Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[HVC]

Yes, we're all aware Canada is under the delusion they can secure freedom through vassalage to China.

Sad sign of the times when it turns out China is more reliable then the USA

[Richard Hakluyt]

Further away too.

[Razgovory]

No, not quite. It's just that we have stopped being under the delusion that the Americans are a reliable ally and a reliable trading partner.

Also less likely to lecture you about antisemitism.  

[HisMajestyBOB]

No, not quite. It's just that we have stopped being under the delusion that the Americans are a reliable ally and a reliable trading partner.

Also less likely to lecture you about antisemitism. 

Fewer Nazis in the government too.

[Razgovory]

No, not quite. It's just that we have stopped being under the delusion that the Americans are a reliable ally and a reliable trading partner.

Also less likely to lecture you about antisemitism. 

Fewer Nazis in the government too.

People keep telling me that China is a fascist state... so maybe?

[HisMajestyBOB]

Fascist and Nazi are not synonymous. Though I should have said "white Nationalists" rather than "Nazi", to be more accurate. Very few of those in China, but quite a few in the current US government. If I were Jewish, I wouldn't put much trust in the current US.

[Valmy]

No, not quite. It's just that we have stopped being under the delusion that the Americans are a reliable ally and a reliable trading partner.

Also less likely to lecture you about antisemitism. 

All the current fallouts with our former friends and allies are clearly because of Donald Trump's commitment to anti-racism and social justice. Nailed it Raz. The United States is just too virtuous and good for this sad fallen world.

[Sheilbh]

Further away too.

The northern version of "poor Mexico. So far from God, so close to the United States."

Sad sign of the times when it turns out China is more reliable then the USA

They're really not Just as the Philippines, Japan, Australia - or indeed previous Canadian governments about the multi-spectrum retaliation you get for crossing the Chinese state.

I think we're moving into an era where there's no such thing as "reliable" or "long-term" or "stable" partners - at least in the medium term.

And in fairness if you view the post-war as one continuous period of an order, 70 years is impressive. But it can't and won't last forever (and neither will its replacement) - which has to be the context for stability, reliability etc.

[crazy canuck]

I can see that being accurate from the UK perspective. Brexit demonstrated that it too is unreliable.

[HVC]

Further away too.

The northern version of "poor Mexico. So far from God, so close to the United States."

Sad sign of the times when it turns out China is more reliable then the USA

They're really not Just as the Philippines, Japan, Australia - or indeed previous Canadian governments about the multi-spectrum retaliation you get for crossing the Chinese state.

I think we're moving into an era where there's no such thing as "reliable" or "long-term" or "stable" partners - at least in the medium term.

And in fairness if you view the post-war as one continuous period of an order, 70 years is impressive. But it can't and won't last forever (and neither will its replacement) - which has to be the context for stability, reliability etc.

I didn't say reliable, I said more reliable

A broken clock is more reliable then one without a face. And you should know that i'm no sinophile

[Jacob]

They're really not Just as the Philippines, Japan, Australia - or indeed previous Canadian governments about the multi-spectrum retaliation you get for crossing the Chinese state.

We are very aware of the nature of multi-spectrum retaliation from the Chinese government here in Canada. They are absolutely and clearly coercive, are engaged in clandestine influence operations on Canadian soil, and there are very clear value differences.

The sad thing is that in spite of that based on its track record, the Chinese government is still more reliable than the current US regime. There are clear, relatively rational and predictable lines, and once a direction is set it more or less continues that way.

That is better than the massively erratic, demented personality focused careening of the ego driven direction of the US. Things like "I'm going to block the opening of this infrastructure project unless you put my name on it"; the endless tariffs on again, off again, on again, off again ad infinitum; the semi-arbitrary "oh I'd ignore these things Trump says" advice from the administration vs the "oh this thing is serious"; and - of course - the habitual ignoring of the rule of law and international agreements with the barest of gesture at reasoning.

The Trump regime is belligerent, corrupt, inconsistent, and ego-driven.

It is not that China has gotten any better than it was. It hasn't. It's that the Trump regime has made the US that much worse.

This is, of course, weighed against the breadth and depth of the integration with the US, and on the deep personal and institutional ties across a whole bunch of sectors. But the US regime is degrading the quality of those ties at a highly accelerated rate, and we don't know where the bottom is.

Conversely, with China the baseline is mutually understood, and the process of incrementally improving (or degrading) from that baseline is fairly clear and predictable.

[Sheilbh]

I can see that being accurate from the UK perspective. Brexit demonstrated that it too is unreliable.

I don't think power is subjective or about your attitude.

The US (definitely) and China (possibly - but I think very likely) are the only states capable of building a world order and in my view both of them are unreliable and, in different ways and places, predatory. Neither, I think, are interested in a meaningfully democratic or consultative order and I don't think any order has ever been built without power underpinning it (perhaps the papacy/Christendom?).

And I'd add the material, economic forces that are disintegrating that order are the same ones driving Brexit - it's not just all a morality play or about individual political failings.

[HVC]

What Jacob said

[Jacob]

I don't think power is subjective or about your attitude.

How very realist of you 

The US (definitely) and China (possibly - but I think very likely) are the only states capable of building a world order and in my view both of them are unreliable and, in different ways and places, predatory. Neither, I think, are interested in a meaningfully democratic or consultative order and I don't think any order has ever been built without power underpinning it (perhaps the papacy/Christendom?).

