Powered by glolg
Display Preferences Most Recent Entries Chatterbox Blog Links Site Statistics Category Tags About Me, Myself and Gilbert XML RSS Feed
Monday, Dec 29, 2025 - 02:04 SGT
Posted By: Gilbert

The Deciding Factor

"Much as it pays to emphasize the positive, there are times when the only choice is confrontation. In most cases I'm very easy to get along with. I'm very good to people who are good to me. But when people treat me badly or unfairly (re: tariffs) or try to take advantage of me*, my general attitude, all my life, has been to fight back very hard."

- TRUMP's The Art of Deal, Chapter II - Trump Cards


As discussed in May and June, the effectiveness of strategy truly shines only when the contestants are comparable in Strength and Respect/Influence, 因为不够实力耍什么屁计谋. The Very Stable Genius of Amerika has dominated in this respect this year through his bold tariffs gambit (as first predicted in February and later explained) that brought half the world to its knees, with his pragmatic streak also prevailing in the recently-released U.S. National Security Strategy, a revelatory and sensible work of great insight that began by defining "strategy" as "a concrete, realistic plan that explains the essential connection between ends and means" (i.e. measured causality; this important part glaringly missing from the airy-fairy "plans" put forth by the European amateurs, on Ukraine)

At present, the only powers even vaguely on the same level as GEOTUS TRUMP of Amerika would appear to be Xi of China and Putin of Russia, and if so, it is The Great Game of Strategy between the trio (and possibly their successors, depending on ability) that will decide the new era. Granted, secondary players can well affect The Greatest Game, but it is probably advisable to start trying to understand The Game from its core.


[*Personally, I would add "try to gaslight me into opinions that are foundationally false" here. As is unfortunately increasingly happening with much of the mainstream media.]


Strategy

"The art of war (i.e. strategy) is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death**, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected."

- Sun Tzu's The Art of War, Chapter I - Laying Plans


[**See the previous post.]



Player Two enters for Team Red!
(Source: brookings.edu)


Despite Amerika's dazzling natural strategic brilliance, it would be entirely unfair to discount China's achievements in this domain. As generally recognized in serious analyses on the subject (and not the clickbait populist slop often appearing on Reddit, or consumerist rags), being a one-party state with near-assured continuity of leadership does bring some advantages, amongst the foremost of which would be strategic coherence. Basically, China can draw - and have drawn - up a twenty-five or fifty-year blueprint, and hold reasonable confidence that it (or at least the overall intent) will be carried out; this is somewhat less the case for Amerika (at least for non-military projects), with new POTUSes from both major parties having taken an almost unbecoming glee from cancelling and reversing initiatives by their (usually opposition party) predecessors.

One of the most visible examples of said strategic coherence (or relative lack of, in Amerika's case) would be in high-speed rail, which has seen China go from essentially nothing as recently as 2008, to a dense network of some 40,000km of track more or less criss-crossing the more-inhabited Eastern half by 2020; this productivity has extended to subways, with single cities adding more capacity than almost any other country, over the last decade. In stark contrast, the California High-Speed Rail Authority approved a US$33 billion project also back in 2008... only for a single, 35km (of about 1250km total) stretch to be completed by 2025, with costs now ballooning to over US$120 billion. Given this, one can hardly blame the TRUMP admin for terminating funding and saving taxpayer money.

Rail is not the star of the new age, though, with the battle for (general) artificial intelligence supremacy quite likely to define humanity's fate over the coming decades, or so I am informed. On this, Amerika's Romanesque Pax Silica A.I. bloc has just been covered (though it might be noted that players such as the Netherlands and the UAE did not join, despite attending the summit), itself following belatedly on China's plan from 2017 to become the world's primary leader in A.I. by 2030. One daresays China might not have predicted the emergence of LLMs from way back then, but they have readjusted with DeepSeek and a host of other offerings. It appears to have degenerated into a bit of a slog in the mud, with resource denial - rare earths for China, and chips/lithography for the U.S. (N.B. probably why the Dutch are holding out for concessions) - being the key short-term strategies adopted by both camps. It could also be observed that neither of these (purely geopolitical-strategic) measures has much to do with any actual theory underpinning ("real") A.I. - but this is a topic for another day.



Elon Musk out to save Western asses again, with his delightfully non-blinkered Grok; I expect great things from Grokipedia!
(Source: ark-invest.com)


While more-detailed dissections on the possible strategic directions of the Big Three will have to wait for the return of Twilight Struggle: New Moon, it should be understood that some feints seem unlikely to work; foremost amongst these would be the perennial narrative from Team Blue think-tanks and commentators of China's Strength peaking soon (or even peaked), which is then often spun into warnings that this "closing window" would lead to moves on Taiwan and elsewhere.

