The Crumbling Empire Part II
Unveiling Geopolitical Strategies.
By Nel
During our exploration of the complexities of today's geopolitical landscape, historical echoes continue to resonate in the continued use of old strategies and goals such as the United States’ government and its economic elites’ attempt to sustain their global hegemony but being unable to do so as time goes on. Thus, the use of force is becoming a necessary contemplation. These insights form the crux of understanding the motivations behind current global developments.
Drawing from my background in social geography, migration sociology, and conflict studies, I aim to shed light on the historical underpinnings and present-day implications of these strategies. By examining the patterns of the past and their manifestations today, we can better comprehend the forces and social actors shaping our global present.
Historical Foundations: The Roots of Geopolitical Strategy
The United States has historically sought to gain a global hegemony and construct itself as the global hegemon simultaneously. This was the outcome of WWII in particular, even though the Cold War still was a continued battle to win over the whole world with their worldview (or “Weltanschauung”), and economical system to be under the sphere of influence of the US. However, right now the empire and its sphere of influence, its attempt to keep being a hegemon, is coming down. Struggling to maintain its grip, its decline is evident.
Despite this, the empire's strategy in Europe and Eurasia demonstrates its continued efforts to influence the balance of power, particularly between Germany and Russia. This strategy dates back to the early 20th century which is quite remarkable. Take, for instance, John Maynard Keynes' insightful analysis in his 1919 book “The Economic Consequences of the Peace.” Keynes, with remarkable foresight, exposes how the US and Great Britain tried to sever any potential diplomatic and economic relations between Germany and Russia in the aftermath of WWI. He critiqued the harsh reparations imposed on Germany after World War I, foreseeing the economic and political instability it would cause—a vacuum the US could exploit to assert influence. Moving beyond geopolitical analysis, Halford Mackinder's 1904 essay "The Geographical Pivot of History" introduced the sweeping Heartland Theory. This theory proposed a conceptual framework for achieving global domination through control of Eastern Europe, the "Heartland." This theory underscored the strategic importance of preventing a strong alliance between Germany and Russia and incidentally appeared before the geopolitical wheels turned during and after WWI.
These historical observations exemplify a long-standing objective: to prevent any single power or alliance from challenging US hegemony. And for today’s world: to preven the US hegemony from falling apart.
The Overextension of Empires
Why this focus on the fall of empires? Because history reveals a recurring pattern: empires rise, overextend, and ultimately crumble. Empires initially seek hegemony, weaving a web of influence through diplomacy, culture, and economic power. However, as their grip weakens, they undergo a dangerous transformation. Domination replaces hegemony, and brute force becomes the tool of choice to maintain a crumbling facade of power. This transition, from subtle (or not so subtle) persuasion to blunt coercion, often marks the beginning of the end. History teaches us that empires that abandon diplomacy for domination ultimately sow the seeds of their own destruction.
This pattern is recurrent throughout history. From the Roman Empire to the British Empire, overextension has always led to a resource drain as widespread and even increased military campaigns could not be sustained and depleted both economic resources and destroyed human lives. Further, these prolonged conflicts, with their ripple effects on domestic policies and economic stability, would ultimately lead to public dissent and weaken internal cohesion. Ultimately, this overextension, this hemorrhaging of resources and power, paves the way for a dramatic reordering of the world stage, as new actors emerge, changing the old order and reshaping the course of history.
The United States, with its extensive military engagements worldwide, risks repeating this historical mistake. The question arises: Is the US, indeed, overextending itself in an attempt to maintain global dominance?
Contemporary Observations and the Shadow of 2027
One could think so, when looking at the following process. Just one out of many, that the United States goverment is involved in.
Officially, the current US government may withdraw from conflicts like the one in Ukraine, but unofficially, strategies to weaken its adversaries persist.
The longstanding strategy employed by the US and the UK to prevent a strong alliance between Germany and Russia persists. Currently, there are indications that this strategy is being revitalized with a focus on the year 2027.
Evidence from Germany
Evidence from Germany itself supports this notion. Recent articles from the Bundeswehr (German Military) – such as "Annual Reserve Conference: Questioning the Principle of Voluntariness" (Jahrestagung Reserve: Prinzip der Freiwilligkeit hinterfragen) and "Not Just Filling Boxes, but Really Practicing" (Nicht nur Kästchen füllen, sondern auch wirklich üben) published on November 8th and 9th, 2024, respectively – highlight the annual reserve conference involving the US and Great Britain as guest nations, and emphasizing that "mass matters." This refers to a renewed focus on increasing the number of reservists, a clear indication of a shift towards prioritizing military strength. Despite Germany’s historically complex relationship with military power.
