America is going through a drastic change in its demographics, which means that ethnic groups and cultural groups that make up the population of the United States are not based on racial lines but purely cultural.
When it comes to race relations, which is purely a human-made concept, it has no jurisdiction in reality; when I discuss different cultures, I’m not talking about a person’s skin colour, merely the cultural and political traditions which they come from.
This can even be purely where their interests lie; for example, the Latin American group of the American population may very well dominate American political and cultural life by the end of the century.
What this means in practical terms depends on how well they assimilated with the United States.
With the USA’s record, it has a fantastic track record of turning people from different nations into Americans no matter where they come from.
The demographics of America, in regards to the white majority, particularly from Western Europe, will become a minority by 2045.
Therefore, the new dominant or rising dominant Latino minorities will have very little interest in supporting the state of Israel as well as the rest of America because the United States no longer need to rely on oil from the Middle East, which increases the United States driven by his domestic politics no longer being interested geopolitically and socially in the region.
The Jewish population within the United States is around 2.4%, around 7.6 million people. This is a minority that continues to get smaller and grow increasingly marginalised as new ethnic groups begin to dominate America’s political culture.
In democracies, policymakers are elected to office by their constituents. Basically, it is the voters who decide the makeup of a democratic nation’s foreign policy and its decision-making.
America’s Generational Divide
The reason why different generations have different political viewpoints is due to the periods they grew up in and the information and different technologies they were exposed to.
Most people form their political and ideological viewpoints and have seen the world within their first decade of working.
The Silent Generation, also known as Radio Babies or Traditionalists, includes people who were born between 1928 and 1945 and lived through World War II and the Great Depression, according to FamilySearch.
These challenging experiences shaped many of the generation’s attitudes toward the workplace.
Now, we have the generation that built our world political order and kept the peace for over 78 years.
The Greatest Generation, also called the World War II Generation and G.I. Generation, was a generation of Americans born between approximately 1901 and 1924 who came of age during the Great Depression and the 1940s, many of whom fought in World War II.
It is the silent generation and the greatest generation that is responsible for creating internationalism and promoting international organisations such as the European Union and the United Nations to maintain peace in Europe and the rest of the world.
These two generations will mostly be dead by 2040, and the new generations that take their place are not interested in globalisation and securing world piece for future generations.
The United Kingdom’s former Prime Minister John Major, who was in office from 1990 to 1997, marked the passing and retirement of the greatest generation during the 1992 general election.
In a podcast, when he took part in an interview with former Conservative Minister Rory Stewart and ex-Labour fix-it man Alistair Campbell, he said that their passing and retirement marked the turning point of the Conservative Party’s attitude to international and intergovernmental institutions.
Put simply, the older generations favoured internationalism because they lived and groaned up in the aftermath and during World War II and the newer generations born after 1945, I’ve only ever known piece, particularly in western developed nations.
Polls conducted in the United States now show less than half (48%) of Gen Z and millennials believe the U.S. should publicly voice support of Israel compared with 63% of Gen Xers, 83% of baby boomers and 86% of members of the Silent Generation.
Furthermore, the United States has voted into office increasingly isolationist presidential candidates since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, throwing out of office the one-term Republican president George H Butch Watson (1989 to 1992), who had the experience and credentials to chart America into a new future in the post-Cold War world.
Instead, the United States had the man with the experience to make America’s new international foreign policies voted out of office.
What happened instead? America, for over 30 years, has been living off the glory days of post-World War II and post-Cold War political environments without making anything new.
The American public is not interested in foreign policy or geopolitics and instead reverting to America’s historical norm of isolationism and not getting involved in foreign conflicts; people forget that up until the early 20th century, this was the American normal foreign policy.
Every nation on our planet has limitations dictated to a country due to its geography. Geography informs the political realities and what is possible and not possible for nations located in specific geographical locations; that is why there is the social science of geopolitics.
Geopolitics is the understanding of what nations can and cannot do and why certain nations have different foreign policies due to the weaknesses or strengths of their geographies.
An easy example of this is the flat plane lands in Eastern Europe and in Russia, which makes Russian policymakers very anxious due to the potential threat either imagined or possible from other foreign powers.
From 1812 to 1945, Russia, on average, was invaded once every 32 years, according to the author and writer Tim Marshall of the book Prisoners of Geography.
In this piece of writing, I will be discussing the geopolitics of Spain, which significantly limits the country’s ability to be a significant regional power even though historically, Spain was once called the Empire where the sun never sets, but this was during the rule of Philip II of Spain (1556 to 1588).
The Spanish also had the advantage of being one of the first colonisers of South America, and it was access to gold and silver mines which helped to power up Spain’s ability to be a significant power in Europe.
