postN76.1

India Insider: Strategic Memory and Why Unilateral Power is Resisted

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentBusinessFeatured Highlights

India Insider: Strategic Memory and Why Unilateral Power is Resisted

After Independence, India was often described as “tilting” toward the Soviet Union. In reality, this was the outcome of India’s pursuit of Non-Alignment at a time when the United States was actively backing perceived rogue actors in South Asia, most notably Pakistan. What appeared as ideological preference was, in fact, strategic necessity born of hard experience.

postN76.1

The Soviet Union supported India on core security concerns when few others would. The first major Soviet defense deal was not merely a weapons sale. It included licensed production in India through Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, full technology transfer, and made India the first non-Communist country to receive the MiG-21. This distinction mattered. India was treated as a sovereign partner capable of absorbing technology, not as a dependent client expected to align unquestioningly.

By contrast, Washington’s alignment with Pakistan was driven by Cold War geopolitics rather than South Asian stability. Despite repeated military coups, wars with India, and regional destabilization, the United States armed Pakistan, provided diplomatic cover during conflicts, and sustained the relationship through military rule and nuclear proliferation. These experiences deeply shaped India’s strategic culture and explain its enduring emphasis on autonomy, redundancy, and diversified partnerships rather than alliance dependency.

This history is one of the central reasons India resists Washington dictating regional dynamics. South Asia, in New Delhi’s view, is not a chessboard for external powers to reorder at will.

Democratic Republic of the Congo Example

The same pattern is visible beyond Asia. Take the Democratic Republic of Congo. After decades of horrific colonial exploitation, the Belgians realized by the mid-20th century that they could not hold on indefinitely and exited abruptly, having never prepared the country for self-rule. What they left behind was not independence, but a political vacuum. The United States and the United Nations intervened, but their actions were shaped less by concern for Congolese society than by geopolitical rivalry, ideological competition, and racial hierarchy.

The assassination of Patrice Lumumba destroyed the Republic of the Congo’s (as it was known then) only credible attempt at building a unified nationalist state at independence. The dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko that followed did not merely fail to develop institutions; it actively hollowed them out. Corruption became a governing principle, loyalty replaced competence, and the state turned into a vehicle for extraction. Today’s instability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not a governance failure in isolation—it is the predictable outcome of a political system designed to rule without building state capacity. For countries like India, this is not ancient history, it is a warning.

Washington’s unilateralism reinforces this mistrust:

The recent military operation to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro without U.S Congress authorization, international legal justification, or an imminent threat would have been unthinkable as recently as the first Trump administration. It became possible in 2026 only because of congressional capitulation, judicial immunity, and the transformation of an apolitical defense establishment into a politicized instrument of executive power. To much of the world, this signals that restraint is no longer embedded in American decision making.

Europe exposes another contradiction. The post war order was built on liberal democracy and collective security through NATO. When that order is weakened by unilateral action, trust erodes, even among allies expected to align automatically.

Even before Trump, the U.S – India relationship remained cordial rather than fully strategic. Before 9/11, India was the most natural regional ally against Al-Qaeda, yet Washington lacked patience and local understanding to navigate India’s complex democracy and nationalism. That failure was not tactical, it was conceptual.

India’s neutrality today is deliberate:

It prioritizes diplomacy over military actions that violate international law. India sees a multipolar world emerging, not as disorder, but as the end of unchecked unilateral supremacy. This is not ambiguity. It is a strategic memory.

postN75

U.S National Security, Part 3: Don’t Underemphasize Freedom

by with No Comment AMT MarketsBehavioral SentimentFeatured Highlights

U.S National Security, Part 3: Don't Underemphasize Freedom

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 30th of December via The Angry Demagogue.

 
postN75

Conclusion

The post-Cold War world that the Strategy Paper tries to figure out is much more than the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of China. One of the main goals of the Trump administration is to turn the clock back on “globalization”, be it via tariffs, other economic ways or even, military means.

While the world is panicking over AI’s destruction of good white collar jobs, it has, paradoxically, created a world where the auto industry can’t find enough qualified mechanics at nice six figure salaries. Not even ten years ago the journalists were haranguing out of work blue collar workers with “go learn to code”, the beer guzzling crew can now tell the tearful journalists and Hollywood “writers” who can’t write better than AI to “go learn how to weld” (or at least handle a screwdriver). But the strategic issues we are facing go beyond manufacturing jobs.

