Socialism is doomed to fail, just as Communism was. As the economies of the West stagger under the burdens of massive regulations and taxes placed upon them by their all-too-generous governments, those same governments, not content with their super-sized tax income, have borrowed massive amount of money to further increase the numbers of their dependent classes.  Borrowing can be managed, but not at the rate Western governments have done so. At this very moment, riots and protests have gripped the West, due not so much to an attempt to implement a coherent political philosophy (like Communism) but more to an effort to force Western governments away from austerity measures.

Austerity measures are the response of socialist governments to the bleak fact that those same governments, almost without exception, have spent and borrowed their way into bankruptcy. Most Western nations have spent far more than their incoming tax income in a crazy attempt to expand their dependent classes and thus ensure that the ruling elites continue to hold power in perpetuity. The subsequent debt created is either paid by debasing the currency or by borrowing money or (most commonly) by both.  Socialism, like it’s cousin, Communism, is unsustainable. The creation of an ever-growing dependent class eventually eats out the tax base and forces higher tax rates and/or massive borrowing.  No nation can withstand this forever.

Business will continue to stagger under the increasing burdens and shrinking customer base. Additional regulations from governments under pressure to “get even” with business will further restrict the options businesses have to move their money in a profitable direction, thus hurting their bottom lines and reducing the amount of tax they can send to governments. A vicious cycle (which, by the way, has been underway for quite some time) will further push governments to the brink of collapse as their desperate measures to increase tax revenues to cover the interest from their debts further reduces the amount the taxpayers can afford to pay.

In my opinion, Socialism will fall as governments all over the world either collapse or pull back from their socialist policies. Those governments that collapse will suffer under depression-like conditions for a few years as reality reasserts itself in their economies. The “social safety net” will no longer be viable and the economy, once untangled from the net, will finally begin the long road to recovery. In the short run however, those nations that collapsed will most likely be forced to reduce the size of their armed forces and most of these nations will be knocked down a rung on the Great Power ladder.

The nations who have not engaged in the madness of Socialism or who have at least not borrowed beyond their means, will be the greatest beneficiaries of the new world order created by the fall of those governments who did. Russia, Germany, and India will be relatively unscathed and will increase in power relative to those nations who did not pull back from Socialism. The United States, Britain, China, and most of Western Europe will slip down the power ladder as they have shown few signs of pulling back from their “safety nets.”

The power of the European Union will wane, and Germany will increasingly call the shots in the bloc. This will anger her neighbors and the EU will enter a crisis.

The United States, while remaining the greatest of the Great Powers, will weaken measurably, and her rivals will begin to exploit the weakness and attempt to replace her as number one. The end of American dominance in world Affairs will be a possibility.

China is an interesting case. While the nation has great strengths, it is still half Communist and reliant on the US economy. The collapse of the US dollar (and possibly economy) will cause an economic crisis in China, where an increasingly aging socialist society will have to pay the bill. India’s ambitions to dominate South Asia will be greatly bolstered by this development, forcing China to continue to increase its defense expenditures and exacerbating its financial problems.

Russia, the great supplier of gas to Europe and Asia, will be affected somewhat, but will not decline nearly to the extent its rivals will. That fact alone will enable it to rise relative to other nations and be a much more influential force in world affairs.

The world is about to change. It may not change as I have predicted, but certainly change is coming, whether the dependent and ruling classes want it to or not. Economic freedom is attractive, and the fall of Socialism will make that freedom available to millions of people around the world. As it is written in the Scriptures: “Every valley will be exalted, and every mountain and hill made low.”

Since its late eighteenth century Revolution, most citizens of the United States of America have idealistically held the notion that Republican forms of government are superior and more free than Monarchical forms. The US government has actively participated in the overthrow of legitimate monarchies and has replaced them with republics all over the globe. However, most of America’s best allies today are in fact, monarchies. These nations are prosperous, free, and in some cases have less government intrusion into the liberty of their people than the US. Consider these examples:

Japan. A truly first-world nation, Japan is incredibly prosperous, technologically advanced, and is a functioning democracy. It is however, ruled by a monarch. Japan is the closest US ally in East Asia and one of the world’s most powerful nations.