Modern-day Spain, just like the old Spanish kingdom in terms of the geography of the 16th century, is surrounded by mountains in northern Spain, the Pyrenees mountains that provide natural defences for Spain from France and any other would-be invaded from northern Spain stretching across its northern coastline is predominantly mountainous.
This also means disadvantages because there are not enough seaports to provide shipping ports and trade links in the northern and southern hemispheres and other trade routes with the rest of the world.
This same geographical weakness also stretches across the eastern Spanish borders to Gibraltar again; this provides defensive barriers to Spain, but it keeps the Spanish trapped in the local geography.
Finally, we have southern Spain, which has Gibraltar, which is a natural port for shipping and is a natural waterway and shipping lane for any international shipping going from the Mediterranean and the rest of the world; it is one of the world’s most important shipping lanes.
Unfortunately for the Spanish, Gibraltar has been controlled by the British since 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, which lasted from 1701 to 1713.
Sir George Rooke captured Gibraltar for the British, and Spain formally ceded it to Britain under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713.
The Spanish, until present times, wanted the return of Gibraltar to Spain. Still, as long as the people of Gibraltar wished to be part of Britain in 2002, in a referendum, the territory voted to remain part of Great Britain.
This territorial dispute will continue to be a hot topic between the Spanish and British governments because it is geopolitically highly valuable to Spain and the British due to the importance of its geopolitical positioning.
Furthermore, Spain’s southern and eastern border is also most vulnerable to invasion due to having flatlands and sharing a border with Portugal. The British have maintained a strong relationship with Portugal before even Britain was united in the act of Union with Scotland in 1707.
The political and military alliance with Portugal goes back to the Hundred Years War from 1337 to 1443, starting in 1773 when England was ruled by King Edward III of England, who reigned from 1327 to 1377.
The reason for the alliance was that the French supported the kingdom of Castile, which was fighting against the English in the late Edwardian phase of the Hundred Years War.
The English lacked allies to fight in the Spanish peninsula and allied with the Portuguese to avoid being blocked out of that peninsula.
The British and Portuguese alliance has been ongoing until the present day. The Portuguese played a crucial part in the English liberation of Spain during the Peninsular War (1804 to 1814) during the Napoleonic wars from 1799 to 1815.
Western nations are predominantly nations that are part of the European Union, North America, and other nations linked to liberal democracies and Western European cultures, particularly what constitutes Europe politically and culturally is much larger than Europe itself.
West has been moving in perpetual crisis since the 2008 financial crash due to political leadership and even the general public not being willing to use power in the geopolitical sense due to four main reasons:
· The legacy of colonialism
· Unfounded belief that the West is evil in the United States is an evil empire and finally
· Society and political leaders not accepting the true nature of international politics and geopolitics
· Europe has been in a state of war since the fall of the Western Rome Empire in 476AD
According to Konstantin Kisin, a British and Russian author, writer, and podcaster, it is the application and use of power to serve your citizens.
The United States, the world’s greatest superpower, consumes five times as many resources as any other nation and people on this planet.
This success is caused by the protection and economic security created by the United States post-World War II world order, which has led to prosperity throughout the West until today.
The Legacy of Colonialism
European nations from the late 15th century until the collapse of the old colonial powers, Spain and Portugal, in the early 19th century and the withdrawal of French and British from their old colonial territories in the mid-20th century.
The British Empire officially disbanded with the handover of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China in 1997, marking the end of Britain as an empire.
With the European nation’s colonial legacy, there is a robust, ingrained reluctance to interfere in African countries outright to interfere in other nations’ politics, the very least directly.
However, it must be stated the political situation is more complicated. For instance, the French have held a quasi-empire in northern Africa due to influencing government with them using the currency African franc, the French language as a common language and the recent coup d’états in Niger in 2023, marking the end of French influence in that region.
The French, British, German and others are reluctant to handle the European migrant crisis, which has been an ongoing crisis since 2013 due to the Arab Spring from 2010 to 2019, and this year, a net inflow of migrants is at least 1,200,000 people.
There is a misplaced view within European leadership, particularly in Germany, which is responsible for two world wars and the deaths of nearly a hundred million people, including 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, that they need to atone for their sins, and this is why Germany opened its borders to migrants.
Under the leadership of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in 2015, the nation had 1 million migrants, and as of 2022, that figure is now 2.7 million, though this data may not be accurate.
The Evil Empire
There is a view pushed by the enemies of democracy, freedom, and the American world system created after the Second World War that the United States is a force for evil in this world.
Furthermore, this viewpoint is being driven by the world becoming geopolitically multipolar.
What this means in politics and international relations terms is that the world is now becoming home to more than one superpower. In practical terms, it is more likely to be regional powers, with each region having one or more great powers dominating the politics within their areas.
This is driven by two factors: the industrialisation and prosperity that the United States created, which enabled nations who did not have access to resources to have the security of global oceans, which enabled free trade and for countries to begin industrialisation and specialisation.
