The United States midterm elections will be held on Tuesday, November 8, 2022. All members of the U.S. House of Representatives will seek reeelection while just 34 of the 100 seats in the Senate will be contested. The continuous process will eventually weigh on the state of American democracy.

The stake is high–– the balance of power in the U.S. Congress. The Democratic Party now has the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives: the lower house of the U.S. Congress has 221 Democrats and 212 Republicans plus one vacant seat. The midterm elections will include 34 seats in the Senate. After the 2020 Senate vote and the January 2021 election in Georgia, the Senate was split 50-50. Vice President Kamala Harris had the tiebreaking vote while the Democratic Party picked the majority of seats in the U.S. Senate. Although the Democratic Party is equipped with an array of legislative tools, some things do not go as planned. Among those who broke the majority was Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, who torpedoed the Build Back Better Act. The key piece of Biden's domestic agenda delivers free preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old in America, extends tax cuts for families, and provides paid leave to all new parents. Yet Democrats can soon face further obstacles while proceeding with their bills in the U.S. Congress, which may be political reshuffles in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

• Read more: Illegal firearms flow on the U.S-Mexican border

Republicans more likely to seize power

One of the most ironclad rules in American politics is that the president's party loses ground in midterm elections. It was the case of Barack Obama, whose Democratic Party lost 63 seats in the House of Representatives in 2010 after having won the 2008 elections. When Donald Trump served as U.S. president four years ago, the Democratic Party took over the House of Representatives but it was the Republican Party that controlled the Senate. Nonetheless, what has been visible in recent years is the tendency to change members of the U.S. Congress in correlation with their party affiliation.

This trend is likely to continue. The first thing that hinted at a shift in the House majority was multiple party reshuffles after the 2020 elections. In fifteen out of eighteen cases of party switching, it was Republicans that gained most seats. Such a situation occurred in California, Minnesota, Iowa, New York, Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South and North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. This is where Republicans won House seats from Democrats and one from the Libertarian Party. This tendency is likely to continue and resonate politically much stronger than that. As many as 26 Democrats decided to skip the 2022 reelection bid while just 13 Republicans have announced they are not seeking reelection. If they retain the seats they have now, Republicans will gain thirteen extra seats. In addition, eighteen Democrats are planning to retire at the end of this term, against just six Republicans. So pragmatically speaking, there is a fair chance that Republicans will take at least one house of the U.S. Congress by late 2022.

Key factors for the 2022 elections

In the 2022 elections, anything that refers to the Covid-19 pandemic, the U.S. economy, and its democracy after the 2020 presidential vote will play a crucial role.

In 2020, the SARS CoV-2 virus affected both the campaign and the voting system. Some election rallies were canceled while others, mostly Democrat-held ones, attracted just a limited number of participants. Joe Biden had to limit public appearances amid the Covid-19 pandemic, which could have improved his final result. Twice as many Americans voted by mail-in ballot.

The pandemic will determine the fate of U.S. domestic policy. A report from Our World in Data, a research center, found that this spring the United States would report some Covid-19 deaths. A heavy toll of the two-year pandemic could put a strain on the ruling party. U.S. preventive efforts may not be enough to make up for this considerable loss. The state's economy is intertwined with the epidemic. More infections and deaths will mean bigger economic restrictions and more spending on health care and social services, thus meaning higher inflation. The United States is now seeing its worst inflation in forty years. It rose to 7 percent, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Another important thing before the U.S. elections is the state of U.S. democracy and general confidence in democratic procedures. A new NPR/Ipsos poll finds that 64 percent of Americans believe U.S. democracy is "in crisis and at risk of failing." That sentiment is felt most acutely by Republicans: two-thirds of GOP respondents agree with the verifiably false claim that "voter fraud helped Joe Biden win the 2020 election." That was a key pillar of the "Big Lie" that the election was stolen from former President Donald Trump. The Democratic Party voiced concern about the state of democracy, but for different reasons. They say Republican-led state legislatures are restricting voting and seizing more power over how elections are run, according to NPR. Doubts whether the electoral process was fair could thus influence the decision whether to vote or not in November 2022.

• Read more: US-Chinese Relations in 2021

Midterm elections are a key part of the ongoing U.S. election campaign. They make both parties constantly fight for support and submit legislative proposals. If people in the United States again make Democrats take the Congress, there will be a good chance for them to conduct legislative work, which is what they sometimes failed. If Republicans win the vote in at least one of the houses of the Congress, Democrats will have a tough nut to crack. Beyond some internal obstacles, they will need an extra effort to convince Republicans that their ideas are right. The world will soon see a fierce fight for the U.S. Congress.

Author:

Jan Hernik

Jan Hernik is a journalist and publicist who gained experience in Polish independent Internet media broadcasts. In his career, he participated in the creation of projects related to domestic policy and geopolitics. Hernik has an experience in working as a TV presenter and editor of a news portal. At the Warsaw Institute, he is the editor-in-chief and expert in the field of the United States.

Hernik is a graduate of the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw. He specializes in the theory of religion, race and ethnicity for political choice in the U.S presidential elections. His research interests also include the colonial era of the United States, the right to bear arms and the American liberal thought.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

The Law regulations on purchase of firearms in the U.S. differs depends on state. The smallest number of requirements needed to meet in order to get a gun are present in U.S-Mexico borderline states like Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. On the other side of the border, Mexican Constitution strongly restricts possibilities to obtain any kind of firearms for anyone, but the authorities. Strict penalties for keeping firearms without authorization are included in Article 162 of the federal criminal code. Mexican government precisely describes models and calibers of guns allowed to get by citizens. In spite of gun ownership limitations, Mexico has a supply of illegal firearms that is more than five times the size of its supply of legal firearms. In 2010, Mexico also had one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world, with 10 out of 100,000 people dying from gun homicides. Moreover, it is estimated that 253,000 guns purchased annually in the U.S is trafficked to Mexico.[1]

Two major threads which come together in this case. Starting with Mexican government’s influence on the internal organized crime, a brief look at the homicide rate in Mexico is necessary. The rate increased from 10,452 in 2006 to 27,213 cases in 2011.[2] It was caused by President Felipe Calderón's aggressive politics towards drug trafficking organizations like Sinaloa, Gulf or Guadalajara. New cartels such as the Zetas and La Familia emerged and took over the drug smuggling routes between Mexico and the United States.

Another thread leads to the other side of the border. The place for arming new criminal organizations are American borderline states. American government with organizations such as ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) has been aware of the role of “straw purchasers” in the United States in providing guns to the cartels in Mexico. Therefore, partial responsibility for this case should be directed to the law of the borderline states. Mostly, slack regulations are being used by criminals and drug cartels to obtain substantial numbers of firearms to smuggle them to Mexico. One of the commonly used methods to purchase guns by members of the cartel is using a lack of regulations regarding aftermarket sales and getting it from a “second hand.” Such way of obtaining firearms is called a “kitchen table” sale. The firearm market seems to be open and free to all. In Texas, only the ID and filling the form of gun purchase is necessary to buy any kind of a firearm. That opens another way for criminals to get weapons, by using or forcing local citizens to buy guns on their behalf. That's what is called to be a “straw purchase”. Based on the US prosecutions alone, 4976 firearms were bought with the intention to traffic them to Mexico in FY 2009.”[3]

• Read more: US-Chinese Relations in 2021

The flow happens on the borderlands through vehicles. The smuggled weapons are usually hidden in storage containers in trucks and passenger vehicles traveling to Mexico. Border authorities are often bribed or threatened by criminals. American forces are also ineffective in this area, being focused more on drug smuggling than illegal weapon flow. Throughout the years of 2006-2010, 78,571 total crime guns were recovered by Mexican law enforcement and submitted for tracing. Only 20,828 of these guns were successfully traced back to an original point of sale in the United States.[4] American policy against firearm smuggle started with President George W. Bush administration. ATF issued a warrant which authorized its agents to investigate possible “straw buyers”, including those suspected of obtaining firearms for purchasers from Mexico. It was mostly focused on questioning possible straw buyers at their residences.

Under President Obama’s administration, the ATF officers continued their investigative work and expanded it to battle cross-border trafficking in a program called “Project Gunrunner.” It was a successful initiative, which revealed the case of George Iknadosian, who as a licensed gun dealer from Phoenix, Arizona sold more than seven hundred guns to Mexican gun cartels. The Arizona Attorney General ordered a one-year-long investigation, which finished with confirmation of this statement. Again, inaccurate American gun regulations prevented Iknadosian from being sentenced. Arizona state law did not contain a statue defining and prohibiting gun trafficking, therefore there was no penalty that could be put against deceitful gun dealers and straw purchasers.

In response to that, eighteen states introduced restrictions for firearms purchasers. Six states have enacted comprehensive tracing requirements for law enforcement, and at least four states have adopted one-gun-a-month-laws.[5] Of the four borderline states, only California has enacted significant regulations. Those are gun control measures: limiting multiple sales, requiring background checks for secondary transfers, prosecuting straw purchasers, and restricting the sale of assault weapons.[6] Applying all gun control regulations reflects itself in -1,88 reduction[7] in a state’s crime gun export rate to Mexico compared with states with none of these laws, which have a crime export rate 655% greater than states that had all four mentioned regulations.[8] It is firmly visible that American crime firearms are tended to flow into Mexico from the states not following extra gun regulations.The closer to the border the gun selling state is located, the lower risk of detention, therefore illegal gun trafficking happens mostly in the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

• Read more: American LNG and Polish Diversification of Supplies

To successfully battle the issue of Mexican internal organized crime, it is crucial to look at the U.S borderline states. The example of the state of California, which follows the four extra rules regarding gun sales and requires additional effort from the buyer to prove one’s legal right to obtain firearms, is the best picture of reduction of the illegal crime gun flow into Mexico. The American federal or state law should not impede or forbid the right to purchase and bear firearms for the law-abiding American citizens. The same time, corrections in the law of the borderline states covering possibilities of illegal gun purchase have to be introduced. The same competency for Mexican public order is on its local government. The policy of war on cartels and criminals started with President Calderon’s firm declaration has to be pursed responsibly. Intensified Mexican internal policy, enhancement of the local military authorities, and reinforcement of diplomatic relations between Mexico and the United States is necessary to successfully restrict organized crime and illegal traffic of weapons on the border.

Author:

Jan Hernik is a journalist and publicist who gained experience in Polish independent Internet media broadcasts. In his career, he participated in the creation of projects related to domestic policy and geopolitics. Hernik has an experience in working as a TV presenter and editor of a news portal. At the Warsaw Institute, he is the editor-in-chief and expert in the field of the United States.

Hernik is a graduate of the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw. He specializes in the theory of religion, race and ethnicity for political choice in the U.S presidential elections. His research interests also include the colonial era of the United States, the right to bear arms and the American liberal thought.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

The United States entered 2021 with a newly elected President Joe Biden. The summary of China's policy is also an assessment of the first year of the new administration at the White House. It was clear from the beginning that the key issue for the new president would be relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC). In the perspective of bilateral relations between the United States and China, there was supposed to be a "new opening". However, this does not follow a principle that only promotes prolongation of "pax Americana".

US-China relations have been strained. The Biden administration began its tenure during the pandemic that Donald Trump blamed the PRC for. Newly formed American diplomacy raised the issue of climate change, the deepened interference by the Chinese authorities in Hong Kong and the violation of the laws of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

US-China Alaska Summit

The main expectations of the Chinese were to lift the restrictions imposed by the Trump administration. They wanted to open a "new chapter" and define their negotiating position. In an atmosphere of mutual tensions, the representatives of the two world powers met in Alaska in March.

For China, the meeting was an opportunity to mark the growing position of Xi Jinping's regime. The United States sought to show readiness for the talks of key importance for world politics. The case of Taiwan's independence or Chinese espionage was expected to be raised. The meeting of diplomatic representations defined the direction of international politics and indicated a list of bilateral disputes. The US was represented by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the President's National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Chinese diplomacy was headed by Yang Jiechi, a member of the CCP's political office, and Wang Yi, the foreign minister.

