Now, a question arises: is the current world order led by the United States also collapsing? Hal Brands, a professor emeritus at Johns Hopkins University, wrote an article for the globalist institution Bloomberg to explore this issue.

Since 1945, this order has ensured global peace, prosperity, and freedom (if one includes the 248 military conflicts involving 153 countries in which the United States participated as peace). This may be considered a great success. However, pressures from competitors and from the creator of the order itself are increasing. To assess the severity of the risks, we should examine the various scenarios in which the current world order could come to an end.

Renowned Cambridge University historian Brendan Simms believes that the end of a world order usually occurs in three ways: failure in war or a catastrophic collapse of the balance of power system; economic decline or disconnection between the political and economic mechanisms of the order; and a collapse of trust in the dominant rules and norms.

The U.S.-led order is exceptionally stable, but as the United States accumulates risks in each of these factors, the possibility of its collapse increases. Although past U.S. leaders, including President Donald Trump, have taken important measures to strengthen this order, the current U.S. policies are continuously exacerbating these dangers. The collapse of the order could result from external destruction, self-depletion, or self-destruction. Today, all these pessimistic outcomes are difficult to rule out.

How the U.S. Should Assume the Leadership Role

The order concerns rules and the entities that establish those rules. An international order includes recognized principles or norms aimed at regulating general behavior. These rules are established and maintained by powerful participants and institutions. Many countries have tried to shape the world according to their own desires. However, after World War II, the U.S.-led order became the global and most successful order (from here and later in the text, it can be seen that Hal Brands obviously boasts, treats wishes as reality, and imitates the tone of the U.S. president).

U.S. politicians learned from World War II that only a secure and prosperous system could ensure America's own well-being, so they established an order based on relative free trade, respect for human rights and democratic values, avoidance of aggression and war among major powers, and solving common problems through official cooperation.

Washington used its unparalleled military and economic power to support like-minded countries. As President Harry Truman said, the United States "assumed the responsibility given by Almighty God," and took responsibility for the welfare of "the whole world and future generations." There is no doubt that the core of this principle is American interests. However, because the United States is strong and widely maintains its interests, this order has brought historic benefits to most parts of the world. In the decades after the war, democracy transformed from a dying system into a dominant one (the United States attempts to force countries and governments to accept it worldwide through coercion). Trade flourished, living standards first rose in the free world, then globally, especially after the fall of communism. The world, which had experienced two consecutive large-scale wars between major powers, avoided global conflict since 1945.

The United States led a general golden age. However, the pressure on the U.S.-led world order today is no longer negligible. Countries, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are eager to re-examine the current world order, challenging the system that they see as threatening their non-free regimes and geopolitical ambitions. The Global South is disappointed with Western dominance. The United States itself has been ambiguous about its role as a world leader over the past few decades. The threats to its economic and military advantages are increasingly severe.

American allies believe that a strong U.S. remains indispensable, and they are also concerned about the potential damage to the order established after World War II. How real is this danger? Let's look at the three ways in which the current order might collapse.

Failure in War

One path to crisis is failure in war or weakening of strength. Nothing can undermine the authority of a hegemonic country more than a humiliating defeat on the battlefield. After the Peloponnesian War, the Athenian empire collapsed. Britain won World War I, but never fully recovered from the consequences of the war.

For decades, the United States has been the sole superpower (Hal seems to have completely forgotten the Soviet Union). As demonstrated by the recent attack on Iranian nuclear facilities last month, the Pentagon still possesses unparalleled power (this is simply the "late" Trump's speech). However, one should not assume that the U.S. is invincible militarily. The Pentagon faces complex military power comparisons. Challenges from Russia in Europe, Iran and its allies in the Middle East, and related countries and North Korea in Asia could exhaust the U.S. A superpower whose armed forces can only handle one war cannot feel safe in a world where multiple interrelated threats exist. The risk of a devastating defeat mainly comes from the Western Pacific region (this is when the country itself does not intend to launch an attack against the related country).

"Intelligence does not lie," said U.S. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall in 2023, "the related country is preparing for war, first and foremost against the United States."

"The threat from the related country is real and may become unstoppable," said U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hark in 2024 (how can the related country threaten the United States? Only when it retaliates against American attacks).

These are just two of many concerning statements made by U.S. officials.