Two great examples of specialisation are the Republic of Taiwan, which creates 90% of global semiconductor chips and the British, which is still the global leader in financial services.
What globalisation did was turn the world into one giant marketplace for goods and services, as well as affordable, which is why poor villages in Africa or People living in the Gaza Strip living in poverty have access to smartphones.
Nations don’t just fight wars with guns and rockets; they fight with war using culture, pushing forward their narrative, rightly or wrongly, that they should influence their regions, such as the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and India, to a lesser extent wanting to be out of the influence of the American system.
What these nations want is to be free of American influence, be free of Western influence and pursue geopolitical policies which they believe rightly or wrongly will be better off without being influenced by the United States of America.
Four people reading this who are curious about what an international world would look like if the United States dismantled its navy and permanently withdrew from geopolitics would see a world reminiscent of the 19th century.
For Europe, due to its declining geographical region, the dominant powers would be the French and English.
In the Far East, it would be China, India and Japan, though to a lesser extent for that nation due to its demographic decline and having more adults in diapers than newborn babies.
As for Africa, my money would be on Nigeria and South Africa. As for North America, that would still be the United States, a continental nation like India and China, and they will most likely have a powerful position in the world.
The Middle East would have to be Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel to a lesser extent because Turkey and Israel are most likely to make arrangements to carve up their interests in the region. However, Turkey and Greece may go to war over influence in the Aegean Sea.
In 2017, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared Canada the first postnational state; this means he does not see a landmass that any people living there have a claim to that land or that national identity is a genuine belief.
What we consider nationhood was created in the aftermath of the French Revolution of 1789 because the People in France who identified as French were mainly the intelligentsia and people living in cities, so around just 20% of the population.
Therefore, to create unity in the new French Republic and later under the first French Empire was to create a nation-state with one particular ethnic group or people’s belief in similar ideologies, speaking the same languages and believing their nation and its history special.
Nation-states were created and became the predominant method of ruling a land mass area dominated by one or similar ethnic groups due to this being the most straightforward method to govern nations.
With empires typically made of multiple ethnic groups, one ethnic group ruling a nation-state is far easier to manage.
The reason this attitude of not identifying with a nation’s history is making the West have a perpetual crisis is that if you do not believe in your nation, believe in its own right to exist, or believe in its identity, then no political leader or even its people will fight to protect it.
Using the analogy used by the historians David Starkey and Edward Gibbon, the Roman Empire did not fall to armies or farming, but due to its people no longer caring if it existed or if it was destroyed, it did not fall in a cataclysm instead died in a whimper because the Roman people no longer cared.
Suppose the Western people no longer care about their cultural legacy and are unwilling to share their national story with its history and culture. In that case, that too will fall into perpetual crisis, just like what happened to the Roman Empire.
The End of the Roman Empire
Watson Roman Empire finally collapsed in 476 A.D. From then until 1945, Europe was in a state of perpetual wars either internally or externally with its neighbours with kingdoms fighting for dominance, which lasted 1469 years or just short of 1 ½ millennium.
These wars and people reading this who are of European descent either by culture or by genetics, our grandfathers or even parents lived through two world wars in the 20th century, and they are the descendants of multiple wars stretching back to the fall of the Roman Empire.
This legacy of violence and destruction has traumatised Western European and Western psyches both emotionally and politically, with nations that are part of the West no longer interested in engaging in international politics and geopolitics the way they used before 1945.
The reason why this is leading the West into perpetual crisis is that, collectively, in our national memories, we have had enough of war and violence and are no longer willing to make decisions for our security that have instead outsourced to the United States of America that doesn’t have over millennia worth of trauma to deal with.
However, it must be highlighted that the United States has had enough of foreign wars and conflicts with American presidents since 1992, with the election of Bill Clinton having become increasingly isolationist and reactive, not proactive to a perpetual crisis.
China’s crumbling economy originated in the 1980s when China was opening up its economy to the rest of the world by creating special economic zones and implementing the one-child policy, which crippled China’s birthrate with social engineering.
The Chinese did this due to the communist philosophy, which enabled the state to interfere in individual’s lives due to the belief that the collective comes before the individual.
One of the critical battles during the Cold War from 1945 to 1989 was the battle between collectivism and liberal and economic capitalism, which saw the individual succeed but with the collective state-managed controlled economy stagnate and ultimately fail.
The Chinese political leadership chose to charter a third way, not communism with Chinese characteristics but capitalism with Chinese features, due to the underpinning ideology behind the Chinese Communist Party, which has been proven to be the wrong way to manage a nation.
That is why the Chinese Communist Party only maintained its legitimacy for its economic success, not through ideological frameworks of capitalism versus communism, due to China being a market-driven, not a state-driven economy, since the 1980s.
