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.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ramana » 04 Jan 2017 22:29

Kosovo campaign drew the Russians and Chinese together.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60490
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Singha » 04 Jan 2017 23:21

the 'mistake' of bombing the chinese consulate was not a mistake perhaps.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ramana » 04 Jan 2017 23:27

Singha wrote:the 'mistake' of bombing the chinese consulate was not a mistake perhaps.


No. It was deliberate and the Chinese realized and orchestrated a long and strident weeping protest.

Look at the timeline of when the Chinese Embassy bombing happened.
And what else was happening at that time in the world.

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7533
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Gerard » 05 Jan 2017 00:16

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

"Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac ... They are women attracted only to my power. But what happens when my power is gone? They’re not going to sit around playing chess with me "- Henry Kissinger - The New York Times (28 October 1973)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ramana » 05 Jan 2017 00:29

HAK is the US Rasputin.


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17866
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Philip » 11 Jan 2017 10:17

The nation which has used dirty tricks" in history more than anyone else now cries "foul" over Russia's alleged hacking,etc.!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... tee-russia
Russia's London embassy: UK preparing anti-Moscow witch-hunt
Foreign secretary tells incoming US administration that Russia and Putin have been ‘up to all sorts of very dirty tricks’
Boris Johnson during a visit to Washington DC.

Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor
Wednesday 11 January 2017
The Russian embassy in London has accused the Foreign Office of preparing to mount a witch-hunt against Moscow in the wake of allegations by the UK foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, that Russia has been “up to all sorts of tricks”.

Johnson had claimed that the Kremlin was behind the hack of the Democratic campaign headquarters computer during the US presidential race, the first time that the UK has confirmed US intelligence reports linking the hacks to Russia.

In a lengthy statement, the Russian embassy claimed the coming attacks on the Russians by the British were partly due to the country’s role in negotiating a ceasefire in Syria and its role in convening peace talks.

Accusing the British of trying to brief the incoming US administration against Russia, the embassy claimed the attacks were either designed to lead to a re-run of the EU referendum, or to save the EU project now under attack from angry electorates.

The embassy claimed: “Western elites will go to great lengths to save their own world with its Washington consensus, Davos and austerity, even if it does no longer benefit anybody else. Its demise is presented as the end of the world, another twilight of Europe. This panic and hysterics is a response to the overall loss of control, which brought about war a hundred years ago. It is also a loss of control over the public debate, exercised by way of the Orwellian newspeak of political correctness.”

The embassy statement targeted the former MI6 Director, Sir Richard Dearlove, for backing the “witch-hunt” saying he knew “as nobody else, most of the damage to America and its place in the world was done by the George W Bush administration. No foreign agents could have accomplished that much.”

UK intelligence agencies are understood to have been the first to alert their US counterparts to the evidence showing a link between the Democratic National Committee hacks and Moscow.

With Trump and Putin, Europe is now between a rock and a hard place
Natalie Nougayrède

Speaking in the Commons on Tuesday, Johnson told MPs it was “pretty clear” the hacking attack had come from Russia. He said he had told the incoming US administration: “We do think the Russian state – the Putin Kremlin – is up to all sorts of very dirty tricks, but it would be folly further to demonise Russia or to push Russia into a corner.”

A twin-track policy of engagement and vigilance was required, Johnson said, even though “if you look at what the Russians have done in the western Balkans and on cyber-warfare, it is clear they are up to no good”.

It is thought Johnson will have conveyed the British intelligence view in his talks with Donald Trump’s team.

Johnson trod carefully because the US president-elect has been extremely reluctant to acknowledge any Russian involvement in the hacking, despite the near-unanimous view of his intelligence advisers that there is a clear link between the email leaks and the Kremlin.

Johnson, who met the most senior members of the Trump administration on Sunday night, stressed that his comment on Russian responsibility was not also a comment on “the electoral efficacy” of the hacking.

Trump is extremely sensitive to claims that Russian interference somehow de-legitimises his election victory and Johnson said his aim was for “the UK to be in lock-step” with the new administration.

In a bid to assuage the pro-Russia leanings of some in the Trump administration, Johnson said it was important to recognise there may be areas where the UK and the US could work together.

Speaking about his meetings with senior Republicans, Johnson said: “There’s a huge fund of goodwill for the United Kingdom on Capitol Hill and a very large measure of understanding that now is the time to do a free-trade deal. They want to do it, they want to do it fast, and that understanding was most vivid and most urgent on the part of the incoming administration.

“My enthusiasm [for a US-UK trade deal] is nothing compared to the enthusiasm of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic. We will get a good deal.”

The shadow foreign minister, Liz McInnes, said: “On Sunday, the foreign secretary met with Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s chief strategist, a man whose website is synonymous with antisemitism, racism, misogyny, homophobia, hero-worship of Vladimir Putin and the promotion of extremist far-right movements across the world. Can I ask the foreign secretary, how did he and Mr Bannon get on?”

In reply, Johnson said he did not wish to embarrass any American colleagues with details of how friendly the meetings were, adding: “What I can say is the conversations were genuinely extremely productive. There is a wide measure of agreement between the UK and the incoming administration about the way forward and we intend to work to build on those areas of agreement.”

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17866
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Philip » 16 Jan 2017 19:33

Trump and Germany go to war!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01 ... atens-car/
Germany hits out at Donald Trump after he labels Nato 'obsolete' and threatens car makers with 35pc tariffs
Donald Trump has described Nato as 'obsolete'


Justin Huggler Michael Wilkinson
16 JANUARY 2017 • 12:44PM
The German government has said it is “concerned” after Donald Trump described Nato as “obsolete”.

It came as German car manufacturers also rounded on the President-elect warning that the US would be "shooting itself in the foot" if he slaps a 35 per cent tariffs on cars manufactured in Germany.

'Confusion and anxiety' over Nato remarks

Mr Trump's remarks about Nato have caused concern among officials at both Nato and the EU.
Russian Billionaire Gets Green Light for Upper East Side Mega-Mansion

Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German foreign minister, said Mr Trump’s remarks had caused “confusion and anxiety” both in Nato and in the EU.
A meeting of EU foreign leaders later on Monday would “probably be influenced, if not dominated” by Mr Trump’s remarks, he said.
“I said a long time ago that Nato had problems,” the US president-elect said in an joint interview with The Times and Germany’s Bild newspaper.

It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying, ‘Trump is right.’
Donald Trump on Nato
“Number one, it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago. Number two, the countries aren't paying what they're supposed to pay.”

“I took such heat when I said Nato was obsolete,” Mr Trump said at another point in the interview. “It’s obsolete because it wasn’t taking care of terror. I took a lot of heat for two days. And then they started saying, ‘Trump is right.’”

The interview has reignited fears among several Nato countries that the US could split the alliance under Mr Trump’s leadership.

His remarks have been “received with concern” and caused anxiety “not only in Brussels” Mr Steinmeier said, after meeting with Jen Stoltenberg, the Nato secretary-general, on Monday morning.

“This contradicts what the American defence secretary said in his hearing in Washington only a few days ago and we have to see what it means for American policy,” Mr Steinmeier said.

Angela Merkel "read the interview with interest," her spokesman said in a guarded response.

The German chancellor's position on refugee policy, the EU and the transatlantic partnership is well-known, Steffen Seibert said in Berlin.

"We are waiting for Mr Trump's inauguration, and we will then work closely with the new government," he said.

Mr Trump’s remarks were in stark contrast with what James Mattis, his choice of defence secretary, said during his Senate confirmation hearing in Washington last week.

Gen Mattis mounted a staunch defence of Nato, and accused Russia of seeking to “break” the alliance.

“If we did not have Nato today, we would have to create it,” Gen Mattis said.

“I think right now the most important thing is that we recognize the reality of what we are dealing with, with Mr Putin. We recognize that he is trying to break the North Atlantic alliance.”

Russia immediately spoke out in support of Mr Trump’s latest remarks.

“Nato is, indeed, a vestige of the past and we agree with that. We have long been speaking about our views on this organization,” Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, said on Monday.

Mr Trump’s words will cause concern in countries on Nato’s eastern flank, which are already nervous over Russia’s intentions and have asked the alliance to deploy more troops .

Vladimir Putin's Russia immediately spoke out in support of Mr Trump’s latest remarks on Nato CREDIT: AP
During the presidential campaign, Mr Trump warned that the US might not come to the aid of Nato members if they were attacked unless it was “reasonably reimbursed”.

Norbert Röttgen, the chairman of the German parliament’s foreign affairs committee, described Mr Trump’s thinking as a “dangerous novelty for Europe”.

“Perhaps one could say that in reality in his thinking the West does not exist,” Mr Röttgen told German public radio.

“Whether the EU is divided or contested doesn't matter to him, whether Nato is there or not, doesn't matter to him. It's obsolete to him anyway.”

Car manufacturers hit back at Trump

In an interview with German newspaper Bild, published on Monday, Mr Trump criticised German car makers such as BMW, Daimler and Volkswagen for failing to produce more cars on US soil.

"If you want to build cars in the world, then I wish you all the best. You can build cars for the United States, but for every car that comes to the USA, you will pay 35 percent tax," Trump said in remarks translated into German.

"I would tell BMW that if you are building a factory in Mexico and plan to sell cars to the USA, without a 35 percent tax, then you can forget that," he said.

BMW has come under fire from Donald Trump
While investing in Mexico, German car makers have quadrupled light vehicle production in the United States over the past seven years to 850,000 units, more than half of which are exported from there, Germany's VDA automotive industry association said.

"In the long term, the United States would be shooting itself in the foot by imposing tariffs or other trade barriers," VDA President Matthias Wissmann said in a statement.

German carmakers employ about 33,000 workers in the United States and German automotive suppliers about 77,000 more, the VDA said.

German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel said that rather than trying to penalise German car makers, the United States should instead respond by building better and more desirable cars.


ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 458
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ranjan.rao » 21 Jan 2017 01:17

not sure where to post this
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-may-assist-uae-in-air-defence-system/articleshow/56674061.cms
There is definite movement between India UAE relations..during Modi's UAE trip there was talk of india and UAE working on a joint mars mission in 2020..again the question remains to balance with the iran ties..

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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 21 Jan 2017 11:46

ranjan.rao wrote:not sure where to post this
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-may-assist-uae-in-air-defence-system/articleshow/56674061.cms
There is definite movement between India UAE relations..during Modi's UAE trip there was talk of india and UAE working on a joint mars mission in 2020..again the question remains to balance with the iran ties..


The current Price of Abu Dhabi was kicked out of hotel in Mumbai in 1982 for mistreating the front desk female employee


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ramana » 22 Jan 2017 00:54

So Arab Nationalism is triumphing Islamist Fundamentalism.

The latter was supported by Anglo-Saxon Waste.

ranjan.rao
BRFite
Posts: 458
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 01:21

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ranjan.rao » 22 Jan 2017 05:31

svinayak wrote:
ranjan.rao wrote:not sure where to post this
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/india-may-assist-uae-in-air-defence-system/articleshow/56674061.cms
There is definite movement between India UAE relations..during Modi's UAE trip there was talk of india and UAE working on a joint mars mission in 2020..again the question remains to balance with the iran ties..


The current Price of Abu Dhabi was kicked out of hotel in Mumbai in 1982 for mistreating the front desk female employee

is the same guy who's chief guest of this year's republic day parade? Seems like he's forgotten that

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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 22 Jan 2017 12:32

ranjan.rao wrote:
svinayak wrote:
The current Price of Abu Dhabi was kicked out of hotel in Mumbai in 1982 for mistreating the front desk female employee

is the same guy who's chief guest of this year's republic day parade? Seems like he's forgotten that

This prince is the chief guest for the India Republic Day parade

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ramana » 25 Jan 2017 02:21

Could have posted in many threads....

