@@Call_me_Dali a economic crisis like the one we are currently experiencing doesn’t have the ability to halt our power. It can only slow Turkey down but the base remains extremely strong.
The problem with something like this, and I'm sure you see it too, is that you can't predict a massive world shaking event which are by nature unpredictable, but is likely to happen within the next 100 years. So this is really more of a, "if things continue as they are for the next hundred years" type list.
Buuuut it’s a channel thats heavily focused on geopolitics and speculative history. He says in the opening minute that it’s not gospel - and anybody who would think that is a fool. The actual question is - is it well informed and thought out? Are the factors that he is considering realistic? Nobody - especially the maker himself is is saying this is how it’s gonna be.
@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist How so? There are constants and variables that be calculates for, the no Englishman was able to calculate World War rising tensions and technology, and was completely blindsided by nationalist pride. There is some pride in seeing your own country do well, but there is some sense in it, and he says other countries will do well, unlike the nationalist Englishman.
@@SciRuler He says that the US will become the "next Roman empire" while ignoring that the US only has 4% of the world population (compared to a fifth of the world being Roman) and racial demographics will drastically change by end century (much more non-white).
I strongly believe that technology will bring in a massive shift in the way nations work and borders are shaped in the coming few decades, but we are simply too far behind to fully predict what that would entail Could be a massive wave of genetic engineering, could be a worldwide space race, we just don't know right now
I am Brazilian, and i can say that the south spliting off Brazil is a very popular joke in the south because they took pride on their culture,but almost nobody there really wanna leave the union,since they see this idea as some kind of funny thing of their past,just like Texans when it was a independent country for some years.Also,every brazilian state has enough culture and population to be a country of its own,but they had stayed togheter for so long,that they just see themselves as Brazilian...
There actually is an ongoing independence movement here in Texas. Unless the federal government get's reigned in back to it's traditional Constitutional bounds, I can see the US actually breaking up into multiple countries in the next few decades (or sooner).
Yeah, it's far-fetched. I can see his perspective as a North-American in throwing race as a decisive factor for secession, but really, race in Brazil is a very different beast than in the US.
@@randlebrowne2048 Nah the us won't break. We may have a civil war ala 100 BC Rome, but we'll have a Sulla type figure to usher the slow end of democracy in this age of the world.
When it comes to China, I strongly doubt that nations like Korea, Japan, or Vietnam will ever willfully submit to them the way they did 1500 years ago. After the rise of nationalism and other western enlightenment ideas, these countries stopped viewing China as their cultural and economic leader, and more like an oppressor and colonizer. The Indonesians even started to view their rich Chinese minority the same way the Germans viewed their rich Jewish minority in the 1930s. Historically, the Chinese empires have relied little on independent allies the way European powers did, choosing instead to simply colonize more land for China proper or having a few allies in regions they seek to project power through (such as some Central Asian Tribes). They have also been overwhelmingly land-based and self-sufficient, with little emphasis on mercantilism and trade. In those senses, the Chinese empires have always been more similar to ancient empires like Rome than more recent European Empires. If China is to expand (which judging by the instability and ethnic violence in regions like Xinjiang between the natives and Han Chinese, it seems unlikely) it would most likely be in taking Taiwan, Japanese pacific territories like Okinawa, or to exploit virgin lands in the Russian Far East and in Central Asia as you portrayed on the map. With the latter two, I would only see them to be very probable if coastal north China is wrecked by climate change. The colonization of the region of Manchuria, for instance, was largely caused by environmental and population troubles in the northern province of Shandong near the end of the Qing Dynasty, which caused Han Chinese to mass-migrate to the near uninhabited lands of Manchuria. The one exception to this is perhaps North Korea, which has become so culturally different from the south that I can see their regime trading self-rule for more material wealth and a bigger seat in the Chinese Imperium. In terms of a post-CCP China, many pro-CCP Chinese people are already what we in the west would consider right-wing and even ethno-nationalist, but a shift in the official policy of the government (such as ending the program of Affirmative Action for the ethnic minorities) I don’t think would make the Chinese state stronger, but only make border regions like Tibet and Xinjiang feel more alienated and more likely to start mass armed rebellions. If the USA is to wane in direct global power, countries like Japan and Korea would either go their own way or still maintain good relations with the USA, rather than drifting towards a new nationalist China. The point is, unless the Chinese cultural sphere can overpower a country’s own native population, they probably won’t submit to China, unless some unforeseen shift in philosophy takes place. No matter how honorable and right-wing a post-CCP China will be, a country like Vietnam will not just willingly re-enter the Chinese Imperium. China’s future is not re-establishing the Confuscian sphere of influence in the west Pacific, but instead establishing a new base of Chinese civilization in Central Asia.
Partly true, but one point to consider (maybe, as I can only speak out of a limited view living in one of these countries): not all embrace and/or understand the ideas of western "enlightenment"; heck, not even us westerners always understand that as the last two years have shown. If events happen where people are unsure or even anxious, they will almost always look for authoritarian leadership.
If the Vietnamese have found it acceptable to ally with the US which half a century ago killed millions, butchered entire villages, poisoned the land with agent orange, and left millions of mines and UXO strewn across the Vietnamese countryside, they will find a way to reconcile with China.
@@mace3632 "civic nationalism" is what western enlightenment gave us, and that is the most anti-natural idea in all of human history. It is literally wishful thinking with no connection to reality . All Empires come up with this crap eventually, because a united , homogeneous people doesn't pay as much taxes like a disjointed, muttified "nation" does.
What if China allow them to keep their culture at the cost of official language being speaking Mandarin ? Like modern China how every state live together now.
A major thing I've noticed in your Africa section is that you don't include the international countries influencing Africa today. China is most known for pushing to Africa, but other countries, such as France and the US, could also play a big role. As Africa sits on massive piles of natural resources and the perfect demographics that any government would want. I see many African nations being puppet states of greater powers, exporting their natural resources and cheap labour to jump-start their economies, before transferring other economic sectors
True. but I kinda agree with the dude the sub Saharan African nations have been born due to other countries decisions and as Africa becomes more educated it would push for redrawing it's borders via wars or peaceful political unions Of course there are infinite variables that will make themselves more apparent as time goes by.
iat aleardy a thing in a way when you see the old France africa most of these country still use the CFA franc and are the source of uranium of France (france will do everything to keep there power on thse country that are providing there electricity) these country are free but are still in the french sphere
The dude is just trolling this map is retarded and he knows it, things like French Guyana being in Brazil when it's the only space port of France a nuclear power and the EU lmao quit smocking.
I dont see how China will be a long term player in Africa, they simply dont have the power projection ability for it and will never have it. Add to that the fact that Africa is extremely poor and the resources it offers are better found in Siberia or central Asia. France, the us turkey and India (can, but very unlikely to do it) will be the players, Americas influence will be limited, France will be by far the biggest and will control all of west Africa, Turkey will control Egypt and Libya and finally India will be the defacto hegemon because of its size and navy but wont use that power unless a threat emerges and threatens it, so as long as no one bothers them and they control the Indian Ocean they will stay to themselves.
As a swiss person, the Idea of our nation ever splitting up along ethnic lines is absolutley ridiculous, no person in ticino would like to be part of italy, no person in the west-swiss would ever want to be part of france, and no person of the rest of Switzerland would ever want to be german. Switzerland doesn't even want to join the eu, because it wants to decide things on its own. being broken apart and ruled over by their big european neighbors woud be a nightmare for us. The idea of Switzerland and swiss patriotism is and will always be way stronger than ethnic nationalism.
I agree like im swiss and saw that and i was like...really? this guy knows nothing of swiss culture. They do not want to part to be part of anything let alone along ethnic lines.
All of this is true today.. but all of this has happened several times throughout history. The political stability we have in Europe today is artificial. If / when there is a major crisis, instability and fear will cause humans simply react instinctively and align with our "tribe". We can protest all we want, but human nature typically prevails.
The problem with these kinds of maps is they assume current trends hold. If I were in 1922 Britain and I were making a hypothetical 2022 map I would tell myself Britain is the world's sole superpower, has a strong identity, a lot of the world is in unstable and ripe for the picking and to cut a long story short, in 2022 the British Empire might be bigger and better than ever. Indeed, there were people who predicted this. Look how it turned out.
I mean's some of its current trends some of its cycles, like china and some others. Plus I think everyone things their nation will be the black swan, I know I do.
That would be silly. Britain was already losing speed to the US in 1922. If you actually studied it you would know the US was overtaking the UK by then and was the largest economy in the world. The US population was 100 million by then vs 40 million in the UK proper. 1822 would make sense for the UK to be dominant for the next 100 years. Which it was... So basically you proved his point. An astute observer i 1920 would be aware of that.
The issue is there’s really nothing holding the US back. And their won’t be for any time in the future minus a nuclear exchange or civil war. It’s more about geography and demographics. Any advantage you can think of for a nation state to have, the US had in spades. Really In unrivaled spades. The US will be a superpower whenever it decides to be as long as it’s unified. Now, how these other things play out depends on US interest. Like Iran. One reason they’d probably lose to Turkey in influence in the ME would be bc the US wills it to be so. China is another one. If they fall apart, the US could step in with Taiwan and AUKUS to basically reform that nation to our liking. Honestly I see the US being an even greater global hegemon in the next 100 years as the demographic time bomb explodes in China and Russia. The only possible rivals to US hegemony.
The degree to which the modern America resembles the Late Roman Republic is constantly surprising to me. Every time I'm like: "C'mon, this is lazy historical thinking. History doesn't repeat," I end up finding out some surprising detail about Late Republican politics that makes me think otherwise
The comparisons between the US and the Roman Republic are pretty crazy when you get into them start to finish. the lazy people are the ones that think we are close the the fall. Just the fall of the republic.
My greatest fear by far is that America becomes a far right or military dictatorship. The best armed people in this country would also support a fascist uprising, ban elections and political parties and call it freedom. This is the most plausible way Liberty could die in my view. This has happened before in other countries like Chile and Greece during the Cold War and could easily happen here
He didn't even mention the most ridiculous part of the map. Assuming that Hungary and Romania would unify is not even the craziest part, I can see reasons for it in the future, but it's still very unlikely. In no universe would the twice as populous Romania agree to call this new state Hungary though. This is like saying that France would join Germany and call their new state Germany. It's insane. This tells me he knows very little about this region and its history. Makes me question the rest of his predictions.
I agree, he makes some absolutely incredible assertations and I really don't think he knows what he's talking about 80% of the time. Espevially with China, like oh my God, Korea and Japan moving into a Chinese sphere of influence?? Seriously? He has no idea what he is talking about
Well the romanian population is decreasing rapidly and many young romanian families move out to western countries and their children can't even speak Romanian. Also the the still ethnical Hungarian parts of Transylvania usually stagnate or even the population is growing, Székelyföld for exemple. It is also worth mentioning that the Hungarian people are very revisionist, I mean that the younger generations maybe even more than the older ones.
For me, the turkish empire is really stupid. Its clear that this guy has wet dreams about the Ottoman empire. It wont happen again do și several reason. 1) Erogan: Turkey has a lot of potential, yet this dipshit doesnt really do anything about it, unless there are major politicals shifts I dont see it happening 2) People dont like their nation being occupied Lmao,just as easy as that.
Europe descending into war without the US seems unlikely. It's not a perfect continent but a lot of country's have strong ties and with what is going on in Ukraine it feels like it's becoming a lot more united. A few smaller areas want to split off but I doubt this would be a major plight that all of Europe has to deal with, it's limited to certain small areas
You cant really judge the situation yet, this is only 1 war. Not all of its effects have been realized yet, only 5-10% of the effects of it on the globe have been realized as of now. Btw the war will result in the largest population movement in world history, it will reach 12-15m 6 months in, we are already 6 weeks in and 5m have fled
@@cuddlemuffin.9545 The video is, I would say, relying too much on the adage *History Repeats Itself* instead of looking at what is currently happening and using it to make predictions i.e. a more united Europe leading into a period of unification, not seperation, it is simply looking at two groups 1000s of years ago and saying that what happened then will likely just happen again. Looking at current affairs I think the predictions don't real hold up, the world has changed a lot and the events of the middle ages and Roman era, while a decent indicator, have to be balanced with logic
I agree kinda, but at the same time the unity has been created during the time with the US as an "overseer" thing. Who really knows what direction Europe would go without the US. It would not be far fetched to say without the US, Europe would be far more split over the war in Ukraine.
@@rayquaza1245 US has been an overseer but I don't think that's the only reason. It just so happens that as the world has become more connected with technology the US has been the most influential country. I reckon that easier communication is a far bigger reason for peace than the fact the US is just sort of there. They've been present in the Middle East for years and it's not like that's lead to peace
@@justemrys what changed? Geography is still the same, Russia still needs to expand to protect it self, so is Germany, so is Poland. A lot of times where the same thing was said and it turned out to be completely wrong. The only thing that changed between now and the middle ages is the fact that the us us there to police Europe so europeans cant fight a war or dont have to, and that's changing as American influence declines. If roughly the same thing occured throughout history each and every time and one time it didnt it doesnt make the time it didnt the rule, it is the exception that likely won't repeat for the next 2000 or so years.
I find your predicted future of Europe horrifying. Not because of the extremism or civil wars - those happening seems unavoidable, but the American colonization and gradual European erasure is for me, as a Pole who greatly appreciates the variety of European culture, the most frightening prediction of all. I wish that this shall not come to pass. And I plan to do what is in my power to prevent my own country of sharing the fate you set out for all of Europe. Poland is not yet lost. And neither is Europe.
I bet a French German alliance will basically dictate the path europe will take, France is too proud to ever be an American satellite, I bet most latin countries will unite into a western federation with France as its military backbone and Germany its industrial hub. The east of europe could form a second polish Lithuanian commonwealth as a protective bubble agaisnt outside threats like Russia or possible Middle Eastern aggression, forming a weird Danube federation.
Same for me. It's great to see this sparkles of pan-Europeanism from traditionally conservative and catholic Poland. I guess we are somewhat safe from the turmoil of the century with people like you :) Greetings from Ukraine ! Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła, indeed.
I think Whatifalthist tends to underestimate Europe. Not to blame his pov, the most powerful nations in Europe do come off as pretty timid and have taken a backseat position to American power increasingly since WW2. Personally though, the European project is far from over; Russia/Belarus/Ukraine are the final frontiers of Pan-Europeanism. If Russia begins to collapse the Russian majority west of the nation could undergo a national reawakening that Putin etc have tried hard to suppress. That will posit it increasingly back into European orbit. If the Russian successor states largely became European focussed, then European power as a federation would far outstrip even the Americans and the Chinese (so long as we started sorting out our demographic problems).
@@Hellvern yeah because last time europe decided to have fun, africa was colonized, millions of jews got sent to hell on earth and 6 million were sent to actual hell, millions died and europe was turned to rubble, if europe wanted they could do it but they don't because they have seen it first hand, Americans had not had a war in their nation for years and have grown entitled, europe saw hell twice and decided to try and be pacifists, if a civil war broke out in the 60s I can assure you the USA would be a less interventionist country, with less cringe takes and a more introspective look, because seeing pictures is one thing but seeing your neighborhood turned to rubble and the bodies of your friends lying there will change you (my grandma remembers the spanish civil war and its aftermath, it left her completely changed, she was very young so it shaped her worldview quite a lot)
I think he is totally wrong about Europe. It seems to me as if he has never even talked to a European about Europe. I think especially young Europeans love the idea of a united Europe and unity will keep us strong. Especially the last few months have shown us that freedom and democracy is still a very common interest in Europe. I have also not really understood why he thinks Europe will collapse but at the same time European coutries will band together as one country. Just this theory alone seems contradictory to me. Greetings from Germany :)
I'm sorry but the idea of Turkey gaining control of any significant territory in Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Greece or Montenegro is absurd. You could halve the populations and it would still be a military nightmare for any attempt at occupation. Sending Turkish settlers to the Balkans? What is this, the 1800s.... Any attempt at coordinated demographic change would be met with fierce backlash. At best Turkey can make client states out of Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo and maybe instigate separatist movements in Sandzak & West Macedonia but an Ottoman revival? Get real.
Yeah. Most Turkish migration is happening in Western Europe where there is more economic and social opportunities. Not the Balkans where it is about as poor as Turkey. And Armenia would sooner swear fealty to Ayatollah Khamenei than accept mass Turkish immigration.
@@shadowthehedgehog3113 Turkey is a Balkan country lol. The word Balkan itself is literally Turkish. All the other Balkan countries are far poorer and less developed than Turkey
Yeah, exactly that. Did you saw the West's reaction on Russia's invasion of Ukraine (and Russians do not want even conquering Ukraine, "just" force a regime change and install a puppet president)? Now imagine what would happen to any Turkish ruler (whose people have a lot stronger pro-Western sentiment since Ataturk's europeisation of Turkey and are historically considerably more rebellious than Russians)who decides to conquer Greece (which is extremly emotianally important for the Westerners as the cradle of Western civilisation and would invoke in the desire for much harsher sanctions than Ukraine did... and, very likely, even a direct military intervention).
As a Turk i think it needs to be said that the new generation is way more secular, pacifist and doesnt want a new empire. While i dont predict Turkey joining EU, i think the west will never let us in, i predict the new post-Erdogan Turkey will be closer to the west and hopefully use our soft power potential to ally the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and maybe even North Africa. Even in the least realistic scenario, our new "Big country" being a Turkic Union is more possible.
Every other prediction is based on a nuclear power nations giving up territory that they would consider fundamental. This is hilarious. I know it’s “lame” for nation’s borders to be relatively stagnant but with the threat of nuclear destruction and a century long support of territorial sovereignty of nations from the West and others I don’t think any borders will change significantly. What you’re attempting to do in this video is equate territory with influence. An idea that hasn’t had major prominence since the 1800s and has completely fallen out of favor for almost a century.
@@EAdano77 The difference is that this isn’t a conflict between nuclear powers whereas a lot of the boundary changes althist provides involves nuclear powers.
With Europe becoming more unified, the borders between states become little more than bureaucratic trivia. I see no pressure driving them to change. Furthermore, a democratic country would rather declare a region independent and then puppet it than add it to their territory, so I don't see the countries blowing up and taking over others like you do.
As a European myself, the way Europe goes ultimately depends on whether American military involvement remains (which is a big if) or Europe can become a United entity in foreign policy (which is a big no). If or when either of these collapses, you'll start seeing Aggressive Russia, booming Turkey and even Morocco try to chip away at the European periphery. If this happens European countries, where both the idea of the nation state and the memory of being a peaceful society will remain deeply entrenched in the population, will willingly form coalitions not only with their co-ethnic but also with those they share geopolitical interest. This way, borders won't change much, and they'll be almost as ceremonial as they're now, but instead of a pan European Confederation, you'll see regional confederations. Examples of these would be a Nordic-Baltic-West Slavic alliance to counter Russian aggression. A Latin French-Spearheaded coalition and a Balkan Empire as France and Turkey compete over the Mediterranean, possibly clashing in North Africa or maybe even the West Balkans. Here the Wild Card would be the West Germans, which could join in with the French in a Castille-Aragon kind of West European Alliance. Finally Britain would remain the European branch of America, as it has been for so long, and conservative Hungary might make irredentist claims over its neighbors, which it already is doing
What people tend to forget is that western Europe and eastern Europe are completely different nowadays. Like take for example Germany, 30 percent of newborns are muslims, and in the rhine-main area that percentage goes up to over 50 percent, and it isnt that they will asimilate to the German culture, its honestly otherwise. My Girlfriend is German but shes learning arabic for better job chances and easier communication. Also street knowledge and self defence becomes more and more important since like nobody trusts police anymore here. And the muslim people are united and always in groups, while most young Germans (especially men) stay at home and are lonely. Its only a matter of fact since the German identity (which is like completely gone) will completely surrender to (at the moment) superior arabic, balkanese and turkish culture. I saw same trends happening in other western or northern european countries. Eastern Europe is completely different on this, since their identities will probably become stronger
@@Jekoo63 hah, man germans are a weak people then, here in flanders i mostly see a massive movement grow against muslims. virtually every non-muslim non-commie i've talked with has said shit like to end immigration or throwing the muslims out. ESPECIALLY the young people. we've got a hard-right generation that just started becoming adults. last election the hardest right party gained like 12%, that was BEFORE 'rona. i'm almost willing to bet this will be one of the last belgian elections with the hard-right seperatist movement finally taking the lead, making a deal with the conservatives to then split off flanders and confederalize.
@@4Lucy_ The fact that this dude took the "the south is my country" thing here in Brazil seriously tells a lot about the channel. Not only is the movement largely a bunch of prejudiced middle aged or elderly people and terminally online edgelords with zero influence or political power, but the amount of actual members is said to be "over 0.1% of the population" and is one of those things that you don't really see often in real life outside of the internet, and pretty much nobody outside of that region agrees with the movement. It says literally on the first paragraph of the constitution that the country is formed by the "indissoluble union of all states with the addition of the federal district" and they don't have the military power to do anything against that even if they wanted to, plus the military is usually very "legalist" all around the country.
@@The-wo2lq If Uruguai can, the south too! We dont need high iq to see. Brazil will collapse. We usually have poor education and dont know nothing about ourselves but all brazil history was war and fight against who was tax. North east was the richest region and had so many war against the "politicians in Rio de Janeiro". Conjuração Baiana, Conjuração do Equador, etc etc etc... Brasilia was a politics master move in century XX. But the regional oligarcs will fight each other maybe until next century. 1930: military coup and Getulio Vargas. Southerners and northeasterners overthrew a São Paulo government. Another dictatorship 30 years later... and all this less than a century kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk We need REAL federalize and decentralize power, states with legal and economic autonomy, otherwise we will walk towards a rupture every 100 years.
I don't really think that poland will expand territorially, rather it will have much closer ties with visegrad four, baltic and ukraine and belarus. Maybe some sort of confederacy or neo commonwealth but definietly not any military expansion.
An Eastern European-style EU maybe. Regardless though, Poland would probably be the anchor in that system, due to their demographic and economic strength.
The thing is, if there is enough chaos in a region next door, it may want to expand militarily for security proposes and to prevent crime from becoming too powerful in that region. Not to mention, things do change, just because some countries act a certain way currently doesn't mean that can't change within a few decades.
@@wires-sl7gs That's not really how things work in the modern world. You can't just march your army in to try and stabilize a region, or else the US would have done so with Mexico already - and Iraq and Afghanistan would instead be prosperous nations. The Belorussians, Ukrainians and Baltic peoples have been suffering under Russian oppression for years, and I very much doubt they'd like to kneel to another master any time soon.
@@TheRedKing247 You're oversimplifying. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the same as Belarus and Ukraine, not to mention share a history with Poland, which is also a Democracy and would not need to change it's government system if it wanted to restore order by occupying/annexing the region. Not to mention, the US largely mishandled two countries that were very foreign to it, and not as easy to rebuild and democratize as a industrialized Japan was, and it's not guaranteed to be the same for Poland.
@@TheRedKing247 Poland won't be able to conquer Ukraine as a master, but there is now a strong sense of brotherhood between Poles and Ukrainians due to Russian invasion. We might see a new Commonwealth form due to this, with wide autonomy for its member states.
I think one weakness in this analysis is to treat the drive toward co-ethnic unification as an unopposable force and borders as easily ignored. But the reality in eg: Africa is that a lot of people are simultaneously 1) well aware that their borders are artificial but also 2) well aware that unilateral attemps to redraw those borders will results in extremely violent and area-destabilizing wars. And we see that since decolonization, for the most parts, and for all those faillures, African governments have cooperated very closely with one-another to avoid that kind of conflicts as much as possible. Likewise for Afghanistan: we can observe as much as we want that "Afghanistan is an artificial state", the reality is that Afghans are very attached to their borders *and* Afghanistan's neighbors for the most part want nothing to do with their co-ethnics in Afghanistan, which they see as an ungovernable backwater.
The major reason we are cautious with regional integration is because we are aware that the west will view a unified Africa as an existential threat. They will play our own divisions against us creating catastrophe across the region. Said violence will mostly be a result of western propaganda, interference ,destabilization and proxy wars across the region. Most Africans want this but we are also keenly aware that the powers that be would rather kill us all than let Africans unite
Correct, Africa will self sort and preserve the colonial borders. The bigger economic states will have spheres of influence but not conquer, too much work.
@@dylanreece7991 they would form more like cultural or friendly economic and political alliances just like what Latin America is today, barely any country discuss about borders and they cooperate to each other for bilateral progress and the most of conflicts would be internal civil wars of corruptions destitution of politics and provinces finding a way to independence but not a serious great international war due to scare to die because of the invasion's of another country or be conquered, and we need to see how the technology changes the way Africans think about conflicts or I they want to peacefully industrialize and compete with the great powers
@@dylanreece7991 not really, those borders will remain only as lines on a map. But regional integration will happen sooner or later peaceful or otherwise. People are starting to realize that we've been put in a situation where it's impossible to win. Something must change
@dihvocfoscocudvyvdd not really , most African territories prior the barbaric colonization by Europe were tribal lands. Only a few modern countries in Africa are on former imperial land parts of west Africa, Ethiopia, Somalia and Zimbabwe to be specific. This is the reason why Africa and the Americas fell to europans very easily for the most part there wasn't a unified central government that could organize a united resistance. Africa and America are large continents rich in resources there wasn't need for constant conflict and conquest to control resources and territories the foundation of kingdoms and empires. And the prospects of inter-state conflict is very slim most African states aren't trigger happy buffoons like the west and middle east
Something that regularly annoys me about your videos, although I like other aspects, is how you expect many civilisations to overcome massive crisis but see Europe in constant decline. Yes, Europe does have substantial problems but everyone has. Seeing that it still has a relatively big well educated population I don't understand why you don't see any potential for social progress. There is a good understanding amongst the younger generation how the old is mismanaging Europe and a wish for change. Another thing is how you like to justify claims for the future with ongoing trends but always ignore European integration.
