[ISL]

It isn't obvious that deglobalizing is good for national security.

The imposition of sanctions is allowing NATO to counter Russia without firing a shot. A world in which we're able to work out our problems without shooting at one another may be a good one.

Retaining the capacity to decouple is important, but nurturing some level of interdependence may help us to find a way to work together. If we have nothing to lose by going to war, we'll have more wars.

[sgc]

That was one of the arguments for globalization. But what we see is there are only a few big actors, who will remain big actors for centuries if not forever due to their size and nuclear capabilities. One of the three biggest actors showed they are willing to destroy everything despite sanctions, and no doubt will permanently change their supply chain to avoid too much pain in the future. So the ship has sailed, likely forever.

Just like in the corporate world, modern power consolidates. For smaller countries "soft power" from globalization can work because the relationships are extremely lopsided, and likely will well into the future - based on how the pie of vassal or semi-vassal states is divided in the next couple decades.

[nerdponx]

The extreme end of de-globalization is that nation-states actually have a greater incentive to go to war in order to secure more resources and industrial/economic capacity (including humans!) for themselves, meaning a new age of overt colonialism and zero-sum international relations.

There is definitely a balance to be found here.

[azinman2]

It gives some teeth as a counter punch, but it’s not “working out our differences” in the slightest.

What will come from this is a push for Russia and China to be completely self-dependent. Regardless of upcoming trade, the consequences are loud and clear.

[8ytecoder]

I’m also entirely skeptical that this would work in the slightest with China.