The Commonwealth. The most famous nation in this group of nations ruled by Queen Elizabeth is obviously Great Britain, but other important (but by no means the only) nations ruled by the Queen are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. All are prosperous, free democracies and several are Powers in their own right.

Thailand. The only free nation in Southeast Asia during the Communist period and a close US ally, Thailand is prosperous, free, and ruled by a monarch.

The Middle Eastern monarchies. This is a more controversial example, but consider this: the only nations in the Middle East whom the US has not forcibly occupied that allow the US to have permanent military bases on their soil are monarchies. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are examples of this. Other regional monarchies like Jordan do not have US bases, but are the only ones at all interested in a genuine Peace process with Israel. In North Africa, Morocco is the freest nation in the region, and is also a monarchy. An important consideration with Middle Eastern monarchies is that none of them engage in state-sponsored terrorism.

Most of the nations listed above are not European; in fact, monarchies are found all across the globe. Most are more prosperous and free than their neighbors. Some are world powers. On the other hand, many nations with Republican forms of government are far less free, prosperous, or friendly than the US or its Monarchist allies. Consider these examples:

The People’s Republic of China. A vast, teeming Communist nation, China overthrew and executed its monarch in the last century. Yet most of the nation remains poor and starving, and democracy is not practiced, let alone basic freedoms. China is America’s chief rival.

The Russian Federation. After the fall of the Soviet Socialist Republic, Russia moved in a democratic direction. But in true Republican tradition, Russia has increasingly fallen under totalitarian rule. Russia is now an adversary of the US.

Iraq. After the liberation from Saddam Hussein, the US installed a Republican form of government in Iraq, ignoring its Monarchical history. Following the final withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, that nation’s government fell into chaos and has forbidden the US from basing troops in the nation or even flying aircraft over its airspace.

The Islamic Republic of Iran. A longstanding enemy of the US, Iran is tyrannically ruled by its religious mullahs. These mullahs gained power when mobs overthrew the monarch.

The above list of Republics is by no means exhaustive, but is illustrative of the unstable nature of that form of government. Now, there are a number of Republics that, like the US itself, are prosperous and free. Israel, though controversial in its relationship to the US, fits that description, as does South Korea. However, the point is that the notion that Monarchy is inherently tyrannical is patently false. Monarchies such as Japan, Canada and Thailand lead the world in peace, prosperity and strength. The US should consider their success before installing Republics in the nations it that it conquers and occupies.

The recent announcement by the American government that its previous intelligence assessments on the Iranian nuclear program were wrong seems to have put the U.S. in an awkward position, and many are seeing the turnaround as a triumph of Russian diplomacy. They are wrong. The U.S. may indeed lose some face (but gain respect in the long run), but the sudden drop in tensions is an abject failure of Russian diplomacy, not the other way around.

 Russian diplomacy has two sides. One is the obvious brinkmanship, saber-rattling sort that is meant to fluster and intimidate her rivals, while bolstering her image as a first-class power. The other side is secret, labyrinthine and underhanded; it is the way the Russian government means to truly accomplish its real goals. Both sides at times compliment each other and occasionally conflict. Claiming the arctic as Russian territory is an example of the former, while the Iranian crisis is an example of the latter.

 Some explanation is required. There have been a few editorial articles and news items in the past several years regarding the diplomatic wrangling between the former Soviet countries bordering the Caspian Sea, including Russia, and Iran regarding the division of the inland sea and most importantly, the vast oil reserves located there. During the days of the former Soviet Union, Iran and the U.S.S.R. divided the Caspian equally. After the collapse of the U.S.S.R., each new republic seeks a share of the sea equal to the extent of its coastline, except Iran, who is demanding the old 50/50 split be maintained. With oil prices skyrocketing, all players want a piece of the pie. What’s interesting is that Russia controls the only land pipeline out of the Caspian oil fields, and that pipeline goes directly to Europe, Russia’s biggest customer. Iran has recently speculated on plans to build a pipeline through Azerbaijan, bypassing Russia to supply Europe.

 In the light of the above tensions, it is surprising that Russia has been supplying Iran with nuclear technology. It is also surprising that Russia has been such a vocal supporter of the regime during the crisis with the West over Iran’s enrichment of uranium. Some have interpreted this support as just another one of Russia’s attempts to confound its old American rival, and I think that line of thinking is in a certain sense, justified. However, there are many ways and places to undermine U.S. policies. The reason Iran is so tempting is that it is surrounded on three sides by U.S. occupied countries and fleet in the Persian Gulf. Iran is also a known supporter of terrorism, and is actively aiding the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. When Tehran sneezes Washington comes running.

However, there is more than meets the eye. Undermining American policy was just a gratifying sideshow for Russia. The real plan was actually very subtle and exceptionally ingenious. Putin knew that Iran would take any opportunity to bolster its power, and the prospect of gaining nuclear technology would be an overwhelming temptation. Russia then offered to supply that technology for a very reasonable price and even sent engineers to the country to ensure the success of the project. Iran took the bait, and the West responded by isolating it, then by attacking its economy with sanctions, then finally by talking openly of invasion. All the while, Russia vocally defended Iran’s right to possess nuclear technology while never actually stating what they had to have known all along: there was no nuclear weapons program and the nuclear power plant program was in shambles and going nowhere fast. Russia slowed, but actually did nothing to stop, the West’s hostile actions toward Iran. The vise was closing around the Islamic fascist state when the new CIA report came out, exposing the nuclear program as a hoax. The West will now loosen the pressure on Iran and doubtless ease sanctions. Normal relations will resume.

Russia’s diplomacy failed because the real goal was not to embarrass the United States, but to knock Iran out as a competing power in the Caspian Sea oil region. Part of the Grand Strategy of the Kremlin is to use its vast oil wealth to build up its economy and military, while at the same time using Europe’s dependence on Russian oil to influence the policies of the continent, specifically to attempt to spread discord among the member states of the rising European Union superpower. In that race, Russia has little time to lose.

Viewed in the light of the Caspian conflict, Russian attempts to set up a straw tiger in Iran in order to entice the West to knock it down were a near miss, but a miss nonetheless. Iran will continue its policy of expansion in the Caspian region, and Russia will have to utilise another strategy to stop them from doing so.  Perhaps Iran’s rush into the lap of the Bear during the nuclear crisis will allow Russia to mold it into a client state dependent on Russia for weapons, technology and cash, eliminating the Caspian threat altogether. Russia has used such tactics before. However, there is no question that Russian secret diplomacy failed in Iran this month. Better luck next time, fellas.

The United States has criticised Russia for expanding its military budget dramatically in the past five years. Russia has indeed done so; its emerging status as an oil giant has improved its fortunes and it can now expand its antiquated forces. Russia has justly complained that the U.S. is unfair in its criticisms; U.S. secretary of Defence, Robert Gates, has just approved expanding the Army by 65,000 troops. It is rather hypocritical.

Unfortunately, both countries are mired in Cold War perspectives. The U.S. erroneously views Putin’s former Communist ties and growing domestic power, as well as its continuing alliance with China, as indications that Russia is reverting to its ideological Communist past (which includes threatening the world militarily), and President Bush is determined not to let that happen. Russia, meanwhile, views the U.S. as imperialistic and bent on controlling the world.Neither view is entirely accurate. Russia’s strongest ideological bent at this time is rather natural; it wants to be Russian. The Orthodox Church now has official recognition and even encouragement from the State, precisely the opposite of what occurred under Soviet rule. Capitalism thrives…as long as corporate leaders don’t cross the government. Traditional Russian culture is being fostered by the State. In foreign policy, the most important thing to realise about Russia is that it wishes most of all to be independent and powerful; without any uber ideology driving its actions. The alliance with China serves to keep that expanding giant at bay and secure Russia’s most vulnerable border. Putin has also stated that he plans to step down when his term expires, which will shortly take place.

The U.S., meanwhile, since 911, is interested in the Middle East nearly to the point of neglecting the rest of the planet. Even the military has eclusively focused on technology and tactics for small-scale guerilla fighting (such intense focus has reaped excellent results in Iraq and Afganistan). Russia has pulled a lot of gutsy moves, including claiming most of the Arctic Ocean as Russian territory, since 911, but the U.S. has dismissed such drastic actions with a few condemnations and little else. Meanwhile, any move Russia makes in the Middle East, such as it’s interesting intervention in Iran, garners swift and dramatic U.S. response. The U.S. is actually interested in working with Russia (space exploration is an excellent example), as long as Russia does not threaten its perceived vital interests, and vice versa.

Russia and the U.S. are neither natural enemies nor friends. Suspicion is healthy, but prejudice is not. Russia and the U.S. can work together to limit the power of expanding Great Powers like the European Union and China, while pursuing independent national goals. A strong and independent Russia is in the long-term interests of the United States. Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Secretary, said something I like: “I would say that like the U.S. is interested in a strong and a democratic Russia that could play its active role internationally, we are also interested that the U.S. should be a strong and democratic partner and country playing an active role internationally.”

SpaceDaily, an excellent source for information on the Great Powers, has published an article by their staff writers on the leadership and policies of Hu Jintao, the Communist dictator of China. The writers lamented the fact that Hu has not implemented “reforms” related to the expanding gap between rich and poor - ironic since China is a Communist state.

My thoughts are, I hope he does! A regression to absolute Communism would be a wonderful change…for the U.S. Like it or not, Capitalism pays the bills, develops the technology, keeps the populace quiet, and creates a booming economy, while Communism destroys the environment, cuts GPA, and hacks off the general population who now live in an absolute poverty instead of a relative one. Hurrah for Reform! 

In a side note, I am not being sarcastic in mentioning the excellence of the information on SpaceDaily; actually, the article referenced above is an exception to the rule.

The United States and Russia have again unsurprisingly failed to see eye to eye in missile defence talks this week. Read article here.

Why the U.S. feels that everything can be fixed by talking about it (like an infernal committee) is beyond my understanding. Russia especially is not a good candidate for liberal diplomacy because Putin looks at the world like a chess master looks at a game, or more accurately, like a Risk^® champion looks at the board.

Putin is not an idiot. He knows that the U.S. is obsessed with Islamic states like Iran since the World Trade Centre bombing, and hence wishes to defend itself against a suicidal nuclear attack from a religiously motivated war machine. Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) is not a deterrent against those whose deaths assure them of paradise and the houris.

Nevertheless, the positioning of the missile defence systems in Eastern Europe is suspicious. One glance at the globe is all that is required to understand that Poland and the Czech Republic are better positioned to defend against Russia than against Iran (although the proposed system would be capable of stopping a theoretical Iranian strike).

Russia has also fallen behind the West technologically and has Short Man’s Syndrome because of it. Vladimir Putin will not allow the West to hem in Russia’s last remaining technological terror, its massive ICBM nuclear arsenal. Russia is the weakest of the four Great Powers, and has steadily declined since its zenith in the seventies; therefore, Putin, who is committed to restoring the greatness of Russia, has used his typical semi-desperate brinkmanship diplomacy to stop the deployment of the system.

Also, in the larger scheme of things, whatever suspicions Russia harbours toward the United States of America, it fears the possibility of an all-powerful United States of Europe still more.

To conclude, it would be criminal to ignore the United States’ reasons for positioning the Missile Defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Put too simply, the nations of the E.U., whatever their rhetoric, want security from the over half-century old threat of nuclear annihilation from Russia. The U.S. is under subtle diplomatic pressure from all of Western Europe to place its defence systems in Europe. Albeit, Poland and the Czech Republic are in Eastern Europe; they are much more vulnerable, and too poor to build such a system for themselves, and have been quite vocal in their support and encouragement for the missile defence system.

Finally, in defence of the current U.S. presidential administration, the Iraq war has been brilliantly used to divide the nations of the European Union and to delay/sabotage the planned constitution that would create a United States of Europe. The missile defence issue is hotly debated, as the more politically conservative nations of the EU have endorsed it, while the more politically liberal nations have attacked it. The result has been nothing but positive, if viewed from a sober U.S. perspective. Poland and Britain have not found the goodwill to smooth over their differences with the rest of the EU in order to approve the constitution.

Before one can fully understand what I’m talking about, one should read The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy. However, as most of you won’t, I will give some faint, sketchy foundational concepts before I get into the good stuff.

The Definition of a Great Power

A Great Power is essentially a country that possesses the ability to defeat in war and/or impose its will on, or over, any other country but its equals (that is, other Great Powers). The number of Great Powers varies from era to era, but their number has never exceeded ten. When one country has risen so far above all of its rivals that it is able to dominate them, then it is called a Super Power. There can be only two Super Powers at a time. After WWII the US and USSR were the only Great Powers left standing, really, so they were called Super Powers. After the fall of the USSR and the temporary weakening of Russia , the US was the lone Super Power.Since WWII, the qualifications to be a World Power are thus: Economic/Industrial suzerainty (this can take several forms), Military power, Nuclear arms, Strategic Geographic position, and Technological Superiority. A seat on the UN Security Council doesn’t hurt either.

List of Current and Potential Great Powers

At this moment there are four Great Powers and two potential Great Powers. The US is the first and greatest of the Powers, but is no longer a Super Power. China is fast growing, and has achieved in the past ten years the coveted status of Great Power.

Russia , while still a shadow of its Soviet and Imperial former selves, has just enough bases covered to remain in the Powers, and is deliberately increasing its strength in several key areas.

Last, but not least, is the European Union (or EU). Composed of nearly all the countries of Western and Central Europe, the EU has enough combined power to blast the rest of the world into oblivion (without nukes, although they have plenty of those, thanks to Britain and France) if only they could agree on which direction to aim. The EU tops just about every category, but is heavily fragmented and the official EU military is very small. However, if their new constitution is approved, there will be a United States of Europe.

The two potential powers are Japan and India .

Japan has technological superiority and its economy is second only to the US . As an island, it is relatively secure from land-based attack. However, its military, while state-of-the-art, is tiny and limited by its post-WWII constitution. Japan ’s population is crowded, and its native resources are about nil. It also has no nuclear weapons (also banned in its constitution), but to be fair, it has an extensive network of nuclear power plants, advanced rocket technology and the expertise to convert to a nuclear power within the maximum of several months. Due to a number of factors, such as the oil crisis (they import all of their oil) and the threat of a nuclear armed North Korea, Japan ’s Prime Minister is seeking to change the constitution and expand the military, and talk of “going nuclear” is growing.

Meanwhile, India is close to Power status as well. Unlike Japan, India has vast resources, and its population is very close to surpassing China ’s. India is a nuclear power, has an immense army, and its economy is booming. However, its level of technology is second-rate, and its military suffers from that. Also, India , while shielded by the Himalayas in the north and the Burmese jungles in the east, has a nuclear armed second-rate power Pakistan on the west. Pakistan is well-connected diplomatically and will side with whichever Power attempts to thwart India ’s national aims. India has several border disputes with China as well. I will expand on the mechanics and prospects of each Power and potential Power in further posts, as well as commenting on relevant news related to the Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Stay tuned…