The challenge to the United States and to other free countries is how to handle a new reality where massive debt threatens the diminution, if not the destruction, of the life style we have all come to take for granted and where revanchist regimes don’t quite understand that their power and “prestige” is a result of what has been built in those free countries they want to replace. China, like Russia, Iran, Turkey, Qatar and the non-state actors like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Moslem Brotherhood and others don’t quite understand that while they can use, and even sometimes improve on what freedom has provided them, they will stagnate once they attain their goal of defeating and destroying the free world.

As advanced as China becomes and even if it flies to the moon, overtakes the United States in AI and quantum computing and manages to make the United States into only the breadbasket of the world, they will stagnate as only free markets and free people can move the world to the next step. Growth can only be accomplished by free people. True enough, the economy often grows in ways that we don’t always like, the alternative is stagnation and a return to the pre-scientific age. For all the talk of “new man” and “progress” and everything else that the Soviet Union strived to create, they produced no medicines, no medical devices and no medical treatments.

Therefore, the defeat of the revanchist world and the preservation of freedom needs to be the paramount goal of American foreign policy. This does not mean the creation of democracies where none have ever existed and it does not mean sending troops in every time a political prisoner is arrested or even a plan to militarily defeat the CCP, but it does mean always supporting free countries against the unfree even when the United States is also “friends” with the unfree one.

This means that it will also give free countries leeway when their interests do not align perfectly with America’s (non-core) interests. America as sole protector of the free world has leverage that America as midwife to a set of regional alliances does not. This is a choice that America can make and a correct reading of the Strategy Paper tells us that the United States no longer wants to or can be the main power in every region in the world. This means that there needs to be a change in attitude in America so that it cannot force its will on its allies just because there is another contract to be had or another “cause” that has caught the eye of the country’s establishment.

Encouraging regional alliances of free countries such as the new Eastern-Med Alliance that has already been established between Greece, Cyprus and Israel is a prime example. In addition to the economic cooperation there has been joint defense training and there are agreements that will lead to a defense cooperation pact if not a NATO-like security treaty. Turkey is the common competitor, or enemy, of these three countries. Turkey claims certain Greek islands, occupies parts of Cyprus and has designs on Israel as it strives to be the Islamic “liberator” of Jerusalem. There are gas exploration agreements and cooperation and there would have been a pipeline to Europe if the Biden administration had not stopped it (while they approved the Russian-German pipeline).

Italy ought to be a natural member of the East-Med Alliance and maybe the dissolution of NATO will make them realize that they have more in common with Israel and Greece than they think they do. If Italy were to join then that would create a powerful naval and air deterrence of free countries against aggressors in the eastern Mediterranean. The addition of Malta, a small but strategically important country south of Sicily would provide naval bases that could control the sea lanes between north Africa and Europe helping to stem illegal migration and Turkish attempts to control those same lanes. Malta also brings with it a history of defeating Suleiman the Magnificent in a four month siege when the Ottomans tried to conquer this important island. As we stated before, the United States as a “midwife” to alliances cannot instruct countries on their own national interests. That means that allies of the United States will clash but America must always come down on the side of the free countries and not the revanchist power – in this case, Turkey.

There are of course other regional alliances that can come into being and a remake of the post-WWII world is in order. The end of the cold war created economic booms across the globe raising hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but recent decades have seen an increase in terror and tyranny and that itself needs to be dealt with. If not by the United States alone then by the US along with the regional alliances that the Strategy Paper has highlighted and we have demarcated (partially) here. But concepts like “territorial integrity” (see Syria, Somalia and the rest of Africa) and “sovereignty” have lost their moral imperative as they are used as excuses by tyrants (and their enablers at the UN) to further their cruelty. One of the faults of the old “liberal international order” has been allowing tyrannies the same rights and respect as free countries. During the Cold War, when nuclear war loomed, this might have made sense but after the fall of the Soviet Union these “principles” have created more harm than good.

In the National Security Strategy of the administration, the words “free” and “freedom” appear twenty times, but never in the context of an alliance of free countries. While it speaks of freedom of religion and speech and free markets it never speaks of the need to put allies that are free ahead of friends that are not free. Allies are those countries that share values and will come to your aid because of that. Friends, in international affairs, are those that look to short-term gain and have no desire to further your values or interests. There is no reason that the United States, in its current fiscal condition needs to fight the fight of freedom around the world alone, but neither can it abandon that fight in the pursuit of short-term contracts or frivolous causes.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/ 

postN73

U.S National Security, Part 2: Regional Alliances – Europe

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentFeatured HighlightsIndia

U.S National Security, Part 2: Regional Alliances - Europe

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 25th of December via The Angry Demagogue.

postN73

As we continue our tour of the administration’s National Security Strategy we will stay with “part III: What Are America’s Available Means to Get What We Want?” and move to the sixth bullet point: “A broad network of alliances, with treaty allies and partners in the world’s most strategically important regions” and work through the important regions that the strategy documents – Asia, Europe, the Mideast and Africa. For good or for bad we will need to split these regions up since the key point is forming coalitions that can handle their actual region. Sweden can’t be part of a coalition to protect Italy’s interests in the Mediterranean and Japan won’t be protecting Singapore.

