The relations between Russia and the West have become strained since Russia made military incursions into Eastern Ukraine and annexed Crimea with its territory in 2014. As a result, it was expelled from the G8 and was renamed G7. The situation has worsened after Russia poisoned the ex-Soviet spy Sergei Kripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal when they were in the UK. Following this, 23 Russian diplomats were expelled from the UK and President Donald Trump expelled 60 Russian intelligence officers from the US.
Following many tensions with the West, the Skripal case did weaken relationships between the West and Russia
He also ordered the Russian consulate in Seattle to be closed. Though Moscow denied this criticism, most of the European countries and New Zealand turned against Russia and in a joint statement, the leaders of the US, UK, France, and Germany criticized Russia for this attack.
The recent military drill which is considered the biggest in Russia since 1981, shook the entire world. It took place in the border of Russia, China and Mongolia with the participation of nearly 300,000 Russian troops, 3200 Chinese troops, and troops from Mongolia. Both land and air units including 1000 aircraft and 900 tanks were used in this exercise. China had sent 24 battle helicopters and six jets for the first time. Zapad-81 which took place in 1981 with Warsaw pact allies of 100,000-150,000 troops was the largest drill until September 11.
In 1969, there was a border clash between the communist rivals which threatened to spark a nuclear war between China and the then Soviet Union. The relations got normalized after Soviet leader Mikhail S.Gorbachev visited Beijing in 1989. The motive behind these military drills was usually to protect Russia from military-assertive Peoples Liberation Army of China. However, this time Vostok-2018 has become a strategic exercise by bringing the foes into friends with the common purpose of counterweighing the US. Russian media called this initiative as an ‘anti-American military alliance’.
The tension in North Korea has already brought these two powers together. It can be noted that Putin and Xi Jinping recently condemned the US for militarization in the region and they called for a common peace plan in the peninsula. Kremlin accuses the West of their aggressive and unfriendly behaviour.
These exercices confirm Russia’s alliances
There is a need for Russia to strengthen its military in order to counter NATO in the West and as it has no obvious enemies in the East, it keens to have a close tie with China. The message Putin intended to convey to the West is quite clear that, in times of diplomatic tensions with the West, they are not militarily isolated and Russia regards US as a potential enemy and China as a potential ally.
According to Rauch and Wurm, at the time of change in position the danger becomes most pressing. While quoting (Chan, 2008), they argue that the declining power, while it has an edge over the rising power, could attack the rising power. However, Power Transition Theory focuses that in order to complete its ascendancy; the rising power attacks the dominant power. The rising power is expected to be aggressive by the power transition theory. Because even if the former dominant power is dethroned, yet it enjoys the benefits of international order that was once established by it, therefore, in order to restructure the international order, violent enforcement of changes will be required by the rising power (Rauch & Wurm, 2013). One does not accidentally become a regional hegemon. It requires having feathers in the cap. The U.S. has records of colonization, territorial expansions and conquests to become a regional hegemon of the Western Hemisphere (Mearsheimer, 2010). Therefore, there is a possibility of war and violence in power transition.
Power transition between two empires can often be violent…
On contrary, according to Chan, however, war is not required for power transition as there has been an evidence of peaceful power transitions in both of the previous centuries (Chan, 2008). In case of China, its peaceful rise is only possible if it makes it clear to the U.S. and its neighbouring countries that it has peaceful intentions toward the change of balance of power without using any force. Furthermore, in the recent decades, Beijing has not been aggressive towards its neighbours, this indicates China’s attitude in coming decades (Mearsheimer, 2010).
In this regards, Liu (2010) quotes (Buzan & Segal, 1994 and Gernstein & Munro, 1997) and argues that China seems to challenge the status quo and is not satisfied with the existing international structure. Furthermore, she quotes (Stephens, 2005; Sutter, 2005; Roy, 2003) and argues that the regional strategy of China seems to be challenging the position of the US in East Asia. These realists believe that there will be a zero-sum game between the US and China with the rise of China. In addition to this, she argues that in order to achieve regional hegemony, the strategic objective of China is to push the US out of Asia which is its regional competitor in East Asia (Liu, 2010).
An article was published in Luxehomes – South China Morning Post, in which the writer argues that China does not want anyone to interfere in its internal affairs and wants to be recognized in the world order. He furthermore argues that China wants a global order which must recognize both the diversity of different social, economic and political systems and new power diffusion with the community of states.
President Xi Jinping is an important architect of this transition.
His article further quotes China’s President Xi and says that China wants the international institutes to have reforms which are consistent with its long-held view and reflexive of the multi-polar character of the contemporary world order. In addition to this, he analyzes that the west accuses China of being an irresponsible stakeholder but China seems to be the voice of developing countries through initiatives such as, “One Belt, One Road” (Huang, 2015). Thus, China’s world order economic policy seems to become a voice for developing countries in Africa and Asia.
A report on, “The Evolving Role of China in International Institutions” for The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission was prepared by Economic Strategy Institute in 2011. The key findings of the report were that within global institutions China has established an increasingly proactive and assertive stance. Furthermore, the report highlighted that in order to advance its national interests, China is effectively utilizing international institutions, not only this but China is also extracting what it wants from the institutions. Alongside this, it highlights that the role of China does not only support its own policy interests but it is also helpful and constructive for the institutions itself. In addition to this, the report argues that global institutes will either progressively drift toward insignificance or they will evolve to reflect the reality of the world where they operate. It highlights that G-8 was one of the important international institutions once but contemporarily it has been replaced by G-20 which was only possible because of the driving force of China.
In addition to this, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the New Development Bank (NDB) have recently been established. AIIB aims at providing financial support to the One Belt-One Road (OBOR) Initiative of Chinese President Xi Jinping which he announced in 2013 in Astana, Kazakhstan. NDB is BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) bank which aims at providing financial assistance to infrastructure projects in BRICS countries (Xinbo, 2016). Wu Xinbo (2016) adds that China holds over 30% of shares in AIIB and 41% of shares in NDB which give China more leverage in operations and making of rules of both the institutions. China’s economic power will enhance as states start taking assistance from these institutions.
