Everyone has seen Trump's antics during this period. First, last year he dropped a penetrating bomb on Iran, then special forces infiltrated Caracas, the capital of Venezuela, to capture the country's president. Perhaps you don't know that hundreds of fighter jets also destroyed Venezuela's air defense systems, and then helicopters were inserted. This was an action equivalent to declaring war.
Recently, it has been openly seizing Greenland and planning to send troops to Mexico to fight drug trafficking.
People who are a bit older might be a bit confused. The United States wasn't like this in their memory, right?
Previously, there was an implicit constraint on the United States. It needed to maintain an empire similar to the Roman Empire, which required including "morality" as part of it. It's somewhat like how the power of an ancient Chinese emperor was almost unlimited, but he would eventually be recorded in history books, so he couldn't act too outrageously. The evaluation in the history books became a soft constraint on imperial power, which is why Jiajing couldn't kill Hai Rui.
In fact, the United States inherited the style of Britain, quantifying morality and maintaining it if it benefited them. Let me give you an example to understand better.
During World War I, when Germany invaded Belgium, Britain quickly joined the war because it had guaranteed Belgium's neutrality—seemingly moral, but actually about interests. If the German army occupied Belgium, it would be adjacent to Britain, so Belgium was Britain's frontier.
Similarly, for Britain, when it came to securing the route to India, it directly sent troops to Iran without caring about sovereignty or international law.
This isn't double standards; the standard has always been the same—that is, it serves the interest of the British Empire. When Germany invaded Belgium, it threatened Britain, so Britain had to step in. When Russia could not get supplies through, it would collapse, putting pressure on Britain, so Britain had to take over Iran.
As you can see, maintaining morality, talking about rules, respecting international law, is not about moral superiority. The essence is based on a calculation: I follow these rules I set myself only if it's beneficial. Otherwise, who would do it? Of course, Britain did it relatively more restrained than countries like Russia, hence its better reputation. But restraint itself is also a calculation, and Russia has never really understood it well.
The United States basically continued Britain's strategy and has been practicing it all along.
It's a bit like a gang boss. When he was a small-time thug, he fought and killed. Once he became the boss, his catchphrase changed to "peace at all costs" and "follow the rules." Because rules benefit the boss. Everyone following the rules indirectly maintains the boss's position. Unless absolutely necessary, the boss himself won't break the rules.
According to this logic, the United States has always maintained the post-war dollar order, kept the shipping lanes open, cracked down on terrorism, and acted as an international police force. Essentially, it's like a gang maintaining order. The benefits are obvious, namely the "Pax Americana" (a specific English term) formed over the past few decades, and the United States has definitely reaped the benefits.
But there's no such thing as endless gains. All the benefits come with a cost.
The cost is that the empire keeps growing larger, from the Danube River to the 38th parallel, from the Middle East deserts to the Bering Strait—all are the empire's frontiers. There are military bases everywhere, and U.S. fleets patrol every shipping lane. Everywhere requires money. There are over 750 overseas U.S. military bases, and military spending accounts for 40% of the global total. When money runs out, it has to borrow, and the national debt has now surpassed $35 trillion.
As you can see, having a large empire comes with difficulties. It can be maintained when financially prosperous, but once it reaches the break-even point, things change, and strategies must be adjusted. Moreover, it feels that the global order it maintains allows China to ride the coattails, so it's even less willing to maintain it.
It's a bit like the Han and Tang Dynasties in China. When they had enough resources and strength, their imperial cavalry reached the Pamir Plateau, but soon found it too costly to maintain and pulled back. Other great empires, such as Spain and the Ottoman Empire, are also facing this problem now.
Trump is a bit like the role of Zhang Juzheng, the chief minister during the late imperial period. After he took office, he looked at the books and said, "This is absurd, income is less than expenditure. If we keep doing this, we'll never be able to repay the debts. We need to change."
To Trump, NATO, Japanese and South Korean garrisons, and the Middle East order are bad assets if they cannot be paid for immediately. Helping Ukraine is even more ridiculous. Two Soviet-style countries fighting to the death, a Slavic civil war, as a saying goes, this is good news. Why should we care? It threatens European security? What does that have to do with me? Additionally, perhaps you don't know, he already paralyzed the WTO.
In other words, these issues touch the core of all empires—the balance sheet, the cost-benefit ratio.
When an empire starts frequently breaking rules, it's a sure sign that the rules are no longer worth it for it. It's a bit like a gang boss who doesn't follow the rules himself, indicating he's probably going to leave, not planning to stay long.
How to change? Like the Han and Tang Dynasties in China, it's about shrinking the empire's borders, focusing on the core areas, and cutting costs as much as possible.
After World War I and II, the British Empire also faced this issue. It decisively gave up direct rule over colonies and instead used a loose framework like the Commonwealth to maintain influence—a successful "soft landing."