Yeah that's probably right.

The difference is that the US' posture is changing rapidly and we don't know where or when it'll stop changing rapidly. That makes it less reliable.

And I'd add the material, economic forces that are disintegrating that order are the same ones driving Brexit - it's not just all a morality play or about individual political failings.

Of course not, but political and morality narratives are deeply interwoven with material economic forces and cannot be discounted. They function as explanatory frameworks the justify action and cannot be dismissed.

Propaganda, morality, and politics (individual and aggregate) have always mattered. This remains true in the age of social media and instant global mass communication.

[Sheilbh]

How very realist of you 

Soz

Yeah that's probably right.

The difference is that the US' posture is changing rapidly and we don't know where or when it'll stop changing rapidly. That makes it less reliable.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote. And I think you might be right on this too. But I think there may be a difference in how we view the upside of reliable, strategic and hostile to unreliable and occasionally hostile (but fundamentally unpredictable/changeable/chaotic).

So with China - I think there is also possibly a difference looking at this from a Canadian or a European perspective.

As a European, we don't have much in the way of natural resources and we do not have a significant extraction sector. Our economic appeal to China lies in technical know-how (particularly in high-end manufacturing - see the recent attempt to takeover an important Dutch chips firm, after the blocked attempt to takeover a similar Welsh firm, and also all of Germany I also couldn't help but note that one of the big "deals" announced on Starmer's trip to Beijing was a £15 billion JV with Astra-Zeneca - and life sciences is one of the target sectors for China to develop in the latest five year plan) and our market. But with the dual circulation strategy China's economic policy would further de-industrialise Europe while increasing European dependency on China economically. That's not an accident or an incidental sideproduct - it is the strategy.

At the same time China's industry and state is increasing its support for Russia. The Estonian intelligence assessment you posted noted that Sino-Russian cooperation has "significantly deepened" in the last four years in energy, trade, finance, transport, logistics, science, technology and education. Chinese manufacturing (including of things like chips and high-end electronics) is heavily supporting the development of Russia's growing drone capacity. Russia has increased its manufacturing of shells to 7 million per year, as well as acquiring shells from Iran and North Korea - while China isn't directly supplying them, there's lots of evidence that China is supplying the industrial equipment, the assembly lines etc.

At this point Europe has successfully hit its target of manufacturing 2 million shells per year for Ukraine ahead of target (2027), which is good but needs to be put next to the resource capacity of the enemy. And this is where these two are combined. There is economic route for Europe to work more with China that does not involve Europe's further de-industrialisation, reducing European capacity to defend itself or support Ukraine. And I think there is ultimately no route to that that doesn't involve a (possibly Chinese brokered) rapprochement with Russia, betraying Ukraine and possibly opening Europe's own states to coercion and attack.

I accept all the criticism of Trump and the US on this and everything else that is explored in-depth across Languish. But in my view, from a European perspective, that's the alternative we'd be dealing with.

I think things are different if you're Canadian. In part because Trump is threatening Canadian sovereignty (I imagine similar for the Danes). But also because Canada is American and like other American states - and, say, Australia and some African states - Canada has resources that China wants and needs and a robust extraction sector. So Canada has more leverage economically and there may be space within that to preserve or build up Canadian industry. Similarly I don't think the route to China runs through Russia in quite the way it does for Europe, so again I think Canada has space that Europe doesn't - though I think we should be clear-eyed about where Canadian trade with China would end up and a portion of it would be drones above Zaporizhia and Russian assembly lines making shells.

Of course not, but political and morality narratives are deeply interwoven with material economic forces and cannot be discounted. They function as explanatory frameworks the justify action and cannot be dismissed.

Propaganda, morality, and politics (individual and aggregate) have always mattered. This remains true in the age of social media and instant global mass communication.

So I think I disagree. I think the political and morality narratives are constructed out of the material economic reality. They are the ideology that certain material realities produce and reproduce. I think we could have fantastic propaganda, clean social media etc and we would still be facing a form of political disintegration (though I agree it might have different characteristics) because what is driving it is the end of the economic and security structure that produced the previous political order.

But I also wonder if we're talking about slightly different things in that I think you're meaning more as analytical/explanatory tools or propaganda, whereas I think I'm meaning maybe more normative forces - if that distinction makes sense?

And I'd add there's maybe a further level which is sort of aesthetics/vibes politics - which I think is a large part of how Europe got here. Look at Angela Merkel: austerity across Europe that resulted in the decimation of Europe's renewables sector (where we had a global lead - now taken by China) and huge cuts to defence spending (it had held up in the 2000s as Europe was more involved in Afghanistan), Minsk agreements (today is the anniversary of Minsk II) and the key point person for the West on dealing with Putin, shutting off nuclear which (combined with the decimation of the renewables sector) left a Europe more dependent on energy imports (which would come from Russia primarily - and now Trump's America) as well as more carbon intensive (as well as resulting in industrial energy costs that are twice what they are in the US or China) and an economic strategy predicated on ever deeper ties to China. Impeccable vibes/aesthetics: the new "leader of the free world", an adult, a "grown up in the room" etc. In terms of policy outcomes: catastrophic on basically every front. In part, I'd argue, because it was operating at a level above and entirely disconnected from the material economic reality: where are things produced, who owns those factories, where do the materials and energy inputs come from, who has coercive power.