The Unlikely Plan For An Autarkic Americas
The American near abroad, a video game solution to a real world problem
Preface: I started writing this at the beginning of April. But as an exercise is getting my ideas down the effort to make them ordered into essay format exceed its worth for something no one will ever see. But I thought about adding an update. But instead I’m just going to publish what I have in note form so IF I ever want to reference anything here it’s out there. And the benefits of virtual invisibility is that no one will care if I update or even fully rewrite it
I feel like this entire post should just be summed with “Erik 'Blackwater' Prince is getting involved in the Ecuadorian elections” and then some kind of meme face with a tinfoil hat.
Occam’s razor would say Trump doesn’t like trade deficits. The tariffs punish trade deficits, end of story. But that doesn’t explain why is Trump talking about annexing Canada? Why do we want Greenland when Denmark has said it’s open to letting the US militarize it to our heart’s content? That would be sufficient if controlling the GIUK Gap had its traditional focus of protecting the logistics for the US to more securely defend Europe. It’s not sufficient if America plans to protect the Atlantic and let Europe fend for itself. If the invitation (née invasion) of our military by Mexico is just about the cartels then why the odd focus on the Panama Canal? Even the name of the tariffs, Liberation Day, suggest a grander plan. I propose that the “liberation” refers to America’s commitments to protect trade routes not in our national interest. The seemingly petty and childish renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of Americas hints at a plan where America doesn’t protect the Western Hemisphere à la The Monroe Doctrine. But one where it dominates it à la the Russian concept of the near abroad.1
The circles on this map represent the focus of our naval strategy since 1890 when OCaptain Alfred Thayer Mahan published “The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783.” And they’re a map to the actual motivations behind many of our geopolitical foci. You don’t see much attention paid to places that aren’t near a circle. And places where America focuses what many consider a confusing amount of confusion (eg “Why are we fighting to keep the Vietnamese free?” or “Lots of places have oil. Why did the entire world declare war to liberate Kuwait?”) it’s right next to a circle. What were the members of the Houthi PC Small Group most concerned about? Trade through the aptly named Gate of Grief.
Just because it reflects who we are trading with most heavily doesn’t mean that’s not the motivation. They didn’t say tariffs are controlled by the formula. They could have just chosen a formula that fit their needs. Why bother with a formula at all? I put it that the formula was chosen because it moved our supply chain to Peru from Bangladesh. While maintaining the appearance of equal treatment. And whatever nation-by-nation tariff renegotiations happen will decrease reliance on the straits of Malacca and Taiwan and move trade to countries not dependent on the South China Sea and the water in the 9 Dash Line. And if Europe doesn’t militarize to the point that it could dominate total war with Russia and neutralize Iran’s ability to cut off trade through the Red Sea2 we’re going to use tariffs to move our supply chains away from anything that requires sea transport through the Mediterranean from the east.3
Of course some of it is just tariffs. Trump likes tariffs and always has. But there’s Trump the individual. And there’s Trump the administration. And Trump’s pro-tariff America first attitude make him the person to support this. And it seems like Trump would like a flat global 10% tariff regardless. And there’s plenty of evidence of Trump saying this for decades.
But an adjustable plan to move to more or less autarky depending on the active participation of the rest of the West explains the focus on tackling bilateral trade deficits rather than applying actual reciprocal tariffs. And the focus on consolidating direct power over the Western Hemisphere. A fully prepared and united NATO provides a deterrent and enough power to keep supply chains open during war time. But if Europe refuses to participate in the survival of the West then America has to be prepared to retreat to our side of the oceans while we ride out the New Chinese Century. Which is probably the modern version of outright tribute4
But so far Trump’s threats to disengage has motivated European politicians to use Trump as a boogie man to excuse remilitarizing. And for Britain to reverse its trade debacle from Brexit. Conspiracy or completely rational response to erratic stimuli is an article of faith.
Also of note what’s missing in the above map is global warming opening up the Arctic trade routes. Maybe you remember the quest for the Northwest Passage from American history class. But for a century it was the Holy Grail of navigation. And it’s likely a massive opportunity for natural resources.
Owning Greenland gives us power projection all the way across the Atlantic. And with England as a junior partner gives us total control of the GIUK Gap. And controlling Greenland and Canada combined would leave the Arctic divided between the US and Russia. But people have been talking about the Arctic as an undefended front for decades now. It’s why Putin built the Trefoil Base on Franz Josef Land
It’s worth noting that during Trump’s White House dressing down of Zelensky Trump mentioned how well Poland was doing. And the Nordic countries in general seem to be pulling their weight as well. I’ll have to check the tariffs they’re getting. But between UK and the Nordics it ties up the ports in St. Petersburg and Murmansk (the home to Russia’s entire(?) nuclear submarine fleet).
I was thinking about how with India being a paper tiger and an unprepared Europe even an American victory could effectively be a loss, in much the same way that all the European victors of WW2 lost their empires. For England and France their victory was more Pyrrhic than the victory for which the term was coined. Winning a war against China could easily see the destruction of the international American order. And a loss .
All this over some chips? No, but if we don’t defend Taiwan it sends our partners in the Indo-Pacific that they’re on their own. Nine-dash line, which is essentially just saying control the trade through the Strait of Malacca.
Mearsheimer has said that he’s often invited to speak in China because they’re his kind of people. If China acts according to 19th c IR norms then the world defaults to that. The modern international order is a fragile thing that assumes the incentives for maintaining it are too good for anyone to defect from. But the Russian history that lead to Putin’s rise proves that in post-Communist countries oligarchs prefer direct power to economic power. If the economists were right the bad managers of the oligarchs would have sold to good managers. And markets would have kept order.5
We now have military access to Mexico without a formal declaration of war.6 The influence options are obvious. But less obvious it means we can (might be able to) now create two zones of Latin American immigration controls. The current massive one on our border. And the tiny one on Mexico’s southern border. With the attention paid to Panama being an alternative immigration chokepoint if Mexico didn’t give us military access that we have a pretense to place a military presence in. But which got dropped now that Mexico gave us the preferable option of being able to check South American immigration at Mexico’s southern border. And the power to deal with Mexican immigration and cartel issues in Mexico itself. But if a hot war breaks out I suspect we’ll hear Panama get brought up again.
Now, this fits with Elon Musk’s repeated statements that long range fighters are a waste. And we should switch to attritable drones. This didn’t make any sense when you consider our current needs in the Pacific are to be able to keep our aircraft carriers half an ocean away out of reach of China’s land based missile defense. But shorter range drones seem to make armchair sense if you’re only concerned with protecting the American littorals.
Why tariff our allies? To obfuscate the most important targets of the tariffs. And should Europe refuse to invest in self sufficiency then they’re not actually allies, but part of a one sided suzerainty , where we provide order and protection. But they don’t fulfill their obligations. And it introduces a dash (or more correctly, gallon) of Madman Theory to keep our enemies guessing.
Whenever you hear “freedom of navigation” it’s code for controlling trade chokepoints; First Island Chain; reviving WW2 military bases
I have a blindfold on and a hand on a bill, four hands on four legs, and a hand on a wide flat tail and saying this is a platypus. Maybe it’s an elephant. But the shape of this thing says platypus. Or these are all chaotic independent moves by this president and there’s no center there ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Maybe India is genuinely concerned about Tibet because it’s outraged over the treatment of an old man who likes to have boys suck his tongue and wants him restored to absolute god-king status of an isolated mountain kingdom.
But I’m going to bet the main concern is the control of the Brahmaputra and Ganges Rivers’ sources. And the potential to create water insecurity for 400M - 600M people. India faces the problem that anything short of victory by America could see China using water as a bargaining chip against it. A trump card whose only counter, failing an unrealistic total air superiority over the Himalayas, is nuclear threat7.
Also worth noting that this isn’t dissimilar to China’s historical tributary system. Before China’s (latest) collapse the Middle Kingdom’s empire was ruled with a soft touch. Largely independent states who all paid tribute to China.
A maximalist, but still very achievable goal would include Europe being able to fight a two front war against Russia and Iran. Which wouldn’t
Israel knows its primary value to the West is power projection
Inb4: Not that anyone looked to Chinese history and decided to copy the historical system of tributaries. Quite likely just parallel thinking.
And maybe on a long enough timeline that sees the oligarchs die of old age this is true. But, shockingly, people aren’t willing to spend a generation living under gangster rule out of fealty to long term economic principles. They’ll support a strongman who will bring order to the chaos.
And ask the Irish about how sometimes when your superpower neighbor is invited into your country it can be more difficult to get them to leave than just asking.
A fantastical alternative to nukes remains Project Thor. Which doesn’t carry the stigma that nukes have. But it’s untested. And relies on India being able to put more rods into space than China.