Saturday, 25 January 2025

EVALUATING SOLUTIONS TO THE CONFLICT IN PALESTINE

25 January 2025

Summary of Solutions and Their Likelihood

1. Two-State Solution

Description: Establish an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

Likelihood: Low, due to entrenched political divisions, settlement expansions, and lack of genuine negotiation.

2. One-State Solution (Equal Rights for All)

Description: A single democratic state granting equal rights to Israelis and Palestinians.

Likelihood: Extremely low, as it challenges the ideological foundation of Israel as a Jewish state.

3. Mass Departure of Palestinians

Description: Palestinians leaving voluntarily or being forcibly displaced.

Likelihood: Unlikely, due to international opposition, Palestinian resilience, and logistical challenges.


4. Mass Departure of Israeli Jews

Description: Israeli Jews leaving the region entirely.

Likelihood: Extremely improbable, given their deep attachment to the land and strong national identity.


5. Mass Killing of Palestinians

Description: Genocide, the Systematic extermination of Palestinians by the Israeli government.

Likelihood: Is considered Very unlikely, for moral, legal, and international barriers, though systemic oppression persists and current israeli government leadership.I have arrest warrants out for them.

6. Redevelopment of Gaza as a Resort

Description: Transforming Gaza into a tourist destination, potentially marginalising or displacing its population.

Likelihood: Low, due to political instability, humanitarian concerns, and lack of investment under current conditions.

7. Continued Status Quo

Description: Ongoing occupation, systemic oppression, and intermittent violence.

Likelihood: High, as current policies favour containment without resolution.

8. Regional or International Pressure for Resolution

Description: Increased diplomatic, economic, or military intervention to enforce a just resolution.

Likelihood: Moderate, dependent on shifts in global politics and public opinion.

Conclusion

While the most probable outcome in the short term is the continued status quo, long-term solutions would require unprecedented political will, international pressure, and co-operation. Each proposed "solution" faces unique obstacles, making meaningful progress difficult without transformative changes.

The details on each of these propositions have been privately published.

Friday, 24 January 2025

WHAT TRUMP NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT GEOPOLITICS

24 January 2025

Version française en bas

HALFORD MAKINDER'S HEARTLAND THEORY

The foundation of Russophobia lies not in evidence of Russian aggression but in the strategic assumptions rooted in Halford Mackinder's Heartland Theory (as updated). This geopolitical framework, which has shaped Western foreign policy for over a century, views the Eurasian continent—or the "world island"—as the ultimate prize for global dominance. Mackinder argued that whoever controls the Heartland (Russia and Central Asia) could dominate the Rimland (Europe and Asia's coastal zones) and, by extension, the world. 

This thinking has profoundly influenced American strategy, leading to a fixation on containing Russia at all costs, with execution of the containment strategy delegated to America's allies - agents or vassals if you prefer: roughly the UK for West Asia; and the first islands chain for East Asia.

From America's perspective as a geopolitical peripheral "island" itself, its security is uniquely advantaged: it is bordered by oceans to the east and west, and Canada and Mexico pose no significant threats. However, this geographic safety compels the US to project power outward, fearing any unification of Eurasian powers that might challenge its global dominance. The potential alliance of a land power like Russia with a sea power like Germany or China would create the most powerful bloc on Earth—a scenario Mackinder specifically warned against.

This fear underpins the US's adoption of Britain's divide-and-rule strategy, which seeks to weaken and ultimately fragment Russia by limiting its access to vital maritime corridors and encircling it through NATO expansion. Such policies are not based on evidence of Russian intentions to invade Europe but rather on deeply ingrained strategic doctrines that persist unchallenged.

The lack of open discussion about these assumptions is dangerous. Without addressing the persistent root fears driving this policy, the cycle of containment, provocation, and escalation, risks spiralling into outright conflict.

Though this may seem unlikely at the moment, could Trump - known for his transparency - arrange for these fears to be openly debated and Mackinder's zero-sum security framework replaced with a genuine security-for-all framework for the world island Eurasia, because in the absence of this the path to a catastrophic war - World War III - becomes it seems to me all but inevitable.


WHAT TRUMP NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT GEOPOLITICS

Instead of listening to Fox News, Trump needs to get wised up on Mackinder and the updates to his strategy framework for assuring the West's security.

What he needs to know is in Mackinder, as described above and built upon by Harry Truman, Nicolas Spykman, George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paul Wolfowitz, and others including John Mearsheimer.


STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE BLACK SEA

In particular, the Black Sea epitomises Mackinder’s theories in modern geopolitics. Its strategic location, economic resources, and military significance make it a focus in the struggle between maritime and land powers for dominance over Eurasia. 

Russia needs a neutral East European buffer, it needs the Black Sea for its military fleet and for trade between the Baltics, down the Danube and for access via the Bosphorus and Dardenelles out to the Med, Europe and Africa. 

And Russia needs the Caucasus as a secure southern barrier against Ottoman, Iranian and today NATO/Turkish incursions, not to mention Islamist insurgencies out of the hotbed Middle East (Chechnya...). Plus, the Caucasus were once a key transit route for oil and gas pipelines from Central Asia and the Caspian Sea to Europe, and could be again. The Caucasus itself is rich in natural resources vital to Russia's economy.

In summary, the Caucasus is strategically indispensable for Russia because it serves as a geographic shield, a key energy corridor, a region of geopolitical influence, and a buffer against external threats. Losing control over the Caucasus would expose Russia’s vulnerabilities, weaken its influence in Eurasia, and undermine its ability to project power in the region.


WHO WAS HALFORD MACKINDER

Sir Halford John Mackinder was a Scottish geographer best known for being the founder of the discipline of geopolitics. He was an academic, also a politician and MP for Glasgow, and served as the Director of the London School of Economics.

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; 
Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; 
Who rules the World-Island commands the World."

On January 25, 1904, Halford Mackinder read to the Royal Geographical Society an article titled "The Geographical Pivot of History" and proposed his Heartland theory. With this article, Mackinder created the modern field of geopolitics. Mackinder's theory was later developed further in his book 'Democratic Ideals and Reality: A Study in the Politics of Reconstruction' in which he demonstrated prescience by predicting that the Great War, WW1, will be followed by another great struggle, WW2, for the dominance of the Heartland.

His Heartland theory has since become one of the foundational theories of geopolitics and continues to influence geopolitical thinkers and planners, known collectively as "neocons", to this day.

le 24 janvier 2025

LA THÉORIE DU HEARTLAND DE HALFORD MACKINDER

La fondation de la russophobie ne repose pas sur des preuves d'agression russe, mais sur les hypothèses stratégiques ancrées dans la théorie du Heartland de Halford Mackinder (telle qu'actualisée). Ce cadre géopolitique, qui a façonné la politique étrangère occidentale depuis plus d'un siècle, considère le continent eurasien – ou l'« île-monde » – comme le prix ultime pour la domination mondiale. Mackinder a affirmé que celui qui contrôle le Heartland (la Russie et l'Asie centrale) peut dominer le Rimland (les zones côtières de l'Europe et de l'Asie) et, par extension, le monde.

Cette pensée a profondément influencé la stratégie américaine, menant à une fixation sur la nécessité de contenir la Russie à tout prix. L'exécution de cette stratégie de confinement a été déléguée aux alliés des États-Unis – agents ou vassaux, selon les termes : le Royaume-Uni pour l'Eurasie occidentale et la première chaîne d'îles pour l'Asie orientale.

Du point de vue des États-Unis, en tant qu'« île » géopolitique périphérique, leur sécurité est exceptionnellement avantageuse : bordés par des océans à l'est et à l'ouest, avec le Canada et le Mexique qui ne représentent aucune menace significative. Cependant, cette sécurité géographique pousse les États-Unis à projeter leur puissance vers l'extérieur, craignant toute unification des puissances eurasiennes qui pourrait remettre en cause leur domination mondiale. Une alliance potentielle entre une puissance terrestre comme la Russie et une puissance maritime comme l'Allemagne ou la Chine créerait le bloc le plus puissant de la planète – un scénario spécifiquement mis en garde par Mackinder.

Cette peur sous-tend l'adoption par les États-Unis de la stratégie britannique de diviser pour régner, qui cherche à affaiblir et fragmenter la Russie en limitant son accès aux corridors maritimes vitaux et en l'encadrant par l'expansion de l'OTAN. Ces politiques ne reposent pas sur des preuves d'intentions russes d'envahir l'Europe, mais sur des doctrines stratégiques profondément ancrées qui demeurent inébranlées.

