Item — HN Reader

Because of geopolitics, the rest is just hypocrisy. Germany and France wanted to build the Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok with help from Russia. That new Europe would became a 3rd power (after US and China) It's a good match. They can get cheap resources from Russia, manufacturing can be move from China to Siberia where pollution is not a big problem. Russia would balance China, so no need for massive military spending. USA could be pushed out of Europe.

It would guarantee future for Russia. Right now 50% of Russian budged is from carbohydrates. Due to fracking and decarbonisation it won't be profitable to mine in Russia in 15 years[1]. Without that income, states like Chechnya, are gonna try to leave the federation.

It's good for China as well, since USA sanctions would not be that effective.

The Atlantic world doesn't want the 3rd power (hence USA and UK are helping a lot in Ukraine) as well as Central European countries (Poland, Ukraine, Baltic states etc.) The table that shows military aid by GDP is an eye opener.

[1] Gas and oil from Ukrainian shores (Crimea) could speed it up.

2 comments

This is the Leviathan vs. Behemoth theory of geopolitics. It has explanatory value, though it’s distinctly colonial in its construction.

In this game, Europe is the swing vote. The Leviathan, a maritime power of Europe, the U.K., North America and Australia + Japan currently holds. Xi tried forging a Behemoth, a land power, in which Eurasia dominates Africa and the Americas. Behemoths, the thinking goes, will be army-driven and centralised; Leviathans, naval and decentralised.

The problem with the Behemoth is Eurasia is too culturally diverse to put under the sort of centralisation land powers (e.g. Rome, the Ottomans, Napoleon’s France + the USSR) require to stay stable. Maritime powers, historically trading powers (e.g. Carthage, the Dutch, the British and the United States), accommodate more diversity. Maritime alliances are inherently reliant on networks of local governments versus a central power dictating policy to the periphery. Put simply, the deck looks stacked against a Beijing-Moscow-Berlin alliance barring major right-wing shifts in Western Europe and social liberalisation in much of Asia.

> Germany and France wanted to build the Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok with help from Russia

The Arctic Sea is becoming navigable. Push for an independent Siberia, et cetera that exports via Arctic ports, not pipelines, and they get what they’re looking for without requiring a global reälignment. (Not advocating this. Just saying it’s a better play under that geopolitical model than trashing Ukraine.)

> the deck looks stacked against a Beijing-Moscow-Berlin

As of this movement, yes, but in the future USA won't be able to keep the hegemony. Right now there is a leverage on energy (oil and gas from middle east) and the cheapest from of transportation (maritime). USA can block both via Ormuz and Malacca. In 20-30 years China and Europe will be energy and resource independent. If land transportation* will be more cost effective than ships, USA hegemony is gone.

*hyperloop/magnetic rail/other

> 20-30 years China and Europe will be energy and resource independent. If land transportation will be more cost effective than ships, USA hegemony is gone

This geopolitical model predates modern energy dynamics; in any case, Siberian minerals will flow to Chinese and European factories for a long time to come. This model also doesn’t require American dominance. (Again, it dates from the age of British and Austro/Russo/French power.) A future Leviathan could operate with Europe and America on co-equal footing, versus the D.C. dominance we see today.

As for land transport becoming more efficient than ocean, that’s a pipe dream. We’re talking about orders of magnitude of cost difference between the cutting edge of where rail/loop could be in a decade and where an inefficient shipping industry is today. Rail is also less resilient in times of war, as we’re seeing with Russia, being more targetable (Ukraine) and deniable by intermediaries (Kalingrad).

The real tipping point in favour of the Leviathan, however, comes with air forces and missiles, force projection options which didn’t exist when the model was conceived. Xi’s strategic fuckup has been in failing to see that China, too, could command a Leviathan. In an alternate timeline, a patient and thoughtful China is signing trade deals and security compacts with the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia Korea and maybe even Taiwan and Japan. Instead, Beijing Bethemothed the islands which encircle China into an adversarial stance, a stance they can maintain thanks to the stopping power of water, and a position which prevents China from projecting blue ocean naval power.

> As for land transport becoming more efficient than ocean, that’s a pipe dream

I don't remember exact numbers from 2019, but it was something like:

Air: 1 metric tonne: $100, 24h

Rail: $40; 10 days

Ship: $8; 30 days

Let's say it's 2049 and we have 4 powers: new Europe, USA, China and India. China starts the full scale blockade of Taiwan to wait for the USA for the kinetic escalation. Only USA ships are blocked, so Japan, Korea, Europe do nothing. The situation last for years. The freight cost goes up massively due to risk, the fuel is 2x-3x more expensive - cheap oil is gone and the last big reserve is in Arctic. Magnetic rail China-Europe is finished and you stack up 3 containers which are delivered in 48h. Land transportation became better than ships.

> Rail is also less resilient in times of war

True, but the new Europe will be neutral is the USA-China conflict.

> Xi’s strategic fuckup has been in failing to see that China, too, could command a Leviathan

I don't think Xi made a mistake. I don't think we have a reliable data from China. China started shrinking due to Covid way sooner that the models predicted. The official number about 12 mln births, but that doesn't correlate well with mandatory tuberculosis vaccinations. The real number could be 9 mln. Xi perception might be he has 10 years not 30. What is more, I think China is like Japan in 1930. From China's perspective there is no option - we fight or we die.

The more optimistic scenario: Xi is gone. USA makes Kissinger 2.0 - a deal that must be secret. USA does nothing and China takes over Taiwan without the invasion. North and South Korea is demilitarised. China still uses USD.

> USA ships are blocked, so Japan, Korea, Europe do nothing. The situation last for years. The freight cost goes up massively due to risk, the fuel is 2x-3x more expensive - cheap oil is gone and the last big reserve is in Arctic. Magnetic rail China-Europe is finished and you stack up 3 containers which are delivered in 48h. Land transportation became better than ships

How did a blockade around Taiwan turn into a global maritime halt? Magnetic rail and ships have similar energy inputs; if energy is going up for one it’s going up for the other. (Turning electricity into dense, portable stores isn’t trivial, but it’s comparable to long-distance electrical transport.) That rail link would also remain easier to strike than the world’s merchant fleet.

I don’t think American dominance is here to stay. But it’s highly unlikely a Europe-China nexus works, versus a rebalance America-Europe-Japan relationship. (There are no situations in which a belligerent China peacefully wins over Japan.)

> How did a blockade around Taiwan turn into a global maritime halt?

Not a halt but increase of costs. 2/3 of world trade is near Taiwan. The insurance premiums will skyrocket. USA aka World Police will be busy with China, which will lead to tensions in other places and piracy. Business will pick rail if it's a bit more expensive (say 20%) and you get products faster.

Seems like a stretch to say Germany wants Russia to invade Ukraine...

I haven't said that. They want to go back to status quo ante, hence "French President Emmanuel Macron has sparked a new wave of criticism and incomprehension over his calls to avoid humiliating Russia in Ukraine"

Also, that's the reason why Germany was relying on gas from Russia. They are not idiots. It was not a stupid single point of failure, but geopolitics.

> that's the reason why Germany was relying on gas from Russia. They are not idiots.

Geopolitics pits Germany and Moscow as geopolitical rivals, as they’ve been for centuries.

If the goal was building an alliance, letting one side unilaterally cripple your industrial base without similar unilateral counterstrike options is a strategic blunder. Berlin can’t do much, unilaterally, to Moscow. Even if we assume the Lisbon-to-Vladivostok theory, the gas reliance doesn’t make sense.

> Geopolitics pits Germany and Moscow as geopolitical rival

Only when the land between Moscow and Berlin is subjected to either state (division of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact)