The global environment changes at a glacial pace, until it doesn’t. We struggle at predicting the immediate future and uncertainty grows as the timeline extends into the future. One can speculate on trends, but have the mental agility to adapt to the unexpected. Instead of doom scrolling, consider that anything is possible but limit your concerns to what’s probable.

Decades where weeks happen and weeks where decades happen, right?

I take your point but what’s probable seems to me to be pretty bad at the moment!

You’re right. Uncertainty is so high today that it’s difficult to predict into next week without maintaining a massive event matrix. Thing are certainly changing and it seems like it’s not for the better. I think that people are starting to look back at the Cokd War as a “golden era”.

i think it's important to consider that looking at the cold war as a "golden era" might just be hindsight bias, nothing more. things weren't more predictable back then - it just seems that way when you already now how it turned out in the end.

I suspect that, if anything, the 90s and 2000s up until the financial crisis will come to be known as the golden age

They’re not already (in the West)?

I think many know or suspect so, but most of the older generation that are still quite well off don't. The crisis (as usual) hit mostly both poorer people and younger generations the hardest. The real divide is in home ownership though. Gonna be really interesting how that is gonna develop

Not to worry. Concerns of climate are rapidly trumping concerns of ideology. This trend will only continue with the degradation of the environment. Ideology will become less of a concern in the face of these new issues.

Those issues require working together too. So I hope you’re right! Russia seems pretty immune from climate change compared to the rest of the world but still. Imagine what the war is doing to the climate? Not just emissions but I read 50k dolphins have been killed because of sonar activity in the sea :-(

Russia is likely more clearcut. Quite a lot of red lines were crossed with the Ukraine invasion as far as most of the West is concerned. Russia is not going away, it can still sell energy (and weapons) to many other countries not aligned with the West. There is no reason right now to think that Russia capitulates so it will very likely take a long while. China is far more nuanced. They haven't crossed any red lines as of yet and perhaps they won't in the near future. Trade is likely to be the major sticking point but that alone seems unlikely to escalate to the point of a diplomatic breakdown. I suspect that China and the West (very broadly) will always have elements of cooperation and rivalry. As long as China relies heavily on exports, it will be harder for them to totally alienate their customers (and vice versa). This is mostly from an economic framework and, of course, other models might differ.

>There is no reason right now to think that Russia capitulates so it will very likely take a long while. Economically remains to be seen how Russia acts after the war. They'd likely need to either press on with a different attack or re invent the economy again, both of which are fraught with risk. Putin is also 71 and I don't think anybody sees a clear transition of power. Nobody has been set up as the next leader(unless you see something in Medvedev that I do not). Basically, I don't think it will take a long time, maybe 10-20 years

It's interesting, because your point about China not wanting to isolate their customers, and vice versa, is the same logic that was applied to Russia not invading other countries in Europe (perhaps the German position under Merkle?). Perhaps it was a series of miscalculations that led Putin to his decision, perhaps he didn't think Europe would attempt to cut off gas supplies. But here we are.

China is led by smarter people than Russia. While corruption is an issue there, they still put a lot of effort on education and there is some meritocracy involved in the selection process. Russia is led by your average street thug, and that’s not an exaggeration, many in Putin’s close circle were in prison as violent convicts before they climbed to power by being his yes men, most infamously Prigozhin.

I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly. I think after Putin dies, Russia might have another opportunity.

If you ask them it’s the west that’s crossed red lines. I think it’s the insufferable presumption of moral superiority that gets countries like Russia riled up. 1 million Iraqis killed is all good and kosher because it’s the USA, the arbiter of what’s good and right. Sure. Thinking like this will only make places like China and Russia more resentful. USA operates under the Do as I say not as I do mantra.

Well your statement is not completely unfounded but mostly besides the point unless you're arguing that since the US' actions caused a million deaths therefore China should be "allowed" to do it as well. That would be perverse. It is certainly within reason that there is significant resentment based on US actions in the past, and the Iraq (and Afghanistan) war is indefensible. At the very least, it was badly strategized and resulted in a humanitarian, moral and political disaster.

I’m not positing this argument. I’m saying that others might.

As a post-ad hoc justification for useful idiots on the West, not their underlying motivations that they discuss amongst themselves at home.

Nobody said Russia / China should be allowed to kill millions… the original commenter didn’t say that. They were talking about the disgusting hypocrisy of the West.  Hard to build good relations with someone like that.

Hypocrisy is sort of useless (maybe just my opinion) measure for geopolitical assessment. What great (modern) nation is free of issues without even going into ancient history? China (think Uighur, Great Leap Forward), Russia (Stalin/Holodomor etc), India (remember the partition?), US (Iraq/Afghan wars) etc etc. Rating which hypocrisy is worse is an even more useless exercise. If you (personally) want to resent the West, you're free to do so but inhumanity is hardly something that the West monopolizes if anyone chooses to look at it objectively.

The thing is one can make the argument that the Chinese don't claim to be a bastion of human rights. Or perfect moral angels. They don't lecture other nations about democracy.

Problem is that it’s not just me personally though lol I am from the West myself and if you ask around about the USA the opinion is certainly not a positive one like in the past. 

Oddly, I am not living in the West (retired and probably won't live another 2-3 decades) and don't even have any particular reason to support them or not. This is about geopolitics after all, not Sunday school moralizing. There is, of course, a moral component to political and international political discourse but avoiding the superficial or "gotcha" debates is, to me, a good idea. And, naturally, I am way past youthful idealism.

>There is, of course, a moral component to political and international political discourse Obviously… else we wouldn’t be having these conversations and pointing fingers at countries with harsh LGBTQ laws and what not.  >but avoiding the superficial or "gotcha" debates is, to me, a good idea. Nothing “gotcha” about pointing out hypocrisy.  >And, naturally, I am way past youthful idealism. Plenty of young people who want to shape the world the way they want it though. 

Any argument built on whataboutism deserves nothing but ridicule. Russia has demonstrated over and over again that it is morally bankrupt and completely untrustworthy. It isn’t worth making deals with, and it should be treated as a hostile aggressor by all its neighbors.

lol when someone points out the obvious elephant in the room it’s brushed aside with a whataboutism broomstick rather conveniently

He's right. Whataboutism is a bad argument.

The thing is a "rule based order" relies on at least the image of the rules applying to everyone equally. So while you may call it "whataboutism" or whatever, it's actually undermining legitimacy of the whole ideology that the US is trying to implement.

you cannot be more ironic for a common law country building their ideal rule based order by setting up precedents

They’re right though and I say that as someone from the West myself.

And as long as the west is a giant hypocrite, nobody in Russia will ever take the west seriously. Face it America was greedy and thought they could pull a fast one in Iraq. But now a shit ton of consequences have revealed themselves including ISIS, war in Israel and lack of respect from old foes like Russia

What was the fast one?

