An amazing read. A geriatric peace dividend sounds alright. Does seems to discount Southeast Asia but still a very different take and a potentially accurate one.
I see the United States having a fundamental advantage: by being the only large-scale true cultural Melting Pot that invites people from all around the world (temporary pauses to that aside), it's the only place that the whole world can view as representing its future. Perhaps more importantly once you're diverse you can continue to absorbing a diverse population without massive disruption. Think about how hard it is for Africans to migrate to Europe where every time they show up they stick out and contrast that with United States where we're already a fundamentally 10% Black nation. It gives us fundamental advantages especially as Africa rises.
That's overly optimistic about America's capacity to induce immigration from Africa.
Most of Sub-Saharan Africa was Francophone, and that's represented in African immigration data as well. The US might be able to attract some amount of brain drain from Nigeria, but it's much less likely given the changes in immigration policy in the US over the past 10 years. A Nigerian who may have been brought on an H1B will now most likely be brought by an employer to Canada or the UK, or a GCC will be formed within Nigeria.
Furthermore, the question is what do you define as "African". Africa is a massive and diverse continent with various different countries with varying levels of state and human capital capacity. The kind of immigrant coming from Nigeria will be significantly different from similarly sized DRC.
Also, as a 1.5 gen immigrant (I immigrated as a toddler), it's easier to immigrate to much of Western Europe and the UK compared to the US.
As someone who walked down 116th Street in Manhattan yesterday, I can assure you there is a large and healthy immigrant population here coming from Africa
(though I do not mean to downplay the current brakes that are being placed on immigration. In fact just yesterday that same community was targeted most likely on Canal Street where they did a raid. But these types of immigration brakes are always temporary)
Yep! But you aren't seeing African immigration to the same degree in the rest of the US, let alone compared to what you see in much of Western Europe like the UK or France.
Also, much of the African immigrant community you see in NYC is primarily Senegalese in origin (there's a reason why 116th St in Harlem is Petit Sénégal), and most Senegalese immigrate to France.
There are only around 20k Senegalese Americans (most of whom live in the NYC area) versus 300k French Senegalese. And that's just Senegal alone.
I'm not fully behind this argument, largely because this argument overindexes American success which is directly related to continuing to leverage the brain drain as well as manage a multilateral coalition.
Furthermore, Beckley is a member of the AEI and FPRI - both of whom played a role in Project 2025's foreign policy goals) - and has been strongly in favor of Trump's current foreign policy goals, arguing that American unilateralism will allow America to ascend other nations [0], which is not neccesarily true.
Additonally, this argument removes the agency that regional powers have and their ability to coalesce when needed, such as Japan-Australia-Korea-India cooperation in the Indo-Pac and ASEAN, along with Japanese and Korean leverage across much of ASEAN.
Finally, the power differential between a "great" and "regional" power is rapidly diminishing, as Russia's experience in Ukraine is clearly showing, despite Ukraine at first glance being a much weaker country that cannot project power to the same degree that Russia can. A regional power is by definition a power that can match head-to-head against a larger power within it's specific region. Thus, as regional powers increasingly retool and build domestic capacity, the power differential for "great" powers is steadily reduced.
I agree that American doomerism is overblown to a certain extent, but America's advantage lies in multilateral coalition management, as a NATO+, QUAD+, NAFTA, and other transnational coalitions not only give regional powers a say, but also prevent them from building their own alternative compacts.
Russia's performance in Ukraine is more of an indication that Russia is a regional power with nuclear weapons rather than a great power - so it is to an extent two regional powers of dissimilar sizes duking it out but the smaller power has the support of multiple nearby regional powers - Ukraine has done amazing with what they had on hand and have received but without foreign support they'd be struggling much more.
There is currently one great power in the world and one very close to crossing the line (the US and China, EU could do it but realistically won't because of national identities).
I don't see your points as necessarily in conflict with the article at all.
The diminishing power differential between regional/great powers seems to be exactly in line with what's being said about the shrinking incentives for conquest and the illustrative quagmires of Russia and America's foreign wars.
The ability for regional powers to coalesce feels like it underscores the way geopolitics have changed in exactly the way the author is arguing. Instead of a new Asean Empire that neatly fits into the patterns of a rising power from the 19th and 20th centuries, disparate polities with shared interests cooperate in a way that preserves their independent sovereignty and resists challenges to the status quo.
I can't speak to the author's sympathies with Project 2025, but if there is some related bias I didn't catch it on a first read where I wasn't aware of it. The mentions of "unvarnished unilateralism" and "U.S. strategy is shedding values and historical memory" and "democracies rotting from within" seem to imply Beckley has some idea of the existential dangers the current administration poses to American hegemony.
The view appears to be that the only credible rival to America (China) faces demographic headwinds that America doesn't to the same degree in trying to capitalize on any broader decline.
