James Deane

I will break down the narrative shift at WEF and geopolitical events as simply and succinctly as I can. For decades the WEF championed a few things: + Open borders immigration + Globalization of supply chains + Climate change mitigation European countries adhered to this the most closely. It got them: + Large unassimilated third world populations + Economic dependence on Russia and China + Hamstrung national economies and energy shortage Regardless of your politics about the ideologies motivating the three main policy points, the implementation of the policies has been disastrous. Meanwhile, China and Russia have not adopted an ideologically motivated set of international or domestic policies but instead have continued to play the global chessboard of realpolitik: calculated, super-rational decision making to increase their spheres of influence, consolidate domestic power, trade pawns for knights, etc. Because China and Russia are rational actors they are all too happy to take up industries considered 'too dirty' or 'expensive' for the West: -> Russia supplies the energy to Europe, such that European countries are directly funding Russia's war on Ukraine -> China supplies the manufacturing to all the West, building up technological and manufacturing dominance in key military domains of electronics, power supplies, drones, robotics, semiconductors, etc. The net-net: + This did nothing to help the climate, since China and Russia make no pretenses about meeting carbon targets of any kind + Globalization of international trade did not have the intended effect of cooling off geopolitical disputes, because the aggressors (Russia and China) developed a market position dominant enough such that the buyers (Europe and NA) became dependent on the lower price. + Third world immigration to developed countries has mostly led to large degrees of social unrest, as the liberal inclusive and egalitarian framework of Western countries is tested by newcomers with different values, that are not keen to assimilate, do not believe in gender equality, etc. The policy points of the WEF should be contextualized as fairly reasonable goals to ensure a degree of economic interdependence among European states in the post WW2 era. How do we avoid another European continental war between France, Germany, England, Italy? The existing common cultural heritage of these countries has made open borders and economic interdependence among them quite nice and friendly in the EU itself. There is nothing the English love more than to vacation in France and complain about French people, and the French are glad to take their money and make fun of the English. They fail utterly when these are extended to trade relationships and population exchange with completely foreign cultures outside the European continent, which includes Russia because of its historical 'outsider' status, or China, both countries which see themselves as historical underdogs competing against 'the West' for their rightful place as leaders of the global order. How has North America reacted to this divergence of ideology and reality? Right now the US and Canada are showing a pure split, which becomes framed as "adherence to the existing international system" or "America First Nationalism" -> Canada is doubling down on the 'international system' and leaning further into international trade dependence, in this case with China, under the false assumptions that China has similar motivations as Canada: mutually beneficial trade that strengthens both countries. China does not want this from Canada, it wants a Vassal state at the American border with looser borders as a base of operations to conduct espionage, sabotage, information gathering, IP theft, cyber crimes, etc. China's biggest dream in this scenario is carte-blanche to deploy a large number of autonomous robotic vehicles and drone platforms as well as digital infrastructure that can pipe information back to Chinese servers to completely map the critical infrastructure it would need to quickly disable in order to gain lead position in a hot-war with USA. Canada's moves are easier to fit into existing international narratives, but worse for its citizens and future geopolitical independence. -> USA is doubling down on its 'America First' rhetoric, which is really a re-statement of realpolitik: that America will pursue its own national priorities as a self-interested rational actor, which means disregard for international law and convention when it suits them, abrogation of trade agreements when convenient, territorial expansion and aggression, military operations against foreign adversaries, and so on. This is extremely polarizing: among American nationalists they see it as a return to virtue and manifest destiny; among Globalists they see it as jingoistic expansion and the end of Pax Americana. Whatever the outcome the previous International System failed in its objections. The climate sacrifices made by Western countries did little to nothing to appreciably limit carbon emissions or global warming in the context of a rapidly industrializing Global South; Multiculturalism and widespread immigration has created greater degrees of social unrest internally and along with supply chain interdependence has not created the economic and cultural exchange to prevent new military conflicts from arising; In more simpler terms, the International System was only a stable and bound configuration with buy-in from all parties; as America defects, Western countries will either need to also pursue their own version of national realpolitik, as I expect Denmark and Germany to do, or else align themselves with a new superpower, as Canada has done with China.