Link:

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-psycholog ... -news.html


In medicine, vaccinating against a virus involves exposing a body to a weakened version of the threat, enough to build a tolerance.





Social psychologists believe that a similar logic can be applied to help "inoculate" the public against misinformation, including the damaging influence of 'fake news' websites propagating myths about climate change.

A new study compared reactions to a well-known climate change fact with those to a popular misinformation campaign. When presented consecutively, the false material completely cancelled out the accurate statement in people's minds - opinions ended up back where they started.

Researchers then added a small dose of misinformation to delivery of the climate change fact, by briefly introducing people to distortion tactics used by certain groups. This "inoculation" helped shift and hold opinions closer to the truth - despite the follow-up exposure to 'fake news'.

The study on US attitudes found the inoculation technique shifted the climate change opinions of Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike.

Published in the journal Global Challenges, the study was conducted by researchers from the universities of Cambridge, UK, Yale and George Mason, US. It is one of the first on 'inoculation theory' to try and replicate a 'real world' scenario of conflicting information on a highly politicised subject.

"Misinformation can be sticky, spreading and replicating like a virus," says lead author Dr Sander van der Linden, a social psychologist from the University of Cambridge and Director of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab.

"We wanted to see if we could find a 'vaccine' by pre-emptively exposing people to a small amount of the type of misinformation they might experience. A warning that helps preserve the facts.

"The idea is to provide a cognitive repertoire that helps build up resistance to misinformation, so the next time people come across it they are less susceptible."


To find the most compelling climate change falsehood currently influencing public opinion, van der Linden and colleagues tested popular statements from corners of the internet on a nationally representative sample of US citizens, with each one rated for familiarity and persuasiveness.

The winner: the assertion that there is no consensus among scientists, apparently supported by the Oregon Global Warming Petition Project. This website claims to hold a petition signed by "over 31,000 American scientists" stating there is no evidence that human CO2 release will cause climate change.


The study also used the accurate statement that "97% of scientists agree on manmade climate change". Prior work by van der Linden has shown this fact about scientific consensus is an effective 'gateway' for public acceptance of climate change.

In a disguised experiment, researchers tested the opposing statements on over 2,000 participants across the US spectrum of age, education, gender and politics using the online platform Amazon Mechanical Turk.

In order to gauge shifts in opinion, each participant was asked to estimate current levels of scientific agreement on climate change throughout the study.

Those shown only the fact about climate change consensus (in pie chart form) reported a large increase in perceived scientific agreement - an average of 20 percentage points. Those shown only misinformation (a screenshot of the Oregon petition website) dropped their belief in a scientific consensus by 9 percentage points.

Some participants were shown the accurate pie chart followed by the erroneous Oregon petition. The researchers were surprised to find the two neutralised each other (a tiny difference of 0.5 percentage points).

"It's uncomfortable to think that misinformation is so potent in our society," says van der Linden. "A lot of people's attitudes toward climate change aren't very firm. They are aware there is a debate going on, but aren't necessarily sure what to believe. Conflicting messages can leave them feeling back at square one."

Alongside the consensus fact, two groups in the study were randomly given 'vaccines':


•A general inoculation, consisting of a warning that "some politically-motivated groups use misleading tactics to try and convince the public that there is a lot of disagreement among scientists".
•A detailed inoculation that picks apart the Oregon petition specifically. For example, by highlighting some of the signatories are fraudulent, such as Charles Darwin and members of the Spice Girls, and less than 1% of signatories have backgrounds in climate science.

For those 'inoculated' with this extra data, the misinformation that followed did not cancel out the accurate message.

The general inoculation saw an average opinion shift of 6.5 percentage points towards acceptance of the climate science consensus, despite exposure to fake news. :!: :!:

When the detailed inoculation was added to the general, it was almost 13 percentage points - two-thirds of the effect seen when participants were just given the consensus fact. :!: :!: :!:


The research team point out that tobacco and fossil fuel companies have used psychological inoculation in the past to sow seeds of doubt, and to undermine scientific consensus in the public consciousness.

They say the latest study demonstrates that such techniques can be partially "reversed" to promote scientific consensus, and work in favour of the public good.

The researchers also analysed the results in terms of political parties. Before inoculation, the fake negated the factual for both Democrats and Independents. For Republicans, the fake actually overrode the facts by 9 percentage points.


{This means that all three had their own inoculation from preference bias. This is not mentioned by the study authors. Why is there a 0-9% difference in the groups!!!}

However, following inoculation, the positive effects of the accurate information were preserved across all parties to match the average findings (around a third with just general inoculation; two-thirds with detailed).


"We found that inoculation messages were equally effective in shifting the opinions of Republicans, Independents and Democrats in a direction consistent with the conclusions of climate science," says van der Linden.

"What's striking is that, on average, we found no backfire effect to inoculation messages among groups predisposed to reject climate science, they didn't seem to retreat into conspiracy theories.


"There will always be people completely resistant to change, but we tend to find there is room for most people to change their minds, even just a little."

Explore further: Communicating the consensus on climate change

More information: Global Challenges, DOI: 10.1002/gch2.201600008




The bolded parts are very important for Indians to understand.
The old proverb is "Fore warned is Fore armed!!!!"

We need to inoculate the idea of Indian interests first as they get buffeted with psy-ops from both rising China and flailing Waste. Not to mention the Islamists who want to win one for Muhammad.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35369
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby SaiK » 25 Jan 2017 06:03

I did hear this ramana on npr (yesterday/today?), talking about the placebo "fake fake news" and "real fake news" .. it was interesting, and couldn't keep it on as I had to get out. essentially, I think the env we live in and get trained on while we were young plays a lot of role in these..[I am sure a desi would easily understand these per se than a real amrikki who is strategically wired to focus on MAD doctrine] fake fake news is np hard to get a grasp, especially when your information source is perhaps like a gov that hates MSM.

