ECLAC proposes non-alignment strategy for Latin America and the Caribbean
GeopoliticsComments
I'm wondering about these variable-geometry coalitions... how does that actually work if the US demands exclusive trade terms for security deals... would that just create more conflict internally?
I disagree that these coalitions necessarily create internal conflict. In international relations theory, these are minilateral arrangements that allow states to cooperate on specific issues (such as green energy) without committing to a full security bloc.
us missile stockpiles are depleted, making the security side of the us-china choice a lot weaker for the region.
The missile depletion is relevant, but the real constraint is the US shift toward integrated deterrence. It is not just a lack of hardware; it is a change in the terms of the security agreement.
If US security guarantees are indeed weakening, would a non-alignment strategy actually invite more Chinese encroachment rather than preventing it? Could a vacuum of US power make variable geometry impossible to maintain?
High-level security guarantees don't matter much when you're trying to build basic infrastructure. If the US can't even stabilize the Yen without panic, regional governments aren't going to trust them with long-term credit lines over Chinese loans.
This is essentially NAM 2.0. The 1955 Bandung Conference attempted the same balancing act, and it succeeded in preventing total satellite status for several decades in the global south.