The AIIB is by far the most important tool to achieve this power transition.
Moreover, some argue that the main objective behind AIIB is to compete with and eventually replace the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Bretton Woods Institutions in Asia-Pacific. However, it would be premature to compare and contrast between these at this stage.
Here’s an analysis written by our new partner : War Tard! https://wartard.blogspot.com/
A few years back, I wrote a piece about the Syrian Civil War titled “The West v ISIS: Air strikes just means endless war minus victory”. That now seems, in hindsight, not only trite but embarrassingly off the mark. Some could say that I failed utterly as an analyst because look what the Russians did in Syria with a few planes (air power) and some Spetsnaz forward observers. They literally wiped the rebel forces arrayed against Assad (termed by Western media as ISIS) off the map. And they did it with so few aircraft, many of them aging, some third and fourth generation planes but nothing compared to NATO’s overpriced “fifth generation” stealth fleet; all of which makes you wonder if it was NATO’s or the Western powers intention to ever defeat ISIS at all?
And here we come to what I’ll call “the darkness”.
The darkness you will never see on any news channel or media outlet in any country under the umbrella of the post WWII globalist order. And by that I mean every English speaking country’s news channels, including mainland Europe’s, Israel’s, South Korea’s and Japan’s. Whatever language is spoken, this post WWII order has held on but is now descending into a kind of darkness which I will speak of.
The darkness is first and foremost the idea and the fact that the corporate media and the entire political establishment is lying to you.
That’s fact one and certainly dark. But the darkness I am positing rocks the foundations of my belief in the post WWII Western order I grew up in which primarily meant that the victors of WWII were the “good guys”. Maybe I was that naive. Or more likely a kid. But twenty year old me could be forgiven for that. Because how many twenty year olds know much about anything other than mating rituals and having a laugh?
The question I find myself asking today, twenty years on as I note the state of the darkness, is a question idealistic 12 year old me asks from his dreams…
“Are we in the West the bad guys now?”
For anyone who reads this blog, this may not be new information. But let’s indulge in a game. Let’s talk about the Syrian Civil War now. Now that it is almost over, let’s uncover from the rubble and the darkness some truth that war makes the first casualty of. The average person in Western OECD countries is busy making a living and feeding their family. It’s difficult to be too much concerned with what your tax money is paying for. For instance, a Tomahawk missile costs 1.2 million dollars. And 300 million worth were launched against Syria because of some bullshit gas story pushed by the media in April. Gas is indiscriminate and horrible but it also has some especially evil connotation in the minds of the public who have never been near a war zone.
Gas in war drives foreign civilian populations insane. It’s a trigger word. And the media knows this. If your child in a war zone dies by air burst artillery (a common occurrence in Aleppo or Damascus or Gaza) that means such munitions pepper your child with ball bearings travelling at Mach 3. Fucking horrible and unthinkable. You’d think. But let an enemy open a barrel (allegedly) that spreads some weaponized chlorine/sarin for at best a square block and now you’ve got an international casus belli on your hands. But any soldier will tell you artillery is far worse and more terrifying then some dissipating cloud you have a small but possible fighting chance at running from. What’s worse is the media pushing the public into outrage using gaseous fear and demanding intervention in a desert war thousands of miles away from the average taxpayer doing his best to feed his family.
The famous Churchill quote “Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at to no result.” is probably true. How about gassing people? He would know. How about bombing people and killing them via kinetic blast energy? Is that more evil then gas? In 2001, as we all know, 19 Saudis flew two planes and took down three buildings in New York, wrecked a wing of the Pentagon with another plane and nose dived a fourth into a field because of the heroism of the passengers. Officially. That was quite a feat in a country with a military larger than the next ten country’s militarys combined. Try anything like that today near Damascus and your plane isn’t even going to make it over land from the Mediterranean. We’re talking about a city with the 4th most sophisticated anti aircraft defense network on the planet. That’s why the Israelis launch their AGMs at Syria from F-16s from their airspace or Jordanian airspace. The Syrians could take a shot at them but they don’t exactly need another next door neighbor flinging more shit over the garden fence at them right now.
The point being?
Syrian airspace became impregnable and that was the beginning of the turning of the tide in favor of Assad. Russian intervention we’ll talk about in Part II but for now let’s stick to how we got to where we are today. How did we get to the Syrian Civil War?
The Russians like their naval base at Tartus. And why wouldn’t they? Geopolitics is a chessboard, why give up a square?
How did we get to a place where bombing wins a war.
I mean this figuratively of course, bombing wins wars but only as a component of a combined ground strategy and other factors. The Syrian Civil War is unique in the sense that never have so few aircraft done so much to change a major war. There’s a Churchill Battle of Britain quote in there but I’m not using it because it’s just too obvious.
To begin talking about Syria, we’re going to have to go all the way back to 2010. Remember that thing called the “Arab Spring”? Western media touted it on your TV screen. Maybe you do, maybe you don’t but let’s do a quick primer.
It’s possible it was a genius destabilizing operation run by Western intelligence agencies but there was an organic nature to it too. Since all Western media is a propaganda operation {and not just the news), I mean all of it. From the Kardashians to the Walking Dead and all the commercials in between, it’s all a kind of mind control telling you what to aspire to, what to fear, what is good or bad in life and in our case, who the bad guys are. It’s all controlled opposition aimed at priming the public. The Arab Spring story went something like this. Some Tunisian bazaar merchant set himself on fire due to some injustice. A local authority figure made him buy a permit to continue selling whatever bullshit a street vendor in Tunisia would sell to tourists. Who knows why? But some local official took away his livelihood and he lost his mind. That I can understand. Any man can. But setting yourself on fire to make a point is a drastic maneuver and does tend toward making the man with the match a martyr for a cause. And that’s exactly what happened.
