111 Comments
Mar 4, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo

While I do agree with most of the points in your analysis, I cannot stop from thinking that all this complex analysis, including the comments that I read so far, start from the fundamental assumption that violence was, is, and will be a given for humanity. This begs the question: for how long? The answer is not what we would like:

1. Until we learn, as a species, that violence is not in our advantage (though we are quite far from that target by all means) or,

2. We self-annihilate when our technological capabilities exceed our ability to control their usage in beneficial purposes (we may already be at that point).

The conclusion is dire: even if we are not on the brink of self-destruction, we will be soon (technology advances almost exponentially while our humane side does not visibly evolve at all at the time scale we measure these changes). The worst aspect is that it does not take a statistically large number of evil people to bring the civilization down. The critical mass is probably very low, due to the human nature itself. Decent and moral people usually stay out of politics or, if getting there, are either pushed aside, blackmailed, or even killed before they can accomplish anything meaningful - unless they get themselves corrupt as well. Democracy fails when harsh conditions knock the society out of its comfort zone of stability. People become more radicalized, disinformation creates dissensions, the equilibrium breaks.

Another real danger of constantly being in conflict rather than cooperating with each other (up to the highest level) is the enormous waste of resources and lack of coherent effort to pursue a clean and truly renewable energy source. Fossil fuels are running out and we still burn them to kill each other more efficiently. I start having doubts that our civilization has enough time (at the current rate of change in the right direction) to get past the fossil fuel exhaustion moment (compounded with climate change and war). The so-called renewables are not as sustainable as we may wish. I am an EE engineer and looking to understand what would be a feasible path towards a stable and prosperous society past the fossil fuels age. Honestly, I did not find any broad study that demonstrates how we will make progress in this direction. We have wonderful technologies, but the required material resources to keep them running are also limited and recycling efficiency is sometimes low and requires a lot of additional energy. So far the worst (and quite probable) future is a population overshoot (due to shrinking resources, war, massive migration and mostly food scarcity) that results in a societal collapse. If we keep fighting each other, we will enter the catabolic phase much sooner than expected (i.e., before we make a successful transition to clean energy). And don't yet bet on fusion, it's not here and it may not be for some time.

Bottom line:

How can we avoid conflict altogether? Is it even possible? What would it take? Where should we start? Education? An entirely different political and economic system?

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo

Well done, Tomas.

1. Thank you for being equally "fair" to US, UK, and Russia. There's a whole lot more that can be said about terrible US policies domestically and internationally. Sunset time.

2. I totally agree with you that Europe/EUR CAN navigate this crisis and play both sides US/UK and China/Russia (and India... check that UN vote scorecard...). Literally >75% of hedge fund folks in the public blogosphere are onto chess "match" that the pigeon is stumbling into since 2014 quite directly, with respect to US$ hegemony and the subsequent moves Putin/China have at their disposal.

3. Some of these folks are however not calling this for Europe, far from it. European financials seem to be taking it on the chin... Few are seeing that Germany/France can and will pivot back and forth, because they cannot afford to separate from China/India in the future.

That's just something some us feel is happening... so good call, amigo.

Sure seems that even though Trump was the first US president to not START any new wars in many administrations, he still shat all over the geopolitical chessboard with his chest out and turned all the other countries completely off from aligning with US in the future.... and there's some payback for WW2 and siding with Nazis against communisms all over the geopolitical chessboard for DECADES. Bloody and ruthless pigeons, ey. (Subconsciously Americans voted against Hillary in 2016, cause Maidan was fresh enough).

Best case scenario, China and US renegotiate the new techno/metaverse P2E ponzi economy, but sure seems that US just steps on gas the closer it gets to that wall. But there's just no way that Europe follows US/UK into the oblivion. Macron in fact senses the opportunity to at least "play" a more leading role along with Germany. BUT for the time being, they're playing the US/UK side, before "gridlocking" back into a stalemate that sides with the Asian/multipolar future.

Finally a little Ukrainian joke from 2014 days: "Americans and Russians will fight each other until the last... Ukrainian"... I don't think Hillary understands. She doesn't play chess, she plays NYT crossword puzzles and bingo perhaps.

Expand full comment
Mar 5, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo

I always take great comfort in your crisp analysis Tomas - however I can't seem to reconcile it with humans’ innate tribalism. Our species has such an overriding need to form like groups to fulfill our relational needs and maintain our fleeting identities. In his book, Descartes’ Error, Damasio declares “We are not thinking machines. We are feeling machines that think.” The US/EU rapid change of intervention policy last week was at its core a deftly rationalized change of heart. I agree that the EU/NATO will be unified by this threat for some time and may act more coherently in other areas but historically the profoundly emotional power of identity always bats last.

Expand full comment

Can the EU become a superpower at the same time than Internet and the blockchain are weakening nation states, and there is a strong (even if still early) tendency to decentralize in the West ?

If the EU wish to do so, it will have to control its technological foes, which means reducing freedoms.

Or can the EU allows SEZs and free private cities as experiments on its territory, in order to reap the many benefits that will come from them ?

Expand full comment

Incredible essay - bravo!

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo

I've argued with many jaded friends that our generation (I was born in 1977) may end up being the most fortunate and prosperous generation, in general, in the history of our species, especially in the West.

Brilliant passages like the following really reinforce that core belief:

"But violence is always there, even when you don’t see it."

I've been really, REALLY lucky in my life to have not had to deal with true violence. Same goes for many of my peers as well.

Seeing the vaporization of the prospect of that phenomenon continuing through the second half of my time on this Earth has really been the most core-shaking experience these last two weeks.

Vague concepts and fantastical descriptions of what 'could be' if our comfortable geopolitics destabilize are now fast becoming real and significant PROBABLE outcomes.

I fear that my generation is not emotionally or psychologically equipped to actually DEAL with this shit. That fact might scare me the most.

Expand full comment
Mar 10, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo

I let this article go without a comment... But it is actually because I share each and every one of the elements of your analysis, and your conclusions, hopes, doubts. Short of an "it goes without saying" on my part, but upon reflection I think it goes even better said, and with emphasis.

Thank you Tomás.

Expand full comment
Mar 7, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo

Language is a big barrier for sure (maybe rapid improvements in machine translation tech will be a gamechanger in that regard). But also, creating a federated state is an unnatural process, in the sense that national elites must willingly cede power to a global elite, and people in top positions in power hierarchies tend to be power maximizers. Federations are typically created in wars, or through the threat of wars, and as shocking the war in Ukraine is, Russia is not a serious threat to the EU as long as it is under US protection.

Expand full comment
Mar 5, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo

I agree that Putin's error may be the best thing that happened to EU, but also to NATO.

Countries who looked partly towards Russia and enviously towards the EU will now swing hard towards the EU. Those that fear Russian control will apply to join NATO. (NATO is only a defensive organisation.)

It is quite possible that Russia will now dismantle its corrupt leadership and even (wow!) become an ally of the West.

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo

Great article. Thanks. This is spot on what I believe as well

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo

El artículo es un compendio de saber, como siempre, "pero" realmente me esperaba un milagro surgido de grandes mentes como la tuya Tomás y colaboradores. Una solución visible y rápida para terminar con esta masacre debida a la debilidad de todos que ha hecho que la fiera ataque. No hay milagros y aunque la explicación y posibles soluciones son muy claras, no sé si nos dará tiempo de lograrlo

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo

I am amazed to see the military spending figures. Russia is really small grit in comparison to EU and certainly to US. I would have like to have seen the nuclear weapons on a bar chart just to complete the picture. But obviously 1+1 being equal to 0 means nuclear weapons are imo not use-able except as a threat

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2022Liked by Tomas Pueyo

Hi Tomas,

Just scrolling past your first graphic and stumbled… Did you intend, “Contiguous”?

I know, it’s a heavy burden I have borne all my life!

… /g

Expand full comment

I don’t think you can dismiss European nations’ sense of identity as merely pride. The distinctive languages and cultures of Europe are a rich treasure, and not something that Europeans will or should surrender lightly, even for the sake of being a superpower.

Europe needs to articulate and focus on its common values to make its unity in diversity work but I’m not sure that “human rights” are robust enough in themselves. They are a secularised version of Christian values, but lacking the narrative, imaginative appeal and teleology of a full-blooded religion capable of binding nations together.

Expand full comment

An EU with it's own military. One step closer to a global world order which has very little benefit to the everyday citizen.

No thanks.

Expand full comment

Ce n'est pas très intelligent de dire de faire l'anglais une langue co officielle pour tous les pays en Europe.

Je trouve inadmissible qu'à Londres personne ne peut parler français. Qu'en pensez vous ?

Je pense que le français ferait une bien meilleure langue pour l'union européenne. On ne peut avoir comme langue officielle celle d'un pays qui a refusé l'union européenne.

Ce sont des gens comme vous qui sont responsables du Brexit.

Expand full comment