Well, presumably you'll have a much easier time living through the fall of a country in another country.
As to "which countries don't seem like they'll collapse with over 1 in 10 odds within 10 years"... Most of them? I guess if you thought this risk was exceptionally high the EU's visa free travel would be the best hedge you could get right now.
I highly doubt that Russia is capable or willing to get into a fullscale war with EU. It's more than 3 years into war with Ukraine without any meaningful result, but repercussions for Russia, while not fatal, still significant. There was very limited military aid for Ukraine, yet Ukranian UAVs explode in Moscow and regions almost every day. Also there's a gas pipe from Russia to EU amidst the conflict which both sides afraid to even touch. Also EU has nuclear.
Full scale is unlikely. Russia could not, but they might send 250k/year to die in Estonia. EU and Nato (with or without US) would defend. But I doubt they would go all the way through Russia to force them to stop.
Nuclear option is not likely to be used for some "minor" conflict like that, because it would go both ways quickly.
This assertion is sharply undercut by the facts. I have an incredibly hard time believing that you're engaging in good faith here.
There is literally zero evidence whatsoever that Russia cares about 'equality for ordinary people' and a mountain of conclusive proof that it does not.
Ukraine did not owe Russia anything at all, so these 'negotiations' were nothing more than theater. Russia gave Ukraine the choice between either surrendering their sovereignty (for literally zero benefit in exchange) or being invaded. That is not a negotiation, that's state-sponsored terrorism.
For example It is clearly that some Ukraine nationalist did bloody crimes before the war even if Russian media exegarates it. Even the European Court of Justice has acknowledged crimes on the side of Ukraine.
I'm Russian, but it is my real opinion. I don't get paid anything for it. And I understand that not all Russian(goverment) actions are good, some were incorrect or questionable. Russia just don't want NATO expansion to the East even without transparent referendums. It's all very complicated in reality, in war no side perfectly correct and right and clean... :(
Why does Russia have any right to say whether sovereign countries on its borders join NATO or not?
The only reason Russia cares is because it wants to continue controlling them -- not because it's worried about the mythical NATO invasion of Russia its news and leader trumpet.
And in contrast, the only reasons those countries want to join NATO is because they're scared of Russia invading them, which it historically has. (See: Finland and eastern Europe)
Why US and EU worried about Nuclear Weapon in Iran?(I've exaggerated a bit here for an example).
NATO has more troops and equipment than Russia, it does not need to be afraid of Russia and seeks to expand even more.
To be sure even about majority opinion in Finland about joining NATO, in such serios questions you need referendum data but there is no such referendum. Even supporters of the West are not always in favor of joining a purely military and not only defensive NATO Alliance.
Yes USSR invading Finland in Soviet-Finland war it's bad, the USSR offered Finland a territory in return before the war, but unfortunately, it did not seem very profitable, but then, during WW2 for most of the time, Finland fought on the side of the German Axis coalition. And Finland did not fight quite adequately and also committed crimes, created concentration camps to isolate peoples who were not ethnically related to Finns and ("non-indigenous peoples") to move out of the territories where these people lived all their lives and many people died in these camps and there is some evidence of crimes in these camps. If someone want to take away something from you, for example, a part of the territory, then would it be adequate to ask for help from a notorious bandit(Hitler) who burns people? Such question has no good answer.
I'm not oneside propagandist. I just want that more people try to see things from all sides and analyse more information. Maybe I'm wrong.
In countries where there is a very significant part of the Russian-speaking and sympathetic to the Russia population, Russia wants their opinion(russian speaking people) to be taken into account, they are not forbidden to speak and study Russian in schools. Yes, sometimes they exaggerate reasonable demands. But I recognize that such countries have the right to require that all official documents be in the main language and the officials need to know the main language. I think it's not that Russia want fully control of this Countries. Russia wants trade and interact economically with these countries, and not just to have all Russian goods blocked or subject to huge duties without reasons.
Sorry for lots of text. And I may be mistaken in some points.
You need to rethink your information environment, you are repeating many false claims that I recognise from past propaganda.
For instance your view of NATO membership is fundamentally flawed as it assumes a NATO push to take on more members, when in reality even the most shallow research shows that it was actually based on a pull from countries who lobbied to be able to join NATO and had to jump through hoops to qualify.
Why did those countries want to join NATO? Because they recognised that, alone, they were vulnerable to what’s clearly a revanchist Russia looking to annex or otherwise control other countries in the region. By being part of a broad security alliance like NATO those countries made themselves safer from Russian attacks.
