Essay on US Strategy. Part 2
AUSTIN, TEXAS – March 4, 2019
We continue our series of articles on US strategy and a description of all realistic scenarios.
In the first part, we considered a practically closed scenario of preserving the global right-liberal world, which has two strategies. The first one is called “The End of History” since it implies the preservation of an alliance with global financiers ("the owners of the money”), the direction of all resources to save the global financial system at the expense of the US economy, and, as a consequence, the gradual transition to the option which can be briefly described as "the End of the Empire." This option threatens the US’s loss of world domination in 2025-2030 and the subsequent complete loss of subjectivity as a single state in a tougher scenario than the USSR faced in the 90s. The second scenario, “Cosmocolonialism,” will remain hidden until 2040–2050.
We also noted that the most likely scenario for the world is the “Multi-Polar World, Pan-Regions” option; for it, the US has two manifested strategies. The first is the "Greatness of America" -- forcing the transition to the sixth technological mode by breaking the existing post-industrial society and civil war. The second is the “Last Legion.” The essence of this strategy is the same, only there will be an attempt to make everything calmer, without kinking, losing the strategic pace in favor of minimizing current losses.
Today we will consider the following possible scenario, which we called "The Last Legion.”
As part of this strategy, an attempt will be made to avoid civil war and to overload the country through external events, as happened in the middle of the 20th century. Donald Trump is now pursuing this policy: He consistently rejects all the agreements, laws, and principles of the outgoing world order, based on simple logic: Let me lose $1 here and now, and my enemies, the deep state and the "owners of the money,” lose $10.
In addition, his actions give a short-term economic effect due to the inertia of feedback.
The economic logic and consequences of Trump's policies
The US economy, as the world dominant, was built on the principle of non-equivalent exchange with the whole world. At the expense of spending on the army, special services, ideology (Hollywood and all that), NATO, international institutions (Bretton Woods system) and bribing national elites in other countries, the US created a mechanism of pressure and for pumping out resources.
Part of the resources received was directed to the over-consumption of the population (the middle class), and part of them to the repressive apparatus in relation to the world. But the mechanisms have broken, their service life is over (we have repeatedly written about this), and the greed of the financial sector has grown much stronger than it should have.
In order to knock out resources from the rest of the world, it is necessary to strengthen the repressive apparatus more and more. However, this is a global spring, and the farther away, the harder it is to compress, and the benefits of this are less and less. It has gotten to the point that the marginality of additional expenses is less than one, and the resistance of the spring has begun to grow, even if it was not attempted to be squeezed harder.
So what does Trump do? He reduces the cost of the world repressive apparatus directing the savings onto the population and its real sector. It is from here that the requirements for the allies to pay for their own security originate. Further, the pressure on the world should decrease and the incoming resources will fall sharply. But this will not happen immediately; there is inertia of thinking, but in a short time, you can improve your position. That's exactly what we are seeing lately.
The idea of this strategy is that with such small deviations it will be possible to gradually leave unnecessary territories, squeezing the zone of control from around the world to Latin America (the revival of the Monroe Doctrine), and then crushing the resistance of the post-industrial economy (dismantling a significant part of it, but not losing it completely) and moving to the sixth techno-economic paradigm.
What are the difficulties:
- the collapse is difficult to control, it is unlikely to come out smoothly;
- people living in a post-industrial economy make up to half of the population, including almost the entire young, financial elite;
- for the young elite, this policy means the loss of everything (from palaces to slums), and they will resist to the last, i.e. the risk of civil war does not disappear;
- there will be the loss of pace by 7-10 years, compared with the strategies of the "Greatness of America" (includes civil war).
The key point is the last: In the modern multi-layered world crisis, the winner will be not the last to fall, but who will be the first to cross the phase barrier to the sixth techno-economic paradigm. It is a fundamental question.
At the same time, there is a chance of failure in the civil war in a later period, which will worsen the situation, since it will lead to falling out into the “third world,” which immediately adds risks. Competitors and neighbors can pounce and not give back the position.
Thus, “The Last Legion” strategy is based on the ability of the US to control the collapse of the world system, calmly retreat from previously won positions (hence the generals' fear after Trump's demand to withdraw troops from the Middle East -- the retreating Empire is dying), and gradually dismantle elements of the post-industrial economy beyond the control of the industrial elites of the US (almost all).
The result should be a transition to the sixth techno-economic paradigm (robotization, additive technologies, a closed nuclear fuel cycle, etc.), but it will be 7-10 years later than with the more rigid version of the civil war, and the probability of avoiding it is not so great.