[iamEAP]

Think a lot of people here are missing the forest for the trees. We are witnessing the collapse of the unipolar world order that has brought relative freedom and prosperity to most of the world for the last three and a half decades.

I don’t know what comes next. No one does. But Europe needs a deep-rethink of a lot more than just defense if it wants to have any say in what the next world order is going to look like. Otherwise, we’re looking at four decades of less peace and less prosperity.

[LastTrain]

On the contrary, I think pretty much everyone is aware of it but doesn’t want to think about it.

[iamEAP]

Here in Sweden, following news of “peace talks” where both Ukraine and Europe were sidelined, the prime minister referenced a “new Yalta” as a troubling scenario, especially for small nations like ours.

Whether intentionally or not, the USA is relinquishing its role as global hegemon, and at least the baltics and nordics are contemplating the ramifications.

[neom]

As a Canadian to a Svenskar. Your last sentence makes me wonder what we're really angry at the Americans for. Most folks in my country have pissed on Americans for as long as I can remember for thinking they are the world police and "keeping world order". Well uhm, turns out they were and now we're annoyed they don't want to do it anymore? It's interesting, feels like to a degree some folks are pissed off about America stopping the very thing they wanted them to stop? Interesting times.

[ohthehugemanate]

There is more than one way to stop being the leading economic and military stabilizing force in the world. The "table flip" doctrine is not generally considered to be among the top candidates for "responsible and stable" transfer of power.

[l0t0b0r0s]

>There is more than one way to stop being the leading economic and military stabilizing force in the world.

haha. Oh really? Because historically its always been violence.

[bjoli]

We are not angry at the US for defending the democratic world order. We are angry at the US for things like Gitmo, withdrawing from the Rome statute, supporting an alleged genocide in Gaza etc.

What they are doing now is saying might makes right, marking and end of the reign of the liberal democracy.

[neom]

No dispute there, I think I was wondering aloud if there is a bit of cake and eat it too, going on? And if so, to what degree? I think it's hard to have that perspective well from my vantage point hence the question/pondering.

[dgb23]

You're mixing things up.

People have been critical of the US when their admin lied about weapons of mass destruction, did massive amounts of drone strikes on civilians and put people in a concentration camp. "World police" is just a polemic description of that, it's not the content of the criticism.

Now there's country that traded nuclear weapons for protection by the US that is being invaded by a fascist dictator. Meanwhile the US admin is gaslighting everyone and lying about these basic facts and tried to humiliate and personally attack their president in public.

[Thorrez]

>Now there's country that traded nuclear weapons for protection by the US that is being invaded by a fascist dictator.

Are you talking about the Budapest Memorandum? According to Wikipedia, it says

>Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".

So AIUI, that's a guarantee that the US will defend Ukraine if Ukraine gets attacked by Russia with nukes. It's not a guarantee that the US will defend Ukraine if Ukraine gets attacked by Russia with non-nukes. So I don't think the US has violated the agreement. Russia violated the agreement by attacking Ukraine (Russia was a signatory, and the treaty also says the parties won't attack each other with any type of weapon).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

[dgb23]

That's fair and technically correct.

But had Ukraine not agreed, they very likely wouldn't have been invaded. Meanwhile Putin was threatening to use nuclear weapons if western countries would have directly intervened. This threat is looming over _all_ negotiations and actions.

So really Russia is getting away with invading Ukraine and expanding their territory and use their nuclear arsenal indirectly to achieve that.

[iamEAP]

I had not heard of any real level of anger toward the USA from the average Canadian (the exception being as a response to the now-delayed 25% tariffs). Same applies here. Your average Swede is not angry at the USA for what it’s doing right now. The closest sentiment that’s broken through the mainstream is maybe “unease.”

I wonder if the “have your cake and eat it too” dissonant thinking you’re hitting on is actually maybe easier found in the USA, and sort of on the other side of the spectrum. Plenty of folks voted explicitly for Trump because of his inward-focused, isolationist agenda. What they don’t realize is the extent to which the prosperity that they’ve seen up this point was dependent upon the rules-based order that their chosen leader is actively dismantling.

[ttyprintk]

Question about Sweden: the US influenced your decision to abandon nuclear proliferation about two generations ago. A major factor in wider strategic weapons today is whether Elon Musk would fund you or your adversaries’ satellite, targeting, etc. Is that what a “new Yalta” looks like?

