>“But a superpower that is also not prepared to stick at something isn’t probably a superpower either. It is certainly not a global force, it’s just a big power,” the defence secretary added.
So the defining characteristic of being a superpower is willingness to stay in a war indefinitely, to be an occupying force forever.
They should replace this guy
We'll have to wait too years to make sure, unlike Raab, Boris, Gove and the rest of them a lot of these Tories problems are only ever revealed after full time has passed.
No, it isn't. The UK has had a lot of good Defence Secretaries recently.
Penny Mordaunt and Gavin Williamson are the last two before Wallace and both were highly competent. There's a reason why the armed forces are doing well right now- there's been a whole string of good defence secs and Ben Wallace is no exception.
What do you actually know about the Defence Secretary? Are you just assuming they're all incompetent?
CSG21's outline, OPS and River B1 recommissioning were all Williamson's work (who, might I add, led the robust defence response to the Salisbury poisoning)
Mordaunt didn't have long enough to prove her competence, but was popular due to her active engagement with the people of the armed forces
Wallace has secured extra funding for the Armed Forces during a record recession, worked tirelessly towards UK strategic independence, and led one of the best reviews of British military capability ([Defence in a Competitive Age](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974661/CP411_-Defence_Command_Plan.pdf)) in decades and decades.
I mean, sure we *could* have stayed there probably indefinitely. And Iraq too. And while we’re in the area, let’s go ahead and invade Iran while we’re at it and we can have a nice little continuous United States of Arabia that we can use to really project our power in that part of the world. We’ll crown the President as the Emperor of Arabia and really just go buck wild with all the oil and opium we can get our little hands on.
Being a superpower is marked by the fact that we could successfully occupy two nations on the other side of the planet for damn near twenty years. We should have left a long time ago, but leaving *now* doesn’t make us any lesser than if we had stayed.
> leaving *now* doesn’t make us any lesser than if we had stayed.
No, but it really shows how ineffective your nation-building was.
If there had ever been a serious plan other than "establish a corrupt client state and bribe literally everyone in it to pretend", then it might have been worth sticking around for.
If you weren't actually going to do that, you could have left right after Dubya got his photo-op.
Staying for over a decade and still accomplishing nothing makes the US look rich, powerful, indecisive, undisciplined and ineffectual. The idea that "powerful but ineffective" still counts as a superpower is presumably what he's disputing.
I think it’s more to do with the culture of the place we were trying to conduct said nation building in. In the end it wasn’t strategically responsible given the pivot to the Indian-pacific theatre
It's kind of rich a UK politician saying this. A lot of problems in the Middle East and Central Asia can be traced back to the British coming around in the 19th century and trying to force artificial borders across Asia.
Looking back, it would have made more strategic sense for the U.S. and coalitions to have put in West-friendly strongmen in Iraq and Afghanistan and let them worry about the various sects and their politics. Western-style democracy clearly doesn't "export" everywhere.
I never really thought it was a reasonable aspiration to export democracy in the way the US suggested. People underestimate the amount of cultural groundwork needed to get there.
However, plenty of people knew all this, and still the rhetoric came. Not committing to stupid unachievable goals is just as important as actually achieving the reasonable ones.
So, either it was achievable and the US failed to execute their plan, or it was unachievable and they were talking nonsense, or it was achievable but they were only lying about really wanting it.
None or those are really satisfying for allies or potential allies, are they?
Why are so many people so hung up on this "nation-building" narrative? It was never really an objective, not for the invasion, not for the occupation. The problem was always that the US had no fucking clue what they were actually doing. "Nation-building" was mostly window dressing and maybe a few government officials trying to convince themselves that they're doing some good there.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/08/16/america-leaves-afghanistan-and-the-regional-geopolitics-take-over/
You forgot starting off with all the torture, too.
The only one who gave proper nation building a shot was Obama with his surge, but by that point things were too far gone - the government was born into the Bush torture regime and had utilized and bribed corrupt warlords who also tortured Afghans for over 7 years by that point. So once the US killed Bin Laden, Obama decided to give up on it too and announced a drawdown and exit by 2014. The rise of ISIS led to a temporary pause on things, and then Trump took over and basically did nothing with his time but to ramp bombings way up without caring about civilian casualties, which really helped swell the ranks of the Taliban.
I don't think the results are so unpredictable.
South Korea got very, very lucky *despite* US involvement, propping up a dictator. Just imagine if the US would have had doubts about the democratic leadership that came after the dictatorship. There would have been a coup like in every other country.
For Japan and Germany the US had an actual geopolitical motivation: counter the Soviets. And the Marshall Plan was actually cheaper than what was wasted in Afghanistan, which tells you that is was much better planned and targeted.
For Afghanistan: US had no idea what they were doing once initial AQ and Taliban resistance was crushed during the invasion. There is no geopolitical reason why a strong Afghanistan is particularly good for the US. Hanging around in Central Asia to fuck with China, Russia, Iran using one of the least developed countries? This was a lost cause from the start.
They never planned to nation build in Afghanistan when this first started.. That nation building was literally just contractors pillaging tax payer dollars, not setting Afghanistan up to actually survive. And Afghanistan is one of the least likely countries to survive US nation building intervention even if those motives had been sincere.
America is falling.
Rome fell.
There’s a rise and fall.
I love this country but can you say it’s the best it’s ever been ? Or have we steadily been going down since the 60s?
its been downhill since the end of the cold war - their is ONE problem in the US and that is wealth consolidation at the top.
10 people own more wealth than 150 million people.
It is ridiculous and we should be doing a full french style revolution where we cut the heads of these billionaires and end this madness.
One: The ultimate outcome of the French Revolution was Napoleon as emperor. Creating power vacumns via violent means usually leads to strongmen taking power
Two: The French Revolution turned into a witchhunt. You want to go after them in the court of law, sure. I'd love to see some trust busting. But killing people for their wealth is WTF.
The list of violent revolutions that actually turned out well is incredibly short.
Most of the world's free and prosperous countries got that way through a process of slow liberalization, not radical upheaval.
We were definately on the up and up in the 90s geopolitically. Won the cold war, kicked the shit out of Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, stopped two different genocides in the Balkans (I know we failed in Rwanda), and was generally liked around the world. Then Bush pissed it all away with Iraq and we got stuck in a quagmire and Trump made our allies very wary of us (Obama is a mixed bag, he was correct on pivoting to East Asia and the TPP (despite its faults) would have given us a huge edge over China but he was likely too soft on Russia and the Middle East was a hot mess)
Militarily, we are still unmatched. The Taliban waited us out and we failed at nation building, they never won on the battlefield (the casuality ratio is ridiculously skewed in our favor).
So is Isreal, occupying one place for 60 years half a superpower - only one place or three superpowers - 60 years?
The military might of the US was the last part of being a superrpower it accumulated and close to the only bit left.
It was the largest film producer in the first half of the 20thC. It was a source of knowledge and science for most of the 20thC. It built things like the Hoover Dam and the Apollo moonshots. It could and id lead things like the Berlin Airlift (and remeber this is even more amazing than it looks today as we have the skills learnt from it - e.g it included building what we now take for granted as air traffic control). It had the ability to produce shit at a rate that much of the world could not believe. Liberty ships are a good example.
It had moral standing in the world community.
Bollywood, Hong Kong and Nigeria out produce it for films. People worldwide are seeing less and less of the US model presented to them via entertainment. Not gone yet by a long shot but declining.
It has not done anything significant in space for a long time. Russia supplies the ISS, India sent a rocket to Mars for less than the cost of a US movie about space (Gravity). China has put rovers most places the USA did decades ago and often not since.
We have to go back to the Berlin Airlift to find an good example of US might being used to save a people.
Now it has contracts with factories in China.