For many reasons, this act of self-immolation led to a wave of popular uprisings that destabilized every country in North Africa but especially Egypt. That was the biggest domino to fall but surely an unintended target. Israel and the US liked Mubarak but not his people, the Egyptians. Sinai is a hard, calcine forbidden desert but it is a point of contention. The Americans were paying Mubarak a billion a year to keep his population under control and not cause trouble for the Israelis. The most important thing for them was his zealous efforts to police the border with Gaza and make sure other Arab nations or shady arms dealers could not funnel weapons into Gaza, especially not shoulder mounted AA weapons that could challenge Israeli air superiority every time they bombed a hospital they claimed had a bottle rocket in the basement.
Nobody expected the Arab Spring to get out of the control. Sure the CIA, Mossad, MI5 and whatever the French call their intelligence agencies took advantage. Maybe they poured fuel on the fire. The point being, the Arab Spring spiraled out of control. It wasn’t exactly engineered but it wasn’t organic either. Egypt got destabilized simply by the fact that every house in North Africa and the Middle East by 2010 had a satellite dish on their roof. And the population were not swallowing the local line of bullshit their media propaganda were pumping out. They could see the world outside and realize they were getting fucked over big time. So there were riots. Tanks on the streets did nothing, not even bullets could quell the uprising in Cairo.
The Arab Spring.
Mubarak, the man on the Western payroll had nowhere to run and had to stand trial. Suddenly he got sick. Seriously, this shit reads like a bad novel. The revolutionaries put him on trial and first fined him 33 million dollars and locked him up in a jail cell where he suddenly had a heart attack (who wouldn’t)? It’s possible that a bunch a hard hitting Bedouin motherfuckers went medieval on his ass, but either way, Egyptian prison didn’t agree with him.
Interestingly, the Israeli’s offered him asylum (he was, after all, on their payroll via the US anyway) but the Egyptian courts put him on trial again anyway and grabbed another 22 million from his bank accounts before things started going to absolute shit on the streets of Cairo again. This was almost certainly funded by foreign money (the usual suspects), but even so, it turned out that just because the Muslim Brotherhood might be good at praising Allah and fooling some of the people all of the time didn’t mean they were any good at running a bus line to the Pyramids never mind running a whole fucking country. Egypt went to shit and Mubarak got free, ran for the hills and is still alive somewhere living far better than you or me.
But lets slow this story down a bit.
The Arab Spring was getting out of hand. With Mubarak gone and the Muslim Brotherhood taking control of Egypt that made Israel’s strategic position precarious. Every AIPAC activist was funneling millions to every US Congressman and Senator’s re election camapign. Something had to be done to stop this threat to Israel’s southern border and the Gazan/Egyptian tunnel network infiltration points
And so Western nations arrived at the usual answer when tact is difficult and bombs are cheap.
“They started blowing the shit out of everything in North Africa.”
But especially Libya because they were the target in the cross hairs of Western avarice.
The second richest country in Africa, run by a dictator and strongman, Gaddafi. (go ahead and tell me a Middle East country that isn’t run by a strongman) and for that matter, go ahead and tell me any country not run by a person with a motivation that Nietzsche called the “will-to-power.”. Democracy these days is just something to make you feel good; like you have some say in the ways of the world as you deposit your voting slip. Meanwhile, we’re all run by strongmen or these days, strong women. Who cares who fronts the organization, man or woman, what matters is the power behind the person in the suit they push in front of the TV cameras.
But I’ve digressed.
Libya.
Here’s who attacked. For no reason other than to destroy an oil rich success story on the Mediterranean. This is your tax money at work.
These are the nations with blood on their hands.
What did Libya do to deserve this international coalition of death via air power?
Now we must enter more darkness and things they’ll never tell you on TV.
Libya, committed the crime of going against the international system. They hoarded gold and exported oil. Sure, Gaddafi got rich and let’s face the man was no saint. But every Libyan newlywed got a house. Gaddafi used Libya’s oil wealth to pipe aquifers and turn the desert into farmland. Libya had the highest literacy rate in Africa and free education; free education to the point that any gifted Libyan could get their university fees paid even in foreign universities like Oxford or Harvard. Think about that while you’re paying off your student loan for the next 20 years.
Gaddafi was even floating the idea of an African investment bank, and a gold backed currency, that meant oil sales for gold instead of paper and that’s the kind of talk that gets you killed real quick.
What is Libya today?
A nightmarescape worse then South Chicago with open air slave markets and rival rebel factions roaming the streets in pick-up trucks brandishing heavy machine guns and battling rival gangs for local control from Tripoli to Benghazi. Meanwhile the population hide in their houses. Thanks Obama. Thanks Hillary Clinton. Thanks Sarkozy. International criminality hide behind these leaders they fund, dress in suits and have their bought and paid for media industrial complex friends paint these leaders as “nice people” projected into the public consciousness via TV camera reading bullshit off a teleprompter.
That’s the absolute state of modern “democracy”.
Far, far from the ideals of the ancient Athenians.
The Syrian Civil War started out as an opportunistic attempt by Western powers to get rid of Assad. Since Libya went down so easily, foreign think-tanks and NGOs got high on the idea that if you pump enough bullshit into a satellite dish and funnel enough arms to a hired local militia, (ISIS, AL Nusra, Al-Qaida) whatever; and then feed your home population a series of gruesome beheading vids just to make sure they know who the bad guys are; you can take over a whole country for less cash than the daily profits of Google or Apple.
With total media control, you’ve got an enemy your domestic population hates while at the same time a private army you can use to run roughshod all over the Middle East. Also, you’ve got a bunch of crazies who’ll eviscerate and mow down hundreds in Paris, stab their way across London, mow down hundreds with trucks in France and Germany and generally keep the public focused on who the bad guys are before they wheel out the piano guy who sings “Imagine” at the candlelit vigil while the citizenry holds flowers and gets misty eyed while doing absolutely fucking nothing about their own government causing all this mayhem in the first place.
And paradoxically, this ISIS outfit were the very forces Assad was fighting in Syria. Nobody ever said war is a logical endeavor but some internal consistency on who the bad guys are would be nice, right?
Anyway, the Syrian Civil War started out as a foreign funded protest movement in Deraa. And by foreign funded I mean container loads of weapons shipped from the newly failed state of Libya. That’s the fun thing about chaos and failed states.. Anyone can do anything and not only avoid scrutiny but straight up commit every crime imaginable and have no authority bat an eyelid. Because there is no authority.
