Bolen C (Page 31)

In a culture similar to the Anglo-German marine formation before World War I, the US, Japan and China are gearing up to build big, heavily armed weapon warships for a possible climactic battle at water.

Cruisers usually are the largest, most strongly armed non-carrier significant surface combatants, significantly larger and heavier than warships or frigates. They can serve as a flagship for surface action groups ( SAG ) or as a command center for fleet air defense.

While only the US and Russia currently operate ships fully classed as ships, some ships actually classed as warships have identical sizes and capabilities.

This month, Naval News reported that US defense contractor Lockheed Martin showcased a model of Japan’s advanced AEGIS System Equipped Vessel ( ASEV ) at the IDEX in Abu Dhabi.

Set to become the country’s largest stealth-guided weapon warship outside the US Zumwalt course, Japan’s ASEV may significantly improve its ballistic missile protection capabilities.

At 190 meters and over 14, 000 tons, ASEV surpasses China’s Type 055 destroyer ( classed as a cruiser by NATO ) on many measures with AN/SPY-7 AESA radar, 128 vertical launch system (VLS ) cells, Glide Phase Interceptors ( GPI ) for hypersonic threats and Tomahawk missiles.

As regional tensions rise, supply is expected by 2028, underscoring Japan’s corporate transition from land-based techniques to counter China and North Korea’s evolving challenges.

As with Japan’s ASEVs, the US Navy’s DDG ( X ) advanced guided-missile destroyer program is progressing in the concept design phase, The War Zone reported in January 2025.

The DDG ( X ) is envisioned to replace the US Navy’s aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers, which are increasingly uneconomical to maintain with their limited combat value, and the maxed-out Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which lack space for future upgrades.

Rear Admiral Bill Daly recently emphasized a” clean-sheet imperative”, highlighting a 40-megawatt reserve power capacity for directed-energy weapons and advanced sensors supported by Zumwalt-class-derived Integrated Power Systems ( IPS).

However, escalating costs pose challenges, initial estimates of US$ 3.3 billion per ship may rise to$ 4.4 billion, delaying production until at least 2034. Despite strategies for 28 vessels, manufacturing disruptions could destroy the US Navy’s proper preparation amid heightened tensions with China.

In contrast to Japan and the US, whose next-generation destroyers are still on the drawing board, China has initiated a second production batch of Type 055 cruisers, leveraging shipyards at Dalian and Jiangnan to add to its fleet of eight ships, the South China Morning Post (SCMP ) reported in February 2025.

SCMP notes that the class, costing$ 827.4 million for each ship, features cutting-edge stealth designs, advanced radar systems and a formidable arsenal, including 112 VLS cells capable of deploying surface-to-air, anti-ship and land-attack missiles. The SCMP report also says the class integrates hypersonic and anti-submarine weaponry, enhancing its multi-role capabilities.

China’s Type 055 cruiser is designed to escort aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships and serve as command hubs for diverse naval operations.

The buildup of large surface warships in the Pacific comes as regional navies are gearing up for high-end war-at-sea scenarios, acquiring assets with critical capabilities such as air, ballistic and cruise missile defense. Growing threat perceptions are driving increased requirements for VLS cells, as seen in Chinese, US and other regional force acquisitions.

However, accommodating large VLS arrays demands significant internal space and deck area. Deployment is further complicated by technical requirements for large, high-mounted radars that can detect sea-skimming threats early.

Illustrating these missile threats, the US Department of Defense’s ( DOD ) 2024 China Military Power Report says that China’s People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force ( PLARF ) has an estimated 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles ( ICBM ), 500 intermediate-range ballistic missiles ( IRBM ), 1, 300 medium-range ballistic missiles ( MRBM ), 900 short-range ballistic missiles ( SRBM ) and 400 ground-launched cruise missiles ( GLC M).

Additionally, Politico reported in February 2023 that North Korea may already have enough ICBMs to overwhelm US homeland missile defenses. During an evening parade in Pyongyang, North Korea showcased 10-12 Hwasong-17 ICBMs. Politico says that if North Korea fits four warheads on each ICBM, it could overwhelm the US Ground-Based Midcourse Defense ( GMD) system, which has only 44 interceptors.

