Author Topic: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics  (Read 378273 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1450 on: April 18, 2023, 01:44:08 PM »
Hot news flash.  Israel does not live under the American Constitution.   We here do.

News flash, the constitution has been a dead letter since the coup in 2020.

Explain to me how it’s ok for Israel to restrict who can join it’s nation to protect it’s Jewish character, but European Christian nations aren’t allowed to. Why is white genocide ok?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1451 on: April 18, 2023, 01:55:58 PM »
Hot news flash.  Israel does not live under the American Constitution.   We here do.

News flash, the constitution has been a dead letter since the coup in 2020.

Explain to me how it’s ok for Israel to restrict who can join it’s nation to protect it’s Jewish character, but European Christian nations aren’t allowed to. Why is white genocide ok?

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=840,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/135/519/042/original/d89f75f8ef77b45e.jpg


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1555
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1452 on: April 18, 2023, 06:05:55 PM »
It is better economic conditions, that causes people to move. They usually take up jobs, the locals wont do. Kalifornia would collapse without the mexican farm workers as an example. Secondly, as the working population declines in the west, these new workers will end up supporting the retirements of the old!

The key criteria in selecting immigrants should be integration with local population and absence of terroristic/violent tendencies.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1453 on: April 18, 2023, 09:17:17 PM »
sounds like Nikki Haley's plan
A bit like GW Bush - can't stop the migrants  so try to convert them to be Republicans .

Problem is there will not be a Republican Party by then.......


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1454 on: April 19, 2023, 04:32:22 AM »
"Explain to me how it’s ok for Israel to restrict who can join it’s nation to protect it’s Jewish character, but European Christian nations aren’t allowed to. Why is white genocide ok?"

Because it is contrary to our Constitution.

RACE IS NOT THE ISSUE.

The problem here is LAWLESSNESS. 

OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS (which could stand improvement with an eye to admitting those with things to offer America) ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED.

IF OUR LAWS WERE ENFORCED, WE WOULD BE FINE.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
GPF: Borderlands
« Reply #1455 on: April 19, 2023, 05:33:41 AM »


April 19, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
The Battle for Eurasia’s Borderlands
Today the Black Sea, tomorrow the South China Sea.
By: Antonia Colibasanu

Borderlands have long been an object of scrutiny in the realm of geopolitics, as they represent a point of convergence, interaction and oftentimes conflict between nations and political systems. The significance of these regions cannot be overstated, as they often serve as a crucible for political and military struggles, as well as a site for intricate diplomatic negotiations and maneuvers. In addition, borderlands frequently witness the interplay of different economic and social systems, giving rise to distinct hybrid cultures and identities.

Classical geopolitical analysis, which focuses on the political, economic and military domains to understand a country's geopolitical imperatives, has traditionally been ill-equipped to account for the complexities of borderland regions, beyond their geographical location. However, my own research project related to an upcoming book I'm currently writing on the borderlands, beginning with the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and my work on current events for Geopolitical Futures, have highlighted the diversity of roles played by borderlands in regional and global stability.

Core Borderlands and Geopolitical Nodes

As I delved deeper into the theories of Halford Mackinder, Nicholas Spykman and Alfred Thayer Mahan – all prominent geopolitical thinkers from different eras and political environments – I began to discern a common denominator for the world's borderlands or, more precisely, the borderlands of the world's continents. These regions are characterized by their strategic location, distinctive socio-economic features, and sustained interest from major and middle powers seeking to ensure their stability. Indeed, the very stability of these borderlands is paramount, as without it, the risk of war and conflict looms large, threatening to spill over into neighboring regions and potentially reshaping the geopolitical landscape of an entire continent.

The notion of what I call a “core borderland” emerges as a crucial concept in understanding the stability of the international system. The Eurasian continent’s core borderland is in Central Asia, where the influences of Europe, Russia, China, India, Iran and Pakistan converge, much as it was for their ancestors. Afghanistan is a prime example of a core borderland, as evidenced by the sustained interest of major powers in its stability over time. This is also why Afghanistan can never completely be controlled.

Eurasian Borderlands
(click to enlarge)

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan has created a power vacuum in Central and Southwestern Asia, triggering changes that have reverberated across Europe and its borderlands. The timing of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not coincidental; it follows a sustained period of U.S. withdrawal from the Greater Middle East, not to mention the global pandemic. Meanwhile, other European powers, such as Poland and Turkey, have moved to consolidate their positions in their borderlands. As a result, tensions have risen in these historically vital areas of international trade and investment. I call these areas “geopolitical nodes,” places of strategic importance where two or more regional or global powers meet. Unlike a core borderland, where major powers’ interests collide, a geopolitical node hosts major trade routes that sustain interdependencies between states.

In their theories, both Mackinder and Spykman point to potential geopolitical nodes without necessarily calling them that. Mahan elevated naval power, but by combining elements of their theories, it is apparent that the Black Sea and the South China Sea are Eurasia’s most important geopolitical nodes.

Throughout history, the Black Sea has been a meeting point for empires, facilitating contact between Europe, Asia and the Middle East. It remains a vital hub for regional stability. However, it is also the node most affected by the war in Ukraine. The body of water at the other end of Central Asia is the South China Sea, a relatively recent node that is rapidly growing in importance. The South China Sea is home to a third of maritime trade by value, mostly due to China’s resurgence in recent decades. Meanwhile, over the past decade, in preparation for the war in Ukraine, Russia has sought alternate trade routes to Europe that bypass the Black Sea and has increased its presence in the South China Sea.

The U.S., which remains the classical global maritime and land power, is facing two competitors. The first is a resurgent Russia, a regional land power that is looking to stretch its reach beyond Europe. The second is a new kind of Eurasian competitor, China, which is both continental and maritime.

The core borderland, where they meet, is Central Asia. In this sense, Afghanistan has been the perfect metaphor for how empires clash and coordinate. The nodes of the Black Sea and the South China Sea are balancing off one another as they interact through the strategies pursued by the U.S., Russia and China. The longer the conflict in Ukraine lasts, the more uncertainty there is in the Black Sea waters and the more pressure there is on China, on the shores of the South China Sea, to join the global economic war.

Russia-China Rivalry

Russia has played a quiet but important role around the South China Sea for the past 20 years. Even though it has close ties with Beijing, Moscow has been steadily arming rival claimants to South China Sea waters like Vietnam and, to a lesser extent, Malaysia, while also trying to build defense ties with the Philippines and Indonesia. In addition, Russia has contributed significantly to the development of offshore energy resources in both the South China Sea and the so-called North Natuna Sea, off the coast of Indonesia. While Western energy companies frequently reduced investments in contested areas to avoid conflict with China, their Russian counterparts filled any significant investment gaps. The $400 billion, 30-year energy agreement signed in 2014 between the China National Petroleum Corp. and Russia’s state-owned gas company Gazprom marked the start of Russia’s diplomatic pivot to Asia. It was also the year that Russia invaded Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

In 2001, Russia’s trade with Europe was almost triple its trade with Asia ($106 billion versus $38 billion). In 2019, European trade was $322 billion compared with Asia’s $273 billion. After Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Europe cut trade and investment ties with Moscow, while Asia embraced it.

Russia's outreach was especially well-received in Southeast Asia. Vietnam, Laos and Myanmar – its traditional allies in Indochina – stepped up their defense cooperation with Moscow. Over the past two decades, Vietnam alone has spent $7.4 billion on Russian weapons, including cutting-edge fighter jets and submarines. Importantly, the two largest countries in Southeast Asia, the Philippines and Indonesia, looked into extensive defense agreements with Russia. Moscow sent its defense attache to the Philippines for the first time ever, and Russian warships started frequenting Manila Bay. Rodrigo Duterte, the then-Philippine president, made history by becoming the first Philippine head of state to visit Moscow twice, and he actively pursued energy and defense agreements with Russia in 2019.

Additionally, Russian energy firms increased their presence in Vietnam's exclusive economic zone and supported Indonesia's own energy exploration efforts off the Natuna Islands coast. As a result, in an interesting turn of events, Moscow found itself arming and supporting China's maritime adversaries throughout Southeast Asia.

Russia tried to lessen the pressure on Beijing by routinely holding joint military exercises with China, spanning the East China Sea, Central Asia and the Far East. Moscow largely agreed with Beijing's position on both the U.S. naval presence in the region and The Hague's 2016 arbitration tribunal ruling that invalidated the majority of China's expansive South China Sea claims.

An enterprising Russia has positioned itself as a dependable third force to both the West and China, taking into account Southeast Asian countries' innate propensity for strategic diversification. Beijing has largely tolerated its supposed ally's strategic buccaneering in its own maritime backyard because it wants to keep Moscow on its side, especially in the midst of a raging conflict of its own with the West. But this precarious situation could be drastically changed by President Vladimir Putin's decision to invade Ukraine, which has made Russia the world’s most sanctioned country.

The majority of Southeast Asian countries have been appalled by Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, which led to their fateful vote in favor of the U.N. General Assembly resolution denouncing the invasion in 2022. Describing the crisis as an "existential issue," Singapore, the region's most developed nation, has imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia. Others have done the same.

The increasingly complex Western sanctions won't just make it difficult for Moscow to reach major defense and energy agreements; the country's growing reliance on China may cause it to withdraw strategically from the South China Sea. Beijing will probably pressure Moscow to refrain from arming and supporting its adversaries in the South China Sea and elsewhere as its power continues to eclipse Russia’s. This would further mean that China will be well-positioned to assert its own sphere of influence in Southeast Asia in general and the South China Sea in particular, at the expense of Russia.

For Europe, the geopolitical node in the South China Sea is distant. However, Russian moves in Asia are likely to trigger a U.S. reaction, especially if they lead to a change in China’s strategy. This would, in turn, directly impact Europe.

Our world is fraying at the edges, beginning in the European borderlands but potentially stretching into Asia. Geopolitical nodes will become only more important as supply chains are reformulated, competition for raw materials grows and technological change fragments cyberspace and more. The most critical nodes are the Black Sea and the South China Sea, where the U.S., Russia and China contend for influence and control.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1456 on: April 19, 2023, 08:28:52 AM »
"Explain to me how it’s ok for Israel to restrict who can join it’s nation to protect it’s Jewish character, but European Christian nations aren’t allowed to. Why is white genocide ok?"

Because it is contrary to our Constitution.

RACE IS NOT THE ISSUE.

It most certainly is.

The problem here is LAWLESSNESS. 

It is, and ignoring the obvious reality that some groups struggle with lawful, civilized behavior in both their origin countries and in the rapidly declining west is the cause. You know it just as well as I do. Let me know when you move to a black neighborhood so your kids can attend a predominantly black school. "Race is just a cultural construct" Let me know when you catch Sickle Cell Anemia. When you see a headline like "Massive brawl in Disneyland" do you think it must be ethnic Koreans in Orange County that are responsible? It's not racist to be a realist.

OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS (which could stand improvement with an eye to admitting those with things to offer America) ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED.

IF OUR LAWS WERE ENFORCED, WE WOULD BE FINE.

No we wouldn't.  If  we had a vastly homogeneous population like the US did generations ago, we'd have the great country we had generations ago. Diversity isn't our strength. You can ignore reality, it's very popular today. You can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1050,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/135/663/491/original/0f2b10c30d3976b4.jpeg



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1457 on: April 19, 2023, 11:38:26 AM »


"No we wouldn't.  If  we had a vastly homogeneous population like the US did generations ago, we'd have the great country we had generations ago."

If we imparted the American Creed, if we lived by the American Creed, we would be fine.  But we don't and so we aren't.

"Diversity isn't our strength."

On this we agree.  "E pluribus unum" is our strength.

