The Nearing Crisis of Demographics

By George Friedman July 8, 2025 @ Geopolitical Futures

(Editor's Note: Geopolitical Futures is a subscription site.  If you're confused as to how, why, and what is going on in the world and you're looking for answers, GF is well worth the subscription.   George Friedman is the Founder and Chairman of Geopolitical Futures, a respected strategist, creator of the field of geopolitical forecasting and an international best selling author of books such as The Next 100 Years and The Storm Before the Calm, which I've read and I think is excellent.   I would like to thank Mr. Friedman for allowing me to publish this article.    To read more of George's and his team's analyses subscribe through this link.  RK)

There are moments when I am exhausted by crises that come and go, and remember the next real existential crisis of humanity. It puts things in perspective. Please forgive my momentary indifference to the current crisis of the week.

In my 2009 book, “The Next 100 Years,” I forecast that the next major socioeconomic problem would stem from a demographic crisis, with falling birth rates, decreasing death rates and increased life expectancy.

Birth rates are falling in the United States and other parts of the world. Last year, the U.S. birth rate was about equal to the death rate. Next year, the death rate is expected to be slightly higher than the birth rate. According to forecasts, in the next 10 years – perhaps as early as 2033 – declining birth rates will become a long-term reality at the same time that life expectancy increases to 80.4 years from 78.4 years. This seems like a small increase, but given the size of that age group and the contracting birth rate, it implies an era-defining crisis.

My model of American history is that the socioeconomic status quo shifts every 50 years. I forecast that the late 2020s will be when the current cycle ends and the new one begins. If I am right, and the numbers seem to indicate it, then the issues we are obsessed with at the moment will fade into history just as Watergate did.

Economists tell us that the economy pivots on land, labor and capital. If so, we are entering a period in which labor will contract, and, with it, so will capital. I say that because the numbers indicate that the labor force will shrink over the coming years, while the rate of consumption will increase. With death rates falling and life expectancy expanding, consumption will increase in two ways. First, the elderly will continue to consume long after they have stopped working, and second, their consumption habits will be heavily skewed toward health care services. One solution is euthanasia for the elderly, to which I am totally opposed. The other is a radical transformation of the medical system, with the goal of increasing the productivity of the elderly, particularly between the ages of 65 and 80.

Each 50-year cycle is driven by a core technology that emerges to meet a social need. Over the past 50 years, the core technology has been based on the microchip, which supports a range of industries and activities and powers the economy. In the previous period, from about 1930-80, the pivotal technology was the automobile, which enabled a substantially growing population to leave cities for the suburbs yet continue to work in industries centered on cities. In a way, the microchip created, among other things, a communications system that allowed for population dispersion without loss of connectivity.

If this model of socially driven innovation holds, then the next 50 years will pivot on revolutions in medicine. As life expectancy grows, the level of productivity of the elderly must at least match the level of consumption in order to maintain capital flow. We are already seeing significant advances in medicine derived from material science, which enables engineering at the molecular level, aided by artificial intelligence. I do not see AI as the central technology because it is a tool, not the solution. The next breakthrough lies in rethinking the human body through multiple disciplines and technologies.

We need to consider the origins of this crisis. First, medicine is guilty of already extending life expectancy dramatically. Second, the decline in the birth rate is triggered by radical – and related – changes in culture and medicine. Medicine created the birth control pill, which made feminism as a social movement possible. Once women could limit the number of children they had without celibacy (I am not touching abortion), they could more easily enter and remain in the workforce. Indeed, women entering the workforce has, up until now, sustained productivity despite falling birth rates.

The current U.S. administration is obviously aware of this problem and is proposing legislation to encourage more births. Its proposal is to give parents $1,000 for each child born between January 2025 and December 2028 to invest in their future. The legislation also increases the child tax credit to $2,200 from $2,000 per child starting in 2026.

Another current crisis related to the demographic problem is immigration. All advanced industrial nations will face this demographic crisis, and in the early parts of the cycle, before the crisis is in full swing, they will begin competing for workers, particularly at the menial and unattractive levels. That is hardwired in the numbers. Immigrants stabilize labor markets, consumption and capital formation. While we wait for radical medical solutions to be found, we need to think a little about not only how migration can meet demand for low-skilled workers in sectors like agriculture and farming, but also how helpful the educated and integrated children of immigrants will be in the next 50 years.

Again, I apologize for this strange discourse, but after constant study of the actions of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Benjamin Netanyahu, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, one needs a break – if not bed rest – then at least a discourse on anything not mentioning one of them.

"Copyright 2025 Geopolitical Futures, LLC.  Reprinted with permission."  

George Friedman

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/author/gfriedman/

 

George Friedman is an internationally recognized geopolitical forecaster and strategist on international affairs and the founder and chairman of Geopolitical Futures. Dr. Friedman is also a New York Times bestselling author. His most recent book, THE STORM BEFORE THE CALM: America’s Discord, the Coming Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond, published February 25, 2020 describes how “the United States periodically reaches a point of crisis in which it appears to be at war with itself, yet after an extended period it reinvents itself, in a form both faithful to its founding and radically different from what it had been.” 

 

The decade 2020-2030 is such a period which will bring dramatic upheaval and reshaping of American government, foreign policy, economics, and culture.

 His most popular book, The Next 100 Years, is kept alive by the prescience of its predictions. Other best-selling books include Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe, The Next Decade, America’s Secret War, The Future of War and The Intelligence Edge. 

 

His books have been translated into more than 20 languages. Dr. Friedman has briefed numerous military and government organizations in the United States and overseas and appears regularly as an expert on international affairs, foreign policy and intelligence in major media. 

 

For almost 20 years before resigning in May 2015, Dr. Friedman was CEO and then chairman of Stratfor, a company he founded in 1996. Friedman received his bachelor’s degree from the City College of the City University of New York and holds a doctorate in government from Cornell University.

What do Politics, Cognitive Dissonance, and Eusapia Palladino Have in Common?

Truth is the sublime convergence of history and reality.

By Rich Kozlovich  

Recently I came across this article, When Marie and Pierre Curie Investigated a Psychic Medium, which I found interesting because I knew about this embrace of Spiritism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was a very real phenomenon.   I also knew it was embraced by many very prominent people, including scientists, most of whom were likely adherents of Darwin's evolutionary theories, which he published in his book Origin of Species in 1859, which I brilliantly refute here. 

First, I don't believe there really are true atheists.  There are intellectual atheists, but underneath all that is a foundational/emotional belief in something larger and more powerful than just the physical world.  Why? Because we're designed to believe!  It's part of our genetic core.  Does everyone really find this to be all that extraordinary? Anthropologists have noted that in every culture in the world, and in all of human history, religion, the belief in higher powers, has played an important role in people’s lives.  And it's clear this embrace of Spiritism by scientists proves that.   They, just like everyone else, fear finality!

There was one prominent atheist, Antony Flew, who claimed at the end of his life he was now a believer. Why?  Could it be "there are no atheists in foxholes"? Of course the explanation by atheists was he had lost his mind.  Yet even Albert Einstein, who was not a religious person in any sense, and absolutely rejected the idea of a personal God, also rejected the idea of atheism.   He felt it defied logic.

For the believers among my readers the explanation is simple.  We're designed to believe. For the non-believers among my readers the explanation is simple also. There is no other logical explanation!

One of the most successful mediums of that era was a lady named Eusapia Palladino, and she was impressive.  However, she was caught and exposed over and over again as a fraud.

 "Magicians such as Harry Houdini and Joseph Rinn have claimed all her feats were conjuring tricks. According to Houdini "Palladino cheated at Cambridge, she cheated in l'Aguélas, and she cheated in New York and yet each time that she was caught cheating the Spiritualists upheld her, excused her, and forgave her. Truly their logic sometimes borders on the humorous."

Okay, so what does this have to do with politics, and more importantly geopolitics? Everything!  I'll tell you what, we'll come back to that.

On our domestic scene we're expected to believe Joe Biden was legitimately elected President of the United States, irrespective of the massive amount of evidence he was elected via voter fraud, and those of us who stated that from the beginning were called Flat Earther conspiracy nuts.   But time and truth are on the same side, and more states are having to admit to massive levels of voter fraud are showing up.  And the reaction from leftists and those in the media who arrogantly and smugly laughed and ridiculed those who challenged the validity of that election are now silent as church mice on the subject.

And yet in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, they still "believe" in Biden's presidency, which means they're now forced to believe diametrically opposing things, believing they're both "truth".   "Truly their logic sometimes borders on the humorous."

We have an administration that's tyrannically imposed fascist policies on America.  Whether it involved covid, immigration, spending, energy dictates, domestic policies, foreign relation, and yet they call Trump a fascist, and he must be defeated to "save our democracy".  Yet, The Biden-Harris Regime’s Coup Against Constitutional America Is Leading to Civil War. And we not only see leftists embracing Biden, we're seeing the media and RINO's embrace an abject rejection of Donald Trump for a second term.  "Truly their logic sometimes borders on the humorous."

One of my pet peeves is this idiotic rationale Russia had to attack Ukraine because they were afraid of NATO, and was in dire need of creating "defensive depth".  How laughable is that?   NATO without America couldn't fight it's way out of a wet paper bag let alone attack Russia, and America certainly had no desire or intention of attacking Russia. 

•  Russia Was Scared, So They Had to Attack Ukraine! Part I
•  Russia Was Scared So They Had to Attack Ukraine, Part II

All the political chicanery that went on that's thrown up as an argument in favor of Putin's actions is a load of horsepucky.  That kind of stuff has always gone on by all the parties involved, but the fact remains Russia before this war of aggression against Ukraine was safer than it's ever been in it's entire history.    "Truly their logic sometimes borders on the humorous."

I have seven rules of geopolitics: 

1. First Rule of Geopolitics: All geopolitics is about four factors, geographics, demographics, economics, and that most elusive factor of all, the happiness factor.  
   
2. Second Rule of Geopolitics:  Everything is about the basics.  You have to be able to see issues at their foundational root levels in order to understand and fix complex problems.
   
3. Third Rule of Geopolitics:  History is everything since historical events lay the foundation for the social paradigms of nations, which have been in effect for centuries in most areas of the world.
   
4. Fourth Rule of Geopolitics:  People are like nations, and will act in their own best interests, unless they don't.  
5. Fifth Rule of Geopolitics: Nothing is ever as it appears.  Look behind the curtain, there's always something hidden. 
6. Sixth Rule of Geopolitics:  The patterns of life keep repeating over and over again. 
   
7. Seventh Rule of Geopolitics:  Everyone lies.    
   

I have a particular fondness for rules number two and three, as those lead to clarity as to the intention of world leaders.  

America is stunningly unique in all of world history.  We don't have the same type of foundational social paradigms as does the rest of the world.  We really don't understand theirs, at least as a surface understanding.  I can understand that lack of depth of understanding when it comes to the general population, but that's inexcusable for geopolitical analysts and world leaders.  

And understand, they absolutely don't understand American democracy, personal rights, and capitalism.  It's alien to them.  We really need to get that if we're to understand why they do the things the do, and the things we should and shouldn't do.  History is everything, and the founding fathers admonition of staying out of foreign conflicts was more prescient than we realized!  

These nations all had monarchs, absolute rulers, many of whom were empire builders, and that foundational social paradigm impacts the thinking of those nations and their leaders today, including Putin.  He loves Russia, Russian history, and make no mistake about it, he absolutely loves and desires the return of Russian imperialism.  However, his schemes are backfiring on him.  

Finland and Sweden have joined NATO, and not because they wish to attack Putin, but because they're afraid Putin will attack them, and I think their concern is justified.  Here's a history lesson for you:

The Great Northern War (1700–1721) was a conflict in which a coalition led by the Tsardom of Russia successfully contested the supremacy of the Swedish Empire in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe. The initial leaders of the anti-Swedish alliance were Peter I of Russia, Frederick IV of Denmark–Norway and Augustus II the Strong of Saxony–Poland–Lithuania. 

Frederick IV and Augustus II were defeated by Sweden, under Charles XII, and forced out of the alliance in 1700 and 1706 respectively, but rejoined it in 1709 after the defeat of Charles XII at the Battle of Poltava. George I of Great Britain and the Electorate of Hanover joined the coalition in 1714 for Hanover and in 1717 for Britain, and Frederick William I of Brandenburg-Prussia joined it in 1715.

Now Putin has deployed troops along Finland's border.  In spite of Russia's huge population, he's relying on mercenary troops, Ukraine has devastated Russia's Black Sea fleet with mass drone attacks, "and Russian forces continue to trade heavy losses for minimal gains on the Ukrainian battlefield."

•  Moscow’s Action in Ingushetia About Far More Than Counterterrorism
•  Russian Unity and Western Discord Converge in Putin’s Imagination

An article at Foreign Affairs entitled, The End of the Russian Idea, is a great history lesson and goes on to describe how Putin became a modern Russian Tsar, and why he's doing what he's doing, and his machinations that finally led to bringing total power into his hands alone.

Putin has merged the past to create his vision of the future.  By merging Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great with Joe Stalin, and the Russian Orthodox Church, which in the past was pretty much a organ of Tsarists governments, and had a strangle hold on Russian society in the past, all in order to create the same kind of relationship with Putin's government, with the same goal, a strangle hold on Russian society by persecuting all other Christian religions, all in violation of Article 18, Section 1 of the UN Charter on Human Rights.  

His goal is a vision of a return of Imperialist Russia.  He wants to pursue a policy of expansive Russian imperialism against all Russia's neighbors, including Poland, all of which Putin believes rightly belong to Russia based of past history, and has said so.  

Why Russia invaded Ukraine? .........This question continues to puzzle some Western analysts and scholars because of their inability to comprehend the true nature of Putin’s regime. The roots of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine lie in the Kremlin leader seeking to carve out a place in Russian history as the “gatherer of Russian lands” (alongside Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, and Joseph Stalin). This notion is a return to the imperial-nationalist denial of Ukraine’s existence and the belief in a pan-Russian people composed of “great,” “little,” and “white” Russians (Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians, respectively) (TASS, July 12, 2021; RBC, June 9, 2022; see EDM, October 3, 2022). Many Kremlin leaders believed that “Little Russians” were deluded into thinking they were Ukrainians by the Austrians and Poles before 1914, by Vladimir Lenin when he gave them a Soviet republic, and by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) since 1991 (Kremlin.ru, July 12, 2021; Pravda.ru, November 22, 2022).

So, based on all Putin's done, is doing, and has stated what he wants to do, why would anyone still buy into this insane argument about "fear of NATO, depth of defense" rationale to justify Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine?  "Truly their logic sometimes borders on the humorous."

So, back to the foundational question: "What do Politics, Cognitive Dissonance, and Eusapia Palladino Have in Common?"  An irrational desire to believe the unbelievable. 

Thank You Tucker Carlson!

By Rich Kozlovich Tags:  P&D Geopolitics Edition: Russo/Ukrainian War, and Donald Trump

George Friedman owns Geopolitical Futures, a paid site to which I subscribe.  He occasionally publishes free articles that I can link.   This is one of them, Putin’s Perspective on the Russia-Ukraine War.  Understand, a negotiated peace under Putin's terms is for Ukraine to capitulate, so let's start with that foundational truth.  

George's article discusses Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin, which the left and their myrmidons in the media railed against, some calling it treason and some in the EU even wanted to charge him with a crime. Imagine that.

Ya just gotta hand it to leftists, they really are into freedom of speech and the press, provided you don't say anything they don't like or approve of. Then they want to either censor you, have you fired, or put you in jail.  Can anyone tell me how that makes them any different than what Putin does in Russia or Xi does in China?  At any rate George went on to say: 

Russian President Vladimir Putin did something unprecedented last week: He held a two-hour press conference directed at the American public. It was not exactly a press conference, in the sense that Tucker Carlson, a talk show host perceived as sympathetic toward Russia, was the only reporter present. But neither was it, strictly speaking, an interview, as for most of the program, Putin held forth without the benefit of questions. In a sense, this made it more valuable because it allowed Putin to set out his views in an interesting and important way that might not have been possible had Carlson asked questions that were focused on an American perspective.

For the most part, I agree, but George painted a bit kinder of a picture of Putin than I would have discussing at length Russian history, to which he really is quite expert, but the basis for virtually everything he said was to justify his illegal war against a nation that in no way was a threat to Russia.

Putin has, at least in my mind, clearly memorized and practiced these arguments to convince himself of the "sacredness" of his "mission", and make no mistake, if Trump had been President this would not have occurred.  Also, if he'd swept Ukraine, the Baltic States would have been next, in spite of the fact they're part of NATO, which destroys his so-called "fear" of NATO expansion argument, which I will come back to. 

This was all about revanche !!!!! All that history Putin orated about was misdirection, diversion, smoke and mirrors. Get over it.

George in the past has been an aficionado of Putin's "depth of defense" excuse for Russia attacking Ukraine.  NATO was too close, therefore Russia had to conquer Ukraine to defend against aggression, which I addressed in these two articles, Russia Was Scared, So They Had to Attack Ukraine! Part I and Russia Was Scared So They Had to Attack Ukraine, Part II.

So that bodes well the question: Aggression against Russia by who?   No one says!  In the entire history of Russia, it's never been safer or more secure from foreign invasion.  George goes on to note what's really behind Putin's arguments, and I think rightly so:

[Putin] argued that Ukraine had always been part of Russia, physically and linguistically. Unstated but implicit in his argument, Ukraine is Russia, and the invasion of Ukraine simply represents the Russian world’s return to an older reality. This is why, according to Putin, Russia’s actions in Ukraine constitute a special military operation and not an act of war. He also spoke of Poland, hinting that Poland and Lithuania are renegades whose roots are inseparable from Russia........[this] gives Russia the right to make claims on foreign territory..........He did, however, lay the foundation for Russian claims in Poland.

So, now we know this had nothing to do with "depth of defense", it was all about revanche after all. His goal in his attack was to restore lost territories to Russian control, and that's a story that went back and forth for centuries involving Kievan Rus history, the Mongols, Tatars, Teutonic Knights, and The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.  

Russia is considered a "hordesland" nation, meaning it has few natural defensive barriers like mountain ranges, and "hordes" swept over Russia in times past, so the need to conquer barrier nations was a logical strategy in order to give Russia time to form armies to defend the nation.  Those days are are long gone, and the need for such a strategy is a myth.

His love of Russia, and his depth of knowledge regarding Russian history has been known for some time, so that shouldn't be a surprise, nor should it be an indication of the quality of his intelligence.  

I do think George's article was insightful, especially Putin's claims America's not dealing fairly with China economically.  According to Putin what America really needs to do is to surrender to China's world economic order to continue to exist, because China's future is the bright and shining way, and by implication, America is doomed without China. It would also end trade restrictions that prevent nations from supported Russia's military expansionism, and that was what he really wants.

I would have loved to have had Carlson ask why Russia's trying to work a deal to have a naval base on the African west coast?  How is that protecting Russia?  The interview was a was a mixture of truth, myth, irrational, illogical, and twisted history!  

He then goes on to threaten America with his claims of Russia's possession of hypersonic missiles, which reminds me of Khrushchev's claim in the late 50's they were turning out missiles like sausages.  Which everyone except Eisenhower believed, and Eisenhower was right.   Is this in reality what the Russians call maskirovka?  

Yes and no in my opinion.  

I have no doubt he has such missiles, but I also wonder about the quality of those missiles, and their ability to produce them quickly, or in mass since they can't even build their own drones having to buy them from Iran, and they have to purchase military equipment from N. Korea.  They're even tying their economics to N. Korea.  Imagine that!  N. Korea, how telling is that?

This wasn't an interview as we understand interviews in America.  Carlson didn't challenge him the way he would be challenged in America, and let's not lose sight of the fact, it's most likely he wasn't allowed, and the topics and questions were predetermined.   This was more of a lecture than in interview, and actually, I think that was very beneficial.  It's clear Putin loves the sound of his own voice, and thinks he can con everyone if given enough time.  It's been said he would have liked for it to have gone on longer, and it's been said he later regretted it went on that long as it exposed Putin's psychological and intellectual weaknesses, and I think it did.  

Having said that, it's clear the Ukraine government is corrupt beyond redemption, their population is dwindling via mortality or migration, and Ukrainians are upset at the tyranny imposed on them by their own government, even ending elections.  The funding bill introduced in the Senate has poison pills in it to prevent Trump from stopping the flow of that money, which is being stolen as fast as they can, and it's been reported that arms delivered to Ukraine has ended up in the hands of Mexican cartels.  That's not setting well with America.

Here's what I think is reality.  Ukraine is toast, and ultimately Russia is going to suffer economically over the long term, and their demographics problems just got a lot worse.  Russia as we know it is doomed. Ten years ago it was predicted ethnic Russians will be a minority in their own nation by 2040, and now after losing over 300,000 young Russian men, that time frame has been reduced. 

Europe Isn't Our Problem, Nor Our Responsibility

By Rich Kozlovich

On September 27th, George Friedman, owner of Geopolitical Futures, a site to which I recommend subscribing, posted an article entitled, Immigration, the Economy and the Italian Election.  This is a subscription article so I can't link it.  But, among other things, it's about the Italian election of a "hard-right" party in their parliamentarian election.  And Italy just recently elected Giorgia Meloni, a conservative who the media defines as "far right".  Being that Italian government is so far left, being far right in Italy would only mean being one foot to the right of the rest. 

He goes on to explain how economic polices in the EU are designed to help Germany, and Italy's needs and wants are different, and this issue is causing big problems for the EU, which is a mess, and immigration is one of the biggest messes Europe faces, both economically and socially. 

George is an immigrant himself and describes the difficulties for those who immigrated and lived in NYC, and I understand his view, which I will address later.   Yet he recognizes the immigration problems for Europe are far more divisive, and I think will become violent in the future.

Italy has had it with immigration from the Middle East and Africa, and want these Muslim immigrants to go to Germany, and since they keep promoting all this divisive immigration to Europe, Italy wants them to have them.

George wrote the book,  The Storm Before the Calm: America's Discord, the Crisis of the 2020s, and the Triumph Beyond, which dealt with the impact immigration waves have on the social and domestic structure of a society, but specifically he dealt with America. And remember, these were immigrants who came to the United States with very similar moral and ethical foundations, and yet the changes in America were significant.

Christians of all denominations, along with Jews share a commonality, and while there was violence and poverty for those immigrants in NYC and elsewhere, all those people pretty much became Americans in one generation because of their shared values. 

 

Those migrating to Europe, who are from African and Middle East countries have values totally antithetical to Europe's, and worse yet, they desire to destroy Europe as we know it.  There is no cultural commonality!

 

I was raised by my grandparents, who were immigrants, so for all practical purposes I'm a second generation immigrant, with no connection or desire to the "old country", and neither did any other members of my family, including those who immigrated here.  In fact all my grandparents were immigrants, and they all suffered,  but did so gladly since they "knew" no matter what they had to endure their children were going to have opportunities that would have never existed in Europe. 

 

The Protestants, the Orthodox, the Catholics and the Jews all had their prejudices and preferences, but no matter what problems existed, America was their melting pot to success, and they came here to be Americans, not some ethnic group who just happened to live in America.

 

Western Europe is doomed.  The EU is doomed, and in the past I predicted the fall would come by 2025, and it's looking like I might right on, but I'm convinced by 2030 for sure.  Some parts of Europe have already demographically gone past the point of no return for ethnic Europeans, and even Eastern Europe, which will not accept these Muslim immigrants, will suffer economically from Europe's collapse.

 

I do wish everyone would get this, say this, and act on this.  Islam isn't a religion.  It's a political criminal movement masquerading as a religion.  Once that's accepted, then all this is fixable.  But it won't be accepted.  Even in centuries past the European "Christian" kings would support the Ottoman Empire's military efforts against other European Christian nations if they saw some benefit to themselves. France and Venice were two of the biggest offenders.  

 

Europe is at best a leaky vessel, and if they sink, so be it.  America over the last 120 years has shed staggering amounts of American blood and obscene amounts of American money saving Europe, and it's time we stopped.  Let them fix their own problems..... or not ......but either way, leave us out of it.   

 

 

Donald Trump, Democrats, Impeachment and What they Don't Understand!

By Rich Kozlovich 

George Friedman is the owner of subscription political and economic news analysis site called Geopolitical Futures, a site to which I recommend subscribing.  I don't always agree with some of the writers observations, but I'm always impressed how much effort they put into researching each and every issue.  Depending on the topic, they lay out the history behind it all, the geography of the countries in question, their demographics and the economics driving these nations and their leaders. 

First off, I find Mr. Friedman has amazing insights quite often, but I also find myself in disagreement occasionally.  After the election he posted a not so flattering and partially inaccurate article claiming Trump caused the riot in the capitol.  (Editor's Note: As more information has come out perhaps he's changed his view on this. RK) While he acknowledges Joe Biden is of little importance he says he "will do his job well".  I really find that statement ....well.....strange......  since not one person can demonstrate to me, or anyone else for that matter, Biden ever did anything well.   

At any rate, he posted this article, Understanding Trump Thoughts in and around geopolitics, on January 14, 2021 saying: 

U.S. President Donald Trump’s supporters and detractors are both obsessed with him.  They share the belief that everything that has happened is because of him. His supporters believe his staying in office is crucial to the survival of the country. His opponents believe his removal is. The certainty of these facts among each group is both astounding and misguided. Trump did not create this moment. He was created by the moment. Trump was neither the key to solving America’s problems nor the key to causing them.

He goes on to say:

As I have argued on numerous occasions, there are powerful social, economic and institutional forces drawing their power from the pyramiding divisions within our society. Trump is a byproduct of those forces.

While I agree with some of his observations, I think he misses an important point. History has shown  there comes a period where the right times, the right circumstances and the right people come together create events that alter the direction the world is going.  Even if they're unaware of it themselves. 

After the American Revolution the Congress pretty much stiffed the soldiers and they were about to start a second revolution to overthrow the Congress.  Washington walked into the room and took out a letter, but he stopped reading, clearly unable to see clearly, and reached into his pocket to pull out a set of spectacles, which was a shock to the men as few knew he needed them, saying: 

"Gentlemen, "you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown gray but almost blind in the service of my country."

By the time he was done, there wasn't a dry eye among them and the revolt was over.  At that point in time no other man on the planet could have accomplished what Washington did that day.  

The time, the man, the circumstances!

This was the time, and Trump and his supporters are the people, and the circumstances haven't changed.  The time and circumstances that gave us Trump, are still with us, and his base is not only intact, it's in charge, even if the Republican leadership won't accept it.  

A base that sees him, with all his flaws, as clearly, and possibly more clearly, than do the pundits.  The difference?  They don't care about his flaws because just as Lincoln observed about Grant and his flaws:  He fights!  

That base will punish the Liz Chaney's, John Kasich's and a host of other "Republicans" politically!  But not to worry about them.  They've already sold their souls so the next step is to become well paid lobbyists and "good" Republicans for leftist media outlets. Of course no one who counts will care about their blather, their hysteria, or they're condemnation of Trump and his supporters, and their perfidy will haunt them for the rest of their lives.  For all practical purposes, they're toast.  

It seems to me Mr. Friedman clearly dislikes Trump, and for a lot of reasons, but it's my guess he's like many prominent analysts in his circle, which seems to be quite large and impressive.  It also seems to me none of them dare step too far out of that circle or they become a heterodox to their group, and that's a common trend among leaders today.  No one likes being the rock in the current.  

Understand this beyond any shadow of a doubt -  heterodoxy isn't for the faint of heart - nor is it acceptable to the group, whomever the group may be.  If one chooses that path, ostracism soon follows, directly or indirectly, but at some point everyone must come to that all important fork in the road,  and then decide to be, or to do!

However, some of his final comments are worth noting, although it seems clear, at least to me, he didn't mean this to be a positive expression, but in fact, these comments are factual statements that produce a positive reaction in me:

His voters were much more than they were given credit for. They hired a mercenary to fight for them, to lie when it was necessary, to slander those who slandered them, to write new rules for the political battlefield.................He will leave office with the Democratic Party still obsessed with him. It's a curious fixation, but the Democrats have the right target.

Tacit acknowledgement Trump is still a power to be reckoned with and is feared by the Democrat party.

The segment of society that mobilized itself and hired Trump is still out there, still enraged by the assault on them for decades, and still mourning their loss of Trump...........The more difficult job is to defeat Trumpism, to disabuse those who believe the Biden victory is a conspiracy against them. Trump, then, was happy to make certain he would leave office looking like a martyr for his supporters.  It is his supporters who challenge what has become normal. 

Again, Trump brings a dynamic to the table as no politician has since Reagan. 

That class remains intact. Trump does not have to hold office to lead them, and indeed out of office he could be stronger. Trump draws his power from two sources: speaking to the disenchanted and inciting his opponents to attack him. His great skill is in making himself so hated that everything revolves around him. A second impeachment plays right into his hands. But the Democrats have never understood Trump's power. They think that beating him in an election and impeaching him defeats him.

If I didn't know better I'd swear Trump is Serbian!

Below are some posts I think are worth viewing in relation to what I've said.   Please enjoy!

What's in the Heads of the Pro-Impeachment Republicans? - Mark Davis Jan 15, 2021 - So the gamble is this: in joining Democrats, the media, the Lincoln Project and every other corridor of Trump derision, have these wayward Republicans done themselves a favor or committed political suicide? Only time will tell, and the answer will be a factor of two Republican attributes: memory and forgiveness. 

Will America Survive Her Attempted Suicide? Rich Logis - Republicans have failed utterly in the macro dimension. But the micro might still be available to us as a route for salvation...........

Franklin Graham: 10 Republicans who voted to impeach are Judas - Revenge of the Neocons -  Julie Kelly -  The conflict between neoconservatives and the Trump base sets up a major battle for which faction will control the Republican Party in the post-Trump era...................

 

Liz Cheney reveals her inner Deep State - January 15, 2021 - She's still bitter at President Trump for ending of America's Bush- and Obama-era endless wars. ...........

Trump Adviser: Republicans Who Support Trump Impeachment Don’t Have Political Future - By Zachary Stieber - January 14, 2021 1 - Republicans who back the impeachment of President Donald Trump will likely be voted out of office, a Trump campaign adviser said Wednesday. “If you’re a Republican House member, or you’re a Republican senator, I don’t know how else to say this: you are probably self-selecting to end your political future if you vote for the impeachment of President Trump,” Jason Miller, chief strategist for the Trump campaign, said on “War Room.”.......