Johannes Fischbach mentions in a December 2024 International Institute for Strategic Studies ( IISS) article that China has significantly narrowed the firepower gap with the US Navy, achieving over 50 % of US VLS missile cell capacity.

According to Fischbach, the People’s Liberation Army Navy ( PLAN), the world’s largest navy, now fields approximately 4, 300 VLS cells across 84 surface combatants, compared to the US Navy’s 8, 400 cells on 85 ships.

He notes this progress stems from China’s accelerated shipbuilding, including for Type 055 cruisers and Type 052D destroyers. In contrast, he says the US faces declining VLS capacity due to retiring Ticonderoga-class cruisers and slower construction of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

This narrowing firepower gap could significantly impair US surface warfare capabilities if left unabated. In a March 2023 Center for International Maritime Security ( CIMSEC ) article, Dmitry Filipoff mentions that massed fires are central to distributed warfighting, enabling concentrated combat effects through coordinated missile salvos from dispersed units.

Filipoff says this approach maximizes lethality against advanced shipboard missile defenses, which require saturation by high-volume attacks to ensure effectiveness. He emphasizes the crucial role of ship-based fires, offering unmatched magazine depth and flexibility for sustained operations, as vessels can carry and launch significant missile loads.

While effective massed fires may require large, cruiser-size warships for magazine depth, US and allied shipbuilding capabilities are lagging behind China’s. In a February 2024 Proceedings article, Jeffrey Seavy mentions that China has 46.59 % of the global shipbuilding market, South Korea has 29.24 % and Japan has 17.25 %, with the US having an insignificant 0.13 % share.

Seavy says China’s massive shipbuilding lead over the US and its allies would give it considerable advantages in a sustained naval conflict. These advantages include potentially decisive numerical superiority, increased capacity for massed ship-based fires and the ability to repair or replace damaged or destroyed warships comparatively quickly.

In the Pacific’s escalating naval arms race, missile firepower and shipbuilding capacity—not just technology—could determine who wins and who loses future crucial sea battles.

Continue Reading

Pakistan is reeling after this week ‘s&nbsp, hijacking&nbsp, of the Jaffar Express by the terrorist-designated Balochistan Liberation Army ( BLA ). It’s hard to individually confirm the details given strict condition censorship, but around 400 people were taken prisoner, including soldiers traveling home on leave.

The BLA&nbsp, demanded&nbsp, the discharge of what they described as democratic prisoners, but the military staged a brave function to stop the day-long suffering otherwise. At least two dozen people were killed.

The Baloch conflict&nbsp, owes its origins&nbsp, to Balochistan ‘s&nbsp, contentious incorporation&nbsp, into Pakistan but has evolved in recent years to take on shades of “resource nationalism”.

What’s meant by this is that some citizens believe that their resource-rich place, the largest in Pakistan at almost half the government’s size, isn’t receiving its fair share of success.

The BLA and its backers also accuse Pakistan of selling the place out to China, which has invested in the Gwadar interface and a large neglected airport. Pakistan denies these claims and has always blamed&nbsp, Afghanistan&nbsp, and India for the conflict.

It, therefore, wasn’t surprising when the Foreign Office’s spokesman&nbsp, said&nbsp, on Thursday that” India has been involved in terrorism in Pakistan. In the particular attack on Jaffar Express, the terrorists had been in contact with their handlers and ring leaders in Afghanistan”. It also said the “mastermind” of the attack is in Afghanistan, without elaborating.

On Thursday, the Taliban denied any involvement in the terror attack, with foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Qahar Balkhi saying Pakistan’s claims were “baseless allegations” and that it should concentrate on its own security and domestic issues rather than making” such irresponsible remarks”.

” No members of the Baloch opposition have a presence in Afghanistan nor have they ever had, nor have, any links with Islamic Emirate”, he wrote on X, referring to the Taliban government.

Also on Thursday, the Observer Research Foundation, an influential New Delhi-based think tank, assessed,” The Taliban appear to be giving space to the Baloch as it gives them a certain leverage over Pakistan”. It suggested the Pakistan army may” carry out a scorched earth steamroller operation in Balochistan” in response to the train attack.

