USA WILL BE REDUCED TO PRIMARY/REGIONAL STATUS FROM SUPERPOWER STATUS BY A COMBINATION OF ...

The character of the United States is its destiny.

[E]nvironmental degradation, inequality, and institutional failure. Declining trust, elite conflict, economic problems and weak leadership worsens these issues; and will happen in the next one hundred year. By that time at least 99% of the individuals reads this article will be dead, and the fortunes accumulated will be lost.

Caveat: This forecast is non-political and unbiased. The conclusion is based on algorithm powers

of the G-101 SPM AI  SERIES EVAM.1 platform, which provides users with

quantitative "event anomalies' to calculate mathematical measures

as a science rather than a subjective discipline. 

SOURCE OF CONCLUSION: The G-101 SPM AI SERIES EVAM.1 algorithm processes unstructured data to simulate human cognitive functions and eliminate emotional bias. While the specific proprietary dataset of its 145 preset sources is not fully public, the algorithm focuses on transforming "messy" qualitative information into "smart" data for its SPM matrix calculations.  Predicting "event anomalies" with a rating above SPM 95 tag have a 100% success profile. However, such SPM tags were limited to a timeframe of less than 36-months months. EVENT ANOMALY DECEMBER 2024 has a SPM 97.46 tag to be reality one hundred years from today.

EVENT ANOMALY DECEMBER 2024 with SPM 97.46 tag.

In his second term (2025–2026), President Donald Trump has aggressively renewed efforts to acquire

Greenland, triggering what has become known as the Greenland Crisis. 

Timeline of Key Events (2024–2026)

• December 2024: Following his re-election, Trump stated that U.S. ownership of Greenland was an "absolute necessity" for national security.

• Early 2025: Trump threatened Denmark with high tariffs if they blocked a U.S. takeover and refused to rule out the use of military force.

• March–May 2025: Vice President JD Vance visited the island, urging Greenlanders to sever ties with Denmark. By May, Trump again stated he would "not rule out anything," including military force, to secure the territory.

• December 2025: Tensions escalated when Trump appointed a special envoy to Greenland and repeated that the U.S. "has to have it" for national protection.

• January 9, 2026: Trump publicly claimed he would "do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not," alleging (falsely) that the island was already surrounded by Russian and Chinese warships.

• January 17, 2026: Trump announced a 10% tariff on goods from Denmark and seven other European allies (including the UK, France, and Germany), scheduled to increase to 25% on June 1, until a deal for the "Complete and Total purchase of Greenland" was reached.

• January 21, 20206, 5:41 am: https://stocktwits.com/G101SPM/message/642386668.

  According to SPM tag, if Trump is "allowed" to take Greenland on "national security grounds, " Xi Jinping "will walk into Taiwan Province of China without firing a shot." The consequences would trigger a fundamental shift in the global order, characterized by economic restructuring and geopolitical realignment. ^^ Economic and Technological Consequences Semiconductor Disruptions: Even without physical damage, a Chinese takeover would likely cripple Taiwan's semiconductor industry. Controlling the island would give China leverage over 90% of the world's most advanced chip production. However, Western sanctions and export controls (specifically on equipment from ASML) would likely halt the operation of these high-tech fabrication plants. Supply Chain "Friend-Shoring": To mitigate these risks, the U.S. and Taiwan finalized a $500 billion "Silicon Pact" in January 2026. This deal aims to relocate critical chip manufacturing to U.S. soil, with plans to build 11 advanced fabrication plants in Arizona by 2030. Global Financial Shock: A shift in Taiwan's status could trigger a global GDP contraction of up to 5%. In 2026, Japanese life insurers, holding over $1 trillion in U.S. Treasuries, might be forced into massive sell-offs due to new regulatory solvency regimes triggered by regional instability. ^^ Geopolitical and Strategic Shifts Militarization of Sea Lanes: China's control of Taiwan would allow for further militarization of the South China Sea, through which one-third of global trade passes. This could isolate allies like Australia and Japan, who would be forced to decide between regional "hedging" or increased military spending. Erosion of International Norms: A successful absorption despite democratic resistance would challenge the norm that borders cannot be changed without consent, potentially emboldening other authoritarian powers. Credibility of Alliances: If the U.S. is perceived as failing to prevent a peaceful but coerced takeover, its credibility as a security guarantor would be severely bruised, potentially leading neighbors like South Korea or Japan to seek independent deterrents, including nuclear capabilities. ^^^^ If the U.S. took Greenland, the consequences would be a massive diplomatic crisis, potentially shattering NATO and the transatlantic alliance, crippling global trade through severe economic fallout, empowering rivals like Russia and China in the Arctic, triggering internal U.S. political strife, and leading to a fundamental realignment of global security, with allies potentially seeking independence from U.S. leadership.

