The Peter Zeihan Podcast Series - Is the US Looking for a War? || Ask Peter Zeihan

Episode Date: July 26, 2024

*This video was recorded in May of 2024. The potential of dragging the US into a major conflict is top of mind for a lot of Americans, but what would it actually take to get us there? Full Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/zeihan/is-the-us-looking-for-a-war

Hi, thanks for joining us today. My name is Michael Nagyoskiri, and I'm your director of analysis here at Zion Geo Politics. And it's my pleasure today to have a conversation with Peter Zion about some of the questions you sent to us about what's going on in the world. With that, let's start with the big one. What would it take to pull the U.S. directly back into a major conflict or war? Oh, wow. Okay, so the United States has not been in a major, conflict since World War II. In terms of the conflicts we've had since then, they were either in the context of supporting the global order, basically bleeding for our allies so they would stay our allies, that's Korea and that's Vietnam, or it was our attempt

to forge a new world post-cold war. That would be Desert Shield and Desert Storm. For us to get in devolved and not anything on that scale, would require one of two things. Number one, a political leader in the United States who sees international issues as the crucible in which a new identity could be forged, no sign of that happening on either side of the political spectrum at the moment. Or someone doing something really, really, really breathtakingly,

stupid and provoking the United States. This has happened before. I mean, you could make the argument that was basically Pearl Harbor, that was the Cuban missile crisis, that was Sputnik, that was the Kuwait invasion. There's a lot of things that you could say that could trigger that. But when I look around the world of the powers that are in play, I don't think the Chinese are anywhere near dumb enough to do that. At least a few years ago, Chairman G and the Politburo realized that if there was a fight

with the United States, it would be fight on the water. And China depends upon freedom of the seas in order to keep its people alive. the entire economic model, the food imports, the energy imports, they would just stop, and they know that that would be suicide. So the only country right now where that might be an issue would be the Russians. And that's because of Russian incompetence. We've learned over the last three years that Russia doesn't have a classic army in the sense that most people think of the word. They basically have a mob that they put guns into their hands and throw them at things. And it's not that that's a strategy that has never worked for the Russians.

The Russians have one half of the wars that they've been in. but if the fight gets to a point that it's hitting U.S. interests, that's where you get the direct clash. So as long as the United States is at least passively interested in NATO, should Ukraine fall, then we will and be in a more direct fight. But we are not there now. And if the Russians continue making the gains that they've been making in the last year for the next five years, we will still not be there. It's just the dynamism of this conflict is difficult to get your mind around because there's

many things shaping both sides. I don't mean to suggest for a moment that Russia is about to break through the lines in Ukraine and win. I'm just suggesting that it has to be something on that scale for the United States to be considered getting it involved, barring some idiot somewhere doing a direct attack on the United States. Remember, the United States has rested and recoup from the war on terror. Its military isn't doing much from a military point of view right now. There no occupations, there are no hot deployments. And so if somebody did pick that fight, job helps, someone else. But you mentioned then that the U.S. is not doing much broadly. And most of the conflicts you described aren't within North America.

There's nothing within North America that looks viable. Something targeting a U.S. strategic interest to the point that would motivate the U.S. to enter conventional warfare. I'm setting up back a little bit, are there regions within North America, perhaps, or concerns that American strategic leadership has within North America that the military could be used for to bring some kind of resolution or achieve a strategic gain? Not at the moment. The only issue where that theoretically could rise would be dealing with Mexico and the drug cartels, American's preoccupation with cocaine, their love of cocaine, has basically destroyed the capacity

of rule of law to exist in large portions of Mexico. You add into that the general incompetence of the AMLO administration and Mexico is in a much worse position now in terms of public safety and public health and infrastructure than it was five years ago. There's plenty of fault to spread around. I will just underline that if, if, if anyone thinks that the United States can impose a military solution on the cartel situation, you are bat-shit. Mexico is a huge place, and the cartel situation is far more complicated than anything we had to deal with in Pakistan or Afghanistan during the war on terror. If there is a military angle to be played there, it will have to be hand-and-glove with the Mexican administration, something like what we did with Colombia. But at the

moment, with the current administration, Mexico City, that is not. even under a hair of consideration. If the U.S. were to try to impose a military solution without active participation from the Mexicans, you can kiss the trade relationship goodbye, and then the United States will fall into an economic depression as the single most important economic human migration and manufacturing and energy relationship in human history all break at the same time. Don't do that.