WORLD WORLDWIDE BULGARIA News Journal Update - (en) Bulgaria, AF: Neil Ferguson: «The danger of a third world war is more than real» (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The Middle East, the Cold War between the US and China, Taiwan, Putin,
the war in Ukraine, Trump's possible return to the White House...
Stanford University historian Neil Ferguson presents his view of the
great geopolitical challenges facing the West in an interview with the
French weekly Express. ---- L'Express: Just a week before the Hamas
attack, Jake Sullivan, US national security adviser, assured that "the
Middle East region[is]calmer today than[it has been]two decades ago."
You have been warning since January that the Middle East could be the
next crisis in a cascade of conflicts. Why?

Neil Ferguson: I don't claim to be an expert on the Middle East, but I
get my information from the right people. And they kept telling me that
the situation there is unstable for several reasons. Israel was deeply
distracted by its internal political divisions. The Biden administration
has eased pressure on Iran. And the rapprochement between Israel and
Saudi Arabia is clearly seen as a danger from the Iranian point of view.
That's why my sources have been warning me all this year that everything
could blow up.
Also, the historian that I am picked up on a recurring pattern that I
mentioned in Apocalypses[2021]: a major crisis like a pandemic tends to
trigger a cascade of conflicts. After Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine, I
expected another crisis, especially because Jake Sullivan and the Joe
Biden team were no longer concerned about the Middle East.

According to you, we have been living a new Cold War for five years. Is
there today a serious risk of escalation to a third world war?

Implicit in any cold war is the possibility of a world war, because a
cold war is nothing but "a peace that is not a peace," in the words of
George Orwell. By August 1914, the United Kingdom and Germany were
effectively in a Cold War situation before it entered the First World
War. And if the opposition between the United States and the USSR was
not direct, it led to numerous regional conflicts in the second half of
the 20th century.

Therefore, the main question in the current context is whether the cold
war between the United States and China can degenerate into a hot
conflict. The danger of a third world war seems real to me because of
the nature of the relationship between these two superpowers, not to
mention the powder keg of Taiwan.

You seem to think that US deterrence, by sending two aircraft carriers,
will not be enough against Iran and its allies (Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.)...

Deterrence is not just the presence of firepower, but the threat to use
it in a credible manner. After the October 7 attack, Joe Biden sent
these two aircraft carriers using such soft rhetoric that it is not at
all clear that the United States is prepared to use them against Iran.
The Americans made it clear that Iran was not responsible for the Hamas
attack or that Israel should halt its response. These messages are very
unconvincing. The problem with this administration is that it is bad at
deterrence. It failed to prevent the Taliban from reasserting their
dominance - Afghanistan has turned into a jungle. She failed to stop
Putin from invading Ukraine, an even bigger mistake. And it failed to
demonstrate deterrence against Iran.

But for now, Iran and its allies don't seem to want an escalation in the
region...

We don't really know what Tehran is thinking. Maybe America's deterrence
really worked. But the other possibility is that Iran believes
everything is going well without Hezbollah having to attack because
Israel finds itself completely isolated and under pressure to take a
break to return its hostages.

That doesn't stop me from thinking that American deterrence is mediocre,
and it's even more worrisome as other crises like the one in Taiwan loom
on the horizon. I respect Jake Sullivan and hope he succeeds, but his
article in Foreign Affairs, published shortly before October 7 and which
will be cited for decades, illustrates the problem very well: the
Americans had indeed abandoned the Middle East and, curiously, delegated
the intelligence work to Israel. However, if Israel made an intelligence
error regarding Hamas, so did the United States. It is very surprising
to delegate so many responsibilities to another authority. In any case,
even if the situation today is not catastrophic, we cannot know whether
Iran has really been dissuaded from taking action.

But is American intervention in the region really a good thing? Past
results in Afghanistan or Iraq are not really glorious...

After 9/11, the US took drastic measures in Afghanistan and Iraq, and
things did not go well. At the time, I argued in my book Colossus that
they would probably not develop well because the United States lacked
the adequate structural strength to make them successful.

Conversely, under Obama there was an attempt at non-intervention in
Syria, and it seems to me that today Syria is a bigger disaster than
Iraq. The no-hands strategy produces even worse results. Similarly,
non-intervention in Ukraine in 2014 was a mistake. So little was done to
punish Putin that he felt free to seize even more territory.

"By the end of next year, Israel and the Gulf states will start talking
again"

So let's be careful about this topic. This is not a Manichean choice
between "intervention" and "non-intervention". Rather, the real question
is whether American power, which is real, can be used to dissuade our
adversaries from taking action while preventing certain countries from
sinking into the black hole of state collapse.

In the past fifty years, the United States has experienced more glorious
periods than today in terms of foreign policy. The best decade was that
of the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan and especially George W. Bush used
American power successfully, so much so that the collapse of the USSR
was not bloody. Before that, Dwight Eisenhower was a good president,
containing Soviet expansion without provoking significant conflict.
Kennedy and Johnson performed less well. Thus, recent history offers us
a range of cases, from the disastrous intervention of Vietnam to the
disastrous non-intervention in Syria. Between these extremes there is a
happy medium that costs the least: an effective policy of deterrence. I
would like the United States to achieve this again.

Although some Sunni Arab countries have drawn closer to Israel in recent
years, isn't the United States at risk of rallying Arab public opinion
against the West if it allows Israel to continue its offensive in Gaza?
Shouldn't we fear a "clash of civilizations"?

I knew Samuel Huntington well and never disagreed with him on this
point. If he were still alive, I would be happy to ask him: "Hey Sam,
why is the war in Ukraine a clash of civilizations?" Because from a
civilizational point of view, it is very difficult to distinguish
between Russians and Ukrainians. In reality, most of the wars that have
broken out since the end of the Cold War have occurred within
civilizations, not between them. Recent events in the Middle East
illustrate this well: Iran and its many affiliates are primarily
targeting other Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, via the Houthi
rebels in Yemen. So let's put Huntington's theory aside.

Since October 7, the Saudis, Emiratis and Qataris have been reluctant to
follow Iran's strategy of destroying Israel. Of course, they must
publicly adhere to a certain script regarding the "[cruelty]of the
Israeli government[and]the desperate plight of the Palestinians," but
privately all the governments in the Persian Gulf despise the
Palestinians, hate terrorist organizations, and look down of Israel as a
potential partner as they try to modernize their economy and break away
from being just gas stations. I think by the end of next year, Israel
and the Gulf countries will start talking again. If Trump is re-elected,
it will happen even faster because he will be an acceptable president
from the Israeli and Arab point of view and bad news for Iran. In such a
period, we should not believe what people say, but what they keep silent
about. If you listen to the Saudis, Prince Turki al-Faisal for example,
you understand that they are not closing the door on this discussion. So
I am rather optimistic about the survival and continuation of the
Abrahamic covenants. In a year you will see that the picture will be
completely different.

The Ukrainian counteroffensive has failed, and Putin seems much more
confident than he did a few months ago. In your opinion, Ukraine should
not risk a long war. For what?

First, because it is a smaller country than its aggressor, which is
important from the point of view of natural resources. Second,
Ukrainians depend on Western support, and that support will inevitably
wane over time due to the waning attention span of the electorate by
nature. I never thought that Ukraine would have to participate in a long
war. It would have been better to end it after the Russians failed to
capture Kiev . This is a missed opportunity that we will no doubt
understand better in hindsight. The counteroffensive cost lives on both
sides, but Ukraine does not have endless reserves of troops capable of
carrying out this kind of frontal assault. And in no case do I share the
Ukrainian theory, according to which victory can only be achieved
through the capture of Crimea. This is absolutely unrealistic,
especially since Ukraine has no international support in this matter.

There is a great reluctance to consider scenarios that would be negative
for Ukraine: for example, that Russia uses aviation and destroys
Ukraine's electricity grid, or that Ukraine is too economically weakened
by constant civil war. A long war of attrition is not ideal. I am
personally very fond of Ukraine, where I have spent a lot of time over
the last ten years. I wish her the best possible future, not defeat
caused by an untenable military situation. In this sense, it would
undoubtedly be preferable if he could reduce the intensity of conflicts
with Russian troops and stabilize the situation in the south and east.
Thus, it can worry about its economic recovery. Here's what South Korea
managed to do, for example, despite having a malicious neighbor.
Ukraine's future depends more on its ability to become a strong
democracy with a market economy than military power. If all its efforts
are directed towards war, it will not be able to establish itself as a
viable economy, which will lead, painfully, to its final defeat.

Wouldn't the talks be a big win for Putin, ratifying his conquests?

As in the case of the Korean War, the end of hostilities can end in a
draw. Since the 1950s, North Korea has survived and established this
grotesque, hereditary and totalitarian regime, but South Korea has
become one of the most successful economies in the world, as well as a
thriving democracy. Who won in the long run? Obviously South Korea.

Likewise, Putin will lose if Ukraine can show that it can be a viable
democracy with a viable economy. And many young Ukrainians want it. The
war had a transformative effect on the country and it is often the case
that nations are forged through conflict, a new generation that
sacrifices itself, telling itself that it did not do all this to return
to corruption and oligarchy. I am optimistic about the possible
achievements of Ukrainians in the coming years. So yes, let's leave
Donbass, Crimea and part of southern Ukraine to Putin, it's going to be
messy either way. What will he do with it if not a demonstration of the
malevolent nature of his regime? And let's not forget the grim reaper:
Putin will eventually die, which will change the situation.

" The Chinese Union System is Disastrous!"

Moral victory for Ukraine therefore does not involve the recovery of all
its territory at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, but through
stabilization of its front and economic recovery. Thus it will prove the
superiority of the Western model. As West Germany was better than East,
as South Korea is better than North, "West Ukraine" will be better than
East. Ukraine has already exceeded all expectations in terms of
governance and military capabilities. It benefits from a wealth of
talent, especially in digital technology. A city like Lviv can become a
dynamic economic center. But this process must begin, and it will
inevitably be difficult in an acute and persistent conflict. A truce is
preferable. Of course, Ukraine will not have to accept the loss of its
territories, nor accept the legitimacy of the invasion decided by Putin,
but it must now stop its air battles and continuous shelling in order to
devote itself to its economic recovery.

Are you afraid that Chinese President Xi Jinping might take advantage of
the upcoming presidential election in Taiwan to block the island or even
invade it?

I am not afraid of an invasion, because I do not believe that the
Chinese are capable of such an operation, even in 2027. What worried me
was the potential victory of William Lai, the candidate of the
Democratic Progressive Party, because the Chinese, believing that he was
for independence, he could organize a blockade of the island. But today
he has less chance of winning, and the Chinese will no doubt like having
a more conciliatory figure before him, possibly from the
Kuomintang[Editor's note: the two main opposition parties, including the
Kuomintang, have since become more sympathetic for pacification-not with
China, renounced their alliance].

I was pessimistic because I thought Xi would take advantage of the
opportunity offered by the war in Ukraine and now the war in Israel, as
well as a weak American president like Biden. At the moment, I am not
completely ruling out a blockade next year, but I think that the
probability has decreased, I put it at about 20%. However, I am in the
minority in taking this position.

Isn't the recent meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping proof that the
two superpowers want to calm things down?

Biden and Xi have not talked about the issues that really matter, which
makes me question the importance of this summit. Xi Jinping thinks that
the US today is following a policy of technological containment, which
is actually the case. Nothing said in San Francisco will change that.
The United States will continue to assert its dominance in
semiconductors without reducing trade tariffs. The Chinese will continue
their weapons policy . If Biden and Xi had talked about gun control or
semiconductor control, I would have been more convinced. But they were
talking about fentanyl, for God's sake! And we don't even know what they
said about Taiwan since only the Chinese reported it. These superpower
summits often have a comical side to them, as everyone is over-prepared,
anticipating what the leaders will eat or say. This ends up looking like
a theater of the absurd. So I didn't expect much from this summit and
nothing that happened today makes me change my mind.

Aren't the opponents of the West - China, Russia, Iran, etc. - weaker
than we often think? Even China today faces serious economic challenges...

Imagine it's 1938 and we're having the same debate. You will tell me
that Germany or Italy are facing economic problems. But that is
precisely why these countries are preparing to go to war! Likewise, Xi
Jinping faces significant youth unemployment, a real estate sector in
crisis and sharply slowing growth. But that doesn't mean we can sit back
and focus on the adventures of Sam Altman . No! When a regime like Xi
Jinping's fails in terms of growth and youth unemployment exceeds 20%,
this is exactly where we should be concerned because such an
authoritarian regime will seek other means of legitimacy. Xi Jinping is
also very consistent in his statements. He says in Marxist-Leninist
rhetoric that we must prepare for inevitable conflicts. Even Henry
Kissinger, the architect of the rapprochement between China and the
United States fifty years ago, is alarmed. Why did Putin invade Ukraine?
Because the Russian economy was doing great? No! He used this war to
create a fascist atmosphere in Russia that strengthened his position in
the country. So I'm not ready to relax on China.

Of the three , Iran is the weakest country . Annoyingly, the Trump
administration has largely weakened the Iranian economy. But suddenly,
Biden's team decided to resume the nuclear talks, thereby easing the
pressure. Iran is now selling its oil to China. The regime in Tehran is
in a much better economic position than it was three years ago.

I am particularly concerned about the degree of coordination between
China, Russia, Iran, not forgetting North Korea . I worry that these
countries are talking together much more than before. And don't think
that Xi Jinping, looking at the development of the conflict in Ukraine,
is saying to himself: "God, I'd better avoid war!" So let's be very
careful not to draw the wrong conclusions from their economic weaknesses .

In this new Cold War, isn't the West increasingly isolated? Isn't what
some call the "Global South" increasingly leaning towards China?

Let's stop using this term "global south", one of those horrible
left-wing slogans that in no way describes reality. A large number of
these countries are also located in the Northern Hemisphere. On the
other hand, it is true that in this second Cold War the movement of
non-aligned countries is more important from an economic point of view.
I prefer to talk about "Brics", which was originally a marketing concept
by Goldman Sachs to highlight emerging markets before it was co-opted by
Chinese propaganda. But Brazil, South Africa, China, India and Russia
form the most unlikely alliance imaginable. India wants to be both a
BRICS member and a part of the US alliance system. This is why some of
these countries are unbound while others are bound to all. Like Narendra
Modi who is everyone's friend.[Laughing.]

The West still exists, but if you look at the countries that have
significantly supported Ukraine, you have to include several Asian
countries. When we talk about the West, we are primarily referring to US
allies. This Western alliance has its weaknesses, starting with Germany,
a country where polls show support for China is more consistent than
support for the United States, which raises questions given the extent
to which Germany depends on America for security.

" A second term for Trump will have nothing to do with the first"

All this means that the geography of this new Cold War is slightly
different from the first. The West is a little weaker than in the past,
the movement of non-aligned countries is more important. But the Chinese
alliance system is disastrous! The Warsaw Pact looks bleak in
comparison. Who are China's allies today? Putin, the rocket man from
Pyongyang and Venezuela .[Pouts.]China doesn't have a good team. The
United States has a significant advantage in this area. The problem is
that if Trump is re-elected, he could destroy the entire American system
of alliances . Therefore, the risks of a third world war are much less
significant with him in the White House. All he cares about are trade
wars. It was not he who led the start of the second Cold War against
China, but rather Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo or Matthew Pottinger, who
transformed Trump's trade barriers into a geopolitical and ideological
problem in the face of communist China.

You urged Joe Biden to run for president in 2016. But today you're
asking him not to run again in 2024, at age 81, undoubtedly facing
Donald Trump, who will be 78. How can we explain that the United States
has become such a gerontocracy?