It's also worth noting that the commitment to strengthening the reserves extends beyond the military itself. On October 10th, 2024, the German Ministry of Defense and the Reservists Association awarded the "Partner of the Reserve" prize to both Amazon and Airbus. This award, now in its ninth year, recognizes employers who actively support their employees' involvement in the reserve forces. The fact that such prominent companies are being recognized for their contributions also underscores the growing importance placed on bolstering military capacity.
Additionally, the urgency of these preparations is evident in the Bundeswehr's efforts to accelerate the training and mobilization of reservists. Ministerialrat Adrian Croon highlighted the development of "Meine Reserve" ("My Reserve"), an app specifically designed to streamline training and management processes. This app, tested at Quadriga/National Guardian, is expected to be available in app stores by the end of 2025. Interestingly, Lieutenant General Andreas Hoppe, Deputy Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, emphasized the need for rapid innovation, stating, "Development and innovation are part of military readiness. But it cannot be that we need five years for something like this!" The seriousness with which the Bundeswehr is approaching the need to bolster its reserve forces is increasingly apparent and straightforward.
The last development I want to point out is the policy shift through considering mandatory service (as discussed in the Annual Reserve Conference 2024). Discussions are underway about the possibility of making military training compulsory, moving away from voluntary enlistment. This shift is driven by concerns about the reliability and availability of reservists, even when positions are technically filled. What makes this potential shift towards mandatory service even more astounding is the level of detail already being discussed. Oberst Jochen Geck, from the Bundeswehr's Competence Center for Reservist Affairs, outlined a clear vision for reservist training: prioritize essential military skills, eliminate unnecessary elements, and embrace modular and distance learning to minimize disruption to civilian careers. While core combat skills will still require in-person training, this emphasis on efficiency and adaptability speaks to a determination to create a more readily deployable reserve force.
For a nation with Germany's history, this open discussion of compulsory training and streamlined mobilization represents a significant step towards a more militarized society. But this step is also of geopolitical significance.
Germany's Political Realignment: A Calculated Shift
In the very same context of military readiness, the fracturing of Germany's "traffic light" coalition (a coalition of the SPD, FDP, and Greens) appears to be more than a mere political reshuffle. It seems strategically timed to usher in a government more aligned with pro-Ukraine and, by extension, anti-Russian sentiments.
Indeed, Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his cautious approach may simply not align with the aggressive stance preferred by NATO hardliners. Unlike CDU’s Friedrich Merz who is seen as the most viable contender for becoming Germany’s next chancellor. He is poised to take leadership, possibly in coalition with the Greens (Bündins 80/Die Grünen), or the SPD’s Pistorius (the current Defense Minister), and even the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party known for its nationalist views.
Such coalitions with these types of leading figures can carry a number of serious risks. One of the most concerning is the potential for increased xenophobia and discrimination against migrants. As economic and social challenges mount and political discourse changes, migrants can easily become scapegoats, targeted as the source of the nation's problems. This can lead to a dangerous climate of intolerance and hostility. Furthermore, the normalization of military values and preparedness through the discourse on “military prepardeness” (or “Kriegstüchtigkeit”) can have a corrosive effect on society as a whole. Critical thinking and dissent may be stifled, and a culture of unquestioning obedience may take root.
Finally, the combination of militarization and increasingly neoliberal policies creates a particularly toxic mix. As economic inequality widens and social mobility stagnates, the military can become an attractive option for those seeking stability and opportunity, further entrenching the power of the military-industrial complex and emboldening NATO hardliners.
The Real Objective: Weakening Russia to Isolate China
While the feasibility of Germany and the European Union winning a direct conflict against Russia is questionable, achieving a decisive victory might not be the primary goal. Instead, the strategic goals involved to drain Russia of its resources as a prolonged conflict in Ukraine and potential European engagement could overextend Russia militarily and economically. Another goal would be the disruption of Russo-European relations, ensuring that Europe remains distant from Russia. On the one hand, this serves to isolate China, making it more vulnerable to economic and political or worse, military pressure from the US and its allies. On the other hand, it prevents the formation of a powerful bloc Eurasian bloc that could rival US influence.
Conclusion: Reflecting on Historical Lessons
History offers cautionary tales about the overreach of empires and the unintended consequences of aggressive strategies. As we observe the unfolding events and processes, we're compelled to confront some critical questions:
Are current geopolitical strategies repeating past mistakes?
How can nations pursue their interests without igniting widespread conflict?
By critically analyzing these questions, we can strive for a more informed and balanced approach to international relations.
The belief that we are powerless in the face of global events is a dangerous illusion. Our collective awareness and action hold the potential to shape a different future.
I invite you to join this exploration of geopolitical dynamics, where we dissect current events with a critical eye informed by historical context and scholarly insight. Together, we can foster a deeper understanding of the forces shaping our world.
Subscribe to receive regular updates and engage in thoughtful discussions on these pivotal issues.
Connect with Me
X: @SenB
Nel is a PhD candidate specializing in social geography, migration sociology, and conflict studies. With a keen interest in the interplay between historical precedents and contemporary geopolitical processes, Nel provides in-depth analyses aimed at uncovering the underlying forces shaping global events.
Author's Note
Your insights and perspectives are invaluable. Feel free to share your thoughts, pose questions, or suggest topics for future exploration. Let's navigate these complex terrains together.
References
Keynes, J. M. (1919). The Economic Consequences of the Peace.
Mackinder, H. J. (1904). The Geographical Pivot of History.
Peters, S. (08.11.2024). Jahrestagung Reserve: Prinzip der Freiwilligkeit hinterfragen - Reservistenverband https://www.reservistenverband.de/magazin-die-reserve/jahrestagung-reserve-2024-tag1/
Peters, S. (09.11.2024). Nicht nur Kästchen füllen, sondern auch wirklich üben - Reservistenverband. https://www.reservistenverband.de/magazin-die-reserve/jahrestagung-reserve-2024-tag2/
Reservistenverband - Redaktion (10.09.2024). Ministerium und Verband zeichnen Partner der Reserve aus https://www.reservistenverband.de/magazin-die-reserve/preisverleihung-partner-der-reserve-2024/
Thank you for providing an English version. (German is too hard for me :-) Many years ago I was involved with a bunch of people from Political Science, Laws, and Sociology during my college years in a far away place. I knew a couple of PhD in political science, but they have American degrees. A German PhD is considerably more difficult. As a layman, I would say you have the potential to become as good as professor Glenn Diesen, and Germany needs you, even if you don't get involved in real politics. It is a thinker for a country's future that is important. If one is too close to power, that tends to skew the assessment of the situation and designs of policies. My best wishes to you for a successful study.
I made a living as a computer engineer, now retired, but my main interest is history, especially military history. I totally agree with your general description of how an empire fades and then eventually dies. Hundreds of years later, same ethnic group, same language, with clear cultural and blood lineage still occupy the same place, but they are simply not the same people. written Chinese history during the last three thousand years has all the usual up and down. More specifically, with about 1200 years of "normal" and 300 years of major havoc. Currently it is about the end of the second 300 years of havoc. "Natural Resources" is not a typical concern besides sufficient food supply and wars to acquire arable land. Nobody really fight to conquer desert or ocean, only to use them as conduits (and deny the use to others.)
But in the modern society, especially after the industrial revolution, most of the big jobs are done by machines using energy source outside of human or animal bodies. Survival for a country, and for an individual is much more difficult now. Reasons? More kinds of resources are needed, and human history has not witnessed an empire in decline in a background of dwindling resources. Of course I am somewhat jumping the gun as most of the critical resources are still widely available or at least you can buy. The net effect is smaller countries and smaller mom-and-pop shops are difficult to survive. Employees are more difficult to negotiate with employers on equal footing. Democracy, for example, are best for small localities. Once a nation gets big, many difficulties will arise in the political system even if economy dictates that the nation has to be big. This is what I have been thinking about lately. About half of my existing 50 postings are related to this kind of subjects, the other half is more related to news items.
I am very eager to see more works from you and hopefully you don't mind my murmuring.
Nel, here's an interesting fact that came to mind when I saw the word "hegemon" -- we were ONE vote away from having German as our national language