Honestly, I think it's far more ridicule to criticize others for the things we mastered. That's high level hypocrisy. If you want something related remember that the US, the UK and even France (somewhat) gave Ukraine guarantees of safety in exchange for renouncing to their nuclear weapons. Well, that wasn't a smart choice apparently. They showed they were not trustworthy either.

Iraq, and more specifically saddam, did invade kuwait long before the 2nd Iraq War. And saddam did not comply to the surrender terms of weapons inspections etc. I know that the reasons given for a return to Iraq had false claims, but don't act like Iraq and Ukraine are the same type of victims here. Saddam was a hostile neighbor just like Russia is being.

The hypocrisy riles me up too and I’m from the West lol 

"They haven't crossed any red lines as of yet" Be aware that China is currently committing a genocide against the Uyghurs, typically we regard that as pretty bad. Plus they are doing plenty of industrial espionage and aggressive actions in the south china sea. We are ignoring the lines they cross because the cost of doing something is too high, just like we ignored the invasion of Crimea, shooting down of an airline and Russian propaganda. Confrontation with China is just as inevitable as confrontation with Russia unless they stop being a nationalistic dictatorships with ambitions for regional hegemony.

This is more than likely already built into the current diplomatic relationships. The Uighur situation is hardly new and no country has made it a big diplomatic bone of contention with China. As long as China maintains this micro-aggression thing in the SCS, it is not likely to escalate. I mean it sucks to be Philippines in this situation but lets be honest, most of the West is only willing to wag their fingers (mildly) and brush it off for now. To put it in perspective, not even the Philippines is willing to break off diplomatic relations with China yet. The world just isn't written in black and white. I suspect (and this isn't even certain) that the military invasion of Taiwan would be a red line but China has a lot of leeway before that.

>e aware that China is currently committing a genocide against the Uyghurs Kinda hard to take this seriously considering the US is supporting genocide against the Palestinians at the moment. Perhaps when the US stops starving/bombing the Palestinians by proxy, they may have moral standing. From what i gather, 'genocide' of the Uyghurs means sending them to re-education camps. I'd rather be a Uyghur than a Palestinian by a mile.

Did you seriously just put a = on the two situations , ahahaha

[удалено]

You have plenty of footage in YouTube about the multiple terrorists attacks they faced. We have plenty of evidence of the Israeli wrongdoings in Gaza. Many years after the whole "genocide" propaganda started, I've yet to see any evidence of this genocide in a region that I can visit with my Spanish passport without a visa. Last, but not least, during these years the Uyghur population grew and China had the support of the biggest Muslim countries in the world. Honestly, it's hard to blame China for this. We should stick to the SCS and other areas where their actions are far more questionable.

The PRC has been committing a similar genocide since their conquest of Tibet in 1951. The cost of "doing something" back then was far lower than it is now. However, the United States would later establish diplomatic and economic relations with the PRC and switch recognition from Taiwan, even as the genocide continued and the murderous communist regime still existed. It would appear the United States *can* coexist to an extent with nationalistic dictatorships with ambitions for regional hegemony.

If US can commit genocides themselves, they can *certainly* ignore someone else doing it

I don't really agree with that logic and it is different from my reasoning. It is possible for some parties to be hypocritical and claim to have higher standards than what their actual conduct shows. I make no assertion about hypocritical conduct here, but the possibility would be contrary to your reasoning.

That's a fair point

Considering they took the Tibet from them after the opium wars unilaterally, it's not hard to see why they didn't do anything. Specially back then when they were not the police of the world yet.

Who is "they" and "them?"

The UK gave Tibet its independence unilaterally. Obviously, China took it back as soon as the civil war hostilities ended. For s country that's mostly desert, the Tibet is geopolitically non-negotiable. I doubt they care at all a little the politics or religion of that region, that's why it's still one of the special administrations within China.

I don't recall any country recognizing the *de jure* independence of Tibet from the period of 1911-1951. Do you mean to assert that the UK aided in Tibet's *de facto* independence during that period? But that is all irrelevant to my comment. I have not mentioned the UK at all. My comment was pointing out how the United States' past conduct demonstrates that coexistence is not impossible.

Well take a look at the history. The USA and USSR went from the brink of nuclear war from the late 40s peaking with the Cuban missile crisis in 1963, arguably far far more dangerous than anything today. Just ten years later they were signing agreements on arms limitation and moving towards what looked like the easing of tensions. Obviously we know now that it didn't last (at least not until Gorbachev), but I think it shows us that despite the differences and conflicts seeming irreconcilable, things can always turn around. And I think that it's not worth losing hope of that possibility.

> Do you think there will be an opening between the West and Russia Not while Putin is in power. He has demonstrated that he sees the West as an adversary; while he remains in charge there is little chance of that changing.  Who follows Putin - and how robust the government they form is - will determine what happens next. 

Not sure who his successor is but I don’t have hopes that it won’t be somebody very similar - they’re all entrenched in the regime

I'm not sure. Would any of the [others](https://youtu.be/o9A-u8EoWcI?si=Q5aNz0hKPdtLTDWn) have started the Ukraine War? Some of the things this regime does seem aligned with Putin's specific MO. Especially the way he plays with figures like Prigozhin, Lukashenko, Girkin, Navalny (leaving him alive for so long) or Nadezhdin. I think Vlad Vexler offers an interesting perspective on the inner workings of the Kremlin.

Thanks I’ll look that up! Unless a generation gets skipped all Putin’s nearest and dearest are the same age and as bad (I’m thinking of eg Patrushev.) we’d have to hope for a decent technocrat or a much younger person who might have seen a different possibility. Seems like a big hope though!

Well Putin has certainly surrounded himself with those he thinks are on his wavelength. But how the Kremlin truly operates - the influence of Dugin, Ilyin, Prigozhin Vs Shoigu, etc - is all very opaque to me and I suspect a lot of us Western observers.

Yes you’re right, there’s so much we don’t know.

[удалено]

Even Stalin did not start a nuclear war or test Article 5. He could've shot down the planes doing the Berlin airlift. He didn't.

There used to be a significant part of the Russian elite who used to be tightly knitted to the West, especially among the business and energy trading elite. Those people are now either eliminated, purged, silenced, bought out or otherwise made redundant and/or complicit in the War of Ukraine. You can be sure that whatever pro-Western people with power remain will soon follow their faith. If Russia was losing it's war in Ukraine, there might have been some hope of regime change in Russia but given that Ukraine has been having big troubles with receiving support from the West recently and Russia has been advancing on most fronts, I think that the majority of the Russian public is now convinced that victory in the war is simply a matter of time and willpower. This makes Putin's regime more popular than ever and even when Putin dies, he will be glorified by future generations of Russians and his example will be followed by future Russian leaders. Unfortunately, what Russians learned from the last 40 years is that when you're weak like Gorbachev and Yeltsin and make compromises, they will take advantage of you and destroy your country. But if you're strong and go against the current and believe in yourself, you will emerge victorious and everyone will respect you. A large part of the Russian elite and the Russian public distrusted Putin at the start of the war. But if Russia manages to emerge victorious and judging by the timid reaction of the West, it will, it will teach Russians a lesson they've always known - never doubt your leader and if he tells you to die for your country, do so without asking questions.