Trump needs to retrain his CIA men, if he has to ordain a new strategic force to quell those AoA-walas right in their madrassas

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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 26 Jan 2017 09:48

Why Huntington and Beck Are Wrong


The Alliance of Christian and Muslim Civilizations

An analysis of our recent past–the second half of the twentieth century–shows there has been no conflict, but rather an alliance, between Christian and Muslim civilizations. One indicator of this alliance is that the vast majority of radical Islamic fundamentalist organizations, now considered terrorists, were once actively supported by the leaders of Christian civilizations. While the mainstream Western media have failed to inform their readers about this, the empirical evidence for such support exists. In his book Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, Robert Dreyfus documents extensively how the U.S. and U.K. governments supported the majority of Muslim fundamentalist associations (again, now defined as terrorists), and in fact played a key role in establishing and developing these groups. Dreyfus shows, for example, how both governments actively supported the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s. This extremely violent group was started in Egypt and, with the support of Saudi Arabia, expanded throughout the Arab world. In the 1980s, the Muslim Brotherhood helped to establish the Movement of Islamic Resistance, known as Hamas, the radical Muslim Palestinian group that today governs the Palestinian people. Again in the 1950s, the U.S. and U.K. governments also supported the Mullahs (fundamentalist Muslim clerics) in Iran, led by Khomeini, who later became the leaders of that country. And the U.S. and U.K. governments also actively supported (with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) the Taliban in Afghanistan.

In all these supportive efforts by the U.S. and U.K. governments, the religious and cultural values of Islamic fundamentalists were not seen as an obstacle; quite the contrary. Religious fundamentalism in both Christian and Muslim civilizations was crucial to the development of the alliance between civilizations. As stated by an official document of the U.S. State Department, “the attractiveness of such Muslim movements is their messianic character, similar to the born-again Christians of the South in the U.S. Moreover, they are profoundly anti-communist” (The World Situation, 1978). Thus there was no conflict but rather a religious and cultural affinity between the leaders of the Christian and Muslim civilizations. This affinity of values, however, was not enough to establish an alliance. Why would the leaders of Christian civilizations support Islamic fundamentalists clearly oriented toward the use of violence in pursuing their objectives? The question posed by Huntington and Beck should have been, not so much what divides, but what unites the two civilizations. The answer is clear: What united the leaders of the two civilizations was class interests. These interests determined their objectives, their alliances, and their enemies. This is the reality behind the erroneous slogan “a conflict of civilizations.” The alliance was forged on the basis of not just a commonality of religious values, but also — and above all — a commonality of class interests.

The alliance was established to defeat and eliminate progressive lay movements led by socialists, communists, or Arab nationalists who were successfully mobilizing the Muslim masses (working classes, peasantry, and sectors of the professional middle classes) against the dominant classes of the Muslim countries that were enjoying the support of the governments of the Christian civilizations. The alliance between the governing elites of the Christian and Muslim civilizations was based on threats to their common economic interests (primarily, but not exclusively, oil) by the burgeoning progressive forces. Given the extreme poverty of the vast majority of people in the midst of enormous wealth in many of the Muslim countries, an eruption was inevitable. In their own interests, the dominant classes of Christian and Muslim civilizations needed to channel the frustrations of the masses of people away from the progressive movements. The great challenge for the dominant classes was to eliminate the threat of a class mobilization against them, and the method at hand was to demobilize political impulses and replace them with a multi-class mobilization based on religious fervor. A multi-class religious fundamentalism could channel the energy of a mass mobilization, not against the dominant classes, but in support of a religious identity–a commonality of interests and identity among dominated and dominant classes. This strategy is not new. In Southern Europe, the dominant landowners and oligarchy, in collaboration with the Catholic Church, established the Christian Democratic Party in response to peasants’ and workers’ parties that were threatening their interests. Class struggle was replaced by social cohesion, with Christianity as the multi-class glue that would keep classes together–under, of course, the dominion and hegemony of the dominant classes. The intention of this project, based on a religious fundamentalism, was to channel the energy and frustration of the popular classes toward an external agent: to promote a defense of religion threatened by unchristian progressive forces. The same dynamics operated in the Muslim countries, with dominant classes promoting Islamic fundamentalism among the disenfranchised majorities. Let’s look at some historical details, case by case.


Final Observations

All these documented facts show a reality that is not reported by the mainstream media: behind a supposed “conflict” between Christian and Muslim civilizations there has been a class alliance. An alliance of this type first existed in Spain in the 1930s. Muslim Moroccan troops fought with the Catholic-supported fascists in the military coup of 1936, led by General Franco, against a democratically elected progressive government–in what the Spanish Catholic Church defined as a Crusade. The Muslim troops supported a Crusade against the infidels who denied God. And just as the Spanish Civil War was a prologue for World War II, introducing the cast of characters that would take the stage in that war, so the Afghan War in the 1980s–with Christian troops supporting Muslim fundamentalists–prefigured World War III, which we are engaged in today. All the forces at war in this new conflict were already there, in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Progressive lay forces (led by a Communist Party), with the support of the Soviet Union, carried out a series of reforms in Afghanistan–introducing land reform, a secular public school system, and gender equality, with extensive participation of women in the schools and universities). All of these moves were opposed by the dominant classes of Afghanistan, which supported Islamic fundamentalist groups funded by Saudi Arabia (among the most oppressive regimes in the Arab world), the government of Pakistan, and the U.S. government (led by President Carter, who, paradoxically, presented himself as the great defender of human rights). It was at that time that the U.S. government supported Osama bin Laden in a holy war against communism, which in fact was a crude defense of the class interests of dominant groups whose privileges were threatened by social reforms. As it turned out, the Islamic fundamentalist forces, armed by the U.S. and other governments, developed a dynamic of their own that the U.S. government could not control. But the conflict that now exists between the U.S., U.K., and other governments and the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups should not obscure the origins of these terrorist movements and the class interests they have served and continue to serve.