The Anchorage summit went down in history as a firm signal from the PRC. Beijing indicated that it would not accept US domination in bilateral negotiations. According to experts from “The Diplomat”, the Chinese tried to change the dynamics of political relations between countries. They succeeded, and American diplomacy was relegated to the "negotiating corner".

“So we believe that it is important for the United States to change its own image and to stop advancing its own democracy in the rest of the world.” – Yang Jiechi spoke during the talks.

Chinese rhetoric dominated the shape of the talks, which resulted in the lack of binding agreements. In the opinion of Asian media such as "Global Times" or "People's Daily" it was a key moment in changing the balance of power in relations between countries. The authorities in Beijing have sensed the moment to act boldly.

• Read also: American LNG and Polish Diversification of Supplies

The situation in the South China Sea

The effect of China's far-reaching diplomatic actions were its unhampered steps in the South China Sea. The US responded by organizing visits by Blinken and the new Pentagon chief Austin to Japan and South Korea. The Americans planned to increase the number of bases in this region, because the growing involvement of Chinese military forces became visible here. One of the signals was the firing of ships exercising the so-called right to "free movement" around areas of territorial contentions.

From the disputed territory of the Paracel Islands, the Chinese attacked American ships. This was the case with the USS Benfold, which appeared in the northern part of the South China Sea in July. This place, like other islands in the region, is an area claimed by many East Asian countries. Beijing believes it has historical rights to the waters, but the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague found their claims unlawful. It does not change the fact that after a year of the policy pursued by the Biden administration, the Indo-Pacific is still a place of growing Chinese influence.

Virtual meeting of Biden-Xi

On November 15, a virtual meeting between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping took place. Analyzing the shape of US-Chinese relations, it is worth pointing out that for Biden it was not a partnership conversation, but rather negotiations with the main rival in the race of powers.

The topics of negotiations covered those raised in March in Alaska, but the issue of Taiwan has become the most important issue. Xi quoted by Reuters said, the US president's support for Taiwan "is like playing with fire."

• Read more: US-Russia Game of Chess for Central and Eastern Europe

The US attention was drawn to the significant expansion of the Chinese army. At the moment, the Chinese People's Liberation Army can count up to 2.8 million soldiers. This is at least twice as much as the US military. It follows that the USA feels an increasing threat from the PRC. At the moment, it is mainly about their closest ally in the region – Taiwan.

In October, China conducted maneuvers on a beach in Fujian Province on the other side of the Taiwan Strait. Meeting with Xi was aimed to prevent a kinetic confrontation in this region. President Biden wanted to stabilize relations with the PRC because he is aware of the growing potential of his "rival".

US Response

The reset in US-China relations seems to be a distant matter. While the current president's language is subdued, the United States does not remain passive. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act on the prevention of forced labor was passed in the Congress. The Americans have imposed sanctions on Chinese companies and announced a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Winter Olympics. The Biden administration has also announced a further investigation into the origin of COVID-19. The American administration is also signaling its desire to defend Taiwan. Additional activities were conducted by the strengthening of the military presence in Japan, South Korea and the establishment of the AUKUS defense pact. It may limit Chinese aspirations in the Indo-Pacific region.

When assessing the US-China relations in 2021, it should be noted that they were based on a diplomatic exchange. It is also necessary to point out the tension that was deepened by the firm stance of Chinese diplomacy during the Alaska summit. The picture is complemented by Chinese activity in the Indo-Pacific region and the lack of clear effects of Biden's direct policy. China senses the weakness of the new White House administration. In 2021, they checked how far they can go. The effectiveness of their further actions will depend on Washington's response.

Author:

Jan Hernik is a journalist and publicist who gained experience in Polish independent Internet media broadcasts. In his career, he participated in the creation of projects related to domestic policy and geopolitics. Hernik has an experience in working as a TV presenter and editor of a news portal. At the Warsaw Institute, he is the editor-in-chief and expert in the field of the United States.

Hernik is a graduate of the American Studies Center at the University of Warsaw. He specializes in the theory of religion, race and ethnicity for political choice in the U.S presidential elections. His research interests also include the colonial era of the United States, the right to bear arms and the American liberal thought.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

In December 2021, gas prices in Europe increased dramatically, even several times within a few days. The sudden change was caused, among others, by the reduction of the transit of the Russian gas via the Yamal gas pipeline, which runs through Poland and supplies Western Europe. The American LNG may turn out to be the cure for shortage.

On December 21, 2021, the January benchmark Dutch TTF contract hit €181 per MWh, while only a day earlier it reached €146.9. This was caused by significant cuts in gas supplies from the Russian Federation. At times, only 4% of the total volume of the Yamal pipeline was used – it stretches over 4,000 km (2,485 miles) and crosses the borders between Poland and Belarus as well as Poland and Germany. According to the Russians, it was necessary to replenish the storage, but the Kremlin is probably trying to influence European countries with the cuts, showing the real dependence of Europe on the supplies through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is opposed by many interest groups across the European Union. Germany would become the main beneficiary of the pipeline, importing up to 110 billion cubic meters, or bcm, (3.88 trillion cubic feet, or tcf) from Russia annually. Poland’s western neighbors are willing to finish the project, mainly due to economic reasons, and are still at the impasse with the implementation of the Energiewende policy, which assumes the abandonment of nuclear and coal energy sources in favor of the “green” energy. The Nord Stream is a cause for concern not only due to the Russian influence on the European gas market, but also because of the political and strategic pressure. This situation is monitored by the White House, which is not happy with Putin’s moves, however, Biden’s counteroffensive was ineffective and it is hard to consider any of the American moves as decisive.

• Read more: US-Russia Game of Chess for Central and Eastern Europe

Another action of the Russians took place on December 21. Supplies were halted and gas transit through the Yamal pipeline started in the other direction – from Germany to Poland. The real assumptions of the contract which caused this state of affairs remain unknown, but it is worth recalling the words of Andrzej Szczęśniak, a Polish fuel market and security expert, who argued on the RMF FM radio that the Russian Federation is in fact marginalizing the Yamal pipeline and that most probably it will be almost entirely abandoned after Nord Stream 2 is pushed through, thus becoming a backup infrastructure.

The US reacted very quickly to the gas price turmoil in Europe by sending there 10 LNG tankers, Bloomberg correspondent Stephen Stapczynski reported. The main reason that convinced the Americans to act in such a way was the favorable selling price in the upcoming month at the very least since the Russians announced that supplies would be limited also in January 2022. The scale of the energy crisis in Europe is well illustrated by the difference in gas prices – LNG is even 13 times cheaper in the United States than in Europe.

On December 30, one of the American tankers, containing an unspecified amount of LNG, docked at the Świnoujście gas port (Poland). According to 300gospodarka.pl, PGNiG (Polish Oil Mining and Gas Extraction) regarded the American delivery as an element of a long-term cooperation. “New, larger gas deliveries from the US will start in the following years. The contracts with American and Qatari companies guarantee the annual LNG deliveries of at least 12 bcm (0.42 tcf) after regasification.” Already in Q2 2021, PGNiG stated that as a result of annexes to the agreements, the volume of LNG deliveries from Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC and Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC will amount to 5.5 million tons of LNG on an annual basis, which translates into 7.4 bcm (0.26 tcf) of natural gas after regasification. The previous agreement provided for the delivery of two million less LNG every year, which indicates a strong growth under the new arrangements and a proper identification of an increased demand for gas. The extension of the agreements is a good sign of an effective implementation of the diversification of gas supplies. For example, in 2019, natural gas from the East accounted for 60.2% of the entire structure of PGNiG’s imports, while LNG imports amounted to 23.1%. The former figure constituted a decrease by as much as 6.6 percentage points compared to 2018.

• Read more: A Preview of the Digital Future

In response to the existing supply problems, PGNiG gave a comment to 300gospodarka.pl: “It is clear (…) how year by year LNG imports are growing and imports from Russia are falling, although, according to the provisions of the so-called Yamal Contract, we are obliged to buy a certain amount of Russian gas on a take or pay basis.” The current Yamal Contract ends in 2022, which theoretically may cause certain problems for the Polish economy, however, alternative solutions are effectively being sought as a part of the diversification of supplies. The main initiative that may relieve Poland from the pressure of Russian suppliers is the Baltic Pipe, connecting Norway, Denmark, and Poland, but American supplies may become the remedy, at least partially. The Baltic Pipe is expected to have the capacity of 10 bcm (0.35 tcf) per year. According to PGNiG, Poland will benefit the most from this cooperation.

The growing demand for gas is linked to the energy transformation, PGNiG CEO Paweł Majewski pointed out in a press release. As the changes in the energy industry are pan-European and Russia remains the main supplier of gas in Europe, we can expect the escalation of pressure from Moscow. Nord Stream 2 may be both a geopolitically dangerous weapon and an unavoidable project for Western economies. The solution may be the increased activity of the decision-makers from gas producing countries in our region, the ones that are independent from Moscow. Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether Putin will abandon intrigues connected to the finalization of the gas pipeline.

Author:

Tadeusz Misterek – a graduate of political science at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. During his studies, he was involved in journalism and coordination of activities in student and non-governmental organizations. Currently a student of international relations at the University of Warsaw and a member of the International Analysis Club of the University of Warsaw. His main interests are geopolitics, international economic relations and Industry 4.0.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

It has been more than two weeks since Joe Biden’s last conversation with Vladimir Putin. The videoconference, which lasted more than two hours, focused on Russia’s potential aggression against Ukraine, the situation on NATO’s eastern flank, and the matter of Alliance’s enlargement by including new countries, especially those located in the so-called “near abroad” of the Russian Federation.

Shortly after the meeting, US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan reported that Biden warned that the US would impose harsh sanctions and intensify its rearmament efforts in the event of another Russian invasion of Ukraine. He also vaguely spoke about strengthening NATO’s eastern flank. Such a tone of the talks indicates the likely continuation of the relatively tough policy of the administration in Washington towards Moscow. According to the Russian media, Vladimir Putin was the undisputed winner of this “clash.” Nevertheless, the Russian president did not receive any guarantees from Biden, and certainly this is what the political circles in Moscow were hoping for in the context of NATO enlargement. It is important, however, that after the Biden-Putin summit in Switzerland in June, the Russians, once again, persuaded Washington to hold talks. Meanwhile, the very conversation on the future of Central and Eastern Europe and the actual, albeit joint, decision-making regarding its fate is certainly a success for Russian diplomacy.

• Read more: The Potential Escalation of the Conflict Between Superpowers

The current concentration of Russian troops on Ukraine’s borders, the drastic reduction of gas supplies to Europe, and the hybrid war, which includes the ruthless use of immigrants on the Polish-Belarusian border, are aimed primarily at forcing concessions from the West and marking the Russian sphere of influence. The Kremlin seeks to create a buffer zone in the post-Soviet area that would separate NATO countries from Russia and be subject to Moscow’s influence. Belarus can definitely be considered as such. Despite the so-called Belarusian revolution, there is no sign of a change of power in Minsk, and the country’s multifaceted rapprochement with its “big brother” has even accelerated. Most analysts agree that this integration process will continue and the West will not have much to say in this matter. A disgraceful sign of this state of affairs is the relative marginalization of the Belarusian opposition’s activity in European countries. In fact, Alexander Lukashenko is not caught between a rock and a hard place. Only Putin can guarantee him continuous power, which translates into an even greater submission to the Kremlin.

The importance Belarus, Ukraine, and Poland, in the international game of the US, Germany, and France is evidenced by the consistent omission of Warsaw in political games with Moscow. Prior to the virtual summit with Vladimir Putin, Joe Biden spoke with the leaders of Germany, France, the UK, and Italy about the situation in Ukraine. Kiev and Warsaw were not invited, which certainly shocked some experts in Poland. But it should not have. Despite the relatively tough stance towards Moscow, outlined above, the American leader strongly emphasized that conflicts with Russia should be resolved through dialogue. The conversation was a part of Biden’s talks with European allies who jointly called on Russia to deescalate tensions. The goal of US diplomacy and its major allies is not to worsen the already heavily strained relations with Russia. It is well known that Americans have long focused their attention on China. They want stability in Europe and the reduction of their own costs, for instance through “encouraging” European NATO members to increase their defense spending and getting along with Russia. Although recently France has been noticeably less friendly towards Russia (and it usually is), Paris does not intend to worsen its good relations with Moscow. It seems that only the Russian aggression against Ukraine can change that.

On the other hand, Germany is making it very clear that Kyiv is not the most important party. Leaving aside its stance on Nord Stream 2, the best example of Germany’s attitude towards Kyiv is the situation from October 2021, when the Armed Forces of Ukraine used a Bayraktar UAV in response to Russian shelling and the death of a Ukrainian soldier. Consequently, during a briefing on October 27, the representative of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs Andrea Zasse stated that “Berlin is very concerned about the increase in the intensity of hostilities in eastern Ukraine” and condemned Ukraine for using the drone. The response from the Ukrainian side was unequivocal.

• Read more: A Preview of the Digital Future

Paweł Soloch, Head of the Polish National Security Bureau, tweeted a day before the Biden-Putin meeting that high Polish officials had spoken with their American counterparts. The talks between Rau and Blinken as well as Błaszczak and Austin, among others, were supposed to be the consultations before the Washington-Moscow talks, and the US was supposed to show support for Ukraine. Unfortunately, however, this does not change the fact that the Americans have shown us that we are not among their greatest European allies. Their stance is not influenced by initiatives that seem to be important from the American perspective, such as the Bucharest Nine or the Three Seas Initiative. In turn, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Paweł Jabłoński was less disparaging: “We negatively assess the omission of Central and Eastern European countries in the US-Russia talks. It is simply a mistake.” It is hard to disagree with this statement, certainly from the Polish perspective. In Europe, our country is known for intransigent attitude towards Russia, which is not to the liking of many. Despite the “great” rhetoric for the sake of internal political games and unnecessary discord, such international policy simply harms us. Our political elites must finally realize this and adjust their actions accordingly to the real position of Warsaw and our geopolitical situation in the region.

The rift in NATO is becoming increasingly clear, and not just because of Russia. The perception of threats is quite different in the southern and eastern countries of Europe. The French and Italians (not to mention the Iberian Peninsula) focus primarily on the dangers of Islamization and illegal immigration. Russia is not a major threat to them, rather a troublemaker with whom, however, business can and should be done. NATO’s eastern flank sees Russia as the main danger and this is hardly surprising. The Kremlin’s aggressive policy has been evident at least since 2007 and the cyberattack on Estonia, not to mention the aggression against Georgia a year later. After all, Warsaw needs to realize that Russia is not the main threat to the most important NATO members now and most of the major players want to get along with Moscow. Failing to understand this may cost us a lot.

Even though war seems too costly for the Kremlin, Russia will certainly continue its policy of threatening with a potential conflict since it is clearly beneficial to it. It is vital to ask how far will the West go to simply please and calm down the Kremlin. It seems that appeasement may lead to further demands, which will eventually turn into imaginary and impossible Russian ultimatums.

Author:

Adrian Kolano 

Editorial director of the European Foreign Affairs. Graduate of history at the University of Rzeszów and international relations at the University of Warsaw. Scholarship holder at the University of Lund. He is interested in current political affairs in Sweden as well as the security and history of the region. 

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald J. Trump strongly emphasized the negative impact of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the international standing of the United States. Actions such as theft of intellectual property, undervaluation of the real value of the currency, state subsidies, or trade deficit were the main accusations against the communist regime. Nowadays, in the context of China’s power, not only the economic actions, but also the military and aggressive moves in the region are frequently discussed.

In a commentary for The Wall Street Journal, Andrew A. Michta, Dean of the College of International and Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, argues that a brief and unexpected conflict between the US and China could soon occur. Hal Brands of Johns Hopkins University and Michael Beckley of Tufts University, among others, are partially against this opinion. According to them, a potential armed conflict is indeed very likely, but it could extend over time and escalate into a world war, perhaps even a nuclear one. The researchers point out that the length of the conflict may be determined by the number of probable hotspots. Apart from Taiwan there are also other activities of the CCP that are widely criticized internationally, including the issue of Uyghurs. American political scientists claim that Taiwan will be the flashpoint. This is a likely scenario due to the ever-increasing conflict between Taipei and Beijing.

Regional concerns

The two superpowers are competing at the very top, and, in the long term, a finale other than destruction could be too costly for either party. In terms of arms spending, China ranks second with an annual budget of $245 billion in 2020. The United holds the first place with an expenditure of $778 billion in 2020, exceeding China’s military investment more than threefold. The PRC has become a more serious threat to the position of the White House than the Russian Federation. The belief that China is only expanding economically may soon be verified.

• Read more: A Preview of the Digital Future

Tensions are noticeable in the entire South China Sea region. Japan attempts to deter China with statements of support for Taiwan. Simultaneously, it declares to maintain the American presence in the country. On the other hand, Australia purchases new nuclear submarines and joins a new strategic alliance.

On September 15, 2021, the US, the UK, and Australia signed the AUKUS agreement concerning defense strategy and technology, such as artificial intelligence (AI), information technology, quantum technologies, a submarine warfare program, and long-range missiles. The main beneficiary in this case is Australia, which is a relatively lone representative of Western civilization in the region, while the PRC’s fleet is steadily growing, thus gaining an advantage in this part of the world. As a result of the new partnership, the Australian Navy obtained nuclear vessels and BGM-109 Tomahawk tactical cruise missiles for Hobart-class destroyers. Interestingly enough, France was originally supposed to be a major part of the deal. However, Canberra’s purchase of French submarines would have involved frequent servicing, hence Australia opted for American ships with an indefinite service life. Media reports indicate that AUKUS was established at the initiative of Australia, disappointed by cooperation with France since 2016.

AUKUS is not the first attempt to control the Chinese expansion – others include QUAD and the Five Eyes alliance. It is important to note that the United States has entered into each of these partnerships since it wants to be perceived as the main superpower that defends the values of the free world. At the same time, the matter of defending freedom values by Washington is not so certain if economic issues are taken into account. Since 2017, the White House’s trade policy has been characterized by isolationism, seeking to break the established supply chains of which China is an important part. On the other hand, the PRC seeks to be seen as the defender of the free trade, thus appropriating the position of the US as the hegemon, which formulates the rules of the global economy.

Tariff war

Since 2017, the year Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 45^th President of the United States, the long-standing US-China tensions have been turned into actions in line with proposals from the 2016 presidential election campaign. In the first year of his term, already in April, Trump met with the President of the PRC. Later that year, in August, the White House commissioned a study of Chinese laws and practices on technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. This was the aftermath of Chinese manufacturers copying Western products and flooding the international market with their modified designs. Between 2018 and 2021, there were a number of new tariffs on specific Chinese products, including steel and aluminum, among others, but also direct bans unrelated to duties on goods. On May 16, 2019, a milestone was set in the US fight against Chinese electronics manufacturers. At that time, the White House ordered the outright termination of US companies’ cooperation with Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies, one of the global leaders in the smartphone industry. The decision was connected to the end of support for Huawei products by Google, the developer of Android, at that time the main operating system of the Chinese brand’s devices, rendering the hardware useless for many.

Trump’s actions may have seemed misguided or hasty, but their validity was confirmed by his successor. In December 2020, President-elect Joe Biden indicated that he would not take any “immediate moves to lift trade war tariffs.” In May 2021, Liu He, Vice Premier of the PRC, and Katherine Tai, US Trade Representative, attended their first trade talks since August 2020, yet already in July America declared that talks would not be resumed.

Consequently, the US-China conflict is undeniably a cross-party issue, and, regardless of changes in the US administration, it will only escalate. Cooperation in the region of the South China Sea is growing in response to further challenges posed by China, which is steadily increasing its military capabilities. Even if the armed conflict remains only theoretical, its economic dimension will certainly continue.

Author:

Tadeusz Misterek – a graduate of political science at the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. During his studies, he was involved in journalism and coordination of activities in student and non-governmental organizations. Currently a student of international relations at the University of Warsaw and a member of the International Analysis Club of the University of Warsaw. His main interests are geopolitics, international economic relations and Industry 4.0.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

Article delivered by client

What are we going to see happening in the year ahead when it comes to gaming in the UK? Is it going to be a year about big titles or new technology? Will we really start to make our first tentative steps into the Metaverse, or be satisfied with the established gaming experiences that we have come to know and love?

There is no doubt that online gaming is a huge global success, and the UK market alone is estimated to be worth $5.53 billion in 2021, making the UK the 6^th largest market in the world. It is estimated that there are more than three billion players globally and this number is constantly increasing thanks to ever-emerging technology trends.

The Covid 19 pandemic has actually been beneficial to the gaming industry which saw a massive uplift across all platforms and in all regions. It is predicted that this growth will continue in 2022.

Virtual Reality

Virtual reality games have been one of the biggest recent innovations in online gaming. These games offer an immersive experience with everything looking incredibly real. The player wears a headset to transport them into the game’s reality. The current crop of top titles includes Star Wars Squadrons, Jurassic World Aftermath, and Stride. It is expected that the developers will continue to create new titles, bringing even more excitement to the gameplay. We can also expect to see other technological devices to augment the experience, be that a glove that enhances the sense of touch or lightweight glasses that would replace the headsets. These are certainly the dreams of those creating the world in the Metaverse.

Social Gaming

While we may be a little while off from these ambitions social gaming platforms will likely continue to go from strength to strength. Minecraft must be the ultimate title in this genre where gameplay is goalless, and the play is about social engagement in an active community. Social gaming will continue to be important in 2022 with ongoing titles such as Farmville, The Sims, and Mafia Wars continuing to attract new players.

A developing trend is that of the social casino where virtual rewards are earned for the completion of tasks. These rewards can then be ‘cashed in’ for spins and wins at a virtual casino within the game. No real money is involved – it’s virtual cash, played at a virtual casino – all the thrills of the gamble without the risk. The average social casino gambler is middle-aged and female, however, with games like Grand Theft Auto introducing casino elements 2022 will likely see more young men also taking up this trend.

Online casinos

The world of real online gambling is expected to continue to grow in 2022. It is now possible to enjoy the rush of the casino without having to leave your own home. You set up an account, make a deposit, and can access whatever area of the casino takes your fancy. Maybe it’s a game of Poker, Roulette, or Blackjack that will be your choice of play.  Or is it the slots that you will be drawn to? In 2022 we can expect to see many exciting developments on the best new slot sites with games to suit every genre and pocket. These online casinos offer some great bonuses to enhance your experience so keep a lookout for these.  

Streaming

Something else to watch out for in 2022 is cloud gaming. As long as you have a stable internet connection and a gaming device. Cloud gaming gives you instant access to games meaning you no longer have to download content, apps, and files. Essentially cloud gaming is streaming for gamers and we can expect to see this continue to grow in popularity.

Essentially online is where the gaming will be in 2022.

The last two years of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic have led to immense changes in the way we use technology. While the coronavirus wreaked havoc in the real world, breaking supply chains and limiting the availability of services, it accelerated changes in the digital world that would otherwise have taken years. In 2020 and 2021 we have observed the rapid and massive integration of services that admittedly existed before, but we did not use on such a large scale.

The best example is the e-commerce sector, which was growing long before the pandemic hit. In 2018, the global e-commerce market was valued at $2.98 trillion and it grew by 13% in the following year. Back then, however, few people used services such as ordering groceries or necessities from online stores. The pandemic has forced changes in our habits. In 2020, the e-commerce market grew by 28%, compared to 2019, and is projected to be worth about $5 trillion by the end of 2021 [1]. Another noticeable change is the way we use the means of telecommunications. Until recently, meetings via video chats were the domain of IT companies and an additional way of communicating in global enterprises. Today, they are a primary means. This transformation is not only affecting almost all industry sectors – it has equally affected the education system and our private lives. Moreover, we are witnessing the emergence of new innovations, supported by modern technologies. Augmented reality and holographic telepresence are no longer the domain of science-fiction movies. These solutions are slowly being implemented today and certainly they will become even more popular in the upcoming decade.

• Read more: NATO’s Role in the Hybrid War on the EU Border

Digitization, enforced by the pandemic, will not go away and the technologies we are using will evolve. The more we use digital tools, the more we realize how much we need to improve them. This process is inevitable. Developed countries are aware of this and are putting increased emphasis on the digital transformation. This is taking place in multiple sectors, thus enabling the economy to grow across industries. In 2020, the United States was the undisputed leader in terms of digital growth. The US has the largest knowledge base, a competitive market size, and a legal system that is prepared for the digitization. The Euler Hermes report [2] shows only one weakness of digitization in the US – the connectivity quality. In this regard, Denmark outperforms all other countries thanks to the provision of high-speed broadband Internet (NGA) to its citizens, as well as a very high degree of use of high-speed Internet connections and the highest coverage of wireless technologies in Europe. In the Euler Hermes 2020 Enabling Digitalization Index (EDI) Poland was ranked 31^st. However, its standing is constantly improving, mainly due to the improvement of connectivity quality and the expansion of the knowledge base.

Both global economies and people seen as individuals are generally resistant to such far-reaching changes. In this respect, the role of the external factor has been significant. The pandemic allowed us to adapt quickly to the new way we use technology in our daily lives. From the perspective of previous years, we have taken full advantage of the time to look for solutions that will help us recover quickly. A great range of companies have accelerated investments in automation and digital transformation. In different circumstances, a number of them might have been put off or not undertaken at all. It is worth noting that the biggest problems related to the pandemic occurred in businesses that had abandoned digitization efforts in the past and failed to act early in the crisis.

Author:

Wiktor Sędkowski graduated in Teleinformatics at the Wrocław University of Science and Technology, specialized in cybersecurity field. He is an expert on cyber threats. CISSP, OSCP and MCTS certificates holder. Worked as an engineer and solution architect for leading IT companies.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/379046/worldwide-retail-e-commerce-sales/

[2] https://www.eulerhermes.com/content/dam/onemarketing/ehndbx/eulerhermes_com/en_BE/belgium/01-documents/2021_02_17_%20Euler%20Hermes_Digital%20resilience.pdf

At the turn of November and December 2021, NATO Foreign Ministers met in Riga, Latvia, to discuss the increasingly tense geopolitical situation in Eastern Europe. The main talks focused on the Russian forces deployed not far from Ukraine’s borders and signs that indicate preparations for a military offensive.

On the sidelines of this summit, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Zbigniew Rau held bilateral talks with his counterparts from Great Britain, Spain, Sweden, and Iceland. They concerned, among others, the tense situation on the border between Poland and Belarus as well as actions that should be taken against threats to the security [1]. The situation in the region is further aggravated by the fact that on November 29, 2021, Minsk announced its readiness to conduct large-scale joint exercises with Russia near the Ukrainian border.

• Read more: Turkey: An unruly NATO partner?

Over the past years, NATO has done much to prepare for and deter a conventional attack from Russia. NATO’s strengthened defense planning process has improved allied capabilities, while preparedness initiatives have shortened the Alliance’s response time. Countries on the eastern flank, including Poland, have expanded their defensive capabilities through training and building a structure of the Territorial Defense Forces. It is more than likely that in the event of an open conflict and a Russian attack on Poland, Estonia, or Lithuania, a strong and decisive response by the united forces of the allies would repel the enemy’s assault. The Kremlin is probably aware of this [2], which is why it is not initiating an open military action. Similarly to the Russian military aggression against Ukraine in 2014, Russian efforts against the West concern the hybrid domain. In order to destabilize the situation in the region as well as create internal tensions and conflicts between NATO countries, these activities focus on disinformation operations, cyberattacks, and political manipulation.

The Alliance still struggles to respond quickly to the events that do not quite fit into NATO’s strategic concepts [3]. According to the strategy, deterrence is based on the right mix of nuclear and conventional capabilities – it remains an essential element of our overall strategy. Hybrid threats, disinformation, or cyberattacks cannot be responded to in accordance with the “right mix.” The necessity of building deterrence capability in this field was confirmed by the Head of the Cyber Security Department of the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) Illia Vitiuk during the “Freedom of Speech” program on November 29 when he said that “to date, about 7,000 officers of special services work against Ukraine from the territory of the Russian Federation.” According to him, “since the beginning of this year, the SBU Cyber Security Department has blocked 15 extensive networks of anti-Ukrainian Internet agitators and has shut down about 20 sockpuppet farms with a capacity of more than 150,000 accounts.” That is 150,000 of non-existent people who comment, share publications, as well as write and evaluate events, spreading disinformation and shaping public mood [4]. Polish intelligence services faced similar problems. From the beginning of the crisis on the eastern border of the EU and Belarus they have been counteracting organized disinformation activities that were controlled and supervised by Belarus. According to the Polish government, this is the greatest attempt to destabilize Europe in 30 years [5].

• Read more: Internal US Problems

Undoubtedly, the Alliance should adopt a “comprehensive approach” to counter hybrid threats. It should use existing powers and other tools to develop a multilateral, yet coherent approach to non-military aspects of hybrid conflicts. More and more often experts suggest that NATO should build closer partnership with the private sector, which has been common in the United States for a long time. Moreover, member states could cooperate with it in order to increase their offensive capabilities. Mainly defensive and deterrent ones, but also counterattacks, targeting the creators of hybrid threats. In 2018, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said: “NATO leaders agreed that a cyber-attack could trigger Article 5 of our founding treaty. Where an attack on one Ally is treated as an attack on all Allies.” Steps have also been taken to build up military capabilities in cyberspace. In early November, 2021, the Polish government presented a homeland defense draft bill that intends to form the Cyber Defense Forces at the statutory level. Thus, the Alliance has not only the capability, but also the capacity for operations in this area. Integrating the cyber armies of allied countries seems to be a natural and essential step. In the case of hybrid actions, such as the ones that we are able to observe on the Alliance’s eastern flank now, NATO countries must act responsibly and coherently.

