/r/geopolitics

Photograph via snooOG

Geopolitics is focused on the relationship between politics and territory. Through geopolitics we attempt to analyze and predict the actions and decisions of nations, or other forms of political power, by means of their geographical characteristics and location in the world.

In a broader sense, geopolitics studies the general relations between countries on a global scale. Here we analyze local events in terms of the bigger, global picture.

NORMAL THEME


geo·pol·i·tics | ˌjēōˈpäləˌtiks |

noun

The study of how factors such as geography, economics, military capability and non-State actors affects the foreign policy of States.

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
  • All articles need a short submission statement of 3-5 sentences in the form of a comment. You can read how to create a submission statement here.

  • Use the article's exact title as the submission title.

  • Do not editorialize the title or add your own commentary to the article title.

  • Submissions are strongly encouraged to come from reputable and non-paywalled sources.

  • When sharing text from a paywalled article in the comments--be mindful and consider fair use. Do not share more than 4-6 paragraphs of text from the article to convey your message.

  • Self-posts: When asking questions--get to the point: keep the question simple, brief and easy to understand.

  • Self-posts: When starting a discussion--keep the title simple, brief, and easy to understand. You can use a long-form discussion by adding several paragraphs into the body of your post.

  • An article or self-post is subject to removal if the mods consider that the content within it is misleading.

  • Bigotry and hate speech directed towards groups of people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, religion, national origin, immigration status, social status, religious affiliation or disability is not allowed

  • Comments denying genocide or downplaying genocide will be removed, and possibly lead to a ban.

  • All discussion must be civil. Engage with common decency towards others and treat others with courtesy.

  • Do not use profanity.

  • No chatGPT responses

  • No meta posts or comments

  • Blogspamming will result in a ban. Please make sure that you are not submitting a link that merely copies and pastes an article from another source.

  • This is not a place to discuss conspiracy theories! There are other subs for that.

  • You can read the sub's rules here.

FILTERS

Compilation of Past AMAs

Guidelines for the media

AFFILIATED SUBREDDITS

/r/geopolitics

644,619 Subscribers

0

Israel & Hamas Ceasefire Disappointment.

Pro Palestine & Hamas groups have spoken loudly demanding ceasefires from simple protests to ruckus to all out violent & malicious actions. The tension has greatly extended towards the U.S. for vetoing previously proposed ceasefire proposals. There has never been any protests in support for the U.S. proposed ceasefire agreements nor any animosity towards Russia for vetoing them which is a different topic all together.

After all this energy put forth demanding a ceasefire to pass... both sides reject it. Previous ceasefire agreements that didn't pass called for the condemnation of Hamas, however the new & approved proposal allows Hamas to be punished if they attack as well as additional punishment for not releasing the hostages which they refuse to do under the ceasefire demands. The IDF is obviously going to continue doing whatever they want but the IDF can handle the punishment the UN could deliver. Hamas is just going to bring forth additional suffering to the Palestinian people refusing the abide by the UNs agreement.

The ceasefire that people desperately fought for is going to make things exceptionally worse for Hamas. If Hamas doesn't comply which everyone knows they won't.... it's going to make things much worse for the civilian, this time there is additional documented blame on Hamas. I think the ceasefire backfired on them especially since it expires soon. All this did was open up the doors to globally punish Hamas and Israel, neither of them care. The IDF can afford the punishment, Hamas & Palestine can't.

The best hope is for people to stand up against Hamas, they are making things worse for Palestinians.

Edit: Now that all the people who have protested against the U.S. and rallied for a ceasefire finally realize a ceasefire isn't going to do anything... What do you think they should protest for now? How can they actually help Palestinian civilians.?

44 Comments
2024/03/26
21:16 UTC

53

Are South Korea and Japan screwed due to ageing populations?

everyone knows both these countries have very low birth rates but are they going to be worse off compared to other countries with the same issue due to low migration? Western countries can rely on an unlimited supply of migrants but places like Japan are known to be somewhat skeptical of foreigners which might deter potential migrants (not to mention how much harder japanese and korean are to learn compared to english).