L'absence de débat ouvert sur ces hypothèses est dangereuse. Sans aborder les peurs persistantes à la base de cette politique, le cycle de confinement, de provocation et d'escalade risque de dégénérer en conflit ouvert.


L’IMPORTANCE STRATÉGIQUE DE LA MER NOIRE

La mer Noire incarne les théories de Mackinder dans la géopolitique moderne. Sa position stratégique, ses ressources économiques et son importance militaire en font un enjeu clé dans la lutte entre les puissances maritimes et terrestres pour la domination de l'Eurasie.

La Russie a besoin d'un tampon neutre en Europe de l'Est, de la mer Noire pour sa flotte militaire et pour le commerce reliant la Baltique, le Danube et l'accès via le Bosphore et les Dardanelles vers la Méditerranée, l'Europe et l'Afrique.

En outre, la Russie a besoin du Caucase comme barrière sécurisée contre les incursions ottomanes, iraniennes et aujourd'hui turco-OTAN, sans oublier les insurrections islamistes issues du foyer du Moyen-Orient (Tchétchénie...). De plus, le Caucase fut une route clé pour les pipelines de pétrole et de gaz reliant l'Asie centrale et la mer Caspienne à l'Europe, et pourrait le redevenir. Le Caucase est également riche en ressources naturelles essentielles à l'économie russe.

En résumé, le Caucase est stratégiquement indispensable à la Russie car il sert de bouclier géographique, de corridor énergétique clé, de région d'influence géopolitique et de tampon contre les menaces extérieures. Perdre le contrôle de cette région exposerait les vulnérabilités de la Russie, affaiblirait son influence en Eurasie et compromettrait sa capacité à projeter sa puissance.

QUI ÉTAIT HALFORD MACKINDER

Sir Halford John Mackinder était un géographe écossais, connu comme le fondateur de la discipline de la géopolitique. Il était académicien, homme politique et député de Glasgow, et fut directeur de la London School of Economics.

"Qui contrôle l'Europe de l'Est contrôle le Heartland ;
Qui contrôle le Heartland contrôle l'île-monde ;
Qui contrôle l'île-monde contrôle le monde."

Le 25 janvier 1904, Mackinder présenta à la Royal Geographical Society un article intitulé "The Geographical Pivot of History" où il proposa sa théorie du Heartland. Avec cet article, Mackinder créa le champ moderne de la géopolitique. Sa théorie fut ensuite développée dans son livre Democratic Ideals and Reality, où il anticipa avec clairvoyance que la Première Guerre mondiale serait suivie d'une autre grande lutte, la Seconde Guerre mondiale, pour la domination du Heartland.

La théorie du Heartland est devenue l'une des fondations de la géopolitique et continue d'influencer les penseurs et stratèges géopolitiques, souvent qualifiés de « néoconservateurs », jusqu'à aujourd'hui.


Thursday, 23 January 2025

HOW TO UNDERSTAND CHINA

23 January 2025


Nelson Wong is Vice Chairman of the Shanghai Centre for RimPac and International Studies and leads the daily operation of this private think tank in China. He is also Chairman and Managing Director of the ACN Worldwide group of companies, and sits on the board of Recon Technology Ltd., a NASDAQ-listed company, as an independent director and chairs its audit committee.

This is Nelson Wong's message.

After all these years, I still believe there is a huge misunderstanding about China, because for the last 500 years, when China's doors were relatively closed to the outside world, Western dominance and their interpretation of everything was taken for granted by many. 

Even today, when the rise of China gets mentioned and talked about every now and then, many people still don't really get what China is all about. 

I'm not saying this to blame the West only. I think China itself also has the responsibility to narrow the difference of opinions and perceptions and to promote a better understanding with each other. It's always a two-way traffic. 

So there are a few things that I would put across the table for us to discuss. The way I see it, there is a big misunderstanding. So I'd like to put three points to start with. 

Point number one. We are who we are and it's almost impossible for anybody to change China. Yes, we're forever interested to learn what is more advanced and in technology and what's better in terms of modernity. But there has always been a strong inner drive to keep our own cultures and values because we believe that it is these roots and traditions that have allowed us to survive thousands of years as a nation. And yes, we respect and appreciate the achievements of others, but that doesn't mean we want to be like them. This is something that people sometimes don't get right: the people who live on this land are Chinese and that won't change. 

Something that it's worth mentioning is that we've come a long way and we teach our children to remember our history, and this tradition has been passed on from generation to generation. 

If I may say something, we are a culturally proud people and for that matter, we are perhaps culturally stubborn as well sometimes. 

So when we're looking at or discussing what is happening in other countries or in global politics, Chinese politicians and scholars will quite often make a reference to, or compare with, some anecdotes found in our own history. This happens quite often, particularly in discussions from writings domestically, and it's perhaps something that the outside world is not aware of. 

So the point I'm trying to make is that if people in the West think that many Chinese want to be American or European, they've got it wrong and are wide of the mark. 

A second point I want to make, and this is something I think is quite important for people to understand, is that if we had been a weak nation that didn't have a strong culture and were able to fight for our survival, we wouldn't have been here for so long, occupying such a huge land mass. As Chinese, we are constantly reminded by our seniors and teachers that being backward means being vulnerable and would make it easy to be oppressed and destroyed, and that's why we must keep learning and working hard. 

So we believe that to be humble, respectable and courteous is the way to learn from others. 

We also celebrate restraint as a virtue and consider hasty responses and the act of blunt confrontation to be immature and unsophisticated. 

And that's why when China gets provoked sometimes, it does not react or fight back immediately. If people take this as being weak or vulnerable, they get it wrong, because in defending our national interest and sovereignty, we're deadly and uncompromising fighters.

Thirdly, there is another point I want to say. We Chinese are taught since early childhood that "man on earth, good at first", which means that we are of the belief that anything evil in us might be the result of something we've been taught wrongly, or something bad we've picked up by mistake as we grew up. 

And that's why we pause for self-reflection and are patient and always want to try and bring out the good side of the human conscience and hope that other people will in time appreciate our good intentions. We don't see things as black or white. We recognise the diversity of cultures and civilisations and we understand that people are different. But that should not stop us from working to minimise our differences to achieve co-existence, because we believe that a real gentleman seeks to get along with others while he does not necessarily have to agree with them. That's from Confucius. We all know this. 

So that's why the notion that you are either with me or against me is usually frowned upon in China. 

So I think these are the three points that I would like to make for anybody trying to better know or understand China and the Chinese and how we behave. 

Translation

Setelah bertahun-tahun, saya masih percaya bahwa ada kesalahpahaman besar tentang China, karena selama 500 tahun terakhir, ketika pintu China relatif tertutup bagi dunia luar, dominasi Barat dan interpretasi mereka tentang segala sesuatu dianggap sebagai sesuatu yang wajar oleh banyak orang.

Bahkan hari ini, ketika kebangkitan China disebutkan dan dibicarakan dari waktu ke waktu, banyak orang masih tidak benar-benar memahami apa itu China.

Saya tidak mengatakan ini hanya untuk menyalahkan Barat. Saya pikir China sendiri juga memiliki tanggung jawab untuk mempersempit perbedaan pendapat dan persepsi serta mempromosikan pemahaman yang lebih baik satu sama lain. Ini selalu menjadi hubungan dua arah.

Jadi ada beberapa hal yang ingin saya sampaikan untuk kita diskusikan. Menurut saya, ada kesalahpahaman besar. Jadi, saya ingin menyampaikan tiga poin sebagai permulaan.

Poin pertama. Kami adalah siapa kami, dan hampir tidak mungkin bagi siapa pun untuk mengubah China.
Ya, kami selalu tertarik untuk mempelajari apa yang lebih maju dalam teknologi dan apa yang lebih baik dalam hal modernitas. Namun, selalu ada dorongan kuat dari dalam untuk menjaga budaya dan nilai-nilai kami sendiri karena kami percaya bahwa akar dan tradisi inilah yang memungkinkan kami bertahan ribuan tahun sebagai sebuah bangsa. Dan ya, kami menghormati dan menghargai pencapaian orang lain, tetapi itu tidak berarti kami ingin menjadi seperti mereka. Ini adalah sesuatu yang kadang-kadang tidak dipahami oleh orang-orang: orang-orang yang tinggal di tanah ini adalah orang China, dan itu tidak akan berubah.

Perlu disebutkan bahwa kami telah menempuh perjalanan panjang dan kami mengajarkan anak-anak kami untuk mengingat sejarah kami, dan tradisi ini telah diteruskan dari generasi ke generasi.

Jika saya boleh mengatakan sesuatu, kami adalah bangsa yang bangga secara budaya, dan dalam hal ini, mungkin kami juga kadang-kadang keras kepala secara budaya.

Jadi ketika kami melihat atau mendiskusikan apa yang terjadi di negara lain atau dalam politik global, politisi dan cendekiawan China sering kali membuat referensi atau perbandingan dengan beberapa anekdot yang ditemukan dalam sejarah kami sendiri. Ini sering terjadi, terutama dalam diskusi di tulisan-tulisan domestik, dan mungkin ini adalah sesuatu yang tidak diketahui oleh dunia luar.

Jadi poin yang ingin saya sampaikan adalah bahwa jika orang-orang di Barat berpikir bahwa banyak orang China ingin menjadi orang Amerika atau Eropa, mereka salah besar dan jauh dari kenyataan.

Poin kedua yang ingin saya sampaikan, dan saya pikir ini cukup penting untuk dipahami oleh orang-orang, adalah bahwa jika kami adalah bangsa yang lemah yang tidak memiliki budaya yang kuat dan tidak mampu memperjuangkan kelangsungan hidup kami, kami tidak akan berada di sini selama ini, menghuni wilayah daratan yang begitu luas.
Sebagai orang China, kami selalu diingatkan oleh para senior dan guru kami bahwa menjadi terbelakang berarti menjadi rentan dan akan memudahkan kami untuk ditindas dan dihancurkan. Karena itu, kami harus terus belajar dan bekerja keras.

Kami percaya bahwa kerendahan hati, rasa hormat, dan kesopanan adalah cara untuk belajar dari orang lain.

Kami juga merayakan pengendalian diri sebagai sebuah kebajikan dan menganggap tanggapan yang terburu-buru serta tindakan konfrontasi langsung sebagai hal yang tidak dewasa dan tidak canggih.

Itulah sebabnya ketika China kadang-kadang diprovokasi, China tidak bereaksi atau melawan secara langsung. Jika orang-orang menganggap ini sebagai tanda kelemahan atau kerentanan, mereka salah besar, karena dalam mempertahankan kepentingan nasional dan kedaulatan kami, kami adalah pejuang yang mematikan dan tak kenal kompromi.

Poin ketiga, ada hal lain yang ingin saya sampaikan. Sejak kecil, kami orang China diajarkan bahwa "manusia di bumi pada dasarnya baik", yang berarti kami percaya bahwa segala kejahatan dalam diri kita mungkin merupakan hasil dari ajaran yang salah atau sesuatu yang buruk yang secara tidak sengaja kita pelajari saat kita tumbuh dewasa.

Itulah mengapa kami berhenti untuk refleksi diri, bersabar, dan selalu berusaha untuk mengeluarkan sisi baik dari hati nurani manusia dan berharap bahwa orang lain pada akhirnya akan menghargai niat baik kami. Kami tidak melihat segala sesuatu dalam hitam dan putih. Kami mengakui keberagaman budaya dan peradaban, dan kami memahami bahwa orang-orang itu berbeda. Namun, itu tidak seharusnya menghentikan kami untuk berusaha meminimalkan perbedaan kami guna mencapai koeksistensi, karena kami percaya bahwa seorang pria sejati berusaha untuk bergaul dengan orang lain meskipun dia tidak harus setuju dengan mereka. Itu berasal dari Konfusius. Kami semua tahu ini.

Itulah sebabnya gagasan bahwa Anda harus "bersama saya atau melawan saya" biasanya dianggap buruk di China.

Jadi menurut saya, ini adalah tiga poin yang ingin saya sampaikan kepada siapa pun yang mencoba untuk lebih mengenal atau memahami China, orang China, dan cara kami bertindak.



Monday, 20 January 2025

TRUMP IS IN A FIGHT TO THE DEATH.

20 January 2025




Bannon confirmed that Trump and his team will go on the offensive from day one in office. "The days of thunder begin on Monday," he said, and the world will not be the same again. Bannon wasn't talking about Trump going on the offensive against the Chinese, Iranians or the Russians. Trump and his team are preparing to take on what he calls the "they”, meaning members of "the imperialist cabal" But what is this cabal, who is in it, and what are the differences between the old cabal and the new?

(This piece by Krainer also includes an interesting account of what happened the last time revolutionary government took on the elite in america, in a section entitled "The price of defying the Empire".)

1. Who Are the People in the "Imperialist Cabal"?

1.1 Defining the "Cabal"

The term "imperialist cabal" refers to a group of elites who allegedly wield disproportionate power over global politics, economics, and media.

Steve Bannon and others often describe this cabal as transnational, prioritising globalist interests over national sovereignty.

Members are typically seen as a mix of political leaders, corporate executives, and influential think-tanks.

1.2 Possible Members

Some individuals and organisations often mentioned in this context:

1. Klaus Schwab: Founder of the World Economic Forum, associated with globalist initiatives like the "Great Reset."

2. George Soros: Billionaire philanthropist funding progressive and internationalist causes.

3. Larry Fink: CEO of BlackRock, controlling vast economic assets globally.

4. Christine Lagarde: President of the European Central Bank, linked to EU federalism and global financial institutions.

5. Bill Gates: Through the Gates Foundation, involved in global health and climate initiatives.

6. Tony Blair: Former UK Prime Minister, a proponent of liberal interventionism and global governance.

7. Followers of the lare Henry Kissinger: Known for realpolitik and shaping U.S. foreign policy in favour of a global order.

8. David Miliband: CEO of the International Rescue Committee, often connected to global humanitarian policies.

9. Jeff Bezos: Founder of Amazon, a symbol of corporate power and media influence (The Washington Post).

10. Mark Zuckerberg: CEO of Meta, with significant influence over digital information and public discourse.

11. Anthony Fauci: unelected technocrat; central authority during the COVID-19 pandemic; aligned with international health organisations like the WHO, criticised as tools of global governance; close ties to the Gates Foundation and big pharma.

1.3 Is the Cabal Based in London?

It's quite exciting to frame this as a fight between old empire and new empire, but I think this is far-fetched. Having said that, some do speculate the cabal may draw inspiration from the remnants of the British Empire:

The UK has historic influence over global finance (e.g., the City of London) and political networks like the Commonwealth.

Figures like Tony Blair and globalist think-tanks based in London (e.g., Chatham House) are frequently cited.

However, this "cabal" is more likely decentralised, with hubs in London, Washington D.C., Brussels, and Davos.

2. Comparing Ideologies: Imperial Cabal vs. Trump's Platform

2.1 The Cabal’s Ideology

Globalism: Advocates for a world without borders, prioritising international cooperation and governance over national sovereignty.

Technocracy: Belief in rule by experts, often through global institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and WEF.

Free Trade and Deregulation: Promotion of economic globalisation, often at the expense of local industries.

Climate Change: Strong emphasis on transitioning to green energy, sometimes perceived as prioritising elites over working-class needs.

Social Liberalism: Focus on progressive policies, diversity equity and inclusion DEI, often through international agreements.

2.2 Trump’s Ideology and Policy Platform

Nationalism: "America First" policies prioritising national sovereignty over international commitments.

Populism: Championing the working class, opposing elites, and advocating for reduced influence of global institutions.

Economic Protectionism: Reshoring manufacturing jobs and renegotiating trade deals to benefit the U.S.

Energy Independence: Promoting fossil fuels and opposing policies perceived as harmful to domestic energy sectors.

Traditional Values: Opposes progressive social policies, favouring conservative cultural stances.

3. Comparison: Key Contrasts


4. Conclusion

The "imperialist cabal" represents an ideology of globalism, technocracy, and elite governance, contrasting sharply with Trump’s nationalist, populist, and protectionist policies. 

Whether or not this cabal is headquartered in London or decentralised, the conflict is framed as one between globalist elites and national-populist movements. The fight, as Bannon describes it, underscores a larger philosophical clash over the future direction of governance, sovereignty, and societal priorities.