Geopolitical thread

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

Also forgot to mention: it does look like Modi will be visiting a few of the "Stans" when he goes to Ufa city for the SCO meetings. We should be able to know more, once the visits are done, as to what the GoI plans to do. It will be a serious miss if the GoI misses to utilize a serious crisis and get some friendship and deals done. Russia will be more critical, from the support angle, than either China or Pakistan or Af for that matter as far as C Asia is concerned.
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by panduranghari »

This thread needs to be renamed as Geo-politics/ Geo-economics thread.



Sanjay Baru explains this well.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

^Sanjay Baru is good at these things. Haven't seen the video yet though. I read a nice article from him recently about how the potential 46bn by China into Pak is perhaps much ado about nothing. The explanation that he gave about the revolving credit for the Paki energy companies is easily the best that I have read, though I have tried checking it for a few months!
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Neshant »

vijaykarthik wrote:^ we should probably consider a serious SA economic union akin to the EU / NAFTA etc etc.
No thanks, those countries will be nothing more than a route for China to dump their finished products in India.

Most are economic basket cases and ticking economic time bombs.

We are doing fine on our own.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Tuvaluan »

vijaykarthik wrote: ^doesn't mean the strategist DOESNT work towards achieving it.
True. I used the qualifier "in the near term" because the way forward is not yet clear depending on how things are going to spin out. Iran/Afghanisthan need to spiral downwards before there will be avenues for India to work with. Right now, the entire western side of India is basically quasi-hostile, with few options.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by johneeG »

A_Gupta wrote:Perhaps the historian/Indian overall strategy types can help me with the following. In this day of telecommunications and fast transport, the exact geographic location of the seat of power is not so important. But the location of the preeminent power in North India has shifted during the millenia.

I think geography still plays the predominant role.
A_Gupta wrote: Perhaps during the Mahabharata time, the Kuru area - Hastinapur and Indraprashta - was preeminent, though the Magadhan kingdom of Jarasandha had to be subdued by the Pandavas for Yudhisthira to claim chakravarti status. But through the Nanda, Maurya, Gupta eras, Pataliputra as the center of gravity. Later it moved to Agra, Delhi; though Sher Shah Suri's brief reign put the capital back in Patna. With the British it moved all the way down the Gangetic plain to Calcutta. Then when the bulwark of British rule was the Punjabi Muslim, and the British focus was on Musalmans and West Asia and its petroleum, holding back the Soviets, etc., the capital moved to Delhi.
Saraswathi - Ganga phase:
When the area between Saraswathi and Ganga was highly fertile. Saraswathi may have actually been a bigger river than Ganga. The region around Saraswathi was more important because horses were found near the river. Paanchala(Punjab) was pre-dominant.

Saraswathi drying up phase:

Kuru & Kaashi started acquiring pre-dominance. Paanchala became second-tier to Kurus.

Saraswathi dried up:
Magadha became powerful. Kuru & Kaashi were defeated by Magadha. Thar desert was formed. Cities and villages around Saraswathi were depopulated and large exodus of people to all other places. The forests near Saraswathi river(which provided the horses) dried up. Double whammy for the Bhaarath because it removed the horse resource and it removed the forests & rivers which acted as natural barriers stopping external aggression from central asia. This is the time from which the focus of Bhaarath shifts to east exposing the west.(Exposing the western flank was the fatal mistake which led to invasions on Bhaarath via Afghanisthan. Strictly speaking Bhaarath starts from Gaandhara).

Vikramarka phase:
Attempt to stop western invasions from central-asian hordes. This attempt was made because Vikrama had his capital in Avanthi(central Bhaarath). Despite his valiant efforts, it seems to have been a hopeless endeavor to stop raids/invasions from exposed western flank.

Shathavahana phase:

But, it increasingly seemed that the western flank cannot be secured. So, the only option was to create distance from the western flank. The focus shifts to south-east. The Shathavahanas shifted their capital from Prathisthan to Amaravathi.

Rise of Persia-Greece-Huns:

Various forces keep invading Bhaarath from west.

Guptha period:
One more attempt to secure the western flank by defeating the middle-east and central asian forces.

Post-Guptha Period & invasion of Arabs, Turks & Central-Asian hordes:

After the decline of Guptha empire, the western flank is again exposed and is used by the Arabs, Turks and later central-asian hordes to raid and invade Bhaarath. Even Tuglaq realized however vulnerable the western flank was. He tried to shift his capital to south(just as Shathavahanas had shifted their capital to south-east). But, he was not successful unlike Shathavahanas in shifting his capital. Timur had looted Dhilli.

Mughals:
Akbar tried to secure the western flank by keeping control on Kabul. He secured his capital by defeating the dissenting Rajpuths and co-opting the rest of Rajpuths. This laid a firm framework for a strong empire.

Decline of Mughals:
Aurangzeb tried to conquer the south which was eluding the Mughals from a long time. In trying to conquer south, the Mughals had lost control on the western flank. Worse, they couldn't even control the south which they had setout to conquer. This opened up for later attacks from Abdali from Western flank and Marathas from southern flank on the Delhi. Eventually, it led to Panipath war. This war weakened both the sides. So, Abdali didn't invade for sometime. But, Marathas were also weakened by this war. So, the non-participants of the war gained. Sikhs became powerful in Punjab, British took control of East(Kolkatta) & deep south and Tipu Sultan controlled south.

Ranjith Singh Empire in Punjab:
Ranjith Singh secured the western flank by expanding to the west upto Afghanisthan.

British:
British took control of Sikh empire after the Anglo-Sikh war. They used the framework put forth by Ranjith Singh to expand upto Afghanisthan. British tried to secure the western flank by recruiting them in armed forces and giving much freedom to tribal lords. So, British had a loose control over these areas. The biggest fear of British was that Russia might take Afghanisthan and attack British India from the west. So these western areas were supposed to be a buffer.


In short,
Look east for economic purposes.
Look west for security purposes.
after Saraswathi river dried up.

But, thanks to Tibet being taken by Chinese and Bangladhesh being a jihadhi den, I think Bhaarath is now surrounded from all sides and needs to look at all sides for security purposes.

So, to secure Bhaarath from east, Bangladesh needs to be cleaned up and gharwapased.
to secure Bhaarath from north-east, Tibet needs to be taken out of Chinese grip.
To secure Bhaarath from west, control upto Kabul is necessary.
To secure Bhaarath from south, Hindh Mahasagar needs to be controlled.

Kabul is to North what Hindh Mahasagar is to south. If you lose control of Kabul, expect invasions/raids on North. If you lose control of Hindh Mahasagar, expect raids/invasions on South.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12065
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by A_Gupta »

While written by a BJPite and so it could be considered to be biased, I think this analysis is quite accurate.
"From ‘Sharm’ to pride: A case of PM Modi’s inspired diplomacy"
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 459215.cms
July 16, 2009 can be considered as one of the most disastrous day for India as far as foreign policy is concerned. A joint statement was issued on that day by then PM Dr Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani at Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. In that statement, Manmohan Singh committed two most significant blunders.
NaMo has turned that around.
In short, this government is chartering a path of "inspired diplomacy" where in India's just position on global scene is re-established, role of diaspora is re-refined, India has shown leadership during humanitarian crisis and civilizational connections are revived.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

JohneeG, Very masterly summation of pre-history to modern history of India for security point of view.


Don't forget S.S. Menon is now with Brookings Institute and he contributed to the 'dafting' error of Sharm-e- Shameless.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by johneeG »

ramana wrote:JohneeG, Very masterly summation of pre-history to modern history of India for security point of view.
Thanks, Ramana gaaru. :)
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by RoyG »

johneeG,

Good historical analysis but these things aren't really applicable today. I mean obviously any country will have to secure its "flanks" to stay protected but there really isn't anything much else in it is there?

For example, India isn't going to be in a position to control anything past the IB up to Kabul for the foreseeable future. The kind of thrusts that took place back in the day simply isn't possible today with large armies, economics, population concentration, and geography. If you mean indirect sort of control through diplomacy and economics, then sure. All we can really do is speed up the industrial corridors through the country and focus on nation building while striving for economic integration of countries within our neighborhood.

Unless there is a revolution in China, Tibet isn't slipping out of Beijings orbit. They will continue pushing Han into the region and in another 50-100 years the Tibet movement will be finished. I personally don't see anything significant taking place on this front.

As far as Bangladesh is concerned, life will go on. There may be some sort of civil strife in the near future and India will probably come to the regimes aid. If by gharwapased you mean bringing them into the dharmic fold, good luck with that. They have have close to 140 million muslims and they wont tolerate some sort of stand alone military intervention.

South India is well, South India. A lot of pockets of radical christians and muslims which will either grow or shrink overtime depending on the policies of the day.

Overall, we're headed in the right direction. As long as we can stay out of major problems for the next 10-20 years, we'll be commanding quite a bit.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12065
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by A_Gupta »

"India’s Soft Power Potential: The country has plenty, but it will need a more strategic approach to harness it."
http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/indias-s ... potential/
But first, what is soft power and why are countries looking to it in their conduct of diplomacy? According to Harvard political scientist, who coined the term, soft power is the ability of a country to persuade others to do what it wants without resorting to force or coercion. Soft power, he said, lies in a country’s attractiveness and comes from three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority). Though slower to yield results, soft power is a less expensive means than military force or economic inducements to get others to do what we want.

India boasts an amazing variety and wealth of soft power resources. Its spiritualism, yoga, movies and television soaps, classical and popular dance and music, its principles of non-violence, democratic institutions, plural society, and cuisine have all attracted people across the world. Indian foreign policy analyst C Raja Mohan observed that India holds “strong cards in the arena of soft power” to further its foreign policy goals.

It is only over the past decade or so that India has begun to play its soft power cards more systematically.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Tuvaluan »

According to Harvard political scientist, who coined the term, soft power is the ability of a country to persuade others to do what it wants without resorting to force or coercion.
Funny that this drivel is actually being written earnestly by a "political scientist" at harvard -- says a bit about the utter worthlessness of the entire field that needs to add the word "science" to it to pretend that it is not just utter gibberish masquerading as a legitimate field of study.

If we recall the 60s/70s, American "soft power" carried weight only when it could project itself one way while conducting its amoral foreign policy covertly with the veneer of "truth and justice" provided by their "soft power" of movies and music.

Such a tactic is no longer feasible in this day and age of instant communication and communication networks between groups of people who have never met each other exchanging information and ideas. American movies and music no longer provide any advantage for the US in selling their hard-nosed foreign policy, either locally or globally. Add to it that every country now has its own versions of hybrid music inspired by american popular art and music, so US no longer gains from its "soft power" aura. Besides, govts. and people who run countries these days are more hard nosed and less woolly headed when they negotiate based on their own country's self interests, unlike the past when a lot of countries were newly formed in the post colonial era and were still trying to understand the new landscape.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by RamaY »

Tuvaluan,

Important to remember that civilizationins didn't know & didn't use "soft power" until this Harvard researcher found out, same way gravity didn't exist till that iPhone fell on Newtons head.

Same logic is used to say India didn't exist before 1947.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Tuvaluan »

RamaY, I think "soft power" is a mirage and is only useful when it can project some sort of "univeralist" values that can be used as a basis for influencing agendas in other countries. But the whole western universalist/exceptionalist wordview had a lot more buyers in the past than it does now. Nowadays, music is just music and says nothing about the culture or country of origin...most times it is just another artiste from another part of the world. There are just too many competing ideas for anyone to even know if they are influencing someone else's world view.

As for India, it is only because of Jawaharlal Nehru that 1.3 billion Indians exist today. It is well known that JLN was a busy man when he was alive, literally building his own country from scratch. Too many haters today refuse to acknowledge this truthiness.
Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Vikas »

Softpower has no power unless backed by Money or guns.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by RoyG »

VikasRaina wrote:Softpower has no power unless backed by Money or guns.
or drugs.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

Soft power concept is to convince upcoming munnas to get neutered. Magic is to make them think can still have kids.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by johneeG »

Soft Power: Jagan Mohini making Bhasmasura destroy himself by his own hand.
Hard Power: Dhurga/Kaali destroying Shumbha-Nishumbha directly.

Soft Power: propaganda, culture, deception.
Hard Power: money, men & weapons.

Technology could be used either to project Hard Power or Soft Power. When both soft power and hard power work in tandem, it becomes a formidable combination. The west has been projecting both hard power and soft power in a very impressive manner. This is especially important and impressive because the west historically does not have the population to reign the world. Only Bhaarath & Cheen have the populations to reign the world. Others have to resort to colonialism on Bhaarath or Cheen.
RoyG wrote:johneeG,

Good historical analysis but these things aren't really applicable today. I mean obviously any country will have to secure its "flanks" to stay protected but there really isn't anything much else in it is there?

For example, India isn't going to be in a position to control anything past the IB up to Kabul for the foreseeable future. The kind of thrusts that took place back in the day simply isn't possible today with large armies, economics, population concentration, and geography. If you mean indirect sort of control through diplomacy and economics, then sure. All we can really do is speed up the industrial corridors through the country and focus on nation building while striving for economic integration of countries within our neighborhood.

Unless there is a revolution in China, Tibet isn't slipping out of Beijings orbit. They will continue pushing Han into the region and in another 50-100 years the Tibet movement will be finished. I personally don't see anything significant taking place on this front.

As far as Bangladesh is concerned, life will go on. There may be some sort of civil strife in the near future and India will probably come to the regimes aid. If by gharwapased you mean bringing them into the dharmic fold, good luck with that. They have have close to 140 million muslims and they wont tolerate some sort of stand alone military intervention.

South India is well, South India. A lot of pockets of radical christians and muslims which will either grow or shrink overtime depending on the policies of the day.

Overall, we're headed in the right direction. As long as we can stay out of major problems for the next 10-20 years, we'll be commanding quite a bit.
Saar,
even today the western flank is the weakest flank of Bhaarath. So, the original question was: is too much attention on western flank flawed?
I think not. On the contrary, the western flank is not secure until and unless Bhaarath controls upto Kabul atleast. So, until then, Bhaarath has to concentrate on western flank for its security purposes.

The fact that even other flanks have degraded from security angle shows the failure of the regimes.

In fact, in history, much smaller Kingdoms seem to have conquered much larger areas. But, Bhaarath is such a huge country with such enormous potential, but it simply doesn't do anything.

As long as, Bhaarath depends on foreign procured weapons, it will be amenable to pressures from foreign countries. The first thing to do from a security perspective is to indigenize the arsenal. Otherwise foreign powers can dictate when and how long Bhaarath will fight a war.

How to secure the western flank?

Step 1) Divide Pakistan by supporting secessionist movements like Balochistan, Sindh, Seriaki, ...etc.
Step 2) Create economic union and build infrastructure.
Step 3) Weaken the Mullahs who are tied up with the middle-east(culturally and economically). And encourage Mullahs who are dheshi and who support dheshi culture(as opposed to middle-eastern culture). In short, a new version of Islam rooted in dheshi culture.
Step 4) Open religious/philosophical discussion on the pros-cons of different religions. Let everyone debate and criticize freely.

Eastern flank:


This is actually more easier to do. It is much smaller. The Step 1 has already been done. Now, the next steps have to be done.

I think the smaller size of BD also allows Bhaarath to project hard power. Bhaarath should send in troops(under whatever designation) to clear up the jihadis. Let everyone get used to the idea of Bhaarath projecting hard power. Obviously, there will be hue and cry but it will settle down soon. Send in as many troops as necessary to clear out BD jihadhi network and help the persecuted Hindhus in BD. It will also help in sending back the illegal BDs in Bhaarath.

Only softie softie approach will only go so far and will not work. Once the people know that Bhaarath is willing to project hard power to protect its interests, then automatically many things will get in motion. And yes, in long term(say 25 yrs), even ghar-wapas is very much possible. Because ultimately, people(particularly malsis) worship power and respect strength.

Cheen & Tibet:

Cheen is the only competitor who can actually counter Bhaarath in this region. Anyway, the first step is to declare Tibet as disputed territory. Tibet, Mongolia, ...etc have been occupied by Cheen and should not be accepted formally as part of Cheen. With cheen, the approach would have to be wait & watch.

Once the eastern flank is secure, then the next moves can be made on the Tibet front.
Comer
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3574
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Comer »

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/mili ... /28073803/
The U.S. military's long-discussed "pivot" toward the Asia-Pacific region took a confrontational turn as Defense Secretary Ash Carter traveled to Asia and signaled that the U.S. may not recognize China's claims to new territory in the South China Sea.

"We've been flying over the South China Sea for years and years and years, and ... we'll continue to do that — fly, navigate, operate," Carter told reporters on a plane to Asia for a key summit of defense leaders in Singapore.

Carter's trip comes as China stokes tensions in the region with frenetic dredging work in contested reefs and the rapid creation of man-made islands in the South China Sea.
Is there a precedence here that artificially created islands are not counted while marking territorial waters?
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

Yes. For islets/ reefs / shoals / rocks etc, IIRC, the EEZ is 12 nm. That also explains why US wants to go upto 12nm from all these disputed areas.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Tuvaluan »

JohneeG wrote: Technology could be used either to project Hard Power or Soft Power. When both soft power and hard power work in tandem, it becomes a formidable combination.
Technology is unpredictable and double-edged -- twitter and facebook helps the US's enemies to communicate as much as it helps the US. I mean, weibo and whatever china's facebook is called would not exist if US did not invent the tech, and various subersive groups are able to communicate better because of these inventions. Technological innovation seems to raise all boats and change the game sustantially. Would be glad to hear of counter examples where it was able to help one side more than the other (even the above examples...I may be missing something for sure).
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

^ there are scores of examples. Say for ex: the concept of encryption. For a long time the US govt [read secret service, intelligence types] had access to all the encryption keys and could easily sift through all the troves of data that was existing behind encrypted locked out and apparently hardened security areas.

Unless the fellas thought they was advantage to be had, these vast scoping ways to do "communication" will not have mushroomed to such a large extent. Yes, there is always the commercial aspect but when the govt can have its deep analysis and deep eyes, it makes sense to allow people to fall into a sense of false security.

I, of course, know that I am slightly away from the original point of how technology has helped one side more... but not by a big margin.

Another fav of mine: the US and Israeli buggers for a long time know about the latest zero day exploits for a long time [about 20+ months in the case of the heart bleed virus which affected OpenSSL. And in this field 20 months is extraordinarily long!]. So it was quite easy to actually take a sledgehammer and take the pvt key / critical data from the server out quite easily. I just wonder how much more stuff like this is lurking which gives the technology creator loads of sensitive information which just about unlocks every freaking thing to them. Just by dint of having explored the technology and controlling the market share of the same.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Tuvaluan »

vijaykarthik wrote: So it was quite easy to actually take a sledgehammer and take the pvt key / critical data from the server out quite easily. I just wonder how much more stuff like this is lurking which gives the technology creator loads of sensitive information which just about unlocks every freaking thing to them. Just by dint of having explored the technology and controlling the market share of the same.
Thanks. Zero day exploits are a terrific example, but the fact is that even the Russian Mafia and criminal organizations pay black hat hackers a lot of money to not reveal the zero days to the public, so such exploits are a currency of sorts. Most competent govts., and I know this is true of the China and the US, spend a lot of efforts to figure out such zero day exploits and not reveal them to the public -- which is of course the reason why china readily handed over the source to IISc and then the Indian govt. pretended this was enough security against chinese wireless technology that Reliance Networks and various govt. organization bought from china.

Sadly, none of those in the Indian side thought about the fact that having the source is of no value if the Chinese do not provide them with the bug fixes in their products that leave behind myriad exploits into the Indian network...same would be true for any other country, as long as India does not develop local human resources at scale to maintain a local version of all critical networking and computing technology, that does not depend on bug fixes from adversary nations.

India tries to strong arm companies like RIM to give up their security servers with the threat of banning them commercial space in India, but these companies work around it by just making the group in charge of these modules a separate company so that they do not have to expose their servers to any foreign govt.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12065
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by A_Gupta »

http://www.novinite.com/articles/168949 ... ve+Meeting
"Bulgaria Hosts Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting"
In 2015, Bulgaria is hosting the event between June 1 and 10 at the National Palace of Culture (NDK) for the very first time in its history. The 38th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) alongside the 18th Meeting of the Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP XVIII).

Bulgaria is one of the 22 consultative parties and the list also includes Argentina, australia, Brazil, Chile, China, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea (ROK), the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Russian Federation, South africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the US and Urugway.
- See more at: http://www.novinite.com/articles/168949 ... ykBLK.dpuf
abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4277
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by abhischekcc »

It is more than just having encryption keys - US intelligence developed the random numbers tables, the encryption algorithms, the frameworks, etc - everything. People built 'privacy' tools with software that were 100% compromised.

It is like building secularism with pakistanis :lol: ...oh, wait...
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Tuvaluan »

abhishekcc wrote: It is more than just having encryption keys - US intelligence developed the random numbers tables, the encryption algorithms, the frameworks, etc - everything.
Number theory doesn't necessarily work in the US alone -- there are an infinite number of large prime numbers and prime factorization is the basis for all PGP security, and you need lot of horsepower to break, where US has a severe edge over everyone else. Not to mention, as you said, most of the top firms involved in this sector are american, and the NSA surely ensures a way in to any customer of these companies, especially ones that are not american. BTW, RIM is a canadian company and they don't have to share anything with the US govt. But India's problems are not even at that level, as there are more basic issues with how the govt. fails to secure its communications.

Until recently ,people in the highest levels of GoI were using gmail and our army telecom vendor was Huawei...both stellar accomplishments under the previous regime. No idea if things are any better these days under the current GoI. It doesn't matter whatever brilliant geopolitical strategery you come up with, if the adversary(ies) can read your email.

Google is widely know to work in cooperation with NSA and CIA, so having someone in the PMO use gmail for official business is pretty nuts. And Huawei could be using all sorts of zero-day exploits they do not tell their Indian customers to read information. None of this even requires any encryption cracking skillz.

It may be better to go all old school in secure communication until India develops the local human resources to be able to challenge the chinese and the US and defend internal communications from their hackers and their vendors.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Neshant »

RIM is a canadian company and they don't have to share anything with the US govt.
The echelon project between anglo countries means data obtained by govts in any one country is freely shared with other countries in the group. I'm pretty sure RIM which operates its main business in the US would also be told to hand over data on India..etc.

Nothing is safe.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Tuvaluan »

Neshant wrote: I'm pretty sure RIM which operates its main business in the US would also be told to hand over data on India..etc.
RIM's servers in the US are the only ones that fall under US law, not their servers in other parts of the world. Even otherwise, RIM has split off the encryption arm into a separate company and are therefore providing strong encryption as a service and cannot be held liable by governments. AFAIK, canadians generally don't think much of the strong arm tactics of the US govt., and the canadian govt. does not force its companies to play by the US's rules...not that it disallows the US from breaking such tech by other means, but that's neither here not there...just saying.

RIM (before it shot itself in the foot by making some bad product decisions not related to encryption) provided very strong encryption, which was a major reason for its success.

Nothing is safe in some countries, but higher safety comes at a higher price, literally speaking, even in those countries.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

In reality, World Wars are really European regional wars with spill over effects.

WWI is massive regional European war between Western Europe and Central Europe (including Imperial Russia). Spillover region of West Asia as Ottoman Turkey allowed itself to be dragged in.

WWII was again a repeat of above with Turkey staying out having learned their lesson.
In Asia it started as war against Imperial Britain, but once the colonies were over run it became an American Japanese war and stayed that way.

Western Europe could afford to go to war due to their colonial riches which were being maintained by minimum expenditure of forces and maximum extraction of resources :human and material.

Once decolonization occurred WE has reverted to old normal in five decades.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

Tuvaluan wrote: And Huawei could be using all sorts of zero-day exploits they do not tell their Indian customers to read information. None of this even requires any encryption cracking skillz. .
This brings back, something that I read a while ago, to my mind. The Chinese companies (printer / hardware companies etc) shamelessly tried to add hacking bugs into the firmware as an update!

This was found by a US security company and was reported on Forbes or something of that sort. Wonder why the news didn't make it big on the media. Even lame news like maggi having too much of lead / Justin beiber / Jennifer Lopez makes it to the news.

-- methinks the west perhaps hushed it up because that might be the current chosen way of the Western companies too?
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Neshant »

Tuvaluan wrote: RIM's servers in the US are the only ones that fall under US law, not their servers in other parts of the world. Even otherwise, RIM has split off the encryption arm into a separate company and are therefore providing strong encryption as a service and cannot be held liable by governments..
Totally meaningless because when it comes time to hand over the data to the US govt, they hand it over just like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo and many othera do.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Tuvaluan »

Neshant wrote: Totally meaningless because when it comes time to hand over the data to the US govt, they hand it over just like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo and many othera do.
What is the basis for your claim? US laws don't matter in Canada much as everyone thinks Canada is the US's 52nd state, so it is not meaningless. RIM, the canadian company, does not have to share info on servers physically located outside the US -- GOTUS needs the cooperation of the canadian govt. to get RIM to cooperate. Canadian govt. will of course allow it if it they think it is in their interest to cooperate -- there is no blanket "handing over"....people in the Canadian govt. are not exactly enamoured by the US to bend over on a whim. Anyway, the relationship to geopolitics here is that when you control the companies that are in your territory, you get leverage over other countries that allow your companies to operate.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

G7 summit: Greek bailout, Ukraine and climate top agenda for Bavaria meeting

What about the real priority affecting the globe today,the unstoppable advances of ISIS which threatens the entire MEast eventually Israel? .Does the G-7 have collective amnesia about what is happening in the Middle East,or are they too ashamed to admit that their foreign policies for the region for the past decade have brought about this catastrophe for the human race?

Like the fabled Spanish character,the G-7 tilts at the UKR windmill,ranting and raving at Russia,a bunch of Sancho Panzas,taking their cue from Uncle Sam Quixote!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... ia-meeting
Leaders to gather in Schloss Elmau with state of Greek bailout set to dominate and Angela Merkel calling for countries to commit to Green Climate Fund.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, with the US president, Barack Obama, in Kruen, Germany, on Sunday before the start of the G7 summit.

Patrick Wintour Political editor
Sunday 7 June 2015

David Cameron joins the G7 summit of leading industrialised nations in Bavaria expecting to face a crowded agenda dominated by Ukraine, the Greek bailout and climate change.

The summit host, German chancellor Angela Merkel, had fought hard to seal a deal with the Greek government before the summit, but failed, ensuring US president Barack Obama will want an update on how close Europe is to ending an impasse that is still hanging over the world economy.

Protesters and police clash as G7 leaders prepare to discuss corruption and trade

The summit starts on Sunday and is being held in the remote Schloss Elmau in Bavaria, and as many as 20,000 police are on patrol in nearby towns to minimise disruption by G7 protesters.

The EU council president, Donald Tusk, and the EU commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, as well as the director of the IMF Christine Lagarde, will be present to update the president on the state of the bailout talks now not due to reach a climax until the end of the month.

David Cameron, with Bavarian governor Horst Seehofer, right, during a welcoming ceremony on his arrival in Munich on Sunday.

Merkel and the French president, François Hollande, phoned the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, at the weekend, and it was agreed the three politicians are likely to meet in Brussels on Wednesday evening on the edge of the EU summit with Latin America and the Caribbean.

Obama will be pressing the Europeans to show more resolve to maintain sanctions against Russia.
Barack Obama on G7 unity mission as US president looks to repair German ties

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, remains excluded from the G7 as punishment for its encouragement last year of the rebellion in eastern Ukraine. The Kremlin leader said the conflict in Ukraine was the result of “unprofessional actions” of the US, and opinion remains divided on the extent to which sanctions, as opposed to a lower oil price is hurting the Russian economy.

The US secretary of state, John Kerry, recently travelled to Sochi for direct talks with Putin in what was seen as a sign of potential softening, but nothing tangible occurred, and if anything the fragile ceasefire in Ukraine is under greater pressure than ever.

Obama rang the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, before the summit and the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, visited Ukraine on the way to the summit in a sign of solidarity.

Benjamin J Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser to Obama, said: “Most urgently, the focus is on maintaining the unity around the sanctions effort that has had very significant consequences on the Russian economy.

“We need to maintain the pressure, show that there cannot be cracks in the transatlantic unity, and show that the costs are just going to continue to grow for Russia.”

Merkel has ensured that the communique at this summit will include a long-term aim to limit global warming to below two degrees. Merkel wants countries to commit to the Green Climate Fund, which is aiming for $100bn by 2020. Germany recently doubled its contribution to $8bn while Merkel has personally called on all industrial countries to contribute.

Obama raises his glass of German beer in Krün. Photograph: Daniel Karmann/EPA

The G7 statement is an important staging post ahead of the UN climate change conference in Paris in December. It is a a sign of how far world opinion, or at least American opinion, has moved – the last time Merkel was G7 host in 2007, she was battling to persuade George Bush that climate change existed and was clearly a manmade phenomenon.

Doubts remain however about Obama’s ability to get any tough climate change agreement through Congress, as he has been examining ways to circumvent the legislature.

The summit is also due to discuss the fight against Islamic State, including a meeting on Monday between Obama and the prime minister of Iraq, Haider al-Abadi.

On the economy Obama is expected to reassure allies that Congress will back the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive deal spanning the Pacific Rim.

Obama began his visit on Sunday morning with a visit to the picturesque town of Krün with Merkel, tasting local food, meeting locals and drinking a very early morning beer.

Other topics Merkel has tabled for the summit under the motto “Think ahead, act together” range from improving labour rights for textile workers to fighting antibiotics resistance and cleaning up oceanic pollution.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content ... deaths.jpg

Interesting map which lists out average deaths / 100k people from 1400's.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

Interesting read: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/06/ ... ntury.html
For even the greatest of empires, geography is often destiny. You wouldn’t know it in Washington, though. America’s political, national security, and foreign policy elites continue to ignore the basics of geopolitics that have shaped the fate of world empires for the past 500 years. Consequently, they have missed the significance of the rapid global changes in Eurasia that are in the process of undermining the grand strategy for world dominion that Washington has pursued these past seven decades.

A glance at what passes for insider “wisdom” in Washington these days reveals a worldview of stunning insularity. Take Harvard political scientist Joseph Nye, Jr., known for his concept of “soft power,” as an example. Offering a simple list of ways in which he believes U.S. military, economic, and cultural power remains singular and superior, he recently argued that there was no force, internal or global, capable of eclipsing America’s future as the world’s premier power.

For those pointing to Beijing’s surging economy and proclaiming this “the Chinese century,” Nye offered up a roster of negatives: China’s per capita income “will take decades to catch up (if ever)” with America’s; it has myopically “focused its policies primarily on its region”; and it has “not developed any significant capabilities for global force projection.” Above all, Nye claimed, China suffers “geopolitical disadvantages in the internal Asian balance of power, compared to America.”

Or put it this way (and in this Nye is typical of a whole world of Washington thinking): with more allies, ships, fighters, missiles, money, patents, and blockbuster movies than any other power, Washington wins hands down.

If Professor Nye paints power by the numbers, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s latest tome, modestly titled World Order and hailed in reviews as nothing less than a revelation, adopts a Nietzschean perspective. The ageless Kissinger portrays global politics as plastic and so highly susceptible to shaping by great leaders with a will to power. By this measure, in the tradition of master European diplomats Charles de Talleyrand and Prince Metternich, President Theodore Roosevelt was a bold visionary who launched “an American role in managing the Asia-Pacific equilibrium.” On the other hand, Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic dream of national self-determination rendered him geopolitically inept and Franklin Roosevelt was blind to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin’s steely “global strategy.” Harry Truman, in contrast, overcame national ambivalence to commit “America to the shaping of a new international order,” a policy wisely followed by the next 12 presidents.

Among the most “courageous” of them, Kissinger insists, was that leader of “courage, dignity, and conviction,” George W. Bush, whose resolute bid for the “transformation of Iraq from among the Middle East’s most repressive states to a multiparty democracy” would have succeeded, had it not been for the “ruthless” subversion of his work by Syria and Iran. In such a view, geopolitics has no place; only the bold vision of “statesmen” and kings really matters.

And perhaps that’s a comforting perspective in Washington at a moment when America’s hegemony is visibly crumbling amid a tectonic shift in global power.

With Washington’s anointed seers strikingly obtuse on the subject of geopolitical power, perhaps it’s time to get back to basics. That means returning to the foundational text of modern geopolitics, which remains an indispensible guide even though it was published in an obscure British geography journal well over a century ago.

Sir Halford Invents Geopolitics

On a cold London evening in January 1904, Sir Halford Mackinder, the director of the London School of Economics, “entranced” an audience at the Royal Geographical Society on Savile Row with a paper boldly titled “The Geographical Pivot of History.” This presentation evinced, said the society’s president, “a brilliancy of description… we have seldom had equaled in this room.”

Mackinder argued that the future of global power lay not, as most British then imagined, in controlling the global sea lanes, but in controlling a vast land mass he called “Euro-Asia.” By turning the globe away from America to place central Asia at the planet’s epicenter, and then tilting the Earth’s axis northward just a bit beyond Mercator’s equatorial projection, Mackinder redrew and thus reconceptualized the world map.

His new map showed Africa, Asia, and Europe not as three separate continents, but as a unitary land mass, a veritable “world island.” Its broad, deep “heartland” — 4,000 miles from the Persian Gulf to the Siberian Sea — was so enormous that it could only be controlled from its “rimlands” in Eastern Europe or what he called its maritime “marginal” in the surrounding seas.

Click here to see a larger version

mackinder_natural_small

Mackinder’s Concept of the World Island, From The Geographical Journal (1904)

The “discovery of the Cape road to the Indies” in the sixteenth century, Mackinder wrote, “endowed Christendom with the widest possible mobility of power… wrapping her influence round the Euro-Asiatic land-power which had hitherto threatened her very existence.” This greater mobility, he later explained, gave Europe’s seamen “superiority for some four centuries over the landsmen of Africa and Asia.”

Yet the “heartland” of this vast landmass, a “pivot area” stretching from the Persian Gulf to China’s Yangtze River, remained nothing less than the Archimedean fulcrum for future world power. “Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island,” went Mackinder’s later summary of the situation. “Who rules the World-Island commands the world.” Beyond the vast mass of that world island, which made up nearly 60% of the Earth’s land area, lay a less consequential hemisphere covered with broad oceans and a few outlying “smaller islands.” He meant, of course, Australia and the Americas.

For an earlier generation, the opening of the Suez Canal and the advent of steam shipping had “increased the mobility of sea-power [relative] to land power.” But future railways could “work the greater wonder in the steppe,” Mackinder claimed, undercutting the cost of sea transport and shifting the locus of geopolitical power inland. In the fullness of time, the “pivot state” of Russia might, in alliance with another power like Germany, expand “over the marginal lands of Euro-Asia,” allowing “the use of vast continental resources for fleet-building, and the empire of the world would be in sight.”

For the next two hours, as he read through a text thick with the convoluted syntax and classical references expected of a former Oxford don, his audience knew that they were privy to something extraordinary. Several stayed after to offer extended commentaries. For instance, the renowned military analyst Spenser Wilkinson, the first to hold a chair in military history at Oxford, pronounced himself unconvinced about “the modern expansion of Russia,” insisting that British and Japanese naval power would continue the historic function of holding “the balance between the divided forces… on the continental area.”

Pressed by his learned listeners to consider other facts or factors, including “air as a means of locomotion,” Mackinder responded: “My aim is not to predict a great future for this or that country, but to make a geographical formula into which you could fit any political balance.” Instead of specific events, Mackinder was reaching for a general theory about the causal connection between geography and global power. “The future of the world,” he insisted, “depends on the maintenance of [a] balance of power” between sea powers such as Britain or Japan operating from the maritime marginal and “the expansive internal forces” within the Euro-Asian heartland they were intent on containing.

Not only did Mackinder give voice to a worldview that would influence Britain’s foreign policy for several decades, but he had, in that moment, created the modern science of “geopolitics” — the study of how geography can, under certain circumstances, shape the destiny of whole peoples, nations, and empires.

That night in London was, of course, more than a long time ago. It was another age. England was still mourning the death of Queen Victoria. Teddy Roosevelt was president. Henry Ford had just opened a small auto plant in Detroit to make his Model-A, an automobile with a top speed of 28 miles per hour. Only a month earlier, the Wright brothers’ “Flyer” had taken to the air for the first time — 120 feet of air, to be exact.

Yet, for the next 110 years, Sir Halford Mackinder’s words would offer a prism of exceptional precision when it came to understanding the often obscure geopolitics driving the world’s major conflicts — two world wars, a Cold War, America’s Asian wars (Korea and Vietnam), two Persian Gulf wars, and even the endless pacification of Afghanistan. The question today is: How can Sir Halford help us understand not only centuries past, but the half-century still to come?

Britannia Rules the Waves

In the age of sea power that lasted just over 400 years — from 1602 to the Washington Disarmament Conference of 1922 — the great powers competed to control the Eurasian world island via the surrounding sea lanes that stretched for 15,000 miles from London to Tokyo. The instrument of power was, of course, the ship — first men-o’-war, then battleships, submarines, and aircraft carriers. While land armies slogged through the mud of Manchuria or France in battles with mind-numbing casualties, imperial navies skimmed over the seas, maneuvering for the control of whole coasts and continents.

At the peak of its imperial power circa 1900, Great Britain ruled the waves with a fleet of 300 capital ships and 30 naval bastions, bases that ringed the world island from the North Atlantic at Scapa Flow through the Mediterranean at Malta and Suez to Bombay, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Just as the Roman Empire enclosed the Mediterranean, making it Mare Nostrum (“Our Sea”), British power would make the Indian Ocean its own “closed sea,” securing its flanks with army forces on India’s Northwest Frontier and barring both Persians and Ottomans from building naval bases on the Persian Gulf.

mccoyBy that maneuver, Britain also secured control over Arabia and Mesopotamia, strategic terrain that Mackinder had termed “the passage-land from Europe to the Indies” and the gateway to the world island’s “heartland.” From this geopolitical perspective, the nineteenth century was, at heart, a strategic rivalry, often called “the Great Game,” between Russia “in command of nearly the whole of the Heartland… knocking at the landward gates of the Indies,” and Britain “advancing inland from the sea gates of India to meet the menace from the northwest.” In other words, Mackinder concluded, “the final Geographical Realities” of the modern age were sea power versus land power or “the World-Island and the Heartland.”

Intense rivalries, first between England and France, then England and Germany, helped drive a relentless European naval arms race that raised the price of sea power to unsustainable levels. In 1805, Admiral Nelson’s flagship, the HMS Victory, with its oaken hull weighing just 3,500 tons, sailed into the battle of Trafalgar against Napoleon’s navy at nine knots, its 100 smooth-bore cannon firing 42-pound balls at a range of no more than 400 yards.

In 1906, just a century later, Britain launched the world’s first modern battleship, the HMS Dreadnought, its foot-thick steel hull weighing 20,000 tons, its steam turbines allowing speeds of 21 knots, and its mechanized 12-inch guns rapid-firing 850-pound shells up to 12 miles. The cost for this leviathan was £1.8 million, equivalent to nearly $300 million today. Within a decade, half-a-dozen powers had emptied their treasuries to build whole fleets of these lethal, lavishly expensive battleships.

Thanks to a combination of technological superiority, global reach, and naval alliances with the U.S. and Japan, a Pax Britannica would last a full century, 1815 to 1914. In the end, however, this global system was marked by an accelerating naval arms race, volatile great-power diplomacy, and a bitter competition for overseas empire that imploded into the mindless slaughter of World War I, leaving 16 million dead by 1918.

Mackinder’s Century

As the eminent imperial historian Paul Kennedy once observed, “the rest of the twentieth century bore witness to Mackinder’s thesis,” with two world wars fought over his “rimlands” running from Eastern Europe through the Middle East to East Asia. Indeed, World War I was, as Mackinder himself later observed, “a straight duel between land-power and sea-power.” At war’s end in 1918, the sea powers — Britain, America, and Japan — sent naval expeditions to Archangel, the Black Sea, and Siberia to contain Russia’s revolution inside its “heartland.”

Reflecting Mackinder’s influence on geopolitical thinking in Germany, Adolf Hitler would risk his Reich in a misbegotten effort to capture the Russian heartland as Lebensraum, or living space, for his “master race.” Sir Halford’s work helped shape the ideas of German geographer Karl Haushofer, founder of the journal Zeitschrift für Geopolitik, proponent of the concept of Lebensraum, and adviser to Adolf Hitler and his deputy führer, Rudolf Hess. In 1942, the Führer dispatched a million men, 10,000 artillery pieces, and 500 tanks to breach the Volga River at Stalingrad. In the end, his forces suffered 850,000 wounded, killed, and captured in a vain attempt to break through the East European rimland into the world island’s pivotal region.

A century after Mackinder’s seminal treatise, another British scholar, imperial historian John Darwin, argued in his magisterial survey After Tamerlane that the United States had achieved its “colossal Imperium… on an unprecedented scale” in the wake of World War II by becoming the first power in history to control the strategic axial points “at both ends of Eurasia” (his rendering of Mackinder’s “Euro-Asia”). With fears of Chinese and Russian expansion serving as the “catalyst for collaboration,” the U.S. won imperial bastions in both Western Europe and Japan. With these axial points as anchors, Washington then built an arc of military bases that followed Britain’s maritime template and were visibly meant to encircle the world island.

America’s Axial Geopolitics

Having seized the axial ends of the world island from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in 1945, for the next 70 years the United States relied on ever-thickening layers of military power to contain China and Russia inside that Eurasian heartland. Stripped of its ideological foliage, Washington’s grand strategy of Cold War-era anticommunist “containment” was little more than a process of imperial succession. A hollowed-out Britain was replaced astride the maritime “marginal,” but the strategic realities remained essentially the same.

Indeed, in 1943, two years before World War II ended, an aging Mackinder published his last article, “The Round World and the Winning of the Peace,” in the influential U.S. journal Foreign Affairs. In it, he reminded Americans aspiring to a “grand strategy” for an unprecedented version of planetary hegemony that even their “dream of a global air power” would not change geopolitical basics. “If the Soviet Union emerges from this war as conqueror of Germany,” he warned, “she must rank as the greatest land power on the globe,” controlling the “greatest natural fortress on earth.”

When it came to the establishment of a new post-war Pax Americana, first and foundational for the containment of Soviet land power would be the U.S. Navy. Its fleets would come to surround the Eurasian continent, supplementing and then supplanting the British navy: the Sixth Fleet was based at Naples in 1946 for control of the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea; the Seventh Fleet at Subic Bay, Philippines, in 1947, for the Western Pacific; and the Fifth Fleet at Bahrain in the Persian Gulf since 1995.

Next, American diplomats added layers of encircling military alliances — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (1949), the Middle East Treaty Organization (1955), the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (1954), and the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty (1951).

By 1955, the U.S. also had a global network of 450 military bases in 36 countries aimed, in large part, at containing the Sino-Soviet bloc behind an Iron Curtain that coincided to a surprising degree with Mackinder’s “rimlands” around the Eurasian landmass. By the Cold War’s end in 1990, the encirclement of communist China and Russia required 700 overseas bases, an air force of 1,763 jet fighters, a vast nuclear arsenal, more than 1,000 ballistic missiles, and a navy of 600 ships, including 15 nuclear carrier battle groups — all linked by the world’s only global system of communications satellites.

As the fulcrum for Washington’s strategic perimeter around the world island, the Persian Gulf region has for nearly 40 years been the site of constant American intervention, overt and covert. The 1979 revolution in Iran meant the loss of a keystone country in the arch of U.S. power around the Gulf and left Washington struggling to rebuild its presence in the region. To that end, it would simultaneously back Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its war against revolutionary Iran and arm the most extreme of the Afghan mujahedeen against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

It was in this context that Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, unleashed his strategy for the defeat of the Soviet Union with a sheer geopolitical agility still little understood even today. In 1979, Brzezinski, a déclassé Polish aristocrat uniquely attuned to his native continent’s geopolitical realities, persuaded Carter to launch Operation Cyclone with massive funding that reached $500 million annually by the late 1980s. Its goal: to mobilize Muslim militants to attack the Soviet Union’s soft Central Asian underbelly and drive a wedge of radical Islam deep into the Soviet heartland. It was to simultaneously inflict a demoralizing defeat on the Red Army in Afghanistan and cut Eastern Europe’s “rimland” free from Moscow’s orbit. “We didn’t push the Russians to intervene [in Afghanistan],” Brzezinski said in 1998, explaining his geopolitical masterstroke in this Cold War edition of the Great Game, “but we knowingly increased the probability that they would… That secret operation was an excellent idea. Its effect was to draw the Russians into the Afghan trap.”

Asked about this operation’s legacy when it came to creating a militant Islam hostile to the U.S., Brzezinski, who studied and frequently cited Mackinder, was coolly unapologetic. “What is most important to the history of the world?” he asked. “The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

Yet even America’s stunning victory in the Cold War with the implosion of the Soviet Union would not transform the geopolitical fundamentals of the world island. As a result, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Washington’s first foreign foray in the new era would involve an attempt to reestablish its dominant position in the Persian Gulf, using Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Kuwait as a pretext.

In 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, imperial historian Paul Kennedy returned to Mackinder’s century-old treatise to explain this seemingly inexplicable misadventure. “Right now, with hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops in the Eurasian rimlands,” Kennedy wrote in the Guardian, “it looks as if Washington is taking seriously Mackinder’s injunction to ensure control of ‘the geographical pivot of history.’” If we interpret these remarks expansively, the sudden proliferation of U.S. bases across Afghanistan and Iraq should be seen as yet another imperial bid for a pivotal position at the edge of the Eurasian heartland, akin to those old British colonial forts along India’s Northwest Frontier.

In the ensuing years, Washington attempted to replace some of its ineffective boots on the ground with drones in the air. By 2011, the Air Force and the CIA had ringed the Eurasian landmass with 60 bases for its armada of drones. By then, its workhorse Reaper, armed with Hellfire missiles and GBU-30 bombs, had a range of 1,150 miles, which meant that from those bases it could strike targets almost anywhere in Africa and Asia.

Significantly, drone bases now dot the maritime margins around the world island — from Sigonella, Sicily, to Icerlik, Turkey; Djibouti on the Red Sea; Qatar and Abu Dhabi on the Persian Gulf; the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean; Jalalabad, Khost, Kandahar, and Shindand in Afghanistan; and in the Pacific, Zamboanga in the Philippines and Andersen Air Base on the island of Guam, among other places. To patrol this sweeping periphery, the Pentagon is spending $10 billion to build an armada of 99 Global Hawk drones equipped with high-resolution cameras capable of surveilling all terrain within a hundred-mile radius, electronic sensors that can sweep up communications, and efficient engines capable of 35 hours of continuous flight and a range of 8,700 miles.

China’s Strategy

Washington’s moves, in other words, represent something old, even if on a previously unimaginable scale. But the rise of China as the world’s largest economy, inconceivable a century ago, represents something new and so threatens to overturn the maritime geopolitics that have shaped world power for the past 400 years. Instead of focusing purely on building a blue-water navy like the British or a global aerospace armada akin to America’s, China is reaching deep within the world island in an attempt to thoroughly reshape the geopolitical fundamentals of global power. It is using a subtle strategy that has so far eluded Washington’s power elites.

After decades of quiet preparation, Beijing has recently begun revealing its grand strategy for global power, move by careful move. Its two-step plan is designed to build a transcontinental infrastructure for the economic integration of the world island from within, while mobilizing military forces to surgically slice through Washington’s encircling containment.

The initial step has involved a breathtaking project to put in place an infrastructure for the continent’s economic integration. By laying down an elaborate and enormously expensive network of high-speed, high-volume railroads as well as oil and natural gas pipelines across the vast breadth of Eurasia, China may realize Mackinder’s vision in a new way. For the first time in history, the rapid transcontinental movement of critical cargo — oil, minerals, and manufactured goods — will be possible on a massive scale, thereby potentially unifying that vast landmass into a single economic zone stretching 6,500 miles from Shanghai to Madrid. In this way, the leadership in Beijing hopes to shift the locus of geopolitical power away from the maritime periphery and deep into the continent’s heartland.

“Trans-continental railways are now transmuting the conditions of land power,” wrote Mackinder back in 1904 as the “precarious” single track of the Trans-Siberian Railway, the world’s longest, reached across the continent for 5,700 miles from Moscow toward Vladivostok. “But the century will not be old before all Asia is covered with railways,” he added. “The spaces within the Russian Empire and Mongolia are so vast, and their potentialities in… fuel and metals so incalculably great that a vast economic world, more or less apart, will there develop inaccessible to oceanic commerce.”

Mackinder was a bit premature in his prediction. The Russian revolution of 1917, the Chinese revolution of 1949, and the subsequent 40 years of the Cold War slowed any real development for decades. In this way, the Euro-Asian “heartland” was denied economic growth and integration, thanks in part to artificial ideological barriers — the Iron Curtain and then the Sino-Soviet split — that stalled any infrastructure construction across the vast Eurasian land mass. No longer.

Only a few years after the Cold War ended, former National Security Adviser Brzezinski, by then a contrarian sharply critical of the global views of both Republican and Democratic policy elites, began raising warning flags about Washington’s inept style of geopolitics. “Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago,” he wrote in 1998, essentially paraphrasing Mackinder, “Eurasia has been the center of world power. A power that dominates ‘Eurasia’ would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions… rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent.”

While such a geopolitical logic has eluded Washington, it’s been well understood in Beijing. Indeed, in the last decade China has launched the world’s largest burst of infrastructure investment, already a trillion dollars and counting, since Washington started the U.S. Interstate Highway System back in the 1950s. The numbers for the rails and pipelines it’s been building are mind numbing. Between 2007 and 2014, China criss-crossed its countryside with 9,000 miles of new high-speed rail, more than the rest of the world combined. The system now carries 2.5 million passengers daily at top speeds of 240 miles per hour. By the time the system is complete in 2030, it will have added up to 16,000 miles of high-speed track at a cost of $300 billion, linking all of China’s major cities.

Click here to see a larger version

china_central_asia_infrastructure_small

China-Central Asia Infrastructure Integrates the World Island (Source: Stratfor)

Simultaneously, China’s leadership began collaborating with surrounding states on a massive project to integrate the country’s national rail network into a transcontinental grid. Starting in 2008, the Germans and Russians joined with the Chinese in launching the “Eurasian Land Bridge.” Two east-west routes, the old Trans-Siberian in the north and a new southern route along the ancient Silk Road through Kazakhstan are meant to bind all of Eurasia together. On the quicker southern route, containers of high-value manufactured goods, computers, and auto parts started travelling 6,700 miles from Leipzig, Germany, to Chongqing, China, in just 20 days, about half the 35 days such goods now take via ship.

In 2013, Deutsche Bahn AG (German Rail) began preparing a third route between Hamburg and Zhengzhou that has now cut travel time to just 15 days, while Kazakh Rail opened a Chongqing-Duisburg link with similar times. In October 2014, China announced plans for the construction of the world’s longest high-speed rail line at a cost of $230 billion. According to plans, trains will traverse the 4,300 miles between Beijing and Moscow in just two days.

In addition, China is building two spur lines running southwest and due south toward the world island’s maritime “marginal.” In April, President Xi Jinping signed an agreement with Pakistan to spend $46 billion on a China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Highway, rail links, and pipelines will stretch nearly 2,000 miles from Kashgar in Xinjiang, China’s westernmost province, to a joint port facility at Gwadar, Pakistan, opened back in 2007. China has invested more than $200 billion in the building of this strategic port at Gwadar on the Arabian Sea, just 370 miles from the Persian Gulf. Starting in 2011, China also began extending its rail lines through Laos into Southeast Asia at an initial cost of $6.2 billion. In the end, a high-speed line is expected to take passengers and goods on a trip of just 10 hours from Kunming to Singapore.

In this same dynamic decade, China has constructed a comprehensive network of trans-continental gas and oil pipelines to import fuels from the whole of Eurasia for its population centers — in the north, center, and southeast. In 2009, after a decade of construction, the state-owned China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) opened the final stage of the Kazakhstan-China Oil Pipeline. It stretches 1,400 miles from the Caspian Sea to Xinjiang.

Simultaneously, CNPC collaborated with Turkmenistan to inaugurate the Central Asia-China gas pipeline. Running for 1,200 miles largely parallel to the Kazakhstan-China Oil Pipeline, it is the first to bring the region’s natural gas to China. To bypass the Straits of Malacca controlled by the U.S Navy, CNPC opened a Sino-Myanmar pipeline in 2013 to carry both Middle Eastern oil and Burmese natural gas 1,500 miles from the Bay of Bengal to China’s remote southwestern region. In May 2014, the company signed a $400 billion, 30-year deal with the privatized Russian energy giant Gazprom to deliver 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually by 2018 via a still-to-be-completed northern network of pipelines across Siberia and into Manchuria.

Click here to see a larger version

myanmar_v5_small

Sino-Myanmar Oil Pipeline Evades the U.S. Navy in the Straits of Malacca (Source: Stratfor)

Though massive, these projects are just part of an ongoing construction boom that, over the past five years, has woven a cat’s cradle of oil and gas lines across Central Asia and south into Iran and Pakistan. The result will soon be an integrated inland energy infrastructure, including Russia’s own vast network of pipelines, extending across the whole of Eurasia, from the Atlantic to the South China Sea.

To capitalize such staggering regional growth plans, in October 2014 Beijing announced the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. China’s leadership sees this institution as a future regional and, in the end, Eurasian alternative to the U.S.-dominated World Bank. So far, despite pressure from Washington not to join, 14 key countries, including close U.S. allies like Germany, Great Britain, Australia, and South Korea, have signed on. Simultaneously, China has begun building long-term trade relations with resource-rich areas of Africa, as well as with Australia and Southeast Asia, as part of its plan to economically integrate the world island.

Finally, Beijing has only recently revealed a deftly designed strategy for neutralizing the military forces Washington has arrayed around the continent’s perimeter. In April, President Xi Jinping announced construction of that massive road-rail-pipeline corridor direct from western China to its new port at Gwadar, Pakistan, creating the logistics for future naval deployments in the energy-rich Arabian Sea.

In May, Beijing escalated its claim to exclusive control over the South China Sea, expanding Longpo Naval Base on Hainan Island for the region’s first nuclear submarine facility, accelerating its dredging to create three new atolls that could become military airfields in the disputed Spratley Islands, and formally warning off U.S. Navy overflights. By building the infrastructure for military bases in the South China and Arabian seas, Beijing is forging the future capacity to surgically and strategically impair U.S. military containment.

At the same time, Beijing is developing plans to challenge Washington’s dominion over space and cyberspace. It expects, for instance, to complete its own global satellite system by 2020, offering the first challenge to Washington’s dominion over space since the U.S. launched its system of 26 defense communication satellites back in 1967. Simultaneously, Beijing is building a formidable capacity for cyber warfare.

In a decade or two, should the need arise, China will be ready to surgically slice through Washington’s continental encirclement at a few strategic points without having to confront the full global might of the U.S. military, potentially rendering the vast American armada of carriers, cruisers, drones, fighters, and submarines redundant.

Lacking the geopolitical vision of Mackinder and his generation of British imperialists, America’s current leadership has failed to grasp the significance of a radical global change underway inside the Eurasian land mass. If China succeeds in linking its rising industries to the vast natural resources of the Eurasian heartland, then quite possibly, as Sir Halford Mackinder predicted on that cold London night in 1904, “the empire of the world would be in sight.”
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

Time for a new thread? This has become quite bloated.
Post Reply