At the end of the Second World War, the global population was 2.3 billion; by 1980, it was over 4.4 billion people. This marked a doubling of the worldwide population, with the baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964.
This led to growing fears in the economic and academic community that humanity would experience global famines and mass starvation, which was prevented due to the creation of genetically engineered crops and improved technologies.
The Chinese Communist Party had the information in the 1960s and 1970s that they were heading towards mass famine and that the globe was not built to support a global population of over 7 billion, with the world’s current population at over 8 billion.
They were also heavily influenced by a view of eugenics and communist ideology but from the viewpoint of state intervention in people’s lives to stop China from starving to death.
These fears were ultimately unfounded and were essential to understand throughout the 1950s and 1970s; there were mass fears of global famine and global cooling, which were the global warming climate change fears of the 1970s.
In the early 1980s, China began the process under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping to open up the Chinese economy to foreign investment and begin developing a sophisticated market-based economic system for China, which was still being loosely controlled and monitored by the Chinese state.
China implemented this strategy because economics in the Far East was heavily influenced by the attitude exported from Japan, particularly in their reindustrialisation after its destruction and defeat in World War II.
Japan also industrialised in the late 19th century and conquered Korea and large chunks of China, which was only possible through state intervention and using debt to finance and grow Japan’s economy.
Furthermore, Japan has few natural resources, which drove the need for state intervention and the use of debt and imperialism to expand its economy.
The Japanese use the economy as a political end, not how the West uses it. It is a purely economic tool based upon principles of the free market for the Chinese; they adopted this viewpoint that the economy serves political ends and not vice versa.
Deng Xiaoping began opening up the Chinese economy to foreign investment offshore from the border with Hong Kong, which was still controlled by the British and its crumbling empire. It was handed over to China in 1997, marking the historical end of Britain’s empire.
The city chosen to open up the global economy only had a population of 330,000 people, which was tiny by Chinese standards; in 1980, China became the first nation to be home to over 1 billion people.
In the 40 years since Shezhen opened to the rest of the global economy, its economists exceeded that of its nearest neighbour, Hong Kong, in 2018, and the city is now the eighth largest city in the world at over 13 million people.
Impact on China
There are significant economic and social consequences of China’s opening economy and the development of the cities, with 65% of its population living in cities and 50% of its population moving to cities throughout the 1990s.
This was the largest migration of people in human history and marked the turning point in China from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing and industrial economy in the past 40 years.
There are two critical long-term economic impacts of this choice.
China experiences seven generations of economic development within one generation and experiences the same demographic decline experienced by other industrial nations rather than being spaced out over seven generations. Still, it is happening now in one generation.
When nations move from agricultural to industrial economies, people move to cities, and that’s when children become a liability and expensive; in the short term, previously, children were a free form of labour, but in small city apartments, they become a financial liability.
This is why nations, once they begin industrialisation, have a collapse or decline in their birthrate; for example, the United Kingdom’s birth rate declined over seven generations, which kept the overall population stable, and the UK started down that road in 1769.
India is another recent industrialising nation still behind China in industrial capacity and still has a good birthrate, which is just at replacement levels at 2.5, though some data says it is lower; this is an indicator of a historical trend of industrialisation, which leads to the collapse in the birthrate.
China’s Housing Crisis
China’s economy is functioning in one continuous economic input, and that is the continued phenomenal growth of the Chinese economy that is being powered by its industrial capacity and potential as well as internal factors that artificially raise its growth.
The construction is being promoted in China due to the artificial inflating of its GDP numbers, which has led to China building 65 million houses with a population the size of France with no people living there.
This inflation in the Chinese housing market could lead to an economic crash. The 2008 banking crisis and the 2007 and 2006 US mortgage crisis will look like not much of a big deal.
From the beginning of the recession in December 2007 to its official end in June 2009, real gross domestic product (GDP) — i.e., GDP as adjusted for inflation or deflation — declined by 4.3 per cent, and unemployment increased from 5 per cent to 9.5 per cent, peaking at 10 per cent in October 2009.
Real gross domestic product (GDP) fell 4.3 per cent from its peak in 2007Q4 to its trough in 2009Q2, the largest decline in the postwar era (based on data as of October 2013).
The unemployment rate, which was 5 per cent in December 2007, rose to 9.5 per cent in June 2009 and peaked at 10 per cent in October 2009.
This is just information about the United States, how it affected the rest of the world, how future crashes will be affected by China, how it will be unprecedented in financial history, and how it will affect the global economy.
Chinese citizens cannot invest their savings in assets outside of China due to restrictions made by the Chinese Communist Party that limit the flow of capital outside of China.
Therefore, to invest for retirement, Chinese citizens put their money in the Chinese stock market when there is an oversupply of housing and insufficient demand, which makes it incredibly unlikely that they could use the savings invested in property to live a comfortable retirement.
This leads to a considerable possibility of a Chinese financial crash triggered by the Chinese housing market’s overproduction of housing due to incentives not made by consumers but by the Chinese Communist Party due to state intervention in the economy.
Remember that for the Chinese, economics does not serve the purpose of the economy; it serves the purpose of political aims, which is, again, a different viewpoint than what is predominant in Western nations.
People reading this and remember the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and the destruction of the Twin Towers, especially Americans reading this, will remember the effects of the terror attack and how it led to 20 years of war on Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism.
From this tragedy, the official death toll, including the 19 terrorists, was set at 2,977 people.
At the World Trade Centre in New York City, 2,753 people died, of whom 343 were firefighters.
The death toll at the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., was 184, and 40 individuals died outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
The events along the Gaza Strip and the Hamas terrorist attack on the state of Israel may bring back many bad memories. Still, unfortunately, from the terrorist’s point of view, there is a method to their particular brand of madness.
Osama Bin Laden, who planned the 9/11 attacks and was a former leader of Al Qaeda, attacked the United States to get them and their allies to invade the Middle East and destroy America’s reputation within the region and globally.
Al Qaeda hoped that the United States invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 would serve as a way to weaken the US; this strategy did not work, but from their point of view, it makes sense as a means to bring the battlefield to a place of their choosing.
There are practical, political and ideological advantages for terrorist organisations to fight wars within their Muslim nations within the Middle East to gather more support against foreign invaders and non-believers from their warped point of view.
Hamas is doing the same thing with the Israelis by attacking them and forcing them to involve themselves in a never-ending conflict along the Gaza Strip.
However, unlike the USA, after 20 years of fighting the war on terror, the Israelis do not have the luxury of just leaving and taking their bags home.
Germany faces three major problems, with two currently out of Germany’s control.
No matter what happens, we will be witnessing the end of Germany as we know it over the next three decades and the end of the German ethnicity and culture within our lifetime.
Either way, Germany grew as a culture and nation, and we know today won’t be here by the end of the century.
The three issues that will cause the end of Germany are its declining demographics, which have been declining for over a hundred years; Germany has been over-reliant on natural resources from the Russian Federation and sending its manufacturing to China.
The final issue affecting Germany is its energy policy; with Germany having had multiple coalition governments with the Green Party of Germany, it has closed down other avenues for energy generation in favour of green energy.
At best, green energy, which is nuclear, solar, wind and other natural sources, only makes up 10% of Germany’s energy consumption.
This doesn’t make green energy bad, but only solar energy works where it’s sunny and wind where it’s windy. If you’ve ever been to Germany, it is not a very sunny place, so solar energy is not viable to replace traditional fossil fuels.
The problem with many European nations and other Western nations is the ideological gap between what works, what the voters want and reality. In this century, the nations that will prosper the most will be those plugged into reality.
Choices Germany Made
The reason Germany is staring down the barrel of a gun and seeing the destruction of its ethnic group within this century is due to choices made by the German government, German manufacturing and the choices of the German people not to reproduce.
These historical and demographic trends have affected Germany for over a century and since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. During the Cold War, Germany chose to maintain positive relations with the Soviet Union and eastern Germany.
The positive outcome of this experience was that Germany was reunited in 1990. From this experience, Germany hoped that the Russians and Chinese would transform from a totalitarian regime committing mass murder and genocide governments.
However, the Germans have chosen its two main trading partners, Russia and China, and cut ties with the United States even though the Americans are not the evil Empire.
With the war in Ukraine since February 2022, trade relations between the Russian Federation and Communist China collapsed immediately after trade sanctions started in Russia; the Germans opted to move predominantly to China as a trading partner.
Unfortunately, the Germans are finding out you cannot guarantee support and cooperation from dictatorships and totalitarian regimes, and now they have to pay for the consequences.
For people interested in the Far East, Japan’s rearmament is one of the biggest news stories to hit the region. It is historically significant for the Japanese, with their pacifist constitution being in force since the end of the Second World War in 1945.
On September 16, 2022, Fumio Kishida, the Prime Minister of Japan since 2021, released three new versions of national security documents focusing on national security, national defence strategy and national defence programme.
The papers are the first significant change to Japanese defence policy since 2013; documents are also blunt regarding the threats facing the Japanese home islands being described as ‘the most severe and complex security environments as the end of World War II’.
One of the fundamental changes they made to the Japanese military budget was a move away from spending 1% of the national GDP, and national defence was the standard North Atlantic Treaty Organisation convention of 2% of GDP.
Currently, as a share of GDP placed in context, the United States of America only spends 3.1% of national GDP and is expected to decline to 2.8% by 2033. The current economy of the United States is currently at in terms of GDP $26.854 trillion. In comparison, Japan’s GDP is at $4.4 trillion and is the world’s third wealthiest nation.
