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.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12113
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by A_Gupta »

Can India be coaxed to sign the CTBT?
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/201 ... t-signing/

Written by Ramesh Thakur and John Carlson specially for the Japan Times.
Ramesh Thakur is director of, and John Carlson is a consultant to, the Center for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University.
India’s unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing notwithstanding, its continued refusal to engage in the CTBT leads many to wonder whether New Delhi is keeping open the option of resuming testing. India can demonstrate that it really is “like-minded” and ready to assume the responsibilities of a leading nuclear country by permitting the installation of the four outstanding monitoring stations.

Of course, India could go further still, honor the Nehru legacy and resume its leadership role in nuclear disarmament by signing the CTBT and join China and the U.S. as signatory states yet to ratify. This will put pressure on Pakistan to sign, leaving North Korea as the only non-signatory from the 44 countries whose ratifications are required for entry into force. It will also reassure those who are concerned that when the U.S. is finally able to ratify, India will swiftly follow suit.

Does the Modi government have the policy smarts to say yes to advice that, through a unilateral policy realignment, would distance India from Pakistan and North Korea, and give it the same status as China and the U.S.?
Methinks this is a Japanese diplomatic feeler.
Arjun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4283
Joined: 21 Oct 2008 01:52

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Arjun »

^^mainly diamond trade....Jains and Patels taking on the Jews of Antwerp. In any case Beigium is the intermediary here - and Modi was working on a deal with Russia to cut Belgium out and obtain the roughs directly from Russian miners.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

I remember reading a long and nice article by a CSIR type scientist who argued that India should atleast do a few more tests as we haven't got the test results for mega ton bombs. The author also argued that the hydrogen bomb blast that we had didn't fetch the results that they expected and the govt / powers that be hushed that story up.
I cant remember if it was a analyst who wrote about this or the scientist himself who wrote this. Does it ring a bell to anyone else?

Well, now I need to admit that I didn't check all sides and so I am not sure if the above analysis is true. But if it were true, I would assume we will need more tests before we can perfect it?
panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by panduranghari »

Arjun wrote:^^mainly diamond trade....Jains and Patels taking on the Jews of Antwerp. In any case Beigium is the intermediary here - and Modi was working on a deal with Russia to cut Belgium out and obtain the roughs directly from Russian miners.
Quite close.

link
Belgium's exports to India amounted to
$11.3 billion or 2.4% of its overall imports.
1. Gems, precious metals, coins: $9.6 billion
---------
Germany 1. Machines, engines, pumps: $3.6 billion
France 1. Aircraft, spacecraft: $579.8 million
UQ 1. Gems, precious metals, coins: $1 billion
Spain 1. Machines, engines, pumps: $278 million
Holland 1. Oil: $561.5 million
Poland 1. Machines, engines, pumps: $95.2 million
Switzerland 1. Gems, precious metals, coins: $19.5 billion
Italy 1. Machines, engines, pumps: $1.6 billion
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

Greco-Russian deal in the offing,Tsipras to give the EU the upturned finger.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... imir-putin

Alexis Tsipras flies to Moscow amid speculation of bailout from Putin

Greek prime minister to sign accords with Russia, including gas price discount and possible loans in return for Greek assets, which would alarm EU creditors

Greek prime minister Alexis Tsipras has publicly condemned EU sanctions on Russia as a 'road to nowhere'.

Helena Smith in Athens and Alec Luhn in Moscow
Wednesday 8 April 2015 07.18 BST Last modified on Wednesday 8 April 2015 11.17 BST

The Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, has begun a controversial visit to Moscow as his debt-stricken country races to meet Thursday’s deadline for the repayment of a €450m loan to the International Monetary Fund.

With Greece suffering its worst credit crisis in modern times, the defiant leader flew into Russia on Tuesday amid speculation that president Vladimir Putin might make an offer of financial help he would find hard to resist.

Analysis/ When Tsipras meets Putin: an opportunity for fruit diplomacy?

As Greek and Russian leaders prepare for talks today, The Moscow Times weighs up their relationship – and the prospects of a meaningful deal

As Tsipras departed Athens, officials said the Kremlin talks should be seen through the prism of Athens’ leftist-led government doing “what is best for Greece”.

They described the visit as being both “politically friendly and economically promising”.

The two leaders, who hold formal talks and a working lunch on Wednesday, are expected to sign an array of accords, including a three-year plan to strengthen economic and commercial ties.

The Kremlin meeting is also expected to focus on EU sanctions against Russia, which Tsipras has condemned as a “road to nowhere”. On Tuesday, Russia’s Kommersant business daily reported that a discount on gas deliveries was likely to be top of the agenda. Cash-strapped Greece imports 57% of its gas supplies from Russia.

Russia has expressed an interest in the port of Piraeus, near Athens. Photograph: Giorgos Christakis/EPA

“We are ready to consider the issue of a gas price discount for Greece,” the newspaper reported, quoting an unnamed Russian government source.

Moscow would also be willing to give Greece loans – just as it had done with Cyprus – on the condition that it had access to “certain assets in Greece”, the source said.

International creditors at the EU, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund have pressed for a mass fire sale of Greek state properties, ranging from airports to ports, to help balance the books in Athens.

Russia has expressed interest in Greece’s transport sector and the ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki. Vasily Koltashov, a leftist economist at the Moscow-based Institute of Globalisation and Social Movements, told Kommersant that the Greek railway network, OSE, “could definitely be interesting for Russian business”, along with ports and tourist infrastructure.

Western diplomats are concerned Putin will exploit Athens to further Russia’s ambition of dismembering Europe. Tsipras’s criticism of EU sanctions imposed last year because of the Ukraine crisis could play into Putin’s hands.

“There is also a political component because for Moscow it’s very important that Greece adopts a harder position in relations with Brussels over the sanctions against Russia,” Koltashov said.

Tsipras brought forward his trip by a month, underscoring the significance his government gives to the fellow Orthodox Christian state. Top Russian officials, including the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, have publicly said Moscow would “positively examine” a Greek request for aid if one was made.

Besides loans, Moscow could possibly offer to lift Russia’s embargo on Greek food products. Russia banned imports of meat, fish, fruit, vegetables and dairy products from the EU in August as part of its response to western sanctions.

At the request of the Greek ministry of agriculture, Russian regulators will reportedly start inspecting dairy producers in Greece on 20 April for compliance with norms.

The Russian agriculture minister, Nikolai Fyodorov, told journalists on Tuesday that Moscow had discussed ending the embargo on food products from Greece, Hungary and Cyprus – which are noted for using softer rhetoric towards the Kremlin than other European countries. But he said a decision on this was unlikely to be made on Wednesday.

Although eurozone leaders are playing down the Kremlin visit, the talks are bound to further alienate foreign lenders propping up the moribund Greek economy.

Amid renewed scepticism over the Greeks’ ability to remain in the eurozone, Athens’ anti-austerity government has spent most of its two months in power fruitlessly trying to unlock €7.2bn (£5.3bn) in financial assistance from its €240bn bailout programme.

“If there is no deal, and if we see that Germany remains rigid and wants to blow Europe apart, then we will have to go to plan B,” said Panos Kammenos, who heads the leftist-led administration’s junior rightwing partner Independent Greeks. A plan B would include Athens looking towards Russia, the US or China, he added.

The Moscow talks come as Athens scrambles to deal with a credit crunch that has sparked feverish speculation of an imminent default. Next week Athens must refund short-term Treasury bills worth a total of €2.4bn

with interest payments of €80m due to the European Central Bank later this month.

Visiting the US, the Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis was forced to deny such a scenario telling Christine Lagarde, the IMF managing director, that Greece would honour all its debt obligations, starting with Thursday’s €450m repayment to the Washington-based body.