Harold James, a historian at Princeton, spoke of "late Soviet America."
I love that expression because Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, or Nancy
Pelosi, before their age, should be in Florida playing the occasional
round of golf, not trying to run the most powerful country in the world
. There are several explanations for this gerontocracy. First, the
American health care system is a disaster for the majority of people,
especially the poor, but it is very good at keeping the elite healthy.
If you are among the "1%", you can be in positions of responsibility
until the age of 80. The other reason is that the Democratic Party
system is not friendly to newcomers. It is very difficult to climb the
ladder. On the Republican side, it's a little easier. If you look at age
structures like this, elected Democrats are much older than Republicans
in Congress.

Joe Biden would have been a very good candidate in 2016 and probably
would have beaten Trump. In 2020, he was already too old. Those like me
who know him have all seen a clear decline in his clarity since 2020 and
it's only getting worse. A second term always seemed like a crazy idea
to me . Two-thirds of Democrats agree with me, and the rest probably
shouldn't have TVs in their homes![Laughs.]You really have to be
delusional to believe that Biden is still fit enough to run again. We're
stuck with him for now, and that's a big risk because he's likely to
lose to Trump.

How would a second term for Donald Trump be a big change?

A second term for Trump will have nothing in common with the first. He
risks no longer having any of the safeguards we could find between 2016
and 2020, like the Republican Party, the generals, Wall Street... The
administration will be full of loyal Trumpists from the America First
Policy Institute. Internally, they will purge the federal bureaucracy,
starting with the Justice Department and people they consider their
enemies. On foreign policy, Trump will be free to impose trade taxes and
will want to weaken alliances by abandoning Ukraine and even leaving
NATO, as he has already threatened to do. In his eyes, the Asian allies
of the United States are nothing more than profiteers.

People don't want to see how this second term, if held, would be
different from the first. A Trump victory in 2024 will be a much bigger
shock than in 2016 because he will no longer have any limits. Who will
oppose him when he explains, for example, that NATO is useless? Michael
Flynn[a former general and national security adviser who had to resign
in 2017 over his ties to Russia]? Trump will only surround himself with
loyal people who supported him in the idea that the 2020 election was
rigged. And it includes Flynn, who, from my perspective, is a crazy person .

According to you, there are two "fifth columns" in the West today. Who
are they?

On the one hand, we find people on the right who have this strange habit
of justifying Putin's actions. They believe, or say they believe, his
propaganda to defend Christian values in the face of a declining West.
They are the useful idiots of the Russian regime . But another, larger
group of people on the left hate the United States for its "white
supremacy" or "imperialism." They are ready to defend any anti-American
position, starting with Islamism. These are the people who recently
demonstrated on university campuses and tore down pictures of Israeli
hostages.

Neither group is particularly numerous. But they are very good at
influencing social media. We recently had further proof with these young
Gen Zers who massively highlighted Osama bin Laden's "letter to America"
on TikTok. We can really wonder if all this is not a psycho-logical
operation performed by China with actors. But not! They are real people.
At the same time, nothing surprises me anymore, because I have observed
similar behavior among students at Stanford. Young Americans who are
currently in college have strange opinions, but that's just the result
of their education . They have been taught from a young age that
American history is about slavery and Western history is about
colonialism. If this is the story you are taught in school, you should
not be surprised by the reactions we have witnessed since October 7th.

In conclusion, we can say that the geopolitical outlook is worrisome to
say the least if we follow you...

I'm actually optimistic. I helped start a new university in Austin[often
called the "anti-woke university"]with people like Barry Weiss and Joe
Lonsdale. I think America's problems are easily fixable. And I also
believe that ultimately free societies are the ones that win the Cold
Wars because they are more innovative. American democracy and capitalism
have incredible strengths. Most importantly, the most talented people in
the world want to settle in the United States. And when they do, they do
much better than if they had stayed in their home country. Neither China
nor Russia can rely on this asset, on the contrary, many people want to
escape from these countries.

We are the sole architects of the decline of the West. Neither Xi
Jinping nor Vladimir Putin are responsible for this, we are doing it to
ourselves .

https://www.anarchy.bg
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca