I have been sitting on several ideas over the last few months with the goal of eventually finishing my thoughts and posting them here on this blog. One post, however, has continued to perplex me in how I wanted to frame one idea I have had for a while: the fact that most politicians are waging post-Cold War politics with very little actual Cold War experience.
See? Even that hypothesis reads funny – like there is a point to be made, but I’m not… quite… there.
That is sort of my point in the whole matter: that the idea of geopolitical power and influence is intangible. Writing about current politics against the reference point of the West-versus-Soviet geopolitical efforts which consumed much of the latter half of the previous century is challenging. After all, so much has changed and the idea that contemporary efforts are distinctly different from the actions which took place during that era of détente and mutually assured destruction (MAD) is a stretch of the imagination. However, power, politics, and those who enter into that arena are, essentially, unchanging.
At this point, I feel that it is imperative for me to clarify a few things:
First and foremost, I am not an expert in political science, international relations, economics, or any discipline I may stray into. I write about ideas that pop in my head and end up spending a lot of time digging for more answers to one simple question… and you get to come along for that ride.
Second, this is not intended to disparage the qualifications of any of the leaders or their administrations; my intent is to offer a comparison of their respective experience in terms of geo-politics. I have no agenda, and in the process of writing this, I have flip-flopped on ideas as more information was acquired.
Power
The idea of political power varies from nation to nation and can take many forms: expert (skill/knowledge), reward (quid pro quo), legitimate (elected/appointed), referent (associations/alliances), and coercive (threat of force). Since this is a casual blog post and not an academic dissertation, I am going to focus on the leaders of the present Group of Seven (G7) nations: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. As exceptions, I will also include China and Russia; while they may be formally excluded from current participation in the G7, they are significant entities both regionally and globally when it comes to issues of trade, foreign policy, and natural resources.
Financially, none of these nations are the richest in the world. Oddly, the top three are hardly world-influencers in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita; Luxembourg ($119,719), Norway ($86,362), and Switzerland ($83,832 )are first, second, and third places, respectively. The G7(+2) nations are scattered. Ranked accordingly, the United States is 7th ($59,792), Germany is 15th ($45,247), Canada is 18th ($45,081), France is 19th ($39,890), United Kingdom is 20th ($39,820), Japan is 23rd ($38,179), Italy is 25th ($32,355), Russia is 56th ($10,958), and China is 57th ($8,806).
Similarly, the levels of defense spending offers another interesting foundation. In 2018, the U.S. firmly held 1st place in this category ($648.7 billion), China in 2nd ($249.9 billion), France in 5th ($63.8 billion), Russia in 6th ($61.4 billion), U.K in 7th ($50 billion), Germany in 8th ($49.5 billion), Japan in 12th ($46.6 billion), Italy 11th ($27.8 billion), and Canada in 15th ($21.6 billion).
Again, this is where not being an economist may be a liability; there are a lot of factors which go into understanding global economies and how it relates to a nations’ place on the global pecking order. A discussion of military expenditures is also problematic when it comes to the whole “quantity versus quality” debate. For the sake of the point I will eventually, make, these numbers might be relevant.
Politics
In “Multiple Level Thinking” by Greg Walker, an interesting look at the psychology in the game of poker got me to thinking about how his idea might relate to the bigger struggles between nations. Citing David Skalansky’s 2006 book No Limit Hold ’em: Theory and Practice, Walker offers the theory that there are six levels of strategic thought in poker:
Level 0: No thinking.
Level 1: What do I have?
Level 2: What do they have?
Level 3: What do they think I have?
Level 4: What do they think I think they have?
Level 5: What do they think I think they think I have?
In a way, the general idea might be loosely applied to geopolitics and national capabilities:
Level 0: No thinking.
Level 1: What can we do?
Level 2: What can they do?
Level 3: What do they think we can do?
Level 4: What do they think we think they can do?
Level 5: What do they think we think they think we can do?
I know – it is kind of boggling to read and consider. There was no easier way to write it for the context I was seeking.
The idea came from the notion that, among current leaders of these G7(+2) nations, there exists a sort of diplomatic disparity – a foundational difference in experience which may or may not place some national leaders at a disadvantage in direct comparison. This is not including any advisors, cabinets, or think-tanks – this is taking the heads of state at face value for their age, academic/professional/military background, and political experience (pardon the gratuitous use of Wikipedia – the research phase became a sticking point and may be supported by other sources in future edits)…
United States: Donald Trump (age 73) holds a B.S. in economics; four student deferments and one medical deferment during the Vietnam War; real estate/businessman, and President of the United States since 2016.
Germany: Angela Merkel (age 65) Ph. D in physics; no military experience; worked as a researcher prior to starting her political career in 1990 as a deputy spokesperson for the Democratic Awakening party during the reunification efforts following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989; became Chancellor of Germany in 2005.
Canada: Justin Trudeau (age 47) B.A. in literature as well as a B.A. in education; no military experience; worked as a teacher in a private academy; officially started in politics as a member of Parliament (MP) in 2007; became Prime Minister of Canada in 2014.