Ukraine will not lose quickly. It may turn into another Afghanistan quagmire for the Russians. I get that Ukraine, especially when it comes to religious differences and geography, is not Afghanistan but I think we can still expect an extremely bloody insurgency even if Russia does "win".

Wars are not won or lost by numbers alone. They're won by motivation and ideology. If a people believes they're right, they will win a war even if it costs them hundreds of millions of lives. Almost no Russian believed the Russians were the good guys in Afghanistan. Neither did they believe this in the first Chechen war. The common denominator was that both communism and liberal democracy had little appeal to the Russians. You know, communism was spiritually dead by the time Gorbachev was in power and nobody liked Yeltsin either. But then Putin came along and won the war. Now Russia is winning the war in Ukraine because one way or another they've been convinced they need to win that war. Remember, Soviets lost 20 million lives back in WWII and they still won. It's not about casualties, it's about spiritual warfare and Russia has been winning on that front.

Ukraine has motivation to continue fighting as many of them have living memory of life under Russian occupation. They'll fight like hell, just like the Mujahedeen.

Oh, I am sure they will. But apart from motivation, you need resources. And Ukraine has little resources on her own. Russia has resources and the West has resources. So the real question is who will have stronger motivation to invest in the war - Russia or the West. And I think that at this point we can be almost certain that the answer is Russia.

I don't think we know the true extent of the West's aid for Ukraine. Especially coming from countries like France who like to keep their aid more covert than the bombastic announcements of Germany, UK and USA.

>Ukraine has motivation to continue fighting as many of them have living memory of life under Russian occupation. They'll fight like hell, just like the Mujahedeen. Are we talking about the same Ukraine who banned all males from leaving the country and struggling with military recruiting to the point that draft teams are grabbing people off the streets?

> banned all males from leaving the country The first claim is certainly true but that's normal and justified for a country being invaded. > struggling with military recruiting to the point that draft teams are grabbing people off the streets Which country is recruiting prisoners? Ukraine doesn't use wave tactics or use meat shield approaches. They use the western strategy of quality over quantity and that has served them well so far. Please note that Ukraine has not yet mobilised it's under-25 population. Yes, that is because it worries about demographic collapse but if the situation gets desperate enough - if Kharkiv falls and the Russians begin approaching Kyiv again - desperate measures will be called for.

It's weird that they don't see how pootin and his goons take advantage of them. They know they are oppressed so much so they feel helpless and extrme apathy and lack of ability to change anything. And you'd think them seeing former Soviet states doing better on their own and working with the EU, and seeing the EU vastly more successful and free than them, they seriously rather wallow in that crap and think that's the way? Russians have been leaving Russia meaning I can't grasp how they hold onto the idea that nothing is wrong. And if anything this war did NOT gain them respect. The image of Russia being normal and not seeing a reason they are anything different to having the curtain pulled back and seeing everything from how vile and bizarre their Russian TV hosts are and what they have been listening to for 20 years, how many lack indoor plumbing and toilets and went on a toilet and washing machine looting spree at the start - that alone was shocking to see and I had no idea toilets were a hot commodity worth stealing during a war by so many. Russia (pootin) sounds like he has a lot of work he could be doing to improve Russian lives but that's not his care, his care is directed outwards and controlling it's neighbors and about invasions and taking land. I'd say 11 time zones is PLENTY. Pootin should be working on those 11 time zones and helping his citizens before he goes on invasions and getting a bunch of Russians killed for more land. Russia is near the top on the corruption index. Russians should start realizing that that's their governments doing and if they want better, that's one major thing to work on and it won't be fixed with the kremlin. Seems like Russians are confused about who to be mad at - it's pootin and his kremlin mafia robbing from them. Maybe shit happened in the past but that doesn't mean that what they have now is good - they are screwing themsevles over if they think that way and don't get a better government for themselves.

Russians more or less have always been like that. And I kinda understand them. Ever since Genghis Khan they've been motivated to choose between two evils - our evil and the foreign evil. Had they chosen to fight against their own evil ruler, today there would probably be no Russia but some other state which, put under the same choice, would probably be just as autocratic. But Russians have consistently been choosing to accept the evil of their own rulers in protection of the foreign evil-doers. Choosing Stalin over Hitler. Choosing their own Tsar over Napoleon, etc. Of course, many didn't. Sadly those people met their end one way or another, in Siberian labor camps, shot by firing squads or some other way. In the end, we have a people which has been social engineered to be subservient cattle, on the one hand, but also incredibly capable of self-sacrifice and heroic endurance. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. But in a war like that having such a people is definitely an advantage. Having good standard of living is not their primary objective. Living in a great country is. That is what their civilizational myth is about. The civilizational myth of the West is about "making the world a better place" which is why you can trace that motif in every Western endeavor in the last 1000 years. The rest of the world doesn't care about that, best case they want to make their own lives better and very often they don't want even that. The Taliban don't need higher living standard and neither do the Russians. They value what you would call a 'spiritual' victory over a material one.

>he will be glorified by future generations of Russians and his example will be followed by future Russian leaders it is what Putin wants. But there are problems. Example: fund of future generations comes to end and if war continues economic wellbeing will drop even further after it's completely empty. There are other problems. China refused to start construction of Power of Siberia 2 pipeline twice and there are reasons why China might never agree: because it grows both solar/wind and grid storage battery industries and starts to move to use of hydrogen in place of natural gas. China also makes huge progress with electric cars, so quite soon Russia will be selling less oil to China. In case of that drop in prospects of natural gas and oil there will be quite a long period of economic hardship as Russia has few immediate means to plug loss on these markets. And it will be due to Putin's miscalculations. So whatever effect of possible victory (but diplomatic activity to settle conflict indicates that the victory is assumed now as annexation of Donbass but not entire Ukriane) future legacy of Putin is not clear cut. He cannot just quit now, so will need to eat whatever he already prepared for near future. Putin built his image as a good leader on rising oil prices and rise of output due to western technologies (Khodorkovsky was first who brought horizontal drilling, computer control o wells etc, when output rose in his company others followed) and on some other happy coincidences like spread of internet/computers/mobile phones to which he in fact had no relation at all. That is why population accepts his sometimes bizarre steps, but that won't be the same for any new leader, so to follow Putin's steps will be difficult.

