Forums / Discussion / General

So since Politics General thread tends to mostly be a discussion of current domestic politics within the US, I was hoping to start a similar thread to discuss things that have to do outside of US Domestic politics. A place to discuss world issues, around different countries, or how the US Foreign Policy issues.

As a topic let's open up with a discussion as to how you guys predict US Foreign Policy will change towards the major players int he world right now, under the Trump administration.

I'd see Australia unaffected by the foreign policy change. Surprisingly we're tight with the US in terms of relationship.

predict US Foreign Policy will change towards the major players int he world right now, under the Trump administration.

We'll probably soften with Russia, possibly resulting in the Syria clusterfuck being resolved in Assad's favor. We'll quickly tighten our relationship with Britain after Brexit (if the House of Lords buckles like they did in 1911). Europe might be embittered by it but they have enough problems of their own to deal with so I doubt there will be much of a kerfluffle.

I think China's the big question. I really hope that South China Sea thing doesn't become a great power game of chicken where we send one of our carriers and they send their carrier and we see who blinks first.

China needs more aggression in response to its moves, seeing as the previous administration gave them too much free reign.

Also, reminder that their government knows it would not survive a war with the United States.

Reminder that a US-China war would wreak economic havoc globally worse than the 30s, with the US and China getting the worst of it.

The US removing itself from the TPP without first attempting renegotiation was the worst possible move in terms of containing China. Vietnam needed a show of support, though The Philippines are currently going through a drug-addled murderous witch hunt by an aspiring rapist so who knows where that relationship is going.

I don't think many of the dump TPP people in the US really calculated the diplomatic fallout into their views. That said, while global IP law could use standardization, it shouldn't be the kind corporations keep trying to impose on the US (and Protect IP was included in the treaty, which would have impacted US law)

The Chinese would definitely be on the losing end of a conflict with the US, their largest trading partner, and one that they have a 4:1 export/import ratio. Couple that with an all around trade embargo with any ally to the US, and they can start seeing their major source of economic revenue begin to dwindle. The US wouldn't need to even put soldiers on the ground or even on mainland China: creating a naval blockade and preventing any trade and infrastructural imports would be a crippling blow to the Chinese infrastructure.

China may have good relations with a lot of nations it trades with, but I doubt very much many would consider it an ally worth going to war with the Western world for.

I don't particularly like the idea of strong-arming or bullying another nation, but the fact of the matter is, in our desire to cheapen production of goods, and establish over-seas markets, we have been, for 2 decades now, extremely soft on China. That there are more Chinese agents roaming around California, specifically in Los Angeles/San Diego Area (largest shipping port on the West Coast, + Major military technological centers) and Bay Area (high tech espionage), than there are FBI agents in California is very telling.

If they want to maintain their 4:1 export/import ratio, they better start playing ball.

[We’ll probably soften with Russia, possibly resulting in the Syria clusterfuck being resolved in Assad’s favor]

It's going to be resolved in Assad's favor, whether American policy towards Russia softens or not. His forces are the ones gaining ground against ISIS, not the rebels.

Most importantly, he's given permission for Iraqi forces to attack ISIS within Syrian borders. This actually means the US (via Iraq) recognizes his authority and is cooperating with him. Any Syrian "rebels" who can cash out their chips and leave Syria probably should do so, and very soon at that.

He's overseen what is probably the largest series of government-sanctioned and organized war crimes since the 1990s, but he is going to win. And that means he's probably not going to be punished beyond having to surrender the government to a brother, child, or cousin and living the rest of his life at some dacha on the Black Sea shore.

Interestingly, there have been rumors circulating in the Russian press that Assad suffered a stoke. This could be the cover under which he gives up power without facing punishment, allowing the Western human-rights faction to avoid the reality that he won't be held accountable for the Syrian government's war crimes.

