Let’s start with a recent headline from The New York Times, which reported that Trump is “envisaging” a world where the U.S., China, and Russia each dominate a part of the globe. In simple terms, this would mean dividing the world among the three. The U.S. aims to keep Europe, North America, Australia, and parts of South America. China would be left with Southeast Asia, but the U.S. still wants to control Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. Russia would have its current territories plus the areas it has recently captured. The accompanying graphic clearly shows that Trump’s ambition is far from modest. He claims to want a tripartite world, but in reality, he wants the U.S. to have everything it desires and for China and Russia to back down.
What would the world look like if the U.S. had its way? Let’s start with China. With a population of 1.4 billion, our economic growth outpaces others. Adding Southeast Asia, a densely populated region, would mean we have a large population relative to resources. What about Russia?
A glance at its population distribution map reveals that its population center is in Europe. Even though Siberia’s population is similar to that of 1600, with just a few million people, is the European part of Russia densely populated? Not really! Our regions like Xinjiang and Gansu, which have vast deserts, have higher population densities than Russia’s. With such sparse population and borders with U.S.-aligned forces, what does Russia fear the most? Infiltration and disruption! As I’ve said before, Russia’s attack on Ukraine was due to NATO’s eastward expansion after the Soviet Union’s collapse, which led to excessively long borders between Russia and NATO countries. The U.S. has been promoting Ukraine’s NATO membership, which Russia cannot accept. If Ukraine joins NATO, Russia would share a nearly 4,000-kilometer border with NATO. It would require 4 million troops to guard just one meter per person, putting Russia on the defensive. Moreover, with no significant mountains in the East European Plain, Russia has no natural defenses. So, Russia has to try to shorten the border, ideally pushing it back to the Cold War-era standoff line between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, where only a hundred-kilometer plain in East Germany remains, and the rest is mountains.
Now, regarding the U.S. The New York Times has really played its cards well. Australia, with nearly 8 million square kilometers, has a population similar to Taiwan’s and is rich in natural resources. Canada is the same. The U.S., despite its less-than-ideal agricultural conditions with acidic soil better suited for soybeans and corn, has a relatively small population. If it could hold onto such vast territories, it would be like living on top of a treasure trove, a true winner in life. But is this feasible? The answer is no. For the U.S. to achieve this “tripartite world” where it takes two parts, what conditions would need to be met? Before retreating to America, the U.S. would have to default on its debts. But this would lead to the collapse of the U.S. dollar’s hegemony. Then the question arises: Would the U.S. still be the U.S. without dollar hegemony? Setting aside other factors, with the current exchange rate of 1:1 or at most 1:2 between the Chinese yuan and the U.S. dollar, if the dollar’s dominance collapses, the U.S.’s power would shrink to a quarter of China’s. With only a quarter of China’s strength, the U.S. still wants to control such a vast territory and live comfortably. Isn’t this dream too beautiful? Isn’t the U.S. underestimating others’ intelligence?
This outcome is severe but not the most critical. The most critical issue is that if the U.S. truly pursues a “tripartite world,” it might end up fragmented. Unlike Russia, the U.S. lacks a dominant ethnic group. This means the U.S. can only fight when things are going well; once faced with adversity, it would crumble.
Lastly, many believe the U.S. is strong enough to retreat to America and use it as a backyard, challenging others to attack.
But this notion is also flawed. For a country to expand, it’s manageable as long as it has the power. However, retreating depends on its relations with neighboring countries. If those relations are poor, external forces will take advantage of its weakness. This is the idea behind “strike when the enemy is in trouble.”
Over the past 200 years, the U.S. has been a dominant force in America, leading to a common saying in the region: “We are unfortunate to be too close to the U.S. and too far from God.” Some think that giving up hegemony and retreating to America to preserve current interests would allow the U.S. to remain a wealthy power and continue enjoying good times. But is this possible?
Let’s recall a historical anecdote. Around 1800, there was a person named Cao Shuang who had similar thoughts. Sima Yi pretended to be ill to deceive him and later launched the Gaopingling Rebellion. Cao’s subordinates advised him to fight to the death, but he said, “Even if I lose power, I still have my marquis title and can live as a wealthy man.” As we all know, Cao Shuang’s eventual fate was dire. Even if the U.S. wants to retreat, it can no longer do so!
评论
发表评论