Disparate impact and other racial Marxism be damned, prospective immigrants should be selected on the basis of what they have to contribute to America.  Period.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1458 on: April 19, 2023, 10:24:05 PM »


"No we wouldn't.  If  we had a vastly homogeneous population like the US did generations ago, we'd have the great country we had generations ago."

If we imparted the American Creed, if we lived by the American Creed, we would be fine.  But we don't and so we aren't.

A good percentage of the world scoffs at the American Creed. Lots of people holding US passports mock those ideas.

"Diversity isn't our strength."

On this we agree.  "E pluribus unum" is our strength.

Yeah, funny enough the Latin roots of that refer to familial bonds. Humans aren't Lego blocks that can easily be swapped out. Societies are complex ecosystems. Advanced Western societies can't make up for aborted children by importing masses from the 3rd world. No matter how much you might want it to be so, Western nations don't make 3rd worlders into functional members of their nations through magic soil. Somalis are going to Somali, no matter if it's Mogadishu, Malmo, or Minneapolis. The masses of Somalis we get aren't Ayaan Hirsi Ali. We get this:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/minnesota-mall-stabbing-could-represent-the-realisation-of-us-terror-fears-a7316211.html

Disparate impact and other racial Marxism be damned, prospective immigrants should be selected on the basis of what they have to contribute to America.  Period.

We.don't.even.have.a.border.

We don't have a country.

Plan accordingly.


ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1555
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1459 on: April 23, 2023, 08:58:49 AM »
In the meantime, the US withdraws embassy staff from Sudan, but leaves behind 16,000 Americans. Not sure how the left behind will co-ordinate their withdrawl...with the embassy staff all gone ?.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/sudan-army-initiates-foreign-evacuations-american-citizen-dies-ceasefire-collapses

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1460 on: April 23, 2023, 09:11:49 AM »
In the meantime, the US withdraws embassy staff from Sudan, but leaves behind 16,000 Americans. Not sure how the left behind will co-ordinate their withdrawl...with the embassy staff all gone ?.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/sudan-army-initiates-foreign-evacuations-american-citizen-dies-ceasefire-collapses

It's so hard to parse out the malevolence from the incompetence with this Mal-administration.

ya

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1555
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1461 on: April 24, 2023, 05:11:52 AM »
In the meantime, India is bringing back all its citizens. Below is one picture. India has good relations with Gulf states, and they help arrange it.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1462 on: April 25, 2023, 07:03:04 AM »
"In the meantime, the US withdraws embassy staff from Sudan, but leaves behind 16,000 Americans. Not sure how the left behind will co-ordinate their withdrawl...with the embassy staff all gone?."

Agreed on the big picture but in the interest of accuracy:

I forget where, but I saw that the overwhelming majority are dual citizens who choose to live there. 


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
VDH -> WWW
« Reply #1465 on: May 04, 2023, 07:54:28 AM »
no not world wide web

here he refers to WORLD WIDE WOKE

US proselytizing the world with LBGTQ.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/baby-in-stroller-stopped-just-before-rolling-into-busy-highway/

Gays united ;
take over the world
if you disagree we will not chop off your head - just get you fired , harass you, try to destroy you, dox you, prevent you from getting a salary loans  etc.

WTF is this ?

can we stop this crazy  madness ?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1466 on: May 04, 2023, 08:51:13 AM »
Is that the link you intended?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
WRM: Principal beats Principle
« Reply #1467 on: May 09, 2023, 12:54:02 PM »
Principal Beats Principle in the World Order
The new communists appeal to the world’s poor by promising to make them rich.
Walter Russell Mead hedcutBy Walter Russell MeadFollow
May 8, 2023 6:24 pm ET


Foreign ministers of the Arab League meeting in Cairo, May 7. PHOTO: KHALED ELFIQI/SHUTTERSTOCK
Sunday’s Arab League vote to readmit the blood-stained Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad should be a wake-up call for Washington. Longtime American allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have flipped from backing the U.S.-led effort to isolate and ultimately overthrow Mr. Assad to supporting the Sino-Russian goal of reintegrating him into the regional order.

Many factors go into such decisions, but the Arab League move is part of a wider trend that Washington can’t afford to ignore. It isn’t only nondemocratic countries like the Gulf Arab states tilting toward Russia and China these days. Democracies like Brazil and South Africa are rejecting American pleas to rally behind democratic Ukraine against autocratic Russia. Across the so-called Global South, few countries, democratic or not, are rushing to enlist in President Biden’s anti-autocracy crusade.

Winning friends and influencing people in the Global South was a challenge for American strategists during the Cold War. It will be more difficult this time around. If Washington policy makers and the broader foreign-policy community don’t understand the new challenge, American diplomacy will face setbacks and frustrations.

Chinese communists today aren’t only better at economics than Mao and the Soviet chowderheads; they are also smarter politically. The old communists wanted to conquer the world by alliances with the underdogs and the poor. Today they align with the rich.


During the Cold War, the rulers of most countries feared nothing more than a communist takeover at home. If local communist parties took power, they would murder or exile their opponents, confiscate their wealth and throw their supporters in the gulag. In Mao’s time the Chinese Communist Party similarly promoted communist insurgencies or communist parties, in Vietnam and across the region.

Today’s communism wears a very different face. No social revolutions, no fanatical armies of revenge-minded peasant guerrillas storming the presidential palace. Instead, as Russia sells weapons, China will sell the high-tech security and surveillance systems that can help rulers everywhere crush workers or peasants who dare challenge the status quo.

Sino-Russian support comes without lectures. Kleptocracy, money laundering, human-rights violations, drug cartels: No questions will be asked of rulers willing to align with the new system. Enrichissez-vous! Make yourselves rich is the message China and Russia broadcast today to the world’s rich.

The old communists sought to mobilize what they categorized as oppressed classes against existing elites. Today’s adversaries want to mobilize existing elites against a global status quo that, they argue, favors yesterday’s Group of Seven powers and rich countries over the rising powers of the Global South.

The American response in East and Southeast Asia, where the competition is fiercest, has been to stress the danger of Chinese hegemony and territorial claims to neighboring states while playing down American commitments to such controversial topics as human rights in sensitive countries like the Philippines. Their national interests, Washington tells local governments, are joined to those of the U.S. If China becomes too dominant, their security, their territorial integrity and even their independence could be at risk.

This argument often makes a powerful impression. But in the world in which we live, not all ruling elites are patriotic. Many prefer the private interests of their families and friends to something as abstract and idealistic as the national good. The country that offers the greatest economic advantages and political security to powerful rulers and elites is likely to have a great deal of political and even strategic pull.

In other parts of the world, like the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, Washington’s core arguments resonate less with elites. China and Russia pose no security threat to countries like Brazil, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, and the revisionist powers seem to offer a way to check what many in the Global South see as the overbearing power of the U.S. and the rest of the G-7.

What elites and ordinary people in the Global South want is something that makes many greens and progressives in the G-7 countries unhappy. They want economic growth, they want lots of it, and they want it now.

Wired and connected as never before, ordinary people all over the Global South can see how people live in the rich world, and they want that for themselves. Their rulers know that their power depends on delivering the goods such growth brings.

To win over both popular and elite audiences in the Global South, the U.S. must embrace the politics of growth. Our world order must be, and must be seen to be, the surest, fastest path to raising living standards all over the world. That’s what we did after World War II. We must find a way to do that again today.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
GPF: Can Russia gang up on the West
« Reply #1468 on: May 10, 2023, 06:26:05 AM »
May 10, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Can Russia Gang Up on the West?
Groupings such as the BRICS and the SCO have been harmed by the sanctions regime too.
By: Antonia Colibasanu

In February 2022, the global economy started what became an unprecedented event: The West, led by the United States, severed trade, financial and personal ties with Russia, a country that spans 11 time zones, sits at the heart of Eurasia and is essential to global commerce as a supplier of key commodities. Before that, similar punitive measures tended to target countries on the edge of the global economy like Venezuela and Iran. Unsurprisingly, global growth forecasts for 2023 have been revised downward.

The International Monetary Fund reported in April that the baseline prediction for growth is 3.4 percent in 2022, 2.8 percent in 2023 and 3 percent in 2024. But it also warned that in the event of increased financial sector stress, global growth would fall to around 2.5 percent in 2023, with advanced economies growing at or below 1 percent. Meanwhile, the IMF predicted that Russia's economy will grow 0.7 percent more quickly than Germany's and the United Kingdom's, both of which are forecast to enter a recession (and experience negative growth), and will keep pace with growth in France and Italy in 2023. In other words, Russia's economic growth is expected to compete with, if not outperform, four of the G-7 countries leading the sanctions charge.

IMF Forecasts for GDP Growth
(click to enlarge)

The West believed that by impounding Russian foreign exchange reserves held abroad, imposing harsh restrictions on Russian banks and individuals, and severing trade in technology and raw materials, the Russian economy would collapse and force President Vladimir Putin to abandon the war in Ukraine. Less than two months after the invasion, the IMF forecast that Russia’s economy would contract by 8.5 percent in 2022 and by 2.3 percent this year. Since then, however, the fund has revised its estimates upward by a cumulative 9.4 percentage points. Sure, at least some of the IMF forecasting comes from Russian figures that are arguably inflated – but the Russian economy nonetheless resisted sanctions during the first months of 2022.

In fact, Russia was prepared for the sanctions. It had been under them since it took Crimea in 2014, and the West had advertised its intentions well ahead of the invasion. The West failed to recognize as much, and it overestimated its power to dominate the most critical parts of the global economy. The West was also inexplicably slow to realize that, when cornered, authoritarian governments deprioritize rational economic considerations and spur Western conventions.

Meanwhile, China, India, Malaysia and Singapore have begun to import more Russian oil. Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan, Armenia and other former Soviet republics have acted as middlemen for Western exporters and Russian importers on anything from cell phones to machine tools. Thus developed a network of parallel imports and informal shipping fleets. Legal loopholes, opportunistic business activity and a lack of collaboration by emerging economies have conspired to blunt the impact of sanctions.

Even so, it would be a mistake to say the sanctions have failed. There are clear indications that they are affecting the Russian economy, so from the West’s perspective, they are better than allowing Russia to support the war with a limitless budget funded by export payments.

Indeed, Moscow has already been forced to sell commodities at lower prices and to pay a premium for technology (due to the price of avoiding legal obstacles and the increased cost of transportation, not to mention the investment needed to create new trade corridors). This year, Russia's federal budget is under strain from military and security spending, which accounts for a record-high one-third of total expenditure, and from mandatory import substitutes. The Kremlin can afford to cover these expenditures for now, but any external shock could severely undermine Russian finances.

To mitigate these risks, Russian authorities are squeezing the economy for more revenue. In April, Putin changed the way the country taxes oil businesses by basing levies on the Brent crude worldwide benchmark price minus a predetermined discount, rather than the price of Urals, the country's principal export crude, which has been trading at a lower price than Brent in recent months. Moscow expects to net 600 billion rubles ($8 billion) in revenue from the levies. The government also announced last month that the publication of statistics on oil, gas and condensate production will be suspended until April 2024, indicating further trouble may affect the industry. It’s unclear how the departure of Western companies has affected energy production, but the Kremlin isn’t taking any risks: It’s asking all Western firms leaving the country to pay a contribution to the federal budget equal to at least 10 percent of the market value of their assets (on top of a 50 percent discount on property values). The moves are clearly meant to offset the losses in the hydrocarbons sector, the revenue from which declined by 45 percent year on year in the first four months of 2023 because of sales at discounted prices.