As for Russian speakers in Ukraine, I know many Ukrainians, most of whom from the east who learnt Russian as a first language. All but one of them absolutely detest Russia, have nothing good to say about Russians in general, who they see as complicit, and have become even more fiercely pro-Ukrainian and patriotic than they were before the war. Many have chosen to speak Ukrainian primarily, despite it being their second language.
And why wouldn’t they? Russia’s invasion destroyed their homes and their way of life, levelling entire cities, and killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians. The idea that all of this was done in their name or to their benefit is insulting.
Since the cold war, it was always understood that it would be OTAN that would have to resort to nuclear weapons to halt a mythical soviet attack on western europe.
There's no conceivable scenario the United States could sustain the logistic chains to engage in a sustained land war in Europe against the soviets in the cold war, and now even less so.
Given the preponderance of artillery of the Russians, I really doubt the current numbers from the delusional british about their losses in Ukrain, but supposing Russia would incur 250 deaths year to subdue Estonia is beyond the realms of the most fantastic political sciences major military fantasy.
The United States fought for 20 years in Afghanistan to replace the Taliban regime with the Taliban at the cost of more than 2 trillion dollars. Even nominal success like Desert Storm were not the military triumph it seems as besides Saddam's army being a poor excuse of a military force, widespread bribing was used to guarantee several Iraq's military units would not fight.
Hitler employed 111 divisions on the Barbarossa plan, with the known results. The US has currently 5 divisions equivalent in state of readiness plus some other ten that would take take time. Any serious american operation against Russia in Eastern Europe would thus necessitate a draft in far bigger proportions than the Vietnam's era Draft, in a population that is way less jingoistic than the boomers eager to prove they were up to the heroic acts of the silent generation that overcome the Axis in the battlefield. A lot of american industrial production has been downsized and sizable parts of it depend on global supply chains.
While american weaponry are technologically impressive, most of it was designed by the most byzantine and politicized proccess you could imagine with the goal of guaranteeing politicians votes in their turfs and to maximize returns for the Military Industry shareholders. American weaponry is maintainance intensive, have low availability and depend on optimal conditions to be operated and mantained. They also depend on robust ISR. All things that a smart enemy with hypersonic weapons and space capabilities would make sure to deny on the first day.
The idea that the United States could prevail in a direct lan war against Russia or a naval conflict against China is a fantasy.
There is a straightforward way to win a naval conflict against China, which is basically a repeat of the strategy used with great success against Japan in WWII. Use mines and submarines to cut off their fossil fuel, food, and fertilizer imports. Starve them to death. Chinese leaders are aware of this vulnerability, and are working hard to reduce dependence on foreign energy as well as building a blue water navy that can protect their sea lines of communication. But progress has been slow.
As for Russia, their internal economy is very weak and they have far less industrial capacity than the old USSR. The only way they are able to financially sustain the invasion of Ukraine is through huge fossil fuel exports. Those exports pass through a limited set of choke points including pipelines, refineries, tank farms, and ports which are impossible to defend and can be wrecked with stand-off weapons. Some of your criticisms of overly complex US weapons systems are valid, but our cruise missiles are proven to work reliably.
It doesn't make much sense to be measured by classical armies if all these countries unfortunately have nuclear weapons and can use them in case of a critical situation. And that's the scariest part. :( It's better to find a middle ground in negotiations somehow.
Sounds good. Everyone loves negotiations when they get what they want. Do you think those negotiations will result in China and Russia ceasing their attempts to seize territory from our allies? If not then we might have to take other measures. Regardless of which side is right or wrong, we seem to be on a long-term collision course for fundamental geopolitical reasons that will extend beyond the current US presidential administration.
Maybe I'm biased because I'm Russian. But I'm sure that Russia has no intention of seizing territories of Western countries, Russia already has a very large territory. Ukraine is a different story, there really are a lot of people there who used to live in the same country with Russia(USSR) and speak only Russian language and really sympathize Russia. I'm not saying it's good to seize territory even in that case, but all other countries that has little only Russian language speaking population have no significant reason to be afraid. As I wrote earlier NATO currently has more troops and equipment than Russia.
The current Russian leader sees the collapse of the USSR as a "tragedy". And since 1990 they they have invaded Georgia, Moldova, and now Ukraine (after repeatedly promising that they wouldn't). That looks like a pattern. I understand why Russia is doing it to create defensible strategic depth due to lack of natural geographic barriers around their population centers. But that doesn't make it right, and regardless of moral issues Russian expansionism is certainly contrary to the interests of the USA and its allies. Who will be the next victim, perhaps Estonia?
I bear no ill will towards Russian people but while the current malign leadership remains in power we should use all means short of war to contain, undermine, impoverish, and generally humiliate the country. Grind them into the dust until they can no longer present a credible threat. But that's just my opinion.
I think the collapse of the USSR was more bad than good, not because of the loss of territory, but because of the collapse of socialist and communist ideals. I believe that better than people are more equal, and there are no billionaires or multi-billionaires. Individuals do not need wealth of this size.
But Russia is not taking people off the streets to war by force currently. Most of those who fight for Russia really believe that they are right. And almost everyone who wanted to could leave Russia. Currently it's not like in WW2 and Hitler. Russian soldiers do not kill civilians on purpose(maybe with the exception of single crimes that are being investigated), it has no point, (although it is possible that by mistakes, this is a war, unfortunately) and in Russia there is not even the death penalty, although in the US there is.
Russia always proposes some kind of settlement so that there is no war. Sometimes they are not so terrible, for example, simply not to make Russian-speaking citizens second-class citizens, not to forbid them anything. Sometimes the demands are of course not entirely adequate, but this is not always the case. And other side can offer some middle ground.
I believe that an invasion in any Baltic country is possible only in one case, if they completely cut off the food supplies of Kaliningrad, and if the sea route is completely blocked, and the people in Kaliningrad will suffer without food.
I didn't support Putin in the last elections, for example, especially because of the change in the constitution. And I don't really understand why he didn't find an adequate successor, for example.
I'm saying this just so you don't think that I think Russia is always right.
Yes, you may think differently. And I may be wrong.
>and in Russia there is not even the death penalty, although in the US there is.
Aside from all the rest of the nonsense and foolishness you've written about Russia and the supposedly lovely ideals of the USSR's bloody, genocidal history, this particular nugget stood out.
Russia has no formal death penalty, sure. Instead it's government illegally murders opponents domestically and internationally, frequently and in sizable numbers while lying about having done so. Aside from the U.S death penalty laws being completely different in nature to such a mafia practice by the Russian government and its agents, at least the U.S, formally and through due process, executes its criminals without concealing what it does.
> But I'm sure that Russia has no intention of seizing territories of Western countries /---/ I'm not saying it's good to seize territory even in that case, but all other countries that has little only Russian language speaking population have no significant reason to be afraid.
Well, that's exactly the problem. Several countries in Europe have more Russians in their population than the Kherson oblast (<14%), which Russia officially annexed.
Yes, I somehow understand this, people are different. I hope that there will be no such thing. It's hard to describe all here in comments. And I fully understand, for example, the country's desire to encourage people to learn the main language of the country.
There was a real danger of people colliding in Ukraine at that time. If everything had been completely peaceful, no seizures would have happened.
After all, there really were supporters of the old government and opponents of it. Or even if NATO had signed an agreement that would definitely not accept Ukraine, perhaps for at least 50 years or some rather long period.
Unfortunately, many people no longer trust the West and NATO, they have failed to fulfill the role of an impartial leader who sets an example for others. They have committed too much deception for their own benefit.
In short, and very very roughly, I'm probably a proponent of a kind of balance. Which side is weaker (the whole NATO is clearly stronger when compared than Russia) that side is currently "right", and we need to look for something like a middle ground. If Ukraine had not received huge assistance from NATO countries and the government had not sought to join it, it would have been a different story. Yes, there is some deception on the other side, too, of course.
If you think about it well, then everything in life is not so simple.
Yes, actually, that's my point. Escalation is inevitable should a real war start. And it will be the United States that will have to resort to nuclear weapons to avoid a defeat.
It will work, and you could probably even say thereafter that the US won the war.
But, it will be a pyrric victory.
This is delusional. There's no real way the United States military and NATO can effect a long sustained blockade on China. American Industry will slow to a halt before the chinese will feel the pain.
The Chinese may like our dollars. But we rely on their manufacturing.
People sometimes fail to understand the real world meaning of having a trade deficit of more than one trillion dollars.
Not at all. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention but the process of decoupling the USA from China is well underway. A lot of manufacturing is moving to other countries like Vietnam and Mexico. Losing access to cheap Chinese imports would be painful but mainly just for consumers. We don't rely on them for strategically important stuff, especially not for military equipment.
If there is a conflict with China then I doubt that other NATO members will play much of a role since they have no critical national interests in the Indo-Pacific region. It will mainly just be the USA with perhaps some assistance from a loose coalition of Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Vietnam, Philippines, and/or India.
Beijing's main concern is an uprising by the population. They are right to be concerned: there have been dozens of uprising and civil wars in Chinese history each of which has killed millions of people. Beijing has successfully used export industries to give 100s of millions of citizens manufacturing jobs which provide a good-enough living to keep their population from revolting. In other words, Beijing has been dependent on exports just to avoid social chaos. In contrast, the US has not been and is not dependent on exports to anything like the same extent.
Beijing did not want the trillions of US dollars it owns: it does not have some master plan the implementation of which requires $trillions. These trillions are an unwanted side-effect of Beijing's policy over the decades of keeping the dollar strong relative to the yuan to makes Chinese good cheap in dollars to encourage owners of dollars to buy Chinese goods (which, again, it does to try to avoid social chaos).
And also, like other commenters have mentioned, China needs to import food, fertilizer and liquid fossil fuels to prevent its people from starving whereas the US is self-sufficient in liquid fossil fuels and food (though I don't know about fertilizer).
The reason it is prioritizing electric vehicles is because right now, if China stops being able to import enough liquid fossil fuels on tanker ships (e.g., from the Gulf and from Russia's European ports), it loses the ability to deliver food to its people. If they manage to make their electric-vehicle infrastructure robust enough, then in some future year, they'll be able to run their delivery trucks on electricity generated from coal, which it has enough of without having it import it.
Beijing is currently in a weaker position than Washington economically and militarily and the difference is quite significant. If Beijing ever launches an attack on Taiwan, that is a strong sign that the leaders in Beijing think the gulf between China and the US is widening (i.e., China is falling ever further behind) because if they thought that the gulf were narrowing, they would conclude that they can afford to wait and snap up Taiwan in the future.
The USA imports a significant fraction of fertilizer (including from China and Russia). But longer term we're in pretty good shape as long as we can get past these ridiculous trade disputes with Canada and Mexico. In particular a lot of fertilizer uses natural gas as a key input, and we're fortunate to have a lot of that.
The EU is facing severe demographic and economic challenges through the aging of its own population, rise of the radical right, issues integrating its immigrant population and Russian threat. While your savings will probably disappear due to the fall of the dollar.
However, in my opinion the United States is not going to collapse, worst case it will be replaced like the British Empire, leaving an advanced Western country (i.e. UK) behind it, minus the entire managing the world part
Also you should read about The Decline of the West, and its influence on Nazi ideology, not every prophecy is correct, and not every prophecy is beneficial to follow
I would point out that having raising radical right is still waaaay better then having them ruling the country ... and have zero checks and balances applied to them. Which is the case of US.
Dislike the current Trump administration as you might, this is a very far cry than the european brand of radical right from the thirties, which was preoccupied with human sacrifice
It is not thirties. These people Sieg Heil and literally fund radical right in Europe. Also they already attempted violent couples once. And have zero respect for law while having unchecked power.
Is it the radical right or the radical left that doesn’t respect law and uses violence for political reasons? BLM, antisemitic occupations of campuses, and now terrorism against Tesla owners, are all from the left. Even if there were comparable examples from the right, surely in the least you can admit that violence isn’t exclusive to the right.
I did not said it is exclusive to the right. I said right attempted violent coup. Also, in USA, right wing terrorism/violence is the most common one.
Protests itself are legal and fine. As much as you hate pushing for rights of non-whites or palestinians or women, none of it counts as "violent coup". Likewise, calling vandalism against Teslas "terrorism" is a stretch.
It’s sad to see how these discussions always seem to be a fight to win the discussion with arguments. We need to try harder to understand each other, otherwise this will only polarize further, and end with real fighting. It’s sad that everyone sees the world differently, through different media, and we can’t agree on what is happening. Repeating what you’ve seen will never convince someone that has seen different things…
Thanks. I’ll admit I am guilty of this. But I don’t know what the solution is. Features like flagging and voting tend to create hostility in these discussions, and I think that’s part of the problem. But another problem is the atmosphere created by constant attack pieces in news and social media, which leaves everyone in a really emotional state. If you have solutions, though please do share!
I say this from a caring perspective, but from your comments, I would suggest avoiding social media and Fox News for a year… “ BLM, antisemitic occupations of campuses, and now terrorism against Tesla owners”
While you’re certainly right that the US isn’t like Germany in 1941, I don’t think there’s any reason to believe it can’t very quickly get to that point. Just ask the asylum seekers and other immigrants and tourists[1][2] (illegal or otherwise) that have been separated from their children[3], detained in extrajudicial facilities[4], kept in solitary confinement[1], or legal immigrants stripped of their permanent residency and deported for exercising their first amendment rights[5]. This is very equivalent to how it started in Germany as early as 1933[6]. I see no reason the US can’t VERY quickly slide down this path with immigrants (of any sort), trans people, and then after that, much more. Especially when so much has been done to destroy any oversight that the checks and balances of the government would have provided, i.e. two failed impeachments, (and congress now being filled with Trump bootlickers, unlikely to impeach again), entirely too broad presidential immunity rulings[7], and completely unpunished coup attempts[8].
I understand the feeling of alarmism as US politics right now look like a zero sum game with no possibility of compromise from either side
But as a descendent of Nazi slaves whose entire families were murdered, I fail to see the similarities between a movement that had established concentration camps and declared its intention of genocide from day one, and the present day rule of idiots that is the United States
I think the fact that comparisons are thrown too easily to the point of cliche only make up for this sense of historical determinism that often makes things worse
If you remove holocaust from the WWII ... the nazi Germany was still supper awful. Holocaust was not the only thing going on nor the reason why WWII started.
Nazi were idiots too in a lot of ways. Being idiot in some sense does not make you not dangerous.
Even if you remove the holocaust from nazi germany, you are still left with a regime that created concentration camps for its own population and went on a mass killing campaign on its disabled population, converted a failed democracy into a completely totalitarian society and all of that without considering the war and its atrocities such as mass killings, slavery, kidnappings and probably any evil imagined
All of these are, a bit far from any action Trump has accomplished in the 4+ years he has been in office
which makes these comparison in my opinion be, both in extremely bad taste and dangerous as they trivialize history
Republicans were not sieg heiling then, they are doing it now. Having all that in mind, several members of Trump administration and republican party sieg heil openly and publicly. And praise and fund far right parties. That being said, Trump did wanted to shoot already protesters during his first term.
And talk about annexing foreign countries. And openly admire Russia while hating on democratic countries. And started their current rule by targeting opposition, removing protections from Fauci and other hated members, targeting law enforcement and regulators that investigated their crimes.
Time will tell, but the only ideology I see under the current Trump administration is shifting Internet trolling to real life, while the greatest political achievement is triggering the other side
I mean, I certainly hope you’re right, and I am wildly wrong. But I simply can’t imagine a scenario where the US isn’t damaged by this long term, in such a way that far right extremists don’t get further along in their agenda. But as you say, time will tell.
They’re not declaring it out loud, sure. But in private they are. I’m from Mississippi. I was privy to those private conversations. Blacks, Mexicans, LGBT people, atheists, feminists.. they would rather all these groups be dead, than have civil rights. So long as the group allows themselves to be oppressed, fine, but they aren’t, and that’s what has started to cause so much anger from the right wing. The telling thing about the stories below isn’t that individuals are violent, that has always been and always will be the case, but rather the reaction of the state. Gay panic defenses, pardon of Jan 6 rioters, calls for abortion to get the death penalty that are getting traction, etc.
Trump is an idiot, yes. But he’s a useful idiot. Vance isn’t a moron, nor are the Project 2025 think tanks. I think the fact that people are willing to dismiss all this as things not actually getting worse, is what allows it to get this bad in the first place. Again, I’m not saying it’s as bad as 1941 yet. But the optimism that it simply can’t happen in 2025 in America is entirely misguided.
> With regard to general populations, the overall consensus amongst historians appears to be that many were aware of a hatred towards the Jewry, but not insofar that a significant comprehension of the Nazis' genocidal policies was reached. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_of_the_Holocaust_i...
> With regard to general populations, the overall consensus amongst historians appears to be that many were aware of a hatred towards the Jewry, but not insofar that a significant comprehension of the Nazis' genocidal policies was reached. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_of_the_Holocaust_i...
Wikipedia is often hardly a good source for anything even slightly more controversial than the plot for a Pokémon episode
However the paragraph you are quoting regards the knowledge of the general population in german occupied europe, not in Germany
By 1939 more than half of the Jewish population had fled Germany, so they might have been on to something
I really think you are severely underestimating what life in Nazi Germany looked like, and overestimating the current brand of populist republican politics, which has exact replicas in the democratic party as well
> By 1939 more than half of the Jewish population had fled Germany, so they might have been on to something
That was not because of holocaust, that was because of general restrictions of their legal rights. And also, Germany had policy of trying to make those people leave.
Jews in Germany were largely immigrants living mainly in cities. Frequently refugees from Eastern Europe and their descendants.
> overestimating the current brand of populist republican politics, which has exact replicas in the democratic party as well
You started this thread with claim that Europe has far right problem now. Republican and consequently America politics is massively closer to it that European one ... or democrats.
You are correct about the original thread, I claimed Europe has a far-right problem. Keep in mind, Europe has far-right parties that are commonly actually descendants of the nazi/fascist parties of the thirties, not a descendant of the party that abolished slavery
However, I was giving it as an example of problems in Europe that might cause worries when choosing a country to live in, especially someone who is worried where Trump is taking the US. This worry translated to the US applies in my opinion to both extremities of the political system (Trump admin included)
However, I don't think what we see from Trump right now or in the future is in any shape or form close to the thirties, and I also want to believe that the far-right european parties will also be preoccupied with other (stupid) ideological goals
In the thirties? The Trump admin has already begun targeting trans people and immigrants. No, they're not building death camps and using firing squads but that didn't happen in Nazi Germany in the thirties either. Remember the allies in WWII weren't really aware the Germans were commiting mass genocide until after the war.
I am talking about the 20th century where all countries lost their colonial empires at around the same time late 40s-70s, you are referring to a much earlier period
I'm not happy with the rise of populism and radical parties, but just to put some nuance, I'd argue the "radical" right in Western Europe isn't even comparable to Trumpism. To give an idea, Marine Le Pen in France voted to put the right to abortion in the constitution. On many social issues, they are closer to Bernie Sanders than Trump.
The ones who can afford it have been building bunkers in New Zealand and Argentina, but if you sincerely believe a civil war is on the horizon, almost anywhere would be a better option.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine had a negative impact on international markets, but if you were from either country you would have been better off living abroad when it happened.
Similarly, you would be better off almost anywhere outside of Europe from 1933 to 1947.
The beauty about the future is that it is unknown. New Zealand might be hardly self-sufficient in a world of economic collapse, might be occupied by the chinese in 20 days in another timeline, or might be the only safe haven where one could eat lamb until they die of a heart attack.
When you are pessimistic any country has a dark future, while judging from history, historical events do not look inevitable before they actually happen, and are hardly expected.
For example, recently half of the world, including many in the west, believed in the inevitable prophecy of socialist utopia, where there will be no private property and everyone will be free of the oppression of capitalism. Millions of lives later and oops
> The beauty about the future is that it is unknown
There are factors at play in historical development which make the development predictable.
The Chinese would have to go through half a dozen hostile countries to reach New Zealand. These countries have a combined population of around 300,000,000. Even if the Americans abandon the region, there is no feasible scenario in which the Chinese can afford to invade and occupy New Zealand.
Simple, Switzerland.
All the positive things when you think Europe, without the negative things when you think EU plus all the wealth, quality of life and any other metric you can wish for.
Switzerland has no oil and depend on its banking sector. If USA crashes then likely all modern supply line will be cut and finance will be something of the past.
The current well being of a country does not indicate much how it will survive a global crisis.
A farmer in rural Africa would be less affect by the implosion of USA than a trader at Geneve.
What do you think happens when the US goes down? You don't need oil to move within a small country and we self supply on food more or less, many areas are already power independent. Who cares about the banks then?
You may also overestimate the relevance of banking for the countries finances.
Western country are self suplient of food because we have engine and chemical industry, ones this goes down, shortage of food will be quick to come. In part of the world where labour is still mostly manual, it will be more resilient.
Also without bank, a lot of people will find themself without any properties and will likely get more violent. Again, in part of the world where people own real objects and not number in a computer in a datacenter, this won't happend.
It's never as simple as that. What it costs more to live here I save on taxes, products aren't generally more expensive, just work hours are. What's a good thing in the end as everyone earns more. Also I am an immigrant and went trough several other immigration processes and honestly it's not hard, pretty straight forward actually, if you either have skills or a little backup money.
Realistically probably China as they are probably among the countries that depend the least on the US in terms of defense, banking, manufacturing, digital services, culture and the like.
If you want to live there is different question for a number of reasons, but I do think it is probably your best bet avoid the impact of a US collapse (which I think is very unlikely).
Regardless of what happens in the USA, a violent civil war in China is entirely possible within the next few decades. From a historical perspective those are by no means uncommon. The Communist Party has been able to suppress most internal dissent lately but when Chairman Xi leaves power anything could happen.
