I feel that the creation of new uniformed services is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. It seems that unifying tasks is more productive than seperating them.
I feel as though unifyinf space and nuclear capabilities of the Air Force under the Navy and merging it back into thr Army would be a better solution. The Army should be ome an occupying force and the Navy should be diversified.
I am not sure how good an idea this is, but it seems to make sense to me.
The ruling party of India 'BJP' pulled out of the alliance with 'PDP' in the state of J&K. The state has been in a lot of controversy in the last 5 years .
"It has become untenable for the BJP to continue its alliance government in Jammu and Kashmir, hence we are withdrawing" BJP general secretary Ram Madhav said at a press conference this afternoon.
"Keeping in mind larger interest of India's security and integrity, the fact is that J&K is an integral part of India. In order to bring control over the situation prevailing in the state, we have decided that the reigns of power in the state be handed over to the governor,"stated the spokesperson
Madhav also expressed that the unnatural alliance between the two parties with differing ideology was done keeping in mind the mandate of people. The parties have been having a lot of disagreements on terrorism , stone-pelting and the powers of the army. After the declaration Ramdan ceasefire tensions arose between the two parties and this type of situation was bound to happen . The demand of extending the ceasefire was the trigger that caused the Govt. to collapse.
In the ever tightening global arena of countries it can be seen that many have not considered the ever coming storm of population and debt. Many countries look a year ahead, democracies for election and autocracies for remaining their grip on power. However as the new decade approaches how will countries deal with the two major crisis coming up?
European Union and the Eurozone: The European Union was created November 1, 1993, nearly 25 years ago. It is a pact of countries that seek to bolster their influence in the world by banding together and have a say in global politics. Some people few the EU as the next big thing in the 21st century, scholars however see something different.
Furthermore, to start off, we look to European demographics which can be summed up in this picture here:
The European Union normally progressive, has a population problem on their hands. Europe has been trending downwards for population for years. It can no longer be the workshop or powerhouse in manufacturing as it once was during WWII. The population for hard workers (which is the net booster of GDP) group shrinks by the day, creating a problem for governments in Europe to handle. The population that we have now, will mostly be investors or retirees who take out all their money out of companies to pay of retirement.
This problem can be seen as several banks, most notably Deutsche bank, expressed concern early this year over loan problems. Banks in Germany have started to see the ROI loans are not as profitable as the once were.
Of course this problem can be alleviated. All the EU has to do is lax its borders and allow migrants from the deeper South in right? This would be the go to solution if the countries in the South aren't already filled up with debt.
Here is what I mean:
These figures are from 2012, you can see the problem with this right? Southern consecutive states in the EU have past the marker for a stable economy, they have effectively past the point of no return. The crisis in Greece? That is, as of the information here, a $289.035 billion problem. Not that big right? The Greece crisis was averted, but remember what that entailed? German banks requesting funds from Greece and delivering an ultimatum on how it was Greece's fault they were in the mess their in.
Well look to the next economy below Greece, Italy, a 1.5 trillion dollar economy in 120% debt. That is ~2.5 trillion dollars that has been taken from their economy and has only gotten worse by the day. What is it like now? We saw what happened during the Italian elections, remember how markets were thrown into a frenzy for a day as Italy tried to stop their debt bubble from popping. This is several times worse than the housing market crisis as Italy will never pay this back.
The staggering amount of failed loans in Southern Europe alone is scary:
Look at the countries here, the ones in yellow are part of the EU, most of these loans were never paid back and are just a net loss of money requesting funds to alleviate the debt that can be seen here.
There is not enough money monetarily available to deal with this problem. The EU can dress it up all it wants, the longer this bubble continues to grow, the worse it will eventually be and member states are not addressing to the problem in full.
Henceforth if we are to look at what has caused this we can point to the simple explanation of a divide of the North and South. The North provides a better life, a better government, and better wages that the South can not provide. Why when the EU is discussed we think about the big three (now two) France, the UK, and Germany. It is because that the South has been neglected do to geography. There is little habitable area, little resources of important, and little areas where economic wealth can flourish. This can be seen here:
The only way for the EU to have actually worked (without the crisis of debt and demographics), would have been a strong federation of states. Undoubtedly it is a great diplomatic idea and practice, but it can be seen that under the dressing of politics a crisis is trying to be averted.
India: India, an interesting place with lots of potential, as it always has been. Formed in 1947 with a formidable economy of $2.83 trillion it has on of the better prospects for demographics than all of the countries I list.
Its demographics have looked very promising:
It has the right demographics and little **public** (I will clarify this later) debt, sitting at around 1,354,658 million dollars which is modest for what the country is starting to become. I list India here as a demographic which is exactly right for a consumer economy or a producer economy. There will be people to tax which will make revenue for the government which will boost GDP growth. I put India here not because they have power, nor are they in any way have much global pull. They just have the right type of situation for a good economy, with little to no public debt.
Japan: Japan, formed in 1947 Japan has aptly the worlds third largest economy (not counting the EU) and is an example of the way many countries will probably go. Japan in the 1970's to the end of the 20th century is where China is now. Japan was once a major hub of manufacturing, innovation and design that continues on to this day. They started to give the US a run for its money, the only problem, they failed to see how their demographics will effect their country.
This is Japan's demographics, see the problems. There are little workers that boost GDP growth (20 to 39 years) and too many investors/retirees. See what happens when industrialization meets nature. People in Japan did not have as many children as a result of living in a modern society and well, Japan could not continue with its growth any longer.
It gets even worse when you start breaking down now on how Japan now manages to stay afloat with a shrinking work force. Japan invested heavily into automation (wonder why all those robots come out of Japan?) as a last ditch effort to stay afloat.
Japan has taken on a lot of debt trying to maintain its position in the world, here are the figures:
Japan boast an economy of 4 trillion dollars, but in 2013 it was recorded that Japan was in $10 trillion dollars debt to its public. It has most likely gone up in the half a decade since. For a comparison the US gets criticized for a 21 trillion dollar debt (2018), but external debt to GDP is only 97%.
Japan has kept afloat by using printed money to spur investments as well as using automation to try and keep going. The demographics of the EU and other countries, while not as extreme, have been trending in this direction.
Note: Japan is an extreme example on the demographic point, but it shows what will happen if current trends continue.
Russia: Russia, created in 1991 after the fall of Soviet Union, it is a shadow of its former self. While it has seen better days Russia's population of 144 million continues to trek on, even under the dictatorship they live in. Russia, however, is facing a serious problem within the coming years.
Let's take a look at its demographics:
Russia has a problem on it hands. The majority of Russia's population is at the investor stage and there is not enough of a workforce to compensate for Russia's aging population. If you were paying attention in the knows, Russia recently stated they will up their social security age, within the next decade and a half. Conveniently when the most of Russian workers were set to retire. Hence, creating a huge problem for them.
You can see the drop off and the birth rates declining. Russia is set to lose nearly half of its population or have half its population being retirees in the next two decades. Experts have stated that Russia will not be able to defend its borders at its current rate which means they either have to expand to get a bigger population of try and go for automation.
If you want, you can draw parallels between Russia and Japan. Both have declining birth rates, Russia population is only 20 million greater than Japan, however Russia is not as in much debt as Japan is.
Russian debt is in 200 billion dollars of public debt. How much debt they actually have (censoring of information) is a hard guess. They are in a better position debt wise, but their demographics leave much to be desired.
China: China is interesting because they read the rule book on what makes a good economy, then proceeded to throw it out the window. The demographics in China can be summed up as "problematic". Here they are:
This is China about now. Interesting is it not? They have a strong workforce and little retirees, the best thing you have for a producer economy. This is great! The population can make items, you get GDP growth and their are very little people slowing down your social security net. If you are looking for a country that is best to produce something in look no further. China was on track to becoming an economy that could rival the United States of America.
The only problem is they introduced the one-child policy. Which now turns their future into something like this:
This is 2040, 2 decades down the line, not even a generation. China's capped itself when in 1979, it allowed people to only have one child to stop the huge bursts of population. Furthermore, they eased up on this, around 2 years ago they started a two child policy which was suppose to fix this dynamic. The problem is the damage has already been done. It will take 25 years for the next batch of workers to enter the Chinese workforce and by then many people in China will have become investors and retirees.
They will have to hope and try for a breakthrough in automation, or try and open up immigration to pay for their debt and their retirees who have to be taken care of.
It only gets worse, the Chinese housing bubble has swelled to that greater than the 2008 recession. Fueled by the Chinese government using federal money as an effort to boost production effectively giving everyone work. Cities are being built and populated, and no one knows where this money is coming from.
The Chinese have told the world that their debt is 2 trillion well under their GDP of 11 trillion dollars. Which for a growing economy is not possible. In 2008 after the recession China approved a 500 billion dollar stimulus package plan. To save its exports and industry. China pulled its growth up that year by printing money faster than they can make it. IF you do not believe me check out by people in China are putting money in different economies.
Chinese investment into property in Vancouver, Los Angeles, Singapore and other places is to try and get real holdings, a material, such as housing, which holds worth before the debt becomes too much to manage. China is on track to become a superpower, the only problem is China must hope the one-child policy and their shadow debt does not backfire in the end.
United States of America: Last, but certainly not least, the United States was created in 1776 and boast a staggering 20 trillion dollar GDP. The US is in an okay position, not dire, but certainly not great.
This is the US 3 years ago. Fairly evenly distributed except for 34 to 49 years. This is a low point in birth rates will create problems as the people above them retire. That group, commonly referred to as Generation X will not have enough people to supply the older population with social security. However the millennials have a peak in population which will offset the problems Generation X can't handle. Anyway, continuing on, the US has allowed the free market and basic human nature to allow birthrates to flourish. Which will give the US this demographic in 2030.
Certainly not a bad place to be, this looks more like a match of consumerism as you have a high number of investors and producers who work in supply chains. There is not much to say on this account as many already know how to US operates.
If anything the US must look towards its debt. It is at a crossroad, certainly the current President will do nothing for the US, but one president does not make or break a nation. The US is okay for now, we shall see how the US is later on.
The question for us is, how will debt bubbles and the demographics of the world change how order is shaped up? Thea world won't be like how it is now forever, we must hope the financial institutions can deal with this as this will effect everyone.
The pictures are not mine.
Most of these pictures belong to Peter Zeihan, available eon his website.
As it has been told many times melting Arctic brings new economic opportunities. Despite the great interest from many countries from all around the world, ‘Arctic pie’ hasn’t been cut completely yet and the region still has a great investment potential. Several major deals aimed at the Arctic potential realization were signed or announced just recently.
One of such deals was signed on May 24, 2018 between French energy giant Totaland Russian Novatek. The binding agreement allows French corporation to buy a 10 % stake in the Arctic LNG 2 and to bring up its share in the massive Russian gas project to more than 20%.The deal was signed within the framework of the economic forum in St Petersburg. The importance of the agreement was emphasized by presenting both French and Russian leaders, Emmanuel Macron and Vladimir Putin, in the signing ceremony.
Shell has recently arranged an agreement to divest 10 % of its stake in the LNG-project in Canada to the Malaysian state-owned Petronas. Malaysian energy giant will also buy totally 15 % stake from other participants, Chinese PetroChina and South Korea's KOGAS. This makes Petronas the second-largest partner in the project, with 25% interest. The estimated cost of the LNG Canada project, located in Kitimat, British Columbia, is up to $31 billion. The project includes the construction of two LNG processing units and facilities for export, with a shipping capacity of around 26 million tons of LNG a year.
Another bargain which should be mentioned was stricken on June 12, 2018 during Shanghai Cooperation organization’s summit in Qingdao, China between Russia’s Vnesheconombank (VEB) and the China Development Bank. The agreement includes the possible provision of more than $9.5 billion of Chinese money for funding jointly selected projects and the Northern Sea Route is presented as a priority.
I think in the nearest future we will witness far greater investments in the Arctic development. There are a lot of reasons for this but, as for me, the most important are the following.
First of all, it’s natural resources. Apparently, industrial demand for oil and gas will be stable for long years ahead, despite a success of renewable energetics. Even in the most optimistic scenario the the US cannot quit a fossil fuel till 2050. And this is almost unobtainable for the largest growing economies (notably South-East Asian states), which don’t consider ‘green energy’ as the top priority. Sure, the cost of natural resources extraction in the Arctic is highat present. But it seems not to be the problem in the future when currently exploited coal/oil/gas deposits will run out.
And the second reason is an increasing role of the Arctic as a transportation route. More accessible Arctic Ocean passages could offer substantial savings in logistics between Asian, American and European markets when compared to the current global maritime trade routes via the Panama and Suez Canals. China, as one of World’s largest economy, clearly understands the opportunities of new seaways. Enough to say that the Arctic Ocean passages are named as a part of China ambitious Belt and Road initiative that has been taking shape since President Xi Jinping took office in 2012.
From the other side, any major Arctic country meets certain problems which can slow down the development of the region. I would mention as such the lack of infrastructure for the US and Canada, Western sanctions on Russia, and environmental organizations’ influence in the Scandinavia.
The question is whether these issues really matter? Or may be there are any other factors which substantially complicate access to the Arctic potential?
The stage is set for the official document from the Governor's house in J&K as all the parties in Kashmir rule out any new alliances . Seeing the situation , the Governor may declare Governor's Rule in Kashmir tomorrow . This decision has brought BJP political benefit as the alliance with PDP has always been criticized for being crooked .
As you know , the recent report released by UN has made accused both India and Pakistan for Human Right's violation. But it does not tell the situation in Kashmir . What Pakistan does in Kashmir is it instigates groups like Huriat , to promote separatist activities in Kashmir . And they do it by attack army men in stationed in Kashmir . Those men have no option to prevent harm to themselves except to start firing with pallet guns . They also start shielding terrorist or the people who aid them by making a human shield knowing that those army men are bound by law to not attack them . Whats more that India shields those separatist by providing them police protection at all times and they are provided a lot of benefits by the govt. and more on . Now its up to you to decide whether the report on Kashmir is made up or true .
After the collapse of the USSR I think the US model of liberal democracy was seen as the obvious "true path" to material and perhaps cultural success. I believe China was expected to eventually come around in turn or stagnante, back then.
I recently saw a talk by Ian Bremmer that suggested this is no longer the case, and other countries now see the one party state model as a viable alterative to the Washington consensus. And that this alternative Chinese model is particularly attractive to the natrual instincts of despots and people who approve of a more concentrated power structure.
How people "feel" is one thing; ephemeral and open to change in a relatively short timeframe. I'm interested to hear if other smart minds who study this subject seriously, believe that the world is indeed shifting in this direction, or if the current climate is just more of a short term reaction.
Also curious if the economics of 1 party/authoritarian states have ever sustained over the long term. Seems a more fragile system but maybe I'm wrong about that.
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.