Russia/China/others balkanize by 2030: then what's the US role in world?

[Blue3]

Let's say, sometime in the early 2020's...


1. Russia collapses, splits into several independent republics



2. China collapses, splits into several independent republics



3. So does Iran



4. So does Syria



5. So does Pakistan



6. So does Saudi Arabia (into an Islamic Sacred State on the Red Sea Coast, an Arab Shia state on the Persian Gulf Coast [unlike this map, not part of Iraq], and Riyadh and the Sauds in the landlocked desert without holy sites or oil in the middle)



7. Lastly, South Korea has annexed North Korea at some point






That's the state of the world in 2030. The collapse and balkanizations were peaceful and the independent republics are stable, or at least as stable and peaceful as the former Soviet republics were by 2000.



Given that, what is the US role in the world, then? Is it the premiere hyperpower in the world again, almost by default, and for the forseeable future? Does a future in this reality make you feel better or worse?

[Technocracy Timmy]

That's the state of the world in 2030. The collapse and balkanizations were peaceful and the independent republics are stable, or at least as stable and peaceful as the former Soviet republics were by 2000.

Given that, what is the US role in the world, then? Is it the premiere hyperpower in the world again, almost by default, and for the forseeable future? Does a future in this reality make you feel better or worse?

Well the peaceful nature of the Balkanization is good news.

The USA would definitely be the premiere hyperpower in the world again and for the foreseeable future. I don't see the EU forming a powerful confederation to rival us (given their current economic and political conditions).

Edit: I don't see China balkanizing though. It hasn't had too many periods in its history of Balkanization and there's a good deal of national unity in much of the country (at least for a country of 1.2-1.4 billion people). Maybe Tibet and Taiwan breakoff, but I don't think much more would.

[Blue3]

That's the state of the world in 2030. The collapse and balkanizations were peaceful and the independent republics are stable, or at least as stable and peaceful as the former Soviet republics were by 2000.

Given that, what is the US role in the world, then? Is it the premiere hyperpower in the world again, almost by default, and for the forseeable future? Does a future in this reality make you feel better or worse?

Well the peaceful nature of the Balkanization is good news.

The USA would definitely be the premiere hyperpower in the world again and for the foreseeable future. I don't see the EU forming a powerful confederation to rival us (given their current economic and political conditions).

Edit: I don't see China balkanizing though. It hasn't had too many periods in its history of Balkanization and there's a good deal of national unity in much of the country (at least for a country of 1.2-1.4 billion people). Maybe Tibet and Taiwan breakoff, but I don't think much more would.

For China, places that want independence are
-Tibet
-Hong Kong
-Macau
-the western Muslim provinces
-and Inner Mongolia wants to be part of Mongolia
-northeast China (Manchuria) has always been a little different too

(Taiwan is already de facto independent)

[The Mikado]

Your maps are insane. Maybe Russia has a future where it withdraws from the Caucasus, but the rest? No.

China's even more insane. A world where a rump Tibet and a rump Xinjiang (in Xinjiang's case, only stuff west of the Taklamakan at most) break off is one thing, but Manchuria? There aren't even any Manchus left to want to secede. Inner Mongolia leaving is almost as crazy. Your breakup map has a giant Chinese Muslim state based in Xi'an that stretches to the Kyrgyz border, which is utterly unimaginable.

Pakistan breaking up into its component parts is not only possible, but arguably likely, so you get a pass there.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with Iran: Khuzestan already had a chance to try to break away in the 1980s and stayed firmly loyal to Teheran, while Azerbaijan's in no place to make a bid to reclaim Tabriz. The Baluchi provinces might make SOME sense (if a Baluchistan secedes from Pakistan, its Iranian brethren might want to join), but Iran isn't giving up its entire southern coastline for no reason.

[Blue3]

Your maps are insane. Maybe Russia has a future where it withdraws from the Caucasus, but the rest? No.

China's even more insane. A world where a rump Tibet and a rump Xinjiang (in Xinjiang's case, only stuff west of the Taklamakan at most) break off is one thing, but Manchuria? There aren't even any Manchus left to want to secede. Inner Mongolia leaving is almost as crazy. Your breakup map has a giant Chinese Muslim state based in Xi'an that stretches to the Kyrgyz border, which is utterly unimaginable.

Pakistan breaking up into its component parts is not only possible, but arguably likely, so you get a pass there.

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with Iran: Khuzestan already had a chance to try to break away in the 1980s and stayed firmly loyal to Teheran, while Azerbaijan's in no place to make a bid to reclaim Tabriz. The Baluchi provinces might make SOME sense (if a Baluchistan secedes from Pakistan, its Iranian brethren might want to join), but Iran isn't giving up its entire southern coastline for no reason.

I just googled maps that showed the country's provinces, I didn't decide where their province lines are.

But the point isn't the maps (which are there just to show that it's not some small breakaway region leaving, but that it's true balkanization), the point is, how does this affect the US and its role in the world? What it means for the US.

[Middle-aged Europe]

At this point, I see it more likely that the United States balkanizes rather than Russia.

[Technocracy Timmy]

At this point, I see it more likely that the United States balkanizes rather than Russia.

The 1860's made it clear that the United States is like the mafia. Once you're in, you can't leave. We fought a civil war that killed more Americans than WWII did just to keep the country together.

[Cashew]

That's the state of the world in 2030. The collapse and balkanizations were peaceful and the independent republics are stable, or at least as stable and peaceful as the former Soviet republics were by 2000.

Given that, what is the US role in the world, then? Is it the premiere hyperpower in the world again, almost by default, and for the forseeable future? Does a future in this reality make you feel better or worse?

Well the peaceful nature of the Balkanization is good news.

The USA would definitely be the premiere hyperpower in the world again and for the foreseeable future. I don't see the EU forming a powerful confederation to rival us (given their current economic and political conditions).

Edit: I don't see China balkanizing though. It hasn't had too many periods in its history of Balkanization and there's a good deal of national unity in much of the country (at least for a country of 1.2-1.4 billion people). Maybe Tibet and Taiwan breakoff, but I don't think much more would.

For China, places that want independence are
-Tibet
-Hong Kong
-Macau
-the western Muslim provinces
-and Inner Mongolia wants to be part of Mongolia
-northeast China (Manchuria) has always been a little different too

(Taiwan is already de facto independent)

Umm no, noisy individuals are not proof that regions want independence.

First of all there is absolutely no chance of sepratism suceeding in Inner Mongolia simply by virtue of the fact that 80% of the population is Han. I should also mention that if anything it has remained relatively stable, even a slight drop from 83% in 1949 if anybody tries to compare this to Soviet settlement policies in the Baltics.

Secondly claiming that Manchuria is diffirent from China may have been true in a historical sense, but it looks ridiculous to deny it's part of "core" China today. The region today is overwhelmingly Han today due to the Chuang Guangdong, a mass migration comparable to the settlement of the American west which rendered the Manchu ruling class a tiny minority in their homeland and soon after faced pressure to assimilate from the newcomers, a situation comprable to the demographic deluge the Tejanos and Californios faced after annexation. Claiming the Chinese Manchurians are diffirent than your average Chinese is like a Texan trying to deny the southern origins of their state-the settlement patterns prove the oposite is true.

Even Xinjiang is unlikely. Due to their almost even demographics, as well as the fact that the Han and assimilated Turks are concentrated in the cities, making them integral to the power structure if the centeral government were to weaken.

Hong kong, which has been more prominent in western media due to thier protests only has 17.4 percent supporting independence with 56.7 against.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-china-survey-idUSKCN1050GT

As for Macau, I won't comment much on this one, but from what I know they have a similar status/rights as Hong Kong, so it would be safe to assume that the relative lack of civil unrest implies less support for sepratism vis-a-vis Hong Kong

The only region that truly stands a chance at independence is Tibet, if centeral government weakens and the people truly want it only external force could stop it from happening. The only poll I have seen mentioned is one by the Tibetan Government in Exile, with 29% aupporting independence, and another 47% supporting "true autonomy". Of course it is hard to know what people are actually thinking with the chilling effect in place, and complicated even further if you want to know if they just oppose the CPC or Chinese governance altogether, so I will demur on Tibet.

If you really wanted to seperate something from "core" China then the last opportunity was in the 19th century when a colonial power could have established a puppet state in the liguostically different south and over time built up some sort of Cantonese identity, although I still doubt sentiment for unification would have been extinguished.

[SoLongAtlas]

While I can see your reasoning for these maps, only one or two have a realistic shot at happening: unified Korea and a Syria breakup. Russia and China would never breakup due to the threat, and actual use, of military force. Russia is very scared and aware of this situation ever since the Soviet breakup. China is very aware of this esp. in regard to the Uyghurs and Tibetans and has used force and has absolutely no qualms about doing so.

In absolutely NONE of the above, would a peaceful unification or balkanization take place. It would be beyond bloody in each scenario.

[Santander]

This is Blue3 we are talking about, folks.

[The Mikado]

While I can see your reasoning for these maps, only one or two have a realistic shot at happening: unified Korea and a Syria breakup. Russia and China would never breakup due to the threat, and actual use, of military force. Russia is very scared and aware of this situation ever since the Soviet breakup. China is very aware of this esp. in regard to the Uyghurs and Tibetans and has used force and has absolutely no qualms about doing so.

In absolutely NONE of the above, would a peaceful unification or balkanization take place. It would be beyond bloody in each scenario.

I think a Pakistan breakup is a real possibility. It certainly wouldn't be peaceful, though.

And yes, I don't think it's impossible that Russia loses a little territory, but if it does happen, it'll be Russia losing another three or four small states in the Caucasus and retreating a bit north on that frontier. Outside of the Caucasus, Russia isn't losing any more territory.

EDIT: I don't think anyone would really be feel it a huge blow to Russia if Russia were to eventually spin off Dagestan, Chechnya, and Ingushetia.

[Blue3]

That's the state of the world in 2030. The collapse and balkanizations were peaceful and the independent republics are stable, or at least as stable and peaceful as the former Soviet republics were by 2000.

Given that, what is the US role in the world, then? Is it the premiere hyperpower in the world again, almost by default, and for the forseeable future? Does a future in this reality make you feel better or worse?

Well the peaceful nature of the Balkanization is good news.

The USA would definitely be the premiere hyperpower in the world again and for the foreseeable future. I don't see the EU forming a powerful confederation to rival us (given their current economic and political conditions).

Edit: I don't see China balkanizing though. It hasn't had too many periods in its history of Balkanization and there's a good deal of national unity in much of the country (at least for a country of 1.2-1.4 billion people). Maybe Tibet and Taiwan breakoff, but I don't think much more would.

For China, places that want independence are
-Tibet
-Hong Kong
-Macau
-the western Muslim provinces
-and Inner Mongolia wants to be part of Mongolia
-northeast China (Manchuria) has always been a little different too

(Taiwan is already de facto independent)

Umm no, noisy individuals are not proof that regions want independence.

First of all there is absolutely no chance of sepratism suceeding in Inner Mongolia simply by virtue of the fact that 80% of the population is Han. I should also mention that if anything it has remained relatively stable, even a slight drop from 83% in 1949 if anybody tries to compare this to Soviet settlement policies in the Baltics.

Secondly claiming that Manchuria is diffirent from China may have been true in a historical sense, but it looks ridiculous to deny it's part of "core" China today. The region today is overwhelmingly Han today due to the Chuang Guangdong, a mass migration comparable to the settlement of the American west which rendered the Manchu ruling class a tiny minority in their homeland and soon after faced pressure to assimilate from the newcomers, a situation comprable to the demographic deluge the Tejanos and Californios faced after annexation. Claiming the Chinese Manchurians are diffirent than your average Chinese is like a Texan trying to deny the southern origins of their state-the settlement patterns prove the oposite is true.

Even Xinjiang is unlikely. Due to their almost even demographics, as well as the fact that the Han and assimilated Turks are concentrated in the cities, making them integral to the power structure if the centeral government were to weaken.

Hong kong, which has been more prominent in western media due to thier protests only has 17.4 percent supporting independence with 56.7 against.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-china-survey-idUSKCN1050GT

As for Macau, I won't comment much on this one, but from what I know they have a similar status/rights as Hong Kong, so it would be safe to assume that the relative lack of civil unrest implies less support for sepratism vis-a-vis Hong Kong

The only region that truly stands a chance at independence is Tibet, if centeral government weakens and the people truly want it only external force could stop it from happening. The only poll I have seen mentioned is one by the Tibetan Government in Exile, with 29% aupporting independence, and another 47% supporting "true autonomy". Of course it is hard to know what people are actually thinking with the chilling effect in place, and complicated even further if you want to know if they just oppose the CPC or Chinese governance altogether, so I will demur on Tibet.

If you really wanted to seperate something from "core" China then the last opportunity was in the 19th century when a colonial power could have established a puppet state in the liguostically different south and over time built up some sort of Cantonese identity, although I still doubt sentiment for unification would have been extinguished.

Calls for independence will be louder when China falls into recession and economic collapse, Lehman Brothers- style, and their demographic time bomb begins really having an effect. Also when the oppressive government that crushes political dissent no longer appears omnipotent at home.

[The Mikado]

Not really. That will trigger calls for the overthrow of the CCP, not calls for independence.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

If Pakistan actually splits up, where will the dividing lines fall on the map?

[Kingpoleon]

If Pakistan actually splits up, where will the dividing lines fall on the map?

https://southasiablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/pakistan-language-map.jpg
http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Pakistan_Religion_lg.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Pakistan_ethnic_map_v2.svg/260px-Pakistan_ethnic_map_v2.svg.png

That should give you a rough idea.