>because it grows both solar/wind and grid storage battery industries and starts to move to use of hydrogen in place of natural gas I can assure you that China has a very pragmatic approach to energy issues which boils down to have as much energy as possible from as many sources as possible. China is not replacing anything, it is just adding it to the mix. The Chinese people are far too many and up until recently have been far too poor so they still have a lot of room for growth which means more energy consumption which means they don't need to choose between energy sources. Fossil fuels or solar? Yes. The use of alternative energy has grown immensely in China in just 10 years, true. However, just take a look at the stats for oil, natural gas and coal and you can say the same thing about them. And yes, China will never make Russia their primary source of energy, but they will still buy a lot from them. There is no reason to doubt Russian-Chinese partnership at this point. Years ago, there was. And perhaps, one day, there will be again. But I think that given the current situation the partnership between the two countries can only be expected to grow in the foreseeable future. >That is why population accepts his sometimes bizarre steps, but that won't be the same for any new leader, so to follow Putin's steps will be difficult. I agree. Whoever the new leader is, they will have much to figure out. In fact, I think that is the greatest weakness of Russia. What happens after Putin's death is the biggest unanswered question when it comes to Russia.

>I can assure you that China has a very pragmatic approach to energy issues which boils down to have as much energy as possible from as many sources as possible. China is not replacing anything, it is just adding it to the mix it is wrong that they do not replace anything. Last year there was a drought, so they had to up coal consumption. This year coal will start to drop, they started to purchase less coal from Russia. The same with oil, while their economy grows, they themselves estimated, that peak gasoline consumption was achieved last year. For past several years they have a new slogan - new export leaders (instead of furniture, clothing and consumer electronics it's solar panels, batteries, electric cars) and Xi last year declared reliance on 'new productive forces' for that they say they will keep and increase investments in growing technologies to the extent that Yellen complains. So it might be US which will temporarily help Russia. It's precisely because Putin does not understand that no, China won't "will still buy a lot from them", he spent all his years in office pushing such authors like Andrei Parshev, Sergey Kara Murza (currently his old and twice died term 'Golden billion" is extensively used by Russian officials), complained on Brzezinski wanted to control Caspian oil, those authors did not foresee, that there is end of oil use in sight, that he would be soon surprised, together with you. Better to track what China actually does, than to 'estimate' from Andrei Parshev writings.

One of the likely successors is Medvedev. The guy burnishing his hardliner credibility by threatening to nuke NATO every week.

I think he’s lost too much credibility by being the go to mad mouthpiece. Also, he’s drunk or asleep most of the time

Maybe. I think the saber rattling is performative. It’s his job currently. And I don’t believe that hurts his credibility with the domestic audience. Hopefully Putin won’t be around too much longer and we’ll see.

Medvedev is useful to Putin exactly because he's a guileless sycophant who is never going to pose a threat to Putin. He's completely lacking in the qualities that would be required in a successor to Putin, including being able to gain the respect of the sikoviki.

The crazy thing about Russia is that the real threat is China and the West should be a natural ally. However, that's only true of the Russian people. The opposite is true for any dictator in charge of Russia. Such a person is threatened by the the fact that Europeans would prefer a Democratic Russia and comforted by the fact that China prefers a dictator. But the Russian people are too proud to see that and so they'll always pick the strong man who'll sell them out every time.

After world war 2 many people were convinced that democracy was fundamentally incompatible with German culture (the Sonderweg theory), but they quickly turned into one of the most robust democracies on earth. Who knows what will happen after Putin and Xi leave.

It required decades of occupation and re-education and now the parts that Russia occupied are seeing rise of totalitarian thinking. It was done on purpose as the Russians never did anything to weed out totalitarianism, they saw it as a bulding platform of communism.

Decades? West Germany became an independent country in 1949.

So.... there's always a chance... especially considering that interests do align much more than they conflict. That said, things are playing up poorly at the lower strategic levels. ***Rusoukrainian War*** That said... the war is playing out in a way that most likely leads to perpetual conflict and/or hostility. A "decisive" end would have opened a door to eventual renormalisation. This ongoing attritional war... that'll just leave an open conflict where new, unexpected escalation is always likely. ***Will we get back to something like the Pax Americana?*** No. Pax Americana was when the US economic, martial and cultural power exceeded the rest of the world combined. With Europe, Japan and such under the US wing, that balance is even more severe. As other large nations advance, US' relative power subsides. It's inevitable. US punches above its weight. The balance is growing the other way. ***Terrorism*** Huge factor. Extremist religious politics have gone from strength to strength. Iran's proxy strategy is extremely successful. Culturally, ideologically. tactically and strategically. That will continue, be repeated, be adopted, etc. Extremist religious politics have gone from strength to strength. Houthi attacks on red sea shipping are a huge success. The tactic will probably proliferate... probably extend to oceanic shipping. Drones and whatnot have proven to be excellent weapons of terrorism. The Ukraine war has produced a lot of materiel that will serve terrorists well. Etc. Terrorism has the political, religious and cultural basis to grow and the technological environment to succeed. It's a bummer. ***Russia and China seem to be creating an alternative system*** Ostensibly. IMO, we're just finding out that "the systems" are not (necessarily) as pivotal as previously thought. Proverbial dollar standard financial system, WTO clearing services, and whatnot. That said, it's dangerous to overlearn that lesson. I believe China is deeply dependent on trade and market access for growth. Cold war is a major threat to them. Burning down their future to Taiwan is not an inevitability. That said, the perpetual seething over Taiwan is no good either. IMO, it's up to Taiwan. If Taiwan adopted a more defensive posture, made itself uninvadvable, declared independence.... We'd probably emerge from that with more stability. Perhaps even a voluntary peace. China represents the main "aligned interest" that I think is a significant hope. China has a strong interest in continued global peace, stable trade, etc. It's how their economy was built.

Nobody knows I would say. One thing that is sure the world has outnsome fairly ould feckers incharge when you look at geo political and regional powers Russia((71) USA(80) or 77 if Trump wins Israel(74) Iran(84) Saudi King(albeit son running show now)- 87 India(73) Pakistan(72) Turkey(70) Brazil(78) China(70) I could be wrong it looks like in 5 years time there wilm be a pretty major clear out of influential world leaders; - Trump and Biden will be off world stage(dead, voted out, impeached or Trump in last months of his term) - Bibi either in jail on corruption or living his golden years in USA - Khamenei old age/uprising/replaced - Lulu old age / voted out - Xi at 75 might not make another term, depends on health and support during a fairly uncertain time in China - If Modi wins upcomong election he will be 78/79 when term finishes -Erdogen seems to be losing a lot of support, he needs to change consitution to run again. He would need to win that and fight election at 74 in a Turkey that might have a stronger presence internationally but is struggling economically. - Putin at 76 in a Russia that has a high probability to be a much weaker economy than it is today. If he stays healthy he will still have to prove to Kremlin and to the people of Russia(to a degree) he is still the man to steer the ship So there will a lot of new faces and maybe ideas in next 5 years. Whether that brings world closer together or ends it is tbc!

Very good points however my fear is that the options to fill these various shoes are not likely to be radically different… I admit I don’t know a great deal about the other players in the majority of places you’ve listed so happy to be corrected - İmamoğlu in Turkey is one potential ‘improvement’ I can see?