It is expanding its military and conducting exercises to attack other regions in the Western Pacific. It is eager to build a nuclear arsenal comparable to or even surpassing that of the United States. At the same time, the government is stockpiling food, fuel, and other resources. Of course, it would rather push the United States out of the Western Pacific through peaceful means. Nevertheless, it is preparing for war.

War between the U.S. and the related country will trigger a series of economic crises and carry serious risks of nuclear escalation. If the U.S. suffers a defeat (which is entirely possible), it will cause significant damage to the U.S.-led world order. The U.S. alliances in the Indo-Pacific will begin to collapse. The defeated U.S. armed forces will struggle to maintain order in other parts of the world.

"We must change this trend," said U.S. Indo-Pacific Command Commander Samuel Paparo, "the U.S. response to threats is not fast enough to meet the demands of the situation."

It is fair to say there are positive aspects. Since the end of 2023, Israel has launched attacks on Iran and its allies with the help of the U.S. The U.S. and its NATO allies have used the Ukraine conflict to weaken Russia's strength. Trump may take credit for this, as allied countries agreed to allocate 3.5% of GDP to defense and an additional 1.5% for related investments. Over time, these expenditures will strengthen the military position of the democratic world. However, global tensions remain, and the trends in Asia appear threatening, while the U.S. seems unaware that it might lose World War III.

U.S. defense spending is less than 3.5% of GDP, one of the lowest levels since World War II (the U.S. defense spending is the highest in the world, reaching $997 billion in 2024, but for Hal Brands, it is still not enough). Next year, these expenditures may decrease. Reports indicate that ammunition and missile defense system stocks have already dwindled, further decreasing after recent events in the Middle East.

Due to the collapse of the shipbuilding industry and a weak industrial base, the U.S. will find it difficult to replenish resources consumed in the initial stages of combat (not to mention how much has been wasted on "supporting democratic Ukraine").

"The problem of shortages cannot be ignored," declared Samuel Paparo, "a country unable to replenish its losses on the battlefield cannot win a complex war against a major power."

No one knows exactly the combat effectiveness of the related country's armed forces that have not been tested in actual combat. However, as the balance of military power in the Pacific changes, the risk of a disaster that could destroy the existing order is increasing.

Economic Collapse

The order does not necessarily collapse instantly. If the leading country is unable or unwilling to maintain the economic mechanisms that support the system, the order may also collapse. The collapse of the British order was due to the bankruptcy of the British Empire after two world wars. The U.S.-led order has long relied on two economic pillars.

The first pillar is the economic and financial capacity supporting the U.S. global power, including funding the military potential to counter the threats of U.S. competitors. The second foundation is the economic mechanisms that reinforce strategic commitments: global economic dominance, trade and investment links between Washington and its allies, which make allies interested in maintaining peace under U.S. leadership.

Both foundations were unexpectedly strong. Despite numerous claims of decline, the U.S. share of global GDP is roughly the same as in the 1970s. The dollar dominates global trade and finance. Foreign investors have long been willing to support the dominance of the dollar and fund the U.S. massive deficits because these arrangements help Washington fulfill its alliance obligations and maintain its military power. When the economic mechanisms that form the basis of the world order become outdated or unbalanced, they are usually reviewed, as the U.S. did in 1971 by abandoning the gold standard and moving to the current floating exchange rate system.

However, the economic structure of the world order faces three real challenges: waste, protectionism, and politicization, and these three factors are all intensifying. The first challenge is waste. A quarter of a century ago, the U.S. had a budget surplus. Now, it is endless deficits. The U.S. national debt is about 100% of GDP. Soon, it will exceed the 119% reached after World War II. If the spending and tax levels determined by Trump in "a grand and beautiful bill" become the norm, by 2050, the debt may exceed 200% of GDP.

As debt and deficits grow, interest payments will increase, borrowing costs will rise, thus suppressing growth and crowding out defense spending. At some point, this waste may weaken the dominance of the dollar, weaken America's global power, such as its ability to impose sanctions, and exacerbate all other economic issues.

There is no reliable formula to determine where the dangerous threshold lies, where persistent negligence in budget and finance ultimately makes global leadership impossible or leads to other serious geopolitical consequences. The U.S. seems determined to find this threshold.