The Russians don't care who rules Syria, as long as that person supports the presence of the Russian naval base at Tartus and opposes the natural gas pipeline Western nations desperately want built across Iraq and Syria in order to weaken Russian energy leverage over Europe. Therefore, they would probably be willing to let Assad retire. Assad, who was a London ophthalmology student and never intended to take over for his father, is probably willing to retire. And the West, which is offended by his conduct of the war but in no position to do anything about it, is probably willing to let him fade away.

The bigger question is what Iraq and Syria are going to look like when ISIS is gone. Kurdish groups hold areas in northern Iraq and Syria, Turkey holds a piece of northern Syria, and there are still substantial areas of southern and northern Syria held by anti-Assad groups.

Right now the US/NATO, which includes Turkey (who has problems with Russia), the Kurds (mutual hate with Turkey), Syria/Russia/Iran/Hezbollah, Al Qaeda/al Nursa, the Saudis (mutual hate with Iran), are all focused on the tumor that is ISIS. When that tumor is gone, things are going to get interesting.

The Syrian Civil War started more or less as a proxy war between the US-backed "Syrian rebels" and the Russian-backed Syrian government (Assad). The Russian side is going to win. They're in the driver's seat as to what they get, but they have the Ukrainian situation to think about. The Turks, a NATO member led by an Islamist-friendly strongman with fantasies about a neo-Ottoman empire, are playing both sides of the fence and see a Kurdish state as an existential threat. The Kurds have fought hard and occupy a large area which would be a natural nation-state. The US and the Saudis have to deal with the prospects of a nuclear-armed Iran, the Turks alignment, the Kurds, and Ukraine. Iran is closer to Russia than it's ever been and, through Hezbollah, has contributed to the victorious side.

We're probably at the point where the mid-East as it has existed since the end of World War I is going the way of the Ottoman Empire.

What is very concerning and isn't discussed often is what happens when ISIS is defeated. There are thousands of ISIS fighters that came out of Europe, and many of them still have their EU passports. Is Europe prepared to deal with hundreds of ISIS fighters coming home, with the knowledge that they have, the experience that they have, and the ability to carry out some hardcore terrorist acts?

>We’re probably at the point where the mid-East as it has existed since the end of World War I is going the way of the Ottoman Empire.

Do you mean that that we are going to see some of those war-wrought nations start splintering even further?

I for one am very excited and very optimistic of a Kurdistan forming out of the conflict, and all signs point to it actually being a case.

I don't know how many ISIS fighters are going to be able to get out. They're getting pushed further and further from possible escape routes. Their main way in and out was through Turkey, and for whatever reasons the Erdogan government stopped playing its border games last summer and tightened up security. While some are bound to get away, I don't think there's going to be as many as we fear.

I suspect there 's going to be some change, but it could be for the worse. The Saudis influence seems to be in decline, and both Turkey and Iran seem to sense that the mantel of regional power is in play. There's much instability and opportunity right now.

As to the Kurds, I don't know how feasible a Kurdish state would be. Turkey certainly doesn't want it. And letting a Kurdish state form might lead to further conflict and instability.

I am less optimistic because of the Arab Spring, which was supposed to bring about change and reform, and instead the results were some moderately immoral regimes (Mobarak in Egypt, Gaddafi in Libya) being replaced by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS, an international refugee crisis, terror attacks Europe, and a Syrian civil war fueled by massive foreign intervention.

The lesson the West, in particular the US, needs to take away from the last 20 years of foreign policy is that it is nearly impossible to build Western-style democracies among populations still organized largely along tribal and clan lines, and united only by a religion which demands near-total subservience to God. In such cases, majority rule often leads to the settling of centuries-old blood feuds and the imposition of a theocratic government far worse than rule by a military junta or a "president" who wins 98% of the vote every election.

Outside meddling often only makes the situation worse.

The Dutch seems to had planned an anti-islam invective

I'd be curious to see how the Dutch elections go. Also from today: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-libya-exclusive-idUSKBN16K2RY

Russia appears to have deployed special forces to an airbase in western Egypt near the border with Libya in recent days, U.S., Egyptian and diplomatic sources say, a move that would add to U.S. concerns about Moscow's deepening role in Libya.

Tillerson: Military action against North Korea 'an option'. BBC News

A very somber article about the inevitable death of the Queen.

But honestly, most of the article discusses the decline of the British Empire under her rule. A reflective article, regarding the history of the 20th century (and the generation that underwent it's largest geo-political transformations) and today.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

[What is very concerning and isn’t discussed often is what happens when ISIS is defeated.]

Interesting read about Iranian, Chinese, and Russian thinking in regards to Syria

Of interest are two paragraphs near the end of the article:

"There has been a good deal of talk in Washington about fostering a bloc of Sunni states to oppose Iranian influence. The trouble is that the only two Sunni states with real armies, Egypt and Turkey, have indicated that they prefer the Assad regime to a Sunni alternative. Turkey shifted towards Russia after the July 2016 coup attempt, which Ankara believes enjoyed American sympathy if not outright support. Egypt is more worried about Sunni jihadists than it is about Iran, and has moved closer to Russia in arms procurement and other areas. America is left with Jordan and the Gulf states, whose military capability is doubtful."

"The facts on the ground have shifted in favor of China and Russia, and diplomacy ultimately will reflect this shift. The best that can come out of this ugly situation is something like Sykes-Picot restored: a patchwork partition of the Levant and Mesopotamia with the creation of a Sunni state to oppose the non-state actors, kept in uneasy peace with Shi’ite satrapies of Iran by the agreement of Washington, China, and Moscow. That is not a good solution, and certainly not a palatable solution from an American point of view, but it is the resolution suggested by the current state of the chessboard."

A perfect Sunni ally that is sympathetic to American and Western Interests is Kurdistan.
Whether Turkey likes it or not, the chaos on the ground in Syria, and Iraq, the Kurdish forces are fighting for the creation of a Kurdistan. The Americans are rightfully supportive of this, and have been very sympathetic to the Kurdish independence movements. So are the Israelis, who view the Kurds as allies (and vice versa), and who view Iran as their biggest threat.

I'm not 100% sure what China's game in the mid-East is, aren't they busy colonizing Africa?

China imports a mass load of it's oil from Saudi Arabia, with almost twice as less from Iran. What is their position?

China has several interests in the ME and Iran in particular:

a) Oil imports. China is becoming less dependent on Saudi Arabian oil, and more dependent on Russian-Iranian oil. Graph is in the article.

"Chinese firms were expected to lift between 3 million to 4 million barrels more Iranian oil each quarter in 2017 than last year, four sources with knowledge of the matter estimated. That would be about 5% to 7% higher than the 620,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian crude the country has imported during the first 11 months of 2016, according to the customs data."

b) Exports. 25% of Iranian imports come from China.

c) Uyghurs. Western China has a large, restless population of Turkish Sunni Uyghurs, Chinese leaders see a strong Shi'ite presence in the ME (Iran) as a counterbalance to the Sunnis, and a way to keep the lid on their own Islamist population. Sunni ascendancy in the ME would cause problems in Western China.

Kurds are a sticky issue because Turkey is a NATO member. Turkey is a NATO member because the US wanted missiles stationed there in the 1950s as a deterrent to Russia, and had nuclear weapons stationed at Incirlik Air Base until they were reportedly moved to Romania after last summer's coup attempt. And Turkey may be important for any future conflict with Iran.

Turkey's behavior has been increasingly difficult for the US and the EU for to deal with. Erodgan has been stoking Islamist populism, probably staged a coup last summer in order to purge secularists from the military, has been blackmailing the EU with the threat of unleashing hundreds of thousands of refugees into Europe (a threat he renewed last week), shot down a Russian fighter jet in 2015, and allowed ISIS to smuggle oil and people out of Iraq and Syria up until last summer. He's also started playing nice with Russia and moving away from the US.

A Kurdish state would be opposed by Erdogan's government, who could do a number of things the West doesn't want to deal with: withdrawing from NATO and aligning with Russia and Iran, flooding Greece and Eastern Europe with millions of "refugees," shutting down the Bosphorus to international trade, invading a Kurdish state, staying in NATO and acting provocatively towards Putin, go full Islamist, and so on.

While I am sympathetic to the Kurds' situation, they're not in a good position. Turks don't want a Kurdish state. Iran doesn't want a Kurdish state. Assad and Russia have no reason to give up territory for them, and the Iraqis won't give up their Kurdish territory because it composes the northern oil fields and Mosul. Any Kurdish state would be a small nation surrounded by enemies which hates and fears its existence. We already have a country like that in the ME.

As such, the Kurds might be best off as what they currently are: a semi-autonomous state under the umbrella of a US-aligned Iraqi government. Perhaps a semi-autonomous state under the umbrella of a Russian-aligned Syrian government is possible as well/

It's worth noting that there has never been an independent Kurdish state, ever. The closest it came into being was during the Middle Ages, when a series of small emirates existed/

You seem to be on the pulse, and speaking of oil, what's your take on the lesser talked potential conflict in the arctic, as it melts and opens up open ocean for enough time to have a scamble for oil between the northern nations?

As far as Iran goes. Admittedly I am biased. As a Jew, and being awfully pro-Israel I have very little admiration for the current state of Iran, despite the fact that growing up my best friend was Persian. So, to me, seeing major deficits in Iran, having over and embroiled in a quagmire of Syria isn't particularly making me lose sleep at night.

It seems to me China is less concerned about loyalty to allies and other nations, as it is more interested in buying up energy as efficiently and cheaply as it can. I couldn't find the graph you said was linked, but in 2014 16% of China's oil imports were from KSA. Iran was 9%. Has the numbers drastically changed that much?

I don't particularly see China as being in anyway loyal to Russia, as both countries see each other as allies of convenience, imo.

Wouldn't China's African colonization also cause trouble for Western China? They are after all economical colonizing Sunni nations

1) I don't see much potential for a conflict over arctic natural resources.

2) The problem is that Iran isn't embroiled in Syria. They picked the winning side. As a bonus, they got the world's most advanced air defense system from their Russian partners. They also got a secretive deal that absolutely, positively, 100% won't allow them to develop nuclear weapons (they promise) and billions of dollars from the previous US administration. All of this gives the Iranian theocracy a certain freedom of action. This makes alienating Turkey, a nominal ally, for the possibility of a Kurdish state a risky proposition for the time being.

3) They have changed.

"Since 2010, China’s total oil imports have nearly doubled. It has shifted its oil purchases away from Saudi Arabia to Russia, which rose from 5% to 15% of the Chinese total, and to what might be called the Shi’ite bloc: Iran, Iraq, and Oman. Iran’s share has fallen, but the Iran-allied total has risen sharply. Iran’s oil exports to China will rise sharply as Chinese investments come online. Reuters reported earlier this year."

4) China is an interesting case. The author whose story I linked to believes China is not so much interested in power projection, but rather in internal security.

"China’s borders today are substantially the same as they were under the Tang Dynasty circa 700 CE. It is hard to think of China as an expansionist power, given that it has done very little expanding in a millennium and a half.

China devotes enormous resources to protecting its borders (surface-to-ship missiles, diesel electric submarines, satellite killer missiles, cyberwar capability) and relatively little to its land army. China spends barely US$1,500 to equip an infantryman; the US spends 13 times as much. China is investing heavily in fourth-generation interceptors and fifth-generation stealth aircraft, but has no specialized ground-attack aircraft like the American A-10 or Russian SU-25.

Its goal is to close the technology gap with the United States and one day surpass it. America’s erstwhile allies in the region have taken note, and the Philippines has already offered to switch to China’s side."

Part of China's internal security relies on, as you point out, obtaining and keeping energy sources capable of supporting a billion people.

The full essay goes into greater detail, and examines how the US, Russia, and China function as multi-ethnic entities. Recommended reading.

As to the issue of African Sunnis and Ugyhars, I think the issue comes down to money. Africa is poor. The Middle East has oil. African Sunnis don't have the financial capacity to fund Sunnis in central Asia. Sunnis sitting on the oil fields do. Hence ME Sunnis are a concern for China, while the African Sunnis are not.

Hundreds Killed in Coalition Air Strikes on Mosul

"Approximately 230 people are reported to have been killed in what is thought to have been a US-led coalition air strike on an Isis-held neighbourhood in Mosul.

A correspondent for Rudaw, a Kurdish news agency operating in northern Iraq, said that 137 people – most believed to be civilians – died when a bomb hit a single building in al-Jadida, in the western side of the city on Thursday. Another 100 were killed nearby. "

And

"AirWars, a UK-based non-profit monitoring the effect of anti-Isis air strikes on civilians, said last week that they believed 370 civilians died in US-led coalition bombing in the first week of March alone.

Over the border in Syria in the last week, the US has been accused of killing civilians in two separate bombing incidents: 33 died in a strike near Raqqa which was supposed to target Isis positions, and more than 50 after a strike hit a mosque in Aleppo province rather than an al-Qaeda meeting point."

I'm passing no judgements for or against US/Western/coalition conduct against ISIS. War is an ugly, unfair, and tragic business in which innocent people get killed. ISIS is a blight on humanity and should be removed. Yet given those two facts, people should be aware of what is happening.

And they're not, because events such as these are going unreported while the media regurgitates trivial gossip items such as Kelly Ann Conway putting her feet on an Oval Office sofa.

These same media organizations, which have nothing to say about this bombing campaign, were rending their clothing over Russian "barrel-bombing" of Aleppo less than four months ago in a series of highly emotional reporting cycles which threatened to raise international tensions.

This why media double standards are dangerous and need to be called out. If you don't understand what I am getting at, ask yourself "What is the result of selective moral outrage, and who are the benefactors of such results?"

Shouldn't be that be easy?

The benefactors are the ones making the money from outrage-porn.

The more I am looking at it the more I am realizing that we are witnessing the literal death knell of a lot of the biggest news-organizations that we've all grown up with. The biggest news channels and papers have struggled for years in their retention of people. You have to understand: these are giants. Giant corporations, big business journalistic entities. Those CEOs that are seeing continual ebbing of their profits, and wondering what it is they can do.

Meanwhile, a lot of new online journalism, independent journalism, has emerged as strong competitors. More and more people are getting their news online, and more and more people are looking to find news and journalism that either aligns with their viewpoints or isn't blatantly bought out by either one of the major political parties.

This emerging loose marketplace is also far easier to set up, or transition to, if you have a smaller, or more specialized journalist company.

Literaly, the big giants are too bloated for such a saturated market. They have far more people than are necessary, and far more upkeep than income. They have to find new ways of generating income. In many cases, 20-40% of all revenue these major giants are getting are through online content! And that is growing! But that is growing because it depends on clicks, not engagement, but clicks. Clicks are easiest to generate when you're presenting an article that is outrageous, or specifically designed for a demographic. Literally, the echo chamber is embraced as the demand for revenue grows.

While I don't disagree with your assessment of the media, you're looking at it from a superficial, short term financial angle.

Think about it from a geo-political standpoint: who benefits from a "Russia is bad, look what it did in Aleppo" narrative that ignores comparable behavior from the West?

And remember, many of these journalists came into the news business during the late stages of the Vietnam War, were critical of anti-Communist operations in central America during the 1980s, and more recently portrayed the Abu-Ghraib scandal as the worst war crime since World War II. Given such a history, their silence cannot be due to a desire to support American military operations.

In the end I would assume that suicide-for-a-political cause isn't a business model. Even if they harbor die-hard 60s era hippies and communist sympathies it doesn't translate well into a steady business flow. So I am not sure as to who you are referring to here.

Colonel Sandor:

https://twitter.com/Nour_Samaha/status/846968039228760064

Welcome to NATO, Montenegro!
party whistle