Im half french half german and this 2 country hate themselves due to world war trauma. If you wave the flag of these country, you are called fashist, nazi,... You will never see that in another country 8n the world, thats why europe is doomed, europeens hate themselves
That happens when americans who do not have any clue about our long history talk about Europe. Just listen to what he says about Austria - an ethnically split nation???? To me he sounds just like another American who thinks the US state of Georgia is attacked when Georgia and Russia are in the news lel.
Practically none of this will be right, but fascinating points to discuss all along the way. It's impossible to predict anything like this but guessing which trends take hold is fun.
@@mgames3209 I agree, a lot of his predictions are probably wrong. But he does say that he is "betting against god" and to not take his maps seriously. He backs his claims with reasonable amounts of evidence so I think we should at least respect his opinions, even if he is wrong.
As much as I like your videos you clearly have very little understanding of areas like Europe and Central asia. Il only speak of the latter as other comments explain the former already. There is no way in hell that Tajiks would be able to absorb Kyrgizistan and the Ferghana valley like that. The FV is the most populated region of Uzbekistan and its extremely unlikely theyd ever give it up. Furthermore Tajiks could not be more different from Uzbeks and Kyrgizes as one is ethnically and linguistically persian and the other 2 turkic. Although the people are friendly neither of them would want to be in the same country and neither of their governments would allow themselves to be subjucated by the other. You claim that you redrawed the countries based on the acctual ethnic lines but even that is wrong as the most Tajiks in diaspora are in Afghanistan and Samarqand in Uzbekistan, not the FV or Kyrgizistan. Pretty dissapointed i must say.
I feel like a Schengen style free travel agreement would work well for Central Asia, the atrocious borders cannot really be solved without war, so the beat thing todo is to make the borders redundant.
As a Turkish citizen, it is not seems likely to dominate the region this hard for Turkey. Half of the population is basically against an Imperial Ambition. Even much more of it is really does not want to merge with the Middle Eastern culture. This can happen only if International Organizations supports it, not allows it. But yeah, if the Russian influence drops in the region, western hemisphere might want to Turkey to become new powerhouse to create a buffer zone. In balkans, hell no! In middile east, maybeeee. Turkey still did not manage to create a stable economic and educational base actually. If it even happens, it wont be a wealthy Empire.
Also looking at recent performance of Turkish involvement in Syria, topped off with Iraq starting to stabilize more (not to mention the inevitable kurdish state which will appear if Kurds calm down for a second and negotiate ceding back occupied lands in northern Iraq and Syria), I just don't see it happening without major reforms within Turkey. As it stands, much of Turkey doesn't want to expand and to expand it would have to reconcile it's ethnic and cultural animosity with it's neighbors.
erdogans dictatorship would need to end for your education and currency to recover and to have any kind of western support, I dont really see that happening though, unless a revolt happens. Mustafa kemal atatürk would be rolling in his grave if he could see the state of turkey.
Yeah you are Turkish citizen. You are not a Turk. Your international (actually western) organisation ( actually corporation based mostly in USA and England) collaborationist agenda will inevitably fall in the future for sure.
The prediction is based on a belief in the superiority of American culture and political institutions, and that the rest of the world will eventually understand this, which basically is the main reason for U.S. decline. And while Western Canadian provinces may argue against the central government, that does not mean they would prefer living the highly centralized U.S. where their voice would not be heard at all. The only thing close to this is a movement for Canada's West to join with the U.S. West Coast, which of course would lead to both countries being reduced rather than uniting.
I think what will happen is that BC and Alberta gain independence as the "big daddies" of power in the formerly Canadian ruled west and then essentially carve out spheres of influence across the northern territories and the other two western provinces. BC and Alberta shortly after both are independent will need to sit down and sign a friendship and military alliance treaty. Alberta needs sea access and BC needs oil and so the most logical thing is for Alberta to give us a discount on oil in exchange for a free import export corridor from the sea to the Alberta border accomplished by allowing Alberta customs agents to operate at BC ports to deal with goods destined directly for Alberta. The former CP railway could be their primary source of sea access. The Yukon likely is incorporated under BC as something like the "Yukon special autonomous territory" getting to be it's own "thing" in terms of most internal affairs but under the sovereignty of the British Columbian state. Maybe it also gets it's own domain name like Hong Kong or Puerto Rico. Strategically BC needs the Yukon as such a protectorate so that we can have an arctic naval presence. British Columbia's biggest strength potential for our population would be in naval power and our only real need for foreign military projection would be on the Pacific especially against China and allies and in the arctic for the northwest passage. Alberta and Saskatchewan form some kind of state union. Not exactly one borderless country as Saskatchewan's people would object to being erased and incorporated completely into Alberta but they would probably have a common currency, common market and common military. Manitoba is the biggest toss up. Manitoba is kind of "half east half west" with a lot of French heritage and it could very likely want to remain with Ontario at least initially. BC and Alberta once independent could do their best to try to infiltrate and influence independence movements in Manitoba but it might not be worth it to do so. The Northwest Territories for the most part would be firmly in Alberta's sphere and under it's official jurisdiction but BC could negotiate itself nearly free access in exchange for guaranteeing naval protection to the NWT Islands. Nunavut remains a big question mark to me. They'll probably remain under Canada initially like Manitoba but it depends if Quebec tries getting aggressive.
@@P7777-u7r That's an interesting scenario. It's very unlikely that aboriginal people would agree to join a Western Canada Concept and the Western provinces have no right under international law to secede. You are assuming too that populist parties substantially dominate the Western provinces, which is questionable. The main economic problem the West would face is that its economies are not diversified, particularly the Prairie provinces and the territories. Populism offers simplistic solutions to complex problems. Once in power, populists usually revert to center right politics, as Jason Kenney did.
That's the thing. I think we are entering the era of national rebirth and US conception of patriotism doesn't include true national identity based on Ethnicity, Language, Traditions and Religion. US is multicultural and that's why I think US will fall apart with maybe chastised South or East Coast remaining as a bigger entities. Rest of US will be divided into states, which will enrich their unique elements and customs turning their state identities into national ones.
@@nickd4310 The canadian federal Supreme Court has ruled secession by provinces to be legal though providing its actually done via proper referendum. Premier of the day can't just declare independence unilaterally. If separation is done legally and thus is agreed upon by Canada I don't see international law prohibiting an agreed upon divorce like that. I don't know about indigenous people everywhere in the west but in BC there is a very very good chance of them supporting it especially if it included them finally getting a proper settlement and self governing land to replace the very corrupt federal system under the "Indian act". Indigenous peoples of British Columbia had their lives made much worse after BC joined confederation and they were put under federal jurisdiction.
I love that westerners are always tend to break Indonesia to pieces. Probably confused why their version of nationalism (single nation single culture and ethnicity) doesn't apply to that country lol. But then keep India intact despite India being multicultural as well.
I think it's really unlikely the Japanese or Koreans will be closer to China than to the U.S just because culturally those two countries admire the U.S and despise the Chinese. Economically they might become closer to China in a U.S crisis era. However keep in mind even before WW2 the Japanese and Americans were very friendly. They had a doll exchanging tradition, Babe Ruth was a hero in Japan when he visited before the war, and the Americans considered sending him to Japan to tell them to stop WW2. As of now even Japan and Korea have a lot of anti-China sentiment. The point I'm making is a large cultural shift would have to happen to change the minds of the Japanese and Koreans to like China, which is unlikely due to the hostility of the CCP.
and at the moment nationalist is rising in japan and in no way Japan-Korean and china will ever be friendly together there a insane hatred left in Korea about the japan occupation
On top of the fact that I'm pretty sure China has tried to conquer all of its neighbors at some point in the past or another. Being within China's economic sphere makes some kind of sense, but I can imagine them wanting to keep the dragon at arm's length culturally and politically.
Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese all more or less adopted Chinese culture, however after they matured as nations they all rejected the notion of supposed superiority of the Chinese. With Vietnam having particularly bloody series of rebellions against Chinese overlords. Having said that, these animosities could be put to rest, provided they are treated as equals. In that case I’d say joining Chinese economic and cultural bloc is a foregone conclusion. The problem is current leadership in Beijing embodies all the worst parts of Chinese exceptionalism and imperialism, and combines it with all the worst parts of Western ideologies: totalitarianism, militarism and jingoistic nationalism. There is no way on Earth any non-totalitarian Asian nation is willingly joining Sinosphere given China in its current state of People’s Republic.
Even if the Turkish economy doesn't collapse, like how it seems to be going, there is no way the Neo-Ottoman empire becomes a thing. Yes subjugating failed states in Arabia I could see happening, but I don't see any expansion in the Balkans, ever, even if they tried and no one gave two s***s about the region, the majority of people there would fight wars similar to what we are seeing in Ukraine, in much more defensible terrain. Poland won't expand eastwards, only in influence maybe. There is no way of such a thing happening unless maybe a Slavic Federation / Commonwealth style union. Switzerland will not break up due to it being its own little culture, They won't get eaten by their neighbors unless every rich man in the world decides to withdraw all their money at once. Hungary is in no capacity able to expand into any region, them suffering just as much from the demographic collapse as their neighbors.
All possibilities. That’s what makes speculation interesting, no one is right or wrong, at least not for a few decades, by which time no one will care anyway.
It's also possible that, under the threat of conquest, countries like Greece would nuclearly arm themselves. That's not that difficult, since nukes are essentially 1940s technology.
Turkey gaining land in the balkans is very unlikely. Europe would block them from that, and everyone would fight like hell to prevent jt. Also a lot of Turkeys population growth is due to the kurdish population so Turkey will have to deal with increased seperatism. The middle east is suffering the most from climate change and have plenty of failed states and almost failed states.
If Turks migrate in large numbers to change the demographics, then those countries will be puppets of Turkey. No military invasion needed. But I think Europe learned its lesson already, and the Balkans are less PC. It could lead to conflict, and I wonder what side Germany and France would take on Crappy Balkan countries cracking down on overwhelming Turkish Migration.
I was especially amused at Turks moving into Armenia. Expanding into the Balkans seems only slightly less unlikely. But the biggest issue is, would this Turkey have a democratic, responsible government, or an autocrat like Erdogan? Europeans would be much more alarmed by the latter.
this guy has a fixation with some kind of Ottoman revival. Every prediction he makes about Eastern Europe is that somehow Turkey will conquer most of it. because apparently that's the only way population growth can be handled : by trying to conquer a dozen nations, all of which hate you to their very core. I blame this on Zionism that has influenced the thinking of all americans. Americans think Israel's claims are legitimate, and thus they extrapolate that reasoning to other countries as well. Literally Lebensraum . "If X country has money and too many people, they have no choice but to conquer lands that once belonged to them".
I don't think you should write off Botswana in Africa. It has a middle-income economy and is arguably the most developed country in the entire continent. It has also been relatively peaceful its entire existence, keeping unscathed from the post-colonial conflicts, civil wars, and political instability. Its main drawback is its low population of only 2 million, but I don't think this is enough for it to be consumed by the non-state void.
Not sure about the data but i read that in botswana prevalence of HIV infection among the general population is around 38%.. Not really a good indicator for demographic success in the near future
@@lorenzoberdin9123 but already HIV is manageable and Botswana has few deaths from it right now and human overtime get immune from most diseases. Botswana is also one of the top researchers in HIV which means they could find a vaccine.
@@lorenzoberdin9123 botswana I would say is one of the most successful countries in africa. And one of the most successful in the world (maybe). It to me shows what african countries could look like if the borders hadn't been botched. It's not gonna become a global superpower, but it isn't a run down failed state with no positive outlook for the future.
@@thomashisted5984 oh I'm not saying it isn't and actually I really sincerely hope they become as successful and wealthy as anybody deserves to be. I wasn't trying to hate on them, I merely reported a "fact" that i think could hinder their progress but im no expert in geopolitics let alone African affairs so take what i said with a grain of salt
@@kamogelomosweu1869 unfortunately I'm not sure natural immunity can be obtained for HIV due to its biology.. But if they found a vaccine in the future I'd be super glad, that could save so many lives and improve drastically the quality of life of so many people. Unfortunately the antiviral therapy right now, although successful in preventing aids, is pretty expensive, needs to be carried on for life and has quite a lot of side effects. I really hope we can find a solution!
This makes absolutely no fucking sense, and it's funny how the farther away he goes from the United States, the more batshit insane his futurology gets.
I'd say there's kernels of truth to some of his statements, but the map as a whole predicts way more geographic change. I think most will just be cultural save for a few unstable countries collapsing. Also he _definitely_ has fantasies of a neo Ottoman empire lmao
@@rahimmokhtar5945 we don't need to necessarily be enemies. Morocco and Algeria should unite, if they do those 'dreams' won't be just dreams anymore. We have the same culture, same reilgion, same ethnicity, why are we fighting?
@@yasserbencheikh2626 we are fighting because of our shity governors and i really want this but fck u know and i know this wont happen cause russia support my counrty and spain ( which is one member of the nato ) and usa support ur country this is way but everything is possible . and the second reason of why we are fighting is agnorance just look at the comments above mine u understand me iam really tired of this conflict and i love all my brothers at morroco . اتاسف من كل مغربي عن كل جزائري متخلف قرد شرع يزمجر بمختلف الشتائم وسبب هو جهله كما قتلت حرفيا نحن لا نختلف ولكن بروباغاندا هي سبب .. نحن مسلمون عرب وامازيغ وعلى مذهب امام مالك نفس ثقافة بكل بساطة وجهان لعملة واحدة واسال الله ان يحل هذا النزاغ وهاك البشرى : - تكونُ النُّبُوَّةُ فيكم ما شاء اللهُ أن تكونَ، ثم يَرْفَعُها اللهُ - تعالى -، ثم تكونُ خلافةٌ على مِنهاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ ما شاء اللهُ أن تكونَ، ثم يَرْفَعُها اللهُ - تعالى -، ثم تكونُ مُلْكًا عاضًّا، فتكونُ ما شاء اللهُ أن تكونَ، ثم يَرْفَعُها اللهُ - تعالى -، ثم تكونُ مُلْكًا جَبْرِيَّةً فيكونُ ما شاء اللهُ أن يكونَ، ثم يَرْفَعُها اللهُ - تعالى -، ثم تكونُ خلافةً على مِنهاجِ نُبُوَّةٍ . ثم سكت . . . ستعود الخلافة باذن الله وستوحد ليس فقط المغرب والجزائر بل كل مسملون كما بشر الصدوق عليه افضل الصلاة وسلام
I never really understood his obsession with a Neo-Ottoman Empire. I could understand a large Turkish influence over the region of which I also believe will take place but not a resurrection of the Ottoman Empire.
I mean, there's also a pretty decent chance (screw it, a 100% chance) that some factor makes this completely wrong. There may be a messiah like figure that just make Philippines into a very powerful naval nation, or a great politician in Rome deciding that EU will become the 2nd Roman Empire, who knows. (EDIT: For those who didn't get the memo yet, this comment is very much intentionally absurd. You can let your imagination wild, but please do not take anything predicting seriously, it will make you look like an idiot.)
Sure, those events make history all the more fascinating. He said at the beginning, this isn’t gospel, just his best attempt at predicting the next century.
"In classic Canadian fashion they will find some way to claim moral superiority about this." You bet we will. This made me laugh out loud. Totally on point.
So you guys, do you think that Canada is going to balkanise? Bloody hell, how can someone even come to such a conclusion, like we get it Canadians, they are kinda secretly racist but what, Americans aren’t? Love to you Canadians from Australia, our cold comrades.
Canada has a plan to reach 100M by 2100. Rich with resources and water - the Yanks are in for a surprise down the road. Canada is playing the long game hence its immigration rate being unusually high.
@@Red_Hood514 Canadians are centuries from discovering the amazing, crazy technology known as "affordable housing". Fitting those 100m is gonna be borderline impossible for Canada.
I disagree with pretty much everything you said about Europe. I think that the EU will slowly move toward the United States of Europe. It won't happen overnight, but it I think the willingness is there, especially in younger people. Events like the Ukraine War, the unreliable nature of the US alliance, with leaders like Trump possibly becoming the new normal, the rise of Africa, China, India, I think European nations will be motivated to become more united, that's the only way to not be "colonized" by these new emerging world powers. Europe has an unhealthy amount of nationalism which can prevent this process and can lead to the disintegration of the EU, unless we play our cards well. What confuses me is that you clearly don't think this will be an issue, since you ended up creating states like the Scandinavian Union, Baltic Union, Yugoslavia 2.0, Greater Germany, Benelux Union, Czechoslovakia 2.0, giga Poland, and even a crazy Hungaromania, which is just silly. You assume that some of the most nationalistic countries will just throw away their independence, but you still don't think that the USE will be a thing. I also don't think it's realistic to assume that the Turks will just swallow up EU states, Like Bulgaria and Greece. Ukrainians are literally fighting for their right to choose their future and want to belong in Europe, but instead of them joining the EU, you assume that their country will be torn apart. I'm also not sure where the death of Switzerland comes from. Honestly, this feels like a map made by a 12 year old who spent 5 minutes on it. I know that's not the case, but that's the impression.
@@슬라바우크라이나헤로 Seriously, Switzerland that somehow survived the rise of nationalism, Napoleon, WWI, Hitler, even stayed out of the EU and NATO, would somehow decide to split up and become inconsequential parts of 3 larger European states? Makes no sense. We have independent states like Monaco, San Marino and Andorra, but no, an independent Switzerland is just too unrealistic, apparently.
Although Brazil is a country that is held together through sheer inertia, the inertia is so strong that I really don't think secession would ever be a thing. Its easier for Brazil to become an empire again or having another weird dictatorship then this ever happening, because it doesn't require that the Brazilians do anything, just that some weirdo decides to shit over the constitution (which isn't very hard). The Brazilian republic may be an absolute joke, but most Brazilians wouldn't really like to change the borders of the country anytime soon.
Kind of like how the USA has been held together by inertia and a coherent culture for some time now. And we just had our "wierdo sh*ts over the founding document" moment from between 2016 and 2020; we're still feeling the aftershocks.
By "weird dictatorship" I only see some kind of new *NEW STATE DICTATORSHIP* i.e. a new Getulio Vargas coming to cope the challenges of a more competitive and multipolar world by reindustrializing the country in order to close the gap between Brazil and the rest of the industrialized world
@@kennyholmes5196 nah Us was held together cause after the civil war the Us government heavily crippled the power that some states had especially the ones with French and Spanish speaking colonial populations. They especially heavily crippled the language and culture of Louisiana after the civil war and made us much more reliant on DC
@@Dragoncam13 I'm an American. I studied this in high school. the South lost because they didn't industrialize fast enough and because the North was more cohesive and on more solid standing with the rest of the world. The south got rebuilt in the North's image after the war.
Yeah, i think he could genuinely make good and accurate predictions/alternate history timelines, but the main thing that's holding him back is his biases [which i don't blame him for, everyone has them even if they don't realize it] but the main thing is his idea that history is a series of cycles that always repeats itself. this isn't a theory without evidence, there are some pretty interesting things that happened in history that appear to be cycles, but social dynamics, geo politics, diplomacy, and culture is far more complex than just "cycle repeat"
@@1Woofer1 My first problem when i so his list of "massive crises that happen Every 300 years" is why is the napoleonic wars and american revolution excluded when this where massive events but the franchish empire being split apart a major crises, it really was not. Also any body that tries to label a dises like the black death as a societel crises that îs part of a cyclical cicle is dumb.
Some thoughts on Israel: The first thing to consider is that none of the Arab countries will be able to destroy Israel. Israel has nukes, and I don't see them giving that up. Israel has the strength to ensure that no hostile country will be able to achieve the necessary technology to threaten them, but even still, MAD doesn't necessarily apply to Israel since it's highly unlikely any majority Muslim country would glass the third holiest location in Islam. As for demographics, Israel is the one place in the developed world where the growth rate is actually increasing, as opposed to the nearby Arab states, where growth is decreasing with industrialization. Israel already has a higher birth rate than Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. I think it's highly likely Israel incorporates the West Bank in several decades while offering citizenship to the Palestinians because they know many won't accept the citizenship and they could still tank it anyway (Gaza meanwhile would just be left to its own devices). Additionally, the incredibly high density in the region may price out many of the local Palestinians, making Israel even more majority Jewish. I could see the West Bank becoming majority Jewish within 100 years. By that point, there wouldn't be much of a Palestine left to be freed, and you'd probably gradually see more people make peace with Israel's existence, with the fight for Palestinians shifting from a struggle for either independence or Israel's destruction into a purely Civil Rights struggle like what you see in other countries.
The population growth is Israel is almost entirely driven by Israeli Arabs and Ultra Orthodox sects that Israel's secular population resents and distrusts.
I would guess that he’s right about at least one thing and wrong about at least one thing. For example, he’s probably right that Latin America’s borders will change only slightly, since that’s been the case for the past hundred years too. However, I’m very skeptical Turkey will take over the Middle East simply because they’re unpopular with everyone in the area.
As much as people mock him for it, the "neo-Ottoman Empire" isn't that far of a stretch. Of course it wouldn't be a conventional empire, where the entire middle east is under direct Turkish control, but I could definitely see Turkey carve its own hegemony in the region, independent of the U.S. or China. Think about it. The U.S. is losing interest in the region, and as the west transitions to renewables, the Middle East will become less of a focus. China could theoretically fill the gap left by the west, but they'd need to work overtime in expanding their influence, and right now, their attention is elsewhere. Also, as Rudyard frequently mentions, China's window of opportunity is closing fast. They're (correctly) choosing to focus on the more immediately accessible areas of Southeast and Central Asia. Russia is in decline as well, probably the steepest of any of the current great powers, and historically, inhabitants of that region have struggled to project power in the middle east for meaningful periods of time. Let's look at some regional contenders. Israel? Too small and has too many current issues to consider expanding (outside of Palestine of course). Iran? Maybe, but their allies, namely Russia, would be unable to support them. Also, its sour relationship with nearly every other country has turned it into somewhat of a pariah state. Saudi Arabia? No. It has an entirely oil based economy which will take a massive hit as time wears on. I highly doubt it would be able to adapt in time. Also, weakening U.S. support means they'll lose some of their legitimacy. I think there's a very likely chance we could see Saudi Arabia turn to China, but it might be too little too late, and the Chinese might not want to bet their chips on a sate in decline. The Gulf States? Basically Saudi Arabia, but even worse off. The demographics of a country like Qatar are laughable, and nearly all of its labor is imported from South Asia. It is simply not a sustainable arrangement. Arab Spring 2.0 is very feasible here in the next 20-30 years. That leaves Turkey. What do they have? A good relationship with the west, an incredible geographic position at the crux of Europe and Asia, control of the Black Sea, a good relationship with most of the Muslim world, including Pakistan, which could come to their advantage, and a relatively stable demographic situation compared to other powers. The main shortcoming is their current inflation woes and Erdogan, but this could be easily overcome within the next five years if Turkey can adopt some actually sound economic policies. If Turkey plays their hand right, they could have control of the most geographically strategic region in the world. There's a lot I disagree with about his map, but Turkey isn't one of them. Congrats if you made it to the end.
I strongly disagree on the southern Brazil thing. The Brazilian culture, although having some small variations in each region due to geography, is basically universal for all Brazilians. It's the only place i can think of in the world where ethnicity isn't a cultural factor at all, at least today, so your argument of a "white south" breaking apart only makes sense on the American reality, not on the Brazilian. Plus, it's not like the south was 100% white while the rest was 100% black or mixed. Basically anywhere in the country whites and black/mixed are 50% each, while in the south whites have a slight edge due to recent European immigration. Just think about it, the most famous southern Brazilian, Ronaldinho, is black! Politically, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, the southernmost state of the country, is one of the most important states despite not being among the richest or the most populous ones. When they tried independence in the mid XIX century, it was more about republicanism and economic reasons than a larger cultural one. Many presidents and many many other important politicians where and are from the southern region, so they aren't missrepresented by any means. This is a friendly disagreement, i just think you're using the American logic where it doesn't make sense. Keep up with the great work!
Whites are actually between 80 and 90% in the South and the cultural homogeneity in Brazil is mostly artificial and only really exists because brazilians aren't too fixated on their own cultures, so it was easier for the more influential Southeast and Northeast to export their culture to the rest of the country.
@@TheRealGigachad1848 You're right, the white population is a bit higher than i though, but my point stands, ethnic differences don't affect culture in Brazil. And yes, Brazilian regional cultures aren't that powerful compared to the whole, that's my argument on why Brazil won't breakup. Don't get me wrong, each Brazilian region has it's own unique cultural features and this diversity is quite nice, but everyone has one single national identity. To be fair, the southernmost states of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina have probably the most different culture compared to the rest of the country, but it's not near the level of somewhere like Catalonia, Kosovo, Tibet, etc. People from these states consider themselves Brazilians over anything else.
The US is an island. It is in the interest of the US to meddle in the affairs of everyone else - no one else can really make a foothold. No foreign country has ever bombed an American city (after the 1800's, of course).
If I understood him correctly, I think that he's actually predicting America to go into civil war; then, once the dust is settled, move on to a golden age.
correction. He says the muslim world and asia will be in a better place. Its mainly Europe and Africa he sees having the issues. Europe with its collapsing demographics and Africa with its massive population growth and borders that make no sense.
@@randlebrowne2048 imagine what China or Russia would think in the moment USA start a civil war, they would make the best to conquer everything they can and also try to become and hegemonic power, is basically a disbalance of power just like a disbalance on Europe
Watch his like 3 dozen videos on the coming American crisis ig. Also China and India happen to be juggaurnauts on this map, yet you only take issue with America being strong, shows your even more Eurocentric then he is, just in the opposite way.
You do realize he's a professional historian, right? Given how much evidence he uses, I doubt he's that far off. Seriously, have you actually listened to any of this or are you arrogantly dismissing every single one of his arguments just because it doesn't fit your beliefs? If that's the case, you're the one who's beliefs are far removed with Reality and History. I understand that you don't like what he's saying, but if you are a mature person, then you are going to need to admit you are wrong on some things. You don't have to agree with him on everything, but you should realize he does make some really good points.
@@wires-sl7gs He does know a fair amount and he uses a lot of facts and suppoting evidence. However, he also ignores and omits a lot too. He is comming at this from a particular viewpoint which is obvious. My beliefs are irrelevant. I have not expressed what I think will happen.; Making a strawman argument does not make this video any more likely or true. I will wager that this video, regardless of the evidence used, will be zero % correct in anything.