[iamEAP]

Never heard of any of that.

In this context, “new Yalta” is more in reference to the carving up of “spheres of influence” by the big players, without the little players (the ones being carved up) having a seat at the table.

[ttyprintk]

Yalta is being covered in two different ways:

The right in ascendancy treats Yalta like a movement by the Roosevelt left to give Stalin concessions in a New World Order. That’s the phrase they want promoted. In particular, the UN and adjacent developments stem from a small number of great men. So, the right is happy about a new Yalta between Musk, Trump, and Putin.

Or is it Putin, Trump and Xi? That’s how I see it: Trump has hinted that the Panama Canal and Greenland are for sale. So the left way of looking at a New Yalta reflect multipolar colonial ambitions.

[maratc]

I agree, however the unipolar world ceased to exist a while ago. My take on what we are witnessing is that the US finally acknowledges that what has worked in the unipolar world won’t work in the one we have.

[IAmGraydon]

What does this even mean? The world was working just fine before a nutjob with an axe to grind with the west decided to invade its democratic neighbor.

[calebio]

The world was not "working just fine". It _appeared_ to be "working just fine" but it isn't.

Take a look at U.S. shipbuilding capacity, U.S. military equipment maintenance, and the defense industrial base that is maintaining the _appearance_ of the powerful status quo. This isn't unique to the U.S., the same is happening in Russia.

Turns out it costs a _lot_ of money to keep this charade up for everyone.

[maratc]

> What does this even mean?

For a short period after the collapse of the USSR, the world used to have only one superpower (which was the US), but it's not the situation anymore.

> The world was working just fine

I guess you missed the rise of Chinese GDP from 3% to 20% of global GDP, their military buildup, and their advances on the neighbors and the sea.

[kakadu]

> that has brought relative freedom and prosperity to most of the world for the last three and a half decades.

What an incredible take.

I cannot possibly think of a US intervention that went well for the receiving end.

[rKarpinski]

> I cannot possibly think of a US intervention that went well for the receiving end.

Germany, Japan and the post WW2 order in question are probably the best candidates.

[ponector]

USA did not intervent into 2014 Crimea annexation and here we are.

And don't forget Ukraine gave up nukes for security assurances from USA, UK and rusia.

As we can see now, it was a mistake. Declaration means little

[42772827]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system

[throwaway290]

Off the top of my head apartheid in South Africa, ethnic cleansing of Albanians and genocide in Serbia, WWII... maybe indirectly, end of oppressive horrible USSR where I was born

[IAmGraydon]

[flagged]

[DeepSeaTortoise]

With Russia and China reaching out to each other after many decades of nearly no contact and Trump reaching out to Russia after about a decade, it might as well be a sign of the very opposite.

This might genuinely be the birth of a true unipolar world order.

No idea if that's good or bad...

[hkpack]

That is what current US administration hope, but it is a bluff from the russia at least.

They view US as weak now, and will not stop until it is collapses on itself.

[nathansherburn]

With who in control? A Russia, China and US alliance? This seems very unlikely to me. All signs indicate we're moving to a multipolar world as far as I can tell.

China owns an increasing majority of global GDP and Trump seems to be either taking a path of peace, populism and or stupidity by pulling America out of its global alliances.

[maratc]

That’s one possibility; a different one is that Trump considers China as the real contender for the US in the 21st century, and wants to pivot the US attention there (and out of Europe.)

[nathansherburn]

How does divorcing Europe make the US stronger against China?

[maratc]

I'm not a military strategist but if one believes that the real power competition in this century is going to be played between the US and China, it would make sense to concentrate on that direction. And if so, Europe becomes a distraction.

[navane]

What if this drives the eu into the hands of China? How does that help the US versus china?

[braebo]

The idea that Trump’s brain is capable of producing original, substantive thoughts resembling long-term geopolitical strategies based in reality is adorable.

[calebio]

It's not necessarily his idea.

[maratc]

That's not a good-faith argument, sorry. Please be intellectually honest by attacking the strongest version of Trump you can imagine, not the weakest, brain-dead, reality-detached version of him that's easier for you to attack.

[mycall]

> last three and a half decades.

That is laughably tiny in the grand scheme of things.

[LastTrain]

What is your point, exactly? It is a huge chunk of time in human scale.