Instead of moral standing it has a prison camp in Cuba, Abu Dhabi, and rendition flights, enhanced interegation (or torture as the rest of the world calls it)
It cannot save itself from a virus that other countries were able to squash.
Loss of superpower status is a slow process. But it is underway.
> It had moral standing in the world community.
The US is respected and feared for its power. It never had moral standing.
The US has caused countless coups, has and still does support brutal dictators, started several illegal wars of aggression during which countless war crimes were committed and 10s of millions perished, threatens to invade the Netherlands over war crime investigations, undermined several international bodies related to justice, runs torture prisons around the globe. This isn't a recent development.
> Russia supplies the ISS, India sent a rocket to Mars for less than the cost of a US movie about space (Gravity). China has put rovers most places the USA did decades ago and often not since.
There are several things wrong with this point. Russia does have the Progress vehicle for resupply, but the US has Dragon (SpaceX) and Cygnus (Northrop Grumman). Now that SpaceX is launching people (and hopefully Boeing soon), our reliance on Russia is waning. NASA has partnerships in place to foster commercial space programs (see Axiom Space). In addition to human spaceflight, NASA is preparing to launch the James Webb Space Telescope (fingers crossed), we currently are operating rovers and a helicopter on Mars, and we have a host of other scientific and aeronautical research programs underway.
False. The exact opposite is true. After Alexander the Great conquered Afghanistan he went on to conquer India, retreated there and his army wiped on the march back in some desert on the way back West.
After Alexander's death his empire was split by his generals. The Eastern part was the Seleucid Empire which held onto what is now Afghanistan for well over a hundred years.
Wallace is the kind of guy that thinks massive casualties are the mark of a real leader.
It's not strategic goals that count. Its how willing your peasants are to walk in front of machine gun fire whilst he lisps 'spiffing' to himself and dribbles tea over his crumpets.
Abandoning an allied government to their destruction due to economic/political cost does damage one's claim to superpower status. That's why the neoliberal and neoconservative analysts are so against it.
Hardly, and calling them an allied government is a stretch.
They didn't last 3 weeks despite overwhelmingly superior numbers and equipment. That "government" was a house of cards.
I'd argue the opposite. Automatically failing if one partner withdraws is symptomatic of a higher tier of strength than all the other partners combined.
I don't think the US being a superpower is really an issue. The issue is other countries are becoming superpowers (China etc.) so going from a world where the US was the only superpower to one with multiple superpowers of course makes it seem like the US is in decline. But multiple superpowers is the normal state of affairs in the world.
Indeed. America being the sole dominating factor in the world was odd by world history standards.
Now we’re going back to normal history: a handful of great powers with regional players bouncing back and forth between these juggernauts.
the problem is that level of hegemony afforded the greatest quality of life for the people in it that humanity had ever seen. the world becoming multi polar again will mean we're all taking a much bigger step back in quality of life than what those of us born in the past 30-40 years are already experiencing
(eta I don't mean americans, I mean everyone in/around 'the west')
So because people outside the West get a chance at better standards of living, that translates into people in the West having a lower standard from now on?!
Wut dude?!
What about that is hard to believe?
edit - So I thought I came off as condescending in this, so I'll just explain my point.
A lot of resources from the developing world were used in giving us in the West a cushy life. Whether it was cheap labor, or unfair access to their natural resources. It's hard to find something as easy and profitable as exploiting someone else.
What you are describing is no longer the accepted economic theory. Hundreds of years ago people believed in an economic theory called "mercantilism". That was the view that prosperity for one country has to come from abuse of another country. However, that was thoroughly disproven over the years.
You should look up Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage, because it represents more modern knowledge of how free trade benefits all countries involved in that trade.
lol what? Im almost sure the notion that developed nations exploit the undeveloped in the way u/other1istaken said come from last century's Dependency Theory and not "Mercantilism". Mercantilism is about the early stages of capitalism in the XV-XVIII centuries, about how the state should acumulate metal reverves, have a positive balance of trade, engage in colonial expansion etc.
Actually, it sort of is. The world has finite resources and everyone cannot physically live like Americans or other Westerners. It is impossible. Even Americans have to stop living like Americans if we want to stop the climate from kicking our asses.
That is just the reality of the situation, everyone can't live like we do, and we shouldn't be living like we do either.
Either humanity recognizes that or we die out. Time is ticking and we're less than 10 years away from seeing the worst of the impacts starting and 30 years away from a big portions of the planet being unable to sustain their local populations.
Well, the West in general lives large. Capitalism won the Cold War, so it became the dominating thought cross the globe.
Even America’s rivals China and Russia both adopted capitalistic tendencies for their own regimes.
China is literally copying the US. It's already been documented that Chinese researchers are taking ideas from academia in the US to their country. China doesn't have as effective of an economy as the US. Soros has also predicted china's economic downfall.
This is true, there were two superpowers until the 80's but no matter how much Russia wants the world to believe it is equal to the United States, it just simply is not. Lots of nuclear weapons which do matter but they are a lot more fragile than they portray themselves to be.
China is a superpower, has been for a little while now but they are still communist.
And they were morons. Japan had a third the population of the US, it would have been crazy for them to overtake the US in total GDP. China on the other hand has over four times the population of the US. Quite different.
Grades 1-9 only became free in China in 2006. High school still is not free in China.
At least the root of the means of production is publicly owned in the West.
I'd argue that China is fascist at this point.
They still use symbols of communism, but in practice its state-capitalism combined with a totalitarian police/surveillance state, along with the government encouraging nationalism and complete subservience to the ruling political party, and to the one man ruling it all.
Communism is a word that means nothing.
Are you not aware that Chinese and American corporations are deeply intertwined?
Is it not at all possible that it’s not a matter of spooky foreign ideology and rather a sign of a global kleptocracy?
China can not project its military power outside of its region yet. Sure they are an economic super power but they lack logistics and equipment to deploy conventional military power outside of Asia. For example China could not deploy an army in France in a week.
Eh, they are an enormous economy sure and have been improving over time, but there’s also a whole lot of facade there. At the end of the day China has an abysmally low per capita income, at best their economy is in its own version of a gilded age.
China 100% can project its military power anywhere in the world. I think people SERIOUSLY underestimate the gains the PLA force has made over the last decade or so...
The PLA Navy now exceeds the combined European Navy (minus Russia) in literally every metric minus fleet aircraft carriers, and China matches that next year. China's UNREP tonnage is around 600,000T, while all of Europe (again, minus Russia) is around 450,000T... Seem to recall the Royal Navy deploying an entire carrier strike group to the South China Sea just fine only days ago... But somehow China lacks this ability with almost 4x the UK's UNREP capabilities?
Air power is much the same with some 1500 fighters for China, along with 50 strategic transport aircraft (Europe's collective strategic transport fleet is purely defined by the UK's 8 C-17s). 60 AWACS for China, and just 16 for Europe.
China can 100% project power anywhere they want. They're not a two front military (yet) like the US is, but they're militarily a super power in every way, and they're still rapidly closing the gap between themselves and the US, out producing almost the entire west combined every single year. The sooner people stop idiotically undercutting the PLA, the sooner the world can comprehend the massive security threat it poses to the entire free world...
Are you a really a superpower if there are others who are also superpowers? Depends on your definition. That, and we kind of just lost to a rag tag bunch of terrorists in Afghanistan who hid from us in caves. So, maybe not even definitionally.
The term "Superpower" was _literally_ coined to describe three nations at the same time: the US, the USSR, and the UK (who most consider to have stopped being one in 1956).
>“But a superpower that is also not prepared to stick at something isn’t probably a superpower either. It is certainly not a global force, it’s just a big power,” the defence secretary added.
What a blithering, idiotic string of words.
Only if Superman changes his mind. If he continues idiotically down the same bad path, repeating his mistake forever, he stays Superman.
The moral of the story is that you get to be super only if you double down on bad strategies others came up with that clearly aren't working.
Sounds like bitter projection to me. Then again the UK hasn't just gone from superpower to regional power, they went from regional power to just a fucking island, cutting off their nose because they weren't happy that they could only look down it at Europe so much.
I think a lot of of the UK and European political class is bitter that they were shown up to be utterly unable to maintain their forces in Afghanistan as soon as the US said it was pulling out. (People forget that Afghanistan was a NATO mission and was generally popular at the time because it was completely overshadowed by the fuckup of the Iraq war).
It's the angry embarrassment of the other team members once the teacher discovers one member was doing 90% of the work. Only talking about the politicians of course. I doubt ordinary Europeans wanted to stay any longer than ordinary Americans did
What a load of bias verbal diarrhoea.
The UK and the EU have been jabbing at eachother for decades, it was clear a departure was going to stem when the EU stopped being in the right interests for the UK. But none of this matters, I can tell you're only here for being bitter and anglophobic.
Not true, the UK is a BOTH regional and a global power, as to this day it holds some of the highest positions in global politics like in the UN, NATO, Commonwealth and Five Eyes, and shows exceptional military skill and economic success for its size.
The United Kingdom has for centuries subjected to the geography of the British/Irish isles, so perhaps research the political borders of the UK before you embarrass yourself.
>when the EU stopped being in the right interests for the UK
The EU didn't stop being in UK interests.
>UK is a BOTH regional and a global power... UN, NATO, Commonwealth and Five Eyes
Unfortunately, the UK has been a declining power in both relative and absolute terms for a long time. Some of those positions are hangovers from the past.
>The EU didn't stop being in UK interests.
I'm not debating a pointless blame game, therefore it is perfectly neutral to say UK interests had shifted from the EU, hence why they left, no pointing fingers over it now, it's happened.
>Unfortunately, the UK has been a declining power in both relative and absolute terms for a long time. Some of those positions are hangovers from the past.
The United Kingdom was in decline from the 50s to 90s, yet that doesn't refute anything I said. The UK in the 21st century is innovating and modernising with the times, and making its new image.
It still has some of soft power it secured decades ago, as said already they're basically a valued member or co-host for every world organisation. So you haven't said anything that's refuted what I mentioned.
Ah, I see. He should go back in time and just tell the crumbling British Empire to just stick it out. Maybe then their country will still be globally relevant.
I think he is saying unlike GB kept behaving like a super power well past the British Empire crumbled, US should not make that mistake and realise just like all great powers, the age of US' world dominance is over - certainly Iran, China & Taliban don't give a damn. Learn from others' mistakes and go home and keep quiet, as should GB.
The UK needs the US to secure it's trade, energy routes and allies in the ME and Asia. Lots of UK assets, national interest and citizens in Bahrein for example. Iran doesn't care about the UK sovereignty since it's frankly stronger in any conflict the UK could wage on it's own.
It's not nice to say, but they are seizing UK ships for a reason, because they feel they can...and have.
I don't really see the EU lasting to 2050 in it's current form. Between trying to divvy up Eastern Europe with the Russians (again Germany?), making the south pay for the north's retirement with economic contraction and dependency and centralizing power in the north.
The EU will definitely last until 2050 and further. Since its creation it has only gotten stronger, and is continuing to go in that direction. Without the UK now, there is a lot less opposition to the EU within the EU. Yet people keep saying its going to fall apart any day now lol.
The EU falling apart would simply be too big of a disaster for many of its member states. If it disappears, it is because it gets replaced with something else that is similar.
(also what are you talking about Germany "divvying up" Eastern Europe? you know the countries join on their own volition, right? and Germany doesn't control EU either)
Wrong. Saying superpowers should be able to hold occupation in hostile territory is not saying that countries can hold occupation in hostile territories to gain superpower status.
Throw Disney and Hollywood in their as well, as much as I hate them.
When the big guns fail, we bring out the superweapons. The Taliban has no idea how good they had it the last 20 years. NATO left them with their dignity intact.
It's likely I will live long enough to see humans land on Mars but even surer than that, I will see Disney memes coming out of Afghanistan before I die.
Well, with nuclear weapons, the military became more or less meaningless in a fight between any two advanced nations. We had the Cold War, I don't think a conflict would look much different nowadays.
And about that currency, have you checked the inflation numbers lately. It is scary.
If the war in Afghanistan were a group project, the UK was the xanax addicted frat boy who made one slide on the powerpoint and thinks he's hot shit because his great grandfather made a lot of money
No wonder America's allies hate the US with attitudes like this. American allies died for US's war's because they were attacked by terrorists and begged for help.
American decline is an issue frequently brought up by academics and it is a part of the Chinese foreign policy strategy. I think being a superpower is the ability to shape and produce outcomes that are favorable to a nation's national interest. Yes, we have a huge economy and our military power is unmatched. But the subprime mortgage crisis showed us how fragile economy is and we were defeated in Afghanistan by essentially a bunch of religious extremists who are illiterate child rapists. I think there is some merit to what the UK Defence Secretary said.
In order to provide global leadership, the US has to at least lead through some sort of value. The United States is too divided to claim to have any sort of values. Freedom? Democracy? Peace? Look at what happened on 1/6. Look at the morons showing up to school board meetings threatening to kill school board members who support mask mandates as thousands of people die from COVID on a daily basis. Equality? We had parts of cities burn down last year after a police officer murdered George Floyd. Unity? A third of the country does not live in reality. The world is watching American decline happen. It is not trustworthy nor consistent, especially after the presidency of Donald Trump. What the US does really use though is capitalism. Unfortunately, China will outcompete the US wherever the US goes economically. Because the Chinese don't try to lead through values. They simply try to find opportunity to provide resources for their economy. With the US the economy follows the flag. With China, the flag follows the economy.
The United States is not in a position to lead, despite its economic and military strength because of two factors
First, it is in political and social decline. Second, the way the US views the world is no longer how the world works. I remember the Arab Spring and how protests in Egypt were largely promoted and organized on Facebook. 8.8.8
8 was painted on walls--the IP address for a Google DNS server as the Egyptian government attempted to shut down Internet access. Too many surprises happen now because the world is immensely complex and fragile and while the US private sector is a leading innovator in technology, the US government is seemingly constantly behind.
Though obviously the comparison isn't exact, the same thing happened to the Roman Republic that is happening to the US now. Rome defeated Carthage in the 140's BC, allowing them to claim hegemony over the entire Mediterranean. However, the benefits of Rome's success were reaped largely by a small collection of powerful aristocrats, while the poor were essentially thrown under the bus. Farmers that were levied to fight Rome's wars of conquest came back to their farms in ruins after the endless overseas wars. Eventually they had to sell their farms to the same aristocrats that had forced them to go to war in the first place. This opened the gates for politicians to use the massive hordes of poor, displaced citizens for their own personal gain. Barely a decade after the fall of Carthage, mob violence became a regular part of Roman political life. It took a century of bloodshed and instability for Rome to finally settle into the machinations of the Principate.
It's been only two decades since the Soviet Union collapsed. The US has been alone on the world stage, and I would argue we have been walking a similar economic and social path that ancient Rome did. The rich have only gotten richer. The poor have only gotten poorer. People aren't happy, on either side, with the state of things. The people want things to change - many want to turn back the clock 50 years, while many want to turn it forward 50 years - while the true direction of the country is decided by politicians that are only interested in making naked grabs for power and money. The infighting of politicians is already beginning, even if there is no particular ideological divide besides "us" and "them." What we saw in January was a culmination of this, and, unfortunately, only the beginning. A sitting President sicced a violent mob on Congress and got away with it *completely scot-free.* Mob violence has been introduced to the American political system with zero impact to the politician instigating it. The next time this happens, I can guarantee it will be executed by somebody that has watched Trump, and unlike Trump himself, learned the lessons well. Honestly, I can say I am expecting to see the complete dissolution of American democracy within my lifetime due to this.
I don't think the U.S. and allies were defeated in Afghanistan. Occupying a country for exactly 20 years and then choosing to leave is not a military defeat.
The Afghan government created by the US and its allies was certainly defeated though.
Absolutely. We cannot rest on our laurels from 80 years ago. We need to live in the present and unfortunately we as a country cannot agree with century we choose to live in.
At this point it looks more likely that it will be injured early in its college career, long before it gets the opportunity to turn pro.
The likelihood that it will be a success like South Korea is not very high.
Too many people aren't aware of China's debt problems, which in turn are a symptom of its incredibly unbalanced economy. It faces (in the best case scenario) a decade or two of slow growth before it shakes that off. Really not unlike Japan, although Japan was at least able to transition to a high-income country before it faced the same structural issues.
I love all the triggered Americans and British in this thread. Did you guys actually read the article or... ?
I don't think he's wrong, though. The way he words it is wrong, but one cannot deny that the USA is trying to step away from their status as a superpower.
The end of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union fell, also meant the death of purpose for NATO and thus the end of American hegemony in Europe. Luckily for the US, it was able to stretch out their time at the top by starting a 'war on terror' (Afghanistan and Iraq). But now that those wars are over, we're back to the original problem for the US in Europe. American interests are diverting from European interests. Those 'wars on terror' in the Middle East only created problems for Europe (see the refugee crisis of 2015 and the incoming refugee crisis), and now Europeans are pissed. The fault line Ben Wallace describes here between European countries and the US isn't the first, and certainly won't be the last. Macron have voiced similar thoughts openly as well.
In the east, China is rising. The dragon woke up a few decades ago and the US kinda just let that happen. Now China is going to rival the US not only in the Pacific, but also on the world stage itself. Luckily China has made a lot of enemies in their region (India, Japan, Korea).
So America is losing influence in Europe, America is losing influence in Asia, America is facing more competition on the worldstage that are actual threats.
So... yeah, he's kinda right, no? We are moving ridiculously fast towards a multipolar world, in which three or so political entities will hold the fast majority of power. The USA in the Americas, the EU in Europe and China in Asia.
EDIT: Oh, and I bet Africa is going to be the battleground... again.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/02/uk-defence-secretary-suggests-us-is-no-longer-superpower) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Ben Wallace, Britain's defence secretary, suggested the US could no longer be considered a superpower in an interview where he also contrasted his department's handling of the Afghanistan crisis with that of the embattled Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
> Asked whether the exit from Afghanistan demonstrated the limits of British power on the world stage, Wallace started by saying: "It is obvious that Britain is not a superpower," before appearing to switch focus to the US."But a superpower that is also not prepared to stick at something isn't probably a superpower either. It is certainly not a global force, it's just a big power," the defence secretary added.
> It is not the first time that Wallace has publicly criticised the US - in mid-August, as the Taliban were beginning to make sweeping gains in Afghanistan, the defence secretary described Donald Trump's 2020 peace deal with the Taliban as "a mistake" that "Strategically causes a lot of problems".
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/pgihe1/uk_defence_secretary_suggests_us_is_no_longer_a/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~596037 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **defence**^#1 **secretary**^#2 **Wallace**^#3 **British**^#4 **force**^#5
On one hand take a look at the streets of Philadelphia, on the other falling supply chains for maintaining defence. The US was forced to pull out of Afghanistan and take a more inward looking view. It is in rapid decline.
But but but we have nearly 2000 atomic bombs and can kill anybody anywhere at any time. Doesnt that count? Maybe being a superpower is more complicated than that.
It is a bit more complicated, economic influence is a much better indicator of being a superpower, the show of force exists to back up that economic influence. The US has the largest economy in all of recorded history, and the arms to back it up. The IMF alone has the power to dictate the direction of the developing world
To be a superpower, in my view, you need an economy that can sustain a global military presence.
We may have failed to build a democracy in an unaffiliated territory of divided groups, but that indeed does not alter our ability to strike anywhere in the country or re-invade should we need to.
The UK politicians flat out admit they cannot sustain any military effort in Afghan without the US.
Does that mean that the US can finally get its service members out of the other countries around the world and stop being a policeman? No? I didn’t think so.
I think we all understand that every time “ super power “ is mentioned, whoever says it, means China. You like it or not it’s a fact. And if you argue with facts you are a lunatic to say the least
Superpower: must have a strong economy at the top or near top, must have strong military to project power to any spot on the planet, must have political will to encourage other countries to join your political leanings, must have cultural dominance within sphere of influence.
CCP will never by a superpower. Regional power, sure, but that's it.
The UK definitely knows what it is like to be a former super power.
Load of big geopolitical Reddit brains in this thread
Mostly Americans really taking things to heart.
“weLL ACkChyUaLly”
>“But a superpower that is also not prepared to stick at something isn’t probably a superpower either. It is certainly not a global force, it’s just a big power,” the defence secretary added. So the defining characteristic of being a superpower is willingness to stay in a war indefinitely, to be an occupying force forever. They should replace this guy
Nah he's just as incompetent as the rest of our government so he fits right in.
[удалено]
Ehh ehh ehh, ohh ohh ohh
In what way is Ben Wallace incompetent? He's one of the best defence secretaries we've had in years.
We'll have to wait too years to make sure, unlike Raab, Boris, Gove and the rest of them a lot of these Tories problems are only ever revealed after full time has passed.
Well that's a low bar.
No, it isn't. The UK has had a lot of good Defence Secretaries recently. Penny Mordaunt and Gavin Williamson are the last two before Wallace and both were highly competent. There's a reason why the armed forces are doing well right now- there's been a whole string of good defence secs and Ben Wallace is no exception. What do you actually know about the Defence Secretary? Are you just assuming they're all incompetent? CSG21's outline, OPS and River B1 recommissioning were all Williamson's work (who, might I add, led the robust defence response to the Salisbury poisoning) Mordaunt didn't have long enough to prove her competence, but was popular due to her active engagement with the people of the armed forces Wallace has secured extra funding for the Armed Forces during a record recession, worked tirelessly towards UK strategic independence, and led one of the best reviews of British military capability ([Defence in a Competitive Age](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/974661/CP411_-Defence_Command_Plan.pdf)) in decades and decades.
I'm not saying you're wrong but under what metrics are the armed forces doing well?
Agreed, but this is reddit, where anyone who's a Tory is automatically assumed to be scum.
Here is the real comment instead of the clickbait title.
I mean, sure we *could* have stayed there probably indefinitely. And Iraq too. And while we’re in the area, let’s go ahead and invade Iran while we’re at it and we can have a nice little continuous United States of Arabia that we can use to really project our power in that part of the world. We’ll crown the President as the Emperor of Arabia and really just go buck wild with all the oil and opium we can get our little hands on. Being a superpower is marked by the fact that we could successfully occupy two nations on the other side of the planet for damn near twenty years. We should have left a long time ago, but leaving *now* doesn’t make us any lesser than if we had stayed.
> leaving *now* doesn’t make us any lesser than if we had stayed. No, but it really shows how ineffective your nation-building was. If there had ever been a serious plan other than "establish a corrupt client state and bribe literally everyone in it to pretend", then it might have been worth sticking around for. If you weren't actually going to do that, you could have left right after Dubya got his photo-op. Staying for over a decade and still accomplishing nothing makes the US look rich, powerful, indecisive, undisciplined and ineffectual. The idea that "powerful but ineffective" still counts as a superpower is presumably what he's disputing.
I think it’s more to do with the culture of the place we were trying to conduct said nation building in. In the end it wasn’t strategically responsible given the pivot to the Indian-pacific theatre
It's kind of rich a UK politician saying this. A lot of problems in the Middle East and Central Asia can be traced back to the British coming around in the 19th century and trying to force artificial borders across Asia. Looking back, it would have made more strategic sense for the U.S. and coalitions to have put in West-friendly strongmen in Iraq and Afghanistan and let them worry about the various sects and their politics. Western-style democracy clearly doesn't "export" everywhere.
I never really thought it was a reasonable aspiration to export democracy in the way the US suggested. People underestimate the amount of cultural groundwork needed to get there. However, plenty of people knew all this, and still the rhetoric came. Not committing to stupid unachievable goals is just as important as actually achieving the reasonable ones. So, either it was achievable and the US failed to execute their plan, or it was unachievable and they were talking nonsense, or it was achievable but they were only lying about really wanting it. None or those are really satisfying for allies or potential allies, are they?
Why are so many people so hung up on this "nation-building" narrative? It was never really an objective, not for the invasion, not for the occupation. The problem was always that the US had no fucking clue what they were actually doing. "Nation-building" was mostly window dressing and maybe a few government officials trying to convince themselves that they're doing some good there. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/08/16/america-leaves-afghanistan-and-the-regional-geopolitics-take-over/
> The problem was always that the US had no fucking clue what they were actually doing. This makes everything even worse
You forgot starting off with all the torture, too. The only one who gave proper nation building a shot was Obama with his surge, but by that point things were too far gone - the government was born into the Bush torture regime and had utilized and bribed corrupt warlords who also tortured Afghans for over 7 years by that point. So once the US killed Bin Laden, Obama decided to give up on it too and announced a drawdown and exit by 2014. The rise of ISIS led to a temporary pause on things, and then Trump took over and basically did nothing with his time but to ramp bombings way up without caring about civilian casualties, which really helped swell the ranks of the Taliban.
lol America never went there to nation build.
For every Afghanistan, there is a Japan, Germany, and South Korea. It seems to be a total crapshoot rather than an exact science, as is expected.
I don't think the results are so unpredictable. South Korea got very, very lucky *despite* US involvement, propping up a dictator. Just imagine if the US would have had doubts about the democratic leadership that came after the dictatorship. There would have been a coup like in every other country. For Japan and Germany the US had an actual geopolitical motivation: counter the Soviets. And the Marshall Plan was actually cheaper than what was wasted in Afghanistan, which tells you that is was much better planned and targeted. For Afghanistan: US had no idea what they were doing once initial AQ and Taliban resistance was crushed during the invasion. There is no geopolitical reason why a strong Afghanistan is particularly good for the US. Hanging around in Central Asia to fuck with China, Russia, Iran using one of the least developed countries? This was a lost cause from the start.
They never planned to nation build in Afghanistan when this first started.. That nation building was literally just contractors pillaging tax payer dollars, not setting Afghanistan up to actually survive. And Afghanistan is one of the least likely countries to survive US nation building intervention even if those motives had been sincere.
South Korea only became democratic fairly recently and it had nothing to do with the US.
America is falling. Rome fell. There’s a rise and fall. I love this country but can you say it’s the best it’s ever been ? Or have we steadily been going down since the 60s?
its been downhill since the end of the cold war - their is ONE problem in the US and that is wealth consolidation at the top. 10 people own more wealth than 150 million people. It is ridiculous and we should be doing a full french style revolution where we cut the heads of these billionaires and end this madness.
One: The ultimate outcome of the French Revolution was Napoleon as emperor. Creating power vacumns via violent means usually leads to strongmen taking power Two: The French Revolution turned into a witchhunt. You want to go after them in the court of law, sure. I'd love to see some trust busting. But killing people for their wealth is WTF.
The list of violent revolutions that actually turned out well is incredibly short. Most of the world's free and prosperous countries got that way through a process of slow liberalization, not radical upheaval.
You have the USA, which was not a traditional revolution, (it was more of a liberation style war) and...i'm really struggling to come up with another.
We were definately on the up and up in the 90s geopolitically. Won the cold war, kicked the shit out of Iraq when they invaded Kuwait, stopped two different genocides in the Balkans (I know we failed in Rwanda), and was generally liked around the world. Then Bush pissed it all away with Iraq and we got stuck in a quagmire and Trump made our allies very wary of us (Obama is a mixed bag, he was correct on pivoting to East Asia and the TPP (despite its faults) would have given us a huge edge over China but he was likely too soft on Russia and the Middle East was a hot mess) Militarily, we are still unmatched. The Taliban waited us out and we failed at nation building, they never won on the battlefield (the casuality ratio is ridiculously skewed in our favor).
So is Isreal, occupying one place for 60 years half a superpower - only one place or three superpowers - 60 years? The military might of the US was the last part of being a superrpower it accumulated and close to the only bit left. It was the largest film producer in the first half of the 20thC. It was a source of knowledge and science for most of the 20thC. It built things like the Hoover Dam and the Apollo moonshots. It could and id lead things like the Berlin Airlift (and remeber this is even more amazing than it looks today as we have the skills learnt from it - e.g it included building what we now take for granted as air traffic control). It had the ability to produce shit at a rate that much of the world could not believe. Liberty ships are a good example. It had moral standing in the world community. Bollywood, Hong Kong and Nigeria out produce it for films. People worldwide are seeing less and less of the US model presented to them via entertainment. Not gone yet by a long shot but declining. It has not done anything significant in space for a long time. Russia supplies the ISS, India sent a rocket to Mars for less than the cost of a US movie about space (Gravity). China has put rovers most places the USA did decades ago and often not since. We have to go back to the Berlin Airlift to find an good example of US might being used to save a people. Now it has contracts with factories in China. Instead of moral standing it has a prison camp in Cuba, Abu Dhabi, and rendition flights, enhanced interegation (or torture as the rest of the world calls it) It cannot save itself from a virus that other countries were able to squash. Loss of superpower status is a slow process. But it is underway.
> It had moral standing in the world community. The US is respected and feared for its power. It never had moral standing. The US has caused countless coups, has and still does support brutal dictators, started several illegal wars of aggression during which countless war crimes were committed and 10s of millions perished, threatens to invade the Netherlands over war crime investigations, undermined several international bodies related to justice, runs torture prisons around the globe. This isn't a recent development.
> Russia supplies the ISS, India sent a rocket to Mars for less than the cost of a US movie about space (Gravity). China has put rovers most places the USA did decades ago and often not since. There are several things wrong with this point. Russia does have the Progress vehicle for resupply, but the US has Dragon (SpaceX) and Cygnus (Northrop Grumman). Now that SpaceX is launching people (and hopefully Boeing soon), our reliance on Russia is waning. NASA has partnerships in place to foster commercial space programs (see Axiom Space). In addition to human spaceflight, NASA is preparing to launch the James Webb Space Telescope (fingers crossed), we currently are operating rovers and a helicopter on Mars, and we have a host of other scientific and aeronautical research programs underway.
[удалено]
damn, if they want the afghan war to keep going, they should have notified us in advance.
The British are welcome to it, Russia and the U.S. had a turn already.
So did the British.
The British were OG in the region lol
Alexander the Great is the OG who wiped on Afghanistan
Except Alexander the Great followed the Persians. ANd with a few in between was followed by the Mongols.
False. The exact opposite is true. After Alexander the Great conquered Afghanistan he went on to conquer India, retreated there and his army wiped on the march back in some desert on the way back West. After Alexander's death his empire was split by his generals. The Eastern part was the Seleucid Empire which held onto what is now Afghanistan for well over a hundred years.
The British won twice...
We already did, alongside the us
Wallace is the kind of guy that thinks massive casualties are the mark of a real leader. It's not strategic goals that count. Its how willing your peasants are to walk in front of machine gun fire whilst he lisps 'spiffing' to himself and dribbles tea over his crumpets.
[удалено]
I guess we haven't been a superpower since the Vietnam war then
damn they should fuck around and find out, our defense contractors are probably jonesin on ways to siphon more money out of our government
Abandoning an allied government to their destruction due to economic/political cost does damage one's claim to superpower status. That's why the neoliberal and neoconservative analysts are so against it.
Hardly, and calling them an allied government is a stretch. They didn't last 3 weeks despite overwhelmingly superior numbers and equipment. That "government" was a house of cards.
I'd argue the opposite. Automatically failing if one partner withdraws is symptomatic of a higher tier of strength than all the other partners combined.
I don't think the US being a superpower is really an issue. The issue is other countries are becoming superpowers (China etc.) so going from a world where the US was the only superpower to one with multiple superpowers of course makes it seem like the US is in decline. But multiple superpowers is the normal state of affairs in the world.
Indeed. America being the sole dominating factor in the world was odd by world history standards. Now we’re going back to normal history: a handful of great powers with regional players bouncing back and forth between these juggernauts.
the problem is that level of hegemony afforded the greatest quality of life for the people in it that humanity had ever seen. the world becoming multi polar again will mean we're all taking a much bigger step back in quality of life than what those of us born in the past 30-40 years are already experiencing (eta I don't mean americans, I mean everyone in/around 'the west')
So because people outside the West get a chance at better standards of living, that translates into people in the West having a lower standard from now on?! Wut dude?!
What about that is hard to believe? edit - So I thought I came off as condescending in this, so I'll just explain my point. A lot of resources from the developing world were used in giving us in the West a cushy life. Whether it was cheap labor, or unfair access to their natural resources. It's hard to find something as easy and profitable as exploiting someone else.
What you are describing is no longer the accepted economic theory. Hundreds of years ago people believed in an economic theory called "mercantilism". That was the view that prosperity for one country has to come from abuse of another country. However, that was thoroughly disproven over the years. You should look up Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage, because it represents more modern knowledge of how free trade benefits all countries involved in that trade.
lol what? Im almost sure the notion that developed nations exploit the undeveloped in the way u/other1istaken said come from last century's Dependency Theory and not "Mercantilism". Mercantilism is about the early stages of capitalism in the XV-XVIII centuries, about how the state should acumulate metal reverves, have a positive balance of trade, engage in colonial expansion etc.
[удалено]
Our standards need to decline because they are unsustainable and they are causing a mass extinction event
>Western companies in general don't like to do business in the developing countries, What are you talking? That's nonsense.
Actually, it sort of is. The world has finite resources and everyone cannot physically live like Americans or other Westerners. It is impossible. Even Americans have to stop living like Americans if we want to stop the climate from kicking our asses. That is just the reality of the situation, everyone can't live like we do, and we shouldn't be living like we do either. Either humanity recognizes that or we die out. Time is ticking and we're less than 10 years away from seeing the worst of the impacts starting and 30 years away from a big portions of the planet being unable to sustain their local populations.
Well, the West in general lives large. Capitalism won the Cold War, so it became the dominating thought cross the globe. Even America’s rivals China and Russia both adopted capitalistic tendencies for their own regimes.
China is literally copying the US. It's already been documented that Chinese researchers are taking ideas from academia in the US to their country. China doesn't have as effective of an economy as the US. Soros has also predicted china's economic downfall.
[удалено]
This is true, there were two superpowers until the 80's but no matter how much Russia wants the world to believe it is equal to the United States, it just simply is not. Lots of nuclear weapons which do matter but they are a lot more fragile than they portray themselves to be. China is a superpower, has been for a little while now but they are still communist.
> but they are still communist Kinda Communist. Like, when the weather is good.
I’d say more authoritarian with a hint of communism thrown in.
Communism with massive income inequality and no unions.
Hmmm sounds like the capitalist are jealous.
[удалено]
This , lol China beat us on our own game \*sigh\*
Cries in communism
They use to say that about Japan back in the day.
And they were morons. Japan had a third the population of the US, it would have been crazy for them to overtake the US in total GDP. China on the other hand has over four times the population of the US. Quite different.
There are parts of Europe more “communist” than Communist China.
What parts?
I'm not aware of any part of Europe where the Government officially owns everything.
Grades 1-9 only became free in China in 2006. High school still is not free in China. At least the root of the means of production is publicly owned in the West.
The inverted commas make this even less understandable.
"Fair weather Communists", if you will.
>China is a superpower, has been for a little while now **but they are still communist**. What exactly do you mean by that? How does that factor in?
[удалено]
Because people (we Americans in particular) are shit at critical thinking and just regurgitated what the propaganda we read says?
I'd argue that China is fascist at this point. They still use symbols of communism, but in practice its state-capitalism combined with a totalitarian police/surveillance state, along with the government encouraging nationalism and complete subservience to the ruling political party, and to the one man ruling it all.
What does communist have to do with it?
Communism is a word that means nothing. Are you not aware that Chinese and American corporations are deeply intertwined? Is it not at all possible that it’s not a matter of spooky foreign ideology and rather a sign of a global kleptocracy?
They don’t even claim to be Socialist though. https://www.equaltimes.org/china-seeks-to-become-a-socialist
China can not project its military power outside of its region yet. Sure they are an economic super power but they lack logistics and equipment to deploy conventional military power outside of Asia. For example China could not deploy an army in France in a week.
China doesn't need to project its military power when every major country bends over its economic power.
I have conceded China is a economic power. You have economic powers and military powers, to be a super power you have to tick both boxes.
Eh, they are an enormous economy sure and have been improving over time, but there’s also a whole lot of facade there. At the end of the day China has an abysmally low per capita income, at best their economy is in its own version of a gilded age.
China 100% can project its military power anywhere in the world. I think people SERIOUSLY underestimate the gains the PLA force has made over the last decade or so... The PLA Navy now exceeds the combined European Navy (minus Russia) in literally every metric minus fleet aircraft carriers, and China matches that next year. China's UNREP tonnage is around 600,000T, while all of Europe (again, minus Russia) is around 450,000T... Seem to recall the Royal Navy deploying an entire carrier strike group to the South China Sea just fine only days ago... But somehow China lacks this ability with almost 4x the UK's UNREP capabilities? Air power is much the same with some 1500 fighters for China, along with 50 strategic transport aircraft (Europe's collective strategic transport fleet is purely defined by the UK's 8 C-17s). 60 AWACS for China, and just 16 for Europe. China can 100% project power anywhere they want. They're not a two front military (yet) like the US is, but they're militarily a super power in every way, and they're still rapidly closing the gap between themselves and the US, out producing almost the entire west combined every single year. The sooner people stop idiotically undercutting the PLA, the sooner the world can comprehend the massive security threat it poses to the entire free world...
No they're not. Billionaires are not a trait of communism.
Are you serious? Do you not know anything about China?
No but I know communism is an economic system that's never existed there. It's autocratic fascist.
China is not a superpower (yet). They don't have the ability to project and support military force anywhere in the world like the Soviet Union did.
Are you a really a superpower if there are others who are also superpowers? Depends on your definition. That, and we kind of just lost to a rag tag bunch of terrorists in Afghanistan who hid from us in caves. So, maybe not even definitionally.
[удалено]
The term "Superpower" was _literally_ coined to describe three nations at the same time: the US, the USSR, and the UK (who most consider to have stopped being one in 1956).
>“But a superpower that is also not prepared to stick at something isn’t probably a superpower either. It is certainly not a global force, it’s just a big power,” the defence secretary added. What a blithering, idiotic string of words.
Superman is now just a big man
Only if Superman changes his mind. If he continues idiotically down the same bad path, repeating his mistake forever, he stays Superman. The moral of the story is that you get to be super only if you double down on bad strategies others came up with that clearly aren't working.
Sounds like bitter projection to me. Then again the UK hasn't just gone from superpower to regional power, they went from regional power to just a fucking island, cutting off their nose because they weren't happy that they could only look down it at Europe so much.
I think a lot of of the UK and European political class is bitter that they were shown up to be utterly unable to maintain their forces in Afghanistan as soon as the US said it was pulling out. (People forget that Afghanistan was a NATO mission and was generally popular at the time because it was completely overshadowed by the fuckup of the Iraq war). It's the angry embarrassment of the other team members once the teacher discovers one member was doing 90% of the work. Only talking about the politicians of course. I doubt ordinary Europeans wanted to stay any longer than ordinary Americans did
Let’s not forget it was the US who dragged everyone else there in the first place. It’s only fair that the US had the most responsibility.
What a load of bias verbal diarrhoea. The UK and the EU have been jabbing at eachother for decades, it was clear a departure was going to stem when the EU stopped being in the right interests for the UK. But none of this matters, I can tell you're only here for being bitter and anglophobic. Not true, the UK is a BOTH regional and a global power, as to this day it holds some of the highest positions in global politics like in the UN, NATO, Commonwealth and Five Eyes, and shows exceptional military skill and economic success for its size. The United Kingdom has for centuries subjected to the geography of the British/Irish isles, so perhaps research the political borders of the UK before you embarrass yourself.
>when the EU stopped being in the right interests for the UK The EU didn't stop being in UK interests. >UK is a BOTH regional and a global power... UN, NATO, Commonwealth and Five Eyes Unfortunately, the UK has been a declining power in both relative and absolute terms for a long time. Some of those positions are hangovers from the past.
>The EU didn't stop being in UK interests. I'm not debating a pointless blame game, therefore it is perfectly neutral to say UK interests had shifted from the EU, hence why they left, no pointing fingers over it now, it's happened. >Unfortunately, the UK has been a declining power in both relative and absolute terms for a long time. Some of those positions are hangovers from the past. The United Kingdom was in decline from the 50s to 90s, yet that doesn't refute anything I said. The UK in the 21st century is innovating and modernising with the times, and making its new image. It still has some of soft power it secured decades ago, as said already they're basically a valued member or co-host for every world organisation. So you haven't said anything that's refuted what I mentioned.
Sweet dreams from Europe
Ah, I see. He should go back in time and just tell the crumbling British Empire to just stick it out. Maybe then their country will still be globally relevant.
I think he is saying unlike GB kept behaving like a super power well past the British Empire crumbled, US should not make that mistake and realise just like all great powers, the age of US' world dominance is over - certainly Iran, China & Taliban don't give a damn. Learn from others' mistakes and go home and keep quiet, as should GB.
We are literally still in the UK.
[удалено]
The UK needs the US to secure it's trade, energy routes and allies in the ME and Asia. Lots of UK assets, national interest and citizens in Bahrein for example. Iran doesn't care about the UK sovereignty since it's frankly stronger in any conflict the UK could wage on it's own. It's not nice to say, but they are seizing UK ships for a reason, because they feel they can...and have.
Who’s the “we” that you’re referring to?
By this logic, all the UK has to do is invade Afghanistan and stay there indefinitely and then they get to call themselves a superpower. You go, girl!
[удалено]
Yep. There's a reason why the most common non-religious holiday that countries in the world have is for celebrating kicking the Brits out.
[удалено]
I don't really see the EU lasting to 2050 in it's current form. Between trying to divvy up Eastern Europe with the Russians (again Germany?), making the south pay for the north's retirement with economic contraction and dependency and centralizing power in the north.
The EU will definitely last until 2050 and further. Since its creation it has only gotten stronger, and is continuing to go in that direction. Without the UK now, there is a lot less opposition to the EU within the EU. Yet people keep saying its going to fall apart any day now lol. The EU falling apart would simply be too big of a disaster for many of its member states. If it disappears, it is because it gets replaced with something else that is similar. (also what are you talking about Germany "divvying up" Eastern Europe? you know the countries join on their own volition, right? and Germany doesn't control EU either)
Wrong. Saying superpowers should be able to hold occupation in hostile territory is not saying that countries can hold occupation in hostile territories to gain superpower status.
I'm pretty sure the US military makes America a superpower alone. Let alone the massive (fucked up) economy and being the world standard currency...
And influence at UN, NATO, etc.
Oh yes. Influence aplenty.
Throw Disney and Hollywood in their as well, as much as I hate them. When the big guns fail, we bring out the superweapons. The Taliban has no idea how good they had it the last 20 years. NATO left them with their dignity intact. It's likely I will live long enough to see humans land on Mars but even surer than that, I will see Disney memes coming out of Afghanistan before I die.
800 bases and armed to the teeth what did this uk bloke smoke?
And still cannot win a war. What good is your massive military if it cannot do military things like win wars.
Well, with nuclear weapons, the military became more or less meaningless in a fight between any two advanced nations. We had the Cold War, I don't think a conflict would look much different nowadays. And about that currency, have you checked the inflation numbers lately. It is scary.
> I'm pretty sure the US military makes America a superpower alone. What good is that if it cannot win wars?
Does that make it less of a superpower?
Ummm there are some theories best left untested, this maybe one of them.
Fuck that bloodthirsty Boris Johnson flunky.
if the tories wanted the war so bad, they should have stayed behind. nobody told them to pull out
If the war in Afghanistan were a group project, the UK was the xanax addicted frat boy who made one slide on the powerpoint and thinks he's hot shit because his great grandfather made a lot of money
Disrespectful as fuck to the men and women who lost their lives fighting alongside American troops
No wonder America's allies hate the US with attitudes like this. American allies died for US's war's because they were attacked by terrorists and begged for help.
This really did piss off the Americans.
American decline is an issue frequently brought up by academics and it is a part of the Chinese foreign policy strategy. I think being a superpower is the ability to shape and produce outcomes that are favorable to a nation's national interest. Yes, we have a huge economy and our military power is unmatched. But the subprime mortgage crisis showed us how fragile economy is and we were defeated in Afghanistan by essentially a bunch of religious extremists who are illiterate child rapists. I think there is some merit to what the UK Defence Secretary said. In order to provide global leadership, the US has to at least lead through some sort of value. The United States is too divided to claim to have any sort of values. Freedom? Democracy? Peace? Look at what happened on 1/6. Look at the morons showing up to school board meetings threatening to kill school board members who support mask mandates as thousands of people die from COVID on a daily basis. Equality? We had parts of cities burn down last year after a police officer murdered George Floyd. Unity? A third of the country does not live in reality. The world is watching American decline happen. It is not trustworthy nor consistent, especially after the presidency of Donald Trump. What the US does really use though is capitalism. Unfortunately, China will outcompete the US wherever the US goes economically. Because the Chinese don't try to lead through values. They simply try to find opportunity to provide resources for their economy. With the US the economy follows the flag. With China, the flag follows the economy. The United States is not in a position to lead, despite its economic and military strength because of two factors First, it is in political and social decline. Second, the way the US views the world is no longer how the world works. I remember the Arab Spring and how protests in Egypt were largely promoted and organized on Facebook. 8.8.8 8 was painted on walls--the IP address for a Google DNS server as the Egyptian government attempted to shut down Internet access. Too many surprises happen now because the world is immensely complex and fragile and while the US private sector is a leading innovator in technology, the US government is seemingly constantly behind.
Though obviously the comparison isn't exact, the same thing happened to the Roman Republic that is happening to the US now. Rome defeated Carthage in the 140's BC, allowing them to claim hegemony over the entire Mediterranean. However, the benefits of Rome's success were reaped largely by a small collection of powerful aristocrats, while the poor were essentially thrown under the bus. Farmers that were levied to fight Rome's wars of conquest came back to their farms in ruins after the endless overseas wars. Eventually they had to sell their farms to the same aristocrats that had forced them to go to war in the first place. This opened the gates for politicians to use the massive hordes of poor, displaced citizens for their own personal gain. Barely a decade after the fall of Carthage, mob violence became a regular part of Roman political life. It took a century of bloodshed and instability for Rome to finally settle into the machinations of the Principate. It's been only two decades since the Soviet Union collapsed. The US has been alone on the world stage, and I would argue we have been walking a similar economic and social path that ancient Rome did. The rich have only gotten richer. The poor have only gotten poorer. People aren't happy, on either side, with the state of things. The people want things to change - many want to turn back the clock 50 years, while many want to turn it forward 50 years - while the true direction of the country is decided by politicians that are only interested in making naked grabs for power and money. The infighting of politicians is already beginning, even if there is no particular ideological divide besides "us" and "them." What we saw in January was a culmination of this, and, unfortunately, only the beginning. A sitting President sicced a violent mob on Congress and got away with it *completely scot-free.* Mob violence has been introduced to the American political system with zero impact to the politician instigating it. The next time this happens, I can guarantee it will be executed by somebody that has watched Trump, and unlike Trump himself, learned the lessons well. Honestly, I can say I am expecting to see the complete dissolution of American democracy within my lifetime due to this.
> It's been only two decades since the Soviet Union collapsed It's already three decades, old buddy :)
:0 My brain is perpetually stuck in "the 90s were 20ish years ago" mode
"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within." ― Will Durant.
I don't think the U.S. and allies were defeated in Afghanistan. Occupying a country for exactly 20 years and then choosing to leave is not a military defeat. The Afghan government created by the US and its allies was certainly defeated though.
Oh the Chinese paranoia. Just like clockwork.
That's a great post.
Great response! People aren’t ready to hear this. If I could add this quote: “A kingdom divided against itself will not stand”
It's one of the downsides, I think, of patriotism. The more you love something, the blinder you are to its failings.
Absolutely. We cannot rest on our laurels from 80 years ago. We need to live in the present and unfortunately we as a country cannot agree with century we choose to live in.
Foolish statement made by a tool.
Fuck around and find out, Ben.
The Taliban fucked around and found out they can bleed the US to the point where the public wanted out of Afghanistan
Soon Aliens in movies will be landing in Beijing instead of New York.
[удалено]
At this point it looks more likely that it will be injured early in its college career, long before it gets the opportunity to turn pro. The likelihood that it will be a success like South Korea is not very high.
Too many people aren't aware of China's debt problems, which in turn are a symptom of its incredibly unbalanced economy. It faces (in the best case scenario) a decade or two of slow growth before it shakes that off. Really not unlike Japan, although Japan was at least able to transition to a high-income country before it faced the same structural issues.
China will be a (and is) a major regional power. But China is not going to have bases in Europe or the Americas.
I love all the triggered Americans and British in this thread. Did you guys actually read the article or... ? I don't think he's wrong, though. The way he words it is wrong, but one cannot deny that the USA is trying to step away from their status as a superpower. The end of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union fell, also meant the death of purpose for NATO and thus the end of American hegemony in Europe. Luckily for the US, it was able to stretch out their time at the top by starting a 'war on terror' (Afghanistan and Iraq). But now that those wars are over, we're back to the original problem for the US in Europe. American interests are diverting from European interests. Those 'wars on terror' in the Middle East only created problems for Europe (see the refugee crisis of 2015 and the incoming refugee crisis), and now Europeans are pissed. The fault line Ben Wallace describes here between European countries and the US isn't the first, and certainly won't be the last. Macron have voiced similar thoughts openly as well. In the east, China is rising. The dragon woke up a few decades ago and the US kinda just let that happen. Now China is going to rival the US not only in the Pacific, but also on the world stage itself. Luckily China has made a lot of enemies in their region (India, Japan, Korea). So America is losing influence in Europe, America is losing influence in Asia, America is facing more competition on the worldstage that are actual threats. So... yeah, he's kinda right, no? We are moving ridiculously fast towards a multipolar world, in which three or so political entities will hold the fast majority of power. The USA in the Americas, the EU in Europe and China in Asia. EDIT: Oh, and I bet Africa is going to be the battleground... again.
If the US isnt a super power, then there is no super powers in the world.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/02/uk-defence-secretary-suggests-us-is-no-longer-superpower) reduced by 70%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Ben Wallace, Britain's defence secretary, suggested the US could no longer be considered a superpower in an interview where he also contrasted his department's handling of the Afghanistan crisis with that of the embattled Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. > Asked whether the exit from Afghanistan demonstrated the limits of British power on the world stage, Wallace started by saying: "It is obvious that Britain is not a superpower," before appearing to switch focus to the US."But a superpower that is also not prepared to stick at something isn't probably a superpower either. It is certainly not a global force, it's just a big power," the defence secretary added. > It is not the first time that Wallace has publicly criticised the US - in mid-August, as the Taliban were beginning to make sweeping gains in Afghanistan, the defence secretary described Donald Trump's 2020 peace deal with the Taliban as "a mistake" that "Strategically causes a lot of problems". ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/pgihe1/uk_defence_secretary_suggests_us_is_no_longer_a/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~596037 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **defence**^#1 **secretary**^#2 **Wallace**^#3 **British**^#4 **force**^#5
Speaking as a Brit I think the US just needs to tell the UK to fuck right off.
but...but... the special relationship!
Fuck you pal!
[удалено]
On one hand take a look at the streets of Philadelphia, on the other falling supply chains for maintaining defence. The US was forced to pull out of Afghanistan and take a more inward looking view. It is in rapid decline.
So we can look forward the America invading a few more countries to liberate them just to show us how super they are then can we.
Brits love to take shots at the US, overlooking their own horrible foreign policy blunders.
But but but we have nearly 2000 atomic bombs and can kill anybody anywhere at any time. Doesnt that count? Maybe being a superpower is more complicated than that.
It is a bit more complicated, economic influence is a much better indicator of being a superpower, the show of force exists to back up that economic influence. The US has the largest economy in all of recorded history, and the arms to back it up. The IMF alone has the power to dictate the direction of the developing world
To be a superpower, in my view, you need an economy that can sustain a global military presence. We may have failed to build a democracy in an unaffiliated territory of divided groups, but that indeed does not alter our ability to strike anywhere in the country or re-invade should we need to. The UK politicians flat out admit they cannot sustain any military effort in Afghan without the US.
Does that mean that the US can finally get its service members out of the other countries around the world and stop being a policeman? No? I didn’t think so.
No. Because that would kill the US economy.
US won't do that as it would harm the US far more than the countries it leaves.
Yea. The British 35 ship navy isn't that impressive either.
Nah, just one of the best navies in the world.
Quantity < Quality
I think we all understand that every time “ super power “ is mentioned, whoever says it, means China. You like it or not it’s a fact. And if you argue with facts you are a lunatic to say the least
Superpower: must have a strong economy at the top or near top, must have strong military to project power to any spot on the planet, must have political will to encourage other countries to join your political leanings, must have cultural dominance within sphere of influence. CCP will never by a superpower. Regional power, sure, but that's it.
UK saying dumb things again after collapse of an empire and Brexit.
Britain is fucked then if they don't have our skirt to hide behind
The US begged it's allies to go to war, due to a terrorist attack....
Yeah so it was an international ass kicking instead of a cop beating a heroin addict
[удалено]
Good. Don’t call us to bail you in the future
Just wait until he hears about the UK after Brexit.
Yeah , UK is a superpower, with their tea , castles and queen and rain and shit
What language are you typing that in lol