Geopolitics

The premise of this article is that the United States and the People’s Republic of China are at war in 2030. Not a trade war, not a technology contest, not a proxy conflict: a shooting war, with American and Chinese forces engaging each other directly in the western Pacific, and with nuclear weapons on both sides operational enough to shape the outcome. The premise is counterfactual, but it is not exotic. Every serious wargame of the last decade has run this scenario, and the analytic community has converged on expectations specific enough to summarize. This article assembles them: how such a war would begin, what the first weeks would look like, where it would break, and how it would end. ...

This article examines the economic and geopolitical position of the United States as of mid-2026. It analyzes the recent deceleration in real output growth, the persistence of above-target inflation, and the trajectory of public indebtedness, and it relates these macroeconomic conditions to the country’s standing within the international system. The analysis concludes that the principal constraints on the American position are endogenous in origin: they derive from domestic fiscal decisions and from the attenuation of the legitimacy that underpins the country’s alliance relationships, rather than from the direct exercise of power by rival states. ...

For much of the post–Cold War era, the Arctic was held up as the one place great-power rivals still cooperated — search and rescue, fisheries, scientific monitoring, the kind of work that doesn’t function unless everyone at the table shows up. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine broke that. In March 2022, the seven other Arctic Council members — the U.S., Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden — suspended their participation rather than sit across from Moscow.1 Russia has spent the years since trying to build a substitute reality: hosting its own forums, leaning harder on a partnership with China, and treating Arctic diplomacy less as shared stewardship than as a stage for proving it isn’t isolated. ...

Donald Trump didn’t invent American interest in Greenland, but he did put it on billboards. In August 2019, after Denmark’s prime minister called the idea of selling the island “absurd,” he canceled a planned state visit and posted a meme of a gold Trump Tower Photoshopped into a Greenlandic coastal town, captioned “I promise not to do this to Greenland!”1 It read, at the time, as a punchline — the kind of story that gets a segment on late-night television and then quietly disappears. I wrote about it that way in the original version of this piece. ...

🪞 Reflection What We Feed Grows We all have a diet. Not just of food, but of thoughts, habits, and attention. Every day, we choose what to give our time and energy to. And here’s the truth: what you feed, grows. Scroll through social media for hours and you’re feeding distraction. Watch the news on repeat and you’re feeding anxiety. Spend time with your family, read a book, or write a page, and you’re feeding connection and growth. Like it or not, the results are predictable—seeds always sprout into what they are meant to become. ...