I spent a fair bit of time in the former Soviet Union, what happened there is instructive for what comes next.

I think we will see, across the West broadly, to varying extents:

- peripheral states flipping (e.g., Baltics)

- widespread looting of public assets, a new oligarchal class minted

- total destruction of the middle class, particularly those with ties to government and NGOs (I'm in this camp and miserable for it)

- at least one civil war, lots of territorial disputes kicking off, separatism

- breakdown of law and order, local gangsters as local authorities

- mass ex-migration, ethnic cleansing

- weak governments, coups, demagogues, vassalage

- hyperinflation and scammy get rich quick scams (watch crypto)

▲

michaelchisari 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The collapse of the Soviet Union was ahistorical in many ways. It's rare that collapse of an empire can be pinpointed to a single day. And what you saw was a result of shock therapy imposed from the outside. I doubt that would happen to the US.

It's unlikely collapse will be felt as a singular, apocalyptic event. More like a slow, steady loss of influence and excess wealth. Countries on the periphery stop considering the empire's perspectives before making their own decisions. Other trading partners emerge. Bridges stop getting maintained until they're no longer usable.

And soft power declines. Imagine a day when the biggest pop star in the US, someone on the scale of Michael Jackson or Madonna nationally, is virtually unknown outside of its borders.

There are reasons to believe the American empire is in decline, but I maintain this will look more like Britain. It could take 50 years before American fully realize it.

Thankfully, that means there's plenty of time to reverse or mitigate the trends, or to make a decision to strengthen the Republic over the Empire.

	▲	specproc an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Britain's demise was relatively swift, and took place over the course of the two world wars. It fell almost immediately into vassalage, under the US. Not quite a bang, but not as drawn out as you suggest. Its former colonies experienced all I described above and more. In this case, the colonies are most of the world: where are the bases? Everywhere. With the States, here's the scenario, not too far fetched. We will see 1) constitutional breakdown, as Trump (or his crew) digs in, and 2) economic breakdown, 2008 but exponentially worse. This would constitute a Soviet scale collapse, to my mind.

▲

jgilias 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The situations are not comparable at all. That was the collapse of an authoritarian (wasn’t totalitarian anymore by the time it’d collapse) system running (badly) on command economy. Most of the points you mention are therefore just really off.

Say, the Baltics flipping. Where the hell are we supposed to flip to? Russia? Where ethnic minorities are sent to die in expansionist wars in disproportionate numbers?

▲

silvestrov 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> peripheral states flipping (e.g., Baltics)

This is already happening with trade (e.g. soy beans) and with military purchases.

Canada is moving quickly with moving trade elsewhere.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There will be no "peripheral states flipping" in the USA. Secession is not an option here.

▲

silvestrov 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is only true as long as there is money for the military.

When money is gone, the military is gone.

Money goes easily when a country has a large debt and need other countries to continue to buy into that debt.

▲

PaulDavisThe1st 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not the military that makes it impossible.

It's the incredible level of interwoven left/right, progressive/conservative, urban/rural populations in more or less every state.

More people voted for the current president in CA than in more or less any other state. Yet it is viewed as a "blue" state. The millions of Democratic voters in large cities like Houston or Atlanta may not control their state legislatures, but they are not going to sit by as those legislatures attempt to secede. Rural voters across most states are not going to sit by while their urban-controlled legislatures attempt to secede.

We don't have "peripheral" states here, and we don't have "red or blue" states. We have a mostly urban/rural divide that does not follow state boundaries in any sense at all.

	▲	righthand an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		People are building bunkers and tax avoidance as protest is becoming popular again. I think all people want is to secede.
	▲	garte an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]

▲

tw-20260303-001 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Under the current understanding of “not an option”. Who knows when this changes.

	▲	PaulDavisThe1st 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It won't change until states nominally considered "red" or "blue" actually lose the vast majority of their nominally opposed population (e.g. Atlanta's current population migrates out of GA). Until then, just about every state is a complex mixture of populations with different political alignments and sufficient sizes to make secession extremely difficult if not impossible.

▲

empath75 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It wasn’t an option in the USSR, either.

	▲	PaulDavisThe1st 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The "peripheral" countries mentioned in the GP were nations or at the very least distinct semi-national entities before the USSR. States in the USA have no effective history before being a part of the USA.