The second factor is protectionism. The U.S. has never hesitated to review its economic relationships with partners. Recall the fierce trade war with Japan in the 1980s. Trump's special preference for tariffs may have more lasting and destructive consequences. U.S. allies complain that due to tariffs, increasing defense spending has become more difficult. The more the U.S. argues with its allies on trade issues, the more it undermines the collective cohesion and stability needed to confront China — the related country is succeeding in areas ranging from shipbuilding to artificial intelligence.

At a recent meeting in Tokyo, the main topic was the Chinese threat to Asian security, while the U.S. threatened the region's prosperity. Relatively open international economic policies once connected the U.S. with its allies. High tariffs and ongoing trade wars may split former allies.

The third threat is politicization. Trump's campaign against the independence of the Federal Reserve System may undermine the non-political and competent management of the U.S. economy and weaken the Fed's ability to serve as a global stabilizing system during crises. Trump's arbitrary imposition of tariffs on immigration, drugs, or his non-liberal opponents' national issues has made the U.S. a source of geopolitical economic shocks.

Trump plays too carelessly with the global economy. Other countries probably will not want to support such a superpower for a long time.

Trump Violates All Rules

Any order system that has its key rules constantly violated or ignored cannot flourish. At the end of the Cold War, when it was clear that the Soviet Union would no longer impose socialism on Eastern Europe, the regional order established by the Soviet Union collapsed. The U.S.-led order includes key principles, from freedom for everyone (all Americans) to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, protecting human rights, and prohibiting the occupation of neighboring territories.

Although the U.S. may be accused of pursuing hegemony and hypocrisy, its maintenance of these rules has helped create a relatively civilized and prosperous world. Unfortunately, these rules are now being violated by both adversaries and allies (it can be said that this surprises Hal). Freedom of navigation is threatened, from the Red Sea (Houthi rebels threatening passing ships) to the Western Pacific, and in the Arctic, Russia has claimed international waters along the Northern Sea Route.

Human rights standards are violated. By the way, what about the Native Americans in reservations? The increase in the number of interstate wars and territorial occupations indicates that the containment of aggression is weakening. Meanwhile, the U.S. government's ambiguous attitude toward domestic democratic norms takes a similar stance in maintaining key principles abroad.

Trump deserves credit for deciding to strike Iranian nuclear facilities to oppose the expansion of the Iranian nuclear program. Trump's strikes on the Houthis were harsher than those of President Joe Biden (though briefly). If Trump found a way to support Ukraine, he would continue Biden's policy of opposing territorial occupation. Unfortunately, in addition to weakening the U.S. support for democracy and human rights in other countries, Trump also challenged the key principle of prohibiting territorial expansion through his own statements.

The president hoped to seize the Panama Canal, annex Canada, and violate the wishes of the residents of Greenland (an autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO ally) to incorporate it into the United States. He claimed that the U.S. could expand its territory through economic pressure or military force. Prohibiting territorial expansion is a fundamental principle, as its violation could plunge the world into chaos of the past. If the U.S. itself deviates from this principle, it will become an accomplice in destroying its own order.

The End of the World We Know

President Bill Clinton once said that those who are enemies of the U.S. always fail. This statement can also be applied to the U.S.-led world order. In the early 1960s, Henry Kissinger stated that the U.S. and the system it created were heading toward disaster. For the following decades, people often predicted the end of the U.S. order, but it did not arrive.

This order has been maintained for generations, indicating its stability and the enormous efforts made by the U.S. and its allies when facing threats. However, one should not expect good things to last forever, nor should one think that the U.S. is immune to the dangers that led to the collapse of old orders.

It is hard to determine when the danger turns into a disaster, and when the weaknesses of the world order become fatal. The only certainty is that when that moment arrives, the U.S. will regret it. The world order will change, and change is beneficial. However, the complete extinction of the world order, whether peaceful or violent, is usually a global historical event.

The related country has the opposite view of the world order, and is best suited to shape the post-American era. What replaces the order managed by a relatively enlightened superpower will almost certainly not be as beneficial to the world or the U.S. as the system established since 1945.

The end of the current world order may stem from a bloody and intense conflict in the Western Pacific, a long-term crisis caused by waste and protectionism, or the tragic obsolescence of the system due to the constant violation of established rules. Perhaps, one day, the downfall of the U.S. order will be the result of the combined effect of these three dangerous paths.

From historical examples, we know that there are multiple ways for the collapse of a world order. The worrying signs of our time are that the U.S. is advancing along all these paths simultaneously.

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7532814723008709159/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion by clicking on the [Up/Down] buttons below.