• January 21, 2026, 3:25 PM: At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump reversed course. Following intense pressure from aides and a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, he ruled out the use of military force and abandoned the immediate tariff threats. Trump claimed to have reached a "concept of a deal" or "framework" with NATO that addresses U.S. security concerns in the Arctic without immediate annexation. 

  • Details: While Trump expects the U.S. to gain sovereignty over its military bases (like Pituffik Space Base), Danish and Greenlandic leaders maintain that no deal altering their sovereignty is on the table.

  • Next Steps: Trump has stated that more details on this framework will be released by early February 2026.

    
    

The Island That Actually Matters to U.S. Interests.

Courtesy of The New York Times and Nicholas Ktistof

While President Trump seemed to threaten military action this month in Greenland over a national security crisis that no one else could see, he has been nonchalant about a far more serious risk of war in the Taiwan Strait — in ways that elevate the peril.

Late last month, China launched missiles around Taiwan in live-fire military exercises that looked like a practice run for a blockade of the island. Major countries, including Britain, Germany and France, promptly called on China to grow up (though a bit more diplomatically). There was one conspicuous absence: the United States.

Trump downplayed China’s military exercises. It wasn’t until two days after they had wrapped up that the Trump administration issued a statement — from just a deputy State Department spokesman — expressing concern.

All of which raises a question: If Trump can’t even respond promptly to a straightforward provocation by China, what hope is there that he would respond decisively if President Xi Jinping of China actually attacked Taiwan? And another question: Does Trump’s passivity increase the risk that Xi will take reckless actions toward Taiwan?

As I wrote in a recent column from Taiwan, of all the calamities that might befall the world in the coming decade or so, a war in the Taiwan Strait would be among the worst. It would risk an exchange of nuclear weapons between the United States and China.

Wars are expensive in every way, while deterrence is a bargain. And while deterrence will depend heavily on Taiwan’s political will, Trump should be doing everything possible to convey to Xi that China would face devastating costs if it attacked Taiwan. Alas, Trump seems to be doing the opposite, signaling to Xi something closer to a yawn.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

“That’s up to him, what he’s going to be doing,” Trump said in an interview with The Times this month, referring to how Xi might handle Taiwan. “But, you know, I’ve expressed to him that I would be very unhappy if he did that, and I don’t think he’ll do that. I hope he doesn’t.”

That was a shockingly mild response, and it contrasted with the concern in Trump’s own Defense Department. Adm. Samuel Paparo, head of the Indo-Pacific Command, warned last spring that “Beijing’s aggressive maneuvers around Taiwan are not just exercises — they are dress rehearsals for forced unification.”

And just last month, the Pentagon issued a major report warning about China’s gains in military power, including cyber, space and nuclear weapons and artificial intelligence, and asserting that “China expects to be able to fight and win a war on Taiwan by the end of 2027.”

That may be alarmist. My view is that Xi would much prefer to avoid war. But he is hard to gauge, and Trump’s seeming lack of interest in the topic surely plays into Xi’s calculations of the costs and benefits of aggression against Taiwan.

Ko Chen-heng, a longtime Taiwan security official who now leads a military think tank in Taipei, told me that Chinese generals are probably sobered by Trump’s decisiveness in attacking Venezuela and by the ease with which American forces foiled Chinese-made radar systems in Venezuela.

But Ko also noted that Trump’s mild reaction to China’s military exercises may encourage China, Russia and North Korea to test America in the Pacific.

If a test is underway, I fear Trump is failing it. And some in Taiwan are nervous that Trump’s desire to make his April summit with Xi a diplomatic triumph will lead him to casually make concessions that damage Taiwan’s security.

Trump’s puzzling deference to Xi has been on display over the last two months, as Beijing has undertaken a frenzied campaign against Japan. The campaign began after the Japanese prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, indicated that her country might respond militarily if China used force against Taiwan.

“If you stick that filthy neck where it doesn’t belong, it’s going to get sliced off,” a Chinese diplomat publicly warned Japan.

Any normal president would have called Takaichi to show support. Instead, Trump had a call with Xi and then reportedly advised Japan to pipe down. This felt like a betrayal of an ally essential to deterring Chinese aggression.

Why should we care about Taiwan? For starters, it’s now arguably the most democratic place in Asia, and it would be better if it didn’t fall under a rival nation’s oppressive thumb. More broadly, Taiwan manufactures most of the world’s advanced chips, so a war there might trigger a prolonged global depression and deprive the U.S. economy and military of critical inputs. In addition, Taiwan is part of the first island chain that limits China’s ability to project power across the Pacific, so its loss would be an immense setback for American military, political and economic influence.