A unitary entity around the region you ascribe to "turkish empire" is not illogical and your arguments are somewhat sound (though highly negligent of the power of balkan and arabic national identities) but as a turk who has been following every little detail of the state of the country and knowledgeable about its recent history I can 100% say that this ottoman-like entity would not be a "turkish" nation. For whatever reasons or motivations that such an entity would exist, they would most likely sweep away the turkish identity with them. Turkey today is a weak, decomposing nation ruled by a kleptocratic oligarchy revolving around the personal cult of erdogan. It is socially divided, economically and demographically mismanaged to the extremes, and overall well on its way toward whatever fate Russia will have in the near future with its more cautious but essentially equally absurd autocratic administrative body. They cling on this illusion that they project power while they just basically fill the vacuum left by bigger powers, e.g. economic investments in Africa, all the foreign military entanglements etc., that are contingent on any small policy change on the behalf of the said bigger powers or even an intervention of a mid-range one, e.g. france. Hell, if I had to, I would wager that turkey itself would be the first domino stone to fall to leave way to this big entity (if it will exist at all).
I agree as an iraqi from the south i want to see my country exist i like turkey but i dont want them to invade arab lands Chinese in siberia is very very unlikely first thing the russians hate them, The sakhas who are turks Hate them More than the russians,The chinese populace will dwindle and india populace will continue exploding
Í heard that in Turkey secularism is slowly fading in favour of stronger adherence to Islam, due to Erdogan's push. Is that true? What effect has this had on the Nation?
@@antonteodor6305 Erdogan only uses Islam he is a big supporter of Israel and doesn’t want to get out of NATO but yeas a lot of Turks are becoming more Islamicly and thats good the Middle east and beyond can not unite if they have secularism they will need to establish another Kalifat so all Ethnicities unity under one Banner
@@antonteodor6305 "Slowly" is a bit outdated take unfortunately. From 2002 to 2013 or so akp indeed slowly set the stage for the transition into a more islamic society. They first removed, by force, the kemalist, secular officials in the military which you may know was by and large the only guarantor of the secularism in the country for good or for bad. Then they empowered, funded and gave administrative and high ranking military positions to islamic sects. (The largest of which you may know was the one that is allegedly organized the coup attempt in 2016.) Repurposed state schools to religious ones, leaving some families without an option for their kids. Took over the media and made it a propaganda machine. Check it out really, most of the tv channels are "our dear leader" appreciation platforms. Financially isolated secular upper and middle class citizens by targeted legislations, making his own "followers" rich, and so on and so forth you got the drill. Post-coup, erdogan nominally declared his dictatorship and the referendum in 2017 cemented the status quo. Ever since then the transition has accelerated significantly. Reopening of hagia sophia, the withdrawal from the istanbul convention, the crack down on whatever that is left of the opposition media, privatization of the health sector under some religious sects, ever increasing tax on alcohol and limitations on the entertainment sector, rewriting of the history to favour islamic aspects of the ottoman empire by the means of historic tv series etc. Worst of which is that he is trying to restructure the country's demographics under his vision of "ummah" with the 15 million and counting immigrants from syria, afghanistan and pakistan. Almost all of the secular people I know either have already left the country, in the process of doing so or highly depressed because they can't. I myself have left in 2015 and have no plans on returning even if by some miracle he would be deposed in the next "elections." Damage is done. Turkey is not a place where secular people can live in peace anymore. I hope I am utterly wrong but from what I have learned from experiencing the past 30 years of the country, turkey is a kind of place where it is the hope that kills you.
@@Noxcho-li8pn I'm not sure Islamisation will succeed in preventing violence among the people of the Middle East. If anything, I see the different sects becoming more extreme and violent not just against foreign influence, but also against other Muslim sects with different beliefs (like Sunni vs. Shia), or even simply more moderate factions.
Honestly you dont seem to understand alot about Europe. The Greece/Rome comparison has several big holes in it. A European Federation would be so powerfull that it would be a world power that would have its own interests. Hell, the EU already now has huge differences with the US. A united Europe, an inward looking US and a strong France (look at its demography) will reinforce this.
One simple invasion of Ukraine has already shown strain on the EU with France and Germany remaining much more neutral towards Russia. So who knows how things will go in the future.
@@SuperCatacata actually the invasion of Ukraine has shown incredible unity between European countries, excluding the pathetic and irrelevant Hungarian authoritarian state. And the russian invasion is not something minimal, but an unprecedented act in Europe after the second World war
Love this video! These geopolitical videos about overall trends always put me in my place in the world. Would love to see more about the future of the Arabian peninsula as it's not covered in too much depth here and leaves some questions (independent Oman, no Iranian influence in the peninsula, odd straight division of Saudi Arabia)
Prior to February 24th i would agree with your predictions on Ukraine, but i feel like at this point they formed too strong of a national identity to ever be actually subjugated by anyone, including Poland. This territory would basically be impossible to control by any of its neighbours from economic and political standpoint, so it will either be de-facto anarchy or an independent Ukrainian state.
If Ukraine pushes russia out of it's territory, it has potential to become a strong central power. This war will build a Ukrainian identity and possibly pull many ethnic russians to the Ukrainian sphere. If the government to follow can build on national unity and not punish ethnic russians, Ukraine has lots of future potential. Depends does it go democracy + free market, or does it end up authoritarian + corruption.
I think you constantly underestimate continental Europe, I believe there is a real possibility of an aggressive, militaristic and dynamistic right-wing backlash in Europe's youth, one which is very anti American (and generally anti-British) which belives in the EU and its future military / economic/societal potential
I’m in that exact age bracket and European. Almost all of my peers believe in a European superstate and many are very right wing. Broadly many of us hate the Anglosphere too.
@@muninnsays9296 I'd say it's based on not understanding history but everything before 200 year. The map looks oddly like from the early modern period.
He has been horrendously wrong on the middle east and east asia, especially turkey and china. The turks wouldn’t be able to conquer anything in the balkans or north africa due to bigger populations (north africa) and ultranationalist identities (balkans) and china would never expand to the north due to siberia’s inhabitability.
12:38 One big problem here is that Algeria and Morocco have been draining their ability to project power by petty struggles between themselves for decades. But I guess if the old generation is replaced by a new one, they may be able to work that out. Also, Spain/the EU has been trying to do such a highway through the Sahara. I could see them start it, then get distracted off it for some reason and Algeria and Morocco take it over. 14:32 the fertilizer issue might rare it head again if we don't get a way to recycle phosphorus as it's mines are expected to be deplited in a few centuries at most. 14:20 The biggest issue Africa would have here is well, this isn't middle ages were each region and civilization was largely self contained. In all likelihood either external influence would stop this process from going completely through (Chinese and Westerners forming and keeping Vassal useless states) And most problematically, Brain Drain. The Global South is already suffering horrible Brain Drain to West countries were all their best memes, cultural traits and genes go to die or be absorbed. With straight up civil wars everywhere it would only be worse. Like imagine if America could have formed if there was like Atlantis somewhere there accepting and scouting for migrants like the founding fathers from America. This is one big way that Europe ending non-EU migrations can not only help themselves but the world as well. Also, Botswana is doing pretty good. Why's it missing from this Map? 14:51 I always keep seeing this over simplification with Igbos. Most of the Oil is on the coast or in the sea shelf and the people on the coast are Ijaw and Cross-river minority groups not Igbos. I could easily see the Igbo form a coherent identity with the Ijaw but not with the other coastal groups, giving them very bad geography when it comes to creating defensible states. (Also, Igbo region also has oil but is less accessible and smaller).
@UCE55QfjUph01R4nfGESKeRA One good thing that may come out of a war is one side winning decisively and ending that struggle and allowing whichever side that wins to project power south. Of course the biggest weakness of this is that they may destroy each other and become prey for Europe as you said, so diplomatic end is best. Preferably this can be solved without a war but having something to end the stalemate (war or diplomacy) is better than Morocco and Algeria draining and distracting each other forever.
woah, I didn't really think about european immigration policy helping with stopping brain drain. I have thought about it with US relations tho. If people have an easier choice, they tend to choose it. If you feel you have no other choice, that's when shit gets done. Shame Whatifalthist man doesn't think we'll invade mexico :( my dreams are crushed
Botswana is a landlocked country with a very small population. If the countries around it collapse, so does botswana. Specially South africa wich is already collapsing, they're their biggest economic allies
Agreed RE: Botswana. I could see them expanding into mozambique and that entire reagion and forming some union of their own, maybe coast-to-coast. Already a lot of highways and infrastructure connecting those 4 countries.
Love that practically every African nation just ceases to exist for some reason ? Especially Zimbabwe and Mozambique who share a lot of history with each other Mutapa Kingdom and Rozwi Kingdom etc . We could of seen an joint expansion done by Zimbabwe and Mozambique into South Africa to gain back historical land , but nope none of this . Apparently anything South of Africa just ceases to exist except Cape for some reason . Even though South Africa's military is predominantly African .
I find Botswana an interesting outlier. It's ethnically homogenous and well run. In a period of chaos, you might see it expand into the northern Cape, the Northwest and Limpopo. Avoiding the Rand though, expect the Rand to be the world's biggest bloodbath. Also the Karoo would be a buffer area where Cape Town goes in to operate Manganese and other mines but otherwise its a desert that any type of invading force from the east would struggle to cross because South Africa basically has a single river system there which is like the Colarado river in that it runs into a desert. I expect large portions of the orange free state to integrate in with Lesotho as they are part of the broader culture umbrella. Most of the Eastern Cape is inhospitable, would be divided between Cape Town taking Port Elizabeth in the far west. The way the regions structured that control would extend to the low mountains in the area. I expect thr Border of the Cape/Garden Route state to be between Port Alfred and East London. Though I expect bloodshed in KZN, I think the material boned of a state are there that would integrate the former Transkei to Zululand and centre om Durban.
this is a much better take, his africa bit might as well have been "i dont know about this one and im not gonna look up 54 countries, just mix up the middle and kill some of them"
@@neanineto5516 yeah, I think he is vastly underread on the subject. There's little rhyme or reason in using the old cape colony borders. Anything you'd change about my take?
Botswana is very well what you have said but you forgot it has like only 2 million people and the only few countries in Africa that does not have a future demographic explosion. They will be more defensive than offensive. Personally I see EAF expanding southward which is in line with Christian Africa.
I don’t know why everyone in the US is obsessed with “demographics is destiny” argument, Britain colonized India, being outnumbered 100 to 1, and fractured China as well. Nigeria has the highest population growth in the world, and no one is thinking they are about to be a superpower. It’s all about how a society organizes, and adapts to technology. Demographics can help and hurt, but by no means are they a deal breaker when it comes to power projection.
I don't see Nigeria becoming a *superpower*, but I do find it likely that they may exert control onto neighboring areas and become a more important world player
@@GnosticLucifer You may close the technological gap, but without closing a social gap as well it isn't gonna do much. You can have an 1 billion population country with nukes and a couple of mega cities... but no one on the world stage exept your closest neighbours (and even that is not guaranteed) is going to take you seriously if 80% percent of these 1 billion population are tribal peasants living not much differently than their ancestors thousand of years ago. (This is the reason why India is always, like, kinda in the background of world news despite being the world's most populous country. I expect something similar in the future Africa.)
@@Kokostal-b3g oh India is in background lol. The simple reason west holds majority of the soft power and media that is what west is always in the headlines. And incoming to India Western countries are practically begging India lol to come join there side.
I love your videos and are a big fan but your depiction of the balkans is laughable bad The history of the balkans has basically been defined by resisting Turkish oppression and for the balkans especially Greece and Romania(with larger militaries and Romania’s 6.5% growth rate and impressive tech sector and greece’s 8.5% growth rate and also a longer history of fighting the Turks )to just bend over is comical even if they did leave the eu Any new pan-Slavic Union also wont likely happen as Yugoslavia was already a mess of a nation with Tito the populations of the Balkan are to nationalistic even today to form any serious unions With Romania I think you fumbled the most for Romania to not only not exist by the end of the century but to once again be divided is extremely hard to believe Transylvania and Moldavia have a majority Romanian population and hungry has no real aspiration to unite with it(except for a few nationalists) and especially not Moldavia(makes 0 sense currently or historically) for Wallachia and moladavia to be divided and amongst different factions some real shit would have to go down as unlike for say Belgium or Canada there is no real distinction between the 2 and the general Romanian population is happy within its current union not having any real major strife For the Turks just moving into the balkans I think you severely under estimate the racism of the balkans Yes even today Besides the balkans I generally agree with you and I hope your not insulted by your critic as I have been and still am a long time fan of your channel
To be fair, I think the implication is that there will so few natives in the Balkans due to nobody having kids and ALL young people moving to Western Europe to be forever alone and childless careerists will mean that when the Turks decide they want the place it won't matter at all. A handful of old geezers in an abandoned ghost country won't be able to resist the waves coming over the Bosphorus and taking up shop without even a by your leave.
@@brianboru2762 true but I think the current Eastern European population crisis has mainly been a result of the first 2 decades of Eurovision and the fact young Balkaners can easily move to Western Europe but as Germany and the uk(also brexit) get more and more expensive I think we’ll see the East start to level out it’s population pyramid
Honestly, Cuba deserves it's own video( not because I am Cuban), but because it is the epitome of the 20th century. If you analyze demographic shift occuring on the island, you will see that it will either become a big player in the Americas or be completely destroyed. The island is on borrowed time, and will likely cause a conflict in the future. Would like to see your opinion on the matter.
The biggest beneficiary for Cuba is its diaspora in the USA that has become rich and would probably pour money into the island to try to help it modernize, especially once Cuba’s regime collapse. I doubt Cuba will be destroyed in a conflict because it’s in the interests of the USA to keep it stable. Partially because they don’t want a humanitarian crisis but also because the Cuban population in Florida are so vital towards presidential elections (I mean the 2000 election is an amazing example) that a president (most likely Republican) may try to intervene in Cuba to appeal to Cubans in Miami.
@@MultiLiam24 Not really. It's complicated. If it was any Hispanic country, I will have no doubt Cuba will become prosperous, but its isn't. The problem is that when people picture Cuba, they picture a land of diversity and inclusion, etc. This is a myth. Cuba has never been tolerant to anyone except Afro-Cubans( due to 100 years of war). Not to Italians, French, Jews, Asians, or any other minorities. This is because Cuba is the most extreme case of Spanish colonization in the Americas. When the Spanish arrived in Cuba they effectively exterminated all of the native peoples within 200 years. This means that Cuba never had a native population to create its founding myth( Like Mexico, Venezuela, etc.). Cuba was also the primary place Spanish people migrated to in the Americas. This ,in turn, created a hyper colonial society where your place in society was how close you where to Spain. No other Hispanic country went through this colonization process. Even Argentina( which is the whitest hispanic country) doesn't have this close relationship with Spain. In fact, they allowed other Europeans to settle there( 60 percent of the population has Italian ancestry). Cuba was the opposite. Throughout, its history only those of Spanish ancestry where allowed to immigrate there( Again, this is because Spain wanted Cuba to become part of mainland Spain). This was to such an extreme that there are documents where Conversos ( Jewish who converted to Catholicism) and Moriscos( people of Muslim descent) were not allowed in the island, instead they were sent to the other colonies( This is also why alot of the Hispanics are Crypto-Jews, yet Cubans show little Jewish ancestry). I am writing this to make the point that Cuba is a colonial society ( not unlike the south of the United States) and, as a result, it is reluctant to allow anyone into their ranks( no matter color, education, creed, etc.). This contrasts the other hispanic countries and the northern states of the U.S who have a rich history of assimilation. The second myth that people believe is that Cubans in the U.S are a thriving community whose numbers are increasing. This is not true( Yes, we have become numerous in the U.S and we are more numerous than we ever were). However, this is a false perception. We are increasing now, but in 20 to 30 years our population will stabilize, and in the future decrease( if you are thinking that this is similar to what is happening to white Americans, its because it is). People forget but Cuba was industrialized alongside mainland U.S. This means Cuba is suffering the results of industrialization without the benefits of it( populations below replacement level, aging population, etc.). This monster will rear its head in the 20s and 30s resulting in the population being halved by the end of the century. Cuban Americans are not doing any better. They will also feel these effects( if you want to verify this all you have to do is look at the businesses in Miami( you will see most of these are related to care in old age- Yes the irony is that Miami is an old city, and as a result Cubans are being replaced with other immigrants( Venezuelans, Mexicans, etc.). This is why I want Whatiflist to do a video on Cuba and its community. There will be crisis in the future regardless of what they do. If Cubans choose to industrialize, they will have to import other people of the Americas( which will cause a crisis of identity since Cuba is not used to incorporating immigrants( See my explanation above). If they choose to stay the way they are, the old population will put strains on the communist government and Cuban Americans( making the crisis worse since Cuban Americans ( which are younger) will want to have less kids to keep their family in Cuba alive. This is the worst option since Cuba could be colonized in the future by other growing populations in the America's( if its not by an outright war, it could through migration to Cubas empty land( Yes, most of Cuba is unhabited and empty, and will become more appealing as time goes on. The third option( which is the most likely and most favorable) is that Cuba returns to being a colony( either of Spain or U.S 51 state). This is a bad option since the war of independece would be for nothing, but is the best way to guarantee Cubas population growth and stability( Under the U.S or Spain, Cuba would most likely have autonomy and its population could be replaced with people with similar genetics). The four option is war. Cuba could just choose to fight and depopulate the surrounding countries( Mexico, D.R, Haiti, etc.) Ironically, this will necessitate the country to become industrialized and would cause a population boom( Countries through wars go through a population boom. See the U.S, United Kingdom, etc. during and after WW2). This is not a likely option due to the U.S. The fifth outcome is the death of Cuba through the assimilation of Cuba Americans into Black, Mexicans, and White populations and a mixing of cultures on the island( Mexican, D.R, Haitian, Venezuelan, Colombian, etc.) This is the most likely option. However, this would mean the death of Cuban society since a new founding myth would have to be created for the island.
One question I have is: will or can Europe and in particular Germany deal with its Muslim and African minorities? Because there is no way in hell this situation we have here can go on for much longer with those minorities refusing or being unable to assimilate...
From what I’ve noticed alot of the Syrian refugee families and the acrual immigrants seem to be integrating pretty well. The problem are the supposed Somali and subsaharan “refugees”
Yeah sure, Romania who tends to unite with Moldova will become part of Hungary, thank you for this realistic prediction, next time I wait for Malta annexing Tunis.
Even better he left SP and Rio to the northern block, meaning the southern tip in his view is just the white neighborhood of the country but without the strong economic centers lol
@@SgtCarter69 , Brazil never tolerated separatism and any move in that way will be crushed. Not that it will happen, mind you, separatism is quite weak around here, and I live in one of the few states that actually tried to seceed. Either the country collapses first or it would be violently supressed, but for Brazil to break down it would probably require in itself a great international instability and losing brazilian food production even for a few years of "chaos" would cause hunger in such a way that would bring down other countries together with us.
As cool as it is, as a Canadian the scenario with the Great North really isn't plausible. British Columbia and Ontario would NEVER see themselves on their own. The only plausible nation(s) to come out of a collapsed Canada would be Quebec and Western Canada as a whole. I also say this because in western canada we very much so do not want to become US states
19:08 India does control the politics and culture of South asia/Indian subcontinent. Pakistan was the only country, which stood against India to portray themselves as muslims, who are descendants of Turks and Arabs(a self delusion) but Pakistan as of now, is failing and slowly dying.
whatever it is it is also nuclear capable and you best believe those tactical nukes gonna come flying if anyone tries to dissolve the state itself, furthermore pakistan was founded out of the notion that muslims would never be equal in india, which has largely came to fruition with various hindu fanatical riots
Very interesting in a mathematical sort of way but real life will almost certainly be very different. I remember in October 1989 my friends in West Berlin were convincing me that "nothing will change". Also, the argument here is curiously US-centric while historically major empires have fallen _very quickly_ (mere years) once the process started. So who knows, maybe Liechtenstein becomes the next empire.
7:05 lmao no. The only historical precedent we have for this was when one of the states in the south was neglected by the two main states (Minas Gerais and São Paulo) of the oligarchic Republic. What happened was that the south allied with other states and got Minas Gerais on board and what happened next was a unionist dictatorship. It's easier to Brazil to go back into being a populist dictatorship than the south actually splitting.
I think people are getting too hung on his cultural-ethnical argument (which IS completely inaccurate) and forgetting the very real political divide between the south and the more northeastern states (not to mention the unbalanced distribution of funds). Considering the huge time span he have to himself, it’s plausible that some big political events could push these political differences to a breaking point (tbh I don’t see it either, but it’s an ok prediction to make).
@@wanderingthewastes6159 The problem is that those issues aren't exclusive to the South. Most of the Center-West and Southeast is also part of the same conundrum. That's probably the biggest divide atm, but things would have to get very bad for there to be a successful separatist movement, I think the window of opportunity for that is long past.
It is important to keep in mind that there was a de-facto separate country formed in the middle of the 19th century in Southern Brazil, which lasted a bit under 10 years (founded in 1836). The Empire fought back (obviously) and crushed the movement, but the pride of the people who fought for it, and the historical characters from that time are still reminded to this day in the two southern states of Brazil (Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul), having their names becoming the name of schools and streets, and also statues of them here and there. With the failing of the central Brazilian government, that has been stuck in a political, financial and economic crisis in the last 10 years, the lack of hope and trust in the federal government and with political extremism, I'd say that with a pint of cultural hate (which has become noticeable in the last years, especially because of different political mindsets), it's just a crisis waiting to boil over in the coming years.With this year's federal election being a good starting point, where votes are very culturally and regionally focused, and where different regions vote to different parties in extremely different ways, there is a chance of people coming onto the streets manifesting for several different reasons, and a single common point of "not wanting to be ruled by the central federal government" being a single "easy" way to focus the reason for their unhappiness.
As a central European, I really have to tell you that the idea of a unification of Germany and Austria is really really unfeasible. Austrians really don‘t see themselves as germans at all and any sort of „Anschluss“ would trigger bad memories in all states around (France, Benelux, Czechia, Poland) who would try to stop this at any cost. Also any non-far right parties would have immense trouble legitimizing this internally. If you suggest this in your map, you should go into the specifics (in the future video about Europe you mentioned). Also you should consider the possibilty of Russia electing a more western-oriented leader in the future, given the pressure from Turkey on one side and China on the other you‘d think that they‘d naturally want to team up with the US and especially Europe to defend not only themselves but the Balkans. (see for example the long and strong bond between Russia and Serbia)
Germany doesn't exist. Every time I go to Germany and hear young Germans imitate neutral American accent to sound 'sophisticated', I look forward to the time when militarized banderite Slavic youths seize the opportunity for pillage and plunder of Germany.
As a central European i really have to tell you that decades of brainwashing people into "Austrians are not germans" can be reverted. If politicians push in the other direction for decades for example.
It's more sensible to say AH gets reformed before us Austrians join Germany again. Yeah, yeah; they always say we have close relations but Germany's policies are aimed at one thing alone: Help Germany. Plans to force EU citizens to pay for German roads (a German government official called us out for "Ösi Maut Maulerei" before the CJEU shut that whole thing down because it violated EU law - something that a supermarket worker knew but not Bavarian federal government). Then the Germans criticized us for closing the borders during the immigration crisis in 2015 while doing the same thing on their border to us. I like Germans well enough but as a nation: FUCK GERMANY.
This man has never set foot in Europe, there is not a single person in Europe that is willing to fight a war with another European nation and the EU definitely does not need America to be stable, NATO is helpful ofcourse but the notion that Europe would collapse and then be colonized by America is insane.
interesting , France and Germany both have been trying to run EU their different ways . Just like before both world wars , imagine that . Europeans hated Trump , he was just giving you a wake up call . US can no longer afford Europe's security as China is the real threat for US . If US doesn't have a civil war over woke culture and feminism pushed by elitist and media , I do see US pulling out of UN and NATO as they serve no propose for US . Both are mainly funded by US and UN is on US territory . Russia has economy of Texas and military budget of UK , without their 6,000 nukes ? Russia would be ignored militarily . So no need for NATO as EU is tied to Russia for fossil fuels .
@@rodneygaul2227 France ande Germany have been running it differently, but with the same goal, further European cooperation. The Germans however wanted to work more with the US but the French less. Thats why the French have the only good army on the European continent because they believe the US will not always have their back, as they should. I don't think the US will have a civil war, especially not because of feminism and lgbtq rights, which are widely adopted concepts in Europe. As for the fossil fuels most of our governments want to get rid of Russian gas as soon as possible, with only Germany lagging behind because Schroder and Merkel were very naive. That is why I hope that Macron wins the elections since even though I don't agree with his fiscal policies, he has a great foreign policy plan on how to tackle the war in Europe, and how to further integrate the European Union.