Author:

Wiktor Sędkowski graduated in Teleinformatics at the Wrocław University of Science and Technology, specialized in cybersecurity field. He is an expert on cyber threats. CISSP, OSCP and MCTS certificates holder. Worked as an engineer and solution architect for leading IT companies.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

[1] https://www.gov.pl/web/dyplomacja/spotkanie-ministrow-spraw-zagranicznych-nato-w-rydze

[2] https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/85900

[3] https://www.bbn.gov.pl/ftp/dok/01/koncepcja_strategiczna_nato_tlumaczenie.pdf

[4] https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-defense/3359949-sbu-about-7000-russian-security-officers-destabilizing-situation-in-ukraine.html

[5] https://www.gov.pl/web/granica/centrum-prasowe-na-polsko-bialoruskiej-granicy-unii-europejskiej

[6] https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/06/when-does-cyber-attack-demand-retaliation-nato-broadens-its-view/175028/

The United States has faced multiple problems in recent years. The pandemic has highlighted them and revealed how fragile the American economy is.

During the difficult winter wave of coronavirus (2020–2021), a change in the White House took place. Upon assuming the office, Joe Biden faced many challenges, however, he had enjoyed a relatively strong public support. According to a poll conducted by the Quinnipiac University early in Biden’s presidency, 53% of Americans approved of the new president, while 36% did not. Recent surveys carried out by the same institution show quite the contrary – the incumbent president’s job approval rating is down to just 36%. While some polls reveal slightly better ratings for the Democrat, all of them suggest a huge drop in support since July.

One of the reasons for this is certainly the very inept withdrawal from Afghanistan. The related events were a watershed that started a negative trend in popularity of the new president. Another issue which definitely has a negative effect on the public opinion is the return of the pandemic and restrictions connected to it, which were causing a lot of concern already throughout Trump’s term. During the electoral campaign, Biden made promises to better handle the coronavirus crisis. And while those words fell on fertile ground back then, they are causing him to lose support now. Additionally, a lot of resentment towards the governance of Joe Biden among some of the Democrats could be noticed. Undoubtedly, the lack of unity in the party does not provide a sense of stability and full backing of the supporters.

• Read more: Turkey: An unruly NATO partner?

A lack of approval for the incumbent president is not the only trouble for the United States – its debt is on the rise. While this is a rather well-known fact, recent deficits have reached record highs. The federal budget deficit, which is the difference between government revenues raised through taxes, among others, and its expenditures, has reached $2.77 trillion, or 10.3% of gross domestic product (GDP), the second highest level since 1945. This is an improvement over 2020, when the deficit was $3.13 trillion. For comparison, prior to the pandemic, the largest US deficit to date ($1.4 trillion) was reached in 2009, when the global financial crisis was taking its toll. In both cases, the state made huge expenditures to keep the country out of recession. The budget gap is projected to widen significantly over the next two decades, reaching 13.3% by 2051. At the beginning of last month, the US Congress approved a short-term increase of the debt limit to $28.88 trillion, allowing the Biden administration to continue using extraordinary measures in order to avoid a first-ever insolvency.

However, in the long run, the rising debt could increase the risk of a fiscal crisis and higher inflation, as well as undermine confidence in the US dollar, making it more expensive to finance public and private activities in international markets. Additionally, the cost of servicing public debt will increase significantly in such case. Consequently, economic production or infrastructure development will slow down.

The unfavorable economic situation is also influenced by increasingly higher inflation rates. In recent months, US inflation growth has been higher than expected. Supply chain problems, changes in demand, increased government spending, the energy crisis, as well as other issues directly or indirectly related to the pandemic, are contributing to the high inflation. US consumer prices rose 0.9% month-over-month in October and as much as 6.2% year-over-year. This is the highest rate since December 1990. Such high inflation is mainly caused by higher prices of gasoline (+49.6%), used cars (+26.4%), and food (+11.9%). The increase in core inflation, the one that does not take into account food and energy prices and is used by the central bank when interest rates are set, was particularly surprising. This issue also undermines Biden’s credibility and support for him – during the election campaign he promised that any inflation would be short-lived, yet the reality turns out to be different.

Climate change, which has led to a significant increase in the frequency and magnitude of natural disasters in the US, has become a cause for concern in recent years. At the beginning of October 2021, the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated that the United States has experienced weather disasters such as droughts, forest fires, floods, and tropical cyclones. Eighteen of them caused losses exceeding $1 billion each, a record high after three quarters of the year. The cost of property and infrastructure damage from these events in the first nine months of the year totaled more than $104 billion, already $4 billion more than in all of 2020. According to NOAA, the total costs for the past five years represent nearly one-third of all expenses incurred from this cause over the past 42 years. Certainly, the continued increase in the number and magnitude of natural disasters will negatively impact the health of the US economy and its budget.

Recently, the United States has also been facing a huge crime wave. According to new FBI statistics, the US has experienced the largest recorded annual increase in murders in history, with the national murder rate increasing by nearly 30% in 2020, the biggest jump in six decades. This is linked to, among others, the pandemic that has affected many different aspects of life in America, including social welfare, mental health, and the economy.

• Read more: Post-COVID-19 Economic Complications

The United States gained political, economic, and military dominance on the international stage in the 20^th century. However, the world is constantly changing and it is very difficult to maintain the leadership. In recent decades, the countries fighting for dominance in the international arena have been joined by China, which has become a serious competitor, especially in terms of economy. China’s wealth increased from $7 trillion in 2000 to $120 trillion in 2020. The wealth of the United States has more than doubled within the same period (to $90 trillion).

The position of the United States on the international arena seems to be weakening, and those in power are facing increasingly serious problems, not only the external, but also, and perhaps more importantly, internal ones. The question is whether it will be possible to reverse this negative trend and restore the position that the US built in the second half of the 20^th century by making America “great again.” We will know the answer in the next few years.

Author:

Jakub Łyjak graduated from law at the University of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań and economics at the Poznań University of Economics. He also studied Business Administration (Betriebswirtschaftslehre) at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität in Münster. He gained professional experience in the field of law and non-governmental organizations, including Polish Entrepreneurship and Leadership Association and Center for American Studies.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/