Some U.S allied countries, like Australia, Israel and India will be involved in multiple regions helping lead alliances in all areas important to them. With that in mind we will point out the first mistake of the discussion on regions and that is Europe. We will suggest something here that would not usually come from the mouth of a hawk and pessimist and that is that NATO has no real mission and needs to be replaced by a series of alliances that make more sense. While the fear during the Cold War was a Warsaw Pact ground invasion into Germany and beyond which would have required the totality of American and European forces, Europe now is facing a Russia that could not conquer Ukraine in nearly four years of war. That is not to say that Russia is not to be feared only that each part of Europe needs to ally to face a Russian onslaught in its own theatre.

Italy is not going to send troops to Sweden to prevent an attack and Norway won’t be helping Greece in any fight. Turkey is a country that other NATO countries fear more than trust, especially regarding Russia.

In short, NATO needs to be broken up into different alliances where each country will be allied with countries whose fall would affect its national security. The United States can either be a signatory to these alliances or it can decide how involved it wants to get in any conflagration depending on its own interests at that time. It can decide to position ground troops in the countries, supply air cover or, as in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, help with missile defense and in providing the final blow with weapons only America has. Or – it can decide that it will never participate. One hopes that that won’t happen, but each alliance will need to be ready to fight on its own.

We can include France and the U.K as large countries with advanced armed forces as allies to all of these alliances. France certainly can contribute air power to each of the alliances that are faced against Russia. As for the U.K, it is difficult to know where that country is going but its navy and air force are still powerful.

Today we will deal with north, central and western Europe.

The Baltic Alliance

This would be an alliance that includes Poland, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and would provide cover for land, air and naval battles. Each of these countries, with the exception of Germany, has a border with Russia and all are on the Baltic Sea – a key waterway for them and for Russia.

An alliance of these countries would force them to concentrate on those areas necessary for their defense. An incursion, for example into Finland would force Poland to mass forces on its border with Russia and Belarus (Poland borders Russia in Kaliningrad which is separated from Russia proper by Lithuania) and Germany to move forces to Poland. All countries could also contribute ground forces to Finland as well as naval and air power.

The only thing missing is the lack of a nuclear umbrella. That is no small issue but can be dealt with by support or threats from France or the U.K.

The Atlantic Alliance

Aside from helping the Baltic Alliance, France and the U.K will have major responsibility along with the Netherlands for patrolling the North Atlantic and, with help from Portugal, and Spain the South Atlantic. As the Atlantic Ocean can be considered one of America’s seas, this alliance will need to have the close cooperation if not outright membership of the United States. Canada too, will need to be part of this alliance. We can include the increasingly important Arctic Ocean into this alliance’s responsibilities.

As we move towards the south Atlantic countries such as Morocco, can be included as well as other western African allies of the west. An alliance like that could encourage western African countries to abandon close security and economic ties with China and Russia. The “border” of this alliance would be that squiggly line in the middle of the Atlantic that separates the Eastern and Western hemispheres.

The Central European Alliance

We can look at the smaller central European countries that formed the heart of what was the Hapsburg Empire but are not front line countries bordering Russia – Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Austria, Serbia and Bulgaria – and we have an alliance that, backed by Germany, Poland and the United States, would create a further deterrence to Russian encroachment into Europe proper.

Where, do you ask does Ukraine fall in this European alliance structure? That answer will have to come from the major European powers in concert with the United States. Adding Ukraine to the Baltic alliance might be viewed as another attempt to NATO-ize them by the Russians. However, attaching them to the less threatening Central European Alliance of smaller countries might be the excuse and “victory” that Putin would need to end the war. But we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Ukraine is a problem that can only be solved if the West decides to actively join the fight against Russia (unlikely) or when Putin and Russia get tired of the fight and look for a way out that could allow them to claim victory (more likely than the former, but sadly, a long way off).

The Administration’s concentration on regions and how certain countries can become leaders in support of western and American interests is correct – but the breakdown of the regions has to go beyond the post WWII world. The place of America in the post-cold war world, with a China that wants to challenge America’s economic and military interests and leadership needs to break down old alliances into more manageable and logical pieces.

