Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | YouTube |
Published | 2021/12/18 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Russia and China's alliance against NATO, setting the stage for a new Cold War framed around democracy versus authoritarianism, may resurrect historical terminology with different connotations.
Foreign policy analysts
The full transcript provides a detailed analysis of the evolving global political landscape and the reemergence of historical terminology in the context of new alliances and power dynamics.
#ForeignPolicy #GlobalAlliances #NewColdWar #Democracy #Authoritarianism
Well, howdy there, internet people.
It's Beau again.
So today, we're going to talk about some developments
in foreign policy.
They're important to note because they're stepping stones.
But they're also incredibly predictable.
We've seen all of this before.
But it does show that things are following roughly the same path
as before.
Russia and China, the leaders of Russia and China,
held a couple of video conferences recently.
And they emerged talking about how
they were great friends, highest levels of cooperation, allies,
throwing those terms out there.
The leader of China, through China's support
behind Russia's position of saying
that NATO shouldn't advance, shouldn't accept new members
that are closer to Russia's borders.
Countries are lining up.
This is all viewable through the lens
of the future near-peer contests, which
they're underway at this point.
Biden recently held his summit about resurgence of democracy
or whatever it was.
That's not really what it was about.
It was about shoring up the lines, whose side are you on,
type of thing.
And this is the Russian and Chinese response.
So you're going to have a bloc that is closely aligned
with the United States and then a bloc that is closely aligned
with Russia and China.
And that will be the major players in the new Cold War.
Those will be the teams.
In the United States, this is going
to be framed as democracy versus authoritarianism.
That's how it's going to be put out there.
This is all pretty predictable.
This is how near-peer contests go historically.
So it's important to note that it's occurring,
but it's not really a surprise.
We should probably get ready for some new terminology.
During the Cold War, we had First World, Second World,
Third World, and then later on, Fourth World was a term
that was adopted for a while.
These terms probably don't mean what many people
think they mean today.
We have a connotation that's associated with them
as the real meaning got lost over time.
It is worth noting Ireland and Switzerland,
well, they're Third World nations.
Probably not what you were picturing, right?
We have this image of the Third World being poor countries,
and it gets used interchangeably with developing nations
and terms like that.
It's not what it meant.
The First World, that was NATO, their allies, so the US team,
right?
The Second World, that was Warsaw Pact and countries
aligned with it, the Soviet team.
The Third World was not aligned.
That's what it means.
They're non-aligned.
So in many ways, the image of the Third World
comes from non-aligned countries outside of Europe.
Most people don't view European countries as Third World,
although there were quite a few.
So you need to get ready for that framing again.
Maybe there will be different terminology,
but there's going to be the side that
aligns with democracy in the US framing
and the side that aligns with authoritarianism.
And then there will be those nations that don't align.
Now, the term Fourth World is even worse than Third World.
Fourth World generally meant indigenous cultures.
I mean, not to put too fine a point on it,
that's really what it meant.
Cultures, areas that were self-sufficient,
that did their own thing, that were kind of isolated.
They didn't have a high per capita income,
so they were relegated to the Fourth World.
They were just not players in the game at all.
And for the most part, were used as tools
by the First and Second World nations.
This is more than likely the future
of foreign policy for a while.
This is what we're looking at, that new Cold War.
So not so much of news, because yeah, I mean,
I think everybody knew this was going to happen and shape up
in exactly that way.
But it is occurring now.
I think the only real surprise was the development out
of the UAE, where the US had a deal to sell some fighters.
And the UAE has kind of put the brakes on it,
because it seems as though the United States is kind of trying
to push them and say, you need to make sure that you're
with the democracy team.
And they're kind of like, oh, we may want to be free agents.
And then there are some legitimate national security
concerns about providing these fighters,
because they are technologically advanced.
So there are those within the State Department who are like,
wow, this was a really bad idea.
We shouldn't have done this.
And they're pushing for a lot of assurances
from the government there, assurances
that the government really doesn't want to make.
But it's that kind of politics that
is going to help shape the teams, who's on whose side.
So just a glimpse of what's to come.
The terminology first, second, third, fourth world
probably won't be used.
There'll probably be new terminology for it.
But it's going to mirror those terms.
So anyway, it's just a thought.
Y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}