The Dangerous Game: How Power Politics Shape Our World

In this riveting episode of Heliox: Where Evidence Meets Empathy, we dive deep into the age-old struggle between continental and maritime powers, guided by military historian Dr. Sarah C. M. Payne's groundbreaking analysis. From Russia's vast landmass to Britain's naval supremacy, we explore how these contrasting approaches to power have shaped our world. The episode unpacks Japan's dramatic transformation from maritime success to continental aggression and back again, while examining Putin's modern-day gambit in Ukraine. Through vivid historical examples, we reveal how leaders make catastrophic "pivotal errors" when trapped in echo chambers of yes-men and incomplete intelligence. Most crucially, we explore why alliance systems - not just military might or economic power - ultimately determine the fate of nations. As China rises and global power dynamics shift, understanding these patterns becomes vital for navigating our uncertain future. This isn't just a history lesson; it's a crucial lens for understanding today's geopolitical chessboard and the high-stakes decisions that will shape tomorrow's world order.

Peter Zeihan: Zeihan on GeoPolitics - Russia after Russia

Sarah C. M. Paine - Why Dictators Keep Making the Same Fatal Mistake

This is Heliox: Where Evidence Meets Empathy

Independent, moderated, timely, deep, gentle, clinical, global, and community conversations about things that matter.  Breathe Easy, we go deep and lightly surface the big ideas.

Thanks for listening today!

Four recurring narratives underlie every episode: boundary dissolution, adaptive complexity, embodied knowledge, and quantum-like uncertainty. These aren’t just philosophical musings but frameworks for understanding our modern world. 

We hope you continue exploring our other podcasts, responding to the content, and checking out our related articles on the Heliox Podcast on Substack. 

Chapters

• 0:00 Introduction to Power Dynamics
• 2:39 The Japanese Experience
• 4:16 Russia: The Classic Continental Power
• 7:14 Leadership and Fatal Decisions
• 8:49 The Role of Alliances
• 10:35 Democratic vs Authoritarian Systems
• 12:26 Individual Agency in Global Politics
• 14:06 Future Perspectives

Transcript

0:24

- All right, let's jump into this deep dive. I gotta say, these materials are really something. We're talking about continental and maritime powers, you know, how they've gone head to head over the last century or so.- Yeah, Russia, China, Japan. It's fascinating to see how they've each approached things. Their strategies have had some major ripple effects on the world, even today, you know.- Absolutely, he sent over this geopolitical analysis that really gets into potential flashpoints, and to really get a handle on this, we've got this interview with Dr. Sarah C. M. Payne.- Oh, she's great.- A military historian and a real expert on strategy. Her insights are, well, they're really eye-opening.- She really cuts to the chase, doesn't she? It's not just about who controls the land or the sea. It's about how different nations think about security, prosperity, their whole role in the world.- Right, so before we get into the specifics, maybe we should break down these terms for our listener. What do we actually mean by continental versus maritime powers?- Well, Dr. Payne makes it pretty clear. Continental powers, like historical China or Russia, they're all about the land. I mean, their security depends on controlling huge territories, projecting power over their neighbors, and to do that, you need massive armies.- Yeah, I can see that, but wouldn't controlling that much land be, well, incredibly difficult? Like, wouldn't it be a huge drain on resources? Maybe that's part of why these continental powers have sometimes struggled to keep up economically.- You're right, that's a key difference. Now, maritime powers like Great Britain or the United States, they have a different focus, trade, commerce, that kind of thing. They see international cooperation as essential for security and prosperity. So instead of controlling land, they control the seas, you know, using powerful navies to protect those trade routes and project power globally.- So it's less about, like, brute force and more about economic clout and strategic partnerships. It sounds like that might be a more sustainable model in the long run. Look at how strong the US economy has become.- And that's exactly what Dr. Payne argues. Historically, she says, this maritime rules-based order has tended to bring more prosperity and stability to the nations involved. It encourages cooperation, helps build a more interconnected global economy. Continental expansion, on the other hand, often leads to conflict, instability, not to mention it can be incredibly destructive.- So we've got these two competing models, but how have they actually played out in the real world? Like, take Japan. They've kind of been on both sides of this, haven't they?- Japan's a fascinating case, a great example of the tension between these approaches. Late 19th century, Japan goes through the Meiji Restoration. They adopt a lot of elements of a maritime strategy, modernize quickly, grow their economy, focus on trade, shipbuilding, building up a powerful navy, and the result, massive economic growth.- But things didn't stay rosy, did they? I mean, they did eventually go down a much darker path.- Sadly, yes. Early 20th century, Japan starts shifting towards a more aggressive continental strategy. They brutally colonized Korea and Taiwan. Sure, they invested in infrastructure, education, but they also committed terrible atrocities.- It's almost like they were trying to do both, but those two approaches just don't mix. And in the end, it backfired spectacularly.- It did. The Great Depression hit them hard. Then, protectionist policies from Western powers made things even worse. They felt trapped, pushed towards this unsustainable empire-building thing to secure resources.- And that led them straight into World War II.- Exactly. Japan's gamble to control resources in Asia through military force, well, it ended in a devastating defeat. But what's amazing is their post-war transformation. Under a new constitution imposed by the US, they renounced war, embraced democracy, and rebuilt their nation, primarily through maritime trade and international cooperation.- It's amazing how they could go from continental aggression to maritime success in just a few decades. Really shows you how consequential these strategic choices can be.- It does, and it shows that these aren't static choices. Nations can and do shift their outlook over time. But Japan's just one piece of the puzzle. Let's talk about another big player, Russia.- Russia, yeah. They're like the classic continental power, right? I mean, it almost seems inevitable, given their vastest land mass and historical emphasis and on military strength.- True, their history's intertwined with that continental approach. Tsarist Russia, they relied heavily on their huge army, but they always struggled to maintain a truly world-class navy. Geography wasn't on their side, they were always looking for warm water ports, access to the seas.- Then you have the Bolsheviks. They kind of turned that whole continental strategy on its head, didn't they?- You know, that's a really interesting point. The Bolsheviks, they were strong militarily at first, but they were masters of propaganda and ideology. They used those tools effectively, you know, to spread the Communist Revolution, first through Russia, then into Eastern Europe. They presented a new way to expand, based on ideology, not just brute force.- But even with this ideological approach, brute force was still part of the equation, right? Like in World War II.- Absolutely. Stalin, with his brutal tactics, expanded the Soviet Empire. It was a combination of repression and military power. And let's not forget about Len Lishade from the US. Without that, their victory against the Nazis would have been much less certain.- It's kind of wild to think about how industrially powerful they were, churning out all those tanks and missiles, but at the same time, they struggled with economic stagnation.- There's a paradox there. A highly centralized, military-focused economy. The USSR had impressive industrial output, but it came at a cost. Efficiency suffered, and they struggled to meet the basic needs of their people. They couldn't turn their industrial might into widespread prosperity. In the end, their economy just wasn't sustainable.