Will AI/robots be able to save the day or are these countries likely facing a social catastrophe by the end of the century?

60 Comments
2024/03/26
12:16 UTC

2

Is it time Australia creates a unit similar to the CIA's Special Activities Centre?

With the state of the world, and the tensions rising in our region in particular, is it time Australia creates a unit similar to the CIA's Special Activities Centre, that can conduct covert and paramilitary operations? I'm not taking into account our 4 Squadron SASR that provides security for ASIS operatives.

Feel free to discuss, and remember no abuse, threats or bigotry.

For those not familiar, here are a few dot points about the US & UK capabilities.

**The Special Operations Group (within the Special Activities Centre) is responsible for operations that include clandestine or covert operations with which the US government does not want to be overtly associated.As such, unit members, called Paramilitary Operations Officers and Specialized Skills Officers, do not typically wear uniforms.

** The Ground Branch of the Special Operations Group has been known to operate alongside the United Kingdom's E Squadron the UK's equivalent paramilitary unit.

** The Political Action Group is responsible for covert activities related to political influence, psychological operations, economic warfare, and cyberwarfare.

5 Comments
2024/03/26
09:41 UTC

52

If Trump wins and the US pulls out of security agreements with Europe, Asia and other allies, could France and the UK provide a nuclear umbrella to allies who needs one?

The topic of nuclear proliferation for countries that don't have nukes and are underneath Uncle Sam's nuclear umbrella is becoming highly debated due to Trump threatening to not protect NATO member states who don't meet the 2% GDP requirement for defense spending, which in itself was inherently ridiculous and paints a VERY dark picture for the future, given Russia being more open and brutally honest lately about their plans for a conflict with NATO later in the decade.

But my thoughts went to the United Kingdom and France, who, along with the US provide the nuclear shield for NATO should the Russians try anything. But without America, who can protect Taiwan from China, South Korea from the North, Japan from China, Russia and North Korea, et cetera.

Now sure, the Brits and the French don't have as vast a nuclear arsenal as we Yanks do, but unless I didn't do my research enough, surely they can step up in case the worst comes true and Trump pulls out of American security guarantees with our allies.

What are your thoughts on this subject?

77 Comments
2024/03/25
21:36 UTC

1

What would be the implications of a decisive Chinese victory against Taiwan, the US and its allies in case of a Chinese attack on Taiwan?

Let's say that the war plays out like the Russo-Japanese War - an emerging power challenges an existing power and decisively defeats them. In this case, the PRC is Japan and the US is Russia.

China invades Taiwan while also launching a major sneak attack on the US and it allies and despite heavy casualties sustained by both sides of the conflict, successfully conquers Taiwan and reveals both the American and Japanese militaries to be paper tigers hampered by the tyranny of distance and inability to defend their major bases against barrages of Chinese missiles effectively enough to mount effective counter-attacks against Chinese forces.

What would be the implications of a Chinese victory for the world and especially for domestic American politics?

5 Comments
2024/03/25
02:27 UTC

0

Article 5, and Why it will be a Cold Shower for many true believers.

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

The principle of providing assistance
With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances.
This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute. Each country will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.
At the drafting of Article 5 in the late 1940s, there was consensus on the principle of mutual assistance, but fundamental disagreement on the modalities of implementing this commitment. The European participants wanted to ensure that the United States would automatically come to their assistance should one of the signatories come under attack; the United States did not want to make such a pledge and obtained that this be reflected in the wording of Article 5.

  1. It means that each country will decide the level of engagement from support to fully joining the conflict, but they are not forced to do so.
  2. It does not need to involve military operations or joining the war actively
  3. Restore and maintain security, which means a defensive war.
  4. United States made sure to word it that they are NOT automatically involved even if Art.5 is invoked.
19 Comments
2024/03/25
08:48 UTC

0

Since the UN voted and agreed on a ceasefire, why would Israel and Gaza acknowledge it?