Given Russia's bleak fiscal outlook, the role of the country’s oligarchs will become increasingly important. Russian elites, including senior officials and corporate leaders, are highly pragmatic and often apolitical. Like Moscow itself, they were prepared for sanctions but were ill-equipped to deal with a forever war of attrition. Restoring international operations and finding new customers is therefore their primary concern, even though they will continue to do business with the Kremlin. Their current reward for doing so is large cash flows from Asia and the global south. With limited opportunities to get back on the Western market, Moscow must make sure that Russian companies enjoy a friendly environment elsewhere.

This is why for the past year Moscow has focused on building its leadership role within the Eurasian Economic Union and promoting its interests in multinational organizations such as the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. These groups are designed to challenge the U.S. hegemony by promoting their members' view of a multipolar world. But they are often too mired in rivalry and conflicting interests to get much done. Larger members like Brazil and India see these organizations as places to confer with their peers while maintaining their strategy of non-alignment. The smaller players seek access to wider markets for growing their profits.

Larger emerging markets such as Brazil and India have actually benefitted from Russia’s parallel imports, but for the most part, smaller ones were hurt, however indirectly, by the Western sanctions regime. They may be indifferent to the Ukraine conflict itself, but they have every reason to try to insulate themselves against further risk, even if that means cooperating with Russia. And the BRICS is an ideal forum within which to do so. The bloc focuses on economic policy coordination to establish better terms for its members to participate in the world economy. It eschews the imposition of values on its members, most of whom broadly share the belief that a multipolar world is a more profitable world for them. This explains the bloc’s appeal to less affluent countries that can’t go toe-to-toe with the G-7, and it explains why 18 more countries have applied for membership since its founding in 2006. The 15th BRICS summit will be held in South Africa in August, where it will examine, among other things, the admission of 17 new members from Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East. (The United States asked to attend the meeting but was denied.)

BRICS and NDB Membership
(click to enlarge)

More recently, a two-day summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Goa, India, brought together the majority of the Asian and Eurasian members of the nascent BRICS grouping. The meeting was advertised as an opportunity to begin working through internal conflicts and to capitalize on the economic opportunities from improved relations. The SCO is similar to BRICS in that it is dominated by China and Russia, but the organization is primarily concerned with regional security challenges, including the fight against regional terrorism, ethnic separatism and religious extremism. It has largely focused on Asia but has slowly expanded its aperture as new members join.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization Members
(click to enlarge)

Perhaps the most important takeaway from the meeting in Goa was that Russia and India concluded that they can’t fully de-dollarize their bilateral trade. The value of India's Russian imports increased from $9.86 billion to $41.55 billion in the previous fiscal year, while Russia's contribution to Indian imports rose from 1.6 percent to 6.5 percent. During the same period, India's exports to Russia reached $2.8 billion, resulting in a $38.74 billion imbalance for New Delhi.

All of this is impressive. Russia is currently making money by exporting crude oil to India, but it is having difficulty accessing the funds since the rupee is not freely convertible. As a result, $400 million in Russian dividends belonging to Indian corporations have been stranded in Russia. According to Russia’s foreign minister, Moscow has acquired "billions" of limited convertible rupees from accounts in Indian banks in trade settlements it cannot use.

Russia now has a significant trade surplus with India, but it has no purpose for all the rupees it has amassed because India produces little that Russia wants to buy. And, because India has a large trade imbalance, it has been unable to earn enough foreign money to completely pay for its Russian imports in other currencies. And though many believe bilateral payments are still made in U.S. dollars, as well as dirhams, yuans and "several other currencies," Russia hoped to convince India to agree on a rupee settlement mechanism to help lower currency conversion costs and make sure it can continue working with India if the West imposes sanctions on third countries. Having a bilateral mechanism gives Moscow the flexibility it needs, especially since India has no interest in making its rupee fully convertible.

Moscow’s failure to reach an agreement with India shows the limit of its influence on one of the prominent BRICS members. Moreover, the fact that Beijing announced its foreign minister would visit Germany and France days after the SCO summit ended – the same day Brussels said it would consider sanctions on Chinese companies for supporting Russia’s war machine – suggests Moscow hasn’t convinced Beijing to side with it and help the de-dollarization process either. The potential for the West to tighten sanctions and hit third countries that are facilitating trade with Moscow is clearly a concern among larger BRICS members.

Though the expansion of the SCO and the BRICS is one of the unintended consequences of Western sanctions, bucking U.S. hegemony is impossible so long as all emerging countries want dollars to fund growth – and so long as they are unwilling to give up the Western market. In that sense, they can’t form a realistic alliance that Russia can use against the West. If anything, the groupings demonstrate why Western sanctions against Russia are working, albeit slowly and problematically for everyone involved.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
WRM: Carpe Diem!
« Reply #1470 on: June 02, 2023, 02:30:35 AM »
Putin’s War Is America’s Opportunity
Ukraine will emerge as a formidable force in Europe—and one aligned with the U.S.
Walter Russell Mead hedcutBy Walter Russell MeadFollow
May 29, 2023 3:45 pm ET



People take shelter in a subway station in Kyiv, Ukraine, May 29. PHOTO: ROMAN PILIPEY/GETTY IMAGES
American policy conversations about Ukraine often assume that Ukraine is a problem. For some, it represents a distraction from China. Others fear Russian escalation and retaliation. Still others worry about the financial cost of supporting Ukraine’s army and propping up its war-blighted economy.

These concerns are real and have their place, but they miss the main point. Vladimir Putin’s ill-judged, ill-planned and ill-prosecuted war has ignited a national awakening in Ukraine. The country emerging from Putin’s War will be a formidable new force in Europe whose interests and outlook place it firmly in alignment with the U.S.

On a visit to Kyiv last week, I spoke with Ukrainians including business executives, software wizards, survivors of the Russian occupation in Bucha and veterans of the bitter fighting in Mariupol. There was griping in plenty. The country is under martial law. Corruption remains widespread. Inflation is making life difficult, and with refugees huddled into makeshift shelters where 60 people sometimes share a communal kitchen, daily life can be full of hardship. Russian missiles streak across the sky and every home has been touched by the war’s human toll. But I didn’t hear from one person who believed Ukraine should trade Crimea or the Donbas for peace.

Ukrainians were clear-eyed about their situation. They expect a long war and a hard peace. “My grandfather fought the Russians,” said one veteran of the fighting in Mariupol, “and I think my children and grandchildren will have to fight them too.” Those words were echoed by soldiers and civilians across the city.



To understand today’s Ukraine, think of Israel. After centuries of oppression culminating in the unspeakable violence of the 20th century, Israelis are determined to take their fate into their own hands and are willing to make the economic and personal sacrifices necessary to defend their independence.

Ukrainians seem to have reached a similar place. The two world wars, the Russian Civil War and Stalin’s genocidal cruelty subjected Ukraine to unspeakable suffering during the 20th century. Now, as Mr. Putin and the yapping propagandists of Moscow’s bloodthirsty media threaten the country with a new dark age, Ukrainians have, quite simply, had enough. They don’t know how this will end, and they don’t know how long and how far the West will be willing to support them, but they are ready to do what it takes.

The Ukraine that emerges from this baptism by fire will be a formidable country with a battle-tested army, and it is going to transform the strategic landscape. It will join Poland, the Baltic republics and the Scandinavian countries in a defense-minded bloc against Russian expansion. While danger persists, that bloc will be committed to the trans-Atlantic alliance and see the U.S. as an essential partner in its defense. It will use its weight in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union against any attempts by weaker-willed Europeans to triangulate between Washington and its opponents.

Any end to the war widely perceived as a defeat for Mr. Putin will do more than create a powerful new ally for the U.S. It will also underline the value of an American alliance. That the U.S. and its allies could enable a smaller country to defeat Russia, still anachronistically seen as a superpower by much of the world, will strengthen the American alliance network and dent the prestige of the revisionist powers.


The stakes are still higher. Mr. Putin’s war is the first major international conflict of the information age, and Ukraine, which had a significant core of software engineers and IT experts beforehand, is developing new methods of war fighting. Sometimes using off-the-shelf gadgets bought directly by front-line soldiers with money from family and friends, Ukraine’s tech wizards play a key role in enabling Ukraine’s numerically inferior army to hold off Russian attacks.

Software engineers who joined the army at the start of the war have been called back from infantry brigades and, with new recruits leaving lucrative tech industry jobs to enlist, have formed fast-moving, informal units that develop methods of analyzing battlefield information to get granular insight into Russian plans.

Ukrainians want deeper partnerships with American tech companies and the Pentagon. Just as the uniquely close American cooperation with Israel’s tech sector boosts American capabilities, tech cooperation with Ukraine will help U.S. business and the U.S. military maintain and even increase their lead over Beijing.

Helping Ukraine is not a charity project to be undertaken out of sentiment. Nor is it a strategic distraction that weakens our hand in the Indo-Pacific. In his blindness and folly, Vladimir Putin has handed the U.S. a golden opportunity. We should seize it with both hands

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: WRM: Carpe Diem!
« Reply #1471 on: June 02, 2023, 03:59:45 AM »
Hopium overdose.

 :roll:

1. Where does Ukraine get the troops?

2. Where does it get the weapons?



Putin’s War Is America’s Opportunity
Ukraine will emerge as a formidable force in Europe—and one aligned with the U.S.
Walter Russell Mead hedcutBy Walter Russell MeadFollow
May 29, 2023 3:45 pm ET



People take shelter in a subway station in Kyiv, Ukraine, May 29. PHOTO: ROMAN PILIPEY/GETTY IMAGES
American policy conversations about Ukraine often assume that Ukraine is a problem. For some, it represents a distraction from China. Others fear Russian escalation and retaliation. Still others worry about the financial cost of supporting Ukraine’s army and propping up its war-blighted economy.

These concerns are real and have their place, but they miss the main point. Vladimir Putin’s ill-judged, ill-planned and ill-prosecuted war has ignited a national awakening in Ukraine. The country emerging from Putin’s War will be a formidable new force in Europe whose interests and outlook place it firmly in alignment with the U.S.

On a visit to Kyiv last week, I spoke with Ukrainians including business executives, software wizards, survivors of the Russian occupation in Bucha and veterans of the bitter fighting in Mariupol. There was griping in plenty. The country is under martial law. Corruption remains widespread. Inflation is making life difficult, and with refugees huddled into makeshift shelters where 60 people sometimes share a communal kitchen, daily life can be full of hardship. Russian missiles streak across the sky and every home has been touched by the war’s human toll. But I didn’t hear from one person who believed Ukraine should trade Crimea or the Donbas for peace.

Ukrainians were clear-eyed about their situation. They expect a long war and a hard peace. “My grandfather fought the Russians,” said one veteran of the fighting in Mariupol, “and I think my children and grandchildren will have to fight them too.” Those words were echoed by soldiers and civilians across the city.



To understand today’s Ukraine, think of Israel. After centuries of oppression culminating in the unspeakable violence of the 20th century, Israelis are determined to take their fate into their own hands and are willing to make the economic and personal sacrifices necessary to defend their independence.

Ukrainians seem to have reached a similar place. The two world wars, the Russian Civil War and Stalin’s genocidal cruelty subjected Ukraine to unspeakable suffering during the 20th century. Now, as Mr. Putin and the yapping propagandists of Moscow’s bloodthirsty media threaten the country with a new dark age, Ukrainians have, quite simply, had enough. They don’t know how this will end, and they don’t know how long and how far the West will be willing to support them, but they are ready to do what it takes.

The Ukraine that emerges from this baptism by fire will be a formidable country with a battle-tested army, and it is going to transform the strategic landscape. It will join Poland, the Baltic republics and the Scandinavian countries in a defense-minded bloc against Russian expansion. While danger persists, that bloc will be committed to the trans-Atlantic alliance and see the U.S. as an essential partner in its defense. It will use its weight in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union against any attempts by weaker-willed Europeans to triangulate between Washington and its opponents.

Any end to the war widely perceived as a defeat for Mr. Putin will do more than create a powerful new ally for the U.S. It will also underline the value of an American alliance. That the U.S. and its allies could enable a smaller country to defeat Russia, still anachronistically seen as a superpower by much of the world, will strengthen the American alliance network and dent the prestige of the revisionist powers.


The stakes are still higher. Mr. Putin’s war is the first major international conflict of the information age, and Ukraine, which had a significant core of software engineers and IT experts beforehand, is developing new methods of war fighting. Sometimes using off-the-shelf gadgets bought directly by front-line soldiers with money from family and friends, Ukraine’s tech wizards play a key role in enabling Ukraine’s numerically inferior army to hold off Russian attacks.

Software engineers who joined the army at the start of the war have been called back from infantry brigades and, with new recruits leaving lucrative tech industry jobs to enlist, have formed fast-moving, informal units that develop methods of analyzing battlefield information to get granular insight into Russian plans.

Ukrainians want deeper partnerships with American tech companies and the Pentagon. Just as the uniquely close American cooperation with Israel’s tech sector boosts American capabilities, tech cooperation with Ukraine will help U.S. business and the U.S. military maintain and even increase their lead over Beijing.

Helping Ukraine is not a charity project to be undertaken out of sentiment. Nor is it a strategic distraction that weakens our hand in the Indo-Pacific. In his blindness and folly, Vladimir Putin has handed the U.S. a golden opportunity. We should seize it with both hands

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1472 on: June 02, 2023, 05:16:19 AM »
"Hopium"-- good one.

As I have discussed here over the years, I like George Friedman's analytical framework about how geography determines the underlying realities of geopolitics.

The space between Germany and Russia has been the source of back and forth for centuries, most recently WW1 and the Ribbentroff Agreement leading to WW2, then the Soviet conquest of East Europe, then NATO going east, etc etc.

Unlike the feckless idiots in charge right now, WRM is outlining a coherent vision of our geopolitical goal.

I agree with his assessment of Uke will.

A major American weak link has been that we don't follow through what we start.  Reasonable people can disagree over whether going into Iraq was a good idea, but as I have repeatedly pounded the table here for over ten years now, Obama-Biden pulling out of Iraq was a huge historical error.

As stupid as it was to trigger this war (contrast Trump, who was both strong and subtle in this) we are in it now.  In the aftermath of Afghanistan, to pull the rug from under the Ukes now would persuade all those with skin in the Taiwan game that we are no longer a serious country.

Gotta go to work!

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1473 on: June 02, 2023, 05:57:51 AM »
The “Palestinians” have tons of will. Israel still exists.

Will is nice, but they are running out of troops and our cupboard is empty.

You can’t will your way into weapons or manpower.

China knows how unserious the FUSA is. They own the dottering corruptocrat puppet more than the deep state does.

The PLA leadership will trade 100,000 troops to kill 10.000 of ours. The PLA leadership openly brags about this. Think the public is up for WW II level losses? Worse than WWII? We don’t even have the will to secure our cities because someone might call us racist.

No one with an IQ above room temperature trusts us, and for good reason.


"Hopium"-- good one.

As I have discussed here over the years, I like George Friedman's analytical framework about how geography determines the underlying realities of geopolitics.

The space between Germany and Russia has been the source of back and forth for centuries, most recently WW1 and the Ribbentroff Agreement leading to WW2, then the Soviet conquest of East Europe, then NATO going east, etc etc.

Unlike the feckless idiots in charge right now, WRM is outlining a coherent vision of our geopolitical goal.

I agree with his assessment of Uke will.

A major American weak link has been that we don't follow through what we start.  Reasonable people can disagree over whether going into Iraq was a good idea, but as I have repeatedly pounded the table here for over ten years now, Obama-Biden pulling out of Iraq was a huge historical error.

As stupid as it was to trigger this war (contrast Trump, who was both strong and subtle in this) we are in it now.  In the aftermath of Afghanistan, to pull the rug from under the Ukes now would persuade all those with skin in the Taiwan game that we are no longer a serious country.

Gotta go to work!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1474 on: June 02, 2023, 06:36:37 PM »
"The PLA leadership will trade 100,000 troops to kill 10.000 of ours. The PLA leadership openly brags about this. Think the public is up for WW II level losses? Worse than WWII?"

We are too fat to run away.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1475 on: June 02, 2023, 06:51:47 PM »
"The PLA leadership will trade 100,000 troops to kill 10.000 of ours. The PLA leadership openly brags about this. Think the public is up for WW II level losses? Worse than WWII?"

We are too fat to run away.

China and the world knows how weak and decadent we are. Feeding the last of the Ukes into the meatgrinder doesn't change this.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1476 on: June 13, 2023, 02:05:45 PM »
By: Geopolitical Futures
Growing together. On day one of the 10th Arab-China Business Conference in Riyadh, 30 investment agreements worth a total of $10 billion were signed, according to the Saudi government. The Saudi foreign minister said Arab countries and China were eager to develop their partnership, while the energy minister said Riyadh was ignoring Western criticism of the growing Sino-Saudi relationship. The rift goes all the way to the top: Last week, reports surfaced that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman threatened the United States with “major economic consequences” if it tried to punish the kingdom for cutting oil production.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
George Friedman
« Reply #1477 on: June 16, 2023, 06:06:05 AM »
June 16, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
The State of the World
Thoughts in and around geopolitics.
By: George Friedman
Looking at the current state of the world is a requisite step in forecasting. The way countries interact is shaped by necessity – be it economic, military or political. Their interactions may be hostile or cooperative, but interact they must. The world, then, is a kaleidoscope of contact, the significance of which is constantly changing. The task of the moment is to make sense of these patterns to better understand the future.

Central to that task is to discard the trivial and identify the important. Since the noise in the global system rarely correlates to long-term significance, the foundation of our method must be to extract the essential by focusing on the constraints imposed by reality. But that also demands that we understand the moment, because we live in the moment and must accommodate it, and because the shape of the world at the moment is the beginning of a forecast. Grasping this moment and creating a map of the important makes everything possible. In short, simplifying the world makes it understandable.

At this moment, the world pivots around the United States. It is the world’s largest economy and most powerful military force, and boasts the most powerful geographic position. It faces no threat on land, and there is no nation with the naval capability to invade it. It therefore faces no existential threat and has the greatest room for maneuver, plotting its course with fewer ramifications and easily recovering from consequences when it faces them.

The world has three other major forces: China, which is trying to emerge from centuries of external and internal friction and is now confronted with the question of whether its progress is sustainable; Russia, a one-time global power that seeks to recover what it lost in the 1990s; and Europe, which is trying to piece itself back together from the fragmentation that cost it its place atop the world order. The only other potentially significant force is India, whose incomparably factionalized landscape often prevents it from realizing its potential. There are dozens of other lesser powers, each sovereign to some extent, each exploiting other nations and each being exploited. They must be mapped and measured, too, as they can often punch above their weight.

We can summarize the world by summarizing the conflicts endemic to the major powers, as well as by the way the conflicts draw in lesser powers. One conflict is Russia's attempt to regain its strategic depth by forcing Ukraine to return to Russia. The other is the conflict between China and the U.S., in which China seeks to control its eastern waters, and the U.S. seeks to block it and thus retain its dominion over the seas. Europe, the historical foundation of the global system, has been at war with itself throughout its history and is now waging that war in ways that are both complex and difficult to understand. It will be addressed in due course.

The first conflict began under the Russian assumption that Ukraine would quickly be overrun – long before the United States could bring its power to bear. The failure to quickly defeat Ukraine has significantly weakened the Russian military and hurt its economy. The question most pertinent to our forecast is whether the existing Russian political system can recover, assuming continued military failure and economic duress.

The second conflict stems from China’s need for maritime access to trade. Exports are the foundation of its economic growth and its best weapon against domestic unrest. China’s imperative for access to the world’s oceans threatens America’s interest in protecting itself by controlling the seas. The U.S. has just completed building a cordon sanitaire from Japan to Australia, and India is fighting a small war with China on land. Meanwhile, the U.S. has imposed economic pressure that has weakened the Chinese economy and created a degree of economic unrest.

Much of this is obvious, of course, but the obvious is the beginning of understanding the world and forecasting. The obvious minus the noise is the essence of geopolitical reality. And grasping the simplest reality is the best waypoint we can muster to keep our bearings in the complexities of the world. You can’t permit the obvious to stand alone, but you also can’t forget one core fact: that the United States, like Britain or Rome before it, is the principal force shaping the world right now. The future comes later.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: George Friedman
« Reply #1478 on: June 16, 2023, 06:29:21 AM »
And yet the American Republic is dead.

June 16, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
The State of the World
Thoughts in and around geopolitics.
By: George Friedman
Looking at the current state of the world is a requisite step in forecasting. The way countries interact is shaped by necessity – be it economic, military or political. Their interactions may be hostile or cooperative, but interact they must. The world, then, is a kaleidoscope of contact, the significance of which is constantly changing. The task of the moment is to make sense of these patterns to better understand the future.

Central to that task is to discard the trivial and identify the important. Since the noise in the global system rarely correlates to long-term significance, the foundation of our method must be to extract the essential by focusing on the constraints imposed by reality. But that also demands that we understand the moment, because we live in the moment and must accommodate it, and because the shape of the world at the moment is the beginning of a forecast. Grasping this moment and creating a map of the important makes everything possible. In short, simplifying the world makes it understandable.

At this moment, the world pivots around the United States. It is the world’s largest economy and most powerful military force, and boasts the most powerful geographic position. It faces no threat on land, and there is no nation with the naval capability to invade it. It therefore faces no existential threat and has the greatest room for maneuver, plotting its course with fewer ramifications and easily recovering from consequences when it faces them.

The world has three other major forces: China, which is trying to emerge from centuries of external and internal friction and is now confronted with the question of whether its progress is sustainable; Russia, a one-time global power that seeks to recover what it lost in the 1990s; and Europe, which is trying to piece itself back together from the fragmentation that cost it its place atop the world order. The only other potentially significant force is India, whose incomparably factionalized landscape often prevents it from realizing its potential. There are dozens of other lesser powers, each sovereign to some extent, each exploiting other nations and each being exploited. They must be mapped and measured, too, as they can often punch above their weight.

We can summarize the world by summarizing the conflicts endemic to the major powers, as well as by the way the conflicts draw in lesser powers. One conflict is Russia's attempt to regain its strategic depth by forcing Ukraine to return to Russia. The other is the conflict between China and the U.S., in which China seeks to control its eastern waters, and the U.S. seeks to block it and thus retain its dominion over the seas. Europe, the historical foundation of the global system, has been at war with itself throughout its history and is now waging that war in ways that are both complex and difficult to understand. It will be addressed in due course.

The first conflict began under the Russian assumption that Ukraine would quickly be overrun – long before the United States could bring its power to bear. The failure to quickly defeat Ukraine has significantly weakened the Russian military and hurt its economy. The question most pertinent to our forecast is whether the existing Russian political system can recover, assuming continued military failure and economic duress.

The second conflict stems from China’s need for maritime access to trade. Exports are the foundation of its economic growth and its best weapon against domestic unrest. China’s imperative for access to the world’s oceans threatens America’s interest in protecting itself by controlling the seas. The U.S. has just completed building a cordon sanitaire from Japan to Australia, and India is fighting a small war with China on land. Meanwhile, the U.S. has imposed economic pressure that has weakened the Chinese economy and created a degree of economic unrest.