@@rubenraasveldt3693 Merkel hated Obama and Trump , interesting opinion . Germany asked US to pull troops out also as Russia isn't a real threat ( defense budget of UK ) // " I don't think the US will have a civil war, especially not because of feminism and lgbtq" // OK your opinion , but I live here and their is a growing hostility as they are not wanting equality which they already have , but want to be superior . 20 years ago nobody cared ? equal pay for equal work , that is fair and just ( 1964 that started ) . Gay marriage , OK . You want to be transexual ? ok . But now "schools" are pushing everyone needs to be "gay" and transsexual" . They are allowing 6 year old boys to transition ( the human brain isn't developed until 25 years old on average ) Also Now , you have to be a minority or a woman to get promoted (unless your connected to the right people ) . The Military is also now doing this since Obama (women that can't even pass the PT test are promoted with no experience over combat veterans . Normally after 90 days a general discharge is given if your a man if you can't pass PT test) The "riots" were done by feminism and lgbtq" factions . ( Portland , DC , there are more I can name ) right wing conservatives (Trump fans ) , as media says , would have been carrying guns Back in 1983 after High School I couldn't get a job above min. wage ($2.90) because I was the wrong color and sex . Why I joined the military . During the 1980's you didn't need a college degree to flip hamburgers like you do now (school loan crisis) . If you get your news about US from ABC , CBS , CNN, FOX , MSNBC or NBC ? Your listen to propaganda (the same company owns all of them ) And what is worse ? they are not news but opinion pieces by elitist "tools" not facts and let you decide ) Elementary , High Schools , Colleges and Universities are not teaching "how" to think , but "what" to think . They are banning books: "To Kill a Mocking Bird" being one" A story about a black man being falsely accused of raping a white woman ( I have never heard of a country doing that which turned out well for humanity ) The idiots are running the country , Their favorite quote is: "the Science is settled ". Science is never settled and always changing as we learn more
@@rodneygaul2227 I am Dutch, so I ofcourse do not know as much about your nation as you do, but I would like to discuss some points since they are quite interesting. Firstly I agree with the statements that we should let people do what they want. I also agree that starting transitioning at age 6 is way to early. An age restriction to 12 year old (just before puberty) would make more sense if not higher. I do not however think that schools are trying to push people to be gay, rather I believe it is a good thing that people get education on this sort of stuff, since knowing from a young age that there are people different than the "normal" straight people who are also normal people could prevent a hostile attitude towards them later in live. Another piece in that is that I heard that sex ed. in america is severely lacking and I believe that that also should be a part of basic education at around the age of 12 (also because of start puberty). I think that diversity hiring and promoting is somewhat unfair (I am a straight white male) but also understandable. Companies are run by old white men so this "fresh air" could give more representation and equality for all. The only thing is that I hope this trend does not last forever, but until the disparity has closed a bit. I don't know what a PT test is tbh, I am not in the military. Google says it is about how fast your blood clots but idk how that is different between men and women and how that relates to getting promoted. It is ofcourse unfair to promote unexperienced women over experienced men just because they are women, but then again, if only 1% of the generals is a woman then it makes sense to make it more equal. The riots are a completely different case but I do not think it fair to blame it on just one group. The blm riots got completely out of hand ofcourse but so did the storming of the capitol. So I think both sides are wrong at the extremes, look up the "horseshoe theory" since I strongly believe in that theory. I get most of my news from the NOS or Dutch Broadcasting Foundation, which is the main news provider of the Netherlands, funded by the government but not controlled by the government so it is very independent and therefore purely factual, like most serious news sources in the Netherlands. I occasionally use BBC. I am in university myself now and I do not notice getting forced to think a certain way. My teachers are on average a bit more left wing but they try not to influence the curriculum. I don't know how a school can ban a book since you read books in your free time but okay. At our uni some students refused to read a book written by a white straight author because it was not diverse enough and the teacher got so mad because he found that so ridiculous he left the hall. I also agree that for some reason idiots are running your nation. How is it that from a population of 330 million people you get to choose in 2016 between a woman that does not feel trustworthy at all and a man that is just a huge dumbass. Then again in 2020 you get to choose between that same dumbass and a senile old man. I really feel that the democratic party and republican party are just two sides of the same coin, it really doesn't matter which one you vote for, there are only the smallest changes between them. If these two parties would run in the Netherlands they would probably merge. Also the political system is structured extremely stupidly. The fact that the supreme court contains people whose ideoligy is known instead of people who are chosen purely on their trackrecord as great judges and are there to independently observe the law is bonkers. The first past the post system does not work and has forced the US into a polarizing two party state. Furthermore (this is my personal opinion, I am a social-democrat) I belive that if americans were just willing to pay a couple percent more tax, especially the very rich, then the US could have the greatest education system, the best (free) healthcare system, the best public transport system (which is absolutely horrid now due to car lobbyists) and many other things. I am looking forward to your reaction.
As usual, you keep understimating Europe I think. Especially the Balkans. And Hungary taking over most of Romania? How? You might have some very wrong idea about how many Hungarians there are. Also, your idea of the unstable and easily conquerable Balkans - besides Yugoslavia, which did break into its constituent parts, which state is that unstable precisely? Okay, Greece had financial problems, Bulgaria had various post-Soviet pains, Romania, if you consider it Balkan which it geographically isn't except for a small part and culturally it is to some degree, had a violent revolution but there was never any tendency towards breaking up of these states.
@@averagebohemian5791 What Romanians? No one has kids and everyone moves out of the country. If the Turks come they'll find empty fields and buildings.
It seems like you're obsessed with China annexing the Russian Far East. The Russian navy and its nuclear capabilities is by far its greatest strength. The old Russian Empire struggled for centuries to acquire ice free ports, and the Soviets made naval capabilities their number one priority. We see even now, the war in Ukraine is largely to preserve supremacy over the Black Sea that Russia has enjoyed since the 19th century. It currently holds the otherwise useless Kaliningrad territory for the same reason. Vladivostok is of utmost strategic importance to Russia, and it would take an utter collapse of the Russian state, never before seen, or a World War 3 type scenario for them to allow another state to annex it. And China and Russia have increasingly been driven into each others' arms by political necessity, which only further reduces any possible mutual hostilities. It's more likely that China annexes countries bordering the South China Sea than anything to its north, and that too is unlikely. Historically China has not been interested in annexations of territory outside of densely populated culturally assimilated regions or territories of extreme strategic importance. China already has the most accessible sea ports in the world, so annexing Vladivostok would make no sense from a cost to benefit basis. And while Siberian resources may be tempting in the future, China has already shown that they prefer to access resources of other countries economically without taking on any political burdens. Certainly China's economic tentacles could reach further into Asia and Africa, including the Russian Far East, in this century and beyond, without any annexations. Taiwan is the only exception as annexations go, but since that is already considered to be Chinese territory, both according to the Chinese government, and to a degree, the international community, it might not even qualify as an annexation.
The video overall is great, however from personal perspective, I have to disagree on the Balkans. I myself come from Bulgaria and live in Germany, thus I know a lot of people who left the country in search for a “better life”, however this idea that you have to leave the country in order to become successful is slowly becoming outdated as the country slowly improves and you hear more and more often of people actually returning to Bulgaria, since they now get paid the same wage they would get in Germany. As for the birth rates, while still not great, things are actually better than with most of the western countries, so this shouldn’t be much of an issue. That compared with the fact Greece and Bulgaria are both EU countries who despise Turkey and with Germany remilitarizing in order to protect their sphere, I highly doubt an Islamization of the Balkans.
You just have to look at a map of Turkey with its fertility rate to see that the Turks in Western Turkey already have a fertility rate of 1.7 or something like that. That's the same as Romania and Bulgaria have now. There is no way Millions of Turks move to the Balkans. If they move they will probably go to Western Europe.
@@DominikJuric Turkey reported a fertility rate of 1.66 last year, compared to Bulgaria's 1.54 and Romania's 1.63, his idea of Turks moving to the Balkans and making them "cultural outposts" of Turkey makes no sense.
I used to see some good points in this guy's arguments, but predictions such as these are so laughable it makes me cringe and question his other ideas and beliefs.
I have one small dispute with the North America portion of the map: British Columbia would likely follow suit with the prairie provinces and go where they do so as to avoid suffering the fate of Russia or of Cuba from before the sanctions stopped. That or it stays with Ontario and the northern territories if those two stay united.
And I have a feeling that Quebec would probably annex Nova Scotia and the provinces bordering it by land to the north and to the east in general since they were all part of historical French Canada
BC is full of fucking idiots that desperately left Honk Kong, only to be voting in exactly the same government they ran away from to begin with. I would kick every single one of them in the balls.
I don't know about that... I don't think the US would get mad at them just because they didn't join the US. I think if anything the Canadian prairie provinces will form their own country too - I think at the end of the day economics will influence each province's decision about what to do more than culture and the US doesn't really have anything economically to offer that part of the world.
i could maybe see BC joining with a theoretical west coast, washington oregon california maybe even down to mexico, but i could never see the USA allowing that, both for lost land and for losing access to the pacific ocean. similar thing with quebec convincing the maritimes to join together, if for nothing else for them to avoid becoming an exclave. i could also see southern ontario maybe merging with the north eastern states, if we ended up with a CAS type split that managed to take the midwest and prairie provinces with it. but i think the north and manitoba would want their own thing.
I think the US benefits from an united Canada so long as it remains an ally. If Canada is balkanized, it would be easier for the individual polities to be swayed by international rivals and become a security liability.
Keeps talking about Turks, Forgets like 30-35% are basically Kurds waiting for an opportunity to split. Also they have the population increase whereas rest decrease.
Doubt and unlikely. I don't think borders will change this much in the future, Borders will change in the next 100 years but not this much however some of the predictions do have merit in them, they will be more of a "spheres of influence" than new countries. A lot of other predictions are also based on oversimplification. But that's given when making a prediction. You need to do more homework about Islamic world, central Asia and Russia.
I honestly think that it's more likely that much of the Islamic world will nuke themselves out of existence than that it will become prosperous again. It has been prosperous only because of the fact that trade was primarily conducted by land at the time.
@@user-uf2df6zf5w You look like western degenerative coomer who watches CNN and fox news all day long. Go read some books and stop consuming all that propaganda
The ones who compare the USA to the fall of Rome don't ever take into account Rome lasted over a thousand years, we haven't even hit a quarter of that amount of time. Plus the USA reached it's geographic maximum when Hawaii was admitted to the union (again, barely 60 years ago). If we are the Roman Empire of the modern age, then we're just getting started.
everyone agrees that 1940s/50s america was the peak culturally, economically, and politically. in matching, Julio-Claudian era of america had already started. following the trajectory, we are in the Flavian-Antonine era of america since we are the sole superpower since 1991. eventually, we'll hit our version of Crisis of the Third Century
I just dont believe that traditional imperialism, like with a “Neo-ottoman empire” is viable. I think think economic imperialism is more likely to be common in the future. If you want to expand Turkey, i think it would be more realistic, if you made a slightly bigger “Greater Turkey”.
Historians in 2100 will look back on this video as an interesting novelty of the ignorance of our time to future events that will take place that alter geopolitics and the world at large forever, and how wrong this map inevitably will be
A bankrupt and debted nation with no agency and under foreign control with a negative birth rate to boot is projected to fail against a nation with none of the aformentioned traits. Color me suprised. Greece nationalists should be realists above all else.
@@fuckshitfuck69 but the UK? lol... you're deluded. The UK-US alliance does not benefit the UK. If it was up to me id say to kick them out of this country. We have several military bases. Id also seek to ally with Russia and China lol. Fuck this US hegemony. Theyre not our friends.
@@timothymiller4475A unified Europe would rival the US in every way and that's just adding stuff up. Now imagine what would happen with proper integration and cooperation. Europe will seek more and more unity in a world with massive super powers and will become one itself.
I definitely don't agree with your Europe part... there are many Europeans that know and realise we rely on the US, at least militarily. It is true that the ageing problem and perhaps falling population levels will severely impact and hurt all (especially western) European countries, but there is just no way that Europe completely collapses and becomes a US satellite federation. I do agree that it is likely Europe will federalise but rather on it's own out of necessity to still be able to compete. However, nationalism will be a great opponent to this federalisation and one which should not be underestimated
The thing is - We dont rely on the US in theory. It is by choice of our spineless politicians. A Europe that defended itself from outsiders for over 1000 years is suddenly no longer capable of doing that? I do not believe this. The spineless leftists / chair farters in France, Germany and so on will not be in power forever.
@@yolomanolo2601 while I agree with the first half of your reply I don't think that calling all ruling politicians leftist and spineless is called for. There's a lot that goes into being left wing and right wing, and just using it as an insult for the current politicians in power willy nilly is the same as saying everyone born in Asia is of Chinese ethnicity (China on its own already encompasses many different ethnicities even). Edit: though you are right in saying that in the future governments will likely become more more right-wing, due to the continued rise of right-wing populism, starring politicians such as Le Pen, Wilders, and Chrupalla (and arguably Johnson as well), although Populism is generally much more effective at being an opposition party than a ruling party
The US' birthrate is only marginally higher than Europes (and the same for middle and higher income families in fact) and is about 8 years younger on average. So they have maybe a decade, maybe decade and a half on us, that's it. Aging is affecting absolutely every nation on earth except Africa and the US' advantage is overestimated.
@@mysterioanonymous3206 The West should learn how to live with the aging problem, to hold out with technology until the rates improve with better incentives for starting families like Japan is forced to do so even earlier than we are. We can compensate a lot with automatisation.
@@yolomanolo2601 I agree. Japan is a good example, because they're still way ahead of most nations on every measure despite their high average age. Just shows that economic structure and level of development matters, a lot. So just because Africa or whoever has high birthrates doesn't necessarily mean anything. Many countries have yet to cross the Middle income trap, and only few will manage. The west will maintain its dominant position for a long time. And that's before climate change ravages entire regions, mostly, you guessed it, in the global south.
Considering Trumps recent comments about Greenland and Canada, in addition to Justin Trudeau’s random resignation this week, this video is uncannily predicting America’s new foreign policy direction going forward in 2025
I've watched many of your recent uploads, and always find them thought-provoking. I'm left with a question here, however: do you believe that nuclear deterrence will become less important in the future, perhaps with some new missile-defense system? For example, Israel's survival during the Cold War depended on conventional military efforts backed by the US nuclear umbrella. More recently, with its own arsenal, Israel deters direct invasion with the threat of a nuclear salvo. Honestly, I believe your vision would require some widespread anti-missile system, a technological resolution of MAD.
israel doesnt even need to use nukes to hold off its regional rivals they are all decades behind them in other military tech and fighting skills plus most are pretty much failed states or likely to be failed states in the future.
Isreal hasn't needed the nuclear threat to defend herself: her conventional army has come thru with flying colors time & again against any neighbor foolish enough to test its mettle.
@@isaacwojo3273 Not to mention Israel has the capability to prevent its neighbors from developing militarily and obtaining nukes. Furthermore, Israel is protected by MAD but not limited by it- no other country would want to glass the Holy Land.
I think this is fairly analytically accurate except for the Chinese empire portion. Given where Chinese demographics are going and the fact that China more or less has the United States’ full attention, I think China will go the way of Russia rather than see expansion. But that’s just my opinion
If by “go the way of Russia” you mean endure a devastating collapse and slowly decline thereafter, I’d have to disagree, at least to a certain point. I see Russian civilization collapsing pretty much for good in this next century, whereas a regime change in China would be less crushing. One whatifalthist view I ascribe to is that Chinese Han culture is one of, if not the most unified and resilient cultures in world history. Sure their demographics are warped and declining, but even under duress China would still remain a world superpower, and depending on the regime change (or lack of one), they could easily take eastern Siberia from a collapsing Russia. I don’t think the US will be as big of an issue in this case, because despite Siberia being resource-heavy, it is a territory of their former enemy, and not one they can very easily defend from a Chinese incursion. Not to mention that if we follow the whatifalthist timeline, the US will be more focused on internal issues at this point in time, not in a great position to contain the Chinese
Off topic but he also forgot about Wexit in North American category, which is: More Likely Than Quebec independence More recent than quebec independence
Yeah gotta disagree here. When you realise that Russia's GDP is literally smaller than Texas, and relies solely on export commodities, it's unfathomable to think that China can collapse same way Russia would through economic sanction and isolation. Sure the US can enforce difficult, isolating global trade policies on China to stunt its growth, but most consumers across the Americas, Europe, Asia still won't avoid Chinese consumer goods as much as they'd like, and the pivot away from such a dependency will take a while, because they certainly don't happen over night. If China was to collapse, it would be via the same prediction pessimists have for USA; it would be internally.
I think the demographics crisis will cause the CCP to implode but I think the nation as a whole will survive because the Han identity is strong and the CCP didn't permafuck the Chinese economy as hard as the Soviet Union permafucked Russia's.
i love how South America on its way to doing absolutely nothing for the history of wars and just be there (I'm from South America) Also, i think my country,Colombia, would be a American Ally Although sometimes they will elect populist leftist presidents who do not take any responsibility, but I think that Colombia will be like an isolated country, I just hope that the violence stops and that it returns to being a peaceful country like in the 19th century
your eurocentric view of history is so 1860s. What are we supposed to do for the history of humanity, colonize the sun? I'd say that not starting any global conflict is doing A LOT for humanity
@@MeanBeanComedy It is true, the war on drugs has been a great failure, perhaps drugs will not be so taboo in some decades and it will be something not so bad, but at the same time I think that Colombia needs to conquer its territories such as Choco and the Llanos
I like his theory that South America doesn't do much because the frontiers of the countries are too good keeping them appart, avoiding cooperation and also competition. Despite sharing a common culture, everyone lives in their own bubble. I also agree with him that is very probable that Venezuela and Cuba will get rid of their oppressive regimes someday and start a path towards more freedom and wealth. But I also think that as some regimes collapse in the Region, other will arise to take their place. It's the Latin American disease, we as a culture are addicted to leftist authoritarianism.
This is EXTREMELY america-centric, i do agree that Europe probably will collapse, but not that america will colonise it, also, america as far as i know is barely holding themselves togheter rn, i think it would be a miracle if america as we know it would exist by 2120.
Exactly. If there is a modern Western country closest to breaking up, it is the US. It has so many schisms and divergent visions for itself. Religious v non religious. Social democratic hopefuls v Uber capitalists. Not to mention its lack of actual democratic representation in its political bodies such as its Senate. A recipe for massive civil unrest, as we know.
Pro-us bias i have to admit, but with north Africa and middle east industrializing and Africa growing, Europe will stay the same or stagnant in terms of population. Is Europe irrelevant no not even close. Also forgetting about technological advancements will make normal labor unnecessary. (why hire 3rd world immigrants when you can automate your industries)
Nothing could possibly humble Europe. If the future held only two Europeans left sitting at a cafe table in an ecological wasteland, their topic of conversation would be how superior they were to everyone else.
I think with Isreal that it's worth noting that they've got Good relations with basically everyone but their immediate neighbors now and are a fairly important regional power that has only survived by having a kick-ass military and a committing to technological superiority. I think there are enough interests in keeping Isreal alive that it can survive.
Sure there are enough interests now, but many of those listed are very short term, the question was will they survive the next century, theoretically in the shadow of a dangerous Islamic power in whatifalthist’s neo-ottoman empire
@@Flash4ML by doing what they are doing now: normalizing relationship with Arab neighbors. Abraham Accords were the first major step in that direction. Saudi Arabia is going to be the big one, and with it building NEOM so close to Israel it'll inevitably normalize. There hasn't been a major war with the Arab neighbors in a long time and as those older generations die out, so will their collective shame of losing.
Nah they survived by American and British funding and interventions and numerous political coups of its surrounding neighbors and talking about the actual populations of countries worldwide a lot of people do not see Israel favorably lol
You know it’s whatifaltist when there’s a neo- Ottoman Empire on the map
LMAOOOOOOO
Turkey is going into the gutter and whatifalthist says “yeah this man going places”
@@Call_me_Dali a economic crisis like the one we are currently experiencing doesn’t have the ability to halt our power. It can only slow Turkey down but the base remains extremely strong.
Lol
The man is obsessed, why though ?
The problem with something like this, and I'm sure you see it too, is that you can't predict a massive world shaking event which are by nature unpredictable, but is likely to happen within the next 100 years. So this is really more of a, "if things continue as they are for the next hundred years" type list.
Lol yes. This is like a Englishman writing an article in 1922 proclaiming an eternal British empire
Buuuut it’s a channel thats heavily focused on geopolitics and speculative history. He says in the opening minute that it’s not gospel - and anybody who would think that is a fool. The actual question is - is it well informed and thought out? Are the factors that he is considering realistic? Nobody - especially the maker himself is is saying this is how it’s gonna be.
@@scholaroftheworldalternatehist How so? There are constants and variables that be calculates for, the no Englishman was able to calculate World War rising tensions and technology, and was completely blindsided by nationalist pride. There is some pride in seeing your own country do well, but there is some sense in it, and he says other countries will do well, unlike the nationalist Englishman.
@@SciRuler He says that the US will become the "next Roman empire" while ignoring that the US only has 4% of the world population (compared to a fifth of the world being Roman) and racial demographics will drastically change by end century (much more non-white).
I strongly believe that technology will bring in a massive shift in the way nations work and borders are shaped in the coming few decades, but we are simply too far behind to fully predict what that would entail
Could be a massive wave of genetic engineering, could be a worldwide space race, we just don't know right now
I am Brazilian, and i can say that the south spliting off Brazil is a very popular joke in the south because they took pride on their culture,but almost nobody there really wanna leave the union,since they see this idea as some kind of funny thing of their past,just like Texans when it was a independent country for some years.Also,every brazilian state has enough culture and population to be a country of its own,but they had stayed togheter for so long,that they just see themselves as Brazilian...
There actually is an ongoing independence movement here in Texas. Unless the federal government get's reigned in back to it's traditional Constitutional bounds, I can see the US actually breaking up into multiple countries in the next few decades (or sooner).
Yeah, it's far-fetched. I can see his perspective as a North-American in throwing race as a decisive factor for secession, but really, race in Brazil is a very different beast than in the US.
@@randlebrowne2048 Nah the us won't break. We may have a civil war ala 100 BC Rome, but we'll have a Sulla type figure to usher the slow end of democracy in this age of the world.
@@theirishasian5490 We're already in the slow end of democracy. We may need a civil war to *restore* it!
It’s bullshit Brazil is already a superpower it has a massive economy and tons of influence it just needs a government change
Comments in 2120 : this aged like a milk
It's ageing like fine wine right now
Like bangladesh becoming military rule pastuns and baloch wanting to saprate from pakistan
@@sudhanshujaiman2232and trump just put the idea of buying Greenland on the table too 😂
0:17 Who's here after Trump suggested Canada and Greenland join the USA?
Good call bud.
Yes... Algorithm recommended...
I thought it was funny he brought that up
Dude just saw the future
When it comes to China, I strongly doubt that nations like Korea, Japan, or Vietnam will ever willfully submit to them the way they did 1500 years ago. After the rise of nationalism and other western enlightenment ideas, these countries stopped viewing China as their cultural and economic leader, and more like an oppressor and colonizer. The Indonesians even started to view their rich Chinese minority the same way the Germans viewed their rich Jewish minority in the 1930s.
Historically, the Chinese empires have relied little on independent allies the way European powers did, choosing instead to simply colonize more land for China proper or having a few allies in regions they seek to project power through (such as some Central Asian Tribes). They have also been overwhelmingly land-based and self-sufficient, with little emphasis on mercantilism and trade. In those senses, the Chinese empires have always been more similar to ancient empires like Rome than more recent European Empires.
If China is to expand (which judging by the instability and ethnic violence in regions like Xinjiang between the natives and Han Chinese, it seems unlikely) it would most likely be in taking Taiwan, Japanese pacific territories like Okinawa, or to exploit virgin lands in the Russian Far East and in Central Asia as you portrayed on the map. With the latter two, I would only see them to be very probable if coastal north China is wrecked by climate change. The colonization of the region of Manchuria, for instance, was largely caused by environmental and population troubles in the northern province of Shandong near the end of the Qing Dynasty, which caused Han Chinese to mass-migrate to the near uninhabited lands of Manchuria. The one exception to this is perhaps North Korea, which has become so culturally different from the south that I can see their regime trading self-rule for more material wealth and a bigger seat in the Chinese Imperium.
In terms of a post-CCP China, many pro-CCP Chinese people are already what we in the west would consider right-wing and even ethno-nationalist, but a shift in the official policy of the government (such as ending the program of Affirmative Action for the ethnic minorities) I don’t think would make the Chinese state stronger, but only make border regions like Tibet and Xinjiang feel more alienated and more likely to start mass armed rebellions. If the USA is to wane in direct global power, countries like Japan and Korea would either go their own way or still maintain good relations with the USA, rather than drifting towards a new nationalist China.
The point is, unless the Chinese cultural sphere can overpower a country’s own native population, they probably won’t submit to China, unless some unforeseen shift in philosophy takes place. No matter how honorable and right-wing a post-CCP China will be, a country like Vietnam will not just willingly re-enter the Chinese Imperium. China’s future is not re-establishing the Confuscian sphere of influence in the west Pacific, but instead establishing a new base of Chinese civilization in Central Asia.
Partly true, but one point to consider (maybe, as I can only speak out of a limited view living in one of these countries): not all embrace and/or understand the ideas of western "enlightenment"; heck, not even us westerners always understand that as the last two years have shown. If events happen where people are unsure or even anxious, they will almost always look for authoritarian leadership.
If the Vietnamese have found it acceptable to ally with the US which half a century ago killed millions, butchered entire villages, poisoned the land with agent orange, and left millions of mines and UXO strewn across the Vietnamese countryside, they will find a way to reconcile with China.
Nationalism is not a western enlightenment idea. Nationalism is as old as civilization itself.
@@mace3632 "civic nationalism" is what western enlightenment gave us, and that is the most anti-natural idea in all of human history. It is literally wishful thinking with no connection to reality .
All Empires come up with this crap eventually, because a united , homogeneous people doesn't pay as much taxes like a disjointed, muttified "nation" does.
What if China allow them to keep their culture at the cost of official language being speaking Mandarin ? Like modern China how every state live together now.
A major thing I've noticed in your Africa section is that you don't include the international countries influencing Africa today. China is most known for pushing to Africa, but other countries, such as France and the US, could also play a big role. As Africa sits on massive piles of natural resources and the perfect demographics that any government would want. I see many African nations being puppet states of greater powers, exporting their natural resources and cheap labour to jump-start their economies, before transferring other economic sectors
True. but I kinda agree with the dude the sub Saharan African nations have been born due to other countries decisions and as Africa becomes more educated it would push for redrawing it's borders via wars or peaceful political unions
Of course there are infinite variables that will make themselves more apparent as time goes by.
iat aleardy a thing in a way when you see the old France africa most of these country still use the CFA franc and are the source of uranium of France (france will do everything to keep there power on thse country that are providing there electricity) these country are free but are still in the french sphere
Exactly he is always like Turks do this and that
But always ignore France & growing chinese influence in Africa
The dude is just trolling this map is retarded and he knows it, things like French Guyana being in Brazil when it's the only space port of France a nuclear power and the EU lmao quit smocking.
I dont see how China will be a long term player in Africa, they simply dont have the power projection ability for it and will never have it. Add to that the fact that Africa is extremely poor and the resources it offers are better found in Siberia or central Asia. France, the us turkey and India (can, but very unlikely to do it) will be the players, Americas influence will be limited, France will be by far the biggest and will control all of west Africa, Turkey will control Egypt and Libya and finally India will be the defacto hegemon because of its size and navy but wont use that power unless a threat emerges and threatens it, so as long as no one bothers them and they control the Indian Ocean they will stay to themselves.
As a swiss person, the Idea of our nation ever splitting up along ethnic lines is absolutley ridiculous, no person in ticino would like to be part of italy, no person in the west-swiss would ever want to be part of france, and no person of the rest of Switzerland would ever want to be german.
Switzerland doesn't even want to join the eu, because it wants to decide things on its own. being broken apart and ruled over by their big european neighbors woud be a nightmare for us.
The idea of Switzerland and swiss patriotism is and will always be way stronger than ethnic nationalism.
Not to mention the Swiss Franc. 💰
I agree like im swiss and saw that and i was like...really? this guy knows nothing of swiss culture. They do not want to part to be part of anything let alone along ethnic lines.
Absolutely this is ridiculous at best.
All of this is true today.. but all of this has happened several times throughout history. The political stability we have in Europe today is artificial. If / when there is a major crisis, instability and fear will cause humans simply react instinctively and align with our "tribe".
We can protest all we want, but human nature typically prevails.
I guarantee you your current bit far from guaranteed economic prosperity is the only thing holding your otherwise very distinct people to each other
The problem with these kinds of maps is they assume current trends hold. If I were in 1922 Britain and I were making a hypothetical 2022 map I would tell myself Britain is the world's sole superpower, has a strong identity, a lot of the world is in unstable and ripe for the picking and to cut a long story short, in 2022 the British Empire might be bigger and better than ever. Indeed, there were people who predicted this. Look how it turned out.
I mean's some of its current trends some of its cycles, like china and some others. Plus I think everyone things their nation will be the black swan, I know I do.
Well they wouldn't be entirely wrong. Just move the centre from Britain to America.
That would be silly. Britain was already losing speed to the US in 1922. If you actually studied it you would know the US was overtaking the UK by then and was the largest economy in the world. The US population was 100 million by then vs 40 million in the UK proper. 1822 would make sense for the UK to be dominant for the next 100 years. Which it was... So basically you proved his point. An astute observer i 1920 would be aware of that.
Current UK has smaller economy than India.
The issue is there’s really nothing holding the US back. And their won’t be for any time in the future minus a nuclear exchange or civil war. It’s more about geography and demographics. Any advantage you can think of for a nation state to have, the US had in spades. Really In unrivaled spades. The US will be a superpower whenever it decides to be as long as it’s unified. Now, how these other things play out depends on US interest. Like Iran. One reason they’d probably lose to Turkey in influence in the ME would be bc the US wills it to be so. China is another one. If they fall apart, the US could step in with Taiwan and AUKUS to basically reform that nation to our liking. Honestly I see the US being an even greater global hegemon in the next 100 years as the demographic time bomb explodes in China and Russia. The only possible rivals to US hegemony.
The degree to which the modern America resembles the Late Roman Republic is constantly surprising to me. Every time I'm like: "C'mon, this is lazy historical thinking. History doesn't repeat," I end up finding out some surprising detail about Late Republican politics that makes me think otherwise
Just look at the names of the two major political parties, too, and you'll see yet another parallel.
The comparisons between the US and the Roman Republic are pretty crazy when you get into them start to finish. the lazy people are the ones that think we are close the the fall. Just the fall of the republic.
we are lackin some stabbing
The similarity is skin-deep. Honestly, if you dig deeper you will find that the U.S mirrors Carthage better than Rome.
My greatest fear by far is that America becomes a far right or military dictatorship. The best armed people in this country would also support a fascist uprising, ban elections and political parties and call it freedom. This is the most plausible way Liberty could die in my view. This has happened before in other countries like Chile and Greece during the Cold War and could easily happen here
He didn't even mention the most ridiculous part of the map. Assuming that Hungary and Romania would unify is not even the craziest part, I can see reasons for it in the future, but it's still very unlikely. In no universe would the twice as populous Romania agree to call this new state Hungary though. This is like saying that France would join Germany and call their new state Germany. It's insane.
This tells me he knows very little about this region and its history. Makes me question the rest of his predictions.
Agreed
like the US taking over Canada i dont see why the province will leave just to join another union that will give them less Liberty, autonomy
I agree, he makes some absolutely incredible assertations and I really don't think he knows what he's talking about 80% of the time. Espevially with China, like oh my God, Korea and Japan moving into a Chinese sphere of influence?? Seriously? He has no idea what he is talking about
Well the romanian population is decreasing rapidly and many young romanian families move out to western countries and their children can't even speak Romanian. Also the the still ethnical Hungarian parts of Transylvania usually stagnate or even the population is growing, Székelyföld for exemple. It is also worth mentioning that the Hungarian people are very revisionist, I mean that the younger generations maybe even more than the older ones.
For me, the turkish empire is really stupid. Its clear that this guy has wet dreams about the Ottoman empire. It wont happen again do și several reason.
1) Erogan: Turkey has a lot of potential, yet this dipshit doesnt really do anything about it, unless there are major politicals shifts I dont see it happening
2) People dont like their nation being occupied Lmao,just as easy as that.
"Museum of declining nations" is the best description of today's Europe.
Europe descending into war without the US seems unlikely. It's not a perfect continent but a lot of country's have strong ties and with what is going on in Ukraine it feels like it's becoming a lot more united. A few smaller areas want to split off but I doubt this would be a major plight that all of Europe has to deal with, it's limited to certain small areas
You cant really judge the situation yet, this is only 1 war. Not all of its effects have been realized yet, only 5-10% of the effects of it on the globe have been realized as of now. Btw the war will result in the largest population movement in world history, it will reach 12-15m 6 months in, we are already 6 weeks in and 5m have fled
@@cuddlemuffin.9545 The video is, I would say, relying too much on the adage *History Repeats Itself* instead of looking at what is currently happening and using it to make predictions i.e. a more united Europe leading into a period of unification, not seperation, it is simply looking at two groups 1000s of years ago and saying that what happened then will likely just happen again. Looking at current affairs I think the predictions don't real hold up, the world has changed a lot and the events of the middle ages and Roman era, while a decent indicator, have to be balanced with logic
I agree kinda, but at the same time the unity has been created during the time with the US as an "overseer" thing. Who really knows what direction Europe would go without the US. It would not be far fetched to say without the US, Europe would be far more split over the war in Ukraine.
@@rayquaza1245 US has been an overseer but I don't think that's the only reason. It just so happens that as the world has become more connected with technology the US has been the most influential country. I reckon that easier communication is a far bigger reason for peace than the fact the US is just sort of there. They've been present in the Middle East for years and it's not like that's lead to peace
@@justemrys what changed? Geography is still the same, Russia still needs to expand to protect it self, so is Germany, so is Poland. A lot of times where the same thing was said and it turned out to be completely wrong. The only thing that changed between now and the middle ages is the fact that the us us there to police Europe so europeans cant fight a war or dont have to, and that's changing as American influence declines. If roughly the same thing occured throughout history each and every time and one time it didnt it doesnt make the time it didnt the rule, it is the exception that likely won't repeat for the next 2000 or so years.
I find your predicted future of Europe horrifying. Not because of the extremism or civil wars - those happening seems unavoidable, but the American colonization and gradual European erasure is for me, as a Pole who greatly appreciates the variety of European culture, the most frightening prediction of all.
I wish that this shall not come to pass. And I plan to do what is in my power to prevent my own country of sharing the fate you set out for all of Europe. Poland is not yet lost. And neither is Europe.
I bet a French German alliance will basically dictate the path europe will take, France is too proud to ever be an American satellite, I bet most latin countries will unite into a western federation with France as its military backbone and Germany its industrial hub.
The east of europe could form a second polish Lithuanian commonwealth as a protective bubble agaisnt outside threats like Russia or possible Middle Eastern aggression, forming a weird Danube federation.
Same for me. It's great to see this sparkles of pan-Europeanism from traditionally conservative and catholic Poland. I guess we are somewhat safe from the turmoil of the century with people like you :)
Greetings from Ukraine !
Jeszcze Polska nie zginęła, indeed.
I think Whatifalthist tends to underestimate Europe. Not to blame his pov, the most powerful nations in Europe do come off as pretty timid and have taken a backseat position to American power increasingly since WW2. Personally though, the European project is far from over; Russia/Belarus/Ukraine are the final frontiers of Pan-Europeanism. If Russia begins to collapse the Russian majority west of the nation could undergo a national reawakening that Putin etc have tried hard to suppress. That will posit it increasingly back into European orbit. If the Russian successor states largely became European focussed, then European power as a federation would far outstrip even the Americans and the Chinese (so long as we started sorting out our demographic problems).
@@Hellvern yeah because last time europe decided to have fun, africa was colonized, millions of jews got sent to hell on earth and 6 million were sent to actual hell, millions died and europe was turned to rubble, if europe wanted they could do it but they don't because they have seen it first hand, Americans had not had a war in their nation for years and have grown entitled, europe saw hell twice and decided to try and be pacifists, if a civil war broke out in the 60s I can assure you the USA would be a less interventionist country, with less cringe takes and a more introspective look, because seeing pictures is one thing but seeing your neighborhood turned to rubble and the bodies of your friends lying there will change you (my grandma remembers the spanish civil war and its aftermath, it left her completely changed, she was very young so it shaped her worldview quite a lot)
I think he is totally wrong about Europe. It seems to me as if he has never even talked to a European about Europe. I think especially young Europeans love the idea of a united Europe and unity will keep us strong. Especially the last few months have shown us that freedom and democracy is still a very common interest in Europe. I have also not really understood why he thinks Europe will collapse but at the same time European coutries will band together as one country. Just this theory alone seems contradictory to me. Greetings from Germany :)
I'm sorry but the idea of Turkey gaining control of any significant territory in Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Greece or Montenegro is absurd. You could halve the populations and it would still be a military nightmare for any attempt at occupation. Sending Turkish settlers to the Balkans? What is this, the 1800s.... Any attempt at coordinated demographic change would be met with fierce backlash. At best Turkey can make client states out of Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo and maybe instigate separatist movements in Sandzak & West Macedonia but an Ottoman revival? Get real.
Yeah. Most Turkish migration is happening in Western Europe where there is more economic and social opportunities. Not the Balkans where it is about as poor as Turkey. And Armenia would sooner swear fealty to Ayatollah Khamenei than accept mass Turkish immigration.
@@shadowthehedgehog3113 Turkey is a Balkan country lol. The word Balkan itself is literally Turkish. All the other Balkan countries are far poorer and less developed than Turkey
Triggered over a guesstimated map in a hundred years, nice.
Yeah, exactly that. Did you saw the West's reaction on Russia's invasion of Ukraine (and Russians do not want even conquering Ukraine, "just" force a regime change and install a puppet president)? Now imagine what would happen to any Turkish ruler (whose people have a lot stronger pro-Western sentiment since Ataturk's europeisation of Turkey and are historically considerably more rebellious than Russians)who decides to conquer Greece (which is extremly emotianally important for the Westerners as the cradle of Western civilisation and would invoke in the desire for much harsher sanctions than Ukraine did... and, very likely, even a direct military intervention).
As a Turk i think it needs to be said that the new generation is way more secular, pacifist and doesnt want a new empire. While i dont predict Turkey joining EU, i think the west will never let us in, i predict the new post-Erdogan Turkey will be closer to the west and hopefully use our soft power potential to ally the Balkans, the Middle East, Central Asia and maybe even North Africa.
Even in the least realistic scenario, our new "Big country" being a Turkic Union is more possible.
Works cited: methamphetamine
2:44 NORTH AMERICA
5:59 SOUTH AMERICA
7:19 EUROPE
11:45 AFRICA
16:36 ASIA
19:14-19:49 INDIA
_10 sec for Myanmar here_
19:59-21:33 CHINA
21:34 INDONESIA
🤓🤓🤓
Thanks for taking one for the team
thanks
Gracias homie
This is basically going with hypothetical concept
Every other prediction is based on a nuclear power nations giving up territory that they would consider fundamental. This is hilarious. I know it’s “lame” for nation’s borders to be relatively stagnant but with the threat of nuclear destruction and a century long support of territorial sovereignty of nations from the West and others I don’t think any borders will change significantly. What you’re attempting to do in this video is equate territory with influence. An idea that hasn’t had major prominence since the 1800s and has completely fallen out of favor for almost a century.
The very idea of Israel no longer existing when they’ve already shown they are ready to deploy nukes during Yom Kippur is laughably bad
That’s not how he really proposed border changes will happen. Borders will change through gradual spread of influence and unions
how many people could isreal kill with its arsenal? And would the muslim world accept that loss to finally rid the region of jews?
I was thinking something very similar, even just looking at what's happening in Ukraine right now.
@@EAdano77 The difference is that this isn’t a conflict between nuclear powers whereas a lot of the boundary changes althist provides involves nuclear powers.
With Europe becoming more unified, the borders between states become little more than bureaucratic trivia. I see no pressure driving them to change.
Furthermore, a democratic country would rather declare a region independent and then puppet it than add it to their territory, so I don't see the countries blowing up and taking over others like you do.
As a European myself, the way Europe goes ultimately depends on whether American military involvement remains (which is a big if) or Europe can become a United entity in foreign policy (which is a big no). If or when either of these collapses, you'll start seeing Aggressive Russia, booming Turkey and even Morocco try to chip away at the European periphery. If this happens European countries, where both the idea of the nation state and the memory of being a peaceful society will remain deeply entrenched in the population, will willingly form coalitions not only with their co-ethnic but also with those they share geopolitical interest. This way, borders won't change much, and they'll be almost as ceremonial as they're now, but instead of a pan European Confederation, you'll see regional confederations. Examples of these would be a Nordic-Baltic-West Slavic alliance to counter Russian aggression. A Latin French-Spearheaded coalition and a Balkan Empire as France and Turkey compete over the Mediterranean, possibly clashing in North Africa or maybe even the West Balkans. Here the Wild Card would be the West Germans, which could join in with the French in a Castille-Aragon kind of West European Alliance. Finally Britain would remain the European branch of America, as it has been for so long, and conservative Hungary might make irredentist claims over its neighbors, which it already is doing
current-day politics, always favorable to puppet than annex outright. just state that a country is nominally independent
What people tend to forget is that western Europe and eastern Europe are completely different nowadays. Like take for example Germany, 30 percent of newborns are muslims, and in the rhine-main area that percentage goes up to over 50 percent, and it isnt that they will asimilate to the German culture, its honestly otherwise. My Girlfriend is German but shes learning arabic for better job chances and easier communication.
Also street knowledge and self defence becomes more and more important since like nobody trusts police anymore here. And the muslim people are united and always in groups, while most young Germans (especially men) stay at home and are lonely. Its only a matter of fact since the German identity (which is like completely gone) will completely surrender to (at the moment) superior arabic, balkanese and turkish culture. I saw same trends happening in other western or northern european countries.
Eastern Europe is completely different on this, since their identities will probably become stronger
@@Jekoo63 Bro, you smoking mad Reefa..
@@Jekoo63 hah, man germans are a weak people then, here in flanders i mostly see a massive movement grow against muslims. virtually every non-muslim non-commie i've talked with has said shit like to end immigration or throwing the muslims out.
ESPECIALLY the young people. we've got a hard-right generation that just started becoming adults. last election the hardest right party gained like 12%, that was BEFORE 'rona.
i'm almost willing to bet this will be one of the last belgian elections with the hard-right seperatist movement finally taking the lead, making a deal with the conservatives to then split off flanders and confederalize.
Austrian here, I come back to this every once in a while to look at how absurd it all is
German here, just - wtf. This is so wrong everywhere it's incredible
I come back to his videos all the time. It's fosho 'absurd' but it's also goddamn fun to think about.
The Turkish Empire is probably the worst
@@4Lucy_ The fact that this dude took the "the south is my country" thing here in Brazil seriously tells a lot about the channel.
Not only is the movement largely a bunch of prejudiced middle aged or elderly people and terminally online edgelords with zero influence or political power, but the amount of actual members is said to be "over 0.1% of the population" and is one of those things that you don't really see often in real life outside of the internet, and pretty much nobody outside of that region agrees with the movement.
It says literally on the first paragraph of the constitution that the country is formed by the "indissoluble union of all states with the addition of the federal district" and they don't have the military power to do anything against that even if they wanted to, plus the military is usually very "legalist" all around the country.
@@The-wo2lq If Uruguai can, the south too!
We dont need high iq to see. Brazil will collapse. We usually have poor education and dont know nothing about ourselves but all brazil history was war and fight against who was tax.
North east was the richest region and had so many war against the "politicians in Rio de Janeiro". Conjuração Baiana, Conjuração do Equador, etc etc etc...
Brasilia was a politics master move in century XX. But the regional oligarcs will fight each other maybe until next century.
1930: military coup and Getulio Vargas. Southerners and northeasterners overthrew a São Paulo government.
Another dictatorship 30 years later... and all this less than a century kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk
We need REAL federalize and decentralize power, states with legal and economic autonomy, otherwise we will walk towards a rupture every 100 years.
I don't really think that poland will expand territorially, rather it will have much closer ties with visegrad four, baltic and ukraine and belarus. Maybe some sort of confederacy or neo commonwealth but definietly not any military expansion.
An Eastern European-style EU maybe. Regardless though, Poland would probably be the anchor in that system, due to their demographic and economic strength.
The thing is, if there is enough chaos in a region next door, it may want to expand militarily for security proposes and to prevent crime from becoming too powerful in that region. Not to mention, things do change, just because some countries act a certain way currently doesn't mean that can't change within a few decades.
@@wires-sl7gs That's not really how things work in the modern world. You can't just march your army in to try and stabilize a region, or else the US would have done so with Mexico already - and Iraq and Afghanistan would instead be prosperous nations. The Belorussians, Ukrainians and Baltic peoples have been suffering under Russian oppression for years, and I very much doubt they'd like to kneel to another master any time soon.
@@TheRedKing247 You're oversimplifying. Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the same as Belarus and Ukraine, not to mention share a history with Poland, which is also a Democracy and would not need to change it's government system if it wanted to restore order by occupying/annexing the region. Not to mention, the US largely mishandled two countries that were very foreign to it, and not as easy to rebuild and democratize as a industrialized Japan was, and it's not guaranteed to be the same for Poland.
@@TheRedKing247 Poland won't be able to conquer Ukraine as a master, but there is now a strong sense of brotherhood between Poles and Ukrainians due to Russian invasion. We might see a new Commonwealth form due to this, with wide autonomy for its member states.
I think one weakness in this analysis is to treat the drive toward co-ethnic unification as an unopposable force and borders as easily ignored. But the reality in eg: Africa is that a lot of people are simultaneously 1) well aware that their borders are artificial but also 2) well aware that unilateral attemps to redraw those borders will results in extremely violent and area-destabilizing wars. And we see that since decolonization, for the most parts, and for all those faillures, African governments have cooperated very closely with one-another to avoid that kind of conflicts as much as possible.
Likewise for Afghanistan: we can observe as much as we want that "Afghanistan is an artificial state", the reality is that Afghans are very attached to their borders *and* Afghanistan's neighbors for the most part want nothing to do with their co-ethnics in Afghanistan, which they see as an ungovernable backwater.
The major reason we are cautious with regional integration is because we are aware that the west will view a unified Africa as an existential threat. They will play our own divisions against us creating catastrophe across the region. Said violence will mostly be a result of western propaganda, interference ,destabilization and proxy wars across the region. Most Africans want this but we are also keenly aware that the powers that be would rather kill us all than let Africans unite
Correct, Africa will self sort and preserve the colonial borders. The bigger economic states will have spheres of influence but not conquer, too much work.
@@dylanreece7991 they would form more like cultural or friendly economic and political alliances just like what Latin America is today, barely any country discuss about borders and they cooperate to each other for bilateral progress and the most of conflicts would be internal civil wars of corruptions destitution of politics and provinces finding a way to independence but not a serious great international war due to scare to die because of the invasion's of another country or be conquered, and we need to see how the technology changes the way Africans think about conflicts or I they want to peacefully industrialize and compete with the great powers
@@dylanreece7991 not really, those borders will remain only as lines on a map. But regional integration will happen sooner or later peaceful or otherwise. People are starting to realize that we've been put in a situation where it's impossible to win. Something must change
@dihvocfoscocudvyvdd not really , most African territories prior the barbaric colonization by Europe were tribal lands. Only a few modern countries in Africa are on former imperial land parts of west Africa, Ethiopia, Somalia and Zimbabwe to be specific. This is the reason why Africa and the Americas fell to europans very easily for the most part there wasn't a unified central government that could organize a united resistance. Africa and America are large continents rich in resources there wasn't need for constant conflict and conquest to control resources and territories the foundation of kingdoms and empires. And the prospects of inter-state conflict is very slim most African states aren't trigger happy buffoons like the west and middle east
Something that regularly annoys me about your videos, although I like other aspects, is how you expect many civilisations to overcome massive crisis but see Europe in constant decline. Yes, Europe does have substantial problems but everyone has. Seeing that it still has a relatively big well educated population I don't understand why you don't see any potential for social progress. There is a good understanding amongst the younger generation how the old is mismanaging Europe and a wish for change. Another thing is how you like to justify claims for the future with ongoing trends but always ignore European integration.
This is so on point
this!
Im half french half german and this 2 country hate themselves due to world war trauma.
If you wave the flag of these country, you are called fashist, nazi,...
You will never see that in another country 8n the world, thats why europe is doomed, europeens hate themselves
@@zaneyates5704 Danke
That happens when americans who do not have any clue about our long history talk about Europe. Just listen to what he says about Austria - an ethnically split nation???? To me he sounds just like another American who thinks the US state of Georgia is attacked when Georgia and Russia are in the news lel.
Practically none of this will be right, but fascinating points to discuss all along the way. It's impossible to predict anything like this but guessing which trends take hold is fun.
very true
frfr... i reckon most of these angry mobsters in comment section are europeans who's mad as hell to see their country ripped apart by this guy
@@vulpritprooze no, he’s Biased, like US conquering Canada, why Türkiye is an Ottoman Empire, and Poland. Bro forgot about nato
@@mgames3209 He is more than Biased, he is straight up delusional.
@@mgames3209 I agree, a lot of his predictions are probably wrong. But he does say that he is "betting against god" and to not take his maps seriously. He backs his claims with reasonable amounts of evidence so I think we should at least respect his opinions, even if he is wrong.
As much as I like your videos you clearly have very little understanding of areas like Europe and Central asia. Il only speak of the latter as other comments explain the former already. There is no way in hell that Tajiks would be able to absorb Kyrgizistan and the Ferghana valley like that. The FV is the most populated region of Uzbekistan and its extremely unlikely theyd ever give it up. Furthermore Tajiks could not be more different from Uzbeks and Kyrgizes as one is ethnically and linguistically persian and the other 2 turkic. Although the people are friendly neither of them would want to be in the same country and neither of their governments would allow themselves to be subjucated by the other. You claim that you redrawed the countries based on the acctual ethnic lines but even that is wrong as the most Tajiks in diaspora are in Afghanistan and Samarqand in Uzbekistan, not the FV or Kyrgizistan. Pretty dissapointed i must say.
would like to see a confederation of central asian countries
I feel like a Schengen style free travel agreement would work well for Central Asia, the atrocious borders cannot really be solved without war, so the beat thing todo is to make the borders redundant.
You are right, pretty disappointing video as a whole to be honest.
As a Turkish citizen, it is not seems likely to dominate the region this hard for Turkey. Half of the population is basically against an Imperial Ambition. Even much more of it is really does not want to merge with the Middle Eastern culture. This can happen only if International Organizations supports it, not allows it. But yeah, if the Russian influence drops in the region, western hemisphere might want to Turkey to become new powerhouse to create a buffer zone. In balkans, hell no! In middile east, maybeeee. Turkey still did not manage to create a stable economic and educational base actually. If it even happens, it wont be a wealthy Empire.
Also looking at recent performance of Turkish involvement in Syria, topped off with Iraq starting to stabilize more (not to mention the inevitable kurdish state which will appear if Kurds calm down for a second and negotiate ceding back occupied lands in northern Iraq and Syria), I just don't see it happening without major reforms within Turkey. As it stands, much of Turkey doesn't want to expand and to expand it would have to reconcile it's ethnic and cultural animosity with it's neighbors.
Yep, I agree. Hope the situation in turkey (with the lira) is alright for you.
erdogans dictatorship would need to end for your education and currency to recover and to have any kind of western support, I dont really see that happening though, unless a revolt happens.
Mustafa kemal atatürk would be rolling in his grave if he could see the state of turkey.
Yeah you are Turkish citizen. You are not a Turk. Your international (actually western) organisation ( actually corporation based mostly in USA and England) collaborationist agenda will inevitably fall in the future for sure.
Turkey eventually joining the EU and a European Federation at the end of the century seems much more likely that a new Ottoman Empire.
The prediction is based on a belief in the superiority of American culture and political institutions, and that the rest of the world will eventually understand this, which basically is the main reason for U.S. decline. And while Western Canadian provinces may argue against the central government, that does not mean they would prefer living the highly centralized U.S. where their voice would not be heard at all. The only thing close to this is a movement for Canada's West to join with the U.S. West Coast, which of course would lead to both countries being reduced rather than uniting.
I think what will happen is that BC and Alberta gain independence as the "big daddies" of power in the formerly Canadian ruled west and then essentially carve out spheres of influence across the northern territories and the other two western provinces. BC and Alberta shortly after both are independent will need to sit down and sign a friendship and military alliance treaty. Alberta needs sea access and BC needs oil and so the most logical thing is for Alberta to give us a discount on oil in exchange for a free import export corridor from the sea to the Alberta border accomplished by allowing Alberta customs agents to operate at BC ports to deal with goods destined directly for Alberta. The former CP railway could be their primary source of sea access.
The Yukon likely is incorporated under BC as something like the "Yukon special autonomous territory" getting to be it's own "thing" in terms of most internal affairs but under the sovereignty of the British Columbian state. Maybe it also gets it's own domain name like Hong Kong or Puerto Rico. Strategically BC needs the Yukon as such a protectorate so that we can have an arctic naval presence. British Columbia's biggest strength potential for our population would be in naval power and our only real need for foreign military projection would be on the Pacific especially against China and allies and in the arctic for the northwest passage.
Alberta and Saskatchewan form some kind of state union. Not exactly one borderless country as Saskatchewan's people would object to being erased and incorporated completely into Alberta but they would probably have a common currency, common market and common military.
Manitoba is the biggest toss up. Manitoba is kind of "half east half west" with a lot of French heritage and it could very likely want to remain with Ontario at least initially. BC and Alberta once independent could do their best to try to infiltrate and influence independence movements in Manitoba but it might not be worth it to do so.
The Northwest Territories for the most part would be firmly in Alberta's sphere and under it's official jurisdiction but BC could negotiate itself nearly free access in exchange for guaranteeing naval protection to the NWT Islands.
Nunavut remains a big question mark to me. They'll probably remain under Canada initially like Manitoba but it depends if Quebec tries getting aggressive.
@@P7777-u7r That's an interesting scenario.
It's very unlikely that aboriginal people would agree to join a Western Canada Concept and the Western provinces have no right under international law to secede. You are assuming too that populist parties substantially dominate the Western provinces, which is questionable. The main economic problem the West would face is that its economies are not diversified, particularly the Prairie provinces and the territories.
Populism offers simplistic solutions to complex problems. Once in power, populists usually revert to center right politics, as Jason Kenney did.
That's the thing. I think we are entering the era of national rebirth and US conception of patriotism doesn't include true national identity based on Ethnicity, Language, Traditions and Religion.
US is multicultural and that's why I think US will fall apart with maybe chastised South or East Coast remaining as a bigger entities. Rest of US will be divided into states, which will enrich their unique elements and customs turning their state identities into national ones.
@@nickd4310
The canadian federal Supreme Court has ruled secession by provinces to be legal though providing its actually done via proper referendum. Premier of the day can't just declare independence unilaterally. If separation is done legally and thus is agreed upon by Canada I don't see international law prohibiting an agreed upon divorce like that.
I don't know about indigenous people everywhere in the west but in BC there is a very very good chance of them supporting it especially if it included them finally getting a proper settlement and self governing land to replace the very corrupt federal system under the "Indian act". Indigenous peoples of British Columbia had their lives made much worse after BC joined confederation and they were put under federal jurisdiction.
@@Pigraider268 there was a better argument for this 100 years ago than today
bro... its crazy how close you are of north America in 2025
I love that westerners are always tend to break Indonesia to pieces.
Probably confused why their version of nationalism (single nation single culture and ethnicity) doesn't apply to that country lol.
But then keep India intact despite India being multicultural as well.
Because every multicultural country in europe always doomed to fail like
-H.R.E
-Austria-Hungary
-Yugoslavia
-U.S.S.R
@@AbangKJ just because it doesn't apply to Europe doesn't mean it's the same on the outside. Yes.
@@SetuwoKecik but the idea that Indonesia will be "Squeezed" between USA and China is actually Plausible despite our "Non-alignment" policy
Just sayin
@@AbangKJ well that's inevitable. But you're talking about influences there, not actual break-up due to foreign invasions or internal struggles.
You're ignoring how Asian powers split it to pieces too... Anglophobe
I think it's really unlikely the Japanese or Koreans will be closer to China than to the U.S just because culturally those two countries admire the U.S and despise the Chinese. Economically they might become closer to China in a U.S crisis era. However keep in mind even before WW2 the Japanese and Americans were very friendly. They had a doll exchanging tradition, Babe Ruth was a hero in Japan when he visited before the war, and the Americans considered sending him to Japan to tell them to stop WW2. As of now even Japan and Korea have a lot of anti-China sentiment. The point I'm making is a large cultural shift would have to happen to change the minds of the Japanese and Koreans to like China, which is unlikely due to the hostility of the CCP.
and at the moment nationalist is rising in japan and in no way Japan-Korean and china will ever be friendly together there a insane hatred left in Korea about the japan occupation
Facts
On top of the fact that I'm pretty sure China has tried to conquer all of its neighbors at some point in the past or another. Being within China's economic sphere makes some kind of sense, but I can imagine them wanting to keep the dragon at arm's length culturally and politically.
Japanese, Koreans and Vietnamese all more or less adopted Chinese culture, however after they matured as nations they all rejected the notion of supposed superiority of the Chinese. With Vietnam having particularly bloody series of rebellions against Chinese overlords. Having said that, these animosities could be put to rest, provided they are treated as equals. In that case I’d say joining Chinese economic and cultural bloc is a foregone conclusion.
The problem is current leadership in Beijing embodies all the worst parts of Chinese exceptionalism and imperialism, and combines it with all the worst parts of Western ideologies: totalitarianism, militarism and jingoistic nationalism.
There is no way on Earth any non-totalitarian Asian nation is willingly joining Sinosphere given China in its current state of People’s Republic.
Imagine Japan and Korea side with China anyway in 2120? God would that be a slap in the face to you all
Even if the Turkish economy doesn't collapse, like how it seems to be going, there is no way the Neo-Ottoman empire becomes a thing. Yes subjugating failed states in Arabia I could see happening, but I don't see any expansion in the Balkans, ever, even if they tried and no one gave two s***s about the region, the majority of people there would fight wars similar to what we are seeing in Ukraine, in much more defensible terrain.
Poland won't expand eastwards, only in influence maybe. There is no way of such a thing happening unless maybe a Slavic Federation / Commonwealth style union. Switzerland will not break up due to it being its own little culture, They won't get eaten by their neighbors unless every rich man in the world decides to withdraw all their money at once.
Hungary is in no capacity able to expand into any region, them suffering just as much from the demographic collapse as their neighbors.
All possibilities. That’s what makes speculation interesting, no one is right or wrong, at least not for a few decades, by which time no one will care anyway.
It's also possible that, under the threat of conquest, countries like Greece would nuclearly arm themselves. That's not that difficult, since nukes are essentially 1940s technology.
Its because this guy is a massive clown.
Definitely agree on that first part.
Bigger chance of another neo Persian empire than neo ottoman especially since a lot of Turks are definitely not as religious as they seem
2:44 and 9:37 aged like fine wine
Turkey gaining land in the balkans is very unlikely. Europe would block them from that, and everyone would fight like hell to prevent jt. Also a lot of Turkeys population growth is due to the kurdish population so Turkey will have to deal with increased seperatism.
The middle east is suffering the most from climate change and have plenty of failed states and almost failed states.
True
If Turks migrate in large numbers to change the demographics, then those countries will be puppets of Turkey. No military invasion needed. But I think Europe learned its lesson already, and the Balkans are less PC.
It could lead to conflict, and I wonder what side Germany and France would take on Crappy Balkan countries cracking down on overwhelming Turkish Migration.
I was especially amused at Turks moving into Armenia. Expanding into the Balkans seems only slightly less unlikely. But the biggest issue is, would this Turkey have a democratic, responsible government, or an autocrat like Erdogan? Europeans would be much more alarmed by the latter.
Climate change is cringe.
this guy has a fixation with some kind of Ottoman revival. Every prediction he makes about Eastern Europe is that somehow Turkey will conquer most of it. because apparently that's the only way population growth can be handled : by trying to conquer a dozen nations, all of which hate you to their very core.
I blame this on Zionism that has influenced the thinking of all americans. Americans think Israel's claims are legitimate, and thus they extrapolate that reasoning to other countries as well. Literally Lebensraum . "If X country has money and too many people, they have no choice but to conquer lands that once belonged to them".
I don't think you should write off Botswana in Africa. It has a middle-income economy and is arguably the most developed country in the entire continent. It has also been relatively peaceful its entire existence, keeping unscathed from the post-colonial conflicts, civil wars, and political instability. Its main drawback is its low population of only 2 million, but I don't think this is enough for it to be consumed by the non-state void.
Not sure about the data but i read that in botswana prevalence of HIV infection among the general population is around 38%.. Not really a good indicator for demographic success in the near future
@@lorenzoberdin9123 but already HIV is manageable and Botswana has few deaths from it right now and human overtime get immune from most diseases. Botswana is also one of the top researchers in HIV which means they could find a vaccine.
@@lorenzoberdin9123 botswana I would say is one of the most successful countries in africa. And one of the most successful in the world (maybe). It to me shows what african countries could look like if the borders hadn't been botched. It's not gonna become a global superpower, but it isn't a run down failed state with no positive outlook for the future.
@@thomashisted5984 oh I'm not saying it isn't and actually I really sincerely hope they become as successful and wealthy as anybody deserves to be. I wasn't trying to hate on them, I merely reported a "fact" that i think could hinder their progress but im no expert in geopolitics let alone African affairs so take what i said with a grain of salt
@@kamogelomosweu1869 unfortunately I'm not sure natural immunity can be obtained for HIV due to its biology.. But if they found a vaccine in the future I'd be super glad, that could save so many lives and improve drastically the quality of life of so many people. Unfortunately the antiviral therapy right now, although successful in preventing aids, is pretty expensive, needs to be carried on for life and has quite a lot of side effects. I really hope we can find a solution!
This makes absolutely no fucking sense, and it's funny how the farther away he goes from the United States, the more batshit insane his futurology gets.
He's high on his own farts?
I'd say there's kernels of truth to some of his statements, but the map as a whole predicts way more geographic change. I think most will just be cultural save for a few unstable countries collapsing. Also he _definitely_ has fantasies of a neo Ottoman empire lmao
Seriously, it's like he was high making that European map.
@@5925-p1b the Canadian breaking up with itself part was pretty lit too. Dudes enjoying a microdose Good Friday or something. Lol
As a Moroccan citizen, I confirm. In fact, I'm already thinking about how to raise my children to make this a reality (again)
as a algerian i can easily say no u cant
@@rahimmokhtar5945let the man dream
@@rahimmokhtar5945 already happened dude, its just a matter of time
@@rahimmokhtar5945 we don't need to necessarily be enemies. Morocco and Algeria should unite, if they do those 'dreams' won't be just dreams anymore. We have the same culture, same reilgion, same ethnicity, why are we fighting?
@@yasserbencheikh2626 we are fighting because of our shity governors and i really want this but fck u know and i know this wont happen cause russia support my counrty and spain ( which is one member of the nato ) and usa support ur country this is way but everything is possible . and the second reason of why we are fighting is agnorance just look at the comments above mine u understand me iam really tired of this conflict and i love all my brothers at morroco .
اتاسف من كل مغربي عن كل جزائري متخلف قرد شرع يزمجر بمختلف الشتائم وسبب هو جهله كما قتلت حرفيا نحن لا نختلف ولكن بروباغاندا هي سبب .. نحن مسلمون عرب وامازيغ وعلى مذهب امام مالك نفس ثقافة بكل بساطة وجهان لعملة واحدة واسال الله ان يحل هذا النزاغ
وهاك البشرى :
- تكونُ النُّبُوَّةُ فيكم ما شاء اللهُ أن تكونَ، ثم يَرْفَعُها اللهُ - تعالى -، ثم تكونُ خلافةٌ على مِنهاجِ النُّبُوَّةِ ما شاء اللهُ أن تكونَ، ثم يَرْفَعُها اللهُ - تعالى -، ثم تكونُ مُلْكًا عاضًّا، فتكونُ ما شاء اللهُ أن تكونَ، ثم يَرْفَعُها اللهُ - تعالى -، ثم تكونُ مُلْكًا جَبْرِيَّةً فيكونُ ما شاء اللهُ أن يكونَ، ثم يَرْفَعُها اللهُ - تعالى -، ثم تكونُ خلافةً على مِنهاجِ نُبُوَّةٍ . ثم سكت . . .
ستعود الخلافة باذن الله وستوحد ليس فقط المغرب والجزائر بل كل مسملون كما بشر الصدوق عليه افضل الصلاة وسلام
It is not a "whatifalthist video" without a Turkish empire and the fall of Russia
I never really understood his obsession with a Neo-Ottoman Empire. I could understand a large Turkish influence over the region of which I also believe will take place but not a resurrection of the Ottoman Empire.
@Link Sab.
One of those things is somewhat likely.
The other one is extremely likely.
Can you guess which is which and why? lol
@@williamdavis9562 _NEITHER ARE LIKELY MAN C’MON GET YOUR HAND OUT OF YOUR PANTS._
CHRIST SAKE.
I mean, there's also a pretty decent chance (screw it, a 100% chance) that some factor makes this completely wrong. There may be a messiah like figure that just make Philippines into a very powerful naval nation, or a great politician in Rome deciding that EU will become the 2nd Roman Empire, who knows.
(EDIT: For those who didn't get the memo yet, this comment is very much intentionally absurd. You can let your imagination wild, but please do not take anything predicting seriously, it will make you look like an idiot.)
Sure, those events make history all the more fascinating. He said at the beginning, this isn’t gospel, just his best attempt at predicting the next century.
Imagine if Argentina forms a *_competent_* government? (I'm argentinian)
@@griantesla7644 one can only hope
@@griantesla7644 alright lets not get too crazy. Now you're just talking fantasy.
@@griantesla7644 Please do, yall got great food and culture and amazing geography, both for defense/development and just sheer beauty.
"In classic Canadian fashion they will find some way to claim moral superiority about this."
You bet we will. This made me laugh out loud. Totally on point.
as we should
Damn right
So you guys, do you think that Canada is going to balkanise?
Bloody hell, how can someone even come to such a conclusion, like we get it Canadians, they are kinda secretly racist but what, Americans aren’t?
Love to you Canadians from Australia, our cold comrades.
Canada has a plan to reach 100M by 2100. Rich with resources and water - the Yanks are in for a surprise down the road. Canada is playing the long game hence its immigration rate being unusually high.
@@Red_Hood514 Canadians are centuries from discovering the amazing, crazy technology known as "affordable housing". Fitting those 100m is gonna be borderline impossible for Canada.
2025 hes right! "i thinkus will acquire greenland" Some of this has already come true.
I disagree with pretty much everything you said about Europe. I think that the EU will slowly move toward the United States of Europe. It won't happen overnight, but it I think the willingness is there, especially in younger people. Events like the Ukraine War, the unreliable nature of the US alliance, with leaders like Trump possibly becoming the new normal, the rise of Africa, China, India, I think European nations will be motivated to become more united, that's the only way to not be "colonized" by these new emerging world powers.
Europe has an unhealthy amount of nationalism which can prevent this process and can lead to the disintegration of the EU, unless we play our cards well. What confuses me is that you clearly don't think this will be an issue, since you ended up creating states like the Scandinavian Union, Baltic Union, Yugoslavia 2.0, Greater Germany, Benelux Union, Czechoslovakia 2.0, giga Poland, and even a crazy Hungaromania, which is just silly. You assume that some of the most nationalistic countries will just throw away their independence, but you still don't think that the USE will be a thing.
I also don't think it's realistic to assume that the Turks will just swallow up EU states, Like Bulgaria and Greece.
Ukrainians are literally fighting for their right to choose their future and want to belong in Europe, but instead of them joining the EU, you assume that their country will be torn apart.
I'm also not sure where the death of Switzerland comes from.
Honestly, this feels like a map made by a 12 year old who spent 5 minutes on it. I know that's not the case, but that's the impression.
Yea same. Wtf was that lmao.
Belgium partition, Czechoslovakia are perhaps feasible but Yugoslavia, Switzerland partition are absolutely on crack
Also Giga Poland wtf. These guys aren't being the life blood of Ukraine right now just to conquer them bahahaha
@@슬라바우크라이나헤로 Seriously, Switzerland that somehow survived the rise of nationalism, Napoleon, WWI, Hitler, even stayed out of the EU and NATO, would somehow decide to split up and become inconsequential parts of 3 larger European states? Makes no sense. We have independent states like Monaco, San Marino and Andorra, but no, an independent Switzerland is just too unrealistic, apparently.
@@5925-p1b And Turkey in the balkans? That didnt go well last time... Albanians would rather die than be under turkish rule and the slavs aswell...
Although Brazil is a country that is held together through sheer inertia, the inertia is so strong that I really don't think secession would ever be a thing. Its easier for Brazil to become an empire again or having another weird dictatorship then this ever happening, because it doesn't require that the Brazilians do anything, just that some weirdo decides to shit over the constitution (which isn't very hard). The Brazilian republic may be an absolute joke, but most Brazilians wouldn't really like to change the borders of the country anytime soon.
That's the best summary of the topic I've seen so far.
Kind of like how the USA has been held together by inertia and a coherent culture for some time now. And we just had our "wierdo sh*ts over the founding document" moment from between 2016 and 2020; we're still feeling the aftershocks.
By "weird dictatorship" I only see some kind of new *NEW STATE DICTATORSHIP* i.e. a new Getulio Vargas coming to cope the challenges of a more competitive and multipolar world by reindustrializing the country in order to close the gap between Brazil and the rest of the industrialized world
@@kennyholmes5196 nah Us was held together cause after the civil war the Us government heavily crippled the power that some states had especially the ones with French and Spanish speaking colonial populations. They especially heavily crippled the language and culture of Louisiana after the civil war and made us much more reliant on DC
@@Dragoncam13 I'm an American. I studied this in high school. the South lost because they didn't industrialize fast enough and because the North was more cohesive and on more solid standing with the rest of the world. The south got rebuilt in the North's image after the war.
whatifalthist consistently ovetestimates the cyclicity of history.
We should not be surprised that he basically made what the world looked like 200 years ago
He over generalizes..
hes also a nazi sympathizer
Yeah, i think he could genuinely make good and accurate predictions/alternate history timelines, but the main thing that's holding him back is his biases [which i don't blame him for, everyone has them even if they don't realize it] but the main thing is his idea that history is a series of cycles that always repeats itself. this isn't a theory without evidence, there are some pretty interesting things that happened in history that appear to be cycles, but social dynamics, geo politics, diplomacy, and culture is far more complex than just "cycle repeat"
@@1Woofer1 My first problem when i so his list of "massive crises that happen Every 300 years" is why is the napoleonic wars and american revolution excluded when this where massive events but the franchish empire being split apart a major crises, it really was not. Also any body that tries to label a dises like the black death as a societel crises that îs part of a cyclical cicle is dumb.
history channel after midnight:
Some thoughts on Israel:
The first thing to consider is that none of the Arab countries will be able to destroy Israel. Israel has nukes, and I don't see them giving that up. Israel has the strength to ensure that no hostile country will be able to achieve the necessary technology to threaten them, but even still, MAD doesn't necessarily apply to Israel since it's highly unlikely any majority Muslim country would glass the third holiest location in Islam.
As for demographics, Israel is the one place in the developed world where the growth rate is actually increasing, as opposed to the nearby Arab states, where growth is decreasing with industrialization. Israel already has a higher birth rate than Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. I think it's highly likely Israel incorporates the West Bank in several decades while offering citizenship to the Palestinians because they know many won't accept the citizenship and they could still tank it anyway (Gaza meanwhile would just be left to its own devices). Additionally, the incredibly high density in the region may price out many of the local Palestinians, making Israel even more majority Jewish. I could see the West Bank becoming majority Jewish within 100 years.
By that point, there wouldn't be much of a Palestine left to be freed, and you'd probably gradually see more people make peace with Israel's existence, with the fight for Palestinians shifting from a struggle for either independence or Israel's destruction into a purely Civil Rights struggle like what you see in other countries.
The population growth is Israel is almost entirely driven by Israeli Arabs and Ultra Orthodox sects that Israel's secular population resents and distrusts.
As far as i know, the only reason israel has high birth rates is mainly due to the muslim population and to a lesser extent the orthodox jews.
@@shausen1179 the birth rate in among arabs is lower than Jews and Israel's birth rate is the same as it was 30 years ago. Jews still have a 3
@@cuddlemuffin.9545 Shame on those Israeli Jews and sympathy for the Palestine 🇵🇸 and Palestinians people.
@@mohammedmir777 No hate for Israeli Jews and all of the hate for the Israeli government and extreme nationalists.
This guy seems to be living on an alternative reality, because there is no way any of these predictions happen in this world
Many of those of course not, buy dont say any.
He said lot of stuff, by simple chance he should acert some.
I would guess that he’s right about at least one thing and wrong about at least one thing. For example, he’s probably right that Latin America’s borders will change only slightly, since that’s been the case for the past hundred years too. However, I’m very skeptical Turkey will take over the Middle East simply because they’re unpopular with everyone in the area.
Yep.
@Marshmallow Man China will not become an hegemony any time soon
As much as people mock him for it, the "neo-Ottoman Empire" isn't that far of a stretch. Of course it wouldn't be a conventional empire, where the entire middle east is under direct Turkish control, but I could definitely see Turkey carve its own hegemony in the region, independent of the U.S. or China.
Think about it. The U.S. is losing interest in the region, and as the west transitions to renewables, the Middle East will become less of a focus.
China could theoretically fill the gap left by the west, but they'd need to work overtime in expanding their influence, and right now, their attention is elsewhere. Also, as Rudyard frequently mentions, China's window of opportunity is closing fast. They're (correctly) choosing to focus on the more immediately accessible areas of Southeast and Central Asia.
Russia is in decline as well, probably the steepest of any of the current great powers, and historically, inhabitants of that region have struggled to project power in the middle east for meaningful periods of time.
Let's look at some regional contenders. Israel? Too small and has too many current issues to consider expanding (outside of Palestine of course). Iran? Maybe, but their allies, namely Russia, would be unable to support them. Also, its sour relationship with nearly every other country has turned it into somewhat of a pariah state. Saudi Arabia? No. It has an entirely oil based economy which will take a massive hit as time wears on. I highly doubt it would be able to adapt in time. Also, weakening U.S. support means they'll lose some of their legitimacy. I think there's a very likely chance we could see Saudi Arabia turn to China, but it might be too little too late, and the Chinese might not want to bet their chips on a sate in decline. The Gulf States? Basically Saudi Arabia, but even worse off. The demographics of a country like Qatar are laughable, and nearly all of its labor is imported from South Asia. It is simply not a sustainable arrangement. Arab Spring 2.0 is very feasible here in the next 20-30 years.
That leaves Turkey. What do they have? A good relationship with the west, an incredible geographic position at the crux of Europe and Asia, control of the Black Sea, a good relationship with most of the Muslim world, including Pakistan, which could come to their advantage, and a relatively stable demographic situation compared to other powers. The main shortcoming is their current inflation woes and Erdogan, but this could be easily overcome within the next five years if Turkey can adopt some actually sound economic policies. If Turkey plays their hand right, they could have control of the most geographically strategic region in the world.
There's a lot I disagree with about his map, but Turkey isn't one of them. Congrats if you made it to the end.
Wouldn't be a whatifalthist video about the future without the neo-ottoman empire
Switzerland be like
"You know this perfectly fine federal mechanism that has been working for the past 200 years like a Swiss clock? Screw it"
I strongly disagree on the southern Brazil thing. The Brazilian culture, although having some small variations in each region due to geography, is basically universal for all Brazilians. It's the only place i can think of in the world where ethnicity isn't a cultural factor at all, at least today, so your argument of a "white south" breaking apart only makes sense on the American reality, not on the Brazilian. Plus, it's not like the south was 100% white while the rest was 100% black or mixed. Basically anywhere in the country whites and black/mixed are 50% each, while in the south whites have a slight edge due to recent European immigration. Just think about it, the most famous southern Brazilian, Ronaldinho, is black!
Politically, the state of Rio Grande do Sul, the southernmost state of the country, is one of the most important states despite not being among the richest or the most populous ones. When they tried independence in the mid XIX century, it was more about republicanism and economic reasons than a larger cultural one. Many presidents and many many other important politicians where and are from the southern region, so they aren't missrepresented by any means.
This is a friendly disagreement, i just think you're using the American logic where it doesn't make sense. Keep up with the great work!
Nice comment, I don’t have anything to add when it comes to the topic, but I just wanted to say I appreciate your agreeable manner of disagreeing 👍
Whites are actually between 80 and 90% in the South and the cultural homogeneity in Brazil is mostly artificial and only really exists because brazilians aren't too fixated on their own cultures, so it was easier for the more influential Southeast and Northeast to export their culture to the rest of the country.
Perfect
@@Flash4ML Thanks!
@@TheRealGigachad1848 You're right, the white population is a bit higher than i though, but my point stands, ethnic differences don't affect culture in Brazil. And yes, Brazilian regional cultures aren't that powerful compared to the whole, that's my argument on why Brazil won't breakup. Don't get me wrong, each Brazilian region has it's own unique cultural features and this diversity is quite nice, but everyone has one single national identity. To be fair, the southernmost states of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina have probably the most different culture compared to the rest of the country, but it's not near the level of somewhere like Catalonia, Kosovo, Tibet, etc. People from these states consider themselves Brazilians over anything else.
The whole of the world outside of the US: Collapse, Civil War, Conquest
The US: Just abit bigger and more powerful for some reason idk.
The US is an island. It is in the interest of the US to meddle in the affairs of everyone else - no one else can really make a foothold. No foreign country has ever bombed an American city (after the 1800's, of course).
If I understood him correctly, I think that he's actually predicting America to go into civil war; then, once the dust is settled, move on to a golden age.
correction. He says the muslim world and asia will be in a better place. Its mainly Europe and Africa he sees having the issues. Europe with its collapsing demographics and Africa with its massive population growth and borders that make no sense.
@@randlebrowne2048 imagine what China or Russia would think in the moment USA start a civil war, they would make the best to conquer everything they can and also try to become and hegemonic power, is basically a disbalance of power just like a disbalance on Europe
Watch his like 3 dozen videos on the coming American crisis ig. Also China and India happen to be juggaurnauts on this map, yet you only take issue with America being strong, shows your even more Eurocentric then he is, just in the opposite way.
Never have I seen something so far removed from reality and history.