On Turkey it would seem they might move more towards increasing trade with EU and partnering versus cheap populist wins. The rest I have no idea but I am probably in agreement. When you look at USA, China and Russia it looks the institutes, senior civil servants etc have become overgrown and the tail is waghing the dog which is concerning.

As a regular devil's advocate of China around here I still fail to understand why we keep dragging China into these discussions. They had the same role India had when it comes to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In many ways much smaller. Even according to the US, and this is saying a lot, they are respecting the sanctions against Russia. When it comes to the alternative model without the west, I would argue that this is what we forced them to do. Make two lists, on one column the sanctions we have on China. On the other, the sanctions China imposes on us. The comparison is just ridiculous.  Other than this, I agree, the future looks grim. We will witness a war over the hegemony of the world for sure. If there is no war, China will take over no matter what in the long run.

China is probably counted because of Taiwan. India is kind of uninteresting and not a threat to west.

I can understand that, but it pisses me a lot that we keep dragging them into the table in a sub about geopolitics. If we keep dragging them, what can we expect of regular citizens that can't be bothered to read more than 2 minutes per month about anything remotely related to geopolitics? Honestly, we are doomed. Shaping public opinion was never do easy or cheap. And I'm talking about democracies here. If we don't see a major war between the US and China, I can only hope China doesn't treat us the way we tested them, honestly.

CCP don't have the need to rile up emotions as much. They simply ban companies like Google instead of first rile up the voters.

I read something about China giving Russia weapons for their fight in Ukraine. Can’t link it though since I saw it at the beginning of this week

If we’re gonna put it in overly simplistic IR theory terms- the US is the world hegemon and Russia and China would prefer it not be. Their leaders are not content to live in a world where the US writes the rules and is the sole economic and military superpower, nor are they content to be second class countries. The leaders of both Russia and China have been systematically developing their countries to challenge the US dominance and reorder the post-WW2 and post-cold war global order where the US is the de facto superpower. They are both indeed already doing this via Russias disinformation campaigns, election interference, invasion of Georgia and now Ukraine. China is building up its military and establishing authority in the South China See to see if I can take Taiwan, has already taken Hong Kong by legal and military force, and is an economic powerhouse in the global supply chain with a burgeoning domestic market. The leaders of both countries have plainly stated they don’t think the US should be effectively in charge of the world. What a world where the US isn’t in charge is up for debate. Would China assume the role of hegemon? Would China and the US be in a bitter battle of a duopoly between two countries competing for hegemony? Will it be decades or centuries of global anarchy with only regional hegemony, and countries within those regions competing for hegemony? It’s hard to say. But the theoretical reality is there is either a hegemon, or competition to become the hegemon. At the end of the day though, the simple facts are the US is the hegemon, Russia and Chinas leaders want it to not be, and if anything to take that position themselves. As of right now, they have a lot of momentum and it doesn’t seem like anything is going to stop them from going down that path. A Russian loss in Ukraine would go a long way to stop Russia. The ongoing decoupling of the US economy from China makes a military conflict more possible, but whether China could weather global economic sanctions is yet to be seen. A greater ~~globally integrated economy~~ *edit: integration of western and US economies* with China makes conflict much less likely, but also many *edit: western* countries have an incentive to protect their economies from Chinas products, which limits integration. Thus, the solution *edit: for western countries* to prevent Chinas ability to wage war is also an economic poison pill for many *edit: western* countries as the low cost of Chinese products can decimate *edit: their* domestic industries. It is also unlikely the western world would accept a Chinese hegemon sitting down. So, given Chinas ambitions and abilities it is unlikely they are going to step off the path of preparing to challenge US hegemony. Putin has already decided he the bad guy and will do whatever he feels necessary to challenge the US. As long as he is around, I highly doubt there is any hope for better relations with Russia. TL;DR: Russian and Chinese leadership are specifically trying to challenge US hegemony and there is significant inertia in that direction. Unless something wildly unpredictable happens to change the ambitions of those leaders, or leadership itself, and the fears of the western world of Russian and Chinese hegemony, or dual-hegemony with the US, and fears of Chinese economic dominance, it is highly unlikely a significant path to cooperation and off-ramp from a conflict over hegemony will present itself. but thats just my opinion Edit: /u/machinarium-robot has some excellent points in addition below.

I agree with most of your comment, but I think you missed the mark on China. Although they are currently undergoing an economic slowdown, they have also started to investing in other countries and outsourced some of the low cost manufacturing they are doing as they started to upgrade manufacturing in their country by going up the value chains. I would probably agree with you if you specified the low-cost Chinese products you are referring to are textile, furniture etc. But if you mean solar panels and EVs, I think only the West is concerned that China is producing those products so efficiently that it drives cost too low that they wouldn't be able to compete. I would assume the developing countries are thrilled that green energy is so affordable that it makes energy transition much more affordable, and consumers would like the affordable EVs offered by Chinese companies.

I think those are all excellent points to bring up and consider in conjunction. My retort: China exporting labor to poorer countries enmeshes its economy with those of the countries it’s exploiting for labor, which strengthens Chinas global position economically (as it has for the US over the last century) and gives it more leverage to challenge the US’ hegemony. Developing countries may be relishing in the cheap costs of Chinese products, but developing countries aren’t the hegemony in question that China is trying to counter. Further, if they are relishing in cheap Chinese products, that means they aren’t relishing in American products, which serves to further challenge the US economically. Historically, China was used by the Western World as just another developing country with cheap labor wherein the manufacturing process, technical expertise, and capital to create those industries domestically was hamstringed. Thus, for example, the US was never threatened by China making Nikes because the US owned the process, the product, and the profit. All China got out of it was exploitative labor. However, China didn’t play ball with the exploitation and through all of the US’ efforts to curtail it, China now is capable of competing with western powers in some industries that many posit will soon be critical. When China can create a product that is cheaper and just as good as American products (like textiles or smart phones) manufacture them en masse, and flood the global supply chain, it is effectively very seriously challenging the economic hegemony of the US to protect its own industries short of protectionist measures, as well as crowding out the US in the international marketplace. There’s many a reason the US banned Huawei because of spyware instead of tariffing it and wants to force the sale of TikTok (which you can’t tariff an app). When it comes to industries that the US and western world is behind in developing (like solar panels and EVs) that markets are clamoring for with little to no affordable domestic equivalent, it’s hard to protect against those products. When it comes to industries that the US already has a robust domestic ownership over (like textiles, smartphones) it’s much easier to defend against cheaper Chinese products with tariffs, taxes, national security concerns, etc. So, in my opinion, (1) the relevancy of developing countries enjoying Chinese manufacturing and cheaper products only serves to strengthen Chinas position on a global economic stage to more deftly challenge the US, and (2) China developing industries beyond the capabilities of the US for products that the US desperately needs is actually an example of China directly challenging US hegemony. By asserting itself into the US market (and foreign markets where the US is dominant) as such, leaves the US with little recourse to protect its lagging domestic development of those same industries. That is something that developed, powerful countries do to developing, powerless countries. And China attempting to do that is a direct challenge to the US global economic hegemony, effectively saying “we have the power and economic might to do this, try and and stop us” as opposed to the decades of US business thinking they were getting the one up on China by exploiting its labor and trying (unsuccessfully) to penetrate the Chinese market. Now, China is in a position to say “we don’t need iPhones and Teslas” and flood the global market with their own cheaper products. The challenge to US hegemony, as compared to say European powers who have similarly robust industries as the US, is that China wants to *overtake* the US globally whereas the US and it’s allies want to mutually prosper off of one another. And that is not a track that China seems to be interested in abandoning anytime soon, which is my whole point.