Much of this is obvious, of course, but the obvious is the beginning of understanding the world and forecasting. The obvious minus the noise is the essence of geopolitical reality. And grasping the simplest reality is the best waypoint we can muster to keep our bearings in the complexities of the world. You can’t permit the obvious to stand alone, but you also can’t forget one core fact: that the United States, like Britain or Rome before it, is the principal force shaping the world right now. The future comes later.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1479 on: June 16, 2023, 11:22:09 AM »
 :cry: :cry: :cry:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
ET: Trump on interface of Wagner, Russia, China, Taiwan
« Reply #1480 on: June 25, 2023, 01:00:11 PM »
MARC:  Trump's comments here show insight IMHO.

=========================
Trump Calls Wagner Rebellion in Russia a ‘Big Mess’
By Frank Fang
June 25, 2023Updated: June 25, 2023
 

Former President Donald Trump called the conflict between the Russian military and Wagner mercenaries a “big mess” on Saturday.

Wagner mercenary group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin called for an armed uprising against Russia’s military leaders, after alleging that Russia’s top general, Valery Gerasimov, had ordered an attack, killing some 2,000 Wagner soldiers at their field camps in Ukraine.

Prigozhin’s forces managed to seize Rostov-on-Don, a southern Russian city near the Ukrainian border and home to the headquarters of the Russian Southern Military District, which oversees Moscow’s war efforts in Ukraine. Then, Prigozhin ordered his forces to march toward Moscow, a military advancement that he called a “march for justice.”


On Saturday, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko brokered a deal, with Prigozhin agreeing to move to Belarus and Moscow dropping criminal charges against him. Prior to the deal, President Vladimir Putin vowed the rebels would face “inevitable punishment.”

“A big mess in Russia, but be careful what you wish for. Next in may be far worse!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social account on June 24.

Trump, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the White House in 2024, has said that he would end the war between Ukraine and Russia within 24 hours if elected. Recently, the former president revealed that he told Putin several years ago that there would be “hell to pay” if Russia invaded Ukraine.

In a separate post on Saturday, Trump claimed that President Joe Biden will deal with the situation in Russia in whatever way Chinese leader Xi Jinping wants him to do.

“Remember, Hunter & Joe illegally took large amounts of money from both countries, but China right now is the bigger threat,” Trump said. “China & Russia, until Biden came along, have always been natural enemies, with China wanting large portions of largely unpopulated Russian land to have for their much larger population.”

Trump’s remarks came just days after an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) whistleblower revealed that Hunter Biden used his father as leverage in a 2017 business deal with a Chinese businessman with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Trump added that the chaos in Russia could present China with an “unthinkable opportunity.”

“This is China’s heretofore unthinkable opportunity, much bigger than Taiwan,” Trump wrote.

China
Weeks before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Putin and Xi met in China and the two leaders improved bilateral ties by announcing that there would be “no limits” to their cooperation.

The two leaders met again in Russia in March, with Xi telling Putin that the two neighbors “are driving changes” that haven’t “happened in 100 years.” Geopolitical analysts have said Xi’s remarks—to which Putin responded by saying he agreed—show that the two leaders are pushing to create a new China-led global order.

Gordon Chang, a senior fellow at the Gatestone Institute, suggested on Saturday that Xi would want more control over the Chinese military after learning about Prigozhin’s armed rebellion.

Xi, to invade Taiwan, “would have to give some admiral or general full operational control over the #Chinese military. #Xi was wary before, and now, seeing #Prigozhin’s rebellion, the Chinese leader will be even more reluctant to cede control. We can deter #China,” Chang wrote via Twitter.

In a separate post on Twitter, Chang added, “#XiJinping, watching events in #Russia, is going to exert even tighter control inside his own country. It would be a good time to leave #China.”

The CCP claims that Taiwan is a part of its territory even though the island has never been under the communist regime’s rule. Internationally, Taiwan is widely recognized as a de facto independent entity, with its own constitution, democratically elected government, and military.

In January, Taiwan’s Foreign Minister Joseph Wu warned that China is “more likely” to invade Taiwan in 2027, the year Xi could be seeking his fourth term as Party leader.

However, Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), chair of the House select committee on China, told Nikkei Asia in an interview earlier this month that an armed conflict could break out between Taiwan and China before 2027.

“I think 2027 might be the end of the window, not the beginning of it,” Gallagher said.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
WSJ: Go for it in Ukraine!
« Reply #1481 on: June 28, 2023, 08:33:16 AM »
The Riddle, Mystery and Enigma of Prigozhin’s Coup Attempt
One thing is clear after the rebellion in Russia: The U.S. was right to support Ukraine after Putin’s invasion last year.
Gerard Baker
By
Gerard Baker
Follow
June 26, 2023 1:04 pm ET

Vladimir Putin delivers remarks in Moscow, June 24. PHOTO: PAVEL BEDNYAKOV/POOL SPUTNIK KREMLIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Watching events unfold in Russia this weekend was like viewing an accelerated newsreel of modern Russian history.

For a while it was 1917 all over again, with a little 1905 and 1989 thrown in. A revolution erupting after a disastrous foreign war. In his remarks on Saturday, Vladimir Putin invoked the 1917 precedent, revealing that he sees himself as more Nicholas II than Vladimir Lenin.

Then there was the symbolic spectacle of a lightning march on Moscow. As social-media feeds filled with images of military convoys rolling along highways and pictures of defensive bulwarks hauled into place at the gates to the capital, it was suddenly a re-enactment of 1812 or 1941. Unlike Napoleon and Hitler, Yevgeny Prigozhin seemed to have gotten his timing right, bearing down on the city in the accommodating midsummer sun.

As the climax seemed to near, an optimist could see hints of 1953 and the death of Stalin—the decades-long rule of a brutal dictator ending in chaos and ignominy, accompanied by the merest hope of something springlike to follow. Somewhat disappointingly, it turned out to be 1991, another dime-store coup that folded like a cheap suit on its first encounter with reality. Unlike that final, desperate bid to rescue communism from the ash heap of history, this one didn’t last even a few days. No detention of the beleaguered leader in his Black Sea dacha, no drunken infighting among the coup plotters. Just a few fiery words, some video vignettes, and it was back to barracks, boys.

Everything that happens in Russia elicits a library of conspiracy theories. Even some Western officials, as they attempted to digest this strange spectacle, wondered if it all might have been staged. Mr. Putin is a master of false-flag operations. Was this a scheme to demonstrate the calm invincibility of the great leader, a warning that as he faces down his enemies at home, he will show the same resilience abroad? There was even room for a helpful cameo role for Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, Mr. Putin’s most faithful stooge, to burnish his fading credentials as hero of the Soviet Union.

You could be forgiven for believing anything. But this seems improbable. It’s hard to see how it helps the Russian leader to have his leadership denounced by a close ally and then, after he had threatened to demolish the mutineers, to sign up to what amounts to a gentle plea bargain.

More likely the sheer impossibility of his supposed mission became evident to Mr. Prigozhin and he took whatever bargain he could to extricate himself and settled for spending the rest of his days in the lovely idyll of Belarus, where he is doubtless being lined up for an early appointment at an open window in a tall building.

The image Mr. Putin’s Russia presented these last few days isn’t one of strength but of a crumbling husk of a former empire, and its main value should be as a powerful rebuttal to the strange little army of Putin apologists in the U.S.

It will be some time before we understand what just happened and what it portends for Mr. Putin, his regime and the war in Ukraine. But we can surely already see that the abortive Wagner mutiny has revealed how wrong the critics of America’s support for the war have been.

Mr. Prigozhin’s denunciation of the invasion and the official Russian casus belli is a rebuke to the voices in the West who blamed the U.S. and its allies for the Russian violence. If even the Wagner Group’s leadership can see through the official Kremlin fictions, is it too much to ask that prominent American political leaders and so-called strategic thinkers cease peddling them?

The weekend coup attempt should also quiet the voices of those who argue that U.S. support for Ukraine is some distraction from the larger challenge of China. The longer this war continues, the more damage is done to Russia’s capability and prestige, and the more ineptitude it exposes in Moscow, the greater the headache for its ally “without limits” in Beijing.

It is clearer than ever that Xi Jinping has shackled himself to a twitching corpse, one booby-trapped with nuclear weapons, but a dead weight all the same. Long live that alliance.

A retired senior military figure told me recently that for years a key aim of U.S. military strategy has been to develop weapons designed to inflict maximum damage on Russian tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery. As he noted with a grim smile, that is exactly what those munitions have been doing—with the added bonus that not a single American life has been put at risk.

Why would we stop inflicting that damage on China’s biggest ally now? And now that the Putin regime’s enfeebled rottenness has been laid bare, why wouldn’t we intensify our efforts to help Ukraine pursue its justified defense to a logical conclusion?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2023, 11:44:05 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
America has just destroyed a great empire
« Reply #1482 on: July 01, 2023, 11:46:42 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1483 on: July 01, 2023, 11:49:28 AM »
There is a lot of strong analytical framework in there, but this

"We are seeing the Global Majority trying to create an independent and peacefully negotiated choice as to just what kind of an international order they want"

and the subsequent passages do not resonate for me.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18283
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1484 on: July 02, 2023, 04:40:19 PM »
The article does not resonate with me either. Russia is the victim?   US is the aggressor?  Not in my view.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
"Not one inch to the East"
« Reply #1485 on: July 02, 2023, 06:02:33 PM »
The article does not resonate with me either. Russia is the victim?   US is the aggressor?  Not in my view.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16116-document-05-memorandum-conversation-between


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: US Foreign Policy & Geopolitics
« Reply #1486 on: July 02, 2023, 08:32:13 PM »
Very relevant material.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
George Friedman: Forecasting Russia
« Reply #1487 on: July 05, 2023, 07:33:36 AM »


July 5, 2023
Open as PDF

    
Forecasting Russia
By: George Friedman
The points below are drawn from my book, "The Next 100 Years," which was published in 2009. In the points that follow, I try to explain how I reached these conclusions.

The United States in particular tends to first underestimate and then overestimate enemies. By the middle of the 2010s, the United States will again be obsessed with Russia. There is an interesting process to observe here. The United States swings between moods but actually, as we have seen, executes a very consistent and rational foreign policy.

In the long run, the United States dismisses enemies but, as tension rises, vastly overestimates them. Consider this cycle with China. Distance breeds a sense of security. The greater the contact, the greater the American tendency to underestimate itself and overestimate the opponent. Intimacy causes the United States to magnify problems. It also generates massive military spending to catch up to the enemy, which tends to shy away from direct combat.

It will matter a great deal where the fault line lies. If Russia’s resurgence is to be a minimal crisis, the Russians will dominate Central Asia and the Caucasus and possibly absorb Moldova, but they will not be able to absorb the Baltic states, or dominate any nations west of the Carpathians. If the Russians do manage to absorb the Baltics and gain significant allies in the Balkans, like Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece – or Central European countries such as Slovakia – the competition between the United States and Russia will be more intense and frightening.

Russia's need to move westward is hardwired into Moscow’s fears of attack by the West. Its interests span the area from the Balkans to the Baltics. But its primary interest must be to its west, to and past the Carpathian Mountains, the direction from which wars come. The U.S. interest is command of the seas – an interest that entails blocking the rise of major European navies. Russia has the distant potential to field a significant navy in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The United States therefore sees Russian defense as potentially offensive and is thus compelled to respond, primarily using allied ground forces for major combat while it controls air and naval forces.