- And that brings us to Putin and his actions in Ukraine. It's like another clear example of a continental strategy backfiring, leading to destruction and economic hardship.- Putin's invasion of Ukraine, it's a sobering reminder of how this approach can go wrong. He's sacrificing lives and crippling his own economy, all to try and reclaim what he sees as a lost empire. It's tragic, and it raises serious questions about whether this kind of continental aggression can really work in today's world.- It really makes you wonder if we're seeing a shift away from that continental approach altogether. I mean, with the global economy so interconnected and new technologies emerging all the time, is pure land-based power becoming less relevant?- That's the big question, and it gets even more complicated when you consider China. They have a long and complex history with both continental and maritime strategies.- Right, they're the wild card in all of this.- A rising power that could reshape the global landscape, and their choices are gonna have massive consequences for everyone.- No doubt about it. China's strategic decisions in the years ahead will be crucial. And if we wanna understand what they might do next, we have to understand their history with both of these approaches. It's easy to get lost in the big picture when you're looking back at history, you know, those huge trends and movements. But Dr. Payne, she reminds us that history's also about individual choices, like decisions made by leaders that have huge ripple effects across the world.- Yeah, it's easy to focus on the big forces at play, but in the end, it's those choices that can really change the course of things.- Absolutely, and Dr. Payne calls these pivotal errors, like decisions you can't come back from.- Decisions that change everything.- Right, and she uses Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor as a prime example, a total gamble that backfired, you know, pulled the US into the war, changed the whole trajectory of the conflict.- It's almost hard to wrap your head around it now, why would they take such a huge risk? What makes leaders make these irrational decisions?- Well, sometimes they're working with incomplete information, or just bad information, especially in those authoritarian regimes where nobody wants to give the leader bad news.- So they're surrounded by yes men, living in a bubble.- Exactly, it's like they're playing chess, but they're ignoring half the board. Dr. Payne calls it the other half of the tennis court. Leaders often misjudge how other nations are gonna react, they don't see the big picture.- They're making decisions in a vacuum, not thinking about the global context. No wonder these pivotal errors happen.- It's true, and sometimes leaders get stuck in what Dr. Payne calls a death ground scenario. They make a series of bad calls, but instead of changing course, they just double down. They feel like they have no choice.- Digging themselves deeper into a hole, hoping things will magically work out.- And unfortunately, that's often what happens. Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a classic example. He's backed himself into a corner, and the costs have been huge, for Ukraine, obviously, but also for Russia.- It's a real tragedy, it makes you wonder, are there other pivotal errors happening right now that we don't even recognize? Kind of scary to think about.- Definitely a sobering thought, and it underscores why we need to learn from history, from those past mistakes. If we can spot these patterns, these traps that leaders fall into, maybe we can avoid making the same mistakes.- Okay, so how do we avoid those mistakes? What can we learn from all this, beyond just the individual choices of leaders?- Well, Dr. Payne highlights something really important. Alliances, no nation can go it alone these days. Cooperation is key, especially when you're facing big threats.- Strength in numbers, that old saying, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.- Exactly, and Dr. Payne makes a great point about this. She says it's superior alliance systems, not just finances, that win wars.- Makes sense, look at the allies in World War II. All those different nations united against a common enemy. That's what led to victory.- Exactly, and look at the support for Ukraine right now. You have a global network of democratic nations providing aid, sharing intelligence, imposing sanctions. It's the power of collective action.- But alliances aren't always permanent, right? What happens when the shared threat disappears? Do those alliances just fade away?- That's the tricky part. The strength of an alliance depends on everyone agreeing on what the main threat is. When that threat is gone, the glue that holds them together weakens, like a Band-Aid, you know? It works while the wound is healing, but once the wound is gone.- You take the Band-Aid off and everything falls apart. So alliances are inherently fragile.- They can be, especially when there's no clear and present danger. Look what happened after World War II. The Allied Alliance broke down because the main threat, Nazi Germany, was gone. Then the focus shifted to a new rivalry, the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union.- So the old alliances dissolve and new ones form based on whatever the new threat is, like a constant game of musical chairs.- You got it. And that brings us to a crucial question for the future. What happens to the global order if China becomes the biggest threat? Will the world unite against them? Or will we see new divisions, new alliances, along different lines?- That's a question that's probably keeping a lot of people up at night. Feels like we're at a turning point.- We are, and the decisions we make now will determine what the future looks like. It's not just about reacting to the crisis of the moment. It's about thinking strategically about the long-term consequences.