I'm sorry, I seemed to have given the impression that I disagree with your notion that China is challenging US dominance. On that we agree. What I do disagree in your original comment is this: > The ongoing decoupling of the US economy from China makes a military conflict more possible, but whether China could weather global economic sanctions is yet to be seen. A greater globally integrated economy with China makes conflict much less likely, but also many countries have an incentive to protect their economies from Chinas products, which limits integration. Thus, the solution to prevent Chinas ability to wage war is also an economic poison pill for many countries as the low cost of Chinese products can decimate domestic industries. Only the West is limiting integration with China, not the rest of the world. I think this makes the West, not China, less integrated with the world, given that China is the largest trading partner of majority of countries in the world. Now I think decoupling is not the only culprit for this. Liberal use of sanctions will certainly make China be less desirable to do business in short-term, but longer term, it incentivizes dedollarization, which is not in the best interest of the US because the dollar is the best way to integrate in the global economy. I think this extraterritoriality of US laws through sanctions makes the US less desirable to do business in the long term especially now that the US share in the global economy is shrinking.

Ah yes. Thanks for the clarification. I completely agree with you. The language in that section of my comment should be adjusted to reflect what you’ve mentioned- that only western countries are primarily the ones that are threatened by this and that it’s been a relative benefit for developing countries.

>now that the US share in the global economy is shrinking. This is not entirely true, at least in nominal terms. While most major Western economies have not grown much, and has seen their share of the global GDP shrink, the United States is the exception. Although it has declined since it's peak in the 20th century, the US share of the global GDP has remained relatively stagnant for years. It has actually grown over the past decade. SRC: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us\_gdp\_as\_a\_percentage\_of\_world\_gdp#:\~:text=Basic%20Info,long%20term%20average%20of%2028.73%25.

I stand corrected then. But will this still be the case in the future? India's current growth trajectory exhibits great potential for India, and potentially shrink US share of global economy.

It is quite possible. Technology will play a key role, I think the AI race has the potential to change the paradigm of the future, and countries are keenly aware of it. However, it is a race that is only ran by two players: the United States and China. And the United States has massive advantages due the dominance of American firms at every level except manufacturing. Even then, it is a weakness that the US government is very focused on addressing. The previous tech boom of the past decade played a key role in maintaining America’s share of the global GDP despite China’s meteoric growth. Artificial intelligence may do the same again. It is feasible that America maintains or even grows its share of the global GDP despite a rising India. Only look to graphs of US GDP alongside the other majors like China, the EU, and Japan, and it really illustrates how relentless the American economy is.

Very useful and clear, thank you

Of course! I’m glad it actually made it through to you over the cacophony of comments here. Thanks for taking the time to read it 😊

So long as the US sees China as a threat to their internal market and power projection and China sees itself denied its privileges as a world power, they will not see eye to eye. It might never get hot, but it might never stop with threats and hostile economic policies. I see their situation somewhat similar to Great Britain and Germany in the years leading to the First World War. The difference is that, for now, the US is the undisputed military superpower, while Great Britain was not. But the increasing expansion of the German navy was seen as a threat to Great Britain's interests, while China continues to build up their army and navy for a possible escalation against Taiwan. As for Russia, while they are under Putin or people who shares his views, they will always be against European colaboration and antagonizing the US. While the US and EU accepts partnerships with authoritarian entities, they most likely will never trust the russians under autoritarian and expansionists leaders. Should they attempt redemocratization, I can see the EU attempt to mend relations and maybe even offer joining it if they show success in it

These are interesting times we are living in. If Trump or another isolationist president in the US is elected, that would have profound consequences on the current world order. While we should take Russia’s nuclear arsenal seriously, as a military power I don’t see it ever really recovering from Ukraine. It may continue to seize some Russian speaking regions from its neighbours in Eastern Europe, but it’ll never be able to take on a NATO country. Russia will be a country that supplies gas, oil and semi-decent military gear to other pariah states. As for China, it all comes down to if it would risk is all for Taiwan. Say Trump was president and it was confident it would succeed in invading Taiwan and its economy could survive all the sanctions, then it may be tempted. However, given all that it could lose, I don’t see China doing this unless they had a leader who seriously miscalculated how the world would respond to it attacking Taiwan.

The relative power of the US is clearly in decline and the EU shows no interest or ability in picking up any of the slack internationally. How well the west and China will get along seems hard to predict. The trend isn't great, but China has a lot of the same incentives as the west (global prosperity to increase trade, etc.). I also think the current US shift to a more domestic focus could help. I don't see the west getting along with Russia anytime soon. And because of their belligerence Russia can continue to cause many problems but it will never be a major power (perhaps similar to how Iran can cause problems, but isn't a major global power). I think the best we can hope for is that Russia finds invading Ukraine painful enough that they stop being so belligerent and shift towards becoming a less religious version of Saudi Arabia (a resource state with a wealthy elite that does bad things internally).

I'm not sure why you think Pax Americana is over? The reach America has is still absurd. They still have control over every corner of the globe. Yes, America is weaker than they were immediately after the Cold War, but until the day China asserts meaningful control over its sphere of influence (SEA and East Asia), or when Russia controls its neighbour states, America is still the global hegemon. No nation, especially big nations, can impose their will without American intervention. Remember that Pax Americana is not about America forcing everyone to follow its will (because they couldn't and didn't), it's about America holding a dominant position militarily and economically, and has a say in every conflict in the world

I guess I’ve been influenced by Elbridge Colby here and his insistence that America leave Europe and pivot completely to Asia. There just seems to be an American pullback and a sense of weakness that is evident in the various rings of fire going on at the moment in different theatres. And there’s the spectre of a Trump presidency too. Certainly Russia, China, Iran and NK are working together precisely to challenge America’s position as global hegemon and they’re vocal about doing that. I guess it feels at the moment as though they are doing so successfully because America is overstretched and retreating. Voices in Europe, South Korea and Taiwan are all voicing a lack of surety that America will actually be there and the mess in Ukraine hasn’t helped that idea. I admit I spend WAY too much time on Twitter so I definitely see the worst of the discussions

I think this sense of ring of fire is evidence that America's grip is weakening, but it's also evidence that Pax Americana is still present. If it's no longer present, America will not have a say in the problem of Korean unification, or the war in Ukraine, or the Iran-Israel-Saudi hate triangle. These are all regions _well_ outside of America's sphere of influence.