You do realize he's a professional historian, right? Given how much evidence he uses, I doubt he's that far off. Seriously, have you actually listened to any of this or are you arrogantly dismissing every single one of his arguments just because it doesn't fit your beliefs? If that's the case, you're the one who's beliefs are far removed with Reality and History. I understand that you don't like what he's saying, but if you are a mature person, then you are going to need to admit you are wrong on some things. You don't have to agree with him on everything, but you should realize he does make some really good points.
@@wires-sl7gs please tell in what world would Europe allow another Ottomans to appear
@@wires-sl7gs Didn't he say he dropped out of college once? How is he a professional historian?
@@wires-sl7gs He does know a fair amount and he uses a lot of facts and suppoting evidence. However, he also ignores and omits a lot too. He is comming at this from a particular viewpoint which is obvious.
My beliefs are irrelevant.
I have not expressed what I think will happen.;
Making a strawman argument does not make this video any more likely or true.
I will wager that this video, regardless of the evidence used, will be zero % correct in anything.
@@abdiabdi3225 A World were Europe is far to destabilized to do anything about it, have you watched the video at all?
Thanks!
A unitary entity around the region you ascribe to "turkish empire" is not illogical and your arguments are somewhat sound (though highly negligent of the power of balkan and arabic national identities) but as a turk who has been following every little detail of the state of the country and knowledgeable about its recent history I can 100% say that this ottoman-like entity would not be a "turkish" nation. For whatever reasons or motivations that such an entity would exist, they would most likely sweep away the turkish identity with them. Turkey today is a weak, decomposing nation ruled by a kleptocratic oligarchy revolving around the personal cult of erdogan. It is socially divided, economically and demographically mismanaged to the extremes, and overall well on its way toward whatever fate Russia will have in the near future with its more cautious but essentially equally absurd autocratic administrative body. They cling on this illusion that they project power while they just basically fill the vacuum left by bigger powers, e.g. economic investments in Africa, all the foreign military entanglements etc., that are contingent on any small policy change on the behalf of the said bigger powers or even an intervention of a mid-range one, e.g. france. Hell, if I had to, I would wager that turkey itself would be the first domino stone to fall to leave way to this big entity (if it will exist at all).
I agree as an iraqi from the south i want to see my country exist i like turkey but i dont want them to invade arab lands
Chinese in siberia is very very unlikely first thing the russians hate them, The sakhas who are turks Hate them More than the russians,The chinese populace will dwindle and india populace will continue exploding
Í heard that in Turkey secularism is slowly fading in favour of stronger adherence to Islam, due to Erdogan's push. Is that true? What effect has this had on the Nation?
@@antonteodor6305 Erdogan only uses Islam he is a big supporter of Israel and doesn’t want to get out of NATO but yeas a lot of Turks are becoming more Islamicly and thats good the Middle east and beyond can not unite if they have secularism they will need to establish another Kalifat so all Ethnicities unity under one Banner
@@antonteodor6305 "Slowly" is a bit outdated take unfortunately. From 2002 to 2013 or so akp indeed slowly set the stage for the transition into a more islamic society. They first removed, by force, the kemalist, secular officials in the military which you may know was by and large the only guarantor of the secularism in the country for good or for bad. Then they empowered, funded and gave administrative and high ranking military positions to islamic sects. (The largest of which you may know was the one that is allegedly organized the coup attempt in 2016.) Repurposed state schools to religious ones, leaving some families without an option for their kids. Took over the media and made it a propaganda machine. Check it out really, most of the tv channels are "our dear leader" appreciation platforms. Financially isolated secular upper and middle class citizens by targeted legislations, making his own "followers" rich, and so on and so forth you got the drill. Post-coup, erdogan nominally declared his dictatorship and the referendum in 2017 cemented the status quo. Ever since then the transition has accelerated significantly. Reopening of hagia sophia, the withdrawal from the istanbul convention, the crack down on whatever that is left of the opposition media, privatization of the health sector under some religious sects, ever increasing tax on alcohol and limitations on the entertainment sector, rewriting of the history to favour islamic aspects of the ottoman empire by the means of historic tv series etc. Worst of which is that he is trying to restructure the country's demographics under his vision of "ummah" with the 15 million and counting immigrants from syria, afghanistan and pakistan. Almost all of the secular people I know either have already left the country, in the process of doing so or highly depressed because they can't. I myself have left in 2015 and have no plans on returning even if by some miracle he would be deposed in the next "elections." Damage is done. Turkey is not a place where secular people can live in peace anymore. I hope I am utterly wrong but from what I have learned from experiencing the past 30 years of the country, turkey is a kind of place where it is the hope that kills you.
@@Noxcho-li8pn I'm not sure Islamisation will succeed in preventing violence among the people of the Middle East. If anything, I see the different sects becoming more extreme and violent not just against foreign influence, but also against other Muslim sects with different beliefs (like Sunni vs. Shia), or even simply more moderate factions.
Honestly you dont seem to understand alot about Europe. The Greece/Rome comparison has several big holes in it. A European Federation would be so powerfull that it would be a world power that would have its own interests. Hell, the EU already now has huge differences with the US. A united Europe, an inward looking US and a strong France (look at its demography) will reinforce this.
It won't if Le Pen gets elected.
It would still be an American proxy
One simple invasion of Ukraine has already shown strain on the EU with France and Germany remaining much more neutral towards Russia. So who knows how things will go in the future.
yeah right. europe is collapsing. It's hardly generating any wealth, and birthrates are collapsing.
@@SuperCatacata actually the invasion of Ukraine has shown incredible unity between European countries, excluding the pathetic and irrelevant Hungarian authoritarian state. And the russian invasion is not something minimal, but an unprecedented act in Europe after the second World war
Love this video! These geopolitical videos about overall trends always put me in my place in the world.
Would love to see more about the future of the Arabian peninsula as it's not covered in too much depth here and leaves some questions (independent Oman, no Iranian influence in the peninsula, odd straight division of Saudi Arabia)
Hey your norway video, was very good
Your videos are very good. Keep it up.
Hey L0ser
I like youur Videos and I think Iran will do something in that area
Based other youtuber
Its too soon to say but it starting to look like this video might age well.
Prior to February 24th i would agree with your predictions on Ukraine, but i feel like at this point they formed too strong of a national identity to ever be actually subjugated by anyone, including Poland. This territory would basically be impossible to control by any of its neighbours from economic and political standpoint, so it will either be de-facto anarchy or an independent Ukrainian state.
he created this map a few years ago so yeah
Not really. The map he created before was different to this one.
Poland has no interest in ruling Ukraine.
depends on political grip
If Ukraine pushes russia out of it's territory, it has potential to become a strong central power. This war will build a Ukrainian identity and possibly pull many ethnic russians to the Ukrainian sphere. If the government to follow can build on national unity and not punish ethnic russians, Ukraine has lots of future potential. Depends does it go democracy + free market, or does it end up authoritarian + corruption.
I love how literally everyone else on the European continent has some border changes, and Finland is just like: ”I sleep”
And Slovenia.. smack in the middle of the map, still the same tiny chicken with no changes.. its weird I tell you!
I think you constantly underestimate continental Europe, I believe there is a real possibility of an aggressive, militaristic and dynamistic right-wing backlash in Europe's youth, one which is very anti American (and generally anti-British) which belives in the EU and its future military / economic/societal potential
Did somebody say Fourth Reich? 😏
@@ender7278 i will more see it happens in France, italy or Eastern Europe than germany
Continental europe don't even have youth hahah
I’m in that exact age bracket and European. Almost all of my peers believe in a European superstate and many are very right wing. Broadly many of us hate the Anglosphere too.
@@aoki6332 the most popular youth parties are the militarist wing of the greens (openly federalist) and the FDP, right wing and semi federalist.
I think someone showed this to Trump, and he thought he should implement it now. 😂
This is based on absolutely nothing but imagination, you could draw the map a million different ways.
It’s based on not understanding anything in history outside the last 200 years.
I remember when I was 20 years old and thought I knew things too.
O Lord please save us from the Prophet Economists.
@@muninnsays9296 I'd say it's based on not understanding history but everything before 200 year. The map looks oddly like from the early modern period.
He has been horrendously wrong on the middle east and east asia, especially turkey and china.
The turks wouldn’t be able to conquer anything in the balkans or north africa due to bigger populations (north africa) and ultranationalist identities (balkans) and china would never expand to the north due to siberia’s inhabitability.
@@theodorangelos9392 yes I agree, you might have misunderstood, to me he seems to only factor in the last 200 years and ignores everything else.
12:38 One big problem here is that Algeria and Morocco have been draining their ability to project power by petty struggles between themselves for decades. But I guess if the old generation is replaced by a new one, they may be able to work that out.
Also, Spain/the EU has been trying to do such a highway through the Sahara. I could see them start it, then get distracted off it for some reason and Algeria and Morocco take it over.
14:32 the fertilizer issue might rare it head again if we don't get a way to recycle phosphorus as it's mines are expected to be deplited in a few centuries at most.
14:20 The biggest issue Africa would have here is well, this isn't middle ages were each region and civilization was largely self contained. In all likelihood either external influence would stop this process from going completely through (Chinese and Westerners forming and keeping Vassal useless states)
And most problematically, Brain Drain. The Global South is already suffering horrible Brain Drain to West countries were all their best memes, cultural traits and genes go to die or be absorbed. With straight up civil wars everywhere it would only be worse. Like imagine if America could have formed if there was like Atlantis somewhere there accepting and scouting for migrants like the founding fathers from America. This is one big way that Europe ending non-EU migrations can not only help themselves but the world as well.
Also, Botswana is doing pretty good. Why's it missing from this Map?
14:51 I always keep seeing this over simplification with Igbos. Most of the Oil is on the coast or in the sea shelf and the people on the coast are Ijaw and Cross-river minority groups not Igbos. I could easily see the Igbo form a coherent identity with the Ijaw but not with the other coastal groups, giving them very bad geography when it comes to creating defensible states. (Also, Igbo region also has oil but is less accessible and smaller).
@UCE55QfjUph01R4nfGESKeRA One good thing that may come out of a war is one side winning decisively and ending that struggle and allowing whichever side that wins to project power south. Of course the biggest weakness of this is that they may destroy each other and become prey for Europe as you said, so diplomatic end is best.
Preferably this can be solved without a war but having something to end the stalemate (war or diplomacy) is better than Morocco and Algeria draining and distracting each other forever.
woah, I didn't really think about european immigration policy helping with stopping brain drain. I have thought about it with US relations tho. If people have an easier choice, they tend to choose it. If you feel you have no other choice, that's when shit gets done.
Shame Whatifalthist man doesn't think we'll invade mexico :( my dreams are crushed
Botswana is a landlocked country with a very small population. If the countries around it collapse, so does botswana. Specially South africa wich is already collapsing, they're their biggest economic allies
Agreed RE: Botswana. I could see them expanding into mozambique and that entire reagion and forming some union of their own, maybe coast-to-coast. Already a lot of highways and infrastructure connecting those 4 countries.
Love that practically every African nation just ceases to exist for some reason ? Especially Zimbabwe and Mozambique who share a lot of history with each other
Mutapa Kingdom and Rozwi Kingdom etc .
We could of seen an joint expansion done by Zimbabwe and Mozambique into South Africa to gain back historical land , but nope none of this . Apparently anything South of Africa just ceases to exist except Cape for some reason .
Even though South Africa's military is predominantly African .
I find Botswana an interesting outlier. It's ethnically homogenous and well run. In a period of chaos, you might see it expand into the northern Cape, the Northwest and Limpopo. Avoiding the Rand though, expect the Rand to be the world's biggest bloodbath. Also the Karoo would be a buffer area where Cape Town goes in to operate Manganese and other mines but otherwise its a desert that any type of invading force from the east would struggle to cross because South Africa basically has a single river system there which is like the Colarado river in that it runs into a desert. I expect large portions of the orange free state to integrate in with Lesotho as they are part of the broader culture umbrella. Most of the Eastern Cape is inhospitable, would be divided between Cape Town taking Port Elizabeth in the far west. The way the regions structured that control would extend to the low mountains in the area. I expect thr Border of the Cape/Garden Route state to be between Port Alfred and East London. Though I expect bloodshed in KZN, I think the material boned of a state are there that would integrate the former Transkei to Zululand and centre om Durban.
This is a better take than his. I'm convinced this guy knows nothing about Africa.
this is a much better take, his africa bit might as well have been "i dont know about this one and im not gonna look up 54 countries, just mix up the middle and kill some of them"
@@neanineto5516 yeah, I think he is vastly underread on the subject. There's little rhyme or reason in using the old cape colony borders. Anything you'd change about my take?
Botswana is very well what you have said but you forgot it has like only 2 million people and the only few countries in Africa that does not have a future demographic explosion. They will be more defensive than offensive.
Personally I see EAF expanding southward which is in line with Christian Africa.
Botswana and the eastern and southern region of Africa, could see an economic boom and possibly be the richest parts in sub Saharan Africa.
Half of this comment section is just salty Europeans upset that he said Europe will continue to be an American satellite.
I don’t know why everyone in the US is obsessed with “demographics is destiny” argument, Britain colonized India, being outnumbered 100 to 1, and fractured China as well. Nigeria has the highest population growth in the world, and no one is thinking they are about to be a superpower. It’s all about how a society organizes, and adapts to technology. Demographics can help and hurt, but by no means are they a deal breaker when it comes to power projection.
I don't see Nigeria becoming a *superpower*, but I do find it likely that they may exert control onto neighboring areas and become a more important world player
He did mention how rest of the world is closing the technological gap so demographics matter more now
@@GnosticLucifer You may close the technological gap, but without closing a social gap as well it isn't gonna do much. You can have an 1 billion population country with nukes and a couple of mega cities... but no one on the world stage exept your closest neighbours (and even that is not guaranteed) is going to take you seriously if 80% percent of these 1 billion population are tribal peasants living not much differently than their ancestors thousand of years ago. (This is the reason why India is always, like, kinda in the background of world news despite being the world's most populous country. I expect something similar in the future Africa.)
That's because the technological side is starting to equalize, for the most part.
@@Kokostal-b3g oh India is in background lol. The simple reason west holds majority of the soft power and media that is what west is always in the headlines.
And incoming to India Western countries are practically begging India lol to come join there side.
I love your videos and are a big fan but your depiction of the balkans is laughable bad
The history of the balkans has basically been defined by resisting Turkish oppression and for the balkans especially Greece and Romania(with larger militaries and Romania’s 6.5% growth rate and impressive tech sector and greece’s 8.5% growth rate and also a longer history of fighting the Turks )to just bend over is comical even if they did leave the eu
Any new pan-Slavic Union also wont likely happen as Yugoslavia was already a mess of a nation with Tito the populations of the Balkan are to nationalistic even today to form any serious unions
With Romania I think you fumbled the most for Romania to not only not exist by the end of the century but to once again be divided is extremely hard to believe Transylvania and Moldavia have a majority Romanian population and hungry has no real aspiration to unite with it(except for a few nationalists) and especially not Moldavia(makes 0 sense currently or historically) for Wallachia and moladavia to be divided and amongst different factions some real shit would have to go down as unlike for say Belgium or Canada there is no real distinction between the 2 and the general Romanian population is happy within its current union not having any real major strife
For the Turks just moving into the balkans I think you severely under estimate the racism of the balkans
Yes even today
Besides the balkans I generally agree with you and I hope your not insulted by your critic as I have been and still am a long time fan of your channel
He just has no idea how Europe works.
"Never underestimate the racism of the Balkans" this is so funny 😂😂😂
@@muninnsays9296 To be fair to him, neither does Europe
To be fair, I think the implication is that there will so few natives in the Balkans due to nobody having kids and ALL young people moving to Western Europe to be forever alone and childless careerists will mean that when the Turks decide they want the place it won't matter at all. A handful of old geezers in an abandoned ghost country won't be able to resist the waves coming over the Bosphorus and taking up shop without even a by your leave.
@@brianboru2762 true but I think the current Eastern European population crisis has mainly been a result of the first 2 decades of Eurovision and the fact young Balkaners can easily move to Western Europe but as Germany and the uk(also brexit) get more and more expensive I think we’ll see the East start to level out it’s population pyramid
Honestly, Cuba deserves it's own video( not because I am Cuban), but because it is the epitome of the 20th century. If you analyze demographic shift occuring on the island, you will see that it will either become a big player in the Americas or be completely destroyed. The island is on borrowed time, and will likely cause a conflict in the future. Would like to see your opinion on the matter.
The biggest beneficiary for Cuba is its diaspora in the USA that has become rich and would probably pour money into the island to try to help it modernize, especially once Cuba’s regime collapse.
I doubt Cuba will be destroyed in a conflict because it’s in the interests of the USA to keep it stable. Partially because they don’t want a humanitarian crisis but also because the Cuban population in Florida are so vital towards presidential elections (I mean the 2000 election is an amazing example) that a president (most likely Republican) may try to intervene in Cuba to appeal to Cubans in Miami.
@Pops tell that to the millions of Cubans that fled to America
@@MultiLiam24 Not really. It's complicated. If it was any Hispanic country, I will have no doubt Cuba will become prosperous, but its isn't. The problem is that when people picture Cuba, they picture a land of diversity and inclusion, etc. This is a myth. Cuba has never been tolerant to anyone except Afro-Cubans( due to 100 years of war). Not to Italians, French, Jews, Asians, or any other minorities. This is because Cuba is the most extreme case of Spanish colonization in the Americas. When the Spanish arrived in Cuba they effectively exterminated all of the native peoples within 200 years. This means that Cuba never had a native population to create its founding myth( Like Mexico, Venezuela, etc.). Cuba was also the primary place Spanish people migrated to in the Americas. This ,in turn, created a hyper colonial society where your place in society was how close you where to Spain. No other Hispanic country went through this colonization process. Even Argentina( which is the whitest hispanic country) doesn't have this close relationship with Spain. In fact, they allowed other Europeans to settle there( 60 percent of the population has Italian ancestry). Cuba was the opposite. Throughout, its history only those of Spanish ancestry where allowed to immigrate there( Again, this is because Spain wanted Cuba to become part of mainland Spain). This was to such an extreme that there are documents where Conversos ( Jewish who converted to Catholicism) and Moriscos( people of Muslim descent) were not allowed in the island, instead they were sent to the other colonies( This is also why alot of the Hispanics are Crypto-Jews, yet Cubans show little Jewish ancestry). I am writing this to make the point that Cuba is a colonial society ( not unlike the south of the United States) and, as a result, it is reluctant to allow anyone into their ranks( no matter color, education, creed, etc.). This contrasts the other hispanic countries and the northern states of the U.S who have a rich history of assimilation.
The second myth that people believe is that Cubans in the U.S are a thriving community whose numbers are increasing. This is not true( Yes, we have become numerous in the U.S and we are more numerous than we ever were). However, this is a false perception. We are increasing now, but in 20 to 30 years our population will stabilize, and in the future decrease( if you are thinking that this is similar to what is happening to white Americans, its because it is). People forget but Cuba was industrialized alongside mainland U.S. This means Cuba is suffering the results of industrialization without the benefits of it( populations below replacement level, aging population, etc.). This monster will rear its head in the 20s and 30s resulting in the population being halved by the end of the century. Cuban Americans are not doing any better. They will also feel these effects( if you want to verify this all you have to do is look at the businesses in Miami( you will see most of these are related to care in old age- Yes the irony is that Miami is an old city, and as a result Cubans are being replaced with other immigrants( Venezuelans, Mexicans, etc.). This is why I want Whatiflist to do a video on Cuba and its community. There will be crisis in the future regardless of what they do. If Cubans choose to industrialize, they will have to import other people of the Americas( which will cause a crisis of identity since Cuba is not used to incorporating immigrants( See my explanation above). If they choose to stay the way they are, the old population will put strains on the communist government and Cuban Americans( making the crisis worse since Cuban Americans ( which are younger) will want to have less kids to keep their family in Cuba alive. This is the worst option since Cuba could be colonized in the future by other growing populations in the America's( if its not by an outright war, it could through migration to Cubas empty land( Yes, most of Cuba is unhabited and empty, and will become more appealing as time goes on. The third option( which is the most likely and most favorable) is that Cuba returns to being a colony( either of Spain or U.S 51 state). This is a bad option since the war of independece would be for nothing, but is the best way to guarantee Cubas population growth and stability( Under the U.S or Spain, Cuba would most likely have autonomy and its population could be replaced with people with similar genetics). The four option is war. Cuba could just choose to fight and depopulate the surrounding countries( Mexico, D.R, Haiti, etc.) Ironically, this will necessitate the country to become industrialized and would cause a population boom( Countries through wars go through a population boom. See the U.S, United Kingdom, etc. during and after WW2). This is not a likely option due to the U.S. The fifth outcome is the death of Cuba through the assimilation of Cuba Americans into Black, Mexicans, and White populations and a mixing of cultures on the island( Mexican, D.R, Haitian, Venezuelan, Colombian, etc.) This is the most likely option. However, this would mean the death of Cuban society since a new founding myth would have to be created for the island.
@@CarlosHernandez-lt7yu I would love to see that video, and I hope you help him write it.
The Cubans will never accept money from those bastista bastards
Your lack of knowledge about South America, especially about Brazil, is staggering.
One question I have is: will or can Europe and in particular Germany deal with its Muslim and African minorities? Because there is no way in hell this situation we have here can go on for much longer with those minorities refusing or being unable to assimilate...
After a few generations assimilation is inevitable.
Of course we can we just need a little bit of courage and a lot of technology
Some one have to fail art school again xd (is a joke friends, is just a joke)
Ich lebe in Deutschland auch und sehe nicht diese Problem?
From what I’ve noticed alot of the Syrian refugee families and the acrual immigrants seem to be integrating pretty well. The problem are the supposed Somali and subsaharan “refugees”
Yeah sure, Romania who tends to unite with Moldova will become part of Hungary, thank you for this realistic prediction, next time I wait for Malta annexing Tunis.
"South of Brazil will separate from the rest of the country".
Source: voices in my head.
Man, you really don't know much about Brazil.
Even better he left SP and Rio to the northern block, meaning the southern tip in his view is just the white neighborhood of the country but without the strong economic centers lol
Could you educate us, if you live there. You've got a probably greater/more accurate whole picture than one would have from the exterior.
@@SgtCarter69 , Brazil never tolerated separatism and any move in that way will be crushed.
Not that it will happen, mind you, separatism is quite weak around here, and I live in one of the few states that actually tried to seceed.
Either the country collapses first or it would be violently supressed, but for Brazil to break down it would probably require in itself a great international instability and losing brazilian food production even for a few years of "chaos" would cause hunger in such a way that would bring down other countries together with us.
As cool as it is, as a Canadian the scenario with the Great North really isn't plausible. British Columbia and Ontario would NEVER see themselves on their own. The only plausible nation(s) to come out of a collapsed Canada would be Quebec and Western Canada as a whole. I also say this because in western canada we very much so do not want to become US states
19:08 India does control the politics and culture of South asia/Indian subcontinent. Pakistan was the only country, which stood against India to portray themselves as muslims, who are descendants of Turks and Arabs(a self delusion) but Pakistan as of now, is failing and slowly dying.
What do you mean portray? they are Muslims and they have nukes so it's unlikely that India will take over Pakistan at least not without a nuclear war.
I smell identity crisis.
Paxtanis ain't descendants of Turks and arabs lol.
whatever it is it is also nuclear capable and you best believe those tactical nukes gonna come flying if anyone tries to dissolve the state itself, furthermore pakistan was founded out of the notion that muslims would never be equal in india, which has largely came to fruition with various hindu fanatical riots
@@mustafatariq1909
Yes that old nuclear blackmail threat. Pakistan would have used it by now but knows it will be wiped from world map.
Very interesting in a mathematical sort of way but real life will almost certainly be very different. I remember in October 1989 my friends in West Berlin were convincing me that "nothing will change". Also, the argument here is curiously US-centric while historically major empires have fallen _very quickly_ (mere years) once the process started. So who knows, maybe Liechtenstein becomes the next empire.
true no one can predict a black swan, as he says allot
7:05 lmao no. The only historical precedent we have for this was when one of the states in the south was neglected by the two main states (Minas Gerais and São Paulo) of the oligarchic Republic. What happened was that the south allied with other states and got Minas Gerais on board and what happened next was a unionist dictatorship. It's easier to Brazil to go back into being a populist dictatorship than the south actually splitting.
That really doesn't mean a lot since another populist dictatorship is very likely.
I think people are getting too hung on his cultural-ethnical argument (which IS completely inaccurate) and forgetting the very real political divide between the south and the more northeastern states (not to mention the unbalanced distribution of funds). Considering the huge time span he have to himself, it’s plausible that some big political events could push these political differences to a breaking point (tbh I don’t see it either, but it’s an ok prediction to make).
@@wanderingthewastes6159 People exaggerate the differences between the south and the northeast. We have the same problems, only with less money.
@@wanderingthewastes6159 The problem is that those issues aren't exclusive to the South. Most of the Center-West and Southeast is also part of the same conundrum. That's probably the biggest divide atm, but things would have to get very bad for there to be a successful separatist movement, I think the window of opportunity for that is long past.
It is important to keep in mind that there was a de-facto separate country formed in the middle of the 19th century in Southern Brazil, which lasted a bit under 10 years (founded in 1836). The Empire fought back (obviously) and crushed the movement, but the pride of the people who fought for it, and the historical characters from that time are still reminded to this day in the two southern states of Brazil (Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul), having their names becoming the name of schools and streets, and also statues of them here and there. With the failing of the central Brazilian government, that has been stuck in a political, financial and economic crisis in the last 10 years, the lack of hope and trust in the federal government and with political extremism, I'd say that with a pint of cultural hate (which has become noticeable in the last years, especially because of different political mindsets), it's just a crisis waiting to boil over in the coming years.With this year's federal election being a good starting point, where votes are very culturally and regionally focused, and where different regions vote to different parties in extremely different ways, there is a chance of people coming onto the streets manifesting for several different reasons, and a single common point of "not wanting to be ruled by the central federal government" being a single "easy" way to focus the reason for their unhappiness.