- So we've covered a lot of ground here. Continental and maritime powers, those pivotal errors that leaders make, the importance of alliances. But what does this all mean for us, for regular people? What can we learn from all this as we move forward?- I think Dr. Payne gives us some important insights. First off, we need to understand the difference between continental and maritime strategies. They're not just different ways of projecting power. They're different ways of thinking about the world, about security, prosperity, everything.- It's deeper than just military or economic power. It's about a whole set of values, a whole worldview.- You got it. And we also have to recognize how interconnected everything is, how decisions made in one place can have huge ripple effects everywhere.- Like that butterfly effect. One small action can lead to massive, unexpected consequences.- Exactly. And that leads us to another key takeaway. We need to support a strong, rules-based international order. It's not perfect, and it's always changing, but it gives us a framework for cooperation, for resolving disagreements peacefully, for stopping things from spiraling out of control.- So institutions like the UN, the WTO, all those multilateral organizations, they're essential, even if they're not perfect.- Absolutely. They may not always get it right, but they're crucial for promoting dialogue, encouraging cooperation, setting some ground rules that everyone can agree on, at least in theory.- Okay, so support those international institutions. What else?- Well, Dr. Payne also points out that democracies, even though they can be messy and inefficient, are better at learning from their mistakes. They're better at adapting to change.- So even though democracies can be frustrating, they're still the best system for long-term stability and progress.- Seems that way. Democracies have ways of holding leaders accountable, of changing course when things go wrong. Authoritarian regimes don't have those safety valves.- So it sounds like Dr. Payne is saying we need both individual responsibility and collective action. Be informed citizens, understand the world, support those working for a better future.- I think that sums it up perfectly.- It's a lot to take in. Sometimes it feels kind of overwhelming, you know? Like, what can one person really do when you're talking about these huge global forces? Does my vote even matter? Does speaking up actually change anything?- Yeah, I get it. It's easy to feel helpless when you see all the conflict, the economic turmoil, the political divisions. But think about it. Every movement for change, every revolution, every step forward, it started with individuals who decided to do something, who refused to just stand by and watch.- Like, be the change you wanna see.- Right, and Dr. Payne's work really emphasizes that. Those who understand history, who see how things work on a global scale, they're the ones who can make informed choices, the ones who can actually shape events.- So knowledge is power, but you can't just sit there and soak it up. You have to actually use it, apply it, share it, act on it.- You got it. And what's really interesting is that Dr. Payne suggests the future isn't set in stone. We create it by the choices we make, individual and collectively.- So we're not predicting the future, we're building it.- I like that. We had agency, we can actually influence things, but that comes with a responsibility to use that influence wisely.- It's like we're all playing in this giant game of strategy but the stakes are real. Our moves affect everyone. We may not be able to control every piece on the board, but we can make strategic choices that affect the outcome.- Great analogy. And understanding those different strategic playbooks, like the ones continental and maritime powers use, well, that can help us make smarter choices in our own lives and as a global community.- So if we're thinking about this global game, we have to know the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, like knowing the rules, but also how to use them differently.- Think of it this way. Continental powers, they're like chess players, focused on controlling territory, making aggressive moves. But maritime powers are more like poker players, bluffing, negotiating, building alliances, using their economic and diplomatic power to get what they want.- It's not always about brute force then. It's about understanding how power really works, all the different ways you can influence things. Sounds like there's a lot more to the game than you might think.- Definitely. And it makes you wonder, what if the future belongs to those who can master both approaches? Those who can think like both a chess player and a poker player.- So instead of picking one side, maybe it's about combining them, creating a hybrid approach, taking the best of both worlds. Is that even possible?- That's the big question, isn't it? It would be tough. You'd need leaders who can think strategically and tactically, build alliances, but also project power when they have to, navigate global politics while still looking out for their own national interests. It's a lot to ask.- Like we need a new kind of leader, someone who can break away from the old ways of thinking and see power in a whole new light. And maybe we need a new kind of citizen too, someone who's informed, aged, ready to help build a better future. The challenges are huge, but so are the possibilities.- Well, I'm feeling a mix of urgency and hope as we wrap up. Urgency because we're at a real crossroads and the choices we make now will have lasting effects. But hope, because like you said, we have the power to shape things. We're not just watching, we're playing the game.- Couldn't have said it better myself. We can't just hope for the best. We have to understand the forces at play, engage with the world in a smart, strategic way, and work together to create a future we can all be proud of.- Thanks for being with us on this deep dive. It's been fascinating. I hope you've learned something I know I have, but the conversation doesn't end here. Keep exploring, keep questioning, keep trying to make a difference. Even small actions can have a big impact. Don't underestimate your power to change things for the better.