9 Comments
2024/03/25
15:49 UTC

0

How likely is it that the US would have informed Russia about the impending attack? What would their motivations be?

So, I don't know, but I personally think the US would give Russia a heads up if they knew about an imminent terrorist attack.

I know they put a public statement out targeted to US citizens, but I have a feeling that the US government also directly told the Russian government.

  1. How likely do you think that is?

  2. Why wouldn't the US government allow it to happen in order to allow Russia to become more destabilized?

I absolutely do not think the US or Ukraine were behind the attack.

43 Comments
2024/03/25
12:15 UTC

231

How to understand Israel’s conduct in Gaza with regard to civilian casualties?

I have seen many different explanations for how Israel is conducting the war in Gaza concerning civilian casualties, and I am personally having trouble sorting through the competing claims. I am not interested here in normative judgments about the morality of Israel’s actions or whether or not their invasion was justified in the first place, those are extremely important questions but right now I just want an accurate factual understanding of what it is that Israel is doing not what they ought to do. I see a few different plausible accounts, all of which to some extent cohere with the facts as I understand them.

  1. Israel desires the destruction, in whole or in part, of the population of Gaza. Obviously, they cannot simply start lining Palestinians up against the wall or bombing refugee camps without risking enormous international backlash, sanctions, and the loss of key allies, so they use the cover of the ongoing war to intentionally attack civilian targets with little to no strategic relevance and then construct post hoc connections to Hamas to rationalize their actions and provide plausible deniability. The death count is significantly higher than it would be if Israel did not desire genocide, and it would be even higher if they thought they could get away with more overtly genocidal acts without facing consequences. They are intentionally preventing aid from reaching Gaza in the hopes that the spread of famine will help speed up the process of ethnic cleansing.
  2. Israel is largely indifferent to the suffering of the Palestinian people. They do not actively desire the deaths of the people of Gaza but neither do they factor civilian loss of life into their decision-making calculus. So long as a potential target has some military relevance, then there is sufficient justification to launch an attack, even if the potential civilian death toll far outweighs the potential blow to Hamas. No or minimal efforts are being made to either decrease or increase civilian casualties. Perhaps they even view civilian deaths/generally making Gaza unlivable as fringe benefits of their actions, but it is not their main concern. Israel limits/prevents aid from going into Gaza purely for strategic reasons.
  3. Israel does weigh potential civilian loss of life, but defeating Hamas is so important to them that it routinely outweighs humanitarian concerns in their decision-making. Some efforts are made to minimize collateral damage, but their military objectives take such precedence that significant loss of life occurs anyway.
  4. Israel significantly values minimizing collateral damage, but the nature of combating an enemy that is deeply embedded in the civilian population in a dense urban environment makes noncombatant deaths inevitable. Israel is doing what it can to not kill civilians but the nature of the war makes that goal functionally impossible. The death toll would be significantly higher if Israel were not to take the precautions that they do. The deaths that do occur are largely the result of good faith errors made in the fog of war and/or difficult but necessary strategic decisions and couldn’t be avoided without entirely compromising their campaign against Hamas. Israel is trying to balance Gaza’s need for humanitarian aid with their need to maintain security in the fight against Hamas and won’t let Gaza get to the point where the population is dying en masse of starvation.

I could be completely off base here and none of these are accurate accounts of Israeli policy, or maybe parts of different explanations are right, but I just want someone to point me in the right direction because I genuinely don’t know what to think anymore. It’s probably impossible to answer with complete certainty, but I am still interested in what the most reasonable explanation is.

187 Comments
2024/03/25
11:46 UTC

21

Why do Isis and other similar groups publicly announce that they are responsible for attacks?

What exactly is the rationale for Isis and other similar Islamic extremist groups always claiming responsibility for attacks like we just seen in Moscow a few days ago? Would it not make more sense from their perspective to deny responsibility and therefore not face warfare with the nation who they attacked? Is there any historical or cultural explanation to this?

23 Comments
2024/03/25
11:20 UTC

0

Without religion, the Israel-Palestine conflict would be a property dispute that could be settled in a local court.

Plaintiff alleges previous ownership, and violence of defendant in acquiring possession require the defendant to surrender possession.

Defendant counters that violence was mutual and proportionate, ownership had been granted under international law or common law contract, and that possession was either legal or occupied until an official cessation of hostilities in accordance with international law.

How hard is that?

Just leave the nutcases on each side out and it would be over with the international community happily paying all the costs just to be done with it.

32 Comments
2024/03/25
10:17 UTC

45

Why does Sovereign Military Order of Malta get to sit at the same table as actual countries, despite not being a nation and not having any territory? Are there any other entities that could do the same?

The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta are descended from a crusader order. It has an observer status at the UN, it has equivalent of embassies in various countries. It also issues things like passports, license plates, postal stamps. Or should it be considered just an ordinary international NGO with a few gimmicks?

7 Comments
2024/03/25
06:04 UTC

242

Putin will be ruthless after the Moscow attack, but Russians don’t trust him to keep them safe

43 Comments
2024/03/24
21:54 UTC

143

Why are Haitian gangs called gangs?

When I think about a gang, I think about something like crips or bloods whose main activities are dealing drugs and maybe doing some extortion or petty crimes.

If on the other hand, a group(s) overthrows a government and assassinates political leaders then isnt that more of an insurgency?

50 Comments
2024/03/24
20:47 UTC

296

Russian special forces have been battling ISIS throughout last month

I've heard people still doubting that ISIS was involved in the terrorist attack on Crocus City in Moscow last Friday. They say that the attack came out of nowhere, and ISIS hasn't targeted Russia in the past.

According to official information, Russia's special forces have been battling ISIS throughout March, confirming that ISIS-K had large capabilities inside Russia. Here are a few articles from state-owned media (links in comments):

  • On March 3, FSB liquidated an ISIS-K cell in Ingushetia, killing six terrorists.
  • On March 7, FSB thwarted an imminent terrorist attack by ISIS-K on a synagogue in Moscow.
  • On March 20, FSB arrested an ISIS commander in Moscow.

Moreover, Nashr News, associated with ISIS, published a video on 18 February 2024 about the struggle of ISIS-K in Afghanistan. Among other things, it condemns Taliban allies, including Russia. Quoting from a Russian-speaking researcher Ruslan Suleimanov:

“Among those who sought to establish ties of friendship with them [the Taliban] were Russian criminals wreaking havoc on earth.

They invaded the homes of the Muslims and went to extremes, fighting and displacing them in various parts of the land.

But after they destroyed those who fought with the Russians yesterday [in Afghanistan in 1979-1989], today the situation has changed with a change in their [Taliban] faith, which made them allies, united [with the Russians] by good neighborliness.

But Muslims in Khorasan have a different opinion. Therefore, they carried out an operation against them and mixed their blood with the blood of Russian crusaders at the Russian embassy [September 5, 2022].”

This is followed by an appeal from the militant who had allegedly committed a suicide bombing at the Russian embassy. Next, there is a song in Russian, “Soon, very soon, blood will be shed by the sea...”, which ISIS had used in their propaganda back in 2015.


Regarding claims that the terrorists were trying to escape to Ukraine, it's important to realise that Bryansk is simply the closest border region from Moscow. There, Russia borders both Ukraine and Belarus, and the Russian-Belarusian border is practically unguarded. Even if you assume that the terrorists were fleeing to Ukraine, the border is in disarray. Just earlier this month, anti-Putin sabotage groups staged raids into Bryansk. I'm not claiming that Ukraine was definitely uninvolved, but so far all attempts at dragging Ukraine into this are unsubstantiated.

74 Comments
2024/03/24
17:26 UTC

302

At what point does a gang become a government?

Seeing Haiti’s situation in the news has made me wonder what the real difference is between a gang and a government. I’ve always been a huge fan of this quote by Kurt Vonnegut specifically the “sea pirates” part.

“1492. The teachers told the children that this was when their continent was discovered by human beings. Actually, millions of human beings were already living full and imaginative lives on the continent in 1492. That was simply the year in which sea pirates began to cheat and rob and kill them.“

I have a 6yo old and there are often shows she watches that have good guys and bad guys, and I always explain their motivation as “Those guys want to be the ones in charge so that they can make the rules and get everyone to follow them. The other guys are trying to stop them.” and it feels like that’s just what all human power dynamics are.

The “gangs” in Haiti may have less resources and PR, and they are certainly less complex than a traditional government, but at the end of the day, are they all trying to get to the same end point? They want to be in charge so that they can make the rules and they use violent and non violent means to achieve that goal.

This isn’t necessarily a defense of gangs, but I really am genuinely curious if there is a formal or recognized dividing line here.

91 Comments
2024/03/24
14:51 UTC

250

Addressing the Argument “Ukraine Should Give Up and Make Peace with Russia. It Is Not Worth the Lives of People Killed”

The prevailing narrative among a segment of Western society regarding support for Ukraine is that Ukraine has no prospect of winning the war and should therefore come to the negotiating table with Russia. I believe this stems mainly from a misunderstanding of the reality Ukraine faces and Russia's long-term strategic ambitions. I would like to clear out some confusions and will argue, purely from the Ukrainian perspective, why Ukraine has no choice but to fight to preserve its sovereignty. A separate argument can be made about why it is in the West's interest to continue supporting Ukraine, but here, I will keep my focus on Ukraine.

First of all, I think it’s important to distinguish different arguments since Ukraine giving up Crimea and Donbas in exchange for security assistance and EU accession is completely different from Ukraine unconditionally surrendering to Russia. To do this, we need to look at Russia and Ukraine’s theory of victory.

———Ukraine and Russia’s theory of victory———

There are multiple layers to Ukraine’s theory of victory. The following ranges from “strategic victory” to “acceptable concession in case the battlefield reality tips in favour of Russia”:

  1. The ultimate goal for Ukraine is the full liberation of its occupied territories, including Crimea, back to pre-2014 borders and the EU and NATO accession to ensure that there will be no future aggression from Russia.
  2. Partial liberation of its occupied territory and EU and NATO accession.
  3. Partial liberation of its occupied territories, or freezing the current front line without NATO accession but with EU accession.

(They are grouped somewhat arbitrarily and further breakdown is possible but it is not necessary for our purposes.)

Now let’s take a look at Russia’s theory of victory. Russia’s long-term goal is still not entirely clear, and also Putin’s ambition beyond Ukraine could change depending on how the current war in Ukraine unfolds. But with regard to Ukraine, Russia’s main objective may be described as follows (again, from the most desirable to the least):

  1. Installation of a puppet regime in Kyiv, demilitarization of the Ukrainian military, and having Ukraine firmly under its control.
  2. Turning Ukraine into a ramp state, cutting off Ukraine from Western support, making further territorial gains, and forcing Kyiv to capitulate to Russia’s demands, which include denying EU and NATO accessions and forcing “neutrality”. (This demand will render Russia’s future invasion of Ukraine easier.)
  3. Forcing Ukraine to the negotiating table on Russia’s terms and imposing their demands (without significant territorial gain if this proves too difficult).

———Impasse in negotiations———

Generally speaking, most conflicts end with a settlement. This means both sides coming to a negotiating table and making concessions until they can agree that the outcome of the settlement is better than continued fighting. In IR theory, the bargaining model of war is used to describe this phenomenon.

So long as Russia’s bargaining range does not overlap with Ukraine’s bargaining range, it makes no sense for either side to reach a settlement. So, the main reason we do not see any prospects for settlement is precisely because of this. What Ukraine sees as the lowest acceptable bar for concession is very different from that of Russia.

On the one hand, according to the Primakov doctrine, Russia’s long term ambitions are as follows: To weaken the Western resolve, establish themselves as a great power, extend their sphere of influence, weaken the West’s position as the most dominant political force in the world, and establish itself as the leading power in Europe in a multipolar world, and end US dominance. (Caveat: The Primakov doctrine was established in the late 1990s, and Putin’s thinking and his ambitions have most likely evolved since then and further radicalized.)

This means that whatever Russia is willing to accept will be in accordance with this long term strategic goal. And anything else will be deemed completely unacceptable. The war in Ukraine is integral part of their long term strategic goals. This means that even an “acceptable concession for Ukraine in case things don’t go well” for Kyiv, is still unacceptable for Kremlin. This is evident from the event where in the lead up to the war, Ukraine expressed its willingness to abandon NATO membership (source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ukraine-nato-russia-prime-minister-boris-johnson-b2014457.html) and yet Russia still invaded soon after.

On the other hand, Ukraine also cannot afford anything that is considered an acceptable outcome for Russia. First of all, unconditional surrender is out of the question for obvious reasons. Even the least favorable acceptable outcome for Russia, which is forcing Ukraine into a negotiating table on Russia’s terms without capturing significant territory, is still unacceptable for the following reason:

Russia has in the past shown that they cannot be trusted when it comes to security assurances. E.g., the Budapest Memorandum, where Russia assured Ukraine that it would respect Ukraine's territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine relinquishing its nuclear weapons to Russia. Furthermore, an acceptable “peace” deal for Russia will only compromise Ukraine’s position in the current war and help Moscow to rearm itself for a future invasion. Ukraine, therefore, assumes that Russia will not negotiate in good faith and therefore any proposal by Russia will be deemed unacceptable.

——Current standpoint and future prospects——

So, what does this mean? At this moment in time, there is a Inreconcilable gap between Russia’s expectations and Ukraine’s expectations on where they stand in the war. Kyiv currently still believes that, given sufficient support by the West, it is still able to accomplish the 1st or 2nd results that it sees as a form of victory. Even with decreasing support, it still believes that as long as certain minimum requirements are met, it will be able to hold on to the majority of the territory that it currently controls. Ukraine also understands that it is in the West’s interest to continue supporting Ukraine. They especially understand that the defeat of Ukraine would mean the biggest security threat to Europe since the Cold War.

On the other hand, Russia also believes that it is able to eventually achieve its strategic objectives. Russia’s war plan extends beyond the frontline in Ukraine and engages in what is called “hybrid warfare” with the West. Since Russia knows it doesn’t stand a chance in a conventional war against the West, it engages in what has been described as “geopolitical guerrilla war,” where they exploit the weaknesses inherent in liberal democracy, such as internal dispute and free information space to influence public sentiment. The ultimate objective for Moscow is that internal division among Western countries will weaken their support for Ukraine over time. Russia understands that it is currently quite far from accomplishing even its bare minimum strategic objectives, but its plan is to outlast the West and wait for the Western public to lose interest in the war which in turn impact political decisions.

TL;DR: In essence there is fundamental gap between Russia’s strategic interest and what Ukraine considers as an acceptable concession. Ukraine’s fight against Russia is not just for territory but for national sovereignty, identity and future security. Ukraine aims for liberation and integration with the EU and NATO to prevent future aggression, while Russia seeks to control Ukraine and prevent its Western integration. The lack of overlapping bargaining ranges makes negotiation unlikely. Ukraine’s resistance is fueled by a desire to preserve its national identity and sovereignty, viewing any concession as a threat to its future and a betrayal of its struggle for independence.

206 Comments
2024/03/24
14:15 UTC

Back To Top