Regarding Japan’s chief Pacific rival, the Chinese government announces defence expenditure information annually.
In March 2023, China announced a yearly defence budget of RMB 1.55 trillion ($224.8 billion)1, marking a 7.2 per cent increase from the 2022 budget of RMB 1.45 trillion ($229.6 billion).
Why Japan Wants to Rearm
The current president of Japan is pursuing the rearmament and re-militarisation of his nation, which is quite surprising due to Fumio Kishida supporting policies of nuclear disarmament and coming from the piece wing of the Liberal Democratic party (自由民主党, Jiyū-Minshutō).
The other two significant threats to the Japanese were the North Koreans and Russians. People in predominantly Europe forget that Russia stretches from Eastern Europe to the Japanese archipelago with the Sakhalin Island.
The Japanese did not favour rearmament and remilitarisation for two fundamental political reasons. First, Japan lost World War II and the United States in retaliation rather than trying the Japanese culture or its independence as a people.
America opted for a truly American and unique strategy to integrate Japan into the global economy, maintain Japanese identity and enforce a Japanese peace constitution.
It occurred on May 3, 1947, immediately after World War II. The text of the article of the Japanese Government formally renounces war as a right of sovereignty and refuses to settle disputes using military force.
The second or most fundamental reason the Japanese did not maintain a strong military was the security provided by the United States during the Pax Americana.
Unfortunately, the Japanese know Americans are no longer interested in global affairs and being the world’s policeman.
Since the election of William ‘Bill’ Clinton in 1992, American presidents have been increasingly focused on internal American politics, and the American public has voted for increasingly isolationist presidents.
George W. Bush went against this mould primarily due to the wars in Afghanistan that focused American political presidential leadership mainly in that part of the globe, which prevented George W. Bush and his successors, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, from focusing on the Pacific.
It must be stated that it wasn’t Donald Trump and his successor, Joe Biden, that saw American foreign policy moving from the European continent to the Pacific.
Even with the seachange, the American Navy has consistently shrunk since the end of the Cold War in 1989 and no longer can secure the world shipping lanes.
According to the geopolitical analyst, author, and YouTube Peter Zilhan, America’s allies increasingly have to fend for themselves in a more chaotic and disorganised world.
Why Japan Needs Weapons
With the USA being overstretched with the war in Ukraine and when it comes to pursuing a naval policy with the US destroyers down to 150 and a focus on supercarriers, which are nation killers are not practicable when it comes to protecting the world’s oceans, Japanese must rearm.
With this environment, North Korea, China and Russia have more missile capability than the Americans and Japanese have in that region.
Japanese coastal defence missiles are currently limited to a range of just 200 km; even the air missiles Japan has acquired from Norway are only capable of 480 km.
This is not something the Japanese can tolerate any longer, with the Japanese planning to at least have the capacity to launch missiles able to reach targets at least 16,000 km, which is far enough to give the Japanese the capabilities to attack Beijing and Pyongyang in retaliative strike.
The Japanese government that the only reason they would ever use this capacity in a first strike and not a retaliative strike would be if they had solid Intel that North Korea, China or Russia was planning to attack Japan or its allies in the Pacific.
Opening phases of Japan’s rearmament were the purchase of Tomahawk missiles from the USA and a focus on domestic production within the Japanese home islands.
Furthermore, the Japanese government has contracted Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to produce a Japanese homegrown type XII missile.
The Japanese government is moving quickly in a missile-buying bonanza to become less independent internationally from outside sources inside the Japanese home islands. Sipri stated that Japan gets 80% of its missiles from the USA.
Problems With Japan’s Rearmament
The Japanese plan to rearm has one massive problem: the rearmament programme’s ability to have the population size necessary to fight a war on the battlefield and within industries.
Japan’s objective to improve the security situation in the region may not be feasible with Japan’s declining demographics, and its military has a problem with over 16,000 positions that cannot be filled.
If the Japanese cannot replace personnel, it is doubtful they could automate in time with the projection of the Chinese invading Taiwan within the next five years, nor is it possible to increase its birthrate in time.
The Japanese birthrate has been below replacement levels since the 1970s, partly due to the oil crisis in the early 70s and the issues in Japan and the ones being faced by most developed and industrial nations throughout the world.
The Japanese issues are caused by modern lifestyle, culture, and other factors that cannot be easily fixed, which Japan has been trying to fix for over three decades.
An option the Japanese could use is immigration. Unfortunately for Japan, South Korea and China, these are Monotonicity. Unlike their Western counterparts, they don’t have the option to bring immigration due to their protection attitudes to their culture.
Westerners, particularly people part of the Anglosphere, who are the English-speaking peoples, may perceive this as racist because if they moved to these nations, no matter what they do, they would never be considered Chinese or Japanese.
