Sharp analysis. I agree with the core thesis that post-1945 “generosity” was a design to cultivate dependencies, and today’s tariff-plus-subsidy toolkit formalizes that hierarchy while offshoring costs to allies.
Two additions that strengthen your frame:
1. Extraterritorial finance as the real whip. Beyond tariffs, the dollar-clearing system, secondary sanctions, and export-control “deemed” restrictions let Washington discipline allies without a single marine landing. OFAC risk, compliance de-risking by global banks, and SWIFT messaging leverage function as invisible capital controls that steer industrial choices and M&A, especially in dual-use sectors.
2. Tech stack lock-in over trade flows. Standards bodies, IP regimes, and chokepoints (EDA tools, advanced lithography, cloud hyperscalers, app stores) entrench dependency more durably than a tariff schedule. Once an ally’s critical infrastructure and defense systems are architected around US software, chips and update pipelines, “re-sovereignizing” is a decade-long capex and talent problem—not a policy switch.
This raises the uncomfortable question: if allies now face a managed choice between formalized subordination and costly re-platforming, can Europe and Japan realistically build multi-hub financial, energy and technology architectures (without triggering punitive retaliation) fast enough to avoid becoming de-industrialized adjuncts to an extractive, protectionist core?
To answer your final point I don’t believe they can. There is a crisis of capitalism that has been growing for decades that is ultimately driving the relentless march to war and the imperial realignment we are witnessing. Everything is being driven by short term crisis management and there are no good long term strategies short of success in Balkanizing Russia/China/Iran to postpone the inevitable reckoning. I think the EU and Japan are both incapable and unwilling to try to strike out on their own. Their own imperialist fortunes are too intertwined with those of the US empire.
Thank you. A lot of interesting points. You actually preempted some of the elements I just covered in my next article which should be out later today ‘Neoliberal Globalization as Neocolonialism 2.0’ in which I take a look at the evolution of imperialism to today with dollar weaponization, industrial apartheid and digital colonialism. You actually mentioned a few things which I missed so thank you.
Sharp analysis. I agree with the core thesis that post-1945 “generosity” was a design to cultivate dependencies, and today’s tariff-plus-subsidy toolkit formalizes that hierarchy while offshoring costs to allies.
Two additions that strengthen your frame:
1. Extraterritorial finance as the real whip. Beyond tariffs, the dollar-clearing system, secondary sanctions, and export-control “deemed” restrictions let Washington discipline allies without a single marine landing. OFAC risk, compliance de-risking by global banks, and SWIFT messaging leverage function as invisible capital controls that steer industrial choices and M&A, especially in dual-use sectors.
2. Tech stack lock-in over trade flows. Standards bodies, IP regimes, and chokepoints (EDA tools, advanced lithography, cloud hyperscalers, app stores) entrench dependency more durably than a tariff schedule. Once an ally’s critical infrastructure and defense systems are architected around US software, chips and update pipelines, “re-sovereignizing” is a decade-long capex and talent problem—not a policy switch.
This raises the uncomfortable question: if allies now face a managed choice between formalized subordination and costly re-platforming, can Europe and Japan realistically build multi-hub financial, energy and technology architectures (without triggering punitive retaliation) fast enough to avoid becoming de-industrialized adjuncts to an extractive, protectionist core?
To answer your final point I don’t believe they can. There is a crisis of capitalism that has been growing for decades that is ultimately driving the relentless march to war and the imperial realignment we are witnessing. Everything is being driven by short term crisis management and there are no good long term strategies short of success in Balkanizing Russia/China/Iran to postpone the inevitable reckoning. I think the EU and Japan are both incapable and unwilling to try to strike out on their own. Their own imperialist fortunes are too intertwined with those of the US empire.
Thank you. A lot of interesting points. You actually preempted some of the elements I just covered in my next article which should be out later today ‘Neoliberal Globalization as Neocolonialism 2.0’ in which I take a look at the evolution of imperialism to today with dollar weaponization, industrial apartheid and digital colonialism. You actually mentioned a few things which I missed so thank you.