The wild card in all of this is, of course, the will of the European powers to take their own defense seriously. The Baltic Alliance we spoke about seems to be filled with countries that understand the threat from Russia, but do they recognize the threat to them from the alignment, the Axis if you will, of Russia, Iran, North Korea and China? And of more importance have they yet come to understand the threat to their countries, as they know them, from open immigration and from their own abhorrence of families? The former is something only the governments can handle, the latter though, must come from the people themselves.

A whole generation (or two in many instances) of Europeans have grown up not only as “only children” but in families that have no aunts and no uncles, no cousins and only very elderly grandparents, if that. They have grown up in other words without families. Will the young generation see the importance of families to themselves and their countries or will they continue the nihilistic lives that they parents have “sanctified”? Religious institutions, too will have a major role in this challenge. No amount of “parental leave” and childcare subsidies will convince the young to marry and have children – will only come from a change in the culture. Is Europe up to it?

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/ 

post309

India Insider: Nifty Defense Index Surges in 2025 Rearmament

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentCorporateFeatured Highlights

India Insider: Nifty Defense Index Surges in 2025 Rearmament

2025 has marked a defining moment for defense equities, both globally and in India. The Nifty India Defence (Defense) Index, which tracks the country’s leading defense manufacturers, has surged sharply on the back of robust order flows, a structural policy shift, and increasingly volatile geopolitical conditions. This rise is not an isolated event but part of a broader global rearmament cycle that is reshaping the defense industrial landscape.

post309
Nifty India Defence (Defense) Index One Year Chart as of 20th November 2025

India’s defense sector has been one of the standout performers in the domestic equity market. By mid-2025, the Nifty Defense Index had risen more than 25% year to date, outperforming most sectoral indices. This rally is primarily anchored in strong capital expenditure by the Government of India, which continues to accelerate indigenous military modernization. The Defense Ministry’s approvals which is running into tens of thousands of crores have expanded visibility for companies such as HAL, Bharat Electronics, Bharat Dynamics, and shipbuilding PSUs (Public Sector Undertakings). For investors, the nature of long durations within defense order books has provided earnings stability at a time when other manufacturing sectors have been grappling with cyclical softness.

The second driver has been a multi-year strategic shift toward import substitution. India’s reliance on foreign weapons systems has long strained its current accounts and created operational vulnerabilities. However, the ongoing indigenization push, reinforced by Production Linked Incentive schemes, procurement embargoes on foreign systems, and export incentives, has fundamentally realigned the sector. Defense exports have crossed record levels, and Indian firms are increasingly integrated into global supply chains for electronics, avionics, and ammunition.

Global Industrial Defense Rebirth

But the domestic story is tightly interconnected with developments abroad. The global defense market is undergoing its most significant expansion since the post 9/11 decade. Russia’s war in Ukraine, the Red Sea shipping crisis, conflict in the Middle East, and a renewed great power rivalry in the Indo-Pacific have pushed countries to reassess defense readiness. NATO’s decision in 2025 to raise defense spending targets from 2% of GDP to 5% by 2035 has far reaching implications. This commitment translates into trillions of dollars in additional defense outlays over the coming decade, making Europe one of the fastest-growing defense markets.

Companies such as Rheinmetall, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman are already reporting record order inflows. Rheinmetall, Germany’s largest defense company, expects its revenues to quintuple by 2030, reflecting unprecedented demand for advanced artillery, ammunition, and combat vehicles. The United States, meanwhile, continues to channel significant funding into hypersonic, missile defense, and drone systems as competition with China intensifies.

India’s Edge in Rearmaments and Technology

This global rearmament wave has a direct spillover effect on India. International supply chain shortages particularly for semiconductors, propulsion systems, and munitions have created opportunities for Indian firms to plug capability gaps. With a cheaper cost base and growing technological sophistication, Indian defense manufacturers are emerging as viable exporters in segments such as UAVs, naval platforms, and electronic warfare systems.

In this environment, the rally in the Nifty Defense Index is not merely speculative exuberance, but a significant reflection of structural and synchronized global demand. As defense has evolved from a low beta sector to a strategic growth industry, India’s integration into the global defense economy positions its companies for sustained earnings expansion over the next decade.

postN96

Is Israel a Fragile Country? Can it Move Towards Anti-Fragility?

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentBooksFeatured Highlights

Is Israel a Fragile Country? Can it Move Towards Anti-Fragility?

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author.

One of the great books of the last decade is Nassim Taleb’s “Anti-Fragile”. 