Western countries deduce they have this attitude toward culture. Still, it was decided politically and culturally to move away from a monoculture into a multicultural society, which these nations, as stated above, don’t have that option as a means to regrow the population numbers.
Chinese Internal Issues
The geopolitical analyst and author Peter Zilhan predicts that this decade will be China’s and Russia’s last decade as a serious international power, and he gives two main reasons for this.
The first one is a terminal demographic issue in these two nations that won’t start to recover until the twenty-second century.
The second reason is that the Russian Federation cannot maintain its multi-ethnic empire without a sufficient population, and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is unlikely but possible to maintain CCP leadership.
For these two reasons, war with China or Russia is highly possible.
Within the context of this article, China is the biggest problem for Japan.
The Chinese Communist Party is facing a perfect storm with an undercounting of its population by at least 100 million and China missing over 80 million women who have never been born due to the impact of the one-child policy.
The one-child policy was implemented due to the CCP’s ideology that allowed for state intervention, state eugenics and the overall attitude that the state has the right to play an active part in its population’s lives.
Because of these beliefs, the one-child policy, which started in 1979, limited Chinese couples to only one child due to the fear of mass starvation.
The long-term impact of that policy 40 years later is that millions of girls that could have been born have been aborted due to the desire to continue on the family name in the Chinese society that is more favourable to males.
Also, due to China’s declining demographic, it is a country that is getting old before it can get rich, in contrast to its neighbour Japan, which faced the same issue and has faced the same problem since the 1990s.
However, the Japanese managed to reindustrialise and revitalise its economy after it was devastated during World War II and became wealthy enough to pay for its increased ageing population.
As for China, it has run out of time with its Boomer generation hitting retirement this decade and the bulk of them most likely being dead by 2040.
What this means for the China Communist Party to survive even though it will most likely lose any foreign war with the United States and its allies.
There is a solid amoral case for the Communist Party.
Even if it lost the war, it got to choose the time and place of its defeat and dictated the narrative of Chinese history after the event, where the Chinese Communist Party’s priority was survival.
The Chinese Communist Party have rewritten history before with China’s so-called hundred years of humiliation from 1837 to 1949, which is based partly on historical nonsense.
China has been divided for at least half its existence throughout its long history, if not more, depending on how you view Chinese civilisation.
It has repeatedly collapsed, faced rebellions, and has seen Southern China repeatedly breaking away from the North.
Chinese history is long and complicated, and the public only tends to get a slim-down version. Very few people understand the strong ethnic divide between northern and southern Chinese, according to Jerrard Diamond, author of Guns, Steel and Germs.
As for the CCP, it is to survive. If this means at least half a billion dead Chinese, according to Peter Zilhan, that is something they can live with.
Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has been in office since 2021, pushing for the rearmament and remilitarisation of the Japanese home islands.
Currently, Japan has no capacity outside of the support of the United States to launch counterstrike’s against China and Korea.
Its missile range is limited to 200 km outside of the Japanese islands; to have the capacity to attack Beijing and Pyongyang, Japan will need a capacity of 16,000 km.
The Japanese have allowed their military capabilities to dwindle for two main reasons: Japan’s pacifist constitution was enforced at the end of World War II in 1945 and implemented in 1947.
Part of this constitution was the Japanese would not launch offensive operations and would only fight wars in self-defence.
Why Japan is Rearming
The Japanese government is now changing this policy, stating that Japan will only launch a first strike if its sovereign independence is at stake.
They are further stressing that the only reason it would launch a pre-emptive strike is if they had reliable military intelligence that they are facing an immediate attack from a hostile nation.
The second reason the Japanese demilitarised after World War II was the United States being a guarantee of global shipping lanes and its allies willingly or unwillingly in the case of Japan giving over its foreign policy to the United States in return for protection.
It has been over 78 years since the end of World War II, and the United States was able to maintain this monopoly and control over its ally’s foreign policy because the United States created the international system and globalisation which enabled all nations to have access to resources outside of the home nations territory.
One of the key reasons why the Japanese started their imperialism project and took swathes of territory in the Pacific and on the Eurasian continent was the lack of natural resources inside the Japanese home islands.
So, in an imperialist and the survival of the fittest international environment, the Japanese chose to survive and prosper by taking lands and resources from others.
The Americans changed this by protecting global trade and enforcing global peace amongst their allies.
Since the election of Bill Clinton in 1992, the Japanese have seen the Americans consistently vote into office individuals who are increasingly isolationist and disinterested in global affairs.
With America drawing this disenfranchisement in the American project of globalisation and internationalism that is causing American allies to start implementing their own foreign policy based upon their national interest, nations like Japan need to rearm.
In some respects, the American withdrawal from the world and being overstretched with the conflict in Ukraine and the possibility of a war in Taiwan in the next five years can be likened to the Roman Empire when it was heading towards its decline, having to defend far-flung provinces and overstretched militarily and financially.