On Tuesday, Athens’ finance ministry said the IMF had agreed to be flexible in its approach to proposed reforms that have caused deadlock in negotiations with the country’s creditors. The measures are key to releasing aid that has yet to be disbursed because of disagreement over policies that Tsipras says are at odds with his Syriza party’s anti-austerity platform.

In private, senior Greek officials say their preference would be to find an amicable solution with western lenders. But with relations becoming ever more strained between Athens and the bodies keeping it afloat, Tsipras is also facing growing calls to look elsewhere. Panagiotis Lafazanis, who as energy minister visited Moscow last week, has said the Kremlin talks could lead to a shift in ties between the two countries. As leader of the far-left faction within Tsipras’s Syriza party, and the cabinet’s effective number three, Lafazanis has considerable say in government policy.

Concern that Greece could fall into Russia’s orbit has caused disquiet in the Obama administration, exacerbating fears that Athens could be headed for the euro exit door with possibly disastrous consequences for security on Nato’s south-eastern flank.

Western diplomats in the Greek capital speak of “a dangerous game of brinkmanship” being played at a highly sensitive time.

“It is as if all the main players in this government are driving and texting at the same time,” said one. “What would be amazing, is if there isn’t an accident some time soon.”

On Tuesday, the Greek finance ministry said after Varoufakis’s talks with Treasury officials in Washington earlier this week, the US government had expressed a willingness to play the role of “honest broker” in negotiations between Athens and its lenders.
In a statement the finance ministry announced: “US officials conveyed the importance the Obama administration places on an honest agreement between Greece and its partners and on preserving the unity of the eurozone.”
How Tsipras comports himself in Moscow – and what support, if any, he gives to Putin on sanctions – is likely to be critical to how creditors, and the US, deal with Greece in the days to come.
kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by kmkraoind »

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3781
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by panduranghari »

What do gentle rakshaks think about Robert Kaplan and his ideas of geopolitics. One idea he has espoused is to let the Countries around China like Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Phillipines etc. to be Finlandised i.e. independent economies but foreign policy dictated by China?

Any recommendations on Indian perspective on geopolitics?
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12113
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by A_Gupta »

M.K. Bhadrakumar rips into the Modi government:
http://atimes.com/2015/04/india-strande ... ans-surge/
From the Indian viewpoint, this is of course a sad moment. Isolation in one’s own region is never a good thing to happen, but Indian diplomacy seems to be failing to build partnerships riveted on regional cooperation.

The blame lies entirely with the Narendra Modi government. The Modi brand of foreign policy is largely built on hot air and grandstanding and lacks substance. Very little conceptual thinking seems to be going into Modi’s foreign-policy peregrinations. It is all turning out to be sound and fury signifying nothing.

The Modi government doesn’t know how to respond to China’s ‘Belt and Road’ initiatives; it has one foot inside the US’ ‘pivot strategy in Asia’ and another foot outside; it plays the ‘Tibet card’ against China but also expects Chinese investments to pour in; and, it regards China as an intruder into its sphere of influence in South Asian and Indian Ocean region.

As for Pakistan, the less said the better. No one knows what is on Modi’s mind. His government keeps blowing hot and cold. The Pakistani side seems to have understood that Modi is in no real hurry to resolve the disputes and differences between the two countries, and is marking time. Accordingly, it has decided not to unduly press India further for a constructive engagement with India.

When it comes to Iran, that country also probably senses that in the scheme of things of the Hindu nationalist government in India, Islamophobia is the leitmotif for the Hindutva ideologues. The Modi government has neglected to mend India-Iran ties, which have been in a state of disrepair.

The Modi government never really understood the dynamics and alchemy of the US-Iranian engagement through the past year. The stunning fact is that there has not been a single high-level visit from India to Iran during Modi’s stewardship through the past 10-month period. It must be a world record of sorts.

Thus, the plain truth is that India today lacks a coherent, consistent approach toward China, Pakistan or Iran. And no wonder, India is being visibly left behind at the station while the China-Pakistan-Iran train is pulling out.
fanne
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4292
Joined: 11 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by fanne »

yawn
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Tuvaluan »

MK Bhadrakumar's analysis has always been odiously wrong at all times -- no reason to start taking his stupid cr@p seriously now. Just go back to his articles from say a few years ago, and see how much he got right....his hit rate is quite low even by relative standards.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

MKB doesn't like anything Indian. So he finds all Indian leaders odious.
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 »

Do we have still have MKB kind of diplomats in Foreign Office ?
Of course some of them went onto become MSA and Natwar Singh too.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

Historic Cuba-US rapproachment.
Though the ice has been broken,the Cubans do not want the island to yet again become a "Coca-Cola" -Big Mac nation,in thrall to US MNCs. It augurs well for the Cuban cigar industry though!

Obama in historic talks with Castro but Cuban leader in no mood for a love-in
Leaders of US and Cuba meet for first time in more than 50 years and discuss steps to improve relations at Summit of the Americas
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/a ... ke-us-cuba
Jonathan Watts in Panama City
Saturday 11 April 2015

They might have been the first face-to-face talks between the leaders of Cuba and the United States for more than 50 years, but when Raúl Castro met Barack Obama on Saturday he appeared in no hurry to make up for lost time.

“We are willing to discuss everything but we need to be patient, very patient,” the Cuban president said to his counterpart in their first formal encounter since the announcement in December that the two former cold war rivals will move to normalise relations.

Obama struck a more upbeat tone during what he called a “historic” meeting. “We are now in a position to move … toward the future,” he said. “Over time, it is possible for us to turn the page and develop a new relationship between our two countries.”

The brief encounter, which took place on the sidelines of the Summit of the Americas, contained few specifics. Obama said he would be making a decision in the coming days on Cuba’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism after an inter-agency review.

Priorities differ. During a speech earlier in the day, Castro called on the US to lift the embargo on his country and to return Guantánamo Bay, which he said was illegally occupied by the US military.

The meeting between the two men followed an often heated plenary session in which Obama tried to focus attention on the possibilities of closer regional ties, while leftwing leaders lined up to remind the US of its past aggression and interference in the hemisphere.

This was no love-in and there were several bitter jokes. The leaders at the plenary were restricted to eight minutes for each speech but Castro said he was entitled to 48 because he had been excluded from the previous six summits. He went on to use all of that time and more in a sometimes rambling, finger-jabbing speech that attacked the US for its embargo on Cuba, its occupation of Guantánamo Bay and other wrongs.

However, he struck a warmer tone towards Obama, who he said was not responsible for the deeds of the previous 10 US presidents. “I apologise to President Obama for expressing myself like this. I get very emotional when I talk about the revolution,” he said. He then struck an almost affectionate note in describing his admiration for the US president. “In my opinion, Obama is an honest man … I admire him. I think his behaviour has a lot to do with his humble background,” said Castro. He called on the other leaders to help the US president in his effort to persuade Congress to lift the trade embargo on Cuba.

Castro, 83, said he did not give the personal endorsement lightly. “Believe me, I gave a great deal of thought to these words. I wrote them down and removed them and now I have said them, I am pleased I said them.”

Several other leaders expressed a similar mix of personal admiration for Obama and suspicion, anger and frustration at US policy in the region over the centuries.

Addressing the session, the US president joked that, as a student of history, he always enjoyed the lessons he received at the regional summits but struck a serious note in acknowledging the “dark chapters” in the US’s past, when its actions towards its neighbours had not matched the human rights ideals it espoused.

But he urged leaders to look to the future and capitalise on the “new chapter” in US relations with the region. “The cold war has been over for a long time and, frankly, I’m not interested in having battles that started before I was born,” he said. “The US will not be imprisoned in the past. We’re looking to the future.”

Current frictions were also evident. While US relations with Cuba have thawed in recent months, those with Venezuela have worsened, partly as a result of Obama’s executive order imposing sanctions on seven officials in Caracas accused of human rights abuses.

The regional body, Unasur – which represents every nation in the hemisphere except the US and Canada – has unanimously condemned the sanction order, which declares Venezuela a threat to US national security. Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro said a lifting of the “threatening” and “dangerous” executive order was essential for the safety of his country and claimed the US embassy in Caracas had been preparing a coup and an assassination attempt on him. He said he had evidence, but presented none.

“I respect Obama but I do not trust him,” Maduro said. “We’re not against the US. I’m an admirer of Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix. We’ve never been against the US. We’re anti-imperialist.” This appears to have been a partial mistake. Clapton is British.

The US president had left the plenary before Maduro started speaking and the two leaders appeared to have avoided shaking hands during the summit.

Earlier in the day, Obama suggested some leaders were using conflict with the US to distract attention from domestic woes. Venezuela is suffering recession, shortages of basis goods, deadly street protests and the highest inflation rate in the world – a crisis that has become a source of concern for the region.

Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff said the situation in that country demanded restraint and criticised the US sanctions, while urging dialogue between the government and the opposition in Venezuela. Like every other leader at the summit, she celebrated the move by Cuba and the US to build closer ties and said countless opportunities should emerge from the new regional environment. “The two presidents have shown the progress that can be made when we learn the lessons of the past.”
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12113
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by A_Gupta »

Which thread to record the North Korean Foreign Minister's visit to India?
http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 671_1.html
External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj today conveyed India's security concerns to her North Korean counterpart Ri Su Yong here, emphasising the significance of peace and stability in the Korean peninsula for the country.

During her comprehensive talks with Ri, who arrived here yesterday in a first ever visit by a Foreign Minister from DPRK, Swaraj also assured that India would "positively" consider Korean request for additional humanitarian aid.

The meeting, which comes nearly a month ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit to Seoul, also provided an opportunity to the India side to re-assess its relationship with North Korea, which is under heavy economic and other sanctions from the UN and western countries.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

Political Islam has become a three person game:

KSA leading the Arabic bloc.
Turkey leading the Turks and Central Asian
TSP leading themselves

Other ummah don't count right now.
In classic 3-person game two will cooperate to down the third.
Race is on in Yemen to down KSA.


Wahabis will get toast.

Last night Fareed Zakaria bhai was on Bill Maher show dissing the Arabs for their virulent brand of Islam giving bad name to all good Muslims.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by devesh »

^^^
If that holds, the future tea leaves are clear. Paki-Iran understanding of some sort cannot entirely be discounted. If I were GoI I would start gaming this scenario seriously. Pakis might surprise us with one final burst of genuine geopolitical menace before they are taken care of by Bharat.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/coming- ... d44f4818ca
Coming to Terms With the American Empire

Geopolitical Weekly
April 14, 2015
By George Friedman

"Empire" is a dirty word. Considering the behavior of many empires, that is not unreasonable. But empire is also simply a description of a condition, many times unplanned and rarely intended. It is a condition that arises from a massive imbalance of power. Indeed, the empires created on purpose, such as Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany, have rarely lasted. Most empires do not plan to become one. They become one and then realize what they are. Sometimes they do not realize what they are for a long time, and that failure to see reality can have massive consequences.

World War II and the Birth of an Empire

The United States became an empire in 1945. It is true that in the Spanish-American War, the United States intentionally took control of the Philippines and Cuba. It is also true that it began thinking of itself as an empire, but it really was not. Cuba and the Philippines were the fantasy of empire, and this illusion dissolved during World War I, the subsequent period of isolationism and the Great Depression.

The genuine American empire that emerged thereafter was a byproduct of other events. There was no great conspiracy. In some ways, the circumstances of its creation made it more powerful. The dynamic of World War II led to the collapse of the European Peninsula and its occupation by the Soviets and the Americans. The same dynamic led to the occupation of Japan and its direct governance by the United States as a de facto colony, with Gen. Douglas MacArthur as viceroy.

The United States found itself with an extraordinary empire, which it also intended to abandon. This was a genuine wish and not mere propaganda. First, the United States was the first anti-imperial project in modernity. It opposed empire in principle. More important, this empire was a drain on American resources and not a source of wealth. World War II had shattered both Japan and Western Europe. The United States gained little or no economic advantage in holding on to these countries. Finally, the United States ended World War II largely untouched by war and as perhaps one of the few countries that profited from it. The money was to be made in the United States, not in the empire. The troops and the generals wanted to go home.

But unlike after World War I, the Americans couldn't let go. That earlier war ruined nearly all of the participants. No one had the energy to attempt hegemony. The United States was content to leave Europe to its own dynamics. World War II ended differently. The Soviet Union had been wrecked but nevertheless it remained powerful. It was a hegemon in the east, and absent the United States, it conceivably could dominate all of Europe. This represented a problem for Washington, since a genuinely united Europe — whether a voluntary and effective federation or dominated by a single country — had sufficient resources to challenge U.S. power.

The United States could not leave. It did not think of itself as overseeing an empire, and it certainly permitted more internal political autonomy than the Soviets did in their region. Yet, in addition to maintaining a military presence, the United States organized the European economy and created and participated in the European defense system. If the essence of sovereignty is the ability to decide whether or not to go to war, that power was not in London, Paris or Warsaw. It was in Moscow and Washington.

The organizing principle of American strategy was the idea of containment. Unable to invade the Soviet Union, Washington's default strategy was to check it. U.S. influence spread through Europe to Iran. The Soviet strategy was to flank the containment system by supporting insurgencies and allied movements as far to the rear of the U.S. line as possible. The European empires were collapsing and fragmenting. The Soviets sought to create an alliance structure out of the remnants, and the Americans sought to counter them.

The Economics of Empire

One of the advantages of alliance with the Soviets, particularly for insurgent groups, was a generous supply of weapons. The advantage of alignment with the United States was belonging to a dynamic trade zone and having access to investment capital and technology. Some nations, such as South Korea, benefited extraordinarily from this. Others didn't. Leaders in countries like Nicaragua felt they had more to gain from Soviet political and military support than in trade with the United States.

The United States was by far the largest economic power, with complete control of the sea, bases around the world, and a dynamic trade and investment system that benefitted countries that were strategically critical to the United States or at least able to take advantage of it. It was at this point, early in the Cold War, that the United States began behaving as an empire, even if not consciously.

The geography of the American empire was built partly on military relations but heavily on economic relations. At first these economic relations were fairly trivial to American business. But as the system matured, the value of investments soared along with the importance of imports, exports and labor markets. As in any genuinely successful empire, it did not begin with a grand design or even a dream of one. Strategic necessity created an economic reality in country after country until certain major industries became dependent on at least some countries. The obvious examples were Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, whose oil fueled American oil companies, and which therefore — quite apart from conventional strategic importance — became economically important. This eventually made them strategically important.

As an empire matures, its economic value increases, particularly when it is not coercing others. Coercion is expensive and undermines the worth of an empire. The ideal colony is one that is not at all a colony, but a nation that benefits from economic relations with both the imperial power and the rest of the empire. The primary military relationship ought to be either mutual dependence or, barring that, dependence of the vulnerable client state on the imperial power.

This is how the United States slipped into empire. First, it was overwhelmingly wealthy and powerful. Second, it faced a potential adversary capable of challenging it globally, in a large number of countries. Third, it used its economic advantage to induce at least some of these countries into economic, and therefore political and military, relationships. Fourth, these countries became significantly important to various sectors of the American economy.

Limits of the American Empire

The problem of the American Empire is the overhang of the Cold War. During this time, the United States expected to go to war with a coalition around it, but also to carry the main burden of war. When Operation Desert Storm erupted in 1991, the basic Cold War principle prevailed. There was a coalition with the United States at the center of it. After 9/11, the decision was made to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq with the core model in place. There was a coalition, but the central military force was American, and it was assumed that the economic benefits of relations with the United States would be self-evident. In many ways, the post-9/11 wars took their basic framework from World War II. Iraq War planners explicitly discussed the occupation of Germany and Japan.

No empire can endure by direct rule. The Nazis were perhaps the best example of this. They tried to govern Poland directly, captured Soviet territory, pushed aside Vichy to govern not half but all of France, and so on. The British, on the other hand, ruled India with a thin layer of officials and officers and a larger cadre of businessmen trying to make their fortunes. The British obviously did better. The Germans exhausted themselves not only by overreaching, but also by diverting troops and administrators to directly oversee some countries. The British could turn their empire into something extraordinarily important to the global system. The Germans broke themselves not only on their enemies, but on their conquests as well.

The United States emerged after 1992 as the only global balanced power. That is, it was the only nation that could deploy economic, political and military power on a global basis. The United States was and remains enormously powerful. However, this is very different from omnipotence. In hearing politicians debate Russia, Iran or Yemen, you get the sense that they feel that U.S. power has no limits. There are always limits, and empires survive by knowing and respecting them.

The primary limit of the American empire is the same as that of the British and Roman empires: demographic. In Eurasia — Asia and Europe together — the Americans are outnumbered from the moment they set foot on the ground. The U.S. military is built around force multipliers, weapons that can destroy the enemy before the enemy destroys the relatively small force deployed. Sometimes this strategy works. Over the long run, it cannot. The enemy can absorb attrition much better than the small American force can. This lesson was learned in Vietnam and reinforced in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is a country of 25 million people. The Americans sent about 130,000 troops. Inevitably, the attrition rate overwhelmed the Americans. The myth that Americans have no stomach for war forgets that the United States fought in Vietnam for seven years and in Iraq for about the same length of time. The public can be quite patient. The mathematics of war is the issue. At a certain point, the rate of attrition is simply not worth the political ends.

The deployment of a main force into Eurasia is unsupportable except in specialized cases when overwhelming force can be bought to bear in a place where it is important to win. These occasions are typically few and far between. Otherwise, the only strategy is indirect warfare: shifting the burden of war to those who want to bear it or cannot avoid doing so. For the first years of World War II, indirect warfare was used to support the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union against Germany.

There are two varieties of indirect warfare. The first is supporting native forces whose interests are parallel. This was done in the early stages of Afghanistan. The second is maintaining the balance of power among nations. We are seeing this form in the Middle East as the United States moves between the four major regional powers — Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey — supporting one then another in a perpetual balancing act. In Iraq, U.S. fighters carry out air strikes in parallel with Iranian ground forces. In Yemen, the United States supports Saudi air strikes against the Houthis, who have received Iranian training.

This is the essence of empire. The British saying is that it has no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. That old cliche is, like most cliches, true. The United States is in the process of learning that lesson. In many ways the United States was more charming when it had clearly identified friends and enemies. But that is a luxury that empires cannot afford.

Building a System of Balance

We are now seeing the United States rebalance its strategy by learning to balance. A global power cannot afford to be directly involved in the number of conflicts that it will encounter around the world. It would be exhausted rapidly. Using various tools, it must create regional and global balances without usurping internal sovereignty. The trick is to create situations where other countries want to do what is in the U.S. interest.

This endeavor is difficult. The first step is to use economic incentives to shape other countries' behavior. It isn't the U.S. Department of Commerce but businesses that do this. The second is to provide economic aid to wavering countries. The third is to provide military aid. The fourth is to send advisers. The fifth is to send overwhelming force. The leap from the fourth level to the fifth is the hardest to master. Overwhelming force should almost never be used. But when advisers and aid do not solve a problem that must urgently be solved, then the only type of force that can be used is overwhelming force. Roman legions were used sparingly, but when they were used, they brought overwhelming power to bear.

The Responsibilities of Empire

I have been deliberately speaking of the United States as an empire, knowing that this term is jarring. Those who call the United States an empire usually mean that it is in some sense evil. Others will call it anything else if they can. But it is helpful to face the reality the United States is in. It is always useful to be honest, particularly with yourself. But more important, if the United States thinks of itself as an empire, then it will begin to learn the lessons of imperial power. Nothing is more harmful than an empire using its power carelessly.

It is true that the United States did not genuinely intend to be an empire. It is also true that its intentions do not matter one way or another. Circumstance, history and geopolitics have created an entity that, if it isn't an empire, certainly looks like one. Empires can be far from oppressive. The Persians were quite liberal in their outlook. The American ideology and the American reality are not inherently incompatible. But two things must be faced: First, the United States cannot give away the power it has. There is no practical way to do that. Second, given the vastness of that power, it will be involved in conflicts whether it wants to or not. Empires are frequently feared, sometimes respected, but never loved by the rest of the world. And pretending that you aren't an empire does not fool anyone.

The current balancing act in the Middle East represents a fundamental rebalancing of American strategy. It is still clumsy and poorly thought out, but it is happening. And for the rest of the world, the idea that the Americans are coming will become more and more rare. The United States will not intervene. It will manage the situation, sometimes to the benefit of one country and sometimes to another.
pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14746
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by pankajs »

Obviously written from a western POV. We should have good relation with both if possible.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/china-or- ... mk72c.html
China or US: Who will charm India first?
The United States slapped a visa ban on Narendra Modi and kept it in place for nine years.

So how to overcome this awkward fact once he was elected Prime Minister of India last year?

The White House lifted the ban after publicly congratulating him on winning "the largest free and fair election in human history" after more than two-thirds of Indians turned out and cast half a billion votes.

The ban was imposed in 2005 because Modi, as governor of the Indian state of Gujarat, was suspected of tolerating and perhaps even fomenting ugly Hindu mob attacks on Muslims in that state.

Over 1000 people died in the Gujarat riots of 2002, Muslims and Hindus alike. In some 60 inquiries and trials to follow, there was no evidence that Modi was complicit. Yet suspicions lingered.

The US was not the only one. Britain and almost all the countries of the European Union also banned Modi from visiting. Australia might have too, but Modi never asked to travel so the matter was never tested.

But the US held its ban longest and Modi, angry at the American affront, was not going to overlook it. Some of his advisers told him he didn't need a relationship with the US.

"Modi told me he was never going to ask for a summit with Obama," says commentator Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, foreign editor for the Hindustan Times.

"But he said 'Obama rang me up and invited me for a summit.'" His pride satisfied, Modi accepted.


Governments were obliged to welcome the leader of the world's most populous democracy and one of its biggest 10 economies. But in Modi, Obama found more than a man he had to work with. He found a leader prepared to stand up to China.

To this point, only one other major world power apart from the US had been prepared to stand up to China publicly, Japan under Shinzo Abe.

But now India, a nuclear armed state that shares a 4000 kilometre land border with China, declared its hand.

When Modi met Obama in January, "the first 45 minutes of their conversation were dominated by an animated discussion of China", the New York Times reported. Remarkably, they gave formal public expression to their shared concerns. The two leaders issued a joint statement on a "strategic vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean region".

It was remarkable because India, formerly a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, had never done any such thing with the US. And it was remarkable because the statement, while not naming China, was unmistakably aimed at Beijing. And China didn't like it.

Modi and Obama instantly cut China out of their shared "vision" by agreeing that the world's two biggest democracies would "promote the shared values that have made our countries great".

Strikingly, they declared a shared zone of co-operation stretching "from Africa to East Asia". This enormous swath of the globe encompasses China's lifeline. The sea lanes that cross the Indian Ocean carry more than 80 per cent of China's oil imports.

And the statement challenges China's own expanding sphere of influence.

An influential Indian commentator on such matters, K. Subrahmanyam, once argued that it was India's "manifest destiny to control Southern Asia and the Indian Ocean sea-lanes around us".

But China's longstanding view is that "this is something we cannot accept" in the words of General Zhao Nanqi, former head of the Chinese Academy of Military Sciences. "We are not prepared to let the Indian Ocean become India's ocean."

The Obama-Modi statement not only challenged China's status in the Indian Ocean, it also laid down the law on the seas closest to China. It said "we affirm the importance of safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation and over flight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea."

And they called on parties to avoid "threat or use of force" and to apply "universally recognised principles of international law".

As an adviser to the Modi campaign, Ashok Malik, said, "America is looking at developing India into a net security provider" in the Indo-Pacific area. "I think Modi recognises that if India doesn't step up to that role, China will fill the vacuum."

And Modi knows he has the backing of the Indian public in standing up to China. Eighty-two per cent of Indians consider China to be a threat to India's security in the next ten years, according to a 2013 poll.

Giving force to Modi's intention, India is active across a range of fronts. Two key ones:

One, India's cabinet in February decided to build six nuclear-powered attack submarines, for an estimated $US12 billion.

Two, in response to China's creation of a so-called "string of pearls", military and commercial facilities scattered across various countries across the Indian Ocean, Modi is setting up a "string of flowers" in response.

The contest is joined. Australia, like the US and India, is cultivating commercial ties with China. Yet, in the parallel universe where countries quietly plan for strategic mastery over each other, Australia stands with the US and India.

Tony Abbott, or "my friend Abbott" as Modi calls him, is actively strengthening the relationship with India. Indeed Julie Bishop is in Delhi this week finalising the arrangements to supply uranium to Delhi.

Abbott and Modi have set a goal of negotiating a free trade agreement by the end of this year.

Yet it would be wrong to assume that India is on course to become an ally of the US and its alliance network. India will not go so far. As Pramit Pal Chaudhuri puts it: "Modi has aligned himself with the school of thought that says the only time China takes us seriously is when we are close to the US. It improves our negotiating position."

Peter Hartcher is the international editor. He travelled to India courtesy of the Walkley Media Exchange, funded by the Australia India Council.
Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10948
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Falijee »

The ISIS phenomenon
Good article by VIKRAM SOOD - EX RAW
Falijee
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10948
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Falijee »

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... today.html
What is the biggest threat facing the world today?

Big Question: From Vladimir Putin's expansionist aims to the advances of Islamic State, the news is full of threats to global stability - but what do specialists in war studies think we should fear most?

What are the threats to global stability that should really worry us, according to specialists in conflict studies?

What are the threats to global stability that should really worry us, according to specialists in conflict studies? Photo: Getty Images, Alamy
By King's College London

3:42PM BST 17 Apr 2015

Is Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), close to Europe via its growth in Libya, the greatest threat to global stability? Or is China's rise more to be feared than Vladimir Putin's involvement in the Ukraine crisis?

The World Economic Forum annually produces its list of the threats the world faces and at the top of this year's list was state conflict. So what are the threats to global stability that should really worry us, according to specialists in conflict studies?

The following is a list of what current and former academics at the Department of War Studies at King's College London believe to be the areas of most concern:

Russian and Chinese expansionism v Western disarmament


Alexander Clarke, a PhD graduate, believes that Russia and China's desire for territory or more control of resources is a threat that will bring conflict.

Quote Russia and China are big nations, and whether they seek more territory out of nationalist pride, increased security or a desire for control of more resources, their expansion is always going to bring conflict – conflict which due to alliances and friendships, will always contain the potential to explode into worldwide conflicts.

"This potential is in part a product of the emergence of collective security; a phenomenon that has grown from the peace-time alliances that emerged from the First World War, and which has been cemented by time, becoming in the post-Cold War era the norm. This has produced problems, as it has often induced nations to reduce defence expenditure for budgetary reasons - considering it safe to do because they feel secure in the group.

"The result of this is weakness; and responding to expansion events, or potential expansion events, from a position of weakness makes conflict more likely because forces will have to be handled more aggressively to create the same level of deterrence."

Russia's revisionism

Dalibor Rohac, a King's graduate and now research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, fears that Vladimir Putin's aggression in the Ukraine crisis could be a sign of worse to come.

Quote Mr Putin's aggression in Crimea and eastern Ukraine contravened not just international law but also the security guarantees that the West extended to Ukraine in the form of the Budapest Memorandum in 1994. Mr Putin's harassment of the Baltic states may call into question the credibility of Article 5 of Nato's founding document, effectively eroding the security order existing in the West.

"There is little indication that Mr Putin's ambitions stop in Donbas, yet the West's response so far has been amazingly ineffective. Unless serious efforts are undertaken to contain and deter the regime, one ought to worry about the future of the hundred million people that liberated themselves from the shackles of Soviet dominance 25 years ago."

Fighters from the Ukrainian volunteer Donbas battalion take part in military drills not far from the southeastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol

China’s rise and power shifting in the Indo-Pacific

Harsh V. Pant, professor of international relations at King's, believes China's rise should be feared more than Mr Putin or Isil.

Quote Forget the present turmoil in the Middle East and Putin’s shenanigans, the biggest challenge to global stability will come from the unfolding transition of power in the larger Indo-Pacific in the coming years. The Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu Islands) in the East China Sea have become emblematic of the bitter rivalry between Beijing and Tokyo.

"Chinese revisionism is also evident in the South China Sea where recent reports indicate that China is making rapid progress on building an airstrip on a reef, thereby reclaiming land and changing realities on the ground to the detriment of other regional states.

How China grew desperate to conceal its power from the world

"China’s revisionist forays are not restricted to east and southeast Asia alone; the contested Himalayan border with India has also seen a number of crises in recent times. Repeated transgressions by the People’s Liberation Army into the Indian side of the frontier have become the norm, rather than the exception.

"The Indo-Pacific, from the waters of the Indian Ocean to the farthest ends of the Pacific, is becoming a cauldron of major power politics with significant implications for the future of the world.​"

Unfinished business in the Taiwan Strait


Jeroen Gelsing, a PhD candidate in War Studies at King's, says the undetermined status of Taiwan is what threatens the world's stability.

Quote Looming ever larger as a threat to the balance of power in the Pacific – and world stability – is the undetermined status of Taiwan. Even as Taiwanese public opinion drifts towards continued independence from China, Beijing is having none of this – it brands recovery of Taiwan a ‘core interest’. The force that stands between it and fulfilment is the American commitment to Taiwan’s defence, and more specifically, the might of its Seventh Fleet, anchored in Japan. Yet the time is fast approaching where China’s military is strong enough to deploy force against Taiwan and see off a US military response, should it decide to do so. This critical point could be reached by 2020, Taiwan defence reports say.

"Conflict in the Taiwan Strait would shatter the US and China’s uncomfortable co-existence in the Asia-Pacific and might turn ‘strategic rivalry’ into outright superpower conflict, with reverberations across the globe."


Anti-Japanese protesters marched through the streets of Datong in protest at the Japanese claim to the Senkaku islands

Unbridled nuclear proliferation

Richard Brown, non-proliferation analyst, International Centre for Security Analysis, fears the rise of nuclear technology around the world.

Quote The Iran negotiations have gone about as well as could have been hoped, but it remains the case that the spread of nuclear technology around the world - and the concomitant risk of those technologies being deployed for the purposes of nuclear weapons development - has not been adequately reduced.

"The list of states seeking high-risk 'dual-use' technologies is troublingly long, and all will have been watching the Iran case for precedents. Ultimately, the tensions and contradictions inherent in the present non-proliferation regime can only be glossed over for so long; they can't, under current conditions, be resolved. In the near term, more and more states will reach a latent 'hedging' capability: the effect is inherently destabilising."

Political transition in the Middle East


Jonathan Hill, a reader in postcolonialism and the Maghreb, believes that democracy is important for the Middle East but fears that it gives a voice to those hostile to the West.

Quote The West has to be seen to support it yet democratisation is a difficult and unsettling process, and also provides opportunities to groups and figures which are suspicious and hostile to the West."

Eugenio Lilli, a researcher, agrees with Mr Hill.

Quote Unless these demands for freedom and economic opportunities are earnestly addressed, the Middle East will remain a region exposed to the risk of cyclical waves of unrest. Meanwhile, the failed uprisings created the enabling environment that, in turn, led to the rise of serious threats. Peaceful popular protests have been replaced by bloody conflicts among armed groups and militias in Libya, Syria, and Yemen.

"The terrorists’ narrative, holding that change in the Middle East can be achieved only through violence has gained new currency. Tellingly, old (al-Qaeda) and new (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) extremist organisations have intensified their activity across the region."

Fighters with Northern Storm guard the Sharia court that was previously controlled by Isis in Azaz, Syria

The rise of nationalism and other politics of identity


Pablo de Orellana, teaching fellow, department of War Studies, says the growing nationalist ideologies encouraged by world leaders threatens the world.

Quote Nationalism links exasperation with grievances such as social dislocation, lack of opportunity, economic dissatisfaction, even demographic and health threats, to divisions among social, racial or national identities. At the same time nationalist ideologies delimit identities: defining who is or isn't of a certain group, be it by birthright like Ukip or Lega Nord, ethnic group like BNP and 1930s fascists or claims upon the political meaning of culture and history as Ukrainian and Russian nationalists do today.

"In sum the subject excluded by nationalist ideas becomes the bearer of different, lesser, rights. He can be governed differently, as recent anti-immigration European nationalists demand, or he can be killed, expelled, enslaved or brutalised as we are seeing in Ukraine. Nationalism is the greatest single political idea in terms of mobilising large-scale political support worldwide; it has and will continue to lead to acts of war, terror and political dislocation."

Russian infiltration in Western politics

Giorgio Bertolin, PhD candidate in the defence studies department, believes Russia funds fringe movements to undermine European stability.

Quote The co-opting of Western leaders is an integral part of Russia’s hybrid warfare. In an attempt to undermine the system containing its aggressive expansionism, the Kremlin directly funds a plethora of fringe movements that leverage the frustration of large segments of the population with Western institutions.

"This approach jeopardises the basic architecture of European and Atlantic stability from within. This represents a threat at all levels, with national as much as international effects."

Corruption

Katherine Stone, MPhil/PhD War Studies candidate, believes corruption is linked to and exacerbates every major security threat in the world.

Quote Corruption is a threat to every aspect of peace and stability - political, economic, developmental, environmental and military. Corruption underpins and exacerbates every major security threat. It undermines public trust in governments and institutions and is a catalyst for violent revolutions such as those that have made up the Arab Spring. It is a key driver and enabler of insurgency, including those of Isil and Boko Haram, and a core source of funding for international terrorism and organised crime.

"It allows dangerous regimes to thrive and hastens the failure of states such as Somalia and Sudan. Failure to adequately recognise corruption as a paramount security threat only increases the risk it poses."
PS:What do we think I the most dangerous threat to world peace?
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12113
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by A_Gupta »

http://forward.com/opinion/israel/30607 ... and-obama/
In the mid-1990s, pundits noticed an incipient breakdown in the known world order. For centuries international affairs consisted of relationships among nation-states, in an arrangement dating back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Now, suddenly, it wasn’t working. The primary culprit was the rise of so-called nonstate actors — transnational entities capable of defying or even dictating the global agenda. Topping the list: multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations, drug cartels and terror networks.
In the early 2000s the chattering classes identified a second disrupter: substate actors. These operate within individual nations, tilting the global system by influencing their own governments. Primary examples are legislatures, regional and provincial governments, media, interest groups and industry lobbyists.
As the dust settles on the current Iran nuclear negotiations, it’s apparent we’ve entered a third post-Westphalia era. The drama in Washington and Jerusalem looks like a conflict between two nations, but actually it’s a clash between transnational alliances of substate actors on both sides.

On one side is the much-discussed alliance between Israel’s political leadership and the American Congress. On the other side is a de facto alliance — not an active collaboration but a confluence of parallel outlooks — between America’s executive branch and Israel’s security establishment.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59799
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by ramana »

The prime mover of Non-State-Actors (NSA) was TSP, with US backing, of HuM, HuA, JeM, Hurriyat and Taliban. Later PRC started backing TSP.


All to make India sign CTBT and NPT.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12113
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by A_Gupta »

http://www.business-standard.com/articl ... 569_1.html
"Today, terrorism has emerged as one of the greatest threats to humankind. Terrorism is a global phenomenon and can only be defeated by global action. We need to ensure that we are not found wanting in our efforts," India's Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Bhagwant Bishnoi said here yesterday.

Participating in a session in the UN General Assembly on the commemoration of the end of the Second World War, Bishnoi said the terrorism threatened to expand its reach and "engulf the world in carnage similar to what we witnessed during the two World Wars."
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12113
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by A_Gupta »

I thought this excerpt fit well in this thread :)
http://rapidnewsnetwork.com/president-p ... ima/15109/
The move to host International Buddha Poornima Diwas Celebration 2015 was initiated under the aegis of International Buddhist Confederation (IBC) by Mr Narendra Modi for the preservation and promotion of shared heritage and development of Buddhist pilgrimage and heritage circuit in top priority.

Modi said Lord Buddha had always championed the cause of dalits, oppressed and deprived classes of the society besides empowerment of women.

Speaking at an official event here to commemorate Buddha Purnima, Modi also said the Buddha was the reason why the 21st century would be the century of Asia’s domination.
English:
http://pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/p ... lebration/

Hindi: (verbatim)
http://pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/t ... lebration/
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

Perversion of history,WW2. The Poles who are ranting and raving against Russia today are a bunch of ungrateful sh*ts ,attempting to rewrite the truth of the liberation of Europe. Perhaps they deserve to suffer again incarceration at some time in the future to learn a lesson.

Russia also lost 27 million people in the war,something that Obama could not eradicate,said Gorbachev. The ingratitude of the West towards Russia ,without which their liberation would never have been possible is truly disgraceful and a lesson to India too,which sent millions of our soldiers to fight those two European wars,WW1 and WW2 ,both of which were commemorated last year and now respectively.India's sacrifices have scarcely been mentioned,swe were taken for granted,and if mentioned in a most grudging manner.Nations like Oz and the Kiwis however celebrate their mercenary expeditions abroad with gusto,and continue to bear the "White Man's burden", destroying the MEast in apocalyptic fashion .

India's participation at the V-Day Parade in Moscow with our Grenadiers marching along with the Russian regiments was a splendid act of solidarity with the nation that did the most and sacrificed the most to defeat Nazi Germany.

http://rt.com/news/253753-europeans-wwii-victory-poll/
Perverted history: Europeans think US army liberated continent during WW2
Published time: April 28, 2015

The Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. Banner of Victory over Berlin, 1945 (RIA Novosti / Haldei)

As little as 13 percent of Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2, a recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK reveals.

The majority of respondents – 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe. The survey, carried out from March 20 to April 9, 2015, was conducted by the British ICM Research agency for Sputnik News.

Over 50 percent of Germans and over 61 percent of French citizens believe their ancestors were liberated by the Americans. Nearly fifty percent of Britons think British forces actually played the key role in ending the Second World War. Only 8 percent of respondents in France and 13 percent in Germany credited the Soviet Army for the victory.

WW2 lasted from 1939 to 1945 and involved over 80 countries and regions. Up to 70 million people are believed to have lost their lives. However, the USSR suffered the biggest losses. At least 27 million Soviet citizens died during the war.

The US hoped to stay out, not taking part in WW2. Between 1935 and 1939 the US Congress passed a series of Neutrality Acts meant to prevent Americans becoming involved. President Harry S. Truman was quoted as saying by the New York Times in June 24, 1941: “If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word.”

Various estimates say the Soviet Red Army liberated nearly half of Europe's territory, which comprise 16 modern European countries. Allied forces liberated nine countries, while six more were freed by the Soviets and the Allies together, according to RIA Novosti’s count. The combined population of the territories, in which the Red Army beat back Hitler's forces, was about 120 million people.

The Red Army also had to face the lion's share of Nazi forces on the Eastern Front - about five million soldiers. The vast majority of Hitler's military hardware was also concentrated in the East: 5,400 artillery pieces, 54,600 mortars and over 3,000 warplanes. Combined, it amounted to three-fourths of the heavy weapons at Hitler's disposal. By the end of the war, the Soviets had destroyed over 70 percent of the enemy’s forces.

The Eastern Front was the widest, spanning four to six thousand kilometers, which is four times more than the North African, Italian and Western European frontlines combined. It was also the hottest, seeing 1,320 days of combat compared to North Africa's 309 and Italy's 49.


In mid-April 1945, the Soviet Army started the final offensive against the German capital, and on April 21, they entered Berlin. On April 27, the Red Army linked up with American troops at the River Elbe, cutting the German army in two. At the time, the commander of the US 12th Army Group, General Omar Bradley, praised the Soviet troops for their resolve in forcing the Germans out of Russia. On 2 May 1945, the Berlin garrison finally surrendered to the Soviet army. On 4 July 1945, US Independence Day, American troops officially took charge of their occupation sector in southwest Berlin.

In January, 1945, the Soviet Army liberated the Nazis' biggest concentration camp at Auschwitz, in southwestern Poland, which was seen as a symbolic landmark.

Earlier this year, in January, Polish foreign minister Grzegorz Schetyna bluntly dismissed Russia's role in the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp, claiming it was liberated by Ukrainians.

“Maybe it’s better to say … the First Ukrainian Front and Ukrainians liberated [Auschwitz], because Ukrainian soldiers were there, on that January day, and they opened the gates of the camp and they liberated the camp,” Schetyna said in an interview with Polskie Radio.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called his comments “sacrilegious and cynical.”

“Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army, which included Russians, Ukrainians, Chechens, Tatars and Georgians, among others,” Lavrov emphasized, calling Schetyna’s words a “mockery of history [that] needs to be stopped.”
kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by kmkraoind »

Japan plans $100 billion in Asia infrastructure aid, matching AIIB capital level
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will announce the plan to increase infrastructure investments and loans for Asian countries on Thursday, sources said.

The amount is the same as the planned capital of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, of which Japan has not become a founding member.
Bingo. Its a good news for India. I hope it will not come with any stings attached, i.e. they have to buy a certain percentage of expensive Japanese equipment, technology or steel.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Philip »

The coming global financial catastrophe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... -left.html
HSBC fears world recession with no lifeboats left

The world authorities have run out of ammunition as rates remain stuck at zero. They have no margin for error as economy falters

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

24 May 2015
The world economy is disturbingly close to stall speed. The United Nations has cut its global growth forecast for this year to 2.8pc, the latest of the multinational bodies to retreat.

We are not yet in the danger zone but this pace is only slightly above the 2.5pc rate that used to be regarded as a recession for the international system as a whole.

It leaves a thin safety buffer against any economic shock - most potently if China abandons its crawling dollar peg and resorts to 'beggar-thy-neighbour' policies, transmitting a further deflationary shock across the global economy.

The longer this soggy patch drags on, the greater the risk that the six-year old global recovery will sputter out. While expansions do not die of old age, they do become more vulnerable to all kinds of pathologies.

A sweep of historic data by Warwick University found compelling evidence that economies are more likely to stall as they age, what is known as "positive duration dependence". The business cycle becomes stretched. Inventories build up and companies defer spending, tipping over at a certain point into a self-feeding downturn.

Stephen King from HSBC warns that the global authorities have alarmingly few tools to combat the next crunch, given that interest rates are already zero across most of the developed world, debts levels are at or near record highs, and there is little scope for fiscal stimulus.

"The world economy is sailing across the ocean without any lifeboats to use in case of emergency," he said.


In a grim report - "The World Economy's Titanic Problem" - he says the US Federal Reserve has had to cut rates by over 500 basis points to right the ship in each of the recessions since the early 1970s. "That kind of traditional stimulus is now completely ruled out. Meanwhile, budget deficits are still uncomfortably large," he said.

The authorities are normally able to replenish their ammunition as recovery gathers steam. This time they are faced with a chronic low-growth malaise - partly due to a global 'savings glut', and increasingly to a slow ageing crisis across most of the Northern hemisphere. The Fed keeps having to defer its first rate rise as expectations fall short.

Each of the past four US recoveries has been weaker than the last one. The average growth rate has fallen from 4.5pc in the early 1980s to nearer 2pc this time. The US fiscal deficit has dropped to 2.8pc but is expected to climb again as pension and health care costs bite, even if the economy does well.

The US cannot easily launch a fresh New Deal. Public debt was just 38pc on GDP when Franklin Roosevelt took power in 1933, and there were few contingent liabilities hanging over future US finances.

"Fiscal stimulus – a novel idea at the time – may have been controversial, but the chances of it working to boost economic activity were quite high given the healthy starting position. Today, it is much more difficult to make the same argument," he said.

The great hope - and most likely outcome - is that the recent monetary expansion in the US and the eurozone starts to gain traction later this year. Broad 'M3' money data - a one-year advance indicator - has been growing briskly on both sides of the Atlantic. But nobody knows for sure whether the normal monetary mechanisms are working.

JP Morgan estimates that the US economy contracted at an rate of 1.1pc in the first quarter, far worse than originally supposed.

The instant tracking indicator of the Atlanta Fed – GDPnow – shows little sign that America is shaking off its mystery virus. Growth was just 0.7pc (annualised) in mid-May. It is becoming harder to argue the relapse is a winter blip or caused by temporary gridlock at California ports.

Over 100,000 lay-offs across the oil and gas belt seem to have taken their toll. The Fed thought the windfall gain of cheaper energy for everybody else would weigh more in the balance, but this time Americans have chosen to salt away the money.

Net saving jumped by $125bn to $728bn in the first quarter. There was no pick-up in April. Retail sales were flat.

It is now more likely than not that US economy has dropped through the Fed's stall-speed threshold of two consecutive quarters below 2pc growth. Exactly how far below is unclear. The Fed uses its own growth measure - gross domestic income (GDI) - and this data has not yet been published.

The stall speed concept is soft science but not to be ignored. "Output tends to transition to a slow-growth phase at the end of expansions," said a Fed research paper.

Much now depends on China, where the economy is starting to look "Japanese". Dario Perkins from Lombard Street Research says the Chinese economy is in a much deeper downturn than admitted so far by the authorities. It probably contracted outright in the first quarter.

Electricity use has turned negative. Rail freight has been falling at near double-digit rates. What began as a deliberate move by Beijing to choke off a credit bubble has taken on a life of its own, evolving into a primordial balance-sheet purge.

It was inevitable that China's investment bubble would lead to vast inventory of unsold property. The country produced more cement between 2011 and 2013 than the US in the 20th Century -

Mr Perkins said China is now in a “classic debt deflation spiral” as excess capacity holds down prices. Factory gate inflation is now minus 4.6pc. This in turn is tightening the noose further by pushing up real borrowing costs.

The Chinese authorities have so far resisted the temptation to flood the system with fresh stimulus, fearing that this would store up even greater trouble.

They have taken steps to offset a clampdown on local government spending and avert a “fiscal cliff” that might otherwise have occurred. They have loosened policy for banks just enough to offset the contractionary effects of capital flight. But they have not yet come to the rescue.

This matters enormously. Andrew Roberts from RBS says China accounted for 85pc of all global growth in 2012, 54pc in 2013, and 30pc in 2014. This is likely to fall to 24pc this year. “If there is only one statistic that you need to know in the world right now, this is it,” he said.

The effects are being felt across Asia. Japan keeps disappointing. Its exports to China have fallen 15pc over the last year. Korea is flirting with recession.

Russia, Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela are all contracting sharply, casualties of the China-driven commodity bust. The UN says the growth rate for the emerging market nexus (ex-China) has dropped to 2.3pc from an average of 6.5pc in the glory years of 2004-2007.

Europe is doing better but it is hardly a boom. The eurozone is contributing little to global demand. The region has displaced China and to become the world's "saver of last resort" - or its biggest black hole in the view of critics - exploiting the weaker euro to rack up a current account surplus of $358bn.

It is far from clear whether Europe can act as an engine of world recovery. The composite purchasing managers index (PMI) for services and manufacturing slipped in May, and new orders fell. Oxford Economics thinks the “sugar rush” from quantitative easing may be wearing off.

HSBC's Mr King says the global authorities face awful choices if the world economy hits the reefs in its current condition. The last resort may have to be "helicopter money", a radically different form of QE that injects money directly into the veins of economy by funding government spending.

It is a Rubicon that no central bank wishes to cross, though the Bank of Japan is already in up to the knees.

The imperative is to avoid any premature tightening or policy error that could crystallize the danger. As Mr King puts it acidly. "Many – including the owner of the Titanic – thought it was unsinkable: its designer, however, was quick to point out that 'She is made of iron, sir, I assure you she can'."
Greece to pull the trigger and begin the domino effect?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/m ... ment-loans
Greece warns it is set to default on debt repayment loans

Interior minister says Athens simply cannot satisfy IMF deadline next month unless it works out a deal with eurozone creditors
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Neshant »

That Greece is going to default on its loans was already known since 2009.

The European countries put a European stooge as head of the IMF (Lagarde) to "lend" money to Greece.

That money was used to pay European banks.

But Greece will ultimately default on those IMF loans leaving the rest of the world who fund the IMF holding the bag.

Basically these IMF loans are just transferring bad debt of European banks to the rest of the world.

100% scam and India fell for it having increasing its contribution to the IMF by 10 billion. Its 10 billion going directly to the pockets of European banks.
Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4852
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Neshant »

kmkraoind wrote:Japan plans $100 billion in Asia infrastructure aid, matching AIIB capital level
Where is their money coming from.

Their nation is supposedly up to their eyeballs in public debt yet they can pull 100 billion out of thin air?

Something isn't adding up.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

^ 2 reasons:

a. They need to checkpoint China and for good reason too.
b. This 100 bn is a committed future looking figure - will be provided as loans over 25 years or so, if I remember right. Not coming in one shot - so I am assuming its just that Japan plans to invest in Asia a lot more than buy US bonds / other country treasuries etc.

Besides, the ADB will have more money that could potentially be disbursed etc etc too. The crux of the argument is that Japan is getting serious about more focused involvement in Asia and will throw a challenge to the new AIID / China Exim / China Agri banks etc which are all going to be involved in the upcoming Asia infrastructure investment programs.

About time Japan did it too. They have enough cash if they did a like for like replacement of their external savings and spent the money on avenues which bring in more RoIC. They have played second fiddle to the US for too long leading to their overall detriment.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12113
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by A_Gupta »

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.

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.

I don't know enough to put any detail into the peregrinations of the seat of power of (north) India and the economic/political/strategic causes that kept it moving around. These might be good to understand however to place India's current strategic preoccupations into a proper perspective.

From Delhi, Kabul is closer in a great circle than Dhaka; but is more worlds apart. Perhaps the Indian equilibrium is too dominated by Punjab and its concerns, by West Asia, etc. Act-East is the corrective.

(These thoughts were provoked by Ajit Doval's "Bangladesh is India's most important neighbor".)
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Tuvaluan »

There was also the South Indian kings who went east in more recent history (as the Cheras, Cholas and Pandyas looked east in their policy making) one could say that depending on the regions one wants to ignore, one can see envisage patterns that may or may not exist. Just saying.

Mr. AD's statement about Bangladesh may just be recognizing that Bangladesh needs to be on Indian side of the fence and not be tempted to swing between India and China. Towards that end resolving issues that can be exploited by outside powers is a starting point. Pakistan is already on the other side of the fence and Myanmar is swinging between India and China, so securing influence in Bangladesh to limit swinging is crucial.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12113
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by A_Gupta »

^^^ I don't want to ignore the South. The point of control of the Ganga-Yamuna area, even if it doesn't have patterns, has changes, presumably for rational reasons, e.g., could be the most productive region, could be closer to where the threat is from; could be more accessible by sea and river; etc., etc. Perhaps large empires grew because of an initial good geography; and perhaps their decline was contributed to by their failure to respond adequately to a changing strategic geography. I don't claim to know the answers; and in modern times, geography of the governing power is considerably less relevant. But I see in it a metaphor for India's changing strategic focus.

Holding pattern w.r.t. Pakistan where Indian actions are very constrained and growth in the East where success is (a) more plausible and (b) more relevant to the larger threat.
Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Bade »

Bangladesh's importance to India is immense, more than what people are ready to admit. The whole Northeast can be put in turmoil if China were to be fully entrenched in Bangladesh. In that sense it is even more important than Sri Lanka is to India. In the immediate future we will also need an economic corridor from Chittagong to our Northeastern states.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

^ we should probably consider a serious SA economic union akin to the EU / NAFTA etc etc. I think SAARC tried to achieve almost that plus the security aspect but having countries which move one step fwd and 21.28992 steps backwards wont help.
Now that Modi is going to most of these nations, it will do a world of good to have more focused trade and security arrangements with the closest neighbours. Mandalas? Possibly. Buffers? Surely. Help them when they are in danger - of course. Help them grow and in the process also be a bit more safe and also grow quicker yourself.

...

And slowly move towards Central Asia.
Tuvaluan
BRFite
Posts: 1816
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by Tuvaluan »

vijaykarthik wrote: And slowly move towards Central Asia.
That's not happening as long as the Pakis are in control of Afghanistan by Proxy, as they are getting to these days, and as long as Pakis occupy PoK and/or hand it over to China. Add to that Iran's sudden change of mind after the deal with the US, and the prospects seem quite dim for the near future.
SwamyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16268
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 09:22

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by SwamyG »

Arjun wrote:^^mainly diamond trade....Jains and Patels taking on the Jews of Antwerp. In any case Beigium is the intermediary here - and Modi was working on a deal with Russia to cut Belgium out and obtain the roughs directly from Russian miners.
The Jews of Belgium in the early 20th century had a kind of trust with Jaina because they saw in them another sect that was family oriented, close, religious and dietary restriction, family businesses ityadi. And hence outsourced some work to Gujarat.
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

Tuvaluan wrote:
vijaykarthik wrote: And slowly move towards Central Asia.
That's not happening as long as the Pakis are in control of Afghanistan by Proxy, as they are getting to these days, and as long as Pakis occupy PoK and/or hand it over to China. Add to that Iran's sudden change of mind after the deal with the US, and the prospects seem quite dim for the near future.
Which is why I added the qualifier "slowly". Just because its not possible today doesn't mean the strategist works towards it. Speaking for myself, I think most times that all this claims in the border land has a dual interest - one is to keep unrest busy and the other is to effectively cut off access to resource rich regions. Think Tibet - the waterhead and the rooftop. Think W Asia / C Asia - the region where oil is plentiful. Cut off access to Afghanistan and we are effectively cut off from the Eurasian bit of land and left to be content with just the subcontinent, SE Asia with a bit of luck and waterways.

And if one is also able to effectively cut access to the IoR, mmh...
vijaykarthik
BRFite
Posts: 1169
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitical thread

Post by vijaykarthik »

^doesn't mean the strategist DOESNT work towards achieving it.
Post Reply