I read it years ago and bought one for each of my (grown) children and suggested they read it and think about it when making decisions. I said at the time that this should be required reading for all IDF officers. In a nutshell, Taleb differentiates between fragile, non-fragile and anti-fragile. Glass is the classic fragile substance and concrete the classic non-fragile. Both can be destroyed with correct instruments and non-fragile items will slowly decay when things like water infect them.  

postN96

Anti-fragile items on the other hand, gain strength from chaos. The more an anti-fragile substance gets hit, the stronger it gets. Nature for Taleb is the classic anti-fragile system. Nature “knows” how to respond to any disturbance, and it “learns” how to adapt and survive. This adaption and survival might hurt parts of the natural world – but nature as a system will survive and be stronger – think of natural immunity from a virus. 

Another of the ideas in Taleb’s book is “optionality” – decisions in life are often like buying options. When buying an option, you want a high upside and a low downside.   A simple non-financial example is crossing a street. If you see a car 50 yards away and are pretty sure you can make it across the street without getting hit – you can take that “pretty sure” chance and save yourself the 10 seconds it takes for the car to pass, or you can wait the 10 seconds. The upside here is saving 10 seconds. The downside is getting hit by the car. The decision is pretty obvious for those who think of optionality.

In short – Taleb is a serious man and a serious thinker. Born in Lebanon in 1960 he is a polymath, making his name in trading and finance, and his previous book “The Black Swan”.

In any event, in a recent interview with the French newspaper L’Orient Le-Jour he called Israel a fragile country due to its dependence on the United States and said that top-down peace agreements, like that between Israel and Egypt, or the Abraham accords are doomed to fail (I don’t read French and read a summary of the interview in the Hebrew language Globes financial newspaper – the original is here – if you read French and I got it wrong, please let me know).

Is Israel a fragile country? And if so, is it more fragile than other small free countries? And finally, how can it move on the road to anti-fragility? And are fragile peace agreements worthless?

Taleb’s claim that Israel is fragile due to its dependence on the US is true in an of itself. Changes in U.S foreign policy either via elections or changes in US interests have in the past put Israel in difficult situations. When Prime Minister Yitzchak Shamir requested U.S loan guarantees from then President Bush (1) in order to fund the absorption of masses of emigrants from the falling Soviet Union he was turned down until Israel halted settlement activity in the West Bank and attended the (failed) Madrid peace conference. Today, it is very clear that if the US would decide to halt arms shipments to Israel or to stop supporting it in the Security Council, the country would be put in a situation many believe would be existential.

A big issue in Israel at the moment has to do not only with Israel’s dependence on the US for military hardware but in the relationship of its top generals with the Pentagon. There is a claim that much of the “globalized” attitudes of Israeli generals comes from the influence of the politically correct elite in the US Defense Department. It reached a point where, just a few weeks before the current war broke out, the general in charge of military intelligence stated that he fears that global warming is a greater threat to Israel than Hamas. Whatever one’s views on global warming or climate change it does seem odd that the one Israeli in charge of making life and death intelligence assessments has the time to worry about those issues to such an extent that he feels it is his job – as intelligence chief – to warn Israel about it. Further, the October 7 attack itself showed the fragility of the defense strategy of Israel’s top generals and politicians. It had a conception of Hamas and other enemies and had no allowance for its being wrong. 

However, the initial response of Israel’s soldiers and officers, without the centralized support of the General Staff, show how many of Israel’s combat soldiers are “anti-fragile”. Israel’s people can also be said to be anti-fragile in Taleb’s definition of it where chaos or tragedy make one stronger. Over the 48 hours after October 7 Israel already had 350,000 reservists mobilized who were all motivated to fight for their country. That is no mean feat – for the most part these reservists went to their units before being called up or called their commanders demanding to be called up. Many thousands returned from abroad at their own expense in order to join their units and fight. In contrast – Ukraine had to forbid all men under 50 from leaving the country.   In Israel, a divided, shocked and demoralized people became a strong fighting force with the home-front in total support, within hours.

Military tactics are another area where Israel is anti-fragile. Due to the utter failure of military intelligence and the lack of central control over the first hours of the war that Saturday morning, the junior and mid-level officers and soldiers took command and figured out on their own how to face down the thousands of terrorists who took over towns and villages as well as military bases. Instead of waiting for orders and making sure everything was organized for attack, a delay which would have cost many more civilian lives, Israel’s soldiers improvised with what they had and took back the territory under very difficult circumstances. Many soldiers lost their lives through many acts of bravery but the decisions they made on the spot made them, the army and the country stronger.