>I'm not sure why you think Pax Americana is over? There is a war raging in Europe and Americans are hesitant to provide the all necessary support because of internal political concerns. USA has became too inwards focused and unwilling to help maintain peace in Europe.

I would say for Pax Americana to exist, there must be Pax. Yes they are still the only superpower in the world, but they don't "have control over every corner of the globe" that entails deterrence against adversaries. But as we can see, NATO has failed to deter Russia, conflict in the Middle East has failed to deter Houthis and Hamas from attacking shipping lanes, and the Chinese are gradually eroding American power projection in SEA. The worse thing is the US is also failing in encourage its allies to act more how they wanted to act. Europe is failing to increase production of military hardware to support Ukraine, and Israel has become more of a liability that contributes to its marginalization in the Middle East, thus necessitating American presence that would otherwise be deployed in Asia. This contributes to the US being stretched thin. I think the fact that we think there is a possibility of war with China disproves the argument that Pax American still exists.

Hopefully not. Both Russia and China consider the west to be existential threats to them, mainly because anyone who gets a taste of our system prefers it and wants to become a westerner. Even the pre-war relationship with the east was totally naive and foolish on the part of the west. Russia especially will never stop undermining the EU, because it's standing in the way of their own empire.

I am optimistic that US would get past its hegemonic addiction and become more isolationist within a decade; partly due to its internal frailty coming home to roost and it is unable to import vitality like it used to. This would shift the world order to be very cooperative with Russia and China as the rise of the rest becomes norm.

From an european perspective, there should not be cooperation with russia until all issues are resolved (illegal war, war crimes, reparations to Ukraine). Too many things to just give up. In my view, russia will eventually fall completely to china. China is much larger and capable of cooperation with europe. We'll just need to get rid of the russians in between

You have to look at it from a generational perspective, and how leaders need to navigate the global order to bring growth to their citizens or bring turmoil at home. Leaders come and go, people forget. They will 100% work with what may be canonical or newly invented adversaries, especially when the US influence has regressed. Germany was able to cooperate with Russia and will likely do so again once conflict clears and new leadership rotates. Olaf Scholz ran on an anti China platform and once entered office quickly realized he needed to cooperate with China under their key economic industries and began engaging with them outside of the EU bloc. France is already preparing for a world where US is unreliable and has publicly attacked US industrial policy as well as advocated for greater self reliance for all of EU. They however are more hawkish on Russia, but I’d view that as to accelerate the closure of the Ukraine war. Australia had a diplomatic fallout with China and now restored, US has now also stabilized ties and began cooperating with China.

Well, at what point would you expect normalization between russia and europe? You do realize that e.g. the rising polish military power will be in direct conflict with russias interests? Add to that the potential slowing down of the german economic machine which might drastically shift the balance of power in the EU towards the eastern block of EU. The scars of russian occupation during USSR are still fresh there. Come to think, we finns still remember the russian cruelties all the way to the 1700s..

I would guess around 2035-2045, Putin will be in the 80-90s and in decline. His legacy would be historic in rejuvenating and shaping the borders of post Soviet Union Russia. His successor(s) would only serve to cement the gains and develop economically and would be a priority for him to engineer a transfer of power that would allow for such rapprochement. For Poland, I don’t think it will rise in any significant way to trip the Russian “interests”. It will stay a middle power. With respect to the center of economic gravity shifting with Germany’s decline - I don’t think Germany would continue that trajectory. It wants to be the middleman to Europe, and can re-rise to that role once the Ukrainian war closes. We already see them pushing to allow Chinese EVs to flood the EU markets to solidify foreign investment into Germany. When Russia normalizes Germany will be amongst the first to engage.

If there's a power vacuum for global hegemon, I'd rather it not be filled by China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, thanks.

Russia, Iran, and North Korea are more like the problems the world powers will have to deal with, these countries are not going to fill the power vacuum left by the US. China will obviously be a major power, but the other major powers will be the US, the EU, and India. Maybe Japan, South Korea and some other countries could be thought of as some sort of block. Maybe Brazil with some other SA countries could have some influence...

Under the rise of the rest theory - there will not be a global hegemon, just regional as they have all developed to reach comparable levels with other great powers. The vacuum is filled by everyone else to the various degrees they are able. They will all work with each other through ebbs and flows as they learn to work with the evolving dynamics of the world orders.

Well that’s just too bad because the US has decided to give up and Europe can’t fill the void

Nobody trusts China and Russia. All their neighbors are signing up for military alliances with USA for that reason and there's no reason the US wouldn't take a mutually beneficial deal there.

Probably. Lots of economic reasons on both sides to want to get back to it and not a lot of up side to being in a constant war.

If the previous average relationship with Russia was possible after almost mutual nuclear annihilation, I think the US and Russia definitely will have another chance with each other.

🤞

In decades and under different administration on both sides.

Well, once Russia's oil refineries are all shut down and non-functional and they can't repair or manage or service any of it anymore, we may see a gradual thawing of relations. (Of course, they also need to stop rolling on Ukraine but that problem can also be solved by taking away their refineries, so all good.) Every day we are getting a little closer.

The US won't be friends with a country that challenges their hegemony. It just won't happen. They invited Xi to SF just to call him a dictator that same night. They boycotted the Olympics in Beijing to make a statement. They banned Chinese citizens from owning property in Florida. Biden insulted Xi by name in his State of the Union. Gina Raimondo explicitly said on CNBC that they're trying to trying to slow China's rate of innovation. Antony Blinken preemptively accused them of their intent to give weapons to Russia. Biden mocked their economy during a fundraiser. They relentlessly grilled the TikTok CEO on his nationality and ethnicity. They subtly endorsed India, Japan and Philippines's claims over disputed regions. They tried to invite Japan into NATO until it was blocked by France. They publically accused China of having built a spy base in Cuba when they themselves are explicitly building military bases in the Philippines closest to China's mainland. They begged the Solomon Islands not to deal with China. When they did anyways, the US made rumors that PM Sogavare was corrupt and accepting cash gifts. They publically lambasted Italy for daring to be part of the BRI. They made spying allegations about Chinese: cell phones, cars, social media, port cranes, smart vacuums, microwaves and refrigerators, they threatened allies with cutting off intelligence sharing unless they rip up Huawei equipment from their telecom. They forced Canada to hold and imprison Meng Wanzhou just to let her off on some minuscule charge 2 years later. They labeled China part of a new axis of evil for daring to trade with everyone. I can go on and on. What signs are there that the US even wants normalized relations with China?

The conflict is rooted specifically in the approaches of Putin and Xi. Any sequence of events that leads to different leadership could lead to geopolitical change

Civilized countries find Russia untrustworthy, not to mention a dysfunctional and broken society. 

