Comments should be serious, academic, in depth, on topic, and use formal language. Any type of impropriety is subject to being met with long bans.
Submission Statement (SS) Guide http://goedhartvoordieren.nl/?page=r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement
How can his rule be analyzed? Is he liberalizing the state and the people? Or are the people liberalizing the state? Has transnational activism played a role? What's the role of the media? Is the global market liberalizing the state? Is the diversification of the economy the driving force? Is Saudi Arabia post-rentierism or pre-revival of rentierism? How can we (scholars, IR thinkers and practitioners) locate Saudi Arabia in global politics? What about KSA's demographics and how young the population has become? Has transnational activism played a role? What does all of this mean for geopolitics?
Hi this might be a repost but: I'm an undergraduate studying at university now and I have an option to learn a foreign language. I'm being sponsored by one of my country's security services and will eventually have to return to work for them. Which language would offer the most geopolitical utility: Hindi, French, or Arabic? English is my first language and I am relatively fluent in Mandarin (as a second language). For context, I'm from Singapore, if that matters.
With regards to Arabic, I understand there is a plethora of regional Arabic dialects, but we will be learning MSA. How useful is MSA, really, in terms of counter-terrorist work and analysis? Or maybe theological study?
Or is he just buying time, looking at the Library example, does he really believe that the US will hold up to its part of the bargain once he permanently gets rid of any capacity to produce nukes? Or does he think that he can use SK and China to hold back the US and Japan from attempting a regime change once he loses the capability to make nukes permanently, or effectively permanently?
The EU sanctions stopped Russian oil and gas operations in the Arctic and affected negatively the country's entire oil sector. This was stated in February, 2018 by EU Ambassador at Large for the Arctic, Marie-Anne Coninsx. As she said to the Prime news agency, Russia needs European technologies for offshore drilling, but the sanctions affected the sector and froze development. According to the experts, such assertion is a rather big exaggeration. Just take as example the operation of Prirazlomnoye field for the last few years.
In contrary there are signs that these restrictions have played a malicious trick on the initiators of these sanctions or those who supported them. And Norway is in the forefront of such countries. The ban on the export of Norwegian unrivaled-all-over-the-world-technologies for oil operations in deep arctic water has had consequences for the supply industry. Before the sanctions, Scandinavian national companies had been well positioned for the market in Russia and having broke off the contacts with RF they left this niche clear for others. Golden opportunity won't go begging and, as the experts foresee, in five-year time China could compete quite freely with the west countries in the domain of off-shore technologies.
As the head of the Sectors and Industrial policy Department of the Federation of Norwegian Industries Knut E. Sunde once said, the representatives of Norwegian supply industry companies feel ambiguity in this situation.
On the one hand, politicians (for example ex-minister of Foreign Affairs Borge Brende) persuade the business community that its feedback is important for the future dialogue with the EU on clarifications of the sanctions’ details. On the other hand, business is business.
Hedda Langemyr, the leader of the Norwegian Peace Council, blames members of the government in Oslo for “taking a pretty hard line towards Russia, loudly condemning the regime, drawing lines between states”. As she says, they claim that the cooperation between the two countries is almost unharmed by the tension, but all of these things cannot be true at once. The political elite should own up to that.
But what is done is done – complaining about unwise decisions in the past is not constructive. We must deal with current circumstances in the best way possible. None of us has any interest in making the High North another area of great power-rivalry.
And in this way the Russia’s success in providing a rapid development of its military presence in the Arctic, with a focus on air and maritime technologies (four new arctic brigade combat teams, fourteen operational airfields, sixteen deepwater ports and 40 icebreakers), could leave others (including Norway) behind the great benefits of the Polar region.
It seems to me that all theories of International Relations eventually break down. Years later, someone picks up one of those old theories, dusts it off, and slaps a 'neo' prefix on it and claims this is a big deal. He or she gets attention for a while, then eventually academia's honeymoon period with the 'ism' wears off and then the next big thing comes along.
I know all sciences, especially the social "sciences" are somewhat subject to this phenomenon. However, to me IR seems particularly bad because the whole point of scientific knowledge is to explain what is and predict future outcomes. IR is terrible at making generalizable theories and the best theories of IR are more sociology or history than a generalizable theory of anything.
So can anyone give me an example of a real theory of IR that stands above the rest? Thoughts?
Is the great income inequality in the US a feature or a bug? Will it be a lot less competitive if had the same income inequality level as South Korea, Austria, or Germany? I have stated in a thread before the working conditions for American workers are on the whole worse than their Northwest European counterparts, with Americans working longer hours and taking less vacations, though this allows their employers to extract more output out of them compared to their Swedish, German, or Dutch counterparts.
Would the US be better off with a slightly slower rate of growth due to income redistribution if this can lead to a more stable political and social environment and less populism? Is income inequality in the US, which is at Latin American levels, causing increased social instability? Would the US be a lot worse off if the US had a gini coefficient of 0.30 as opposed to the present 0.45 and Americans took a month of vacation per year like Western Europeans?
Specifically, 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 analyse local events in terms of the bigger, global picture.