The same can be said in the fighting now in Gaza. Israeli intelligence understood that there were tunnels, but it seems that they didn’t know the extent of the network and therefore had no good tactics to defeat it. It was the need to penetrate them without causing casualties to soldiers as well as the potential of hostages in the tunnels, that caused them to developed tactics to deal with it. We won’t know for sure how well it has or will work, since this is now classified information, but this could be an area of anti-fragility.

But this does not disprove Taleb’s point since Israel is clearly has a “single point of failure” and that is the U.S Government. However, nearly all free countries in the world have that single point of failure and have had it since the start of the atomic age.   One of Konrad Adenauer’s great fears in developing West Germany’s defense policy was that, when push came to shove, there would be no US nuclear umbrella. He was not convinced that the US would risk its own cities in defense of Europe in general and West Germany in particular. That is why he supported France’s independent nuclear deterrent and why he and De Gaulle were so close. The U.K too, when deciding on its Trident nuclear submarines had the same doubts. 

Today, we can say the same about the Baltic countries. They are part of NATO now, but, like the rest of NATO are totally dependent upon the United States military to keep the Russians at bay. The rest of Europe is dependent upon the U.S but they are no longer front line states so it is less important. Newly NATO-ized Finland is probably closer to Israel in its combination of fragility and anti-fragility.

Taiwan too, is fragile in this sense and so are the weaker Indo-Pacific nations like Philippines and Singapore. It would be difficult to find a non-Axis free or semi-free country that is not dependent upon the U.S to defend its freedom – either with sailors and soldiers or with arms, money and diplomacy.  

But the question Taleb poses, or the claim he makes, deals with Israel. Israel is clearly partly fragile – but is it too fragile currently that it can’t survive without the US? Or can Israel do anything to make it, if not more anti-fragile, at least more non-fragile? We have to separate out Israel’s fragility due to its dependence on the U.S and the free world’s fragility due to the same dependence. The Pax Americana that free (and non-free) countries have enjoyed since the end of WWII has probably contributed more to freedom, economic growth and a reduction of poverty in the world than any other force in human history. The question for all free countries then is how to make them less dependent upon the U.S if they want to remain strong and free -and less fragile.  

That is as true for Israel as it is for Latvia, Finland, Australia and Japan. 

But we will only look at solutions for Israel and leave the general question for a later time.

Israel receives from the US $3.8 billion in military aide, all of which must be spent in the United States. The annual aide started in 1999 and was $2.67 billion. Israel’s GDP in 1999 was $120.92 billion – meaning the aide constituted 4.5% of Israel’s GDP.  In 2022 Israel’s GDP stood at $525 billion so its $3.8 billion in aide was just 0.7% of GDP. Israel’s 2022 defense budget was $23.4 billion – 4.45% of GDP.

Giving up the entire U.S aide is certainly do-able from an economic perspective and there have been economists in Israel who claim that the aide actually hurts the Israeli economy since all the money must be spent in the U.S. One result of this has been the demise of Israel’s textile industry since the IDF no longer purchases uniforms from Israeli companies (one has to wonder that, since clothes bought in the U.S are rarely made in the U.S, if Israel is buying uniforms made in Bangladesh but sold via U.S middlemen). Giving up the aide would be one step towards a less fragile existence for a number of reasons.

The first would be, in my opinion, to cement the U.S public’s support for Israel. Giving up U.S taxpayer aide during a time of fiscal uncertainty would certainly be looked upon positively, in spite of the fact that all the aide gets recycled into the U.S economy (there has been some money that Israel has been allowed to spend on R&D in Israel). Israel is not the same country it was in 1999 and its economy is robust and probably more anti-fragile than most other western economies.

A second positive would be in allowing Israel to spread out its arms purchases. It could buy small arms from India, artillery from South Korea, etc. It could also rejuvenate local Israeli arms manufacturing. There is no doubt that all the large ticket items like fighter jets and smart bombs will still be purchased in the U.S and there is no doubt the U.S arms industry will continue its good relations with Israel – and in fact might be made more competitive since the IDF will be free to chose from amongst many providers for various weapons systems. 

Another move that Israel can make that would decrease its fragility would be to make sure it always has a 12 month supply of weapons and spare parts in order to fight a three front land war and a 5 front air war. It would have to beef up its navy and ground forces without hurting its crown jewel – the Air Force. This would make it less dependent upon the importation of arms in case of war.

