Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

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.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 13 Dec 2016 21:40

The real reason for change

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/opinions/ ... index.html

Trump's shockingly honest approach to Putin
Why not talk to Putin? Why not acknowledge that America cannot run the world and that other nations have legitimate strategic interests? What's fascinating about Trump is that while he might regard America as an exceptional country, he's honest about its failings and refuses to pretend it has a right to global domination.
He is assembling a team that does contain some hawks, such as, potentially, John Bolton, and that has tough talk for countries like Iran. But it's also a team of realists.
Somewhere between Obama's retreat from the Middle East and George W. Bush's invasion of it is an approach based on cautious national self-interest. I sincerely hope Trump adopts it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ramana » 15 Dec 2016 22:59

X-Posting two excellent posts here. Please continue the discussion.

Farooq wrote:In the Foundation series, Asimov lists out ways the First Foundationers went about conquering new worlds. It was Religion first and when that did not work anymore they switched to Trade. Broadly, the history of the world has shown Europeans using these two means of initial penetration in a society and then conquering with use of military might, deception and exploitation of societal fault lines.

The Russian sphere of influence under the Soviet Union was an Ideological influence akin to Religious influence.

The Chinese are bereft of the benefits of religion and even ideology of Communism has already been over exploited by the Soviets. The world is wary of Communists. This leaves Chinese the route of Trade. OBOR, BCIM, CPEC are all Trade routes to increase Chinese spheres of influence through trade. Their intent over the long term is no different from the erstwhile European colonial powers. The Chinese equivalent of colonisation may not be political or geographic capture but plain economic over dependence.

Djibouti is a good marker of the Chinese progress with mini states. Pakistan is also an easy trap. CPEC is a win-win deal for China. CPEC has allowed for greater Chinese military presence in Pakistan with signs of Gwadar turning into a permanent PLAN base is visible. The demand for PLAN ships and subs by the Pakistanis is an indication of the "colonisation" of Pakistan by China. Pakistanis are displaying advanced signs of "Stockholm Syndrome" where they are feel both a great affinity and protected by the their Captors.

It is a copy of the Western World dominance technique by the Chinese and their should be little doubt on how well the Americans understand it. The US has done the same many times over. Since, US is allowing this to happen there are 02 broad possibilities that can be guessed-
1) The US is pulling back and is no position to counter aggressive Chinese designs.
2) The US and China are on this together and the rest of the world is seeing a smoke screen in Indo China Sea ( There really has been no effort by US to stop the Chinese in these parts while all its allies wait helplessly for US to do something).

The impact of increasing Chinese influence in the Geographies of OBOR, BCIM, CPEC -
1) China is bad news for Islam. All these projects are passing through some of the most Islamic places on planet save BCIM.
2) Iran's isolation by US is forcing it into the hands of Chinese. US knows this.
3) Russia is watching from the sidelines. If the project starts succeeding, Russia also stands to lose. Many countries on the OBOR, Russia considers its sphere of influence.
4) India will feel surrounded and violated, specially with the ports in Burma and Gwadar, as also the road through Kashmir.
5) US does not have significant influence in the catchment area of most of OBOR. CPEC is one place it could effectively counter but the US is non responsive.
6) China will have massive influence on regional trade making arrangement in WTO etc moot for this area.
7) In time China will be in position to exploit trade connections with military alignments and influence making any opposition to China from any quarter in Asia would be difficult to imagine.

The time period of OBOR impact measurement could be anywhere between 25 to 30 years starting from 2015. However, early signs of successes and failures would be visible by 2020. A major threat to Chinese designs is from the weak foundations of its own economy. A collapse in China will cause a meltdown in this sphere of influence design. It is my view that the Chinese are overstretched and the Chinese Pvt firms are at times at odds in their interests with that of the Chinese State. The most significant threat to Chinese design would come from Nations opposing OBOR projects from where these pass. As of now there is only one significant opponent of a part of OBOR and that is India.

and

Rudradev wrote:Farooq, welcome to the forum and thank you for your insights.

One observation. Why do you think CPEC passing through "Islamic places" is "bad news for Islam"? I would say, on the contrary... the very presence of a commercial artery in which key players of the global economy have invested, to one extent or other, gives these regions a degree of relevance that they would never have otherwise. And the elevated relevance, in turn, means greater leverage for Islamists operating there. So it is at least good news for Islamists, if not for Islam itself.

For example: in the relative scheme of things no one much cares about Al Shabab because they mostly operate in the basketcase territory of Somalia (it is only when they do something in Kenya, for instance, that the world pays any attention at all). Boko Haram, which affects oil-producing Nigeria, or Jamia Islamiya in oil-producing Indonesia generate a higher degree of concern.

By contrast, the Islamist groups operating in theaters that sit directly athwart major existing or potential arteries of energy supply... like Jabhat al Nusra or Ahrar al Sham in Syria, produce the greatest amount of concern. Their political-ideological masters enjoy the greatest amount of leverage, because their actions are of most consequence to the international economic order.

The presence of Chinese-built and maintained OBOR arteries through Islamic regions will, I predict, strengthen the hands of Islamist groups there because it will serve as a high-value target for blackmail. China cannot possibly police every region it builds OBOR through. It will rely largely on local governments (Pakistan, Bangladesh, CARs etc.) to police the segments of OBOR passing through their territories. Those governments, in turn, can either be blackmailed by Islamists or in fact collude with Islamists to blackmail China (and other trading partners depending on the security of OBOR).

Farooq
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 06 Nov 2016 16:10

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Farooq » 15 Dec 2016 23:04

Quoting my post here :

Farooq wrote:Rudradev,

Thank You.

I agree with you that Islamists will be happy to have something to leverage with OBOR. Islam and its followers at large will not be very happy with it. The rise of fundamental Islam (wherever, whenever) has been most painful for the Muslims.

My point on China being bad news for Islam has some underlying assumptions (my own) and a few facts.

The assumptions are:
1) Communism sits better with Christianity than Islam
2) Chinese favor Christianity to Islam
3) Christians and Muslims have been at war since foundational epochs of Islam
4) Christians of Europe have figured out how to keep Muslims at war with each other
5) Chinese are masters at copying and they will copy this idea with variations of their own
6) Fundamental Islam as part of political Islam will lead to the death / irrelevance of the religion

There are certain facts that may point to possible problems for Islam and Muslims if OBOR comes to fruition:
1) Chinese have scant regard for Uyghurs and their Islamic traditions
2) They have repeatedly banned Islamic practices and do not agree with "Haram" and "Halal" world views among many other issues.
3) Islam's past and present flirting with Communism - be it in Afghanistan or with the Kurds of Turkey and Rojava.
4) In Afghanistan the rise of Islamists like Taliban was a blow back of the Communist rule (with external encouragement). This rise could have other reasons but Communism cemented large % of Muslims behind Taliban.
5) PKKs Communism has given rise to strong Sunni groups within the Kurds (again as a blow back) who make a large number of ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters in Syria and Iraq.
6) The biggest casualty of the rise in Fundamentalism in these parts are Muslims who do not agree with these groups. It has also provided opportunities for all sorts of global players to directly interfere with the Muslim world.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 15 Dec 2016 23:19

4) India will feel surrounded and violated, specially with the ports in Burma and Gwadar, as also the road through Kashmir.


This is about geo politics in the Eurasia and OBOR and India security will be threatened by hostile states

SInce PRC is the promoter of OBOR and kept a hostile relations with India for the last 60 years it becomes a threat.

PRC as a large state could have taken India into confidence before OBOR or CPEC was started and It would have been a India China partnership program in Asia.

Instead of that PRC started OBOR alone and it is for mercantile interest of PRC which benefits most along with propping up states which have hostile intention.

OBOR is a means to enter regions which China never had influence and break those regions which are collaborating. It is also to remove historical cultural relations in Asia and replace with China dominant cultural system

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ramana » 15 Dec 2016 23:43

let the discussion develop.

Atmavik
BRFite
Posts: 453
Joined: 24 Aug 2016 04:43

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Atmavik » 16 Dec 2016 00:02

Excellet posts. A bit off topic but i was wondering what happens to the Aussies? they have managed to punch way above their weight by aligning with the Anglo-Saxons. if this SCS skirmish is smoke n mirror stuff and the real goal is a G2 state the Aussies will be fine. if not they may have to choose.

Pacific grim: Australia torn between US and China

In a recent Australian-made TV political thriller called Secret City, a cyber-attack paralyses the country's air traffic control system. Authorities immediately (and incorrectly) point the finger at Chinese hackers.

It's a storyline that's telling about Australia's attitude to Asia's pre-eminent power. On the one hand, China is the country's biggest trading partner, but it also poses a potential regional military threat that's drawing the attention of the US, Australia's closest defence ally.

China, for its part, appears keenly aware of Australia's apparent reluctance to embrace it fully. In recent months, a series of bilateral irritations have sent relations between the two countries plunging to their lowest point for nearly a decade.

China has rebuked Australia for opposing its military build-up in the South China Sea. Australia has blocked Chinese investment bids, ostensibly on national security grounds. A Chinese newspaper denounced Australia as a "paper cat that won't last". Even the countries' Olympians are fighting with one another.

Troubled relationship

When Australia's census website crashed this month, throwing the national survey into chaos, speculation about a Chinese cyber-attack ran rife. Peter Cai, a research fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, says it is another illustration of the "troubled state of the relationship",

While the US has been Australia's main ally in the Asia-Pacific since World War Two, China has been central to the country's prosperity and its weathering of two global recessions.

But the balancing act which Australia has managed to perform has grown increasingly tricky of late. The US has switched its focus to the Asia-Pacific just as China asserts sovereignty over much of the South China Sea.

Last month, Beijing accused the US, Australia and Japan of "fanning the flames" of regional tensions, after the three issued a forthright statement urging China to respect an international court ruling rejecting those claims.


Tensions have spilled out beyond the diplomatic world. During the Rio Olympics, thousands of Chinese took to social media to lambast Australian swimmer Mack Horton, who branded China's Sun Yang a "drug cheat" after the latter splashed him during a training session.
Power games

And then there's the issue of direct Chinese investment in Australia. Treasurer Scott Morrison has rebuffed two foreign investment bids - one from Chinese government-owned State Grid, the other from Hong Kong-based Cheung Kong Infrastructure - for a 50.4% stake in Ausgrid, which operates the electricity network in New South Wales state.

Mr Morrison insists domestic political considerations played no part in his decision, which followed his earlier rejection of a Chinese bid for the massive Kidman cattle station.

However, some have noted that following the federal election in July the Senate contains seven pro-protectionist crossbenchers. And although Australia signed a free trade agreement with China last year, there is growing popular antipathy to Chinese ownership of Australian agricultural land and real estate.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Australia's government has blocked the sale of the enormous Kidman cattle empire to Chinese buyers

Mr Morrison declined to spell out the security concerns behind the Ausgrid decision, which left some observers scratching their heads - not least because the two Chinese companies already own parts of the power grid in other states. As the news website Crikey observed, in relation to State Grid: "If it's a national security risk, as Morrison claims it is, then we're already screwed."
Toxic mindset

China's official Xinhua news agency warned in an English-language editorial that the Ausgrid knockback could lead to "a toxic mindset of China-phobia", adding: "To suggest that China would try to kidnap the country's electricity network for ulterior motives is absurd and almost comical."

Australian-Chinese relations have not yet plumbed the depths to which they fell in 2009, when Australian businessman Stern Hu was arrested in China on spying charges. But Mr Cai believes they could deteriorate further if, for instance, Australia joins the US in freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea.

Professor Richard Rigby, a veteran China-watcher at the Australian National University, notes that Australia has two China narratives: the economic one, which saw two-way trade increase ten-fold to A$100bn (£58bn) between 2002 and 2012, and the national security narrative.

"But we've not been good at all at bridging them," he said.
Last edited by ramana on 16 Dec 2016 00:28, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added url tag. Added bold. ramana

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Agnimitra » 16 Dec 2016 00:20

Welcome, Farooq.

Farooq wrote:The US and China are on this together and the rest of the world is seeing a smoke screen in Indo China Sea ( There really has been no effort by US to stop the Chinese in these parts while all its allies wait helplessly for US to do something).

The US has purposefully ceded space to China in Af-Pak, and is allowing the Chinese dominatrix to dramatize in E.Asia. The purpose of this 'retreat' could be their own imperial overstretch. Or perhaps a Parthian shot is in the offing - just when China's economy has graduated to relative affluence and needs to adjust to changing social expectations and values, in addition to structural lacuna.

Farooq wrote:Iran's isolation by US is forcing it into the hands of Chinese. US knows this.

The US has also created conditions for the expansion of Iranian influence most notably in Iraq, but also Syria, etc. I don't think the game is as clear as who is on whose side.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 16 Dec 2016 00:34

Agnimitra wrote: The US and China are on this together and the rest of the world is seeing a smoke screen in Indo China Sea

The US has purposefully ceded space to China in Af-Pak, and is allowing the Chinese dominatrix to dramatize in E.Asia. The purpose of this 'retreat' could be their own imperial overstretch. Or perhaps a Parthian shot is in the offing - just when China's economy has graduated to relative affluence and needs to adjust to changing social expectations and values, in addition to structural lacuna.


US is looking for changes in Asia

1. Political Transformation of PRC
2. Cultural transformation of Asia

All US policies have been towards these two objectives

With increasing GDP of PRC the hold of communist Party is weakening
With PRC more able to influence states in Asia by fear or by cooperation on trade it brings about cultural transformation

Chinese expansion will also bring
Clashes among ethnic groups (Tibet/East asia etc.)
Clashes among religious groups ( Muslims vs Chinese like Uighur )

Using China , US has been able to make changes in Asian landmass and politics around it

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ramana » 16 Dec 2016 00:44

I submit if you read Farooq's thesis right, this four letter trade initiatives by China are reformation of Communist China.

its not like the way we want but its nevertheless a transformation.


The main chain that China has put on India is nuclearization of Pakistan.

Mata Hinglej is giving us a chance to break that chain with Baluchistan, POK unrest and Offensive defense.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2858
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Rudradev » 16 Dec 2016 02:45

Not sure if this has been posted here before:

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/pub ... _trap.html

The term "Thucydides Trap" is a fashionable buzzword amongst Kissingerian strategists these days. It's based on the observation of Thucydides that the Peloponnesian War started from events that might otherwise have been containable and managed peacefully, because the underlying context was one where an established power (Sparta) was threatened by a rising power (Athens). The status-quo power's insecurity about an emerging challenger, and a mirrored sense on the challenger's part that the status-quo power is sabotaging their destiny through unfair means, lead to both sides making irrational choices that result in conflict.

Kissinger liberally applies this theory to his reasoning that the US must placate China at nearly all costs.

I am not sure this theory holds much water (though a lot of think tanks have poured effort into studies based on the assumption that it does, as per the article I have linked). However, let us for the moment accept that the Thucydides Trap (TT) is a valid and historically proven model for interactions between nations.

If US accepts the validity of TT with respect to China, it will favour OBOR as a means to give China a sense of mastery in its part of the world (Asia), while simultaneously miring China in a web of obligations and responsibilities towards a variety of third countries (all the nations through which OBOR passes).

Now what about China itself? Do they accept the validity of TT? In their case, who are the upstart powers who might challenge them, and make them insecure?

India is surely one. But probably not the only one. Iran could very well be another-- they are an old imperial power, and will not quietly abide the expansion of Chinese influence west of the Tashkent-Kabul-Karachi meridian (if even that much... in its own mind, Iran is destined to be the master of all Khorasan and West Asia). Russia, flexing its muscles in the Middle East, and Japan, showing signs of reclaiming its sovereignty as a military power, are others.

Agnimitra ji observes that the US has created space for Iranian influence as well. This could be a deliberate move to exacerbate China's own insecurities of a TT with respect to Iran.

I am very intrigued by Farooq ji's argument that China and Islam will fall into mutual opposition more readily than China and Christendom (or Western civilization). This actually runs counter to Huntingdon's COC thesis where China and political Islam are viewed as natural allies that would inevitably unite to serve a mutually beneficial agenda.

If Farooq ji is right and Huntingdon wrong, the implications for China's growing engagement with a Pakistan whose organs of state are Islamizing themselves more rapidly than ever become very interesting. The grave contradictions inherent in an Allah-Army-America triumvirate were damaging to Pakistan, yet somehow survivable, because of the ingrained view of America as the successor of the erstwhile colonial master... a symbol before which the Pakis were ancestrally accustomed to bowing and scraping in exchange for largess, patronage, and baksheesh. China meanwhile is an upstart in this role. The hysterical, effusive rhetoric used to describe the Pak-China relationship ("higher than mountains, deeper than oceans") implies that there is an undercurrent of civilizational unease that the two sides are attempting to cover up, a reek of silently browned underwear that needs to be concealed by excessive spraying of cologne.

A full-tilt embrace of China and Pakistan, coupled with a Thucydides Trap dynamic operating between China and Iran, all occurring in the vacuum produced by an apparently retreating America... this may produce a degree of schizophrenia that rips our dear neighbours apart.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20399
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Prem » 16 Dec 2016 03:12

With both Russia and China aligned with Iran and now Uncle doing same by creating strategic space for Persians in ME. What's gonna happen to Saudi and Mini Moe Sheikhdoms circulating around it? Need to watch the Perfidious One making play there to remain relevant.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ramana » 16 Dec 2016 04:14

RD, All generalizations are general including this one.

Kissinger had to invoke Thucydides Trap (TT) during the FSU_PRC tango to break China away from FSU. However it does not hold true any longer when China is not a military threat but an economic threat.
Sparta and Athens were military threats to each other. BTW please read the Peloponnesian War on wiki and you get the big picture. Its roughly 30 year war in three phases.

it was democratic Athens that lost the war to oligarchic Sparta. And Sparta brought in the Persians. This war led to decline of the Athens and resulted in rise of Macedonia which was an outlier!!!! And hundred years later Alexander swept all the Greek state away and brought in Empire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

If there is any comparison its that democratic US and Oligarchic/Warlord China
And Russia plays role of Persia!

As for Farooq's analysis the idea is in the intro paragraph while referring to Foundation.

He says trade is the next step after ideology.

If China pushes trade then when it meets Islam, then ideology has to make way.
That has been the force of history.

However Islam has internal correctors that restore the deen when faced with adversity.

And HAK is wrong on another count. TT trap is within the Greek family. While US and China are not the same family.

I think the Greco-Persian wars from 499-449 BC which resulted iN Greek Victory led to the TT because having no external enemies Athens and Sparta fought each other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars

Maybe FSU collapse is like Persian collapse in 449 BC and now US and China are jostling for power?

That would be a real Peloponnesian trap not TT!
BTW, XiPing dismissed the TT as he said if you make strategic mistake don't blame history.

So he is more aware then US leaders and think tank chatteratti.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 17 Dec 2016 01:24

In the US China dominance game Russia has to side with one power. Whom will it choose

45 years ago, Kissinger envisioned a ‘pivot’ to Russia. Will Trump make it happen?
45 years ago, Kissinger envisioned a ‘pivot’ to Russia. Will Trump make it happen?

John Pomfret is the author of “The Beautiful Country and the Middle Kingdom: America and China, 1776 to the Present.”

On Feb. 14, 1972, President Richard Nixon and his national security adviser Henry Kissinger met to discuss Nixon’s upcoming trip to China. Kissinger, who had already taken his secret trip to China to begin Nixon’s historic opening to Beijing, expressed the view that compared with the Russians, the Chinese were “just as dangerous. In fact, they’re more dangerous over a historical period.”

Kissinger then observed that “in 20 years your successor, if he’s as wise as you, will wind up leaning towards the Russians against the Chinese.” He argued that the United States, as it sought to profit from the enmity between Moscow and Beijing, needed “to play this balance-of-power game totally unemotionally. Right now, we need the Chinese to correct the Russians and to discipline the Russians.” But in the future, it would be the other way around.

Could it be that, almost 45 years after Nixon’s breakthrough with China, the United States’ 45th president will be taking Kissinger’s advice? President Obama tried to make a “pivot” to Asia the capstone of his foreign policy. Will Donald Trump make a “pivot” toward Moscow, and away from Beijing, a capstone of his?

With a series of tweets, phone calls, interviews and statements by surrogates, President-elect Trump has signaled a new, tough policy against China. Breaking with decades of precedent, he spoke directly with the president of Taiwan, who called on Dec. 2 to congratulate him on his victory. Two days later, in an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Trump raised questions about the one-China policy, under which Washington, Beijing and Taipei have kept the peace in Asia since the Nixon trip. He accused China of manipulating its currency, cheating the United States on trade and failing to help the United States deal with the North Korean nuclear program. Meanwhile, Carly Fiorina, who is reportedly under consideration to be Trump’s director of national intelligence, met with the president-elect Monday and emerged from the conversation announcing that the pair had discussed China as “probably our most important adversary and a rising adversary.”

svenkat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4725
Joined: 19 May 2009 17:23

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svenkat » 17 Dec 2016 22:07

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/12/16/indias-economy-surpasses-that-of-great-britain/#21fb9d8239eb

As Theresa May returned home from her unsuccessful visit to India, she would bear witness to another relegation for the UK: India’s economy will be larger than the UK’s, for the first time in more than 100 years. This dramatic shift has been driven by India’s rapid economic growth over the past 25 years as well as Britain's recent woes, particularly with the Brexit. Once expected to overtake the UK GDP in 2020, the surpasso has been accelerated by the nearly 20% decline in the value of the pound over the last 12 months, consequently UK’s 2016 GDP of GBP 1.87 trillion converts to $2.29 trillion at exchange rate of ~GBP 0.81 per $1, whereas India’s GDP of INR 153 trillion converts to $2.30 trillion at exchange rate of ~INR 66.6 per $1. Furthermore, this gap is expected to widen as India grows at 6 to 8% p.a. compared to UK’s growth of 1 to 2% p.a. until 2020, and likely beyond. Even if the currencies fluctuate that modify these figures to rough equality, the verdict is clear that India’s economy has surpassed that of the UK based on future growth prospects.


History teaches us that milestones are important, that they can help clarify and bring to light underlying long-term trends, as well as encourage people to shed their biases. Japan’s victory over Russia in 1905 is an illustrative example: The event helped break the conception of the inability of the East to militarily defeat a western power and also highlighted the economic rise of Japan that had gradually taken place over the second half of the 19th century. India’s overtaking of the UK’s GDP in 2016 could serve as a similar moment.


This surpasso has three important implications. First, it highlights India’s arrival on the global stage and a significant change in power dynamics between India and the west. The effects of this are already being witnessed in India’s repudiation of a trade deal with the UK, where it stood firm in its ask for more favorable immigration for Indian nationals. Another example is the failure of May to secure a meeting with the Tata Group, who has 4,000 British employees at a steel plant in Port Talbot, that could potentially be shut down. Second it should give India the ability to shed any residual notion of colonial inferiority and enable it to have a more open mindset and look at alternative nations to emulate. For example, India could increasingly look at China, a country of similar population and closer to India’s own cultural tradition, as a model for its own economic growth.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5111
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby devesh » 20 Dec 2016 12:14

"India will feel surrounded and violated": I've never seen PRC's string of pearls strategy being described as having a "violating" effect on India. "surrounded and violated" is peculiarly specific choice of wording. May I ask why you feel this way, Farooq?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 25 Dec 2016 05:18

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/12/ ... obama.html

The vicious condemnation of Israel at the UN Security Council on December 23, 2016 is a watershed moment in U.S.-UN relations – albeit not as President Obama hoped. Following the vote of fourteen in favor and one American abstention, Palestinian representative Riyadh Mansour and American Ambassador Samantha Power exchanged a telling handshake. Evidently, President Obama believes that he has put one over on Israel, Prime Minister Netanyahu and the incoming Trump administration. But here’s another possibility: treachery at the UN will not be cost free.

Let’s be absolutely clear about what has just happened. The Palestinians have completed the hijacking of every major UN institution. The 2016 General Assembly has adopted nineteen resolutions condemning Israel and nine critical of all other UN states combined. The 2016 Commission on the Status of Women adopted one resolution condemning Israel and zero on any other state. The 2016 UN Human Rights Council celebrated ten years of adopting more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than any other place on earth. And now – to the applause of the assembled – the Palestinians can add the UN Security Council to their list.

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1032
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby chanakyaa » 26 Dec 2016 05:10

Competing Visions
A geoeconomic contest is underway to shape Asia’s future. Regional powers are putting forward ambitious plans for building roads, railways, pipelines, and other hard infrastructure across the region.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 27 Dec 2016 08:36

Geopolitics, Globalization, And World Order



Control of a nation

Historically, control of a nation takes place through military power that allows for a variety of impositions. Also, culture is part of the process of conquering a nation. Today, other than militarily, it is mainly economic power that determines the national sovereignty of a nation. In the modern world, especially in the last three decades, if you control the economy of a nation, you control the rulers of that nation. The dollar and neoliberal experiments like globalization are basically the two most powerful and invasive American tools to employ against geopolitical opponents. The application of military force is no longer the sole means of conquering and occupying a country. Obligating the use of a foreign currency for trade or limiting military supplies from a single source, and impeding strategic decisions in the energy sector, are ways the globalist elites are able to dominate a foreign country, taking control over its policies. The European Union and the NATO-member countries are good examples of what artificially independent nations look like, because they are in reality fully dispossessed of strategic choices in the areas mentioned. Washington decides and the vassals obey.

It is not always possible to employ military power as in the Middle East, or to stage a color revolution as in Ukraine. Big and significant nations like Russia, India, China and Iran are virtually impossible to control militarily, leaving only the financial option available. In this sense, the role of central banks and the de-dollarization process are a core strategic interest for these countries as a way of maintaining their full sovereignty. In going in this direction, they deliver a dramatic blow to US aspirations for a global empire

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8683
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby UlanBatori » 27 Dec 2016 08:57

Same with energy dependence. Every rise in GDP comes with a spike in energy Jeziya, paid in BO$$, pushing the rupee value down that much more. Which is where India needs to break out first.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5111
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby devesh » 28 Dec 2016 08:02

Pay attention to the virtual collapse of US-Israel strategic alliance. Trump might be able to reverse some of it, but won't be able to turn the clock back. I think the US-Israel bonhomie that existed before Obama - is now gone.

Obama is an example of a statesman who pursues the inverse of strategy in foreign policy. He oversaw the almost complete retreat of US power from West Asia, and now he's spending the last few weeks destroying the alliance with the only western-oriented ally in the region.

Trump will do one of 2 things: he'll explicitly try to defund or attack legitimacy of UN, OR he'll simply elevate the relationship with Israel above and over any UN resolution or laws.

Either way, the "relevance" of UN (in the sense that it's diktats are considered as good as international law) is going to take a hit.

For India, this is a good thing. We have virtually no stake in setting the agenda at the UN. It's probably more of a positive thing for India, than negative, if the UN becomes irrelevant.

GShankar
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 20:20

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby GShankar » 28 Dec 2016 08:37

So Abe goes and says sorry. Not sure why?

Is this the price to pay before hosting Vlad and make a few deals with him so that he may not have to closely hugg Eleven?

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Agnimitra » 29 Dec 2016 02:18

X-post from Iran sutra:

Iran, Russia See Opportunity to Encircle the US in Afghanistan

Signs of Iran-Russia-Pakhanastan axis in Afghanistan.
The Iran-Pak affair was already cooking when Paki Gilani visited his 'ancestral hometown' Rasht during his Iran trip. Now Russia.

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1032
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby chanakyaa » 30 Dec 2016 01:40

US expels 35 Russian diplomats, closes 2 compounds
Thirty-five Russian diplomats have been expelled from the US, according to a senior official. President Obama described those expelled as “intelligence operatives,” also announcing the closure of two Russian compounds, in New York and Maryland.
The Russian diplomats would be given 72 hours to leave US soil, the official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

The Russian staff will also be denied access to the New York and Maryland compound as of noon on Friday, the source added.
...(more)

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 30 Dec 2016 11:32



India and China are fast emerging as major maritime powers of the Indo-Pacific as part of long term shifts in the regional balance of power. As their wealth, interests and power expand, India and China also increasingly come into contact with each other in the shared Indo-Pacific maritime domain.

The extent to which their interactions in this space will involve elements of cooperation, coexistence, competition or confrontation may be one of the key strategic issues of the 21st century. This conference brings together leading experts from India, China and Australia to discuss the India-China relationship in the Indo-Pacific maritime domain. It will focus on:

Indian and Chinese perspectives on the status and legitimacy of their roles and military presence in the Indian Ocean.

Changes in Indian perspectives on China and the Indian Ocean under the Modi and Singh governments.

Aspects of India’s evolving naval strategy in the Indian Ocean, including Indian perspectives on maritime domain awareness.

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1250
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby schinnas » 30 Dec 2016 19:14

devesh wrote:Pay attention to the virtual collapse of US-Israel strategic alliance. Trump might be able to reverse some of it, but won't be able to turn the clock back. I think the US-Israel bonhomie that existed before Obama - is now gone.

Obama is an example of a statesman who pursues the inverse of strategy in foreign policy. He oversaw the almost complete retreat of US power from West Asia, and now he's spending the last few weeks destroying the alliance with the only western-oriented ally in the region.

Trump will do one of 2 things: he'll explicitly try to defund or attack legitimacy of UN, OR he'll simply elevate the relationship with Israel above and over any UN resolution or laws.

Either way, the "relevance" of UN (in the sense that it's diktats are considered as good as international law) is going to take a hit.

For India, this is a good thing. We have virtually no stake in setting the agenda at the UN. It's probably more of a positive thing for India, than negative, if the UN becomes irrelevant.

..........

Interesting observations. US has been shooting itself in the foot strategically for the past 12+ years, first by overextending itself in Iraq and Afghanistan and secondly by betting on the wrong horse in Syria.

Putin has showed US how to intervene effectively and deliver results. For all the Trillions of USD and thousands of its soldiers spent on Iraq and Afghanistan, US has little to show for it. Compare it to Russia's calculated and determined actions in Crimea and Syria, where it has been able to accomplish tangible results with minimal casualties.

For all his buffonery, Trump may be getting something right in his tilt towards Russia and Israel. US has nothing to accomplish by siding with Palestine. No mulsim is going to start loving US for what Obama has done.

US would do well to bring Russia within its orbit, by giving it MFN trade status and weaning it away from China. Similarly, US has had a overwhelming influence in west asia until recently. It needs to gain its preeminent position in West Asia again and extend its influence in IOR region by forming strong partnership with India. Nixon and Kissinger were right that China is a longer term threat to US than Russia. There is zero shared racial / civilizational attributes between US and China, while Russia is super eager to look west and be considered as a European power than Asian power. The biggest strategic mistake of US was not in co-opting Russia after the end of cold war. Very surprising and inexplicable failure for a nation that managed to co-opt Vietnam and Japan into allies after fighting bitter wars with them. It has to do with institutionalized enmity and suspicion of Russia from cold war times which should have been too difficult for them to shake off.

If Trump is smart, he would pursue a contain and reverse strategy w.r.to China. First, by forming strong partnership with Russia and accommodating its aspirations and pride and strengthening its partnership with traditional allies (sans Pakistan) and new partner of India, he would retake the preeminent role US has enjoyed in IOR, West Asia and also get (in partnership with Russia) influence in CAS region. That leaves only African region to unquestioned Chinese influence. With a better arrangement than TPP, he can curtail Cheen's export driven trade bulldozer and force Cheen to retreat from its global aspirations in regions outside of South China Sea, Africa and China-Pacific region. Part of the equation would require that Cheen be cut access to West Asia and CAS.. in other words kill CPEC and Cheen influence in Afghanistan and Iran, which it can easily accomplish by co-opting Russia and India. Meanwhile, arm local challengers to Cheen hegemony such as Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan and India to the hilt with force multiplier weapons and keep the Taiwan and SCS pot boiling. This is doable if Trump can effect a 1% reduction in Cheen's GDP growth by improving trade with TPP Countries and India and Russia at the expense of China. US was the force that built the Cheen economic growth and it can also be the force that slows down Cheen momentum if it plays its cards right.

With a slowing economy, Cheen would be forced to scale down its aspirations and tactically retreat to focus on Taiwan, SCS, and China-Pacific belt.

I hope Trump does not undermine UN and other world bodies which US helped create. It will be suicidal for US to attempt such things before US manages to defang China.
manages to accomplish it, the game changes entirely in CAS, West Asia and IOR. That would force Cheen to think about a tactical retreat and fight it out in Pacific belt.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Agnimitra » 30 Dec 2016 21:56

Russia's courtship of Pakistan has been happening in stages for a while now. TV channel RT has featured interviews with people like Hamid Gul, at a time when Putin was openly heaping contempt on Sonia-Manmohan's India. Russia supported Pak entry into SCO. Russian banks offered over a billion in credit line to Pak. Russia came up with a bailout package to Pak for steel mills. And so on.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5704
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby krisna » 30 Dec 2016 23:08

schinnas wrote: ----snip----

Nixon and Kissinger were right that China is a longer term threat to US than Russia. There is zero shared racial / civilizational attributes between US and China, while Russia is super eager to look west and be considered as a European power than Asian power. The biggest strategic mistake of US was not in co-opting Russia after the end of cold war. Very surprising and inexplicable failure for a nation that managed to co-opt Vietnam and Japan into allies after fighting bitter wars with them. It has to do with institutionalized enmity and suspicion of Russia from cold war times which should have been too difficult for them to shake off.

US was the force that built the Cheen economic growth and it can also be the force that slows down Cheen momentum if it plays its cards right.

With a slowing economy, Cheen would be forced to scale down its aspirations and tactically retreat to focus on Taiwan, SCS, and China-Pacific belt.
------snip----


I snipped a few quotes from the post.

I differ a few in above . actually you have already given reasons as seen in bolded ones.

1) Nixon and Kissenger always felt ussr was a threat not china. They wanted to wean china away from ussr so that they wanted to unsettle ussr which worked largely. Pakistan helped here to detriment of India.
They sort of believed in heartland theory. ussr commanded huge land mass in asia Europe. prize was reduing ussr and retaimning in fluence.
china was a huge mass of island with no outlet in some ways in 1970s. it had huge mass of hungry poor people. America was strong -induced it. china accepted it gleefully on its terms. anyway bad blood was with ussr with short wars on its borders which helped it also.


2) After ussr demise, usa helped Russia thru yeltsin but wanted total destruction of the state. But luckily for the world and Russians it did not happen completely. Vietnam and japan were totally decimated and capitulated. had no strong capability to withstand American pressure. not so Russia.

3) The institutionalised suspicion by deep state in usa was more or less set up by Kissinger and his proteges. see the relevance of point 1)

4) chine helped by usa is true to a large extent. see point 1) as to why. could have been India with large population poor and more englkish speaking people along with democracy but not selected. Actually usa thru Christian heritage did not want it.

communism as a factor was redundant. India with large population could be more than a match but agenda was something else. of course Indira Gandhi JLN had different ideas but usa would have had more success if pursued seriously. esp JLN asked for american help and many Indians favourable towards usa for quite sometime since 1900s onwards.


JMTs.
can poke holes in it. happy to learn.

Y. Kanan
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 27 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Y. Kanan » 31 Dec 2016 03:46

svinayak wrote:US is looking for changes in Asia

1. Political Transformation of PRC
2. Cultural transformation of Asia


I'm not convinced the US-dominated western bloc is genuinely interested in a Chinese democratic transformation. I expect western think tanks are coming around to the opinion that a democratic China may prove even more formidable and difficult to marginalize than the current "communist" govt. Rising nationalism and Chinese pride are changing the equation. If China goes democratic it won't necessarily become a weak, pliable state like Russia was under Yeltsin.

krisna
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5704
Joined: 22 Dec 2008 06:36

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby krisna » 31 Dec 2016 05:14

with the rise of Chinese to rival western civilisation becoming more powerful steadily . what are the options to undercut so that usa as fountain of western powers remains number one.

1) remove economic support thru various means
2) military enagagement-- which is practically nil due to both being nuke powers with both having capability of significant damage to each other.
3) soft power is useless unless backed by hard power. again not significant alone.


1) economic issues are the key for usa to unhinge Chinese imperial ambitions.

How it can do it ?

Thru Nato partners- not worth it.
Thru Asean nations(including aus nz)-- tough unless all come together and act unitedly which is not easy. not sustainable in long run. All are also intertwined economically with china despite tough posturing over south champa sea(courtsey SSridhar :P )

Thru Russia-- possible a large power with large border with china. Problem is deep state invested heavily in cold war rhetoric. will oppose tooth and nail on rapprochement with Russia. From russiasn POV, prefers china than usa due to varied interests. with no trust of americans.

Thru paksitan- well usa has burnt its fingers royally all these years. It had its interests to act like this. But will it continue in future. doubt it., Also Pakistan close to china. will not act against china.

Thru India looks rosy compared to others with large population huge market Indians well disposed to usa. has issues with china over border.
But problems are usa has strong constituency looking thru christian prism for conversions which will fight tooth and nail. cold war mentality in deep state.
from Indian side, no trust of usa due to the above issues. usa demands and no reciprocity in relationship which India detests.


One area of cooperation which hugely impact china and possible remove a major factor in terrorism of Europe and usa is India acquiring J&K and liberation of Baluchistan. Either one or both could have serious implications on china Pakistan axis.


Of course this is from Indian POV is excellent. But will usa planners have kept this scenario in mind. or are they thinking of taking India on board minus J&K and Baluchistan freedom.Terrorism will be directed against India rather than western interest. anyway India faces it all the time hence no big problem.


Going alone for usa is tough and well not likely to stop china. It needs some allies.

GShankar
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 20:20

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby GShankar » 31 Dec 2016 06:22

Y. Kanan wrote:
svinayak wrote:US is looking for changes in Asia

1. Political Transformation of PRC
2. Cultural transformation of Asia


I'm not convinced the US-dominated western bloc is genuinely interested in a Chinese democratic transformation. I expect western think tanks are coming around to the opinion that a democratic China may prove even more formidable and difficult to marginalize than the current "communist" govt. Rising nationalism and Chinese pride are changing the equation. If China goes democratic it won't necessarily become a weak, pliable state like Russia was under Yeltsin.


Only reason anyone will want chinese democratic transformation is to affect regime changes as and when one pleases. So, the west wanted china to be democratic since 50 years or so ago. But CCP is well set to resist all moves due to their complete control of internet especially and everything else.

And ooman rights is also not a foreign policy priority for the west anymore. So, something new should have to be imagined.

GShankar
BRFite
Posts: 868
Joined: 16 Sep 2016 20:20

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby GShankar » 31 Dec 2016 06:52

bhoy iz thiz..

Is this how one warms up to DTA? May be a good strategy..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/britains-leaderbreaks-with-kerrys-condemnation-of-israel/2016/12/30/33371564-ce97-11e6-a87f-b917067331bb_story.html

British leader Theresa May breaks with John Kerry’s condemnation of Israel

Image

British Prime Minister Theresa May condemned a blunt speech this week by Secretary of State John F. Kerry on the state of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an unusual move that boosted Britain’s relations with the incoming Trump administration at the expense of President Obama.

The rare diplomatic spat between Britain and the United States, which was met with surprise by the State Department, highlighted the fast-collapsing influence of the lame-duck White House. It also pointed to a vast reordering of international affairs expected after Donald Trump takes office in three weeks, as U.S. allies position themselves to curry favor in the new order.

The transatlantic split was particularly unexpected given that May’s government acted as a key broker between U.S. and Palestinian interests ahead of a U.N. Security Council vote last week to declare Israeli settlement construction “illegal.” British diplomats worked as go-betweens in shaping the measure to ensure that the language was acceptable to the United States, Britain’s Guardian and Israel’s Haaretz newspapers reported this week.

Kerry on Wednesday offered a harsh assessment of the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, saying that “his current coalition is the most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by its most extreme elements.” He criticized persistent Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank as a threat to the “two-state solution” under which Israel and a new Palestinian state would coexist side by side.

May’s office retorted that “we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally.” It said in an emailed statement late Thursday that “we are also clear that the settlements are far from the only problem in this conflict. In particular, the people of Israel deserve to live free from the threat of terrorism, with which they have had to cope for too long.”

The move was an olive branch both to Netanyahu and to ­President-elect Trump, who railed against the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from the vote on the Security Council resolution condemning the settlements and who has urged Israel to “stay strong” until he assumes office Jan. 20. Trump has expressed near-unconditional support for actions by the Israeli government, breaking with long-standing U.S. policy that has sought a middle ground between the two sides.

Kerry’s speech and the U.S. abstention in the Security Council vote were received warmly by Germany and France, among other European nations, which led to a stunned reaction in Washington to the message from May’s office.

“We are surprised by the U.K. Prime Minister’s office statement given that Secretary Kerry’s remarks — which covered the full range of threats to a two-state solution, including terrorism, violence, incitement and settlements — were in line with the U.K.’s own longstanding policy and its vote at the United Nations last week,” the State Department said in a statement.

British leaders have publicly embraced Trump since his victory last month, despite his urging that Nigel Farage, a lead campaigner for Britain’s exit from the European Union and a thorn in the side of the British government, be named British ambassador to Washington. Britain, which is preparing to negotiate the terms of a messy exit from the E.U., is hoping that a strong economic relationship with the United States will help smooth out the disruptions.

During his presidential campaign, Trump praised Britain’s vote to leave the European Union and took to calling himself “Mr. Brexit.”

This week, Britain’s ambassador in Washington, Kim Darroch, expressed hope that Trump and May would build “on the legacy of previous leaders such as President Reagan and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.”

Kerry’s hour-long speech Wednesday was unusual in its breadth and frankness, coming from a man who devoted
much of his energy as the top U.S. diplomat toward Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that were ultimately abandoned.

Kerry said Wednesday that Israeli settlement activity, which has accelerated in recent years, was extending far into the West Bank, “in the middle of what, by any reasonable definition, would be the future Palestinian state.”

“No one thinking seriously about peace can ignore the reality of what the settlements pose to that peace,” he said.

The speech came at a historic low in relations between Israel and the United States, the Jewish state’s staunchest international ally. The Obama administration intended the abstention on the U.N. resolution as a warning
sign to the Netanyahu government that international support would not be unconditional as Israeli settlement populations swell.

The Australian government also distanced itself Friday from the Obama administration’s stance on settlements and the U.N. resolution.

Australia supports negotiations leading to two independent states, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. But she said that Australia — which is not currently a member of the Security Council — did not support the U.N. resolution condemning settlements.

“In voting at the U.N., the coalition government has consistently not supported one-sided resolutions targeting Israel,” the statement said.

The impending realignment of U.S. foreign policy that apparently led to the rare break between Downing Street and the White House could also be seen Friday in Russia, where President Vladimir Putin opted not to retaliate publicly against fresh U.S. sanctions and the expulsion of 35 Russian officials from U.S. territory.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had recommended Friday the expulsion of 35 U.S. officials in retaliation. But Putin appears to be banking on markedly warmer relations with Trump.

The president-elect has praised the Kremlin and expressed disbelief at an assessment by the U.S. intelligence community that hackers backed by the Russian government were responsible for the leaks of sensitive emails from Democratic Party officials in a bid to help Trump win the White House.

chanakyaa
BRFite
Posts: 1032
Joined: 18 Sep 2009 00:09
Location: Hiding in Karakoram

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby chanakyaa » 31 Dec 2016 09:05

Get Ready for Passport "Globalization"
“The bottom line is that anyone can be ISIS. We therefore need an approach to securing civilized societies that doesn't allow individuals to hide behind the cloak of Western passports… The time has come for a "global passport," a parallel digital certification of a person's identity, background, criminal record, travel history, and other details. The digital record would be regularly updated based on databases from airlines, customs agencies, banks and other sources, and could be managed by an independent international authority.

The quotation above comes from CNN, an American news network that has done such an exemplary job in recent years in serving as a mouthpiece

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Neshant » 31 Dec 2016 11:06

^^^
The move is afoot to put everyone under a system where earnings, savings and transactions are controlled & monitored by a select few up top.
That in addition to your online footprint, conversations, emails.. etc forms a complete digital profile of an individual.
That has negative implications for those who do not tow the narrative of the few up top.

Many do not understand this with the ignoramus cheering on moves designed to end their financial & personal freedoms.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 31 Dec 2016 15:04

George Soros: Trump a 'would-be dictator'

Soros said that while the U.S. would prevent Trump from becoming a true authoritarian, his presidency would nonetheless set back the cause of freedom worldwide.
“I am confident that democracy will prove resilient in the U.S.,” he said. "Its Constitution and institutions, including the fourth-estate, are strong enough to resist the excesses of the executive branch, thus preventing a would-be dictator from becoming an actual one.

“But the U.S. will be preoccupied with internal struggles in the near future, and targeted minorities will suffer. The U.S. will be unable to protect and promote democracy in the rest of the world.”

Soros predicted Trump will appease foreign dictators, sacrificing American principles for his administration’s success.

“On the contrary, Trump will have greater affinity with dictators,” he said. "That will allow some of them to reach an accommodation with the U.S., and others to carry on without interference. Trump will prefer making deals to defending principles. Unfortunately, that will be popular with his core constituency."


panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3556
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby panduranghari » 03 Jan 2017 18:05

How Dr. Strangelove Learned to Love Trump

Sixty years ago, the young Kissinger was keen on introducing the US to Europe’s complex history and arcane style of diplomacy. He wanted American leaders to resemble such sophisticates as Klemens von Metternich and Otto von Bismarck. But, as the Nobel laureate Bob Dylan famously put it, “The times, they are a-changin’,” and today Kissinger wants to explain Trump’s uniquely “American style” to the world – a reversal that may reflect his disappointment at having failed in his original venture.

Substantively, Kissinger’s message to his sophisticated European and Asian colleagues seems to be, “Don’t panic.” Trump may look and sound strange, Kissinger might say, but he is quintessentially American, and America today needs to overhaul its relations with the world. By this reasoning, Trump’s unorthodox approach might be just what America – and the world – needs.

/snip/

One explanation for the two men’s unnatural alliance is that they have compatible views on Russian President Vladimir Putin, even if their larger foreign-policy outlooks differ. Whereas Trump admires Putin’s muscular nationalism and authoritarian decisiveness, Kissinger has long believed that there is no better alternative for Russia.

Beyond this, a more straightforward explanation is that Trump has played on Kissinger’s vanity, not least by seeking his advice early in the campaign. To be sure, Kissinger may be more sagacious than his fellow elites in claiming that there is more to Trump than meets the eye. But it is just as likely that, at 93, Kissinger is simply more susceptible than ever to flattery. By asking for his advice, Trump is intimating to Kissinger that he considers him a man of the present, not the past. And Kissinger, for his part, may be hoping for a future role in the new administration, such as a “special envoy” responsible for resetting relations with Russia or even China.

/snip/

Putting aside ideology, we know that Kissinger is fascinated, if not obsessed, with power. He may be unable to resist the temptation to be close to it, and to have an enduring influence relatively comparable to that of Elizabeth II

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48072
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ramana » 03 Jan 2017 22:13

PandurangHari, If DT fails a new world order will be setup by West.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 04 Jan 2017 10:51

The New order is already proposed

How To Address Strategic Insecurity In A Turbulent Age

Zbigniew Brzezinski
Former U.S. National Security Adviser (1977-1981)
Image

The ideal geopolitical response to the crisis of global power is a trilateral connection between the United States, China and Russia.

Currently, China’s relationship with Russia seems to offer Beijing a somewhat more attractive short-term alternative, though both sides have historical grievances that make each suspect the intentions of the other. This is why the ambitious Chinese initiative of OBOR (One Belt, One Road) in Central Asia has produced some uneasiness in Moscow, which has been cautiously encouraging a local slowdown in the development of China’s planned commercial outreach all the way to Europe.


ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI
The Russian province of Amur Oblast (blue vertical stripes) has a population of 830,000. In its entire Far East District, Russia has a population of 6 million. On the other side of Amur River border between Russia and China the Chinese province of Heilongjiang (in red horizontal stripes) has a population of 40 million.
The scale of this contrast could provoke geopolitical problems between China and Russia in the not-too-distant future. In the longer run still for Russia, the most ominous of all may be the spreading hope among some Chinese military leaders that China will eventually regain the huge spaces of the far eastern Siberian areas acquired forcibly in the mid-1800s by tsarist Russia. The distant and basically unpopulated extremities of Asia could thus become the long-run focus of China’s vision of its geopolitical restoration.

Its aspirations can only be realized if Russia evolves ultimately into a leading player in Europe as China comes to dominate the East.
In any case, Russia is faced with an increasingly complex relationship with both China and the U.S., which inevitably constrains its long-range ambitions. Its aspirations can only be realized if Russia ― disabused of the idea of continental supremacy ― evolves ultimately into a leading player in Europe itself.

The U.S. Must Not Treat China as an Enemy

At the same time, it needs to be acknowledged that America’s policy towards China has become more ambiguous and lacking in a shared strategic vision that was so characteristic a decade or two ago of the increasingly cordial relationship between Washington and Beijing.

The U.S must be wary of the great danger that China and Russia could form a strategic alliance, generated in part by their own internal, political, and ideological momentum, and in part by the poorly thought out policies of the United States. The U.S. should not act towards China as if it were already an enemy; significantly, it should not favor India as America’s principal ally in Asia. This would almost guarantee a closer connection between China and Russia. Nothing is more dangerous to the U.S. than such a close connection.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. role in the politically awakened Eurasia is becoming increasingly defensive. The U.S. is residually present in the region ― in the U.S.-controlled Pacific islands ― thereby demonstrating America’s stake in Eurasian security. The U.S. is openly committed to defend both Japan and South Korea. But that commitment depends on strategic caution as well as determination.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 21876
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby SSridhar » 04 Jan 2017 12:38

svinayak wrote:The New order is already proposed

How To Address Strategic Insecurity In A Turbulent Age

Zbigniew Brzezinski
. . . . The U.S. should not act towards China as if it were already an enemy; significantly, it should not favor India as America’s principal ally in Asia. This would almost guarantee a closer connection between China and Russia. Nothing is more dangerous to the U.S. than such a close connection.

That is untrue. Though Khrushchev stopped assistance to China in 1960s and the Ussuri clashes took place subsequently, the China-Russia relation has been on the mend subsequently especially after Gorbachev assumed power. The Iraq bombing etc made these countries come closer. The European/US sanctions have forced Russia to seek greater relationship with China. India's hypothetical role cannot be any greater than what has already happened.

panduranghari
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3556
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby panduranghari » 04 Jan 2017 14:51

Brzezinski may have his opinions based on the supposed supremacy of America, based on past experiences and some how we all believe Americans are invincible.

US -Russia- China game is like the finale of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly- Blondie, Tuco and Angel Eyes facing off against each other. All hate each other but they have to work with each other until the destination is reached. They want to control the great game.

Needless to say I do not believe in this nonsense. Rome also had these delusions but they withered away.

Added later-

The Chinese model of growth is a collossal failure. Proof- http://bawerk.net/2017/01/03/chinese-ph ... -religion/

The American model of growth is also a failure. Proof- What is a tumour? Growth for the sake of growth. The tumour as it grows largers consumes the host. And it already has done that to the American state. Irrespective of TSJ's protests, its the reality.

Russia thinks it can bomb the shit out of populations. They have not got enough booots on the ground to make their plans into a reality.

The 3 will just shoot each other. And funny enough, leaders of all the 3 depend on the others to live and validate their state policies.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aakashrj, Ashok Sarraff, Avinash Rav, Falijee, Google [Bot], Yogesh and 39 guests