That’s what chaos is.
And chaos was coming to Syria…
This article has been written by our partner War Tard! Here’s the link towards the website https://wartard.blogspot.com/
This article is an opinion written by one of our new redactor ! Comment what you think about this post !
We live in amusingly strange times. There has arguably never been a moment in time quite like this, where serious compelling arguments could be made both for this being the most intelligent and enlightened society and generation in history, but also for this being the most intellectually void, narrow-minded era in recent years.
Both sides of this peculiar coin can be seen when trying to deal with society’s historical shortcomings. Sure, in our grandparents time children’s medicine contained heroin, blacks had their own schools and everyone was smoking like there’s no tomorrow, but such a large proportion of the current population refuses to vaccinate their kids, promotes ideas like cultural appropriation and white supremacy and see smoking as the devil itself rising from the depths of hell to plant cancer in your throat, that a reasonable person looks at everything and wonders where the hell has all the balance gone. A perfect example of things going from bad to good to stupid is women’s fight for equality. Throughout the 20th century, many brave people have fought so that society sees women as more than mobile cooking machines and babysitters and treats them as intelligent human beings capable of any intellectual endeavor. And in most part, in the Western world, their struggle was a monumental success.
An objective analysis might show that historically this is the best time in thousands of years to be a woman, probably since the ancient days of Matriarchy. They still benefit from the small quirks their gender brings them from the days where they had little or no institutional power, and at the same time legally hold one hundred percent of rights a man has, with legal courts ready and willing to enforce those rights when infringed upon. However, one statistic of perceived inequality still refuses to go away, and constantly pops its ugly head in official studies and politician speeches again and again: the dreaded gender wage gap. We have “equal pay day”, government-funded studies on how to combat it, respectable media publications denouncing it and top politicians like Barack Obama saying that “it’s wrong”.
For someone who works hard, has responsibilities and doesn’t have time to dig deep into every issue out there, it may make perfect sense to believe that a woman makes 78 cents for every dollar a man makes, because the media generally presents it not as what it is, meaning the median earnings of all men working full-time jobs versus all women working full-time jobs, but as women earning less “for the same job”. Sure, now that you know the root of the statistic it can easily be debunked in 20 seconds by stating the obvious: more men choose to be engineers and more women choose to teach 3rd grade. But then you’re thrown into another rabbit hole, where biology is denied and women are “conditioned by society” to become 3rd grade teachers and “toxic masculinity” is instilled early in men so they think they want to build bridges, not teach ballet. So yeah, to hell with it, let’s go with that argument. Screw evolution, screw biology, screw genetics, men and women are perfectly identical and only society determines who does what. Cool, now what? Is there still a wage gap? Well yes there is, and here’s what women have to do to eliminate it.
Dirty jobs As a society, we’ve become addicted to the things around us actually working. We like working infrastructure, sewage systems, power grids and a million other things around us that we take for granted but can’t live without. All intellectuals, free spirits, all the strong independent women out there who don’t need no man, the platform for their activity is maintained by some people doing dirty, disgusting, dangerous and hazardous jobs. And by people I mean men. All jobs that imply a certain level of danger, health risk and societal shame have a pay bonus, for (hopefully) obvious reasons, and well over 90% of them are performed by men. The same 90-plus percentage is true when it comes to workplace deaths, strengthening an already rock solid and empirically obvious case. In other words, if we aim to achieve the progressive paradise of equal pay between genders, equality must occur in those life-threatening, lung blackening, and spine-wrenching occupations. Standing up for an initiative like quotas for women in boardrooms is a chic cause to get behind, and you may think the purpose is so noble that it’s worth the disgustingly authoritarian practice of telling a private institution who to hire based on their set of genitalia. But what about construction workers? Do women want to spend their lives on construction sites, working in dust all day laying bricks and building bridges? Have you ever seen a construction worker’s hands? You like buildings, bridges, and highways, don’t you? Well, go build one. A significant part of the wage gap would evaporate if millions of women would get that danger or hazard bonus by going down mine shafts, working in extreme temperatures, carrying all the urban garbage (It’s 2018 and they still call it “garbageMAN”. Wake up, feminists!), going down into sewers to remove rat carcasses from clogged pipes, saving people (the 412 rescue workers who died on 9-11? All men. Every single one.) and many other such wonderful, empowering, noble jobs that the Patriarchy only allows men to do. Grab a shovel, ladies! Also, die a little more in the workplace. All for that sweet, sweet equality.
Stop having babies; it takes up too much of your time OK, now that we got the job balance covered, on to the next step; no more childbearing for you, as it kills the momentum of your lifelong attempt to be the richest stiff in the graveyard. Despite feminists treating biology like a pagan religion that needs to be abolished, most of it is undeniable fact, like the part where a woman having a child will not be at her best physically, mentally or emotionally for at least a year around the birth. Being bombarded by hormones while watching yourself change in shape will definitely not do wonders for your career, and neither is the after-birth depression you’ll be experiencing. So even with the complete elimination of the apparently outdated but scientifically proven view that mothers have the best tools to be primary caretakers of a child, the undeniable fact is that having a child will more or less completely incapacitate you for at least a year, at the absolute peak of your working age, while your male colleagues won’t have to deal with this shortcoming. So to hell with the uniquely life-changing experience of having a child, no need for the life-long bond you’ll have with your baby, a bond that no non-parent will ever be able to fully comprehend. Go get that promotion, girl!
Become obsessed psychopaths, please. It’s for your own good But these are trivial issues, you say. The real issue is the systemic sexism, the so-called Patriarchy, men holding all the power, men making the laws, men running companies and major institutions, keeping women down as a result. As a side note, activists absolutely love the word “systemic”. It sounds good and is impossible to fully prove or disprove, it’s the intellectually lazy person’s dream word. But back to the point, it’s not men who occupy those top positions. They’re occupied by people who are willing to put everything else in their lives in a distant second place, people who are willing to work obsessive 100 hour work weeks, continuously plan and scheme their ascension to even higher positions, neglect their families, neglect their health, basically sacrificing everything else in their lives in search of money and social status. A vast majority of these mentally deranged but highly effective individuals are men. Why would you want that? Are you really going to miss your child’s school play because you want that corner office? Are you ready to monetize your time, your health and the happiness of everyone around you just to increase that bottom line? If the answer is yes, then you have every right and opportunity to do that throughout the Western world, no matter your gender. If, however, the answer is no, please quit bitching about the people who really want those positions and realize there’s plenty of reasons to feel sorry for them.
Nordic countries have been on the forefront of gender equality measures for decades, and the number of women entering Science, Technology, Engineering or Mechanics fields is more or less the same, if not lower, than in most other places among the civilized world. Why oh why is that happening? Could it be that women are different, and want different things from life? Could it be that the gender activists that won the battle decades ago became accustomed to receiving funds for their cause, and don’t want those funds to dry up? So there it is, ladies. You’re not satisfied with current Western society, with a gazillion NGO’s and government policies supporting all your causes? Not satisfied with the fact that you genetically possess skills that help you pick up social cues and read human emotion at a level most men don’t even comprehend? Not even satisfied that you can grow another human being inside you, feed it and care for it more than any man could? Cool, it’s a free world; it’s your right not to be satisfied. You can pick up a shovel or lock yourselves in your offices, then tie up your ovaries, and you’ll make a ton of money, I guarantee it. Then you’ll have a heart attack and you’ll die 10 years earlier than you were supposed to, and we can also close that pesky “years on planet Earth gap” between the genders.
An American diplomat in Madagascar was found dead in their home late Friday night, the State Department confirmed on Monday.
U.S. and Malagasy authorities are conducting a joint investigation into the death in the African country’s capital of Antananarivo, State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert said in a statement.
“Our deepest sympathies go out to the family and to the U.S. Embassy Antananarivo community,” she added.
The State Department declined to release the name of the diplomat or discuss details of the death, citing the ongoing investigation and respect for the diplomat’s family.
“Driven by poverty and the continuing downward employment trends, the entire country has experienced a dramatic spike not only in the number of crimes, but also in their severity and type, including armed attacks, robberies, and assaults,” the State Department’s travel office wrote in July of 2018. It categorizes Madagascar as a travel advisory level 2, and recommends people “exercise increased caution” when visiting the country.
“More serious crimes, including home invasions, are not uncommon,” the travel office said, with U.S. personnel now forbidden from using minibus taxis because of high risk of robbery and carjacking.
Geopolitics is coming back. At the end of the Cold war, Francis Fukuyama wrote a book titled The end of History. He thought that History has ended with the victory of the United States over its rival, namely the USSR. However, China and even Russia remain challengers of the US supremacy. From the Syrian civl war, to the rise of Africa, geopolitics is coming back. We think that geopolitics is multidisciplinary and we have to take many things into account to analyze it! Do you really know geopolitics ? Test your knowledge with our new YoungDiplomats quiz !
Which country is the most populated ?
Correct!Wrong!
The most populated country is China with less than 1.4 billion of inhabitants. Demography shapes economy, military affairs and influence. For example, France used to be a great European power because it was deemed as the « China of Europe ». In 2030 many projections state that India will replace China as the first country regarding demography.
Which country has the biggest proven oil reserve ?
Correct!Wrong!
According to the website the world Atlas, Venezuela has the largest amount of proven oil reserves in the world (300,878 million barrels). But is it important ? It depends on the ability of the given country to efficiently exploit its resources. Moreover, this fact can change. The best example is the United States, which has discovered a lot of oil inside its soil thanks to new drilling technic.
Which country has the most powerful army ?
Correct!Wrong!
To be honest, because of secret projects and armaments, no one can really know which country has the most powerful army. However, most of the contemporary analysts agree to say that the US owns the most powerful army. The defense budget reaches 610 $billion which is three times the budget of China, the main geopolitical rival of the U.S. Besides, the US army is used to fight and to get involve in conflicts, sometimes far beyond its borders. New technologies also help the US to maintain that position.
Which political man has been elected as the most powerful statesman.
Correct!Wrong!
The Forbes magazine stated that the most powerful statesman is Xi Jinping. Since 2012, Xi Jinping is the president of China. This information is paramount. When a chief of state is deemed as the most powerful, it shows that this man or woman has the ability to lead and to put the light of its nation. A legend is being built around one man.
In 2018 how many conflicts (more than 10 000 thousands of dead per year) are there ?
Correct!Wrong!
Which countries do owe a nuclear arsenal ?
Correct!Wrong!
The US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, France, the UK and Israel have a nuclear arsenal ranging from 80 weapon (Israel) to 7000 (Russia) according to specialists. What does it mean? In terms of geopolitics and war studies, it means that if the very existence of those countries is threatened, they can reply by a massive destruction. Geopolitically, even if the use of such weapons is highly unlikely, the possess of a nuclear arsenal is a non measurable advantage.
When it comes to soft power, which country is the most influent ?
Correct!Wrong!
According to the website soft power 30, the first global soft power is the UK. It means that thanks to its culture, langage, art, way of life, and image, the UK exerces a good influential power. Of course, this is one survey and others may give different results. Soft power is developed by Joseph Nye, an American analyst. This concept is very important because it shows a given country can "enlighten" the whole world. Power domination can’t be reached only with force and economy.
Historical question : which empire was the largest empire in Human history ?
Correct!Wrong!
The Mongol empire (13th and 14th centuries) was the largest one (33 million of square kilometers). But how can a power establish its sovereignty on such a big territory ? The emperors understood that they can’t lead only with force. They decided not to impose their culture but to grant cultural autonomy to the different regions they had conquered. They established what historians will call, the Pax Mongolica.
Which country gives the most foreign aid (in percentage of gross national income)?
Correct!Wrong!
Sweden is the most generous country in terms of foreign aid. In 2015, 1.4 percent of Sweden’s GNI, or $7.1 billion was ODA assistance. Foreign aids are paramount because they can play a role in negotiations. For instance, the United States distributes more than $30 billion in order to have more allies. Consequently, to understand power relations, it is important to take a look at the amount of money and not the percentage.
Which country is the first global power ?
Correct!Wrong!
The US is definitely the first super power. Of course it’s being challenged by China. Of course, its power will likely decrease in the decades to come. But for the moment, the US is the only able to project its military forces far beyond its borders. Moreover, in terms of economy and finance, the US can influence the world economy thanks to the dollar. the US also has a strong soft power. Its culture shapes the whole world and its psyches.
Do you really know geopolitics ? YoungDiplomats quiz !
Well done !
Well done ! You have more than 7 out of 10 ! You know geopolitics very well and you are well aware about what's going on in the world ! Keep reading YoungDiplomats !
Never mind !
Don't worry you'll do better next time ! Read YoungDiplomats to have new quizzes and articles on geopolitics and international relations !
Lula and the Brazilian left – political situation of Brazil
After three electoral defeats, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (the biggest leader within the Brazilian left) finally won the Brazilian presidential race in 2002. He ruled the country for 8 years, during which Brazil experienced a global commodity boom, which combined with Lula’s social programs focused on the poor, allowed millions of Brazilians to leave extreme poverty.
Brazil became more inclusive, better educated, and earned the status of an emerging power. When Lula left office, he was approved by 80 percent of Brazilians – and was respected by the top 1 percent almost as much as by the poor.
Now, eight years after the end of his second term, Lula is in prison, serving a 12-year sentence for passive corruption and money laundering. His Workers’ Party suffered major defeats in the 2016 municipal elections, losing in many key municipalities, including their crown jewel – São Paulo.
Barring the legal equivalent of a miracle, Lula will not be on the presidential ballot. So, where will the Brazilian left go in 2018 – and beyond?
The Brazilian report is a YoungDiplomats partner willing to develop a wise and objective point of view on Brazil. YoungDiplomats is proud to have such a partner and thanks the redactors of The Brazilian Report for their help and willingness in spreading an elaborated knowledge.
Iran and Israel are long time ennemies. What about to match them up militarily ? YoungDiplomats is not taking any stances and only compares military forces and assets !
The role of money
Israel and Iran spends billion of dollars in militar budget. However the Hebrew state spends 20 billion while Iran spends 14 billion of dollars. Moreover, the gap increases since Israel receives 3.8 billion of Dollars from the U.S. As you know, money makes war and victory available so this is a paramount asset for Israelis. But you also have to keep in mind that things can quickly change. For Instance, the Iranian said the Guardian Revolution Corps is likely to receive much more aditional money.
Number of soldiers
Conscription is compulsory in both countries. It means that these countries can rapidly gather millions of fighters on the ground. Nevertheless, Iran has more military and active personnels (1.8 millions) than Israel (1.2 millions).
Equipment and ground vehicles
Israel owns merkava tanks which are much better than the Iranian ones.
Israel has an important amount of tanks and armored forces vehicles (around 13 000). In this sector, Iran is far less advantageous (less than 4000). However, it compensates this weakness with towed artillery and rocket projectors. These elements are important when it comes to real conflict. On the ground, Iran can threaten Israel and Israeli citizens thanks to artillery and rocket projectors. On the other side, Israeli tanks and AFV can put pressure on Iranian lines and border
Aircrafts
It has to be said, both countries have not huge aircraft fleets. Israel has more than 500 aircraft which remains superior to Iran which has around 300 aircrafts. Nowadays, aircraft are very important and constitute formidable assets. The fact that Israel has 200 aicrafts more than Iran is crucial.
Naval
In this domain, Iran is far advantageous than the Hebrew state. Iran has 5 frigates while Israel doesn’t have any. The 6 Israeli submarines should face 33 Iranian ones. Moreover, Israel has 32 patrol crafts more than seven times less than Iran (230). But is it relevant ? Well take a look at geography and you’ll know. If Iran is eager to strike Israel with its naval fleet, it has to get around the huge Gulf peninsula. Once that is made, Iranian fleet will be an easy target when crossing the Aqaba Gulf.
Nuclear weapon
Officially, Israel doesn’t have any nuclear weapons. But experts assume that Israel owns 80 nuclear warheads. We don’t exactly know for Iran but several information say that the shia country can build one warhead. Many could say that nuclear weapons would never be used in case of a conflict. Henry Kissinger developed a theory of limited nuclear conflict. The main use of nuclear weapons is deterrence, but a state can really use a nuclear weapon if it feels that its very existence is questioned…
No one knows if Iran has a nuclear arsenal…
So who could win ? It depends on many aspects. Of course, this article can’t include paramount elements such as the quality of commands and acclimation to war of the two peoples. Tell us what you think in the comments !
The appearance of the former AFPRC military junta’s Spokesperson Rtd. Capt. Ebou Jallow before the famous Janneh Commission, via Skype, to shed light on the controversial $35 million loan secured from Taiwan, following the 1994 military coup, is a bitter reminder of Africa’s largely unprincipled diplomacy in the sense that the decision to establish or sever diplomatic ties with countries mainly hinges on purely monetary benefits.
Ebou Jallow would have stealed millions of US dollars…
The former AFPRC member told the Commission that the then Chairman Yahya Jammeh had decided to sever diplomatic ties with the mainland China in favour of Taiwan after the latter had offered $35-million loan, while the former declined Jammeh’s overtures. It’s common sense that countries establish diplomatic ties based on mutual interests but in Africa’s case, cash is chosen over immaterial gains, such as knowledge transfer or sharing best practices. African leaders are notorious for establishing diplomatic bonds with countries that provide cash which ends up in the deep pockets of corrupt and corruptible leaders. Jallow alleged that Jammeh was adamant that he (Jallow) had to come back with a $5 million-cash and that the Chairman ordered the deposit of $2.3 million at the Central Bank as Special Development Account, while Jammeh retained the remainder. Jallow, who later broke ranks with Jammeh and fled to the United States where he sought asylum, claimed Jammeh never explained the motive behind the retention of the remaining millions, when the Commission, which is tasked with probing the former Gambian strongman’s financial dealings and his associates, pressed him on the fate of the funds that Jammeh had decided to keep with himself.
In an unexpected move, Jammeh abruptly cut ties with Taiwan in 2013, apparently after the country that mainland China considers to be a renegade, allegedly turned down Jammeh’s cash overtures. As a matter of fact, a handful of countries that established ties with Taiwan abandoned it, apart from Swaziland that is now known as eSwatini. These countries, being unprincipled, keep flipflopping in their international relations, in accordance with their expectations in terms of financial benefits.
China has understood the role of money in Africa.
China’s influence is growing in Africa. Beijing has recently hosted the forum on China-Africa Cooperation summit which has been attended by African leaders. In his opening remarks, Chinese President Xi Jinping said the summit marks a strategic point for partnership. Knowing the mentality of African leaders, Taiwan, which split with China in 1949, has lured a couple of African countries through cash diplomacy to secure recognition. Likewise, PRC is involved in debt-book diplomacy as Africa is said to have borrowed $130 billion since 2000. China has been investing heavily in Africa as it relies on the continent for oil and other natural resources.
How can African leaders command respect in their foreign engagements when their counterparts in more developed or richer countries are certain that the purpose for the engagement is simply to beg? Why are African leaders under the illusion that their countries cannot be developed without securing loans or grants from other countries? Do we lack natural and human resources to move our Continent forward? Do we have to remain beggars and the takers forever?
These are lingering questions that we all need to ponder and reflect upon to take our rightful position in the international community.
Throughout the history, the European Union and Iran had a quite complicated relationship that varied from friendly cooperation to complete isolation. The decision of the U.S. President Donald Trump to withdraw the USA from the nuclear deal has yet again put the ”Iran issue” in the spotlight, several years after the (only) foreign policy success of Obama’s administration. The European Union’s decision to support the deal comes as no surprise if we take into a consideration that this decision is a result of years of distrust towards the United States and their uni-polar moments. Coordination of the EU and Iran relations is done via the Iran Task Force located at the European External Action Service (EEAS) headquarters in Brussels. The Task Force started its work in 2015 after an agreement between Iran and the E3/EU+3, known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was signed.
Federica Mogherini the high representative for foreign affairs in the European Union
The EU High Representative, Federica Mogherini has a role of the coordinator of the Joint Commission and she conducts bilateral engagements between the two.
After the famous coup against Prime Minister Mosaddeq in 1953, Mohammad Reza Shah became a close ally of the USA and established stronger relations with Western European countries. Prior to the Islamic Revolution, most of the European countries were not so deeply involved in Iran’s military and political affairs like the USA was. France, West Germany and Italy had good economic relations with this country, but at the same time did not view the Islamic revolution as a ”loss” of Iran for the West. Ayatollah Khomeini was even offered a temporary home in France after he has been forced out of the country. In these years, France was generally seen as a “friend of Iran”, even though during the war between Iraq and Iran, the French have sold arms to Iraq. Khomeini’s era was marked by famous slogan ”Neither West nor East but only the Islamic Republic”. For the EU, Iran was an important factor for stability in the Middle East and Iran needed the EU because of economic interests.
The Iranian support for Hezbollah is blamed by Europeans
Some of the burning issues that complicated the relationship between the West and Iran in the first several years after the revolution included Iran’s support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and the killing of Iranian dissidents in Europe.
During Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani’s presidency from 1989 to 1997, the trade relations with Britain, France, Germany and Italy significantly increased. This was an era of cooperation based on finding mutual interests and a common ground, rather than highlighting the differences. Some of the biggest European oil companies such as French ”Total” and Italian ”Eni” decided to invest in Iran despite the U.S. sanctions. During the presidency of Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005), diplomatic relations improved as well. His call for a ”Dialogue of Civilizations” paved the way for deepening diplomatic and economic relations with the EU. At the same time, his promises such as the rule of law, political reforms and strengthening of civil society appealed to the European Union, but most of these reforms were blocked by a more conservative establishment. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stressed country’s right to develop nuclear weapons and become self-sufficient in nuclear fuel for its power plants. This angered Western leaders since it signaled clear nationalistic rhetoric. However, the reason for such proclamation was most likely a desire to legitimize the political regime. His successor, president Hassan Rouhani used more pragmatic approach during his efforts to ”lift harmful sanctions imposed on Iran.”
Hassan Rouhani is eager to limitate sanctions on Iran.
Iran assured the global actors that it will use its nuclear energy for peaceful purposes by ratifying the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons from 1970, which is supported by the European Union as well. However, in 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered that Iran is conducting secret activities within a program. Since Iraq war was ongoing at the time and military crisis between the USA and Iran was possible, the EU countries decided to get involved. This has led France, Germany, the UK and the European council to try to resolve this issue through direct negotiations. In that way, in the period from 2003 to 2005, the EU starts to play a strategic role in the Middle East. The EU High Representative joined the talks in 2004. The USA, China and Russia joined as well in order to support it, but Iran could not be convinced to cooperate with the IAEA. The consequence of these actions were several resolutions by the UN Security Council through which it demanded suspension of all heavy water activities and Uranium-235 enrichment. In 2012, the EU enforced an oil embargo coupled with additional sanctions. It was not until 2013 that Iran allowed nuclear inspectors to visit a heavy water facility after they made a deal in Geneva with the P5+1 (Britain, China, France, Russia, the USA and Germany). This deal paved the way for further talks between Iran and the USA. As a part of this deal, Uranium enrichment was put on hold for at least 8 months. At the same time, there are many controversies surrounding the entire nuclear arms talks. The International Atomic Energy Agency did not manage to find any solid evidence on the existence of nuclear weapons in this country since 2011. Many people compare behavior towards Iran with the path that was taken with Iraq where presumptions led to an offensive.
The 2015 nuclear deal is a major diplomatic event for the Middle East and beyond.
From 2002 until 2015, the main issue which prevented the EU and Iran from developing stronger relations was Iranian nuclear program. Diplomatic solution for the nuclear issue was possible once imposed sanctions on a large number of Iranian insurance companies and banks, together with an oil embargo and denied access to SWIFT, were implemented. Hassan Rouhani, who was previously a nuclear negotiator, won 2013 presidential elections, and his first goal was lift harmful sanctions and come to an agreement with the P5+1. This agreement became known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This deal was a turning point in the EU relations with Iran since it paved the way for better cooperation and the country’s position as the largest trade partner in the Persian Gulf region. In January 2016, Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) declared that Iran fulfilled its duties and engagements, and the EU, the UN and the USA lifted their sanctions. After visits of president Hassan Rouhani to France and Italy in the same month that year, business agreements worth billions of U.S. dollars were signed. Moreover, delegations often traveled back and forth.Ever since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was reached, it has been evident that Continental Europe is much more keen on working with Iran.
No bilateral agreements exist between the EU and Iran since Iran is not a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) so the trade between the two is subject to the general EU import regime. Iran currently has a status of observer in the WTO. Between 2002 and 2005, negotiations for non-preferential Trade and Cooperation Agreement were held, but then put on hold since Iran resumed its uranium conversion program. These negotiations are yet to be resumed without any indications as to when and where. Currently, there is no delegation of the EU in Tehran since it is represented by the state that holds the Presidency of the Council of the EU. In order to become a reliable partner and actor, Iran needs to become a member of the WTO and the EU supports the goal of Iranian accession to the organization. Since 2012, trade balance with Iran was mostly positive. After the visit of Federica Mogherini in 2016, it was agreed that Tehran and the EU will cooperate in the number of different areas such as energy, economy, education and transport. It was also agreed that there will be an attempt to boost the trade to $30 billion. Since most of the EU banks are highly exposed to the U.S. regulators, they are usually reluctant when it comes to bigger investments in Iran, so the smaller European banks such as those in Denmark, Germany, Austria and France stepped in and provided credit lines after the easing of sanctions. German company Siemens signed a deal to modernize railway network in Iran, while British company Vodafone partnered with Iranian HiWeb in order to modernize IT infrastructure.
European banks are importantly tartgeted by U.S sanctions!
Companies such as Total, Danieli, Peugeot, Citroen, Renault and Volkswagen also announced their own investments. Together with the United Arab Emirates and China, the EU is in the top 3 main trading partners. Germany is the greatest European investor and the most active trade partner in the years both before the 2015 nuclear deal and afterwards. The total trade of the EU with Iran went from €27 billion in 2011 to only €6 billion in 2013. Most of the EU exports to Iran are transport equipment, machinery and chemicals and in 2017 these accounted for almost 70 per cent of the total €10.8 billion worth of goods. On the contrary side, most of imports from Iran to the EU are energy-related. Out of total €10.1 billion, almost €9 billion was spent on energy in 2017. In this period of time, the EU imports from Iran increased by almost 84 per cent. One year later, there was another increase, and the EU imported €11.3 billion worth of goods, while Iran imported €14.1 billion worth of goods from Europe. Many Iranian officials praised the UK’s decision to leave the European Union and this move was generally seen as a potential for trade expansion with Europe.
Iran is a resource-rich country. It has the largest natural gas reserves and the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world. Iran’s energy sector could be additionally strengthened and developed by working with the European commercial partners. It is a well-known fact that the EU gets the most of its gas and oil from Russia, North Africa and Central Asia, but the cooperation with Iran and stability in the Persian Gulf region could provide the EU with a viable alternative energy source, and in this way, lower the leverage of their current suppliers. Iran’s geographic position, namely at the crossroads of Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East, makes it an ideal candidate for conventional shipping routes to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Eastern Europe and Asia. Moreover, it is located in between the energy-rich Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea. Iran and Europe usually have contradictory opinions concerning these issues: human rights violations, Iran’s support of Hezbollah and arming of the group, Iran’s position on Israel and wars in Syria and Yemen where they support opposing sides.
President Donald Trump declared that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is an asymmetrical agreement, which favors Iran. His administration opts for regional collaboration with Saudi Arabia and Israel, not Iran. Trump’s moves towards Iran suggest a need to influence the idea of regime change, while the attitude of Europeans suggests desire to see behavioral change from the existing regime. The USA is actively trying to find ways in which they could isolate Iran, but European governments want to engage by using soft power tools, namely diplomatic and economic tools. During Donald Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia in 2017, he openly called for all nations to isolate Iran. Only hours after his statement, the EU high representative could be seen publicly congratulating Hassan Rouhani on his victory. A significant number of European companies also decided to ignore American calls to refrain from doing business with Iran. By opposing the U.S. suggestions, European countries are finding themselves in a rather strange position, where they become strategically more aligned to China and Russia than to their historic allies. The United States and Europe already had a clash in 1990s when they could not agree on sanctions against Libya, Iran and Cuba. Back then, Europeans introduced a Blocking Regulations and issued a complaint with the World Trade Organization in order to protect their businesses from the U.S.
Donald Trump puts a pressure on Europeans concerning their stance about Iran.
sanctions. Nowadays, Europeans will do the same to protect themselves. Even though the historic allies share many views, the approach of the Trump administration in contrast to the European one is what essentially becomes the stumbling stone in their relationship. Thus, there is a fear that it will be much harder to resolve differences and disagreements now that president Trump has decided to pull the USA out of the deal.
The first instance where relationship between Europe and the USA was strained in the 21st century was in 2003 when the USA decided to go to war with Iraq. Five years later and consequences of this decision were still evident. The lesson that Obama learned was that Europe was no longer unquestionable ally and will not follow the U.S. interests blindly. The latest decision of the EU to preserve the Iran nuclear deal is another instance where the U.S. interests are not blindly followed by the European leaders. Measures that will be taken to keep the deal in place and even deepen economic relations with Iran were immediately presented at the summit in Sofia right after the news broke out. The overall EU foreign policy towards Iran can be used in a wider context of demise of the U.S.-centered power in the North Atlantic and emergence of Europe as an area that is less dependent on the Russian oil, with the strong desire to preserve its own economic interests.