America's geopolitical advantages are still good. As people often say, it's flanked by two oceans and has no strong neighbors to the north and south. If the U.S. gives up the competition for Eurasia and retreats to the Americas, it will still be the strongest single pole in the world.
Moreover, after shrinking, it can abandon the carefully cultivated order and do many things it couldn't before under the guise of face and order.
What are those things? Clearing the surroundings of the core area and using extreme measures to intimidate opponents. Morality? I'm already giving up money and face, so why talk about morality with me?
Capturing Maduro? Not for anti-drug efforts, but to reassert absolute control over Latin America and prevent Chinese and Russian infiltration into the "backyard." It's likely that it will next target Cuba.
You may not know that the charge against Maduro is drug trafficking. At the moment, Maduro is often caught by DEA, and anyone who watches American TV knows that DEA is the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
Later, if any Latin American country refuses to comply, the U.S. could do what happened in Hong Kong movies: police plant flour in someone's bag and take them away for investigation.
Crackdown on drugs in Mexico? On the surface, it's about anti-drug efforts, but actually, it's telling South America that from now on, my military can go to your backyard, and you'd better get used to it—it's the new normal.
Seizing Greenland? Arctic resources and strategic channels are the geopositional pivot points for the next few decades.
In other words, instead of pouring money into the Middle East and Ukraine, Trump's team wants to focus resources on the Arctic (future shipping routes), the Caribbean (its backyard), and Mexico (labor and near-shoring manufacturing). Of course, Israel is also a pivot point in the Middle East and must be protected, just like Russia left Syria behind after withdrawing from the Middle East.
Many people have a wrong impression that Biden is "pro-Jewish" while Trump is "anti-Jewish." This is completely mixed up. In fact, Trump should be one of the most pro-Jewish presidents in U.S. history. He moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and acknowledging Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights—things no other president dared to do. Also, his daughter Ivanka and grandson are Jewish. Therefore, after he took office, he put tremendous pressure on the Palestinians.
This is no longer "leading the world," but rather building a closed, controllable, and self-sufficient imperial core. It's very similar to Byzantium abandoning Rome, Gaul, and Britannia, only holding Constantinople. The U.S. is abandoning the Middle East, Central Asia, and even some responsibilities in Europe, focusing on solidifying the "American fortress."
Moreover, when an empire's "authority" declines (people no longer believe in it or resist it), to maintain the same level of control, it inevitably increases the frequency of violence. Resist? Beat you until you submit. With decreasing funds, its behavior will become increasingly unseemly because "civilized" behavior is a luxury supported by fiscal surplus.
Let me give an inappropriate example. It's like a rich family's child misbehaves, and the parents might threaten to stop buying gifts, while a poor family would just hit them directly.
The U.S. may have already predicted that the integration of Eurasia (China, Russia, the Middle East, and even some independence in Europe) is irreversible.
Since it can't stop the rise of Eurasia, it aims to make the Western Hemisphere a solid block. Therefore, capturing Maduro and controlling Mexico, buying Greenland, are clearly not crazy actions but clearing its nearby frontiers.
The U.S. is clearly preparing to face a world without American leadership, so it wants to fully colonize and internalize the New World (the Americas). Trump's madness is actually fear, and he is desperately digging a moat.
Other symptoms are also clear. It doesn't want to spend money anymore, making allies pay for military expenses, such as continuously asking Europe to fund the Ukraine war. For example, when Houthi rebels blocked the Red Sea passage, internal U.S. recordings leaked, discussing calculations because that route is the main passage between Asia and Europe, and U.S. commercial ships rarely use it, so the U.S. doesn't want to get involved.
It's a bit like what? When the Great Roman Empire collapsed, the small Byzantine Empire rose. The Byzantines didn't want the glory of Rome because it was expensive and exhausting, but only wanted to protect their own small territory. There is a historical view in the U.S. that "it no longer tries to save the world, but only wants to protect its fortress in the chaos."
Looking at it over a long period, the current aggression of the U.S. is not because it is stronger, but exactly the opposite—it's because it is weak and about to leave.
Of course, everyone who has experienced stock market downturns knows that it won't keep falling forever. After a certain period of decline, it will rebound. The U.S. is likely to follow the same pattern. After Trump leaves, the next president may return to Eurasia for the sake of Wall Street interests, with little effect, and then continue to fall. Anyway, in the coming decades, it will go through a cycle of constant decline, rebound, and further decline.
Finally, the question is, will we be better off if the U.S. withdraws?
Probably not. Because we actually rely heavily on this system. If this system collapses, it won't bring us much benefit. Plus, rebuilding will require a lot of money and time. Combined with our existing problems like aging population and high debt, the next period is likely to be a difficult climb. However, like a strong stock, it moves up two steps and down one step, but the trend is clear. We are currently in a major upward wave, so sit tight and hold on.
End of the article. If you like it, please give it a thumbs up.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/7594651093003436582/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author.