Odličen komentar glede zgroženosti ameriških zahodnih vazalnih držav nad ravnanjem gospodarja. Prehod iz unipolarnega v bipolarni svetovni red prinaša temeljito prevrednotenje cene varnosti za srednje velike države. V obdobju ameriške hegemonije so ZDA zaradi svoje neizpodbitne premoči razmeroma poceni zagotavljale varnostni dežnik zaveznikom, zato je bila njihova obramba dejansko implicitno subvencionirana. Z vzponom Kitajske pa ima vsaka ameriška varnostna zaveza višji oportunitetni strošek, zato ZDA postopoma zmanjšujejo obseg in spreminjajo pogoje svojih jamstev. Evropa in Kanada se zato prvič soočata z dejanskimi stroški lastne obrambe. Ne gre za ameriško “izdajo”, temveč za konec dolgoletne geopolitične subvencije, ki jo je omogočala unipolarna ureditev in ki je v bipolarnem svetu ni več mogoče ohranjati.

The crisis of the middle powers is a repricing event that occurs in the transition to a bipolar world, when the old guarantees are being renegotiated.

In a unipolar world the hegemon is willing to absorb security costs that would otherwise be distributed among its allies. But that deal was only offered because of how cheaply the US could provide it. When no one can rival the hegemon, the marginal cost of extending the umbrella was small, so everyone underneath got protection that was priced far below what they’d pay to provide it themselves.

But bipolarity destroys that math. Now every commitment by the US has an opportunity cost against a rival theater, so the US has to ration and reprice its commitments, and the middle powers are discovering what security actually costs. That’s what I mean by repricing.

Europe and Canada are acting like the US is betraying something. But they’re not being cheated. What’s actually happening is a withdrawal of a subsidy they were treating as a structural feature of the world rather than a contingent bargain that was only ever available because the hegemon’s cost of extending it was low. And when you lose a great deal, it feels like an injustice even when nobody promised it to you forever. And that’s not a criticism of them, it’s just what it’s like to be on the receiving end of a repricing.

Their reaction is entirely predictable and understandable because they’re being pushed to build something they don’t want to, because the thing they actually want (the American security guarantee) isn’t being offered at the old price anymore.

This same thing happened during the interwar period. Britain could no longer afford to underwrite the old order and the US was pulling into isolation and wasn’t willing to provide it yet. So everyone got the bill and nobody wanted to pay it, and the result was the 1930s. That’s why the middle powers crisis occurs in the transition.

And that’s where we are once again. Ironically, the ones most upset about the new deal are often the ones who were the loudest critics of the old one. You take the umbrella for granted until it starts to rain.