An area where it will be difficult to be less fragile is the diplomatic arena as woke-ness takes over the western narrative about the world and many of the less and non free countries can’t manage to fight off Arab money and propaganda. India could be a country that could help diplomatically as they are large and powerful enough to ignore much of the pressure from the Arab and western-woke world. The problem is that the Security Council still holds sway in the world and India is not a permanent member with a veto. Of course they should replace the U.K and probably France but that won’t happen as long as India doesn’t have a reliable, permanent left-wing majority – which it won’t have for some time.

The only other major country that could help diplomatically would be Japan – but they have historically not been friendly to Israel and only in the current war have they backed it fully. They are certainly sympathetic to Israel’s plight as they figure out how to face a hegemonic China.

But under the current global situation, Israel relies on the U.S for diplomatic cover making it fragile, diplomatically. That won’t change for some time.

Economically, Israel is probably more anti-fragile than most other countries in the world. This is true for two reasons. First, Israel has a strong domestic market including a very productive real estate market. It has an agricultural center that produces enough for export and of course world class hi-tech and bio-tech industries. Most important – it has children. It is the only western country that has a high birthrate and that is something that has been underestimated in the west. Israel’s fertility rate – births per woman – stands at 2.9. The next highest western country is France at 1.8.  Replacement rate is 2.1.  Search out Nicholas Eberstadt for all the details.

Regarding the top-down peace agreements, Taleb himself understands for sure that the non-democratic top-down nature of most Arab countries makes this less important than in western-free countries. However, he does have a point here. Regarding Egypt, from the beginning the people – or more accurately, the professional and intellectual classes, have been opposed to Sadat’s peace. However, in spite of that, the peace has held for 45 years, which is quite a long time. I remember as a child reading the Biblical Book of Judges where the Israelites would sin, to be saved by a Judge who would rule and keep the country “quiet” for 40 years. At the time I thought – what is the big deal of 40 years of peace? As I grew (much) older I realized that 40 years of peace would be an incredible feat. So, 45 years of non-war between Israel and Egypt is quite a success. Will this continue for another 45 years? I think that if Israel remains strong, it will. 

Regarding the Abraham accords, the jury is still out. We will have to see where it all progresses. This war has certainly shown that even mass violence has not caused violent reactions from the Abraham accord countries. The one peace agreement most fragile and more worrisome though is the one with Jordan. The Hashemites are first and foremost survivors and if survival means breaking the agreement, they will do it in a second.

http://angrymetatraders.com

In summary, Israel’s dependence on the US is crucial for its survival and that in itself makes it fragile. However, there are things Israel can do to make it less fragile and the will and determination of its people make it, in many senses anti-fragile in Taleb’s description (invention?) of that term. Compared to other small, free countries though, all of whom depend on the US for at least part of its defense, it is difficult to say that Israel is worse off – except that, besides the Baltic countries, its neighbors are worse and more dangerous.

In the coming days we will examine a more radical solution to the “fragility” problem of Israel and other free countries.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

postN19

Broader Alliances: Sustaining Economic and Political Power

by with No Comment Featured HighlightsRisk AnalysisRisk Management

Broader Alliances: Sustaining Economic and Political Power

The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author.

If the United States decides to abandon its role as the premier global superpower and shall only be a Pacific and Atlantic power, withdrawing as defender of free seas, free trade and freedom in general, its democratic allies will have to start looking elsewhere for broader military alliances. This large group of nations would have to defend their interests against a revanchist China tied to Iran, Russia, North Korea and many of the Latin American countries – possibly including Brazil, and South Africa who have questionable politics and outlooks.

Eastern Mediterranean Alliance: A Strong Sea Power

Here is a speculative, yet reasonable look at the future of the free world. Let’s start with the Eastern Mediterranean where the two major powers are Israel and Turkey. One cannot deny that both these countries outclass all others regarding military might in the region. Israel’s air force is second to none and its navy is becoming a strategic necessity as it needs to defend its natural gas fields miles offshore. It now has six submarines that are capable of projecting power anywhere in the Mediterranean and even into the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. Turkey is currently a NATO member, but it is not clear that this will outlast the first half of the 21st century.

There is currently an informal alliance among Israel, Greece and Cyprus (both NATO countries) via joint military exercises and intelligence sharing. The Israeli navy and air force train regularly with Greece and its special forces train in the Cyprian mountains with its army. It would be in all three countries interests to formalize a treaty – if not of mutual defense, at least of mutual aid during times of war. All three of these countries are democracies and all three have mutual economic interests.

postN19

A formalization of this alliance makes sense now and if there is a NATO collapse it turns into a necessity for Greece and Cyprus. Adding Egypt (although it would be the only non-democracy) to this group would only strengthen the alliance and keep Turkey at bay. A post-Erdogan Turkey that is comfortable with its Islamic character and its modern society could even join this grouping with Israel as a potential peacemaker between the historic Greek-Turkish rivalry.

This alliance without Turkey is a powerful force in the eastern Mediterranean, and this alliance with Turkey could neutralize a nuclear Iran. A Post-Hezbollah Lebanon which is in the interests of all of these alliance members (including Turkey and Egypt), could become a reality and another member.

A New Alignment: The United Border Nations

What about Eastern and Central Europe? Poland is rapidly becoming the major non-nuclear European military power. Within the next few years it will outshine Germany and the U.K and rival France. It is quite clear, nuclear weapons aside, Poland would probably defeat Russia in a number of weeks, if not days if a conflict were to ignite.

Whether the Russian-Ukrainian war ends in a Russian defeat or in some sort of face saving armistice, Russia will not lose its aggressive nature or nuclear capabilities and it will inevitably become aligned more closely with China and Iran because of its current political nature.

The important new alignment will be categorization of ‘countries bordering Russia’. A new alliance of Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway and the Baltic states – Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia together would have the land, sea and air power necessary to deter and defeat, if necessary, any Russian imperialist expansion. Even with closer ties to China it would be difficult to imagine that, over the next 50 years, Russia would be a threat to this alliance. Adding Ukraine to this grouping would make a powerful force. Its joint population of over 100 million people, while not quite Russia’s 150 million – would be a formidable adversary, especially as the technological skills of these countries is first world and continuing to improve. Adding the other former Warsaw Pact countries like Czech, Slovakia, Romania, Moldova and Bulgaria can only increase its potency.

Unlike the Eastern Mediterranean alliance mentioned above, this would have to be based on a mutual defense treaty in order to properly deter any Russian-Chinese-Iranian attack. Linking up, informally with the ‘new’ Eastern Mediterranean Alliance would create a powerful grouping of free countries against any attempt by authoritarian adversaries. Adding an economic aspect to these border nations and an alliance with the Eastern Med group with free trade zones would create a strong challenge to any attempted Chinese hegemony.

Asian Border Nations Group: Potential Look Ahead at Potential

If we were to unite the Eastern Mediterranean and Border Alliances to an admittedly non-democratic Asian ‘stans nations, including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan with a joint population of around 80 million, we are beginning to see the creation of a multi-cultural alliance that extends from the Arctic Ocean through Central Europe, Northern Africa and into Asia.

The Crucial Partner in Order to Balance Power: India

Which leads us to the Indian Ocean; a dominant India can help control the sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the Bay of Bengal and down to Australia. An Indian-Australian alliance, along with Israel would create a democratic economic and military force that would keep China and Iran from dominating the region. This would require an Indian navy that is not only large, but effective also because it would hold a main responsibility for patrolling the seas from the Persian Gulf up to Australia strongholds.

As India also reaches its potential as a global manufacturing giant, it will be a force to be reckoned with. Including into this potent mix of nations, is the possibility of adding authoritarian countries like Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states; along with Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia who have strong ‘western’ economic interests and would create a formidable bulwark against China’s imperialist Belt and Road project.

Without the need to project naval power worldwide the Unites States could use it massive naval, air and ground forces to take better control of the Pacific Ocean along with Japan, South Korea and Australia.

If we add countries like the Philippines and Vietnam, then China would be deterred from further aggression. The only other region that would fall under American responsibility would be the Atlantic Ocean – the shipping lanes to Europe, West Africa and the Mediterranean. Along with the UK and France there would be no challenger to the control of the Atlantic. This could also lead to a revival of the old Monroe Doctrine and maybe free South America from the destructive influences of Iran, China and Russia.

The Global Economy and Free Trade Zones with a Stable USD as Reserve Currency

What does all this mean for the global economy? The free world along with its less than free allies who fear China, Russia and Iran could still maintain a U.S dollar based world. Free trade zones amongst and between the various alliances along with a revival of manufacturing led by a technology revolution using AI, quantum computing, renewable energy and space exploration could lead to a global resurgence of free countries that could stop the authoritarian appetites of Russia, China and Iran in its tracks. This can only happen with a stable reserve currency the ‘West’ can rely upon which is the USD.

Potentially a U.S freed from being the sole defender of freedom in the world, would help get America’s fiscal house in order and allow it to focus on being a dominant economic power. Is there a future for the ‘free world’ without a United States that projects power globally? Currently, a U.S withdrawal from global military assertion would certainly cause the end of freedom (economic and political) in the world for many nations. However, with the new alliances described above and a fiscally responsible United States, freedom could yet make a comeback.

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.