Very frankly, this tale has become increasingly unbelievable, depending as it does on worst-case scenarios and neglecting quite-plausible alternatives such as a concentration of inherited wealth leading to a behemoth of roughly one billion citizens in 2100... with individual net worth on par with America (hardly impossible, given that they have already passed Europe on this metric), who would have perhaps 400 million residents by then. This is of course assuming certain very smart people do not try to "make things happen" through USAID or some "NGO for Democracy" and instigate Taiwan to declare independence or similar, because they'd like to see how USS Ronald Reagan or USS Defiant fares against several hundred Dongfeng hypersonic missiles. Please, for the sake of all humanity - do not try this.

Fortunately, GEOTUS has offered a show of good faith on this by shutting USAID down back in July, if with some unfortunate loose ends over some healthcare and nutrition programs; on this, it might be instructive to note that while there has been plenty of very loud criticism on the U.S. pulling the plug on foreign aid, offers to replace the aid have been rather fewer and farther between. Sadly, it appears that the disbursement of hundreds of billions over more than sixty years has been quickly taken for granted, to the extent that the U.S. might well have maintained a better reputation overall, had they simply not done anything to begin with.



Um, when were these gentlemen born again?
(Source: businesstimes.com.sg)


Which brings us to a very strategically-relevant talking point: that TRUMP is "transactional". This assertion has been hammered home by all manner of pompous media outlets from the beginning of his first Presidency, while usually missing the main point: that all U.S. Presidents, and heck, all world leaders, have been and are transactional. The loud and persistent bellyaching is because TRUMP is actually good at it (i.e. for once, they are not getting the better end of the transaction), unlike his predecessors. Now, to be fair, past POTUSes might have been able to (easily) afford some largesse; Reagan, for example, had the world's largest external surplus to work with when he took office, only to lose it all - and more - by famously eschewing protectionism. The better question then becomes: with US$36 trillion in national debt, US$26 trillion owed to foreign entities, and with both figures increasing relentlessly - can Amerika afford not to be transactional?

The typical rejoinder to this is that, well, one should not be so nakedly transactional; do well by others first, and (maybe) they will pay you back later. Unfortunately, as real-world evidence has borne out, this is decidedly not the case. The number of countries, "friendly" or not, that responded to TRUMP's initial request for more balanced trade - because they got to run the bilateral trade surplus previously, so wouldn't it just be nice and less-transactional to return the favour by allowing the U.S. to have the surplus via dropping your tariffs - was basically zero. Indeed, when the American ambassador suggested as much to Singapore, he (and the U.S.) would be mocked as a "debt collector", "imperialist and self-interested", and that "we don't owe them anything because their 'help' was transactional".

So he made them all kneel. I can't say I blame him.



I tried easy and hard. They chose hard.
[N.B. It's going to get harder.]
(Source: x.com)


Whatever else TRUMP is, his long experience first as a real estate developer, and then as a media personality and sometime politician, has internalized one very basic and fundamental Social Truth: that by and large, people Respect Strength (explicitly revived with the motto of "Peace through Strength"). It is one thing to theorize about "pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" on Reddit, and quite another to collect benefits for past goodwill in international diplomacy, at least at the level that actually matters (no, trading ribbons and medals doesn't count). No, GEOTUS knows full well - backed up by long historical evidence that the professional pundits ought to know - that if Amerika were actually weak, their "allies" would more likely backstab them as help them. This is an eternal and immutable Truth that he has very kindly been trying to inform Europe of, only for the sage advice to continually fall on deaf ears.

Since we're on honest talk, why not continue? The fact that Europe is running to TRUMP (and past U.S. Presidents) is not because they are handsome (though some were quite the looker in their youth) or particular paragons of moral virtue, but because they are Commander in Chief of the greatest military the world has yet to see, amongst other useful titles and abilities. To be clear, Europe has never had an issue with war or violence; their grievance against the U.S. is that Amerika is not waging war (on Russia) on their behalf. But honestly, why exactly should GEOTUS do that, when they are unwilling (and let's face it, unable) to send any soldiers of their own, to defend against a supposed threat literally on their doorstep?

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to be as bold as to make another prediction - Strategy is going to become a fair bit more important in the forthcoming so-called "transition to multipolarity"; and to borrow a quote, when the tide goes out, we will discover who the actual suckers are (hint: not TRUMP). Watch the Big Three closely, folks - the action will be there!



comments (0) - email - share - print - direct link
trackbacks (0) - trackback url


Next: Observances At The End Of The Year


Related Posts:
Déjà Vu
7 Reasons Why TRUMP Will Be The Next POTUS
War Of The Worlds
Pregame Entertainment
Men Against The Machine
Back to top

Copyright © 2006-2026 GLYS. All Rights Reserved.