It's been speculated for a while that the US-Israel alliance is approaching an inflection point, namely in how younger generations are much more sympathetic to Palestine compared to previous ones. The events of the war in Gaza has arguably been the biggest stress test to US-Israel ties between outrage over the civilian death toll and Netanyahu constantly defying Washington's calls for restraint. Calls for Biden to suspend aid to Israel and pressure them to a ceasefire are pretty much daily, and it's hard not to argue the war has tainted Israel's reputation in ways similar to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

For some, its been argued that the war has made the Israeli right's strategy of bypassing the issue by normalizing relations with the Arab world through the Abraham Accords untenable. And that instead, we are getting closer to what is considered by some the only viable option to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict: Break the Israeli economy through sanctions and diplomatic isolation ala Apartheid South Africa and coerce them to agree to a new political settlement, whether it's the two-state solution by dismantling the settlements in the West Bank, or a one-state solution where Palestinians are granted equal citizenship, effectively nullifying Israel's status as a Jewish state. And lately, voices for 1SS have been gaining ground over those advocating 2SS.

It's been said that the U.S.' support for Israel has been what's keeping Israel from being sanctioned and isolated economically, but with public sentiment growing more and more sympathetic to the Palestinians, and Israel being seen more and more as a pariah state on par with Russia from younger generations, the arguments that Washington's current level of support for Israel is politically untenable are growing and that we are approaching a future rupture in ties that will finally open the door to sanctions that, in theory, would finally resolve the conflict by making Israel move and grant concessions to the Palestinians under pressure.

Do you believe that is where we are heading?

Asking seriously; why don't Republicans / Trump support Ukraine?

I know the populist propaganda answer that gets tossed around about "needing to focus on internal issues like the border" or vague claims of Ukrainian corruption, but obviously few R's actually believe that narrative except for maybe the most nutjob amongst them (i.e. MTG).

So what's the real reason? Is Russia power and influence seen as beneficial to the Republicans chances of winning elections either by direct interference (kinda conspiratorial and not a fan of this reasoning) or indirectly by knee-capping US foreign policy they hope to connect those failures they induce with Biden and thus increase their chances of winning?

It's genuinely confusing that Trump's campaign slogan is stolen from Reagan, a guy who was defined by his adamant hatred of Russia (USSR just being a Russian imperial project), but now Trump and the sect Republicans who are at his beck and call are now at best soft on Russian warmongering and at worst active sympathizers.

What part of the puzzle am I missing?

I understand that Belarus is effectively one with Russia in more ways than one, but I often wonder will Belarus willingly let itself be absorbed by Russia beyond just ideology and politics to within its border.

Is their relationship formed of factors that creates a mutual agreement to one day solidify themselves as one country. And if so, does Lukashenko want this?

i think we are seeing this failure clearly in divide between west and global south in applying sanctions to Russian invasion of Ukraine.

if LIO could have succeeded in getting more of the rest of the world on board, it would have easier time dealing with states like Russia. Imagine if India, China, Indonesia and Brazil jumped on helping with sanctions, the Russian war effort would be severely hampered.

LIO spearhead by US has failed on that aspect, my question is why? Does LIO still has chance for more momentum to get convince more countries to get on board LIO movement? Or is a cynical take of LIO movement serving only to entrench specific richer developed countries more correct?

I’m curious as a citizen of a small African country with a meager GDP. What business does US AID serve in Africa and in particular small resource deficient countries that have no oil, gold or precious metals.

Is this smoke and mirrors. Are they simply trying to check a box on their global agenda to make friends globally to influence a vote at the UN. I have seen several U.S. AID signs supporting small scale farmers. Is this them building their resume and CV to show the president of such countries that they deserve his/her unequivocal support on a global stage. Or are they genuinely looking to export agricultural goods and services to the US

Supposedly, the world is becoming increasingly multipolar due to dissatisfaction with Western dominance. However, I fail to see how a stable, multipolar world order can emerge (we already see conflicts and crises in Myanmar, Venezuela, and elsewhere that are proxies of liberal democracy vs kleptocratic authoritarianism), and it seems more like a second Cold War, where countries that value democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are on one side, and countries that value state sovereignty, elite interests over broader population, and hostility to human rights are on the other. It's not just an economic competition, but rather a fundamental clash of values.

​

How will this actually play out? I'm keen to know, but I see conflicting narratives.

Spanish guy here. It's a topic we see and heard about almost every day on Spain's news but I'm curious on what people from other countries know about it or how is it seen.

Is it more democratic or authoritarian? What makes a country an hybrid regime, rather then a democracy or an dictatorship?

For example turkey?

Hello r/geopolitics — This is the official account of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), a global investigative reporting outlet based in Amsterdam.

We're posting here to see if anyone would like to speak with an OCCRP journalist about news related to Russia, a country we report on routinely. Going forward, we want to implement new storytelling formats for our Russia-related coverage, and feedback from knowledgable communities, like this one, will help us understand how we can best do that.

If you have time for a 30 minute virtual call, please fill out this very short Google Form. From there, we'll email you to arrange a time to speak over Google Meet or Jitsi, whichever you prefer.

Thanks and let me know if you have any questions.

— OCCRP

​

​

​

I posed a statement that goes against Hamas on a popular reddit subpage and I was harshly cancelled, both by redditors and then by moderators who deleted all of my comments, which some were in an angry tone but I was still making what I believed to be good points as to why Hamas is bad. I tried repeatedly to state that I was not trying to focus on Israel, whether for good or bad, but simply on Hamas, as I believed they have been given a sort of international respect and in some cases, reverence. Why is this? I have my hypotheses but I would love to hear from others.

Is Hamas celebrated in the West, or at least, tolerated? And if so, why? Is it media? Is it social justice movements? Is it antisemetism? Or something else? I am actually confused and bewildered about this because I saw footage of Hamas attacking Israel and it was absolutely barbaric and obviously different than how Israel attacked Hamas. Again, I believe Israel has done wrongs as well, don't get me wrong, but how can we see Hamas as anything than savage terrorists is beyond me. Perhaps I will be cancelled here too? Hopefully not.. Cheers

Zeihan says things would blow up.

Your thoughts

Curious to learn about this. Israel’s economy and tech sector is envy of the Middle East but every month you read some new article about an assurance and aid program for Israel.

Does the country of Israel need this aid? Not saying it shouldn’t but I’m curious whether this aid is necessary for its survival. Like are its exports and GDPs enough to sustain it if this aid suddenly stopped?

Like the UK and Germany both saying they'd have a brigade ready for Estonia and Lithuania but they would keep them stationed in their respective countries. Then Germany has changed their mind in recent months while the UK still say they'll keep these intended forces for Estonia in the UK itself. Why?

Also, it's been several years of NATO being advised to boost the Battlegroups across the Baltics into a brigade or division-sized force? What's been the the cause of this moving at a snail's pace?

It was only a decade ago when the UK deployed 11 K troops in Afghanistan while Germany had 5,500 troops. That was indeed manageable and that was a warzone half a world away. One would think deploying 2000-4000 troops 1000 km should be somewhat of a walk in the park for two major rich powers like the UK and the Germans.

Now I could see why Belgium might have difficulties deploying hundreds of troops but nations like Spain or Italy should easily be able to deploy a battalion or regiment each. What else are their troops deployed to at the moment?

As the title says, I need a reliable book to know in detail what happened in Donbass in 2014 and how everything started.

I am already fairly knowledgable on the subject. I have a Master's Degree in International Relations and during my studies I took courses on post-Soviet geopolitics, although the 2014 crisis was dealt quite generally, along the lines of "the events of the Euromaidan upset the population in Eastern Ukraine and this led to the civil war".

This is very unsatisfactory for me and I need to know more: who started shooting, and why? Who armed the rebels, and how (I nee more than just "Russia armed the rebels")? And, most importantly, what was the general feeling of the local populations? Did they support the armed rebellion, or where they forced into it? Did Ukraine bomb civilians for 8 years, as the Russians claim, or was the other way round?

Please note that I am not trying to consolidate my belief that one or the other side is in the right. I just need to know what happened. I live in a Western country and I studied in the UK, while I also lived many years in Russia and I have therefore been exposed to contrasting points of view.

I need reliable, ideally academic, sources. If necessary, I am also fluent in Russian, although it is not my native language.

Thank you and I hope not to fuel a political discussion in the comments.

Monday Israel bombed the Irani embassy in Damascus, killing an important commander of the revolutionary guard. How come they carry out attack like this, but are not at war?

Yes, I know that all of these countries have strongly and thoroughly denied any plans to ditch the NPT and cross the nuclear rubicon. It's obvious why- so long as the US nuclear-backed security guarantee and Washington's commitment to the NPT remain solid, the risks of that decision far outweigh the rewards. Even discussing it is for now taboo, especially for Japan and Germany.

However, if Donald Trump becomes president, then I suppose all bets are off. During his first campaign, he openly stated that he had no problem if Japan and Korea went nuclear. One would have to believe that there is some kind of contingency plan in at least one and likely more of these countries on a new security strategy starting the day after the US election.

Donald Trump, as a classic 19th-century isolationist, clearly does not believe that the United States should sacrifice "blood and treasure" for the welfare and sovereignty of countries overseas. With all of these democratic states under threat from nuclear-armed expansionist powers, it would seem crazy not to employ every option to ensure their future security.

PS- What would the practicalities and consequences of such proliferation look like? Might we see some attempt to buy nukes from the US, in particular those currently located at Ramstein Air Base?

The 2020 Chinese-directed shutdown of triad-linked gambling operations in Cambodia unveils the intricate and opportunistic relationship between the CCP and Chinese organized crime. This symbiosis, where the CCP selectively utilizes triads for influence projection, suppression of opposition, and furthering strategic interests, has deep historical roots.

China's crackdown raises questions about shifting power dynamics. Did Cambodian triads gain too much autonomy, challenging the CCP's overarching control? Was this a response to international pressure or domestic outcry fueled by scandals? Or, is this a calculated maneuver to consolidate these operations under tighter state authority? Moreover, this incident underscores a potentially troubling pattern in China's foreign policy: the deliberate export of criminal elements. Similar reports in Africa raise the specter of a strategy to displace undesirables while extending influence.

This tactic has historical echoes. In the 19th century, Vietnamese Emperor Minh Mang dispatched criminals to Cambodia, simultaneously exiling them and employing them as a civilizing force intended to reshape Cambodian society. Could China be pursuing a contemporary form of this approach?