Currently, the USA only has 150 destroyers and 11 supercarriers, which is not enough ships to protect global shipping lanes, which will see, according to the geopolitical analysis Peter Zilhan, more disorder happening in the increasingly deglobalised world.
The European Union has its roots in the aftermath of World War II in 1945. Europe had been in a state of pectoral wars since the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 A.D. Since then, different regional powers within Europe have tried to become the leading continental power.
These wars accumulated in three great European wars: the French Revolution from 1793 until 1799 and the Napoleonic wars from 1799 to 1815. World War I was the second great European war from 1914 to 1918, and World War II was the final great war in Europe from 1939 to 1945.
The conflicts in Europe throughout the 19th and 20th century was between France and the rising power of united Germany after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 to 1871, which had the Germans temporarily occupying Paris.
The rise of Germany as the leading power in Europe and the French and the Germans wanting revenge led to two colossus wars, which cost the lives of 16 million people in World War I and over 60 million during World War II.
An atmosphere of reconciliation and peace was on the European agenda to finally end the constant wars and bloodletting within Europe after World War II.
The reason for this being created was to primarily tie the European economy’s industrial capacity of coal and steel, which is necessary for modern industrial warfare to prevent war again by creating economic interdependency and cooperation.
The Problem with the European Union
From the words above, I’ve hopefully demonstrated how the European Union has evolved first from the corner steel community in 1952.
Then, the European Economic Community was created in 1957, aiming to foster economic integration among its member states. It was subsequently renamed the European Community upon becoming integrated into the first pillar of the newly formed European Union in 1993.
The European Union (EU), the Organization of European Countries, was formed in 1993 to oversee their economic and political integration. It was created by the Maastricht Treaty and ratified by all members of the European Community (EC), out of which the EU developed.
Ultimately, the European Union was created to create economic unity and prevent wars from ever happening between its members and hopefully avoid any future large-scale wars in Europe, primarily between the members of the EU.
Unfortunately, the European Union’s massive weakness is that the economic power does not have adequate political unity and a united military complex to be a serious international power.
Furthermore, it is not a true federalised union like the United States of America.
If the nation within the EU dislikes a foreign policy or how the economy is being handled, they can veto anything they disagree with.
The fate of the European Union will likely be decided in the coming week; if that doesn’t pique your interest, I’m not sure what will.
For the European Union to be an effective entity within Europe and around the globe. Fundamental reforms will be needed to transform it into a true Federalist union. Still, with 27 members of this union, each polling in the interests of their nations, it is doubtful this will happen.
Turkey’s do not vote for Christmas, and it is very unlikely that politicians in each member state will be willing to limit their powers within their nation and abroad because it is against their interests.
If you have been following my writing since July, you may remember me writing about the Russians targeting power grids and other energy sources during the winter of 2022 and 2023; the Russian Federation did this during the initial Ukraine war launched in February 2022.
The Russians targeted Ukrainian energy due to the complete logistical disaster because Russian mechanised units ran out of fuel for their vehicles and had to withdraw from northern Ukraine back into Belarus.
Due to the Russian military’s failures and corruption, they had to start using siege tactics because if the Russians did not defeat the Ukrainians on the battlefield, they would try to freeze them to death.
Furthermore, the Russians are deliberately targeting the Ukrainian ability to feed themselves and export agricultural products around the world, which could lead to a mass famine of at least 400 million people, primarily affecting China and the nations like Niger and Nigeria.
As of September, Putin has sufficiently disrupted Ukraine’s grain exports and agricultural sector. Meanwhile, the Russians were bolstering their wheat exports, so global supply has held steady, and prices are still down.
However, relying on Russian grain is unreliable due to the high potential of sea conflicts, privateering, or other factors that could disrupt Russian grain from the Black Sea to the rest of the world.
Eduard Zernin, head of Russia’s Union of Grain Exporters, cited a potential aggravation of what he called ‘hidden sanctions’ that ‘may lead to an increase in freight and insurance costs’ for Russia.
Give some perspective on the importance of Russian grain. Russia is the largest wheat exporter in the world, followed by Canada and the United States. Three countries export more than 20 million tons of wheat: Russia, Canada and the United States.
To secure the screen supply, the best option, though it may be unrealistic due to a lack of political will in the West and both American political parties, Democrat and Republican, being hotly divided on the issue of Ukraine due to some Americans viewing the conflict as a foreign war.
The infrastructure development option is building railway networks connecting Europe and the grain from Ukraine to transport agricultural materials.
As the temperatures shift, we will see the Russians change their strategy again. They will transition from attacking Ukrainian agricultural infrastructure to targeting the power grid, but just because the Russian focus has shifted doesn’t mean grain markets will be stable.