In the end though, it won’t truly matter. Russian military power will be severely strained confronting the fraction of American military power that the United States decided to wield in responding to Russia’s moves. Regardless of what the rest of Europe does, Poland and the Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania, will be committed to resisting Russian advances and will make any deal the United States wants in order to gain its support. The line therefore will be drawn in the Carpathian Mountains this time, rather than in Germany as it was during the Cold War. The Polish northern plains will be the main line of confrontation, but the Russians will not move militarily.

The idea guiding this forecast is that the nations most threatened by Russian power would ally with the United States to block Russian advances toward and beyond the Carpathians. For Russia, strategic depth is fundamental. Forecasting, then, requires diving into the imperatives of a nation. Russia’s fundamental imperative is to create distance between itself and the potential enemy west of the Carpathians.

The causes that ignited this confrontation – and the Cold War before it – will impose the same outcome as the Cold War, this time with less effort for the United States. The last confrontation occurred in Central Europe. This one will take place much farther to the east. In the last confrontation China was an ally of Russia, at least in the beginning. In this case China will be out of the game. Last time, Russia was in complete control of the Caucasus, but now it will not be, and it will be facing American and Turkish pressure northward. In the last confrontation Russia had a large population, but this time around it has a smaller and declining population. Internal pressure, particularly in the south, will divert Russian attention from the west and eventually, without war, it will break. Russia broke in 1917, and again in 1991. And the country’s military will collapse once more shortly after 2020.

Demographics will cause Russia to fail. Europe and America also have demographics problems, but they are able to overcome them through technology. Russia’s technological prowess grants great advances in very limited areas, not in the broad spectrum needed.  The United States brings to bear massive technologies that it shares with its allies. Russia must fight the type of war it fought in the past. In 1917, its exhaustion of manpower caused the government to collapse. In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed partly because it was unable to compete with American military technology. Similarly, the war in Ukraine has imposed on Russia a primarily conventional conflict requiring large numbers of troops, which have incurred high casualties. I predicted the collapse of the Russian army because of its inability to create technology and field a large and trained military force. I am predicting the next phase of the collapse that began in 1991. Obviously, the Russian military is resilient, but then again, the U.S. entered the war overestimating Russian power.

The second essential variable is, as always, constraints. Russia can achieve its imperative by moving its border westward, thereby putting more distance between itself and its enemies. But it is constrained by the size of its population and the vast number of men needed to initiate and sustain combat.

There are two keys to forecasting: a ruthless, objective understanding of imperatives, followed by an equal comprehension of constraints. It demands, in other words, an understanding of what Russia must have and raises the question of why it doesn’t have it. Forecasting is for the simple-minded. The most obvious things are the most useful.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
GPF: Opening for the Global South?
« Reply #1488 on: July 07, 2023, 11:47:17 AM »
July 7, 2023
Open as PDF

    
Make Some Room for the Global South
By: Allison Fedirka

The world is in the throes of an economic and political reorganization. The COVID-19 pandemic made virtually every country rethink the fundamental structure of its economy, and the supply chain disruptions caused by the war in Ukraine not only added to those considerations but added an unexpected political flavor to the realignment already underway. Although most attention has been paid to traditional powerbrokers such as the U.S., Russia and China, available evidence suggests that whatever world order emerges will very likely have some room for countries in the Global South.

Traditional geopolitics tends to view the world through an east-west paradigm. This reflects the fact that the world’s wealthiest and most advanced economies, as well as the most powerful militaries, reside in the Northern Hemisphere. Powerful countries’ relationships with competitors and threats were thus based on the east-west outlook. The north-south division of the world loosely follows geographic location but has its roots in economic affairs. The North essentially refers to wealthy countries with industrialized market-based economies, while the South refers to poorer, developing countries with commodity-based economies. Historically, this has been characterized by a high degree of economic disparity, perpetuated by a global economy that favored developed countries at the expense of developing ones.

And because countries of the Global South reside on what traditionally has been the periphery of the geopolitical system, they tend to animate global events less than they react to them. Such was the case throughout the 20th century. In the wake of World War II, a bipolar international system emerged, defined nearly absolutely by the principals of the Cold War. The world became a battleground between the United States and the Soviet Union to expand their respective sphere of influence. Many nations rightly saw this tug of war as a threat to their autonomy and sovereignty; they had value for Moscow and Washington, but they had little power to act on their own.

In an attempt to insulate themselves from the whims of stronger powers, weaker countries established the Non-Aligned Movement to address political threats and the G-77 to right economic asymmetries. Global economic forces over which they had little control caused both to fail. In the 1970s, interest rates increased, unemployment rose, growth stagnated, wages declined and overall demand fell. Amid this chaos, developing countries found themselves in the middle of a liquidity crunch. The drop in commodity prices and decline of exports due to protective tariffs also hurt the already delicate economies of developing nations, many of which entered debt crises in the 1980s. Though the end of the Cold War and the rise of globalization offered them some respite, the countries of the Global South remained marginalized players in a new geopolitical system.

But now they have an opportunity amid a new kind of chaos. Countries are now hypersensitive to supply chain vulnerabilities and are trying to reduce risk, from source materials to transportation routes. Alternatives to the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) financial system, as well as trade in local currencies, have become more attractive to countries with low supplies of U.S. dollars. Distortion in the commodities markets (and the associated mineral grabs) have redefined the geopolitical value of some countries. Armed with new rules that determine what resources, location and conditions give a country economic leverage, Brazil and India lead the field. India has become economically essential for Russia and politically and militarily important to the United States. Brazil is trying to leverage its position against the European Union by negotiating better terms for the long-awaited EU-Mercosur free trade agreement. Central Asian countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan find themselves being courted by Russia, Turkey, China, the U.S. and the EU.

The real game-changer, however, lies in the emerging competition among the advanced economies for the favor of the Global South. In the past, the North was politically and economically dominant enough to unilaterally set the terms of engagement with the South. But with the reconstruction of the global economy and the North facing economic, social and political constraints, the North must rely more on cooperation.

A major overture came from France in mid-June, when Paris asked to attend the upcoming BRICS summit due to be held in August in Johannesburg, South Africa. If invited, France would become the first country from the wealthy North to participate in a meeting of the grouping, which comprises Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Paris said it wanted to increase its cooperation with the Global South and stressed the importance of dialogue even when disagreements exist. Under President Emmanuel Macron, France has worked to shed its image as an old colonial power and engage with the South on a more equal footing. Paris also wants to disrupt the Global South’s implicit backing for Russia by offering it alternatives. Moscow dismissed Paris’ request out of hand, though the decision will ultimately be up to South Africa as the host country.

A short time later, the Japanese government published a document that highlighted the growing importance of the Global South to the international system. Its 2023 White Paper on International Economy and Trade divided the global economy into three blocs: the West, led by the U.S.; the East, led by China and Russia; and neutral nations. It said that building and strengthening cooperation with the Global South was a priority, with particular emphasis on India, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and African countries via the Tokyo International Conference on African Development framework. In addition, early this year Japan’s foreign minister toured Latin America. Tokyo also warned that economic warfare and U.S.-China decoupling would harm both sides, while creating arbitrage opportunities for the Global South. As a result, Japanese firms plan to shift major investments from China to members of ASEAN and others in the Global South.

The opportunities for the Global South to rise to geopolitical prominence are not without their challenges. For one thing, "Global South" is a term of convenience. In reality, most of the Global South’s interactions occur at the bilateral level. This is why larger southern states like India and Brazil are so active right now – as big countries, they can get away with things that others cannot. Further, many Global South countries suffer from chronic domestic instability, which constrains their ability to capitalize on the fluctuating tides. Finally, it remains to be seen whether the North can reestablish its dominance over the South. Nevertheless, if the Global South were to start acting on the geopolitical system rather than always living at the mercy of the North, it would mark a major change in the 21st century.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18283
    • View Profile
Biden might start WWIII but he won't win it
« Reply #1489 on: July 14, 2023, 09:02:35 AM »
Bloomberg.com: Delays at naval shipyards mean that nearly 40% of US attack submarines are out of commission for repairs, about double the rate the Navy would like, according to new data released by the service. As of this year, 18 of the US Navy’s 49 attack submarines — 37% — were out of commission, according to previously undisclosed Navy data published by the Congressional Research Service. That leaves the US at a critical disadvantage against China’s numerically superior fleet. The maintenance backlog has “substantially reduced” the number of nuclear submarines operational at any given moment, cutting the “force’s capacity for meeting day-to-day mission demands and potentially putting increased operational pressure” on submarines that are in service, CRS naval analyst Ronald O’Rourke said in a July 6 report

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
WSJ: Russia and India
« Reply #1490 on: July 24, 2023, 05:45:28 AM »
Russia’s Influence on India Wanes Even as Affection Lingers
Though they both want to create a multipolar world, Moscow has tied itself to Beijing, New Delhi’s rival.
Sadanand Dhume
By
Sadanand Dhume
Follow
July 20, 2023 5:03 pm ET



Will India’s longstanding love affair with Russia ever end? At first glance, the odds appear slim. Despite drawing closer to Washington over the past two decades, New Delhi has maintained tight diplomatic and military ties with Moscow. But Russia’s and Vladimir Putin’s popularity among Indians won’t prevent Moscow’s star from fading. The rapid rise of China, combined with Russia’s relative economic and technological backwardness, all but ensures that India-Russia ties will diminish over time.


A recent Pew survey of 24 countries found that 57% of Indians view Russia either somewhat favorably or very favorably, the highest proportion in all countries surveyed. And 59% of Indians are confident that Mr. Putin would “do the right thing regarding world affairs.” (In the U.S., that figure is 7%.) Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year doesn’t appear to have hurt Mr. Putin’s standing in India. The proportion of Indians expressing confidence in the Russian strongman rose 17 points compared with a similar survey in 2019.

India has steadfastly refused to condemn the Russian invasion. Instead, India has taken advantage of discounts, dramatically increasing purchases of Russian oil. Before the invasion, Russia accounted for around 2% of India’s oil imports. In May, India imported 40% of its oil from Russia, nearly 2 million barrels a day. And for India, the world’s largest importer of weapons, Russia remains its top arms supplier, providing the bulk of its strike force capability as well as technology for cruise missiles and nuclear-powered submarines.

What explains India’s affinity for Russia? Both countries have long sought to create a multipolar world to replace the unipolar one that emerged after America’s triumph in the Cold War. Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar explained New Delhi’s view in a recent interview with the Economist. Eurasia houses three big powers: Russia, China and India. “It’s been a cardinal principle of our foreign policy, which still remains valid, that maintaining a strong relationship and a good relationship with Russia is essential,” he said.

Russia also benefits from close ties it built with India during the Cold War. Indians still remember the Soviet Union using its United Nations Security Council veto to back India on Kashmir, as well as Russia’s support during the 1971 war with Pakistan, which led to the birth of Bangladesh. Indians with an anti-American attitude admire Mr. Putin for standing up to the West. For its part, Russia has used its relatively advanced military industry—and competitive prices—to lock India into long-term dependence for technology that Indians say they can’t get elsewhere.


But it is clear that Moscow’s influence in India has declined dramatically—and will continue to decline. Fifty years ago, India had a planned economy and relied overwhelmingly on the Soviet Union for diplomatic support and military hardware. Committed communists and communist sympathizers held senior positions in India’s government. Marxist intellectuals dominated its universities and media, and communist parties were a force in electoral politics. The KGB station in New Delhi was among the largest in the world. Soviet publishers cranked out cheap books to woo the Indian middle class.

Today, virtually nobody in India has even heard of the Russian nationalist philosopher Alexander Dugin, and Indian elites probably care more about Kim Kardashian than Karl Marx. Unlike during the Cold War, hardly anyone in India studies Russian. As the Indian security expert Happymon Jacob pointed out in Foreign Affairs last year, before the recent spike caused by oil and fertilizer, bilateral trade between India and Russia was only $13 billion in 2021, less than 10% of U.S.-India trade. More than 4.4 million people of Indian origin live in the U.S. Indians in Russia number fewer than 30,000, many of whom are students who couldn’t get into medical school anywhere else.

Most important, Russia’s closest ally, China, is also India’s biggest threat. As the Indian strategic thinker C. Raja Mohan pointed out in a recent column, in the 1990s India sought a multipolar world, but today it faces the more urgent challenge of creating a multipolar Asia to stop the region from becoming China’s backyard. Only America can help India with critical technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. And India can no longer rely on Russian weapons and diplomatic support in its confrontation with China along the disputed Himalayan frontier. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute data, between 2012 and 2022 Russian arms as a proportion of India’s weapons imports fell by 65%. The proportion sourced from the U.S., France and Israel over the same period grew 288%.

India-Russia ties survived the end of the Cold War because it made sense for both countries, but flailing in Ukraine and drawing ever closer to Beijing has made Moscow a much less attractive partner for New Delhi. As Mr. Jacob wrote, “When Indians think of their strategic partnerships, Russia is referred to in the past tense and the United States in the future.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
WT: Russia & China drill without North Korea
« Reply #1491 on: July 24, 2023, 06:37:38 AM »
INDO-PACIFIC

Russia, China shun like-minded North Korea from anti-U.S. war games

BY ANDREW SALMON THE WASHINGTON TIMES SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA | North Korean forces remain at the base while Chinese and Russian warships conduct joint drills in what appears to be a counter to tightening cooperation between the United States and its Indo-Pacific allies.

The paradigm is puzzling, particularly given the value Pyongyang could contribute to a coalition of anti-U.S. powers in the region.

The isolated state commands a strategic location in Northeast Asia and deploys a constant stream of harsh rhetoric toward the United States and its allies. It fields weapons of mass destruction and a 1 million-strong military.

Yet it has joined none of the land, air and naval drills that China and Russia have conducted in recent years on the Eurasian landmass or in the Sea of Japan or the South China Sea.

North Korea’s odd-man-out status looks even more unlikely when viewed historically. Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang were aligned against U.S.-led forces during the 1950-1953 Korean War, which ended in a truce 70 years ago.

While North Korea stays on the sidelines, 2023 is proving a golden year for U.S.-led initiatives to rally allies in the region against the increasingly assertive China and Russia.

Enabled by conservative administrations in Manila, Seoul and Tokyo and galvanized by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Washington is overseeing a tightening web of alliances and strategic basing structures from northern Australia and western South Korea to Japan’s Ryukyu chain and the Philippines’ northern region of Luzon.

Last week, a U.S. nuclear-capable submarine docked in South Korea — the first such port call in decades. The two allies also held the inaugural meeting of the Nuclear Consultative Group, which they created after a bilateral summit in Washington in April.

Given this, the ever-bristling, risktolerant Pyongyang might appear to be a perfect regional partner for an anti-U.S. alliance, but experts say China and

Russia keep North Korea at arm’s length for diplomatic, military and even reputational reasons.

“The North Koreans don’t have the capability [to join the drills]. That is the practical reason,” said Go Myong-hyun, a North Korean watcher at Seoul’s Asan Institute for Policy Studies. “The other reason is that North Korea is toxic. If China or Russia develop the perception that they have influence over it, they would be held responsible for its behavior.”

North Korea, traditionally jealous of its strategic autonomy, has reasons for standing alone.

Beijing and Moscow have no formal alliance but say their partnership has no limits. Although most of Moscow’s forces are mired in Ukraine, that partnership is visible in the Indo-Pacific. Troops in Russia’s Far East, notably those based in Vladivostok, drill with Chinese counterparts.

Chinese and Russian vessels are conducting “Northern Interaction 2023” this month in the East Sea/Sea of Japan. Three Russian destroyers and a corvette are exercising with two Chinese destroyers, two frigates and a supply ship.

Drills have included the massive- scale “Vostok 18” land exercises in 2018, which Chinese army units joined, and regular joint warplane flights over waters separating South Korea and Japan.

Despite its hostility toward Washington, North Korea participated in none of the exercises despite some seeming overtures on both sides.

Since the start of the war in Ukraine, China and Russia have extended diplomatic assistance to North Korea by blocking U.S.-led efforts to add international sanctions on the regime for its missile testing program.

The Biden administration has accused North Korea of supplying ammunition to Russia to help in the Ukraine operation, but Pyongyang denies the allegations.

Russian media personalities’ statements that North Korea could send labor or even combat troops to the war zone have not been borne out.

Given the need for allies, it would seem North Korea would be a useful — if eccentric — partner for an anti-Western coalition. One reason an alliance has not been formed is diplomatic. Even authoritarian states such as China and Russia are leery of dealing with brutal and mercurial North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

“Open military cooperation with a rogue state would have a bad impact on the reputation of both China and Russia as North Korea is an open challenge to the U.N.-designated world system,” said Andrei Lankov, a Russian expert on North Korea who teaches at Seoul’s Kookmin University.

China, he said, “positions itself as a protector of multilateralism against U.S. hegemony, while Russia understands that its seat on the U.N. Security Council is one of its most important foreign policy assets and doesn’t want to change it.”

Another reason relates to national prejudices.

“There is a tradition of despising North Korea in China, and especially in Russia,” Mr. Lankov said. “You are not going to please [Russian President Vladimir] Putin by comparing him to Kim. For generations of Russians, North Korea was seen as a bizarre, comical and highly unpleasant dictatorship.”

Mr. Lankov suggested that Russians’ traditional views of North Korea are similar to Americans’ views of Latin American dictatorships in the decades after World War II.

The relationship between Seoul and Washington has had ups and downs, but the South Korean public is grateful for U.S. support during the Korean War. That is visible in the excellent treatment of visiting veterans and the public support for Seoul’s alliance with Washington despite several bilateral irritants.

U.S. troops remain in South Korea, but Chinese units withdrew from North Korea in 1958. That reflects Pyongyang’s differing stance toward its erstwhile allies.

“For North Korea, it was a quid pro quo relationship. They look at the support from the Chinese and Soviets as a larger pursuit of communist goals, so to them, it was only natural that these nations should have supported them,” said Chun In-bum, a retired South Korean general. “And North Korea also promotes the idea that during the [Chinese Civil War], many Koreans fought for the communists, so it was a balance.”

Yet another reason relates to the North Korean military. While China and Russia boast modern warships and aircraft, struggling Pyongyang has focused on a few asymmetric assets that do not complement conventional forces.

“North Korea concentrates on what matters: nuclear arms, ballistic missiles and light infantry/ special forces,” said Mr. Lankov. Its naval and air forces, by contrast, are given inferior equipment and “don’t have the fuel to operate over longer distances.”

North Korea under Mr. Kim has increasingly isolated itself while pursuing a policy of maximum strategic autonomy, relying on no ally to protect it. That approach has been strained by North Korea’s extensive economic reliance on China, which Pyongyang’s leadership resents.

“North Korea understands that too much influence from Russia or China threatens their supreme leader,” Mr. Chun said. “So they try to keep a good distance.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Gatestone: The Axis of Evil
« Reply #1492 on: July 29, 2023, 08:51:38 AM »
Biden's Legacy: The Axis of Tyrannies
A New World Order Dominated by China, Russia and the Iranian Regime, with North Korea Heading Up the Rear
by Majid Rafizadeh  •  July 29, 2023 at 5:00 am

[T]he weak and possibly compromised administration of U.S. President Joe Biden appears to have enabled and empowered the autocrats of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, all of whom seem to be working overtime to create a new authoritarian world order with themselves at the helm.

Iran, which has already declared a new world order, is, even beyond its accelerating nuclear weapons program, swiftly trying to reshape the world militarily and geopolitically wherever Western nations appear to be losing power. The Iranian regime also appears to be wasting no time indoctrinating it citizens with anti-Western and anti-American points of view.

Since the Biden Administration assumed office in 2021, its vacuum of leadership in the Middle East has led to the increasing influence of China and Iran in the region; the decision by the Gulf nations to dodge the US and tilt towards China, and even to the China-brokered deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran that further sidelines the U.S.

"The Chinese have a strategy they've been following. We kind of wander around from day to day." – Former National Security Adviser John R. Bolton, WABC 770 radio, March 12, 2023.

In November 2022, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed, "Death to America will happen. In the new order I am talking about America will no longer have any important role." The Iranian regime, now that it is aligned with Putin's Russia and the Chinese Communist Party, would probably be delighted to conquer the US.

As the Biden Administration has unfortunately created a leadership vacuum throughout the world, its apparent risk-paralysis and feeble leadership seem quickly to be leading to a new world order led by the Axis of Tyrannies: China, Russia and Iran, with North Korea heading up the rear.


The weak and possibly compromised administration of U.S. President Joe Biden appears to have enabled and empowered the autocrats of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, all of whom seem to be working overtime to create a new authoritarian world order with themselves at the helm. Pictured: Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation leaders' summit in Samarkand, Uzbekistan on September 15, 2022. (Photo by Alexandr Demyanchuk/Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images)
"The greatest of all evils is a weak government," said Benjamin Disraeli, Prime Minister of the UK (1868, 1874-80)." This comment sadly brings us to the weak and possibly compromised administration of U.S. President Joe Biden, which appears to have enabled and empowered the autocrats of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, all of whom seem to be working overtime to create a new authoritarian world order with themselves at the helm.

Iran, which has already declared a new world order, is, even beyond its accelerating nuclear weapons program, swiftly trying to reshape the world militarily and geopolitically wherever Western nations appear to be losing power (here, here and here). The Iranian regime also appears to be wasting no time indoctrinating it citizens with anti-Western and anti-American points of view

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Gatestone: China outmaneuvers Biden
« Reply #1493 on: July 30, 2023, 07:12:32 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
George Friedman: Benchmarking China
« Reply #1494 on: August 11, 2023, 08:47:24 AM »
August 11, 2023
View On Website
Open as PDF

    
Benchmarking China
Thoughts in and around geopolitics.
By: George Friedman

For some time, China has been regarded as an economic miracle, a country whose rise would in due course put it atop the global economy. The justification for this expectation rested on the rate of growth China has enjoyed since Deng Xiaoping took over the chairmanship of the Chinese Communist Party and called on the Chinese people to enrich themselves. This marked the end of Maoism and ushered in an economic surge. It was and had to be what some call a dead cat bounce. If you throw down a dead cat hard enough, it will bounce. China is, of course, far from a dead cat, but in 1978 when Deng took over, it seemed like the economy was quite dead, if not a cat. China’s surge over the next decades was simply the economy’s response to being released along with the marginalization of Marxism-Leninism.

The growth was remarkable but not unprecedented. Similar stories occurred in the United States and Japan. This is a cycle I have written about before, but it is relevant to understanding China today. In 1890, the United States was 25 years removed from the Civil War. During that period, economic and financial instability reigned. The U.S. could manufacture, but the domestic market was limited, so the U.S. was forced to look abroad. Its exports surged until, in the early 1900s, the United States was manufacturing nearly half of all manufactured goods in the world. These exports built American industry, which benefited as well from World War I. This went on until the 1920s when the war had ended and Europe's ability to afford imported goods slumped. The U.S. faced the reality all countries that export face: It was hostage to the ability of its customers to buy. This led to the Great Depression, and recovery did not come until World War II ended and domestic demand resumed.

Japan went through a similar cycle. Its economy devastated by war, Japan began its recovery around 1950. It too was built on combining manufacturing skills and exports, starting with minor products. (“Made in Japan” tended to indicate low quality.) Its prime market was the United States. Over time, the quality and competitiveness of Japan’s exports surged. Japanese automobiles badly hurt the American auto industry beginning in the 1970s. In the U.S., political and economic resistance to Japanese imports swelled. The backlash, along with a banking system in Japan that lacked controls, created the Lost Decade, which forced a new model on Japan after a 40-year boom – about the same length of time as America’s boom decades earlier. I have no idea why 40 years is the number, but it seems to be.

China’s economic miracle began around 1980 following the Cultural Revolution, which was as brutal as any war. In need of reconstruction, China followed the American and Japanese models of relying on exports, first based on price and later on technical sophistication. China’s gross domestic product exploded, and it became the second-largest economy in the world. But there was a flaw in thinking of it that way, as its per capita GDP ranked 76th in the world. Because of its vast population, China can be relatively unproductive and still generate amazing numbers. This made China’s rise different from those of the U.S. and Japan, where the growth of GDP reflected efficient productivity.

Still, China grew until hitting a limit on rates of return on capital in the real estate industry and, of course, COVID-19. But this week, China reached another benchmark: deflation. We all hate inflation (except when we try to sell our house). But deflation reduces the value of all products, and it means the nominal value of assets and income falls while debts stay the same. This affects one’s ability to leverage a business, particularly real estate, which is a form of saving in China. Instead of banking their money, Chinese buy apartments and houses. Under deflation, the value of their property declines while their debt holds steady. It is not odd, therefore, that another major Chinese real estate company appears to be staggering. Deflation in China is not yet significant, but it is setting expectations as to what is going to come. Exports are falling in the face of a global downturn, which, as we have seen, really hits exporters. The single most striking number is that unemployment among Chinese 16-24-year-olds is at 22 percent. This is an explosive part of the population to be without a job and underscores the stagnation of business activity.

Another point is that while the local governments in China's interior have less than half the debt, they are the regions most likely to default. China’s interior is vast and poor, and when Mao wanted to overthrow the government, he went to the interior on the Long March to raise an army from among the people who lived there. They have benefited the least from the boom, and bitterness from this region is the most dangerous to Beijing. How Chinese debt is distributed matters a great deal. The U.S. had its civil war before an economic surge, and Japan had World War II. China too had a civil war, but it is not clear that it settled fundamental political matters.

The bad news in China’s economy goes on and on, and the U.S. is piling on by blocking its access to technology and investment. The direction China is heading resembles Japan and the U.S. but without the stable base and resources they had. It is possible that this is simply a cyclical event, but the political foundation in China is very different. Plus, we are at the strange 40-year point, which suggests that China will be a force in the future but that this current surge is ending.

The Philippines rudely rejected this week a Chinese demand to withdraw from a contested atoll in the South China Sea. Philippine rudeness is a decent measure of China’s decline.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
WRM: Biden admits Trump was right
« Reply #1495 on: August 15, 2023, 04:12:41 PM »


Biden’s New Approach to the Middle East
As Iran balks, Israel and Saudi Arabia are now seen as crucial to U.S. global strategy.
By
Walter Russell Mead
Follow
Aug. 14, 2023 6:27 pm ET




152

Gift unlocked article

Listen

(5 min)


image
President Biden and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, July 15, 2022. PHOTO: BANDAR ALJALOUD/ASSOCIATED PRESS
As the Biden administration offered the mullahs in Tehran a $6 billion ransom for five American citizens, it was also offering Iran’s archrival Saudi Arabia unprecedented defense commitments and cooperation on a civilian nuclear program to help persuade Riyadh to normalize relations with Israel.

Inquiring minds want to know: Why is Joe Biden working so hard to do favors for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman? And why is he shoveling cash to the mullahs while working to empower their enemies?

These are good questions. Brokering a Saudi-Israeli peace deal will be expensive. It will cost in the region, where both Israel and Saudi Arabia will look to extract as many concessions and sweeteners as possible before giving Washington what it wants, and it will be expensive at home. The human-rights activists who dominate much of the Democratic Party’s foreign-policy apparatus will scream bloody murder if Mr. Biden embraces Bibi and MBS. Isolationists in both parties will ask why the Biden administration is deepening American security commitments in the Middle East instead of continuing to withdraw.

Two perceptions seem to be driving the new Biden approach. First, while continuing diplomatic outreach to Iran demonstrates that Team Biden hasn’t given up on reaching some kind of understanding with Tehran, for now at least it is accepting that the mullahs don’t want to play ball.

Second, the administration appears to have a new appreciation of the importance of the Middle East, and therefore of leading powers like Saudi Arabia and Israel, for American global strategy. Being the primary security and economic partner of the countries that dominate the world’s most important oil reserves still matters. America’s position in the Middle East gives us leverage over China’s energy supplies. It can ensure that the Middle East sovereign wealth funds prefer our tech and industrial sectors over those of our rivals. It can maintain the profitable defense relationships that help keep American arms makers ahead in a competitive arena.

This was all as true in January 2021 as it is today, but after 2½ years in office the administration now seems to get it. Team Biden now appears to understand that diplomatic relations and deepening formal security ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia could be the foundation of a new regional security architecture that secures critical American interests while reducing the long-term need for American military presence in the region. Getting the Saudis and the Israelis to “yes” will be difficult, but success would be transformational.

READ MORE GLOBAL VIEW
Geopolitical Climate DenialismAugust 7, 2023
The Delicate U.S. Task of Courting IndiaJuly 31, 2023
The Movement Shaping a Modern IndiaJuly 24, 2023
The biggest problem with the new approach is a familiar one: Iran. The mullahs will inevitably see a U.S.-backed regional security system aligning Israel and Saudi Arabia as a direct threat to their drive for regional hegemony. Iran has the capacity to cause a crisis in the Middle East any time it likes. It can accelerate the production of enriched uranium. It can attack shipping in the Gulf. It can order its proxies to launch missiles or stage terror attacks.

Team Biden seems to be hunting for a mix of carrots and sticks that will keep Iran quiet as the U.S. collaborates with the regime’s most bitter foes to build a powerful regional security architecture. Pallets of cash here, Marines on foreign-flagged tankers there. Can the U.S. pacify Iran while reassuring allies? We shall see.

There will be other problems, also familiar. Getting to yes will require the cooperation of two leaders who have little respect for Team Biden. Biden-era policy toward Saudi Arabia, pivoting awkwardly from icy contempt to oaths of undying affection, is a series of what my students would call “big yikes”—cringe-inducing rookie mistakes. And the chemistry between Mr. Netanyahu and the Democratic foreign-policy leaders of the Obama-Biden era has never been good.

Then there are the Palestinians. Although decades of Saudi and broader Arab frustration with Palestinian political incompetence have substantially reduced their influence in the region, the Palestinians haven’t fallen off the map. Saudi public opinion, and the government’s self-respect, will not permit Riyadh to reach agreements with Israel that set the Palestinians entirely off to one side. With most of the Israeli cabinet dead-set against any concessions, and the Palestinian leadership at a low ebb of authority and legitimacy among its people, addressing this problem could be even more difficult than usual.

Nevertheless, the Biden administration’s embrace of the Trump-era vision of Middle East regional security based on Arab-Israeli reconciliation with American support has opened the door to new and perhaps more creative diplomacy in a region that is critical to the global balance of power and world peace. That is a very good thing.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
WRM: G20 & India
« Reply #1498 on: September 12, 2023, 10:58:31 AM »
As India rises, the G-20 Reveals a Shifting World Order
China and Russia seethe, Europe shrinks and America dithers.
Walter Russell Mead
By
Walter Russell Mead
Follow
Sept. 11, 2023 6:39 pm ET

Global gabfests rarely produce significant results, and last weekend’s Group of 20 summit in New Delhi was no exception. The carefully drafted and painfully negotiated declaration will be forgotten as quickly as all its predecessors. The war in Ukraine will rumble on exactly as if the language on the war had not been tweaked to favor the Russian position. The invitation to the African Union to participate in future G-20 summits won’t change the way the world works.

But even if the G-20 summit was no landmark in world history, it reflected three important continuing shifts. One of them works to America’s advantage. The other two will be more challenging to navigate.

The first and, from an American standpoint, the most beneficial of these developments is the emergence of India as one of the world’s leading powers and as an increasingly close partner of the U.S. The G-20 summit was a personal diplomatic triumph for Prime Minister Narendra Modi. With both the Chinese and Russian leaders absent, Mr. Modi dominated center stage at a world gathering just weeks after India joined the elite club of countries that have landed probes on the moon.

India’s rise is overall a positive for America, but the second big trend is more difficult. China, Russia and some of their partners are stepping up their opposition to the American-led world order that has dominated global politics since World War II. One of their goals is to build an illiberal anti-American coalition in the Global South. Both Moscow and Beijing would like the growing group of countries known as BRICS+ to replace such meetings as the G-20 and the Group of Seven as the primary forums in world politics.

India has a different approach. Its critique of the global status quo shares some features with the Sino-Russian view, but ultimately India wants to reform, not demolish, the world system. As Russia moves closer to China, and as India’s fears about Beijing’s agenda grow, the competition between China and its allies and India and its supporters in the Global South will intensify.

The third trend, the accelerating decline in Europe’s global influence and reach, is more challenging still for the U.S. Observers have long warned that Europe’s slow economic growth, demographic decline, military weakness and unrealistic approach to world politics would constrain the Continent’s role in world affairs. One conclusion from New Delhi is that the long-deferred day of reckoning seems to have arrived.

This has been a year of disaster for Europe’s global standing. France has been largely expelled from a once-dominant position across much of Africa. Mr. Putin has revealed Europe’s impotence in Ukraine. The primary goal of Turkish foreign policy used to be joining the European Union. Today Turkey has largely turned its back on Europe, and European influence throughout the Middle East is in precipitous decline. China appears poised to challenge the German automobile industry. High European energy prices are hastening the continent’s deindustrialization.

Europe’s relative marginalization at the weekend summit reflected these developments. Mr. Modi and President Biden dominated the diplomatic action in New Delhi. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping both stayed home but had more impact on the agenda than the seven European leaders who attended in person.

For most of the world, the overrepresentation of Europeans in global institutions is the greatest flaw in the international architecture. The redistribution of global power and influence away from Europe to rising powers in Asia and elsewhere is, for most G-20 countries, the most important action item on the “global governance” agenda that the world faces today.

READ MORE GLOBAL VIEW
How to Help Ukraine Win the War of AttritionSeptember 4, 2023
The View From the Kremlin Isn’t All BadAugust 28, 2023
Power Matters More Than DiplomacyAugust 21, 2023
This is a problem for the Biden administration. On the one hand, working with India and other moderate states in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere requires the U.S. to support a sensible agenda of global reform that inevitably will reduce Europe’s role. Looking further ahead, to the extent that American policy makers genuinely care about a working global political and economic order, the survival of that system requires reforming it to reflect Europe’s declining clout.

Yet when it comes to outcomes rather than architecture, Europe is Team Biden’s closest global ally. It is the Europeans and for the most part only the Europeans who share the climate-change, human-rights, democracy and general wokeness goals at the heart of Mr. Biden’s global agenda. Most of the world’s rising powers are profoundly skeptical when it comes to the liberal policy goals that unite American Democrats and their European counterparts. As Europe’s voice in global institutions fades, the Biden administration’s chief goals will become much harder to achieve.

India rising, China and Russia seething, Europe shrinking and America dithering. The G-20 meeting in New Delhi changed little but revealed much.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18283
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: September 17, 2023, 09:34:25 AM by DougMacG »