While the Afghan dimension is likely true owing to the Taliban sheltering the BLA and its&nbsp, new de facto TTP allies, which the group considers to be a means of&nbsp, asymmetrically restoring the balance of power&nbsp, with Pakistan, the Indian angle is questionable.

Pakistan’s accusation against India is premised on their history of proxy warfare against one another over the decades, which makes it reasonable to suspect India of backing Baloch militants against Pakistan as response to Pakistan backing Kashmiri ones against India, among others.

There’s also Pakistan’s capture of&nbsp, Kulbhushan Jadhav&nbsp, in 2016, who Islamabad accused of being an Indian spy tasked with organizing terrorist attacks in Balochistan, while India has always insisted that he’s innocent of these charges.

Taken together, they form the cornerstone upon which Pakistan’s Foreign Office put forth its latest accusation, but it’s bereft of proof and instead comes off as a deflection from the conflict’s indigenous causes.

After all, the BLA is known to receive sanctuary in Afghanistan. Even if the Taliban pleads ignorance and claims that it can’t control all of its borders, which some would argue isn’t true, then that’s also a problem for the fracturing regime.

Whichever way one looks at it, the Indian angle is therefore questionable, but Pakistan pushing it is meant to accomplish three goals.

First, it’s intended to rally Pakistanis behind the government by blaming their historical rival for this latest terrorist attack. Second, Pakistan also hopes to rally the international community – or at least some of its SCO partners like China – against India. And finally, Pakistan might&nbsp, authorize kinetic action&nbsp, in Afghanistan, but on what it will likely present as an anti-Indian rather than anti-Taliban basis.

Building upon the last point, this could resemble Russia ‘s&nbsp, special&nbsp, operation&nbsp, in the sense of how Moscow militarily intervened in Ukraine on an anti-NATO basis after accusing the bloc of exploiting Kyiv as a proxy, which Russia claimed could become a launching pad for more aggression if it wasn’t stopped.

Likewise, Pakistan might carry out comparatively smaller-scale strikes and/or incursions in Afghanistan that only target terrorist groups, but it could justify them on similar grounds.

The benefit of presenting things this way is that Pakistan can continue to claim that it has no problem with Afghanistan per se, just with how its historical Indian rival is allegedly exploiting that country as a proxy, which could become a launching pad for more aggression if it isn’t stopped.

The problem though is that this motive is much more questionable than Russia’s vis-à-vis NATO in its own special operation in Ukraine so Afghans as a whole might regard any larger-scale Pakistani kinetic action as a hostile act.

Even if Pakistan eschews such a response to this latest terrorist attack, officially tying India to what happened suggests that it has no interest in addressing the Balochistan conflict’s indigenous causes.

That’ll only lead to an even wider rift emerging between ethnic Baloches and the rest of the country, which in turn could result in more BLA sympathizers or recruits, thus intensifying the already self-sustaining cycle of instability there.

The larger the BLA’s pool of sympathizers and recruits becomes, the greater the unconventional threat Pakistan faces in Balochistan, which could embolden the&nbsp, military regime&nbsp, into doubling down on its controversial “preemptive” anti-terrorist policies like “forced disappearances“.

A more effective way to reduce the aforesaid pool is to empower responsible locals through meaningful economic and political partnerships with the state that show they have more to gain through unity than resistance.

For example, Baloch veterans could be appointed to lead new projects in their home region that would be obligated to reinvest a percentage of their proceeds into local initiatives.

These same figures and other similarly trusted ones could also be supported by the state as alternative community leaders for counteracting the influence of separatist-inclined tribal leaders. That’s easier said than done, but without it, the BLA’s pool of sympathizers and recruits will keep growing.

The combination of political radicalism and state failure is most responsible for perpetuating the Baloch conflict, not foreign forces, though the Taliban’s allowing BLA sanctuary in Afghanistan has definitely played a role.

Without adequately addressing these indigenous causes, which requires completely new thinking by the Pakistani government, outsiders will always be able to exploit the conflict. And while Pakistan may see cross-border kinetic action in Afghanistan as helpful, it won’t bring a lasting solution to the problem.