The fact that you can sound so confident while saying some remarkably stupid things is truly astonishing.
Maybe your just ignorant and lack the knowledge to understand. No, crazy, there's no way you could be wrong about anything.
As a central European, I really have to tell you that the idea of a unification of Germany and Austria is really really unfeasible. Austrians really don‘t see themselves as germans at all and any sort of „Anschluss“ would trigger bad memories in all states around (France, Benelux, Czechia, Poland) who would try to stop this at any cost. Also any non-far right parties would have immense trouble legitimizing this internally. If you suggest this in your map, you should go into the specifics (in the future video about Europe you mentioned).
Also you should consider the possibilty of Russia electing a more western-oriented leader in the future, given the pressure from Turkey on one side and China on the other you‘d think that they‘d naturally want to team up with the US and especially Europe to defend not only themselves but the Balkans. (see for example the long and strong bond between Russia and Serbia)
Germany doesn't exist. Every time I go to Germany and hear young Germans imitate neutral American accent to sound 'sophisticated', I look forward to the time when militarized banderite Slavic youths seize the opportunity for pillage and plunder of Germany.
I think that was more close alliances perhaps? Like spheres of influence.
As a central European i really have to tell you that decades of brainwashing people into "Austrians are not germans" can be reverted. If politicians push in the other direction for decades for example.
It's more sensible to say AH gets reformed before us Austrians join Germany again. Yeah, yeah; they always say we have close relations but Germany's policies are aimed at one thing alone: Help Germany. Plans to force EU citizens to pay for German roads (a German government official called us out for "Ösi Maut Maulerei" before the CJEU shut that whole thing down because it violated EU law - something that a supermarket worker knew but not Bavarian federal government). Then the Germans criticized us for closing the borders during the immigration crisis in 2015 while doing the same thing on their border to us.
I like Germans well enough but as a nation: FUCK GERMANY.
I could see Germany annexing Austria, and maybe the Sudetenland, but nothing more…
This man has never set foot in Europe, there is not a single person in Europe that is willing to fight a war with another European nation and the EU definitely does not need America to be stable, NATO is helpful ofcourse but the notion that Europe would collapse and then be colonized by America is insane.
the fact that his USA hasnt collapsed is already a giveaway.
interesting , France and Germany both have been trying to run EU their different ways . Just like before both world wars , imagine that .
Europeans hated Trump , he was just giving you a wake up call . US can no longer afford Europe's security as China is the real threat for US .
If US doesn't have a civil war over woke culture and feminism pushed by elitist and media , I do see US pulling out of UN and NATO as they serve no propose for US . Both are mainly funded by US and UN is on US territory .
Russia has economy of Texas and military budget of UK , without their 6,000 nukes ? Russia would be ignored militarily . So no need for NATO as EU is tied to Russia for fossil fuels .
@@rodneygaul2227 France ande Germany have been running it differently, but with the same goal, further European cooperation. The Germans however wanted to work more with the US but the French less. Thats why the French have the only good army on the European continent because they believe the US will not always have their back, as they should. I don't think the US will have a civil war, especially not because of feminism and lgbtq rights, which are widely adopted concepts in Europe. As for the fossil fuels most of our governments want to get rid of Russian gas as soon as possible, with only Germany lagging behind because Schroder and Merkel were very naive. That is why I hope that Macron wins the elections since even though I don't agree with his fiscal policies, he has a great foreign policy plan on how to tackle the war in Europe, and how to further integrate the European Union.
@@rubenraasveldt3693 Merkel hated Obama and Trump , interesting opinion . Germany asked US to pull troops out also as Russia isn't a real threat ( defense budget of UK )
// " I don't think the US will have a civil war, especially not because of feminism and lgbtq" //
OK your opinion , but I live here and their is a growing hostility as they are not wanting equality which they already have , but want to be superior .
20 years ago nobody cared ? equal pay for equal work , that is fair and just ( 1964 that started ) . Gay marriage , OK . You want to be transexual ? ok .
But now "schools" are pushing everyone needs to be "gay" and transsexual" . They are allowing 6 year old boys to transition ( the human brain isn't developed until 25 years old on average )
Also Now , you have to be a minority or a woman to get promoted (unless your connected to the right people ) . The Military is also now doing this since Obama (women that can't even pass the PT test are promoted with no experience over combat veterans .
Normally after 90 days a general discharge is given if your a man if you can't pass PT test)
The "riots" were done by feminism and lgbtq" factions .
( Portland , DC , there are more I can name )
right wing conservatives (Trump fans ) , as media says , would have been carrying guns
Back in 1983 after High School I couldn't get a job above min. wage ($2.90) because I was the wrong color and sex . Why I joined the military . During the 1980's you didn't need a college degree to flip hamburgers like you do now (school loan crisis) .
If you get your news about US from ABC , CBS , CNN, FOX , MSNBC or NBC ? Your listen to propaganda (the same company owns all of them ) And what is worse ? they are not news but opinion pieces by elitist "tools" not facts and let you decide )
Elementary , High Schools , Colleges and Universities are not teaching "how" to think , but "what" to think .
They are banning books: "To Kill a Mocking Bird" being one" A story about a black man being falsely accused of raping a white woman ( I have never heard of a country doing that which turned out well for humanity )
The idiots are running the country , Their favorite quote is: "the Science is settled ".
Science is never settled and always changing as we learn more
@@rodneygaul2227 I am Dutch, so I ofcourse do not know as much about your nation as you do, but I would like to discuss some points since they are quite interesting. Firstly I agree with the statements that we should let people do what they want. I also agree that starting transitioning at age 6 is way to early. An age restriction to 12 year old (just before puberty) would make more sense if not higher. I do not however think that schools are trying to push people to be gay, rather I believe it is a good thing that people get education on this sort of stuff, since knowing from a young age that there are people different than the "normal" straight people who are also normal people could prevent a hostile attitude towards them later in live. Another piece in that is that I heard that sex ed. in america is severely lacking and I believe that that also should be a part of basic education at around the age of 12 (also because of start puberty).
I think that diversity hiring and promoting is somewhat unfair (I am a straight white male) but also understandable. Companies are run by old white men so this "fresh air" could give more representation and equality for all. The only thing is that I hope this trend does not last forever, but until the disparity has closed a bit. I don't know what a PT test is tbh, I am not in the military. Google says it is about how fast your blood clots but idk how that is different between men and women and how that relates to getting promoted. It is ofcourse unfair to promote unexperienced women over experienced men just because they are women, but then again, if only 1% of the generals is a woman then it makes sense to make it more equal.
The riots are a completely different case but I do not think it fair to blame it on just one group. The blm riots got completely out of hand ofcourse but so did the storming of the capitol. So I think both sides are wrong at the extremes, look up the "horseshoe theory" since I strongly believe in that theory.
I get most of my news from the NOS or Dutch Broadcasting Foundation, which is the main news provider of the Netherlands, funded by the government but not controlled by the government so it is very independent and therefore purely factual, like most serious news sources in the Netherlands. I occasionally use BBC.
I am in university myself now and I do not notice getting forced to think a certain way. My teachers are on average a bit more left wing but they try not to influence the curriculum. I don't know how a school can ban a book since you read books in your free time but okay. At our uni some students refused to read a book written by a white straight author because it was not diverse enough and the teacher got so mad because he found that so ridiculous he left the hall.
I also agree that for some reason idiots are running your nation. How is it that from a population of 330 million people you get to choose in 2016 between a woman that does not feel trustworthy at all and a man that is just a huge dumbass. Then again in 2020 you get to choose between that same dumbass and a senile old man. I really feel that the democratic party and republican party are just two sides of the same coin, it really doesn't matter which one you vote for, there are only the smallest changes between them. If these two parties would run in the Netherlands they would probably merge. Also the political system is structured extremely stupidly. The fact that the supreme court contains people whose ideoligy is known instead of people who are chosen purely on their trackrecord as great judges and are there to independently observe the law is bonkers. The first past the post system does not work and has forced the US into a polarizing two party state.
Furthermore (this is my personal opinion, I am a social-democrat) I belive that if americans were just willing to pay a couple percent more tax, especially the very rich, then the US could have the greatest education system, the best (free) healthcare system, the best public transport system (which is absolutely horrid now due to car lobbyists) and many other things.
I am looking forward to your reaction.
As usual, you keep understimating Europe I think. Especially the Balkans. And Hungary taking over most of Romania? How? You might have some very wrong idea about how many Hungarians there are.
Also, your idea of the unstable and easily conquerable Balkans - besides Yugoslavia, which did break into its constituent parts, which state is that unstable precisely? Okay, Greece had financial problems, Bulgaria had various post-Soviet pains, Romania, if you consider it Balkan which it geographically isn't except for a small part and culturally it is to some degree, had a violent revolution but there was never any tendency towards breaking up of these states.
If the Turks come for Romania, there will be a lot less Turks in the world and a lot more Romanian war songs.
@@averagebohemian5791 If we are good at something, it would definitely be keeping the turks away
@@averagebohemian5791 won’t be the first time the Turks come into Romania and left with a bleeding nose
@@averagebohemian5791 What Romanians? No one has kids and everyone moves out of the country. If the Turks come they'll find empty fields and buildings.
@@brianboru2762 Funny, the Russians were thinking the same things about Ukraine.
It seems like you're obsessed with China annexing the Russian Far East. The Russian navy and its nuclear capabilities is by far its greatest strength. The old Russian Empire struggled for centuries to acquire ice free ports, and the Soviets made naval capabilities their number one priority. We see even now, the war in Ukraine is largely to preserve supremacy over the Black Sea that Russia has enjoyed since the 19th century. It currently holds the otherwise useless Kaliningrad territory for the same reason. Vladivostok is of utmost strategic importance to Russia, and it would take an utter collapse of the Russian state, never before seen, or a World War 3 type scenario for them to allow another state to annex it. And China and Russia have increasingly been driven into each others' arms by political necessity, which only further reduces any possible mutual hostilities. It's more likely that China annexes countries bordering the South China Sea than anything to its north, and that too is unlikely. Historically China has not been interested in annexations of territory outside of densely populated culturally assimilated regions or territories of extreme strategic importance. China already has the most accessible sea ports in the world, so annexing Vladivostok would make no sense from a cost to benefit basis. And while Siberian resources may be tempting in the future, China has already shown that they prefer to access resources of other countries economically without taking on any political burdens. Certainly China's economic tentacles could reach further into Asia and Africa, including the Russian Far East, in this century and beyond, without any annexations. Taiwan is the only exception as annexations go, but since that is already considered to be Chinese territory, both according to the Chinese government, and to a degree, the international community, it might not even qualify as an annexation.
The video overall is great, however from personal perspective, I have to disagree on the Balkans. I myself come from Bulgaria and live in Germany, thus I know a lot of people who left the country in search for a “better life”, however this idea that you have to leave the country in order to become successful is slowly becoming outdated as the country slowly improves and you hear more and more often of people actually returning to Bulgaria, since they now get paid the same wage they would get in Germany. As for the birth rates, while still not great, things are actually better than with most of the western countries, so this shouldn’t be much of an issue. That compared with the fact Greece and Bulgaria are both EU countries who despise Turkey and with Germany remilitarizing in order to protect their sphere, I highly doubt an Islamization of the Balkans.
You just have to look at a map of Turkey with its fertility rate to see that the Turks in Western Turkey already have a fertility rate of 1.7 or something like that. That's the same as Romania and Bulgaria have now. There is no way Millions of Turks move to the Balkans. If they move they will probably go to Western Europe.
depending on the politics, europe's borders eventually closing off
@@DominikJuric Turkey reported a fertility rate of 1.66 last year, compared to Bulgaria's 1.54 and Romania's 1.63, his idea of Turks moving to the Balkans and making them "cultural outposts" of Turkey makes no sense.
@@MrMike855 This whatifalthist guy has no idea wtf hes talking about, hes basically a meme for fetishizing turkey so much
Dude Bulgarias population is already 1/4 Turkish. It may become 1/3 with the population decline.
I used to see some good points in this guy's arguments, but predictions such as these are so laughable it makes me cringe and question his other ideas and beliefs.
I have one small dispute with the North America portion of the map: British Columbia would likely follow suit with the prairie provinces and go where they do so as to avoid suffering the fate of Russia or of Cuba from before the sanctions stopped. That or it stays with Ontario and the northern territories if those two stay united.
And I have a feeling that Quebec would probably annex Nova Scotia and the provinces bordering it by land to the north and to the east in general since they were all part of historical French Canada
BC is full of fucking idiots that desperately left Honk Kong, only to be voting in exactly the same government they ran away from to begin with. I would kick every single one of them in the balls.
I don't know about that... I don't think the US would get mad at them just because they didn't join the US. I think if anything the Canadian prairie provinces will form their own country too - I think at the end of the day economics will influence each province's decision about what to do more than culture and the US doesn't really have anything economically to offer that part of the world.
i could maybe see BC joining with a theoretical west coast, washington oregon california maybe even down to mexico, but i could never see the USA allowing that, both for lost land and for losing access to the pacific ocean.
similar thing with quebec convincing the maritimes to join together, if for nothing else for them to avoid becoming an exclave.
i could also see southern ontario maybe merging with the north eastern states, if we ended up with a CAS type split that managed to take the midwest and prairie provinces with it. but i think the north and manitoba would want their own thing.
I think the US benefits from an united Canada so long as it remains an ally. If Canada is balkanized, it would be easier for the individual polities to be swayed by international rivals and become a security liability.
Keeps talking about Turks,
Forgets like 30-35% are basically Kurds waiting for an opportunity to split. Also they have the population increase whereas rest decrease.
The best part is kurs population is rising and Turks are on stagnation
Doubt and unlikely.
I don't think borders will change this much in the future,
Borders will change in the next 100 years but not this much
however some of the predictions do have merit in them, they will be more of a "spheres of influence" than new countries.
A lot of other predictions are also based on oversimplification. But that's given when making a prediction. You need to do more homework about Islamic world, central Asia and Russia.
I honestly think that it's more likely that much of the Islamic world will nuke themselves out of existence than that it will become prosperous again. It has been prosperous only because of the fact that trade was primarily conducted by land at the time.
Well just how Russia single-handedly destroyed pax europanea, it is possible that in the next decades more wars of conquests will be fought.
@@user-uf2df6zf5w You look like western degenerative coomer who watches CNN and fox news all day long. Go read some books and stop consuming all that propaganda
@@realGBx64 not really it was already destroyed in the 90
@@malinaizetiopije8844 civil wars don’t count, regions trying to get independence don’t count either. Those are not wars of conquest
The ones who compare the USA to the fall of Rome don't ever take into account Rome lasted over a thousand years, we haven't even hit a quarter of that amount of time. Plus the USA reached it's geographic maximum when Hawaii was admitted to the union (again, barely 60 years ago). If we are the Roman Empire of the modern age, then we're just getting started.
It's not a 1 for 1 comparison like that, obviously.
The US is clearly in decline. The US will divide on racial lines.
The US look more like Rome in Marcus Aurelius' days.
@@stefanodadamo6809 So I guess it's about to enter its own crisis of the third century then. Should've known trump is actually commodus reincarnated
everyone agrees that 1940s/50s america was the peak culturally, economically, and politically. in matching, Julio-Claudian era of america had already started. following the trajectory, we are in the Flavian-Antonine era of america since we are the sole superpower since 1991. eventually, we'll hit our version of Crisis of the Third Century
I just dont believe that traditional imperialism, like with a “Neo-ottoman empire” is viable. I think think economic imperialism is more likely to be common in the future. If you want to expand Turkey, i think it would be more realistic, if you made a slightly bigger “Greater Turkey”.
turkey just invaded northern iraq today 💀
wait until the real wars start
@@originalname9386 Turkey is already in the northern Iraq works together with local Iraqi government against terorists.
@@originalname9386 That isn't how invasions work.
Bombing a few mountain tops doesn't make an invasion.
@@williamdavis9562yea nothing much happened after that
Historians in 2100 will look back on this video as an interesting novelty of the ignorance of our time to future events that will take place that alter geopolitics and the world at large forever, and how wrong this map inevitably will be
Greek nationalists hate him! Watch this man's 10 secrets for effectively kissing up to ottoman-senpai!
A bankrupt and debted nation with no agency and under foreign control with a negative birth rate to boot is projected to fail against a nation with none of the aformentioned traits. Color me suprised.
Greece nationalists should be realists above all else.
@@emreus1 obtain a sense of humor
The thoughts on Europe were just about the most typically American view on how important America is to Europe
America really does the bare minimum for everyone else but the UK
Prove it wrong
@@fuckshitfuck69 but the UK? lol... you're deluded. The UK-US alliance does not benefit the UK. If it was up to me id say to kick them out of this country. We have several military bases. Id also seek to ally with Russia and China lol. Fuck this US hegemony. Theyre not our friends.
@@timothymiller4475A unified Europe would rival the US in every way and that's just adding stuff up. Now imagine what would happen with proper integration and cooperation. Europe will seek more and more unity in a world with massive super powers and will become one itself.
@@4Lucy_yeah…. No Europe won’t unify. No way in hell you can convince Spain and Poland to be in the same country
I definitely don't agree with your Europe part... there are many Europeans that know and realise we rely on the US, at least militarily. It is true that the ageing problem and perhaps falling population levels will severely impact and hurt all (especially western) European countries, but there is just no way that Europe completely collapses and becomes a US satellite federation. I do agree that it is likely Europe will federalise but rather on it's own out of necessity to still be able to compete. However, nationalism will be a great opponent to this federalisation and one which should not be underestimated
The thing is - We dont rely on the US in theory. It is by choice of our spineless politicians. A Europe that defended itself from outsiders for over 1000 years is suddenly no longer capable of doing that? I do not believe this. The spineless leftists / chair farters in France, Germany and so on will not be in power forever.
@@yolomanolo2601 while I agree with the first half of your reply I don't think that calling all ruling politicians leftist and spineless is called for. There's a lot that goes into being left wing and right wing, and just using it as an insult for the current politicians in power willy nilly is the same as saying everyone born in Asia is of Chinese ethnicity (China on its own already encompasses many different ethnicities even).
Edit: though you are right in saying that in the future governments will likely become more more right-wing, due to the continued rise of right-wing populism, starring politicians such as Le Pen, Wilders, and Chrupalla (and arguably Johnson as well), although Populism is generally much more effective at being an opposition party than a ruling party
The US' birthrate is only marginally higher than Europes (and the same for middle and higher income families in fact) and is about 8 years younger on average. So they have maybe a decade, maybe decade and a half on us, that's it. Aging is affecting absolutely every nation on earth except Africa and the US' advantage is overestimated.
@@mysterioanonymous3206 The West should learn how to live with the aging problem, to hold out with technology until the rates improve with better incentives for starting families like Japan is forced to do so even earlier than we are. We can compensate a lot with automatisation.
@@yolomanolo2601 I agree. Japan is a good example, because they're still way ahead of most nations on every measure despite their high average age. Just shows that economic structure and level of development matters, a lot. So just because Africa or whoever has high birthrates doesn't necessarily mean anything. Many countries have yet to cross the Middle income trap, and only few will manage. The west will maintain its dominant position for a long time. And that's before climate change ravages entire regions, mostly, you guessed it, in the global south.
Considering Trumps recent comments about Greenland and Canada, in addition to Justin Trudeau’s random resignation this week, this video is uncannily predicting America’s new foreign policy direction going forward in 2025
I've watched many of your recent uploads, and always find them thought-provoking. I'm left with a question here, however: do you believe that nuclear deterrence will become less important in the future, perhaps with some new missile-defense system? For example, Israel's survival during the Cold War depended on conventional military efforts backed by the US nuclear umbrella. More recently, with its own arsenal, Israel deters direct invasion with the threat of a nuclear salvo. Honestly, I believe your vision would require some widespread anti-missile system, a technological resolution of MAD.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing when he mentioned Israel. Israel would use nuclear weapons to keep its independence.
israel doesnt even need to use nukes to hold off its regional rivals they are all decades behind them in other military tech and fighting skills plus most are pretty much failed states or likely to be failed states in the future.
Isreal hasn't needed the nuclear threat to defend herself: her conventional army has come thru with flying colors time & again against any neighbor foolish enough to test its mettle.
Same with Russia. The Kremlin has outright stated "Why do we need a world if Russia is not in it?" Basically holding the planet hostage.
@@isaacwojo3273 Not to mention Israel has the capability to prevent its neighbors from developing militarily and obtaining nukes. Furthermore, Israel is protected by MAD but not limited by it- no other country would want to glass the Holy Land.
I think this is fairly analytically accurate except for the Chinese empire portion. Given where Chinese demographics are going and the fact that China more or less has the United States’ full attention, I think China will go the way of Russia rather than see expansion.
But that’s just my opinion
No, that's Peter Zeihans opinion 😂
If by “go the way of Russia” you mean endure a devastating collapse and slowly decline thereafter, I’d have to disagree, at least to a certain point. I see Russian civilization collapsing pretty much for good in this next century, whereas a regime change in China would be less crushing. One whatifalthist view I ascribe to is that Chinese Han culture is one of, if not the most unified and resilient cultures in world history. Sure their demographics are warped and declining, but even under duress China would still remain a world superpower, and depending on the regime change (or lack of one), they could easily take eastern Siberia from a collapsing Russia. I don’t think the US will be as big of an issue in this case, because despite Siberia being resource-heavy, it is a territory of their former enemy, and not one they can very easily defend from a Chinese incursion. Not to mention that if we follow the whatifalthist timeline, the US will be more focused on internal issues at this point in time, not in a great position to contain the Chinese
Off topic but he also forgot about Wexit in North American category, which is:
More Likely Than Quebec independence
More recent than quebec independence
Yeah gotta disagree here. When you realise that Russia's GDP is literally smaller than Texas, and relies solely on export commodities, it's unfathomable to think that China can collapse same way Russia would through economic sanction and isolation. Sure the US can enforce difficult, isolating global trade policies on China to stunt its growth, but most consumers across the Americas, Europe, Asia still won't avoid Chinese consumer goods as much as they'd like, and the pivot away from such a dependency will take a while, because they certainly don't happen over night.
If China was to collapse, it would be via the same prediction pessimists have for USA; it would be internally.
I think the demographics crisis will cause the CCP to implode but I think the nation as a whole will survive because the Han identity is strong and the CCP didn't permafuck the Chinese economy as hard as the Soviet Union permafucked Russia's.
i love how South America on its way to doing absolutely nothing for the history of wars and just be there (I'm from South America)
Also, i think my country,Colombia, would be a American Ally Although sometimes they will elect populist leftist presidents who do not take any responsibility, but I think that Colombia will be like an isolated country, I just hope that the violence stops and that it returns to being a peaceful country like in the 19th century
Ending Drug War would help that!
your eurocentric view of history is so 1860s. What are we supposed to do for the history of humanity, colonize the sun? I'd say that not starting any global conflict is doing A LOT for humanity
@@theuselessdrunk Eurocentrism is based.
@@MeanBeanComedy It is true, the war on drugs has been a great failure, perhaps drugs will not be so taboo in some decades and it will be something not so bad, but at the same time I think that Colombia needs to conquer its territories such as Choco and the Llanos
I like his theory that South America doesn't do much because the frontiers of the countries are too good keeping them appart, avoiding cooperation and also competition. Despite sharing a common culture, everyone lives in their own bubble. I also agree with him that is very probable that Venezuela and Cuba will get rid of their oppressive regimes someday and start a path towards more freedom and wealth. But I also think that as some regimes collapse in the Region, other will arise to take their place. It's the Latin American disease, we as a culture are addicted to leftist authoritarianism.
This is my favourite video of yours...
since it let to the birth of one of the best alt History Channels possible History.
This is EXTREMELY america-centric, i do agree that Europe probably will collapse, but not that america will colonise it, also, america as far as i know is barely holding themselves togheter rn, i think it would be a miracle if america as we know it would exist by 2120.
Exactly. If there is a modern Western country closest to breaking up, it is the US. It has so many schisms and divergent visions for itself. Religious v non religious. Social democratic hopefuls v Uber capitalists. Not to mention its lack of actual democratic representation in its political bodies such as its Senate. A recipe for massive civil unrest, as we know.
Yep. America is bound to lose territory. This guy has no understanding of the damage inflicted on a country by being usurped as the top power.
so delusional to think america is anything but incredibly stable.
Pro-us bias i have to admit, but with north Africa and middle east industrializing and Africa growing, Europe will stay the same or stagnant in terms of population. Is Europe irrelevant no not even close. Also forgetting about technological advancements will make normal labor unnecessary. (why hire 3rd world immigrants when you can automate your industries)
Nothing could possibly humble Europe. If the future held only two Europeans left sitting at a cafe table in an ecological wasteland, their topic of conversation would be how superior they were to everyone else.
You're one of them :)
Ok where are you from may I ask?
this is a true fact, they will sell nuclear waste water trying to tax it somehow smh,
@@LLlap
That's a racist assumption.
@@maxkronader5225 we didn't lose to farmers in the desert tho
I think with Isreal that it's worth noting that they've got Good relations with basically everyone but their immediate neighbors now and are a fairly important regional power that has only survived by having a kick-ass military and a committing to technological superiority. I think there are enough interests in keeping Isreal alive that it can survive.
Sure there are enough interests now, but many of those listed are very short term, the question was will they survive the next century, theoretically in the shadow of a dangerous Islamic power in whatifalthist’s neo-ottoman empire
@@Flash4ML by doing what they are doing now: normalizing relationship with Arab neighbors. Abraham Accords were the first major step in that direction. Saudi Arabia is going to be the big one, and with it building NEOM so close to Israel it'll inevitably normalize. There hasn't been a major war with the Arab neighbors in a long time and as those older generations die out, so will their collective shame of losing.
Nah they survived by American and British funding and interventions and numerous political coups of its surrounding neighbors and talking about the actual populations of countries worldwide a lot of people do not see Israel favorably lol
@@Flash4ML Nuclear Weapons are an effective deterrent against invasion also being allied to the USA is another one.
The only real way isreal goes away is that it rots from the inside and not invasions from hostile neighbour due to their nuclear weapons