What I'd say is that the US remains the sole superpower, the other one having gone away. Superpowers are not all-powerful though and never were. True in 1992, true now! If they had been neither the US nor the Soviet Union would have been getting into fistfights with China. I'd also say the Soviet Union couldn't even operate in its sphere of interest in Afghanistan (which was on the border of the country) without problems. (The US, OTOH had to cross two oceans and transit multiple countries to get to Afghanistan, making that a different class of failure.)
That leaves the next tier down from superpower - I'd call those the great powers in a literalist comparison of the level of economic and military power the Great Powers possessed in the 19th century - 21st century Brazil would enjoy a walkover versus the UK of the 19th century, and would likely do OK or pretty well against the UK of the 21st century. I'd put China, Russia and India, but also France, the UK, Japan and Brazil in that group. Only Brazil & Japan lack nukes. Only China is in a position to move up to superpower and I have large doubts**. In the basement of that group you could perhaps put Germany, Pakistan, and Indonesia. (I don't know where to put Israel - It seems like '51st state of the US' would be the most reasonable description.)
The world has changed since the 19th century but also from 1948 - lots of nuclear powers, lots of countries with large populations and lots of economic growth means there are plenty of countries that could throw a lot of very hard punches if the situation called for it. The US simply outclasses everybody else and has since WWII, but the delusions of being a world-ruling empire seem to have finally evaporated.
elm
** brett rattner's one-city tour of china and subsequent puff piece notwithstanding
Very interesting and convincing piece. I would argue we need a new wording, for the reality you describe.
During the Cold War, we had two superpowers, and two poles : bipolar made sense. Now, we again have two competing powers, but only one is a pole, who attracts many allies all around the globe, while, to quote you "China has... North Korea." So, how two we call a unipolar world with more than one superpower ?
Actually, we're on the way to a neitherpolar world. Not China due to the many internal issues that need to be addressed (and may crush the nation) and not the US because there is neither the desire nor the will to police the oceans. As for Russia, c'mon. The only things that will truly bestir the US will direct threats to it, such as Taiwan (semiconductors and CPU's) or Ukraine (first step towards NATO, suppliers of non-silicon tech to the US).
What I'd say is that the US remains the sole superpower, the other one having gone away. Superpowers are not all-powerful though and never were. True in 1992, true now! If they had been neither the US nor the Soviet Union would have been getting into fistfights with China. I'd also say the Soviet Union couldn't even operate in its sphere of interest in Afghanistan (which was on the border of the country) without problems. (The US, OTOH had to cross two oceans and transit multiple countries to get to Afghanistan, making that a different class of failure.)
That leaves the next tier down from superpower - I'd call those the great powers in a literalist comparison of the level of economic and military power the Great Powers possessed in the 19th century - 21st century Brazil would enjoy a walkover versus the UK of the 19th century, and would likely do OK or pretty well against the UK of the 21st century. I'd put China, Russia and India, but also France, the UK, Japan and Brazil in that group. Only Brazil & Japan lack nukes. Only China is in a position to move up to superpower and I have large doubts**. In the basement of that group you could perhaps put Germany, Pakistan, and Indonesia. (I don't know where to put Israel - It seems like '51st state of the US' would be the most reasonable description.)
The world has changed since the 19th century but also from 1948 - lots of nuclear powers, lots of countries with large populations and lots of economic growth means there are plenty of countries that could throw a lot of very hard punches if the situation called for it. The US simply outclasses everybody else and has since WWII, but the delusions of being a world-ruling empire seem to have finally evaporated.
elm
** brett rattner's one-city tour of china and subsequent puff piece notwithstanding
If the world has a mental illness, maybe it isn't bipolar disorder, but borderline personality disorder. I always have trouble telling them apart.
So, does it mean that the presently operating system in the world today is Unipolarity?
Can you share this with noah smith?
Very interesting and convincing piece. I would argue we need a new wording, for the reality you describe.
During the Cold War, we had two superpowers, and two poles : bipolar made sense. Now, we again have two competing powers, but only one is a pole, who attracts many allies all around the globe, while, to quote you "China has... North Korea." So, how two we call a unipolar world with more than one superpower ?
Actually, we're on the way to a neitherpolar world. Not China due to the many internal issues that need to be addressed (and may crush the nation) and not the US because there is neither the desire nor the will to police the oceans. As for Russia, c'mon. The only things that will truly bestir the US will direct threats to it, such as Taiwan (semiconductors and CPU's) or Ukraine (first step towards NATO, suppliers of non-silicon tech to the US).
Yep, the USA is a 'pole', so is China. But with regards to a multi-polar world....where are the other poles?
If you think it's a multipolar world, I have a bridge in Bihar you might be interested in.
Speaking truth about power. 100% agree.