It's a very interesting read (both part 1 and 2), but I disagree with some points. For example, the absorption of Uruguay, Paraguay and Argentina by Brazil, having a different culture and language seems very unlikely. What is much more likely is their alliance through a coalition (that is starting to take shape with Venezuela becoming full member of Mercosur this week).
Another thing that seems hardly believable is Mexico threatening Usa in 50/100 years (I think that was in part 2).
China falling apart could also mean an economic disaster to America given their mutual symbiosis nowadays.
And a Russian/Chinese alliance could also become possible eventually if China starts to have it too hard to access the natural resources they need.
Probably the saddest thing here is the fact that America seems to be condemned to fight wars all around the world, because of it's own growing interests are generating more and more dependence in foreign affairs, and thus, creating a vicious cycle.
>"[it] seems hardly believable is Mexico threatening Usa in 50/100 years"
Mexico isn't likely to be a threat to the United States in our lifetimes per se. But it's not inconceivable to see a future Mexico infuriated over some political stance in the United States allying with another power. Deutschland's plans in the World Wars for the United States alternated between allying with Mexico against the US to inciting war between the two to bog down the US [1].
>"China falling apart could also mean an economic disaster to America"
Given that geopolitical power is relative and China is the most likely regional power with the potential to become a great power one cannot discard the position that America would be strengthened with a tamer China (similar to the situation in the 1990s). That said, the world would be worse off (barring the possibility of a Chinese-American conflict in Asia-Pacific).
>"a Russian/Chinese alliance could also become possible"
A Sino-Russian alliance would be unstable, similar to the Hitler-Stalin alliance in World War II. They both compete for resources in Russian-influenced Central Asia and in Northeast Asia. Given Russia's history of using its energy dominance with Europe as leverage it seems unwise for China to accede too much control with regards to critical resources to it. Further, Russia's demographic situation doesn't portend well for it as a great power in the coming decades.
>"America seems to be condemned to fight wars all around the world"
The United States isn't condemned to fighting wars around the world. Similar to the UK in times past and Turkey as its emerging today, the US is, as a geopolitical "island" (a great power amongst no other current or potential great powers in its region) free to pursue its interests overseas. Take for example Iraq: the biggest downside to the US is economic and diplomatic. The Middle East, on the other hand, was set to experience significant geopolitical volatility regardless of the endeavour's outcome.
I'm not agreeing with the Monograph (nor disagreeing with you) wholeheartedly, but there is a valid debate to be had on each of these points.
A strong China would be the best thing to happen to America in decades. What America has lacked, really since the Soviets of the 1960s, is a strong competitor (another super power).
America would be greatly strengthened by a stronger China. The longer we go without a super competitor, the weaker we will get.
With a stronger China we might just stop being such a lazy, take-it-all-for-granted nation, and get back to doing what it takes to make sure the next generation lives better than the last. It'd be nice just to have a functional government again, focused on real progress for its people.
I think this narrative of food-bowl control is so enticing to people who think about power that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. "Everything is linked to control of food bowls!" People believe in it and then act on it, and only then does it become kind of accurate (apart from South America, and all those successful countries who don't have a food bowl). Russia, America, China could all decide at any time to sell things and just focus internally and they'd break the narrative further.
What you're describing is an evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS) [1]. If you've played the board game Risk you have an intuition for this prisoner's dilemma solution.
In Risk there are two tendencies that tend to emerge: everyone gets a continent or nobody gets a continent. In the former the player(s) who resist the ESS by not acquiring continents are left with diminished armies and quickly eliminated. In the latter the player(s) who resist the ESS by attempting to acquire continents are rapidly allied against by the others.
The ESS involves random psychology within the constraints of geopolitically fundamentally dictated equilibria. The agents, in this case nations, tend towards one of those equilibria by acting independently on limited information about others' intentions.
The dominant equilibrium then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as you have observed. It does not follow, however, that there is no rational basis for the phenomenon. There is also no known mechanism outside a supranational authority with enforcement capability to force a shift from one equilibrium to another.
Another thing that seems hardly believable is Mexico threatening Usa in 50/100 years (I think that was in part 2).
China falling apart could also mean an economic disaster to America given their mutual symbiosis nowadays.
And a Russian/Chinese alliance could also become possible eventually if China starts to have it too hard to access the natural resources they need.
Probably the saddest thing here is the fact that America seems to be condemned to fight wars all around the world, because of it's own growing interests are generating more and more dependence in foreign affairs, and thus, creating a vicious cycle.