I strongly agree with what you’re positing. I will also add that I felt this article was a bit too light on detailed sourcing for its assertions, which leads me to feel its conclusions are suspect
> this article was a bit too light on detailed sourcing
This is for all intents a blog post within Foreign Affairs mag, which itself is not well regarded anymore in the policy space, as regional studies is now the norm and "grand strategy" largely failed to show value in comparison to iterative and data-driven policymaking.
It's best to treat Foreign Affairs articles as op-eds targeted for general consumption, not policymaking consumption. In fact, I've seen the publication try to drive engagement via Reddit by posting similar "hot take" articles on various subreddits to drive engagement.
There are decent articles, but they require you to understand who are the people writing them and whether or not they are domain experts on what they are writing about. To be brutally honest, most people who were never in this space in an actual academic capacity just wouldn't know how to filter the chaff from the kernels.
Beckley uses "rogue" to imply a commitment to unilateralism in a world where multilateralism is increasingly viewed as a norm, and to rewrite the rules of international engagement with allies to me much more one-sided.
> As a result, U.S. strategy is shedding values and historical memory, narrowing its focus to money and homeland defense. Allies are discovering what unvarnished unilateralism feels like, as security guarantees become protection rackets and trade deals are enforced with tariffs. This is the same logic of raw power that helped spur two world wars, and the consequences are already visible.
Being compared to criminals and failed nations that started wars is not typically how America Ascendant believers frame the nation.
Over a decade of domestic pop geopolitical thought explicitly describing these circumstances as a win condition for the USA. This strain of American ascendance has been blackpilled onto this path since Obama.
“Rogue Superpower” is said while feigning dismay and hiding unadulterated glee. Peter Zeihan has millions and millions of views.
Personally I think we should be putting more focus on pedagogy. Beyond primary school, education is more zero-sum signaling and specialization.
Rapid growth has always been brought about by improvements in productivity, brought about by better machines in manufacturing in the past. But for white collar jobs we've barely been doing that, instead relying on squeezing successive generations for a static pool of talent.
Imagine a world in which the SAT is an afterthought where everyone can max easily. That would do way more to change your day to day life than the latest EV or HSR.
An amazing read. A geriatric peace dividend sounds alright. Does seems to discount Southeast Asia but still a very different take and a potentially accurate one.
I see the United States having a fundamental advantage: by being the only large-scale true cultural Melting Pot that invites people from all around the world (temporary pauses to that aside), it's the only place that the whole world can view as representing its future. Perhaps more importantly once you're diverse you can continue to absorbing a diverse population without massive disruption. Think about how hard it is for Africans to migrate to Europe where every time they show up they stick out and contrast that with United States where we're already a fundamentally 10% Black nation. It gives us fundamental advantages especially as Africa rises.
That's overly optimistic about America's capacity to induce immigration from Africa.
Most of Sub-Saharan Africa was Francophone, and that's represented in African immigration data as well. The US might be able to attract some amount of brain drain from Nigeria, but it's much less likely given the changes in immigration policy in the US over the past 10 years. A Nigerian who may have been brought on an H1B will now most likely be brought by an employer to Canada or the UK, or a GCC will be formed within Nigeria.
Furthermore, the question is what do you define as "African". Africa is a massive and diverse continent with various different countries with varying levels of state and human capital capacity. The kind of immigrant coming from Nigeria will be significantly different from similarly sized DRC.
Also, as a 1.5 gen immigrant (I immigrated as a toddler), it's easier to immigrate to much of Western Europe and the UK compared to the US.
As someone who walked down 116th Street in Manhattan yesterday, I can assure you there is a large and healthy immigrant population here coming from Africa
(though I do not mean to downplay the current brakes that are being placed on immigration. In fact just yesterday that same community was targeted most likely on Canal Street where they did a raid. But these types of immigration brakes are always temporary)
I believe alephnerd lived in the Bay Area.
Yep! But you aren't seeing African immigration to the same degree in the rest of the US, let alone compared to what you see in much of Western Europe like the UK or France.
Also, much of the African immigrant community you see in NYC is primarily Senegalese in origin (there's a reason why 116th St in Harlem is Petit Sénégal), and most Senegalese immigrate to France.
There are only around 20k Senegalese Americans (most of whom live in the NYC area) versus 300k French Senegalese. And that's just Senegal alone.
I'm not fully behind this argument, largely because this argument overindexes American success which is directly related to continuing to leverage the brain drain as well as manage a multilateral coalition.
Furthermore, Beckley is a member of the AEI and FPRI - both of whom played a role in Project 2025's foreign policy goals) - and has been strongly in favor of Trump's current foreign policy goals, arguing that American unilateralism will allow America to ascend other nations [0], which is not neccesarily true.
