*Eurasian Geopolitics*, Chapters 3–6

Date/Time: 6/17, 21:30, online

Participants: kdg, mori, Bench Press, Born to Run, Deu, Tiberius

Book Title: Eurasian Geopolitics

Author: Hal Brands

Publication Year: 2026

Publisher: 21st Century Books

Assigned Reading: From Chapter 3 to the end

1. The Lessons of the Great Depression and the Return of Protectionism

Historical background (the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act): After the Great Depression of 1929, the United States unilaterally passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 to protect its own agriculture and industry.

It was pushed through despite opposition letters from numerous economists at the time.

Retaliatory tariffs and bloc formation: America’s unilateral tariff measures led to retaliatory tariffs from neighboring countries, including those in Europe, which in turn helped create self-sufficient bloc economies around the world.

Connection to the present (Trumpism and MAGA): There was concern that Trump’s current isolationist or America-first (MAGA) policies and unilateral tariff bombshells are very similar to the process that unfolded with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the past.

It was argued that this could undermine trust among allies, trigger economic shocks, and risk provoking geopolitical conflict, much like the period before World War II.

2. Early 20th-Century Bloc Economies vs. 21st-Century Technological Bloc Formation

There was an analysis that the economic bloc formation of the Great Depression era (early 20th century) and the current wave of economic bloc formation differ in their background and character.

Past (quantitative bloc formation centered on colonies): After World War I, fascist states, having recognized the need for resource self-sufficiency, sought to expand territory and acquire more colonies in order to build economic blocs.

Present (qualitative bloc formation centered on values and technology): Today’s bloc formation is not about colonization. Rather, it is closer to a decoupling of value chains, in which liberal advanced countries, including the United States, raise barriers to protect knowledge and advanced technologies such as semiconductors and AI from the “fascist/totalitarian systems” of China and Russia.

This reflects the realization that open markets can, through technological hacking and similar threats, actually be fatal to national security.

3. Changes in American Hegemony (the World’s Policeman) and the Middle East Situation

The petrodollar system and American fatigue: The petrodollar system—the dollar-denominated settlement of oil payments, a core element of the Bretton Woods system—is the absolute ring of American hegemony.

However, within the United States, especially among the working class, there is widespread fatigue over the idea that America has been defending global trade routes such as the Strait of Hormuz for free while its own manufacturing base has been hollowed out.

New dynamics in the Middle East: The United States is not withdrawing completely from the Middle East. Instead of deploying large ground forces as it did in the past, it is encouraging Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE to build their own defense framework—a Middle Eastern version of NATO.

Some analyses suggest that, in this process, the United States attempted to buy time by striking Iranian infrastructure.

The failure of attempts at yuan settlement: Iran reportedly tried to collect Strait of Hormuz transit fees in yuan, but this effort was frustrated by strong U.S. pressure through its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. As an alternative, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are emerging as instruments for transactions in gray-zone markets.

4. The Possibility of a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan and the Variable of AI

The limits of Mackinder’s Heartland Theory: It was pointed out that in the analog, industrial age, the theory that controlling key regions such as Eastern Europe—land, resources, and population—was necessary to dominate the world may have held true, but in the digital and AI age it is no longer valid, as seen in the collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia’s failure in its invasion of Ukraine.

Outlook for an invasion of Taiwan: There is an optimistic view that, having seen Russia struggle in the war in Ukraine, China will focus on investing in semiconductors and AI industries rather than embark on the reckless adventure of invading Taiwan.

That said, the possibility always remains that a totalitarian regime may launch an irrational invasion in order to redirect an internal crisis—such as a threat to the regime or civil unrest—outward.

The role of AI: There is also a view that semiconductors and AI technologies, which guarantee America’s qualitative edge, are currently absorbing shocks such as tariff disruptions, and that as long as livelihood issues remain industrially manageable, the situation will not escalate into a full-scale world war as it did in the past.

5. Scenarios in the Event of a Contingency at the Apex of the North Korean Regime (Kim Jong Un) and the Debate on Unification

Systemic durability: It used to be conventional wisdom that totalitarian regimes collapse once the supreme leader is removed, but in places like North Korea and Iran, internal control systems are so dense that even if a leadership vacuum emerges, they may shift into a warlord system or collective leadership and endure far longer than expected.

The possibility of Chinese intervention: If the North Korean regime collapses, major turmoil would follow, including large-scale refugee flows across the Chinese border. Above all, as demonstrated during the Korean War, China strongly opposes the idea of South Korea—within the sphere of U.S. influence—directly bordering China, since that would mean the loss of a geopolitical buffer zone. For that reason, it would almost certainly intervene militarily in the event of a contingency in North Korea.

How this differs from German unification: German unification took place under conditions where the economic gap between East and West Germany was not nearly as extreme as the current gap between North and South Korea, and it was also made possible by the exceptional leadership of Gorbachev, who was willing to withdraw troops.

By contrast, South Korea today lacks the political will to shoulder North Korea’s collapsed economy, and given the heightened geopolitical risks, a rapid absorption-style unification without a buffer period is not realistically feasible.

*

The “Liberalism Reading Group” Kakao Open Chat or Band group is a communication space operated by members of the reading group.

Please note that this is not a channel operated by the Center for Free Enterprise (CFE), and keep this in mind when joining or participating.

▶ Join the Liberalism Reading Group:

https://open.kakao.com/o/g4Nn1uud

---

Original title: <유라시아 지정학> 3장~6장

Author: Ja-yujuui ipmun dokseotoronmoim

Date: 2026-06-18

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=reading01&pn=1&idx=29178