France: Emmanuel Macron(age 41) holds the equivalent to a master’s degree in philosophy and later public affairs; no military service due to academic commitments; worked as an editorial assistant in 1999 and as an investment banker in 2008; entered politics in 2012 as the Deputy Secretary General of the Élysée Palace, appointed as the Minister of Economy and Finance in 2014; became President of France in 2017.
United Kingdom: Boris Johnson (age 55) graduated with an upper second-class degree in the study of ancient literature and classical philosophy; no military experience; worked as a journalist in the 80s and 90s, later becoming an editor for The Daily Telegraph; entered into politics in 2001 as a member of Parliament, becoming the mayor of London from 2008 to 2012; became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2019.
Japan: Shinzō Abe (age 64) B.A. in political science; no military experience; worked at Kobe Steel until entering politics in 1993 as a member of the House of Representatives; became Prime Minister of Japan in 2006 until resigning for health reasons in 2007; re-elected as Prime Minister in 2012.
Italy: Sergio Mattarella (age 78) law degree; no military experience; practiced law and taught parliamentary law until entering politics in 1983 due to a Mafia assassination of his brother; served as a member of Parliament for the Christian Democracy Party; became President of Italy in 2015.
Russia: Vladimir Putin bio (age: 66) law degree, Ph.D. in economics; served as a counterintelligence officer with the KGB from 1975 to 1991; entered Russian politics as an advisor on international affairs in 1990; became President of Russia in 1999 to 2008, Prime Minister of Russia from 2008 to 2012, and President of Russia since 2012.
China: Xi Jinping (age 66) B.E. in engineering; no military experience; joined the Communist Party of China in 1974; appointed to the Politburo in 2007; appointed to General Secretary of the Communist Party of China in 2012.
Part of the challenge in writing this post has been the fact that, despite the solid original concept of linking poker strategies to geopolitics, there has proven to be many more readily available tangents to become distracted by.
Remember the hypothesis at the beginning – “…most politicians are waging post-Cold War politics with very little actual Cold War experience”?
The concept of the Cold War lingers to this day due to the remnants of old adversarial attitudes, financial influence, and challenges of alliances. In my amateur opinion, the present state of foreign policy does not bode well with the talent pool on hand – especially when the specter of the East/West divide indicates that the Cold War isn’t easily relegated to the annals of history books as a form of political, ideological, and national tensions which were kept in check by two superpowers.
Economics, law, literature, philosophy, public affairs, political science, engineering… all of these disciplines with very little in practical experience in military affairs. Perhaps I am getting crotchety in my old age, but I see this as a dangerous trend; much theory with little understanding of what happens when those stressors boil over into an armed confrontation. Twice I have used a quote from Hjalmar Schacht – in “Hard Questions as a Vet and Parent” and in “One Vet’s Views on War”:
If the military profession is honorable, it is the most self-effacing profession in the world because its duty is to prevent its use.
Perhaps it is because veterans hold a slightly better direct understanding of the face of war – the anxiety of possible conflict, the manpower and resources which go into preparation, the sensations and emotional conflicts which come with combat, the challenges of logistics, the pain of loss, and the frustration of having experienced all of the above only to have hard-earned victories cast aside for political points. Maybe even the political warning signs that are disregarded prior to a conflict wear on us as signs of an apathetic constituency which is more concerned with cosmetic promises than actual policy.
Poker
Poker might offer an interesting perspective in diplomacy – after all, the idea is to grasp the psychological tells, trends, and motivations to better consolidate any advantageous strokes of luck. Much of what goes on today never seems to move beyond Level 1: “what can they do?” Sure, there are blogs, podcasts, whitepapers, and other academic discussions of capability, but the heads of the current G7 nations really don’t seem to grasp that there are even other realms to consider… and to be fair, isn’t a realistic rationale for publicly going beyond level 3 (“what do they think we can do?). Information warfare is tricky like that.
Taking a look again at the list of G7(+2) leaders, only two stand out as possibly understanding the tricks of motivation, manipulation, and indication… and neither are folks I would enter into even a “friendly” game of Texas Hold ‘Em: Trump and Putin. With the former, I find it hard to believe that he made it as far as he did in real estate and business without understanding these elements; with the latter, counterintelligence is all about psychology and how to leverage that discipline into a desired result. Make no mistake: I trust both of them about as far as I can throw them, and while I might find their activities and actions morbidly fascinating, I elevate neither of them on the pillar of idolization. What is interesting about both of them is that they are two of the three on the list who are not career politicians – meaning that they seemingly entered the political arena from out of nowhere.
Misjudging intent and capability based upon experience, in modern politics, may lead to results which will be equally interesting as well as distressing for future studies. Maybe what we are witnessing is the equivalent of chess versus checkers on a scale which rivals the days prior 28 June 1914…
…Or maybe I have too much time on my hands and too many ideas in my head.
Discover more from milsurpwriter
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
milsurpwriter 
4 thoughts on “Power, Politics, and Poker”