This article was first published on Andrew Korybko’s Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become an Andrew Korybko Newsletter subscriber&nbsp, here.

Continue Reading

United States President Donald Trump just announced the US would create a proper bitcoin supply of Bitcoin, Ether, Ripple, Solana and Cardano. This walk, he said, may render the US” the blockchain capital of the world”.

When a vocal crypto-skeptic, Trump then frames his aid as an embrace of technologies that hero independence and creativity.

But, the problem with Trump’s view is that it assumes bitcoin may lead to the reduction of financial intermediaries. By replacing faith with transparency, crypto promises to place individuals in charge of their financial transactions.

Our analysis demonstrates that this is only a limited view. In fact, bitcoin is reliant on social methods behind the technology.

Crypto-believers generally blame selfish lenders as the cause of the Great Recession in 2008. But we argue that bitcoin is not immune to these same challenges.

Replacing faith with clarity

Cryptocurrencies are a type of online income that deals on a blockchain. A cryptocurrency is a distributed ledger technology that allows users to trade pseudo-anonymously.

Public bitcoin operate on a distributed peer-to-peer system. This system provides each person a full record of transactions that is updated in real time. People can send electronic money between themselves without relying on a consolidated power.

Since each user has a full record of transactions, the system promises full transparency. But our research demonstrates that public blockchains, and the cryptocurrencies that run on them, do not actually replace trust with transparency.

Speculation, manipulation and market crashes remain very real dangers, regardless of whether the financial system is centralized or decentralized.

Cryptocurrencies rely on people

We studied the communications between the founder of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, and the early Bitcoin community. We found the development and implementation of cryptocurrencies relies on negotiations between individuals. Who has a final say on which line of code will prevail depends on a social hierarchy dominated by insiders.

Centralization of power in the hands of insiders is still a major issue in the cryptocurrency space. This is particularly an issue for emerging cryptocurrencies like memecoins. Memecoins are a type of cryptocurrency named after internet memes or similar jokes. They draw their value entirely from speculation.

The Trump Organization recently launched memecoins$ TRUMP and$ MELANIA. The US Securities and Exchange Commission has concluded that memecoins do not qualify as securities, and therefore are outside its regulatory purview. Not only are memecoins risky, but they come with a significant risk of insider trading.

A recent case study on the memecoin$ LIBRA shows how influencers, anonymous developers and centralized exchanges facilitate market distortions, often at the expense of retail investors.

When cryptocurrencies are outside the scope of regulation, individuals behind the technology can profit from insider information. This is less of a risk with widely traded cryptocurrencies like Ether and Bitcoin, but investors should be aware that any technology is reliant on the people who design the code and regulate its changes.

Personal views towards privacy, for instance, can impact governance decisions. These beliefs can have important implications for the value and usability of any technology, cryptocurrencies included.

Talking crypto into reality

Our research suggests cryptocurrency insiders can artificially inflate the value of their coins by talking them up, effectively creating value out of nothing.

By using economic and accounting language to describe Bitcoin, the early Bitcoin community effectively turned a string of zeroes and ones into something that could be measured, valued and recognized.

Economists argue that even fiat currency is backed by a type of belief — trust in institutions. Bitcoin, too, relies on belief, but a different kind. Its value is based users ‘ collective confidence in the technology and security of the network, a phenomenon known as the network effect. As more people adopt Bitcoin, its perceived value rises, creating a self-sustaining cycle of belief and value based on market demand.

Following the announcement of the strategic crypto reserve, American stockbroker and anti-crypto advocate Peter Schiff accused Trump of manipulating the cryptocurrency market. Schiff has called for a congressional investigation into Trump and his team to determine who may have profited from the announcement, which triggered a massive increase in crypto prices.

Given the volatility of cryptocurrencies, their values are highly susceptible to herd behaviour, and public sentiment has a significant effect on cryptocurrency returns.

Where does this leave investors?

Our research and other studies like it have shown that cryptocurrency is subject to important value changes based on announcements by a small group of influential individuals.

