Chiron

Greetings friends,

The above is the result of my efforts to graphically illustrate the geopolitical struggle that is currently occuring in our world.

The map is based on an analysis of such factors as:

• Military, political and economic organisations ie. SCO (wiki); CSTO (wiki); EurAsEC (wiki); CIS (wiki); CES (link); ALBA (wiki); NAM (wiki); NATO (wiki); GUAM (wiki); CDC (wiki); ANZUS (wiki); EU (wiki); EEA (wiki); NAFTA (wiki); CAFTA (wiki)
• Other diplomatic relations ie. MNNA designations (wiki)
• Wars and international disputes
• Rhetoric of politicians ie. “Axis of evil” (wiki); "Outposts of Tyranny" (wiki); "State Sponsors of Terror" (link)
• Presence of foreign troops and military bases ie. US Department of Defense Base Structure Report, Fiscal Year 2007 (link); US Active Duty Military Personnel Strengths by Regional Area and by Country June 30 2007 (link)
• Geostrategic location
• Energy politics and security
• Recipients of military aid ie. US Foreign Military Financing (FMF) (link)
• Targets of sanctions ie. US Treasury Sanctions Programs (link)
• Purchasers of weapons ie. US weapons exports (link); Russian weapons exports (link)
• Degree of support for the US occupation of Iraq (wiki)
• Degree of support for the US occupation of Haiti (link)
• Degree of support for the US occupation of Afghanistan (wiki)
• Historical position ie. during the Cold War

To see how the above factors relate to each country please visit my blog at http://my.opera.com/Kiron/blog/ . It is a work in progress and I would appreciate it if anyone had any comments or suggestions.

Regards,
Chiron

braindead

Half South America in NATO ?

__________________
....

Chiron

Sorry I should have included the following explanation in the above post:

NATO member countries and their close allies are shown as dark blue. Countries where NATO members have relatively significant political, military and/or economic influence are shown as blue. Countries which are neutral or where neither NATO nor SCO members have relatively significant influence are shown as purple. Countries where SCO member countries have relatively significant political, military and/or economic influence are shown as dark red. SCO member countries and their close allies are shown as red.

gamercube

India is an ally of the SCO countries? Like who, except Russia? I'd put India in NAM.....it is a founder of that, after all.

Same goes for Nepal and Myanmar.

__________________
Hasta la Victoria siempre!

Feanor

Ridiculous. The SCO does not exist as a coherent counter-part to NATO. At best it's a loose framework of military cooperation.

bolo121

Oy! we're not red
saffron maybe but thats another thing

dalem

Saffron? You mean that hottie big-hootered redhead that "married" Mal?

She can be Evil on my Axis anytime.

Shiny!

-dale

bolo121

sorry dale you lost me there

dalem

Gotta watch the short-lived show "Firefly".

-dale

bolo121

only saw Serenity and was confused half the time on who was who.

lwarmonger

"I shaved off my beard for you!!!"

Careful dalem... she's married to half the solar system.

maqsad

You need three or four camps at least. India should probably be purple in this map anyway.

Chiron

The latest SCO military exercise "Peace Mission 2007" involved over 6,500 troops from the six member nations. Such large scale military exercises could hardly be a result of a "loose framework of military cooperation".

Stephen Blank, a professor of national security studies at the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies had this to say about the SCO wargames:
Eurasia: U.S. Security Expert Talks About SCO Exercises, Summit - RADIO FREE EUROPE / RADIO LIBERTY

There is also growing economic and cultural cooperation within the SCO framework (see wikipedia).

Ofcourse SCO does not have as complex and as coherent a structure as NATO because NATO is an older and more experienced alliance. However SCO is developing very rapidly and has already shown that it can take concrete steps to defend the geopolitical interests of its members (ie. eviction of the US military presence from Uzbekistan).

In either case, the analysis at Welcome to Cold War II - by Kiron is not based solely on NATO and SCO structures as members of these organisations make alot of their geopolitical maneuvers outside those frameworks (ie. US invasion of Iraq, or on the other hand, military-technical cooperation between Russia, Cuba and Venezuela). SCO vs NATO is simply the most suitable umbrella under which to analyse the struggle of the world's most influencial geopolitical poles. Although I think I will change the naming on the map to avoid confusion.

Membership in NAM is not indicative of a country's neutrality. For example, close US allies (which receive large packages of US foreign military financing and/or host US troops and/or support US military actions etc..) such as Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and United Arab Emirates are members of NAM. At the same time, Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan, Syria and Venezuela -- countries which oppose US-driven globalisation, are outspoken critics of US foreign policy, which support the military-industrial complexes of Russia and China by importing their weapon systems etc.., are also members of NAM. Therefore I haven't really decided yet how NAM fits into this analysis or whether it should be mentioned at all.

Following are the factors which were used to determine India's geopolitical stance as a "close ally of SCO":

India (19,040): SCO observer (wiki); major purchaser of Russian weapons (link,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006), 70-80% of Indian armament is of Soviet/Russian origin (link); ongoing military tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir (wiki)

India is an SCO observer, with the possibility of full membership in the future. She has extensive links to the Russian military-industrial complex, being the second largest importer of Russian armaments. Some analysts point to the fact that because of Indian purchases a large portion of the Russian defense industry was able to survive the chaos of the 1990s.

India has a territorial dispute with Pakistan. The latest military clash between the two sides in Kargil was only nine years ago. While Pakistan is a major buyer of US defense equipment (ie. In fiscal year 2005, the Department of State authorized the export of defense articles and services valued at $122,408,447 for Pakistan.) and is the third largest recipient of US foreign military financing. Pakistan receives at least $300 million USD in military aid each year, which is about 7% of its total military budget. This puts India in direct geopolitical opposition to the US. Although the political language between the two countries may be polite and courteous.

Nepal (105): Surrounded by SCO and SCO observer states (link)

This was the only factor which I used to determine Nepal's geopolitical stance. It is surrounded by India and China, thus its policy largely depends on these two countries. I made a mistake in that my map did not match the analysis concerning Nepal, it was shown as 'red' when it should have been 'dark red'. I haven't really researched this country's politics that much so if you have any useful articles which you think would back up your opinion about Nepal's neutrality then please share them with me here.

Burma (Myanmar) (39): Ally of China and major purchaser of Chinese weapons (link); "Outpost of Tyranny" (wiki); purchaser of Russian weapons (2001,2002,2006); target of US (link) and EU sanctions

I think it is pretty self-explanatory as far as Burma goes.


Thank you for your comments friends.

Lakisthes

How could Serbia be a close NATO suporter?I'm for Serbia and almost everyone I know oposes NATO and US(not counting EU which has support)but definitly not supporting NATO!Serbia belongs to dark red NOT dark blue.Somebody made a mistake.

Chiron

Serbia is not a close NATO supporter but it is completely surrounded by NATO countries. Therefore it cannot afford to resist the policies of the US unless it wants to be bombed again. Milocevich was the last leader to resist 'Westernisation'. The Serbian population is definitely not against Russia, but its politicians are now pro-western.. as far as I know anyway.. but maybe I'm wrong? Do you have links to any articles which would show the current Serbian government as anti-western?

You say Serbia supports the idea of joining the EU, but if that happens it will also be indirectly integrated with NATO since most EU members are also in NATO.

Serbia (1,200): Surrounded by NATO (wiki); potential EU candidate (link)

These were the only factors which I used to determine Serbia's position. It is possible that I made a mistake because I haven't spent much time researching Serbia's politics, so maybe you can help me..