The United States traditionally has declined to say whether it would defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion. But this policy of “strategic ambiguity” oscillates with the president, and Trump seems much less inclined to protect Taiwan than some of his predecessors.

To the Trump administration’s credit, in December it announced an $11 billion arms sale to Taiwan, a huge package that will help with deterrence. But overall I fear that Trump has projected a dangerous weakness.

One reason for Trump’s diffidence may be his dismissal of Taiwan as a tiny island far less significant than China. Another may be vulnerability: Americans don’t seem to understand how much Xi outmaneuvered Trump in 2025. Trump started a trade war with Beijing, and Xi responded to Trump’s tariffs by restricting exports of rare-earth elements, forcing an American surrender and leaving Trump in effect on a Chinese leash.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton dispatched two aircraft carrier strike groups to support Taiwan during a crisis. But Trump knows that if he made a similar move today, China would most likely cut off rare earths and hobble the American economy.

So instead of America’s deterring China from aggression against Taiwan, Xi may be deterring Trump from defending Taiwan.

Trump should take two critical steps to boost deterrence. First is to ensure that Russia loses in Ukraine or pays a staggeringly high price. If Xi saw the world united behind strong anti-Russia sanctions and asset confiscations as well as overwhelming support for Ukraine that made Moscow likely to lose, he would hesitate to attack Taiwan.

Second, the United States should cultivate friends that would stand with us in a conflict over Taiwan. President Joe Biden knit together Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia for that purpose. It would also help to have friendly countries ready to sanction China and to support a blockade of Chinese shipping through the Malacca Straits.

Trump is taking neither step, of course. And by chasing a fantasy in Greenland and seemingly running away from Taiwan, he elevates the risk of an actual nightmare of a war.

According to, SPM 94.37 tag EVENT ANOMALY DECEMBER 2024, characterized by the U.S. threatening tariffs on European allies to force the sale or acquisition of the territory, compromised American interests by exposing key financial, strategic, and diplomatic vulnerabilities. The move, widely seen as a "vanity project" or "imperial project," showcased the limits of U.S. coercive diplomacy rather than its strength. 

Exposed U.S. weaknesses:

• Exposing Financial Dependence on Europe: Deutsche Bank identified this conflict as highlighting that the US relies on others to "pay its bills" through external deficits, with European investors holding roughly $8 trillion in U.S. bonds and equities. By threatening allies who are also its largest creditors, the U.S. risked a massive sell-off of these assets.

• Weakening the U.S. Dollar’s Role: The use of tariffs for non-economic, personal goals prompted concerns about the long-term erosion of the dollar as a safe haven. Investors and central banks, wary of this instability, began looking for alternative safe harbors, reducing confidence in American financial markets.

• Straining and Splintering NATO: The threat of a 25% tariff on EU goods, aimed at Denmark (a key NATO ally), created a, "dangerous downward spiral" in relations. This undermined the unity of Western allies, potentially serving Russian and Chinese interests by weakening the NATO alliance from within.

• Exposing the Limits of Coercion: The backlash from European leaders showed that the U.S. could no longer easily bully allies into compliance, demonstrating that the effectiveness of U.S. economic pressure is decreasing.

• Diminishing Global Soft Power: The aggressive, unpredictable approach to acquiring territory created a perception of American "imperialism," which makes it harder for the U.S. to maintain its role as a stable, rule-based global leader. 

By the end of January 2026, the U.S. reversed its threat of force and tariffs, reaching a, "framework" deal with NATO, but the event left lasting damage to the perception of American reliability. 

_______

EVENT ANOMALY DECEMBER 2024 carries a SPM 97.45 tag that the United States will be reduced from a global superpower to a primary or regional power, one hundred years from today. Indeed, the global order would likely shift from a US-led, unipolar system to a chaotic, multipolar, or bipolar system. This transition would likely result in a power vacuum, causing increased international conflicts, the fragmentation of global trade, and a decline in the US dollar's dominance, according to reports. 

Key consequences of this shift would include:

1. Global Geopolitical Instability

• Power Vacuum and Conflict: Adversaries would likely feel emboldened, leading to increased regional conflicts (e.g., in the Middle East or East Asia) as the US would no longer have the capability to act as the "world's police".

• Weakened Alliances: NATO and other security commitments would lose credibility, forcing allies to adopt more independent, and potentially defensive, foreign policies, or to fall under the sphere of influence of other powers.

• Rise of New Powers: Regional powers like China and Russia would likely assert themselves more aggressively, filling the vacuum in Eurasia, the South China Sea, and Eastern Europe. 

2. Economic and Financial Disruption

• End of Dollar Hegemony: The US dollar might lose its status as the primary global reserve currency, reducing the US's ability to wield economic sanctions.

• Disruption of Trade: Global trade, particularly in shipping lanes protected by the US Navy, could become unstable, leading to increased costs and reduced efficiency.