We caution anyone interested in investing in crypto to do the homework by examining the underlying economics of a coin, getting to know the team behind it and evaluating their risk tolerance before moving forward.

With thousands of cryptocurrencies in circulation, distinguishing between a promising investment, a speculative gamble or even scams is crucial.

Despite the uncertain and unpredictable nature of digital assets, one thing is certain: the conversation around crypto is far from over.

Erica Pimentel is an assistant professor in the Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Ontario, and Mélissa Fortin is an assistant professor at Université du Québec à Montréal ( UQAM ).

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

A US-Ukraine authority on a peace plan has put the notion of a negotiated close to the three-year battle on the plan, and in the arms of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But even before Moscow answers, it’s very clear where the events stand. Breaking a previous stigma against negotiations involving regional concessions, the US has suggested Ukraine must lose land in any lasting deal, whereas President Volodymyr Zelensky has stated repeatedly that he will never produce sovereignty over Ukraine’s territory.

Nevertheless, Russia has demanded that Ukraine abandon its aspiration to visit NATO and take restrictions on its defense. But at present, Kyiv looks unlikely to gain the safety guarantees it seeks from the US before contemplating for words.

What is talked about less is what the Ukrainian people are willing to embrace for peace. And while any armistice will likely be dictated by guns, regional gains and tremendous power geopolitics, it will be in big part down to common Ukrainians to form what happens afterwards. An unpleasant peace perhaps be accepted by a war-weary people. But if it has small native legitimacy and understanding, peace is likely to be untenable in the long run.

We have tracked people view in Ukraine from before the battle and during the course of the issue.

It is an inadequate exercise, most poll in military Ukraine is by cellular phone and depends upon those with services who are willing to attend. Some people, especially in the government’s south and east, do not want to answer sensitive issues out of problem for themselves and family, some in held lands and Russia.

Those who do answer may provide guarded responses. Some are wary of military repression, while others are nationalistic or wish to present themselves as such to the person calling them. However, many other Ukrainian are overseas and excluded. Also, those in Russian-occupied provinces are left out of research.

However, the actions also give insight into how ideas in Ukraine have evolved since the Russian war of February 2022. These are five important findings from comparatively recent public opinion polls that are related to any upcoming peace negotiations.

1. Almost all Russians are stressed and tired of battle

Unsurprisingly, three years of a terrible battle of brutality have created great tension among a people increasingly weary of battle.

A December 2024 surveys from the respected Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, or KIIS found that nearly 9 in 10 Ukrainian experienced at least one demanding situation in the previous year. Large shares reported stressful experiences related to bombing and shelling ( 39 % ), separation from family members ( 30 % ), surviving the death of loves ones ( 26 % ) and the illness of loved ones ( 23 % ). Only 10 % said they’d experienced no stressful situations.

In a related vein, research we conducted showed that by summertime 2024, 84 % of the population had experienced violence in some form – be that physical damage at the hands of Russian forces, movement, loss of family member and companions, or witnessing problems.

And consistent with a growing number of news reports, we found that Ukrainians were deeply worried about war weariness among their fellow Ukrainians – just 10 % reported that they did not worry about war fatigue at all.

2. More Ukrainians want negotiations, but there are red lines

As the war has gone on, several polls show that Ukrainians increasingly support negotiations. The share of the population in favor of negotiations varies depending on how the question is posed.

When given the choice between two options, a Gallup Poll from late 2024 showed that 52 % preferred that “Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible”, whereas 38 % preferred that “Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war”.

Our earlier surveys from 2022 and 2024 similarly show a growing preference for negotiations, though at a lower level – from 11 % in 2022 to 31 % in 2024. In contrast to the binary Gallup question, our surveys presented respondents with different territorial compromises for a ceasefire. While about one-third wanted an immediate ceasefire, half wanted to continue fighting until all territories, including the predominately Russian-speaking Donbas region and Crimea, are brought back under Kyiv’s control.

But survey responses make clear that the country’s political independence is a red line for the public – even if defending it comes at a very high cost.