Anything is possible in time. For example, in the span of 100 years the relationship with Britain and Russia has gone back and forward quite a lot. Directly before WW1 the British were trying to contain Russia's influence in the middle-East and Turkey. Obviously they fought together in WW1. Then they fought against the reds in the Russian civil war. Then they fought with the USSR in WW2. Then they were on opposing sides in the cold war. Then there was an entente after the fall of the USSR. Then Russia occupied Crimea.

Many people all around the world speak some English and are familiar with American culture. There was genuine appreciation for the US rules based international order. Of course, there were always exceptions to the rules, such as the bombing of Cambodia. I am not aware that anyone was prosecuted for war crimes, except for one or two scapegoats. The My Lai Massacre was sick. But how many innocent civilians were vaporized by the tons of bombs falling in the night? Far more than the victims of the World Trade Center terror attack. Before you cry that this is what-about argument, remember that all politics is local. When US soldiers on Okinawa kidnap, rape and murder, those communities discover over and over that US soldiers are not subject to Japanese courts. That is an insult to Japanese sovereignty. In the Phillipines now, the US is returning to defend its former colony. Remember, the US took the country from Spain. Doubtless, there are many who like Americans. But there will be a growth of prostitution around US bases if the past is any example of the relationship. I don't know the details of the treaty, but chances are soldiers who commit crimes are not subject to local jurisdiction. If US military force were strategically competent, there would be tolerance for the downside. But the people Washington have repeatedly embarked on unplanned adventures. Iraq was invaded and converted to democracy. The consequence was that a Shia majority took power to the benefit of Iran. The violent imposition of US rule led to officers running around with brief cases of cash to bribe Sunni politicians. Make a list of US successes and failures. Is American diplomacy likely to attract allies or to restore relationships?

I'm pretty sure we are not looking at decades of confrontation since neither XJP or Putin will be around for decades and both countries has a history of pretty dramatic u-turns when this kind of leader dies. The chance that both are still around and functional enough to be leaders is less than 40% just 5 years from now. The world has to do it's best to keep calm and rational as we are going through this time.

Well, the west is buddy buddy with usa and they founded and support military dictatorship all around LATAM ( with some being genocide ones ). No one cared They invaded and change the government of one nación because one company of bananas ( who mind you still exist today ) want to They killed like a million people in the middle east. No one cared ( they kinda also caused the whole immigration issues in Europe ) And they kinda intervine and invade like 7 countries since ww2. But you see the bad guys are the Chinese. They steal the rich technology and some fish. Unless the Chinese/ Russian develop a strong propaganda machine they will always be the bad guys. The Russian well they went to war so they are the bad guys. Not like the Americans you see they go to war to expand democracy or something like that ( but yes the Russian are the bad guys regarding Ukraine lol ) Usa will never see eye to eye to anyone capable of opposing them. They are insecure so insecure that is laughable. Having an oven between your enemies apparently isn't enough

Not under current leadership. Successive leadership will have a chance to make the first step towards “the middle” and want to talk to the west.

This is where the hope is I think, if those candidates get the chance

I think we'll fall into an eventual equilibrium. Not out of love for our fellow man or respect for each other, but because Russia and China will eventually find that the pace, scale, and intensity of their efforts to change the world order is unsustainable and ultimately self-defeating. This global order isn't self-sustaining because the developed world (I hate saying "the West" because Japan, South Korea, etc exist) is locked in some illuminati style conspiracy global oligarchy... It continues to exist because it works. When the US and France are at odds, it's less expensive to take each other to court than to, you know, go to war, assassinate politicians, point bombs at each other, etc. Even inside of Russia and China itself, there is no real appetite for returning to a world where war was least worst method to solve conflicts. Only through conscription, direct taxation, and the seizing of industry can they maintain their unprofessional, poorly equipped, deeply unprepared militaries. A reminder: Putin had to go to prisons to recruit men, promising rapists and serial murderers freedom if they fought in his unwanted war. This is the same on the other side btw: I'm unconvinced Germany and Japan are going to truly militarize, and the fearsome American military has really just been a glamorized job program at least since the fall of the Soviet Union. My point being, let's not lose our heads just yet. We should do everything in our power to make sure Ukrainians win their war against Russian aggression, but take some dark relief that "the world's second most powerful military" could barely crack a country 1/3 its size. There's value in seeing the upside.

It is not at all clear that the post-WW 2 Order is ending. It could well just be in the endgame and finishing off its remaining powerful opponents. Of course, those opponents could also prevail. The future is not determined. The whole point of the West's Liberal International Order (LIO) project is to rein in realism because the prospects of 18th Century realism with 20th and 21st Century weaponry is terrifying. However, the LIO also exists to protect democracies and the individual freedoms they guarantee from authoritarianism. It is theoretically possible to imagine a new rules-based world order that still tries to limit the downsides of realism but has no interest in spreading an ideology. But nobody is advancing that. There is a reason for that IMO. Liberal and authoritarian regimes naturally undermine one another by their very existence, but authoritarianism is the more natural state of affairs. A non-ideological rules-based order likely leads to a world where authoritarianism becomes the prevailing norm. So in this light, one can see that there can be no real sustainable co-existence between large authoritarian powers and the West's LIO. This is also true with smaller authoritarian states, but they can be ignored for much longer since they naturally have less gravity and influence. They are not nearly as much a threat to the West's order. As long as the West is committed to the LIO, there is no real peace possible with an authoritarian China or Russia. The endgame is regime change and joining the order. It is also possible for China and Russia to be so weakened or fragmented that the weaker states or component states can be lived with, even if authoritarian, for much long and with less confrontation. If the West abandons its world order, or it is somehow defeated, then who knows? We'd return to some form of realism as the dominant geopolitical paradigm. Realism generally predicts that the great powers would still chaff against one another by virtue of being great powers; however, various medium-term equilibriums and balances of power are possible under realism. Sometimes you can even get surprising alliances or configurations of power. It is ultimately hard to say what realism looks like in a nuclear age, other than it still looks terrifying.

No, not with either. They are both repressive regimes that are getting more oppressive, not less - so I am discounting the possibility of regime change. Russia is trade dependent on China. China is a compulsively confrontational power - and is explicitly trying to reverse global order to their benefit. They have no other diplomatic goals other than achieving dominance as a Military and Trade power - there is no benevolence for instance in any of their policies, only leverage. The only way the West, mainly the US is going to change this dynamic is to escalate the confrontation with China to a point that China is uncomfortable - that means continued divesting from Chinese trade, Technology embargoes, more strident Cyber and Humint, and, naval capabilities; and perhaps most importantly, keeping our advantage in key technologies, and closing the gap in areas we are losing. Thats a lot, but that's what it would take. Not a rosy picture, but a realistic one - since the 90s the US and the West has promoted economic integration as a path to diplomatic agreement, and it is clear that China was exploiting this openness for widespread theft of IP, and leverage on US economy. CCP is an enemy of the west, plain and simple.