Additonally, this argument removes the agency that regional powers have and their ability to coalesce when needed, such as Japan-Australia-Korea-India cooperation in the Indo-Pac and ASEAN, along with Japanese and Korean leverage across much of ASEAN.
Finally, the power differential between a "great" and "regional" power is rapidly diminishing, as Russia's experience in Ukraine is clearly showing, despite Ukraine at first glance being a much weaker country that cannot project power to the same degree that Russia can. A regional power is by definition a power that can match head-to-head against a larger power within it's specific region. Thus, as regional powers increasingly retool and build domestic capacity, the power differential for "great" powers is steadily reduced.
I agree that American doomerism is overblown to a certain extent, but America's advantage lies in multilateral coalition management, as a NATO+, QUAD+, NAFTA, and other transnational coalitions not only give regional powers a say, but also prevent them from building their own alternative compacts.
[0] - https://www.aei.org/multimedia/america-ascendant-beckley-on-...
Russia's performance in Ukraine is more of an indication that Russia is a regional power with nuclear weapons rather than a great power - so it is to an extent two regional powers of dissimilar sizes duking it out but the smaller power has the support of multiple nearby regional powers - Ukraine has done amazing with what they had on hand and have received but without foreign support they'd be struggling much more.
There is currently one great power in the world and one very close to crossing the line (the US and China, EU could do it but realistically won't because of national identities).
I don't see your points as necessarily in conflict with the article at all.
The diminishing power differential between regional/great powers seems to be exactly in line with what's being said about the shrinking incentives for conquest and the illustrative quagmires of Russia and America's foreign wars.
The ability for regional powers to coalesce feels like it underscores the way geopolitics have changed in exactly the way the author is arguing. Instead of a new Asean Empire that neatly fits into the patterns of a rising power from the 19th and 20th centuries, disparate polities with shared interests cooperate in a way that preserves their independent sovereignty and resists challenges to the status quo.
I can't speak to the author's sympathies with Project 2025, but if there is some related bias I didn't catch it on a first read where I wasn't aware of it. The mentions of "unvarnished unilateralism" and "U.S. strategy is shedding values and historical memory" and "democracies rotting from within" seem to imply Beckley has some idea of the existential dangers the current administration poses to American hegemony.
The view appears to be that the only credible rival to America (China) faces demographic headwinds that America doesn't to the same degree in trying to capitalize on any broader decline.
I strongly agree with what you’re positing. I will also add that I felt this article was a bit too light on detailed sourcing for its assertions, which leads me to feel its conclusions are suspect
> this article was a bit too light on detailed sourcing
This is for all intents a blog post within Foreign Affairs mag, which itself is not well regarded anymore in the policy space, as regional studies is now the norm and "grand strategy" largely failed to show value in comparison to iterative and data-driven policymaking.
It's best to treat Foreign Affairs articles as op-eds targeted for general consumption, not policymaking consumption. In fact, I've seen the publication try to drive engagement via Reddit by posting similar "hot take" articles on various subreddits to drive engagement.
There are decent articles, but they require you to understand who are the people writing them and whether or not they are domain experts on what they are writing about. To be brutally honest, most people who were never in this space in an actual academic capacity just wouldn't know how to filter the chaff from the kernels.
For someone who was part of groups that played a role in Project 2025, he seems to have issues with the implementation.
> “ the United States is becoming a rogue superpower, with little sense of obligation beyond itself”
Beckley uses "rogue" to imply a commitment to unilateralism in a world where multilateralism is increasingly viewed as a norm, and to rewrite the rules of international engagement with allies to me much more one-sided.
Sure, and it is used in a perjorative manner -
> As a result, U.S. strategy is shedding values and historical memory, narrowing its focus to money and homeland defense. Allies are discovering what unvarnished unilateralism feels like, as security guarantees become protection rackets and trade deals are enforced with tariffs. This is the same logic of raw power that helped spur two world wars, and the consequences are already visible.
Being compared to criminals and failed nations that started wars is not typically how America Ascendant believers frame the nation.
Am I missing something here?
Over a decade of domestic pop geopolitical thought explicitly describing these circumstances as a win condition for the USA. This strain of American ascendance has been blackpilled onto this path since Obama.
“Rogue Superpower” is said while feigning dismay and hiding unadulterated glee. Peter Zeihan has millions and millions of views.
Personally I think we should be putting more focus on pedagogy. Beyond primary school, education is more zero-sum signaling and specialization.
Rapid growth has always been brought about by improvements in productivity, brought about by better machines in manufacturing in the past. But for white collar jobs we've barely been doing that, instead relying on squeezing successive generations for a static pool of talent.
Imagine a world in which the SAT is an afterthought where everyone can max easily. That would do way more to change your day to day life than the latest EV or HSR.