3. Ukrainians are more open to territorial concessions

In tandem with growing support for negotiations, our surveys – in line with KIIS’s own polls – show growing willingness to cede territory. And among those most worried about war fatigue and more pessimistic about continued Western support, the willingness to cede territory is higher.

That said, most Ukrainians still want Ukraine to continue fighting until the country’s territorial integrity is restored and under Kyiv’s control, including Crimea. But that majority has diminished since the beginning of the war – from 71 % in 2022 to 51 % in 2024.

When we asked in July 2024 whether people agreed with the statement:” Russia should be allowed to control the territory it has occupied since 2022″, 90 % disagreed. As such, there is very little evidence that Russia’s territorial annexations– or an agreement recognizing these, which is what Russia wants – would have any legitimacy among Ukraine’s population.

4. Ukrainians see Russia’s war goals in existential terms

Putin inspires the trust of neither Zelensky nor most Ukrainians– hence there’s a strong preference for any agreement being accompanied by security guarantees from NATO states.

Poll findings in the past month from KIIS reveal that 66 % of Ukrainians interpret Russia’s war aims as an existential threat, comprising genocide against Ukrainians and destruction of its independent statehood. And 87 % believe Russia will not stop at the territories it already occupies. Negotiating with an enemy bent on Ukraine’s destruction appears delusional to many Ukrainians.

5. Zelensky remains popular, his endorsement matters

As a defiant wartime leader, President Zelenskyy’s popularity was very high in the immediate months after the invasion. Indeed, KIIS polls from May 2022 show that 90 % of the population expressed trust in him.

This has declined as the war has endured, but it has always remained above 50 %. Recent polling measuring his approval puts it at 63 %, an increase from 2024. Indeed, the very latest KIIS polls, from February through March of this year, show a 10-point jump in his trust rating to 67 %, a finding widely viewed as rallying in the face of U. S. criticism.

Thus Zelenskyy’s endorsement of any ceasefire and settlement will matter, though ceding territory is likely to be hazardous for him politically.

Conditions for a lasting peace

While the US-Ukraine accord on a ceasefire has put the ball in Russia’s court, it is unclear whether it will be enough to bring Putin to the table. And even if it does, given past precedent it is difficult to see him arriving as a compromiser rather than a conqueror.

What does appear clear is that whatever “peace” emerges looks set to hang more on Ukraine making concessions and accepting losses.

Such a peace can be negotiated behind closed doors. But without public support in Ukraine, whether it endures on the ground is another matter.

Gerard Toal is a professor of government and international affairs at Virginia Tech, JohnO’Loughlin is a professor of geography at the University of Colorado Boulder, and Kristin M Bakke is a professor of political science and international relations at UCL.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

New shifts in US international policy – especially regarding taxes and the conflict in Ukraine – have sparked controversy over what is driving the Trump administration’s choices. Some of those selections have appeared so strange that media critics and some Western leaders have wondered out loud if the US government may now even get serving Russian objectives.

It’s more likely that US steps just reflect an aggressive quest of what the Trump administration views to be America’s objectives. Such guidelines may help repair US manufacturing and reposition its defense for potential tensions with China.

Yet past Trump national Anthony Scaramucci, then co-host of the well-known” The Rest is Elections” US radio and a bitter opposition of his former manager, has a different take. He argues the US senator isn’t – as is sometimes claimed – playing “four-dimensional games” but, instead, is acting on “whims” and “eating the game items”.

This raises the possibility that some of Trump’s plans are merely cruel rather than proper. My guide Spite, published in 2020, examines spite’s mental origins and its development and social effects in people, leaders and policy makers. It offers insights into what may now be unfolding on the world stage.

Spite describes a situation in which we act to harm another person – even at a cost to ourselves. While spiteful actions can be strategic, helping your long-term self-interest, they are often damaging to everyone in both the short and long terms. Understanding whether spite is involved in US policy decisions is crucial for the world’s ability to respond effectively.

Cooperation — working together for mutual benefit — is humanity’s superpower. We cooperate with people outside our families in a way that other species do not. After the second world war, cooperative alliances, trade agreements and global institutions fostered some degree of shared prosperity.