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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 26 Jan 2017 10:01



new caliphate



The 100-Year-Old Agreement You Need to Know About to Understand What’s Driving the Islamic State
Sykes-Picot and the Islamic State

“I know I read about [the Sykes-Picot Agreement] years ago when we were at Fox, and I put it up on the chalkboard,” Beck remarked. “But it didn’t all fall into place until I learned about ISIS and ISIL, and the difference between ISIS and ISIL. Now it all makes sense to me, and now you’ll be able to figure out what is really going on.”

Radical Islamists in the Islamic State — also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant — are trying to regain the territory they were promised before the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Beck said. If you understand that, the revolutions of the Arab Spring and the goals of the Islamic State become much clearer.

“How do you get there?” Beck asked, pointing to the map of the territory the Islamic State is trying to recover. “First thing you do, you have to destabilize the region. And how do you destabilize the region? What did Sykes-Picot do? Sykes-Picot made all of these new maps, and they drew new borders that had never been drawn before. And these borders put people who were never together under one rule, the British knowing that if they did that, it would take a strong man to keep them from fighting and killing each other.”

To get rid of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Beck said “you have to go after the dictators.”

“Our president, and all of us, cheered when we got rid of the dictators in Egypt … Libya … Iraq … Now we’re going after Syria,” Beck said. “Next will be Jordan and Lebanon, and then Israel.”

Demonstrators celebrate in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Friday Feb. 18, 2011. Tens of thousands of flag-waving Egyptians packed into Tahrir Square for a day of prayer and celebration Friday to mark the fall Hosni Mubarak a week ago and to maintain pressure on the new military rulers to steer the country toward democratic reforms.(AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)
Demonstrators celebrate in Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt, Friday Feb. 18, 2011. Tens of thousands of flag-waving Egyptians packed into Tahrir Square for a day of prayer and celebration Friday to mark the fall Hosni Mubarak.(AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)
“Look at the map,” Beck said. “The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. … They’re doing nothing but remolding the map closer to their heart’s desire, and what they were promised 100 years ago. Now is their opportunity to achieve what they’ve always wanted from the very beginning: a return to a unified Arab kingdom. What a surprise, a caliphate. Islamic rule. There’s no judgement on this one way or another — this is just the fact. They want an end to the west and what the west created with Sykes-Picot. To get there, the best way to do it is to destabilize all these dictators, get them out of the way.”

Beck said the Israelis and the Palestinians have been used as scapegoats for decades.

“You think this is a crazy theory?” Beck asked. “Here’s ISIL in their own words on what’s happening, why are they doing this.”

Beck proceeded to play an Islamic State propaganda video titled “The End of Sykes-Picot”:


You’ll notice this is playing all over the Middle East,” Beck said. “Here they are, on the Syrian border, showing how they’ve erased it, and how Britain and France lied to the Arab world.”

Beck said radical Islamists will use anyone, including the Jews and the Palestinians, to achieve their goals, and that is why “there will never be a two-state solution.”

“That’s not the goal, never has been,” Beck concluded. “Until the region is fully under Arab control, the fighting will never, ever, ever stop. There is no easy solution. I don’t know how you turn the cycle of violence around. But the first thing you have to do is put facts in place. You have to start with the truth.”



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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 26 Jan 2017 10:09



100 years of the Sykes Picot treaty in 100 seconds
100 year agreement and Trump was elected on 100 years of the agreement


Indian Independence from Britain has created this problem after 60+ years. Decolonization has opened the old wounds in the middle east and it is so essential for the west to recreate new borders. ISIS may never stop and it needs special treatment.


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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 26 Jan 2017 10:29

Ignore the author but look at the information given



This video explains why Trump got elected.
US is a card in the global game.
China is to be setup as the leader of the new world order
Last edited by svinayak on 26 Jan 2017 10:44, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 26 Jan 2017 10:42

CPEC is key for India
CPEC is freedom to India and India can play a longer game

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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby devesh » 26 Jan 2017 21:33

svinayak wrote:CPEC is key for India
CPEC is freedom to India and India can play a longer game


What? How?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ramana » 26 Jan 2017 22:30

Devesh Listen to the Glen Beck presentation again and think it over.

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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 26 Jan 2017 23:24

devesh wrote:What? How?


See the Beck video. See the Sykes Picot treaty video
It is all about geography.

America changing course will help India

India has to take some of the land based connectivity and region under its belt.
India has to coopt China so that China become a partner for India

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17866
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Philip » 28 Jan 2017 13:30

The man who was mainly responsible for the end of the Cold War,warns about a new "hot "one in the near future.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 48646.html
Mikhail Gorbachev says 'it looks like the world is preparing for war'
Soviet Union's final leader says Nato and Russian forces at 'point blank' range

Peter Walker @petejohn_walker 23 hours ago
Mikhail Gorbachev, pictured speaking during a ceremony to hand over three Russian paintings, talked of the nuclear disarmament of the 1980s
Mikhail Gorbachev has urged Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to strongly denounce nuclear war in the face of the “militarisation of politics and the new arms race”.

The 85-year-old, who was the eighth and final leader of the Soviet Union and its Communist Party, said he believed it looked "as if the world is preparing for war”.

The Cold War-era politician responsible for glasnost made the comments in a piece for Time magazine ahead of Theresa May’s first meeting with Mr Trump today.

Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev at their landmark summit in November 1985 (AFP/Getty)
“The world today is overwhelmed with problems. Policymakers seem to be confused and at a loss,” he begins.
“But no problem is more urgent today than the militarisation of politics and the new arms race. Stopping and reversing this ruinous race must be our top priority.

“The current situation is too dangerous.”
Donald Trump says receiving nuclear codes was a 'sobering moment'
The Russian-Ukrainian describes how troops, tanks and armoured personnel carriers are being brought to Europe.
He also writes about how Nato and Russian forces and weapons, once deployed at a distance, are now at “point-blank” range to one another.

Mr Gorbachev also called for a repeat of the November 1985 summit between he and Ronald Reagan in Geneva, which concluded that "nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought".

According to a BBC article, in September 2016, the US had 1,367 strategic nuclear warheads, Russia had 1,796 and the UK had 120.

“I think the initiative to adopt such a resolution should come from Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin – the Presidents of two nations that hold over 90 per cent of the world’s nuclear arsenals and therefore bear a special responsibility,” he said, before quoting President Franklin D Roosevelt.

Theresa May speech to Republicans: 'Beware of Vladimir Putin'
“The time to decide and act is now.”

Mr Gorbachev’s comments follow two US congressmen submitting a bill restricting Mr Trump’s ability to launch a first nuclear strike, and details of a failed UK nuclear test.

:?: Unconfirmed reports also say China has moved long-range missiles to the Russian border

The frequently vocal critic, once a sceptic of Boris Yeltsin’s presidency, also said state budgets were struggling to fund people’s essential social needs, but that military spending is growing.

He talks of submarines whose “single salvo” is capable of devastating half a continent.
“Politicians and military leaders sound increasingly belligerent and defence doctrines more dangerous,” said Mr Gorbachev.

“Commentators and TV personalities are joining the bellicose chorus. It all looks as if the world is preparing for war.”

Mr Gorbachev, who is credited with aiding the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, played a part in nuclear disarmament in the 1980s.
Eighty per cent of nuclear weapons accumulated during the Cold War years have apparently been decommissioned and destroyed.
New York protests against Iran nuclear deal

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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Neshant » 28 Jan 2017 15:59

..Understand What’s Driving the Islamic State


US + Saudi Arabia is what is funding Islamic state.

Which is also the reason why you won't find the financiers these terrorists ever being caught.

shyam
BRFite
Posts: 1408
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby shyam » 29 Jan 2017 14:00

GB tells half truths, and some times covers up to mislead you. If you knew the point what he says, you can easily catch it. For example, he projects Soros as a very powerful person but doesn't clearly say why. When Trump was taking Soros head on, GB went against Trump and is now a loser.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15870
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby NRao » 29 Jan 2017 14:11


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17866
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Philip » 30 Jan 2017 11:44

The USA and the Saudi led Sunni "club" thought that a second attempt at marshalling Islamist forces to be used against Assad and the Shiites in the region,would work better than the Al Q experiment with OBL. The blowback they received from that resulted in the horrendous attacks on the US of 9/11.which further fuelled the recruitment drive of the ungodly.Unfortunately,ISIS has proven to be even more toxic than Al Q in its barbaric and diabolic deeds. The fundamentalist and extremist cancer is within Islamic society in the Arab world itself and unless that entity meets it head on,as being attempted in Egypt with the MB,it will devour other nations beyond the ME as it is attempting to do so in Europe.

Ridiculously,NATO is trying to reinvent the Cold War and instead of fighting the Islamist foe ISIS (which it fears?),wants to rant and rave ,sabre rattle,run up huge expenditure with a ready-made propaganda masterplan available from the past,that Western establishments are
familiar with,making Putin the arch-enemy and Russia the bogey-man yet again.It's why the Zero-peons are so dismayed at the Trumpeting from the White House's new resident about the obsolescence of NATO and his warming up to Putin.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17866
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Philip » 30 Jan 2017 13:23

NATO-wallahs ,ancient enemies face off on the high seas.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... aegean-sea
Greek and Turkish warships in standoff in Aegean sea
Incident comes amid fresh tension between the countries, after Greek court blocked extradition of Turkish army officers over failed July coup

A Turkish naval vessel near the Bodrum peninsula in 2016. The weekend saw a tense standoff between Turkish and Greek forces near a group of disputed Greek islets in the Aegean.

Agence France-Presse
Monday 30 January 2017
Greek and Turkish warships were involved Sunday in a brief faceoff near a group of disputed Greek islets in the Aegean, coinciding with renewed tensions between Athens and Ankara.

The Greek defence ministry said a Turkish navy missile boat, “along with two special forces rafts”, entered Greek territorial waters near the Imia islets.
Greek court turns down extradition request for eight Turkish officers
Located just off the Turkish coast and claimed by Ankara, the uninhabited rocky islets are a historic flashpoint in a long-running demarcation dispute.

Greek coastguard vessels and a navy gunboat shadowed the Turkish group, notifying them of the violation, and the Turks left the area after about seven minutes, the defence ministry said.

In Turkey, the local media initially reported that the Turkish warship – with Chief of Staff General Hulusi Akar onboard – was blocked by Greece from approaching the islets.

The private Dogan news agency reported that there were “tense moments” for half an hour before the Turkish ship returned to the Turkish peninsula of Bodrum.

But Turkish armed forces, quoted by the state-run news agency Anadolu, denied that the ship had been blocked, and said a small Greek coastguard vessel had watched from afar. It added that General Akar was onboard the ship to “review and inspect” Turkish vessels in the Aegean.

The Imia islets – called Kardak in Turkey – lie just seven kilometres from Bodrum.

A row over their sovereignty islets flared in January 1996, when the two countries sent marines to two neighbouring islands in a sign of an imminent armed confrontation.

They then withdrew their troops after heavy diplomatic pressure by the United States, a fellow member of Nato.

Sunday’s incident comes amid fresh tension between the two countries, after the Greek supreme court on Thursday blocked the extradition of eight former army officers who had fled to Greece after the failed 15 July coup. Turkey criticised the ruling as “political” and threatened to scrap a “readmission agreement” under which Turkey has been taking in migrants landing illegally in Greece.

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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Neshant » 02 Feb 2017 11:22

Gadaffi ended up dead for extending the hand of friendship to Europe and his country's wealth stolen.

Image

Bhurishravas
BRFite
Posts: 680
Joined: 02 Sep 2016 18:25

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Bhurishravas » 03 Feb 2017 16:53

Tillerson also said that China's island-building activities were illegal, adding that "building islands and putting military assets on those islands is akin to Russia's taking of Crimea."


Isnt this a classic stupid statement to make.
In one line he has pushed Russia and China to make an alliance against himself.

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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby chanakyaa » 05 Feb 2017 03:31

Security may undermine Trump’s debt plans
As we entered the new year, all indications pointed to a remaking of the global order. Donald Trump was inaugurated as President of the United States, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered a defense of globalization at Davos, and far-right leaders such as Marine Le Pen and Geert Wilders held an "alternative European summit" in the German city of Koblenz.

Trump and his populist allies in Europe have denounced globalization, while Xi now stands as its principal defender. But Trump's message, in particular, is conflicted: pursuing strictly national economic interests may require less international cooperation, but bolstering security requires more.

The nationalist thrust of Trump's inaugural address echoed the isolationism championed by the racist aviator Charles Lindbergh, who, as a spokesman for the America First Committee, lobbied to keep the US out of World War II. And now Trump, blaming previous US leaders for the economic hardships confronting many Americans, has renounced the country's historical role in creating and sustaining the post-war order. While his objection to "global America" is not new, hearing it from a US president certainly is.

Trump's vision is centered on the politics of debt. Having overseen a large debt-financed real-estate business, his intuition is that debt renegotiation can be used to win back for America what "other countries" have supposedly taken from it. He has focused on China and Germany, because they maintain large bilateral trade surpluses with the US - totaling $366 billion and $74 billion, respectively, in 2015. Just before the inauguration, he suggested that he might impose high tariffs on imported German cars, singling out BMW with particular relish.

With their accumulated current-account surpluses, both countries have built up large claims on the US, in the form of government debt for China and a wide variety of securitized assets for Germany. While China's foreign reserves are now falling, Germany's are rising. But, in both cases, immediately eliminating America's bilateral deficits would simply make Americans poorer. It would be no different than if Greece suddenly eliminated its large deficits with the rest of Europe.

In the past, US policymakers have tried to spur domestic job creation by getting the surplus countries to run budget deficits or loosen their monetary policy, so that they could grow faster and buy more American goods. Former US Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan took this tack in the late 1970s and 1980s, and President Barack Obama did so again in the middle of the euro crisis that began in 2009.

This is the classic form of adjustment in the international economic system, and past US administrations pursued this method by applying bilateral pressure, and by working through international institutions such as the G7 and the International Monetary Fund. But these negotiations have always had rather mixed outcomes. Inevitably, neither side is satisfied, and the process comes to be seen as flawed.

Trump thinks that this old process failed because the surplus countries cheated. There are two alternatives to the classical adjustment approach. The first, more plausible option is to strike bilateral deals. There are some historical precedents for this, such as when Japan, in the 1980s, "voluntarily" agreed to limit the number of cars it sold in the US. Consequently, Japan stopped selling cheap cars and quickly moved up the value chain.

Then there is a more radical alternative. Trump may pursue a nationalist version of what is typically a leftist demand: a debt jubilee or write-off.

British Prime Minister Theresa May's meeting with Trump in Washington, DC, on January 27, has stirred much excitement about a new security arrangement based on "Anglo-American capitalism." The old style of Anglo-American capitalism was built on manufacturing; but the new style rests on debt - particularly home ownership - to maintain consumption and high standards of living.

May's government could play a decisive role in the current international reordering. But while she has indicated that the UK will pursue a "hard Brexit" - a clean separation from the EU - she has also emphasized how important both the EU and NATO are to the European and global security framework.

If May can convince Trump that security is more important than a gamble on leveraged debt, she will have undermined a key part of his domestic strategy, while rescuing some of the old spirit of mutual defense. It's worth remembering that the only other US president to promote the phrase "America first" was Woodrow Wilson, who ended up trying to build an elaborate international system based on shared security and cooperation.

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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Neshant » 07 Feb 2017 13:00

The old style of Anglo-American capitalism was built on manufacturing; but the new style rests on debt - particularly home ownership - to maintain consumption and high standards of living.


Doesn't make any sense to me.
Artificially increasing the value of housing has proved disastrous to these economies which are producing nothing other than banksters.
Who is coming up with these hare brained schemes?

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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby svinayak » 07 Feb 2017 13:52

Neshant wrote:
The old style of Anglo-American capitalism was built on manufacturing; but the new style rests on debt - particularly home ownership - to maintain consumption and high standards of living.


Doesn't make any sense to me.
Artificially increasing the value of housing has proved disastrous to these economies which are producing nothing other than banksters.
Who is coming up with these hare brained schemes?


There is a secret to this debt based strategy, It is has to do with China

Around $700 B is supposed to enter US from China. This is supposed to take care of America for another 10-20 years.

OmkarC
BRFite
Posts: 438
Joined: 15 Nov 2016 11:25

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby OmkarC » 07 Feb 2017 23:29

https://www.rt.com/business/376544-chin ... -pwc-2050/

By 2050, India's GDP at PPP expected to touch 44K, and surpass US.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2885
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby vera_k » 07 Feb 2017 23:36


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby ramana » 03 Mar 2017 02:36

Samir Saran in TOI blog


Putin doesn't get 21st Century Geoconomics

Being Vladimir Putin: Russia’s president gets 20th century geopolitics, what he doesn’t get is 21st century geoeconomics

March 2, 2017, 2:00 am IST Samir Saran in TOI Edit Page | Edit Page, politics, World | TOI

In 2009 we witnessed a watershed moment for geoeconomics when the credit crisis, born in the United States, spread across the world. The integrated global economy temporarily tilted over the edge of the financial abyss before being pulled back by concerted collective action involving large economies around the world.

In 2016, we witnessed a backlash against this economic interconnectedness and the ideal of collective governance with a plethora of populist anti-globalisation movements leading to outcomes such as Brexit and the election of Trump. It is increasingly apparent that we are at the beginning of a new epoch, where global arrangements will be defined by various shades of nationalism, reassertion of state sovereignty, and multidimensional contests over territory, both real and virtual.


These developments also shaped the conversations at the recently concluded Munich Security Conference. Beyond the interest and noise around the Trump presidency, and the US approach to some of the global challenges, it was clear to most that President Putin was by far the most influential global leader on all matters security, something that three contemporary developments demonstrate emphatically.

Let’s start with West Asia. In less than 18 months, Russia has cleverly co-opted Turkey, firmly embraced Iran as a strategic partner and doubled down on its old ally Syria, bringing into its tent three diverging interests masterfully. In fact this alignment and the Russian relevance in this region stems from its understanding of how regional constellations of states and state-supported militias align. Guided by its partners, the US has faltered precisely on this aspect, erroneously programming itself into the Shia-Sunni schism, without realising that the nation-state still holds normative appeal in the region.

{This is the Arab Nationalism vs. Islamist Fundamentalism the latter was supported by USA since 1950s to forestall Soviet influence in Arab nation states. So that tis the long view. Miles Copeland in his book 'Game of Nations' writes that US practiced how to run a coup in Syria in the 1953!!!}


Second, Putin has managed to breach Fortress Nato by making Turkey pivot significantly towards Russia. Using President Erdoğan’s disillusionment with the Obama White House deftly, Putin has managed to drive a wedge between Nato and one of its oldest member states.

{I think Putin tipped of Erdogan about the Gulenist plot being run from US. hacking Podesta server might have given them this insight.}


And finally, Putin has turned the tables on the most powerful nation in the world, by using its own modus operandi against it – that of intervening in the domestic politics of other states. Through strategic leaks, Putin deftly placed his finger on the scale of the American elections, tipping them in favour of Trump.

In this age of renewed political gamesmanship, Putin is the only player who has retained a chess set from the 20th century. While others have long forgotten the craft of geopolitics, Putin continues to move pieces like a Grandmaster. But does he have an endgame?

And herein lies the rub. This most influential global political figure, a man who has formidable military and security capacities at his disposal, is an inconsequential economic actor with insignificant economic agency. Russia, a country with a military might rivalling that of the US, has a GDP smaller than that of Australia and is ranked only ahead of South Africa among the BRICS grouping that it helped create.

{Putin's Russia does not seek economic dominance. It has enough economy to suatain its military and security capabilities. And it has chokehold on Western Europe energy supplies. So saying Russia has no economic cards is a brutus fulmen}


For all the accumulation of power and orchestration of geopolitics, Putin’s tactics are not going to fill Russia’s treasury. While 20th century realpolitik may be useful in 2017, Putin is also handicapped because he continues to view economics through a 20th century prism. Russia’s fixation with large transcontinental connectivity projects has led it to support China’s New Silk Road. :rotfl:

{Chanakaya niti says prepare cards when you don't have them. Putin's card is to support China's connectivity to Europe. It goes through Russia's near abroad. it restores the great land route of Marco Polo which got upended by the voyages of discovery by Columbus and Vasco Da Gama. Russia has no warm water port. The tsars launched the Great Game for that which ended with the Soviet Union.}


Without any significant expansion in Russia’s industrial and manufacturing economy, the country is fast being reduced to a political guarantor for Chinese economic expansion or a policeman for China’s property. And what of the future? In a world where 3D printing may become de rigueur, the transportation of millions of tonnes of manufacturing goods could be a dying reality.

{Really. Do you know 3D printing limitations? Its not viable for daily products. 3D printing using high strength alloys will be sueful for aerospace goods only. Besides if 3-D printing makes off shore mfg redundant then it affects the trading nations more than a protector nation.}


Connectivity in this century is not simply about roads and railways, but also about bits and bytes and hearts and minds. It is the networks – knowledge, digital, social – that transfer and transmit value in the new world order. Economic growth in the 21st century requires digital hubs, clusters of start-ups and liberal regulatory confines where young minds working with technology can push society forward.

The reality is that 20th century economic projects that Russia is undertaking benefit China, and 21st century economic projects in Russia suffer from the absence of a requisite ecosystem. This has led to a certain fragility in the global governance architecture. :rotfl:

{I]{By your own analysis Russia is a bit player in the global economy. So where did this global governance suddenly pop up?}[/I]


I have argued before that the asymmetry between Russia’s military potency and its economic state is dangerous. China, with its $11 trillion GDP, has significant destructive and disruptive capability as well. The stakes that it holds in the global economy, however, ensure that it will never destabilise global systems because it stands to gain from them. Russia does not have sizeable economic stakes in these systems and therefore only its political capability motivates its actions. This is being Vladimir Putin.

{Bokwas. China can and will disrupt as it needs to. Russia does not have the wherewithal. This article is unnecessary swipe at Russia from India.}


US efforts to “isolate” Moscow through sanctions have not only failed but also proved to be counterproductive. They have reduced Russia’s skin in the global economic game, allowing Putin to engage in exactly the same conduct that sanctions seek to deter. Washington DC must focus on cultivating a sense of ownership (and consequently, the fear of loss) in Russia towards economic and trading regimes.

{So this article is really advice to Trump? And nice job using Taleb's skin in the game analogy. If your advice is to USA why did you write about Putin's Russia in the title!!!!}


But this is easier said than done and ironically it is Donald Trump, derided for his lack of diplomatic acumen, who is proving himself to be astute in this matter by reaching out to arguably the most influential man in the world – Vladimir Putin.


{Please make up you mind. Can't serve two masters}

The writer is Vice-President Observer Research Foundation




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

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby Neshant » 04 Mar 2017 22:57

Another threat emerging to the south.
How long before China has a Wahabi friendly naval base to the south.


amritk
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 96
Joined: 28 Dec 2004 22:45

Re: Geopolitics/Geoeconomics Thread- June 2015

Postby amritk » 06 Mar 2017 01:07

When are we going to buy something? Like the CHT.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deejay, Yahoo [Bot] and 24 guests