The World to Come
Three nations sit atop the hierarchy of global political and military power: the United States, Russia and China. On the world stage, they exude huge influence and sway regarding geopolitical issues whilst occupying lands that are blessed with immense natural wealth. However, due to unprecedented levels of debt, economic mismanagement, imperialist attitudes and demographic shifts, each of these countries' power will decline over this century, unless drastic measures are made to counteract these issues.
Let us take the United States, which currently is the most indebted country the world has ever known and owes close to $40 trillion dollars of debt to its creditors just for it to get back to having nothing in its pocket. The US federal government spends just under 1 billion dollars per hour, 14% of which is interest payments on the money it uses to pay the debt, outstripping payments for its gargantuan "Military Industrial Complex", as Eisenhower dubbed it.
For context, at the time when Eisenhower made that speech back in 1961, i.e., back when Presidents were still shot without the presence of dozens of helpless agents, the MIC's annual budget was 47 and a half billion dollars. That is now what it racks up in about three weeks or so. Paul Kennedy avers that "the historical record suggests that there is a very clear connection in the long run between an individual Great Power's economic rise and fall and its growth and decline as an important military power (or world empire)." The US is no exception to that standard and is yet to "win" a war since World War Two, despite continued increases in the Pentagon's budget.
Which is without mentioning the current demographic troubles facing the US:
U.S. Fertility Rates Drop to Another Record Low
"For the first time, almost half of the country’s 30-year-old women are childless."
Which is again, no surprise given the US government's wont for economic and military mismanagement. Pair that with the following from the Congressional Budget Office:
Starting in 2030, annual deaths exceed annual births, and net immigration accounts for all population growth.
A nation that upkeeps its population via immigration is doomed to fail, as has been proven in the United Kingdom, because a nation, as I have noted before, is its people. Once you prioritise the future generations of people not even born in your own country, the culture of your nation shifts radically. Which is at least one encouraging sign from the current administration, setting aside the corruption, war mongering and other malfeasances.
These are not the signs of a dominant power globally, however. Although the US is by far the largest and one of the most productive economies in the world, the cracks are forming in the American empire. Excessive growth in the federal government has disempowered its citizens and enabled an elite class to live far beyond its means. Something that can't go on forever won't, logic tells us. While by my estimations the US has likely the longest lifespan out of the three, without drastic course correction, it will dig itself into an economic hole it can't dig itself out of. But none of this concerns the war hawks in D.C because unless they can get Iranian regime change, you may as well throw away the idea of any kind of American future in the first place.
~Looking East, America's proxy enemy, Russia, is a nation who are lead by an elite class that are still mourning the fall of its empire. When the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, the inward implosion of the USSR was momentous and rapid. Arguably, that decline is still in motion.
As of right now, Russia is engaged in a conflict that seeks to restore the Soviet-era pride that Russians yearn for, or at least that's what Putin will tell you. That bloody and unceasing war has been dragging on for longer than Russia fought in the Second World War, with no clear end in sight. So at least Putin has recaptured the dogged and sluggish spirit of the country's former entity. And although he won't want to admit it, the war is taking its toll:
The Russian army suffered its first net territory loss in Ukraine last month, the first since 2024; close to one million Russians have died in Putin's meat grinder, with some estimates much less conservative than that. Does this portend future losses? Has Zelensky's coalition of the unwilling turned the tide?
Doubtful. What isn't doubtful, though, is Russia's reliance on its army. Its chest-beating Red Square parades have served as a useful distraction for the Russian population, from which some national pride can be derived. Except that such parades are pointless if, after four years of trudging through the Donbas, the Russian army cannot claim to be much closer to their goal than when they started. On sheer maths, the war is a ticking time bomb, because unlike the Russia of the Great Patriotic War, the Russia of 2026 is far less fecund:
Russia’s Fertility Rate Falls for 10th Straight Year, Reaching New Low
Troop replacement is impossible without new troops, obviously.
Putting aside the forever war, the home front seems to be equally as imperilled for Russia. Economic growth is practically stagnant, whilst its military comprises 40% of national government spending. Without immense course correction by the mawkishly pro-Soviets at the top, Russia's power downgrade will precipitate, as it has since the collapse of the USSR in 1991.
~In the even farther East lies China. They are the exception to both the Ruskies and the Yanks in that they are the only nation that isn't fighting in fruitless wars right now. Or at least not yet... Anyhow, in terms of global dominance, most people invoke the oft-remarked line that 'China will get old before they get rich'. Which is difficult to argue with, given that:
According to the UN, China’s population is expected to shrink by over 150 million by 2050—and by a staggering 750 million by the end of the century. That’s equivalent to losing the entire populations of the UK, EU, and Russia combined—a collapse unprecedented in modern history. But it’s not just a question of fewer people—it’s a question of older people.
China’s population is aging rapidly. Seniors over 65 currently make up 14 per cent of the population, but by 2050, that figure is expected to reach 30 per cent, among the highest in the world. Even more striking, the number of people aged over 80 will more than triple—from 37 million today to 132 million.
For those wondering, the Chinese government is now paying people to have children, in perhaps the largest about turn in a centrally planned economy, maybe ever? There is no doubt that the one-child policy has beleaguered China and profoundly reshaped its future, and has damaged the country far more than what the Chinese predictions of overpopulation were estimated to do. So whatever its military desires, China has precious little time left to effectuate them, because the time will come when it starts drafting pensioners into the People's Liberation Army, so as to reduce the financial toll on the government. A dark thought, I realise. But then, would that be more deplorable than a "One Child" policy? Of the three nations, China's population decline is easily the most grave.
China’s pension system is also under mounting pressure. With fewer workers supporting a growing elderly population, the system is buckling. In 2019, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences warned that the country’s basic pension fund could run out by 2035. The consequences could include widespread poverty and social unrest.
Should China's demographic issues miraculously turn around, however, its economic woes point to a certain decline on the international scale. Sure, China is the home of much of the world's economic production, but it serves its domestic economy poorly. Currently, China's Debt-to-GDP ratio stands at around 80%, which is based on the data the Chinese government will allow. But with the above, why even bother with the economic stuff?
German mercantilist Philipp Wilhelm von Hörnigk wrote three hundred years ago that 'whether a nation be today mighty and rich or not depends not on the abundance or security of its power and riches, but rather on whether it can maintain and… increase its power and riches in comparison with those of other nations.’
Out of the three nations, America seems to be best positioned, which is saying something considering that it has a rampant permanent bureaucracy and a spending issue that about three people in Congress are bothered about. DOGE? Forget about it. Regardless of whether DOGE is in or out of action, America's position as the global economic powerhouse does not at present seem in imminent jeopardy, mainly because its main competitors, to return to the quote above, seem as imperilled, if not more so, than the Yanks.
But what does that mean for the rest of us? Hard to say as of now.
Power does not corrupt, but it reveals. And it has, in the most explicit way, revealed the out-of-date leadership present in all three nations, and that their hegemony is under threat.
Comments