Yet cooperation ( I win, you win ) is just one of four basic behaviors, alongside altruism ( I lose, you win ), selfishness ( I win, you lose ) and spite ( I lose, you lose ). Trump often frames US cooperation as altruism, claiming America gives and gets nothing in return, making it unfairly exploited.

His” America first” policy embraces selfishness, treating international relations as a zero-sum game in which there can only be one winner. However, by recasting cooperation as unfair, Trump’s resulting anger may be driving him beyond selfishness into counterproductive spite.

When the US has imposed tariffs on countries, they have generally retaliated in kind with their own tariffs. The result? Everyone suffered. In Trump’s first term, US consumers bore most of the costs of tariffs, while retaliatory tariffs also reduced real incomes abroad.

Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich, an economist, argues that Trump’s tariffs are meant” to show the world that he’s willing to harm smaller economies even at the cost of harming the United States’ very large one”. This is textbook spite.

Similarly, after tensions between Trump and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, US actions seemed more focused on punishing Ukraine than advancing US interests. Some argue this hurt US national security as well as Ukrainian security.

The costs and benefits of spite

International relations scholars offer different views on spite. Realists see spite as a rational tool for maintaining power. They emphasise that as long as the US loses less than its rival, it makes a relative gain.

Liberals prioritize absolute gains— arguing that cooperation leads to mutual benefits, even if some gain more than others. They see spite as damaging trade and alliances that ultimately strengthen the US.

Constructivists, who argue that state actions depend on context and perceptions, emphasise that spite’s impact will vary. Spite directed against a major rival may be useful. Yet, spite against smaller allies can undermine trust and long-term cooperation.

Spiteful US tariffs may force weaker allies such as Canada into making concessions. But scholars warn that China, which has far greater economic depth, has both the will and resources to “play a dangerous game of mutual pain and destruction with the United States”.

Ultimately, constant trade wars suggest a desire to dominate and punish rather than pursue strategic self-interest, escalating conflicts instead of solving them. Research on human cooperation shows that winners don’t punish, and that losers “punish and perish”.

The psychology of spite

Spite may be be shaping US policy because Trump’s perceptions, environment and personality are encouraging spitefulness. Spite often results from feeling treated unfairly. The US president has manufactured a sense of unfairness and repeatedly asserts that allies are treating the US “very, very unfairly“.

]embedded content]

As China grows, the world is becoming more competitive. Research suggests that increased competition encourages spite. And, in an era of strongman politics, leaders may seek dominance. Spite is one way to dominate others.

Possessing the dark triad of personality traits — psychopathy, narcissism and Machiavellianism — increases your risk of being spiteful. Researchers have argued that Trump scores highly on such traits ( although, if true, this is not necessarily bad as narcissism has been linked to some elements of presidential success ).

Spitefulness is more common in people who struggle to control their emotions. Trump has been accused of temper tantrums. Even one of his own attorneys is said to have deemed Trump “incapable of testifying because he could not control himself, his emotions”.

Spite isn’t always bad. It can force fairness, boost competitive performance and is linked to creativity. But when spite destroys cooperation – humanity’s superpower – it becomes human kryptonite.

How to prevent spite from shaping policy

To stop spite influencing foreign policy, it’s necessary to address its triggers. This means challenging perceptions of unfairness. Leaders must emphasize the mutual benefits of cooperation. The trust on which cooperation is based must also be rebuilt.

There is also a need to resist dominance-seeking. In hunter-gatherer societies, those who seek dominance are often restrained by the group. International institutions, as well as checks and balances in the US system, need to prevent reckless dominance-seeking from escalating. Reactions to spite must be firm but measured, rather than risking a race to the bottom.

Overall, America’s apparent use of spite to unnecessarily reduce the living standards of its adversaries as well as some allies and even its own citizens is deeply troubling. Yet, were the US to refuse to wield spite against its adversaries it would risk allowing a new global power – one potentially hostile to liberal democracy and human rights – to shape the world order.

Aristotle argued that the virtuous person gets angry for the right reasons, at the right time, in the right way. America must learn to do the same.

Simon McCarthy-Jones is an associate professor in clinical psychology and neuropsychology at Trinity College Dublin.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading