• It looks unassuming, but the Subaru Trailseeker is ridiculously fun to drive. And fast.
• Technically, Subaru classifies this car as a midsize SUV. (Sure, Jan.)
• It's the Subaru-iest of all the vehicles built in partnership with Toyota.

American parking lots are awash with a sea of sameness. There's just a bunch of basic SUVs and pickup trucks.

That makes the wagon-ish 2026 Subaru Trailseeker EV a real eye-catcher. Unlike the homogeneous crossovers rolling up to elementary school pickup lines today, it gets a stretched, long-roof profile and carries a Subaru badge. It looks like a proper successor to the Subaru wagons of yore, like the 2000s Outbacks and Legacys.

Technically, Subaru sees this differently. They classify the Trailseeker as an all-electric midsize SUV — and they do have a point with its 8.5 inches of ground clearance and easy-to-slide-into seats.

But, I mean, come on, look at this thing.

That's a wagon in my book.

I drove the Trailseeker's top Touring trim for about 450 miles to see if it was a worthy antidote to America's great car-design flattening. My tester — complete with premium blue paint, a panoramic glass roof, and radiant leg warmers in the front seat (yes, you read that right) — stickered at $48,400.

And it was pretty wild.

This wagon — sorry, SUV — can really move

I've driven around 80 cars in my career as an auto journalist: EVs, muscle cars, sports cars, big trucks, premium luxury vehicles, etc.

The Trailseeker easily makes my personal list of top 10 fastest vehicles. It can launch from standing to 60 mph in about 4.4 seconds and produces 375 horsepower.

Get behind the steering wheel of this family-wagon-shaped car, and you feel that power at all times. On my highway-dominant drive from New York City to the Washington, DC, area, it quickly dashed by slower traffic and 18-wheelers.

The speed doesn't come at the expense of efficiency or refinement, either.

The Trailseeker returned about 3.7 miles per kWh, giving the battery about 270 miles of juice. While it was whipping past cars on the New Jersey Turnpike, I could still hear back-seat passengers when they spoke.

And, speaking of the back seat, the Trailseeker's long body gives rear passengers an almost comical amount of legroom. Fold those seats down, and my panoramic-roof tester has up to 71.8 cubic feet of cargo space, in case you have to move some furniture around, too.

Its biggest red flag was charging.

I saw speeds peak around 127 kW, which is pretty middling in today's EV age. Subaru says the car can accept up to 150 kW.

Let's compare that to the much higher-priced (but similarly shaped) Lucid Gravity, which is considered America's fastest-charging EV. That one can accept up to 420 kW, adding up to 200 miles of range in under 12 minutes.

My initial fast-charge of the Trailseeker — a top-off kind of stop while I grabbed a coffee — took 21 minutes, charging the car from 49% to 77%.

Is it Subaru-y enough?

Subaru didn't build the Trailseeker alone.

It's the product of Subaru's expanding EV partnership with Toyota. The two companies now sell three closely related EV pairs: Subaru's Solterra, Uncharted, and Trailseeker correspond with Toyota's bZ, C-HR, and bZ Woodland. Next year, the companies are launching mechanically similar three-row EVs, too, with the Toyota Highlander and the Subaru Getaway.

The Trailseeker is easily the Subaru-iest of the bunch, and it's not just because of its wagon-y looks. It gets a dose of Subaru's adventure-seeking vibe, including standard Symmetrical All-Wheel Drive, X-Mode settings for snow and mud, roof rails, and a 3,500-pound towing capacity.

That outdoorsy tuning comes with a trade-off. The Trailseeker felt noticeably firm over broken pavement, especially at lower speeds.

A wagon comeback? Don't hold your breath.

You want a wagon now, right? Isn't this thing so cool?

Well, I'm teasing you. Good luck finding a Trailseeker.

Right now, Subaru has only a 9.7-day supply of the model in dealer lots, per CarGurus data shared with Business Insider. That's well under the industry average of about 70 days' worth of supply.

Kevin Roberts, CarGurus's director of economic and market intelligence, says the low supply isn't a product of high demand. In September, the automaker only sold 849 units, just 1.6% of all Subaru sales in America.

Rather, the low supply is part of an ongoing trend of automakers slowly shipping 2027 model-year vehicles to lots.

As the calendar turns, Roberts says there's little momentum for the wagon body type: "This segment has accounted for less than 1% of new car sales," he said, adding that "the traditional wagon has become increasingly rare in today's new car market."

So, no, the Trailseeker probably isn't about to resurrect the American station wagon.

That's a shame. After 450 miles in one, I'm increasingly convinced that good ones could win over American drivers.

By the end of his pre-trial detention at Moscow's infamous Lefortovo Prison, American journalist Evan Gershkovich had developed a curious rapport with the FSB investigator tasked with proving he was a spy.

"Most people break after four months or so, but you're still holding strong

The New Statesman has published a letter signed by the great and good defending Sally Rooney's right to support Palestine Action. Prof James Alexander wonders why so many writers couldn't write a decent letter.

The post A Reply to Slavoj Žižek, Jonathon Porritt, Peter Singer, Shami Chakrabarty, Priyamvada Gopal, Tariq Ali, Jeremy Corbyn and All appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.

In a “landmark” agreement, the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin have agreed to a framework agreement to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighters for the next 10 years.

Under the multi-year production and sustainment agreement, Lockheed Martin will produce 1,560 F-35 Lightning II aircraft for the US and its international customers at a rate of 156 fighters per year.

The US will buy at least 850 of these stealth fighter jets.

The agreement also covers associated initial spares, 10 years of modification kits, and a sustainment package for the global F-35 fleet.

It creates a stable, long-term procurement signal to modernize and expand America’s 5th-generation tactical aircraft.

However, the agreement’s execution remains subject to Congressional authorization and appropriations.

The US Congress is already considering granting the Pentagon authority to enter into multi-year procurement agreements with defense companies, specifically Lockheed Martin for the F-35 fighter and Boeing for the F-15EX Eagle.

The Pentagon also wants to buy at least 268 F-15EX fighters over the next decade.

The multi-year procurement and sustainment framework was first envisioned in the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization bill, released in May.

“We have fundamentally changed how we stabilize the American defense industrial base to produce at speed and scale,” said Under Secretary of War Michael P. Duffey in a statement.

“This agreement with Lockheed Martin proves it. By aligning financial incentives with actual performance, we are ensuring our warfighters are equipped with the lethal capabilities they need to fight and win.”

The Pentagon believes that multi-year procurement agreements, totaling hundreds or even thousands of aircraft and valued at billions of dollars, will encourage defense companies to make upfront investments in expanding production facilities.

Earlier this week, while commenting on the US Air Force’s updated fighter force structure report, under which the force envisions a 1,509 combat-coded fighter fleet by 2035, Lt. Gen. David Tabor, deputy chief of staff for plans and programs, has underlined that pushing multi-year procurement packages will provide financial stability to defense contractors and encourage them to invest in production facilities.

Notably, the US fighter force structure report is also pending before Congress, and it envisions a 60% stealth fleet by 2035.

The 60% stealth force will include 40% F-35s and 20% F-22 Raptors and F-47s.

If the report is approved, by 2035, two out of every five combat-coded fighters in the USAF will be F-35As.

Besides, the US Navy and the US Marine Corps will also fly additional F-35B and F-35C variants of the fighter.

The ten-year procurement framework with Lockheed for 1,560 F-35s over the next decade, including 850 exclusively for the US, will help the company invest in expanding and streamlining its production facilities to meet extraordinary global demand for the F-35.

To meet the demand, Lockheed will have to produce 156 F-35s annually.

Under the framework agreement with the Pentagon, Lockheed Martin has agreed to invest at least US$7 billion of its own money into projects to support the F-35 program.

“This multiyear framework strengthens the way we can plan and invest in the F-35 enterprise,” said Lockheed Martin Chairman, President and CEO Jim Taiclet.

“With the greater certainty that comes from the U.S. government’s transformative approach to F-35 production and sustainment, we can make the upfront investments needed to expand capacity, improve efficiency, and build a more resilient supply chain. That’s good for the taxpayer, good for our suppliers, and, most importantly, good for the United States and its allies.”

Lockheed Martin said in a statement that if the U.S. Congress grants multiyear authority and associated appropriations in the coming months, the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) and Lockheed Martin will finalize contract terms, pricing, and schedules through a formal contract award.

The statement added that the framework agreement will offer several advantages, including predictable, multi-year procurement planning, high-volume procurement efficiencies, and transparent, data-driven decision-making.

Notably, the F-35 Lightning II program relies on more than 1,400 domestic and global suppliers and contractors.

According to Lockheed Martin, the company manufactures nearly 30 to 42 percent of the jet outside the US across three continents before final assembly in Texas.

While Lockheed Martin is the primary contractor, the UK’s BAE Systems is a principal partner. BAE supplies much of the software code, the F-35’s rear fuselage, tails, the AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda electronic warfare system, the antenna, various avionics, and more.

Another British contractor, Martin Baker, is providing the ejection seats. The LiftSystem found in the F-35B variant is made by the UK’s Rolls-Royce (the only company building that type of STOVL lift fan).

Northrop Grumman is also a principal contractor, and it designs and produces critical F-35 components, including the center fuselage, AN/APG-81 AESA radar, communications subsystems such as the AN/ASQ-242 Integrated Communications, Navigation, and Identification (CNI) system, and the EO/IR Distributed Aperture System.

Leonardo and Cameri in Italy, GKN Fokker in the Netherlands, ASDAM Group in Australia, and nearly 30 companies in Canada also supply crucial parts for the F-35 fighters.

Over 1,500 firm orders for the F-35 over the next 10 years will allow Lockheed Martin to enter into long-term contracts with these suppliers to buy raw materials and critical parts in bulk, thereby stabilizing supply chains and increasing F-35s mission-capability rates.

It said the integrated procurement model, which pairs aircraft production with purchases of spare and modification parts, will deliver high-volume procurement discounts, drive down unit prices, and give the U.S. government the cost predictability it requires.

Meanwhile, during the October 22 earnings call, Lockheed reported third-quarter 2026 sales of US$20.7 billion, up from $18.6 billion in the third quarter of 2025.

It also reported a record backlog of US$292.0 billion, including US$52.5 billion tied to the multi-year award to produce PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) interceptors.

Notably, Lockheed Martin’s market capitalization is approximately US$127 billion, so its current backlog of US$292 billion is 2.3 times its market value.

Together, the multi-year agreements for PAC-3 MSE interceptors and F-35 fighter jets will provide Lockheed with a stable source of income for years to come.

If Congress approves the F-35 multi-year procurement framework, Lockheed Martin’s backlog order book could easily cross US$350 billion.

“In the third quarter each of our four segments posted growth year-over-year, sales topped $20.7 billion and net earnings exceeded $1.8 billion, increases of 11% and 14%, respectively. We delivered $3 billion of free cash flow in the quarter, and increased our backlog to a record $292 billion, allowing us to raise our dividend for the 24^th year in a row,” said Lockheed Martin Chairman, President and CEO Jim Taiclet.

Taiclet also reiterated the company’s desire to integrate sixth-generation fighter-jet technologies into the F-35, upgrading it into what he called a “Ferrari” F-35.

Taiclet first voiced this desire in April last year after Lockheed lost to Boeing for the USAF’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter, the F-47. He claimed that the company can integrate 80% of sixth-generation NGAD technology into its fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II, which is already in production, at half the cost.

If the multi-year F-35 agreement is approved and it provides Lockheed with 1,560 firm orders and stable cash flow over the next decade, then the company can invest in integrating some of these sixth-generation technologies into the F-35.

Notably, the F-35 is already the world’s most popular stealth aircraft.

Lockheed Martin has already delivered nearly 1,300 F-35s to the US and its international customers, more than all other stealth fighters combined, including the US F-22 Raptor, China’s J-20 and J-35A, and Russia’s Su-57.

A firm order for 1,560 more F-35s would bring the total close to 3,000 fighters by 2035.

The final decision, however, rests with the US Congress.

• Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from The University of Sheffield, UK. 
• He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com

The post The $7 Billion Bet Inside Lockheed’s F-35 Framework: Why Pentagon Wants to Lock Production for a Decade appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

• I've never been skiing.
• But if I ever decide to learn, I'll do it at the Four Seasons in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
• My 550-square-foot room felt like a luxury cabin on the slopes.

When I arrived at the Four Seasons Jackson Hole on a muggy day in early September, I imagined it covered in snow. This was in 2024, when I visited Jackson Hole, Wyoming, for the first time.

I spent one night at the five-star ski-in, ski-out resort. If I ever take a ski trip, I imagine that my room at this Four Seasons would be a peaceful place to rest after an active day of gliding through powder.

Step inside the 550-square-foot room with a starting rate of nearly $1,000 a night during the winter ski season.

Welcome to the Four Seasons Jackson Hole, a five-star, slopeside ski resort.

The 65-year-old hotel chain has a luxurious reputation and over 130 locations worldwide, each designed to reflect its destination.

Kim Cole, the director of public relations for the Four Seasons, told Business Insider that the company describes the Jackson Hole location's aesthetic as "modern mountain chic," catering to hikers, bicyclists, and skiers in the winter.

After checking in, I explored the room with the typical peak-season guest in mind.

The hotel has 106 guest rooms and 18 suites. The starting rate is $525 in the offseason and $995 in the peak winter season. Business Insider received a media rate for a one-night stay.

There are also 31 Resort Residences on-site, built to serve large groups. These residences have kitchens and up to five bedrooms. Starting prices range from $4,200 to $11,000, depending on the season.

Cole told Business Insider that in the winter, guest rooms are typically booked with active guests who participate in winter sports, so I imagined how the room would feel as a skier.

I thought my 550-square-foot room blended traditional cabin nostalgia with midcentury modern luxury.

My room had a king-sized bed, a full bathroom, and a private balcony.

Renovated by Wimberly Interiors in 2022, the guest rooms were designed to bring the outside in, with metal accents, stone finishings, and a soft, earth-toned color palette. This nature-inspired trend, known as biophilic design, gained traction in 2024.

The bed was plush with warm, fluffy bedding and dense pillows.

The king-sized bed sat between mixed-material nightstands with edgy lamps that contrasted with classic wooden shutters.

With one king-sized bed, the room sleeps up to three adults (or two adults and one kid). The room can also be arranged with two double beds, increasing the maximum occupancy to four adults (or two adults and two kids).

The nature-inspired headboard was a mesmerizing statement piece.

The headboard was the standout piece in the room. A cherry-wood frame juxtaposed with a bright-white image gave it a midcentury modern look.

The image was a textured carving of trees that I could feel when I brushed my fingers over the branches. A light bar glowed beneath the board, making it easier to see the details of the monochrome image.

The bed was so comfy that I didn't want to get up — and with smart controls on the in-room tablet, I didn't have to.

The tablet on the nightstand served as the room's control center, commanding everything from the TV to room service. This amenity was added in the 2022 remodel.

The tablet would be especially handy after an exhausting day on the slopes.

The other nightstand held an eclectic shelf of books with a warm white color palette.

Few things are more relaxing on a snow day than cozying up with a good book.

Luckily, my room had a small selection of biographies, historical literature, and novels, ranging from realistic fiction to young adult fantasy.

Publishing dates for these books ranged from 2003 to 2020, but I thought they looked much older. They were all sleeveless with a white or off-white binding.

Across from the bed, a large TV was mounted above a stone fireplace.

Rustic drawers were to the left of the fireplace, while a modern sitting area was on the right.

I noticed all the seating in my room was soft and cushy, which seemed ideal for sore bodies after an active day.

The room also had a private bar with gold trimmings.

The bar had an espresso machine, neutral-toned ceramic mugs, and Four Seasons-branded water.

Beneath the bar, a cabinet hid the mini-fridge. It was stocked with alcohol and snacks like peanut M&Ms and gummy bears, which were available for an extra cost.

In the marble bathroom, the oversize tub had a bendy shower head that made me feel like I was in a spa.

The bathroom had complimentary Le Labo toiletries.

The bathroom felt spacious, with a double-sink vanity, a sizable shower, and a separate toilet room.

The mirrors and vanities were replaced by Wimberly Interiors in 2022.

Across from the bathroom, a walk-in closet held bathrobes, a safe, and some classic, upscale amenities I've only seen in ultra-luxury hotels.

I spotted old-school amenities like a shoehorn and a shine brush, which I've seen more often in high-end European accommodations than in the US.

The ample size of the bathroom and closet made the room suitable for up to four guests.

The private balcony seated one in a comfortable lounge chair.

I spent some time on the deck, but since I imagined it would be less enjoyable in the cold, I appreciated the sliding glass doors that let me enjoy the view without the cold.

Out there, I had a view of the ski lifts traveling up and down Rendezvous Mountain.

From the balcony, I spotted the downhill trails towering over the resort's courtyard. Looking down, I pictured the green courtyard blanketed in snow.

In the winter, I imagine the biggest luxury of this $1,000-a-night room is hitting the slopes just outside. If I ever visit Jackson Hole during peak season, I'll only splurge on a Four Seasons stay if I'm taking a ski trip.

On eBay Live, livestreaming is for the entrepreneurial everyman. It is a no-frills, decentralized QVC for the modern age.

The interface is clunky, the sellers are unpolished, and the viewer numbers are low. The site is more like a digital garage sale than a Sotheby's auction, but it's just as thrilling to watch a bidder win a rare baseball card as to watch one win a Rothko.

Items for sale include Rolex watches, Funko Pop toys, commemorative coins, and Michael Kors backpacks, which sellers hawk to audiences of anywhere from 10 to 1,000 other souls. These online auctioneers set countdown clocks, sometimes as short as 10 seconds. Bids start as low as $1.

Tuning into a sub-100-viewer eBay Live auction is strangely intimate. Sellers, often in makeshift home sets or nondescript warehouse backrooms, fill the time between auctions with banter and often play music on their own speakers. Sellers also respond to the audience, affectionately referred to as "chat."

One bidding frenzy drew me in. Ten seconds and a flurry of clicks later, I became the proud owner of a $3.81 Dragonite Pokémon card. I know nothing about Pokémon, yet I felt a surge of joy hearing my username declared the winner. There is a simple pleasure in buying and selling real things in a digital auction house.

The post Review: eBay Live Is QVC for the Modern Age appeared first on Reason Magazine.

When both Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Base were closed as active American military facilities in the early 1990s, the Philippines was said to be the sick man of US alliances. The same Philippines now seems to have emerged as America’s pivot in the Indo-Pacific.

General Ronald Clark, Commander of US Army Pacific, made it clear in an October 18 interview with the Financial Times that the Philippines, alongside Japan and South Korea, is central to US deterrence against hostile forces (implying China) in the Indo-Pacific.

The commander of US Army Pacific, a component of Indo-Pacific Command, said he wanted to demonstrate more “exquisite” military capabilities to help “show the adversary some things that they should be concerned about.”

As part of that push, US Army Pacific has expanded its role, including by temporarily deploying weapons in the Philippines, Japan, and other parts of the region that would play a critical role in a war with China, including over Taiwan, according to General Clark.

He revealed how Typhon, a mobile missile launch system that fires SM-6 missiles at ships, and Tomahawks that could strike parts of coastal China from the Philippines, have been used in recent joint exercises with the Philippines.

The US Army has also been using the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) in ways designed to send a clear message to China about the joint military capabilities of America and its allies, Clark said.

Mentioning an exercise earlier this year in which the army moved long-range precision weapons from the US to the Philippines and brought ammunition from South Korea for a live-fire mission, Gen. Clark stressed that it was important for deterrence.

“It causes them to go: ‘Hey, this is something that we have to think about,’” he said,  adding, “You can see it operate and we can do it at scale at a time and place of our choosing. So, you reveal capability in order to give your adversary pause.”

Incidentally, in an earlier conversation with the Wall Street Journal, Gen. Clark, who commands 107,000 soldiers, talked about the “tyranny of distance” that made it impossible to fight China with just air and naval power.

He argued that China’s vast geographic expanse and its anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities make it impossible or too risky to rely solely on air and naval power.

Here, Gen. Clark argues that the Philippines’ geography is a major advantage. The country’s 7,641 islands sit near vital maritime routes, the South China Sea, and the Luzon Strait/Taiwan Strait, making it an irreplaceable staging ground for US surveillance, logistics, and coastal defense.

From Batanes in northern Luzon—100 miles from Taiwan—to Palawan facing the Spratlys in the south, the archipelago locks the two hottest flashpoints: the north controls the Taiwan Strait, and the south controls the South China Sea.

For the US  military, it is the only territory that can monitor both the Taiwan Strait and the West Philippine Sea simultaneously. The archipelago can thus complicate the movement of Chinese naval forces from their coastal waters into the wider Pacific.

Incidentally, America is rebuilding its military presence in the Philippines after its 1992 withdrawal.

China Outbuilt the U.S. by Over 2X in Naval Tonnage in 2024–25. How Did Beijing Outpace America?

The return to Subic Bay and the expansion of US military cooperation across the Philippines mark a major strategic reversal. Washington is once again developing access to facilities that can support its operations in the western Pacific.

The US has access to nine Philippine military sites under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) and is investing more than $300 million to upgrade infrastructure.

However, all 9 (nine) bases are owned by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), but the US has been granted rotational access. The first 5 (five) were agreed in 2014, with 4 (four being added later in 2023 by President Marcos Jr. to deal with threats from the South China Sea.

The nine sites are being turned into A2/AD nodes that complicate any Chinese movement through the First Island Chain.

Notably, rather than building massive permanent bases, the US and the Philippines are building a flexible, distributed network that complicates targeting by China and raises the costs of a potential conflict (“deterrence by denial”).

Viewed thus, it is understandable why the US has introduced, as seen in Gen. Clark’s  FT interview,  advanced mobile-strike and missile systems such as the Typhon mid-range missile system into the Philippines, capable of reaching targets in the South China Sea and southern China.

One could further argue that Gen. Clark’s interview was not about the Philippines alone. It was about a new American way of fighting a war in the Indo-Pacific that is distributed, land-based, visible, and anchored on three democracies of  Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. That is why he put the Philippines in the same sentence as Japan and Korea.

One can thus surmise that, in a future contingency arising from Chinese actions, Japan will provide airfields, South Korea ammunition, and the Philippines firing positions.

This aligns with the US 2026 National Defense Strategy that EurAsian Times explained earlier. The idea is to build “a strong denial defense” along the First Island Chain.

In this scheme of things, Japan is the northern anchor — with long-range missiles, US-Japan command integration, and bases. South Korea is the arsenal and logistics hub — Clark himself cited a live-fire exercise in the Philippines using ammunition brought from South Korea, showing how Korean stockpiles now sustain Philippine operations.

The Philippines is the southern anchor and now a vital Indo-Pacific center for the US. The 12th Philippines-United States Bilateral Strategic Dialogue, held in Manila on February 16, 2026, officially reaffirmed both allies’ commitment to maintaining a vigilant posture, strengthening deterrence across the First Island Chain, and keeping critical sea lanes open.

Apparently, Washington is not only institutionalizing this triangle, the US, Japan, and the Philippines, but also widening its scope by involving Australia and forming the “Squad.”

The Squad’s core focus is to counter maritime pressure and escalation in the South China Sea and East China Sea and reinforce freedom of navigation.

Accordingly, defense officials and defense chiefs from the four nations have increasingly aligned through mini-lateral dialogues, joint exercises (such as Balikatan), and security assistance packages (including transfers of Japanese warships and patrol aircraft to the Philippine Navy).

The developments above make it clear that the Philippines has become the centerpiece of Washington’s strategy to deter China in the Indo-Pacific. As Elbridge Colby, US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, said this year, Manila is Washington’s “model ally”.

In his words, “When our partners are strong, deterrence is strong. And that is exactly what we have here in Manila, under the leadership of President Marcos, Secretary of National Defense Teodoro, and other key leaders. We see and respect a resolute and proud nation that is determined to strengthen its own capabilities to better defend itself and its interests. A model ally.”

The Philippines now strengthens America’s network of strategic positions running from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines. Both are developing capabilities intended to make Chinese military operations more difficult, costly, and uncertain.

But as explained above, that is in a manner that affords more operational flexibility for America through access to ports, airfields, and other facilities that can help US forces disperse, sustain operations, and respond more quickly during a crisis, without depending on a small number of major bases.

In other words, thirty-four years after losing its sovereign bases in the Philippines in 1992, the US military has returned with comparable power, but by shifting its status from a base owner to a rotational guest.

• Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
• The author can be reached at prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com

The post Three Decades After Subic Bay Withdrawal, U.S. Military Returns to the Philippines With a New Model to Check China appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Bringing Order to Anarchy: Governing the World to Come, by Charles Kupchan, Yale University Press, 328 pages, $32.50

In popular rendering, international politics since 1945 has been shaped by the so-called "liberal order." Led by the United States, a bundle of international institutions, rules, and norms intended to limit interstate competition and facilitate cooperation were widely embraced, contributing (per this narrative) to a peaceful and prosperous world. Today, that system seems to be breaking down, leaving policymakers, pundits, and scholars grappling with what a future order should entail and how this system should be orchestrated.

Rivers of ink have already flowed in service of this foundational question. To the mix we can now add Charles Kupchan's Bringing Order to Anarchy. Kupchan, a professor of government at Georgetown University and a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations, is interested in both how the present crisis of order arrived and what should be done about it—as he puts it, "How did we get here?" and "What do we do now?" In his telling, we arrived at this moment because of the diffusion of power abroad, combined with shifts in domestic priorities among key members of the post-1945 order (especially the United States). The post-1945 order, he concludes, is thus irredeemably broken.

Going forward in what he sees as an increasingly multipolar world, Kupchan advocates a "global system of concerts" modeled on the Concert of Europe—the international order established after the Napoleonic wars. His proposed system would prioritize relations among the great powers, creating "informal and flexible steering groups" that would emphasize "building consensus, establishing lateral lines of authority across power centers, and providing top down governance." In practice, influence and authority would devolve to different regions, within which local great powers would play leading roles in shaping regional affairs. Meanwhile, the great powers would meet as part of a global concert, sitting atop regional orders as a kind of deconfliction and organizing body.

The most welcome contribution here is Kupchan's call to accept the end of the post-1945 order and to work within the constraints of a new distribution of power. For all that policymakers and analysts recognize that change is needed, the debate over the future of international order tends to focus on preserving whatever elements of the existing order we can. It also tends to attribute the need for change to shifts in U.S. domestic politics. Kupchan, on the other hand, helpfully reminds us that order depends first and foremost on the distribution of power. States, after all, are the building blocks of any international system, just as relative power affects both what they want and their options for pursuing their interests. The creation and maintenance of an order therefore hinges on whether it broadly reflects the distribution of power, allowing states to get some of what they want, through means most can accept.

It follows that pronounced shifts in the distribution of power require adjustments in the larger system. The greater the shift, the greater the change. And since the power shift underway today is foundational—with China emerging as a peer competitor to the United States, American power in relative decline, and power diffusing away from the West (broadly conceived)—it would be extremely foolhardy to try to preserve an order created at a very different historical moment. With a new distribution of power, Kupchan recognizes, a new system is required. Hard stop.

Still, Kupchan's call for creating a concert to replace the extant order is not entirely convincing. Two problems stand out.

First, the very same power shifts that require change to the current system leave the efficacy of the concert approach open to question. If great powers are to play the leading role in a concert system, it matters both which states constitute the great powers and how their relative power compares to one another. But amid a power shift, these are the very issues that are likely to be intensely contested, if not fundamentally uncertain. It's inauspicious for the envisioned concert, for instance, that scholars of international politics cannot agree whether the world today is unipolar, multipolar, bipolar, or something else altogether. Absent some baseline understanding of the distribution of power, it is difficult to see how a concert would form, gain buy-in, and operate successfully. 

Kupchan's invocation of the Concert of Europe itself alludes to the problem. It is no accident that the Concert formed only after 25 years of warfare clarified the European distribution of power, and waned as power shifted (due heavily to the emergence of Germany). Nevertheless, Kupchan doesn't seriously engage with this core requirement for a concert model when he makes the case for a concert today. The result is a tension between the book's underlying logic and its top-line policy prescription.

Second, and relatedly, it is not completely clear what the concert's remit would actually entail. On one hand, Kupchan argues that the "Global Concert would be a consultative body, not a decision-making one"; it would "tee up decisions that could be taken and implemented" by other ordering bodies. Yet Kupchan also notes that a key virtue of concerts writ large is their ability to "lower the bar to reaching and abiding by agreements"; similarly, he calls for concert diplomacy that would set up "bespoke steering groups to tackle specific challenges," particularly in security affairs. This suggests something grander than a consultative body. "Reaching and abiding by agreements" and setting up ad hoc fora to tackle specific challenges are decisions. Indeed, even "teeing up" ideas and decisions that could be tackled by subordinate international institutions and structures is a kind of decision. 

One gets the sense that Kupchan is not totally comfortable with the implications of his own reasoning. If new great powers are emerging and are poised to dominate international politics, and if these states are to coordinate with one another in small group settings, it seems likely that the concert would be a decision-making body. Alternatively, if the concert is to truly function as a consultative body, it is unclear why new great powers eager to assert influence over the international agenda would sign up and give credence to this exercise.

Beyond the logic of the concert system itself, no review of Bringing Order to Anarchy would be complete without some reflection on the volume's discussion of U.S. politics. The book contains a lengthy list of proposed domestic changes, including calls to encourage civility, forge bipartisan consensus, put the U.S. fiscal house in order, and avoid ideological excesses at home. No doubt many readers would agree with these recommendations. Still, it is not really clear what these proposals do to advance Kupchan's core arguments. Rather than directly affecting the creation or operation of a concert order, the domestic challenges he wants to remedy act as constraints on U.S. power: They impede the translation of U.S. material capabilities into international influence. Accordingly, a concert system could operate even with a domestically dazed and confused United States—the U.S. would simply be a less effective participant. Changing the domestic status quo may be a good thing, but it is not central to the mission of explaining what a future international order entails. The book's domestic discussion ends up being an odd discursion.

Still, this is an important book. In calling for casting the former order aside, Kupchan brings needed clarity to a meandering discussion. By the same token, it is very useful to bring insights from the Concert of Europe into the policy conversation. Whatever gaps there might be in its ideas about the logic and operation of a concert system—or the relationship of domestic politics to a concert—the book raises a new set of options, and that in itself is a valuable contribution to the discussion.

The post After the International 'Liberal Order' appeared first on Reason Magazine.