• Lower Economic Growth: Reduced demand for global goods due to a smaller US consumer market could trigger global recessions, impacting export-dependent nations like China, Germany, and Canada. 

3. Impact on the United States

• Internal Focus: A shift to regional power status could mean the U.S. retracts its global reach, closing foreign military bases and focusing more on domestic, internal affairs.

• Economic Strain: If this decline is caused by internal factors like debt, the U.S. could face higher interest rates, increased inflation, and a lower standard of living.

• Reduced Influence: The US would have to rely more on diplomacy and coalition-building to advance its interests rather than unilateral, decisive action. 

4. Global Security and Norms

• Return to Realpolitik: International norms regarding sovereignty and human rights might be weakened, with regional powers setting the rules within their own neighborhoods.

• Increased Regional Wars: Without a central enforcer, regional powers might engage in more "proxy" wars or direct confrontations. 

• 
  

MOREOVER ...

A shift of the US from a global superpower to a regional power would create significant volatility and likely lead to a substantial, though unquantifiable, loss of investment value in US equities, particularly for multinational corporations. This decline would stem from various interconnected economic and geopolitical factors rather than a single predictable percentage drop. 

Market Volatility and Initial Drop

Historical data suggests that major geopolitical events can cause sharp initial stock market drops. For example, recent trade tensions in January 2026 caused single-day drops of 2-4% in major indices like the S&P 500, Nasdaq, and Dow Jones Industrial Average, wiping out year-to-date gains. A full-scale shift in global status would likely trigger much more significant short-term volatility and potentially a more sustained downturn. Over the ensuing 100 years net values will drop by 85%

Key Drivers of Value Loss

• Decline of the U.S. Dollar: The potential loss of the dollar's primary reserve currency status could lead to a 10%–20% decline against other major currencies over the medium term. A weaker dollar is historically associated with poorer U.S. equity market performance compared to international markets.

• Trade Disruptions and Tariffs: The imposition of more protectionist policies and retaliatory tariffs from other nations would disrupt global supply chains and hurt U.S. exporters. This directly impacts the revenue and profits of large multinational corporations within the S&P 500, many of which derive significant revenue from foreign countries.

• Increased Borrowing Costs and Inflation: A reduced global standing could lead investors to question U.S. institutional stability, making it harder for the government to sell Treasuries and thus increasing interest rates. Higher interest rates and inflation make corporate borrowing more expensive and can reduce profitability, thereby lowering stock valuations.

• Capital Flight: The current trend of global investors pulling their money out of both U.S. bonds and stocks and moving into other regions would likely accelerate. This reduced demand for U.S. financial assets directly devalues them.

• Loss of Influence in Global Standards: A U.S. withdrawal from international bodies would cede influence over global trade and digital economy rules, raising costs and creating uncertainty for U.S. businesses operating globally. A shift of the US from a global superpower to a regional power would create significant volatility and likely lead to a substantial, though unquantifiable, loss of investment value in US equities, particularly for multinational corporations. This decline would stem from various interconnected economic and geopolitical factors rather than a single predictable percentage drop. 

  Market Volatility and Initial Drop

  Historical data suggests that major geopolitical events can cause sharp initial stock market drops. For example, recent trade tensions in January 2026 caused single-day drops of 2-4% in major indices like the S&P 500, Nasdaq, and Dow Jones Industrial Average, wiping out year-to-date gains. A full-scale shift in global status would likely trigger much more significant short-term volatility and potentially a more sustained downturn. 

  Key Drivers of Value Loss

  • Decline of the U.S. Dollar: The potential loss of the dollar's primary reserve currency status could lead to a 10%–20% decline against other major currencies over the medium term. A weaker dollar is historically associated with poorer U.S. equity market performance compared to international markets.

  • Trade Disruptions and Tariffs: The imposition of more protectionist policies and retaliatory tariffs from other nations would disrupt global supply chains and hurt U.S. exporters. This directly impacts the revenue and profits of large multinational corporations within the S&P 500, many of which derive significant revenue from foreign countries.

  • Increased Borrowing Costs and Inflation: A reduced global standing could lead investors to question U.S. institutional stability, making it harder for the government to sell Treasuries and thus increasing interest rates. Higher interest rates and inflation make corporate borrowing more expensive and can reduce profitability, thereby lowering stock valuations.

  • Capital Flight: The current trend of global investors pulling their money out of both U.S. bonds and stocks and moving into other regions would likely accelerate. This reduced demand for U.S. financial assets directly devalues them.

  • Loss of Influence in Global Standards: A U.S. withdrawal from international bodies would cede influence over global trade and digital economy rules, raising costs and creating uncertainty for U.S. businesses operating globally.