Geo Political Risk

[moka]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/list-of-wars-2031197

Lists of Wars

An old 2016 article about the how the US is now involved in 134 wars or none, depending on your definition of ‘war’

https://theworld.org/stories/2016/07/30/us-now-involved-134-wars-or-none-depending-your-definition-war

The problem is that our traditional definition of "war" is outdated, and so is our imagination of what war means.

World War II was the last time Congress officially declared war. Since then, the conflicts we've called "wars" — from Vietnam through to the second Iraq War — have actually been congressional "authorizations of military force." And more recently, beginning with the War Powers Act of 1973, presidential war powers have expanded so much that, according to the Congressional Research Service, it's no longer clear whether a president requires congressional authorization at all.

The recent US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will likely be the last time, in the foreseeable future, that the United States wages war in the way that's most familiar to us: a lot of combat troops on the ground in a foreign country with lots of money and support and an ostensibly achievable objective.

Conflicts where the US is launching extensive military incursions, including drone attacks, but that are not officially 'declared.'" By that definition, the United States is at war in five places right now: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.

In 2013, the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) — one of the nine organizational units that make up the Unified Combatant Command — had special operations forces (SOFs) in 134 countries, where they were either involved in combat, special missions, or advising and training foreign forces. (Mostly this last thing, according to public statements.)
SOCOM admits to having forces on the ground in 134 countries around the world. That doesn't mean its forces are carrying out capture or kill raids in every country, but it's almost impossible to know where and when different operations are taking place.

JSOC has carried out counterterrorism operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
An anonymous source with close ties to JSOC gave Scahill an even more expansive list that included those countries along with Indonesia, Thailand, Colombia, Peru, and several countries in Eastern and Central Asia.

"The world is a battlefield and we are at war," the source told Scahill of the logic that drives JSOC. "Therefore the military can go wherever they please and do whatever it is that they want to do, in order to achieve the national security objectives of whichever administration happens to be in power."
"The world is a battlefield" isn't just a vague, hawkish worldview — it's a legal understanding of military force in the age of a single, global war: the War on Terror.

The world is a battlefield thanks in large part to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which Congress passed on Sept. 14, 2001 and which gives the President of the United States broad power to fight terrorism around the world.
So how many wars would you say the United States is now fighting? The easy answer might just be: too many.

[Davexl]

Philippine Sailor Severely Injured, Vessels Damaged as Chinese Block South China Sea Mission

https://news.usni.org/2024/06/17/phi...cid=a5ea256e36

[Davexl]

US renews warning it’s obligated to defend the Philippines after its new clash with China at sea

https://apnews.com/article/south-chi...91f6e066c88f10

[kiora]

Philippine Sailor Severely Injured, Vessels Damaged as Chinese Block South China Sea Mission

https://news.usni.org/2024/06/17/phi...cid=a5ea256e36

These Phillipines navy ships look a bit outdated?
https://apnews.com/article/south-chi...91f6e066c88f10

I wonder what would happen if the Phillipines starting using these boats for resupplying?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3nPopy2LKs

Do sailing boats still have right of way?
Out run & out tack them ?

https://www.google.com/search?q=amer...Md20KNs98,st:0

[GTM 3442]

One step closer. . .

https://news.usni.org/2024/06/19/chi...shoal-incident

[moka]

Who do you believe?

UK's Nigel Farage sparks outrage from opponents after saying West 'provoked' Ukraine war | Newshub

Nigel Farage, a figurehead of the UK's populist right, has sparked outrage from political opponents after saying the West "provoked" Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Farage - who heads the fast-growing Reform UK political party and was a pivotal figure in in Brexit - is seeking to win a seat in parliament for the first time in next month's general election.

During an interview with the BBC Friday (local time), Farage was asked if he stood by a tweet posted in February 2022 which called Putin's decision to invade Ukraine a "consequence of EU and NATO expansion".

"Why did I say that? It was obvious to me that the ever-eastward expansion of NATO and the European Union was giving this man [Putin] a reason to his Russian people to say they're coming for us again, and to go to war," he told the BBC's Nick Robinson.

"We've provoked this war - of course it's his fault - he's used what we've done as an excuse," he said.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak reacted to the comments today while speaking to journalists. "What he said was completely wrong and only plays into Putin's hands," said Sunak. "This kind of appeasement is dangerous for Britain's security."

Former Conservative defence secretary Ben Wallace spoke to the BBC's Today program about Farage's comments, where he called the Reform leader "a bit like that pub bore we have all met at the end of the bar who often says 'Oh no, if I was running the country' and presents very simplistic answers to actually, I am afraid in the 21st century, complex problems".

Labour leader Keir Starmer also responded to Farage's comments, calling them "disgraceful" in an interview with Sky News.
"I think anybody who wants to stand to be a representative in our parliament should be really clear that whether it's Russian aggression on the battlefield, or online, that we stand against that aggression. That's standing behind Ukraine but also standing up for our freedom," he said.

"These are disgraceful comments, which reveal the true face of Nigel Farage: a Putin apologist who should never be trusted with our nation's security," wrote John Healey, a Labour MP and shadow Defence Secretary.

[moka]

Glenn Diesen is a Norwegian academic and political scientist. He is currently a professor at the School of Business of the University of South-Eastern Norway. Diesen specializes in Russian foreign policy, political economy, conservatism and Eurasian integration

Glenn Diesen's views on the causes of the Ukraine war can be summarized as follows:

Diesen argues that NATO expansionism was a key factor leading to the conflict. He sees NATO expansion as part of Western efforts to maintain global hegemony, which ultimately dismantled the pan-European security architecture and set Europe on a path to war.

He contends that Ukraine has been used as a "pawn" in the great power competition between NATO and Russia for the past three decades.

Diesen challenges the Western narrative about the conflict, arguing that the majority of Ukrainians did not support joining NATO prior to 2014. He claims that only about 20% of Ukrainians wanted to join NATO before 2014, and that if forced to choose, the majority would have preferred alignment with Russia.

He views the 2014 events in Ukraine as a Western-backed coup rather than a democratic revolution, stating that the majority of Ukrainians did not support the overthrow of the government.

Diesen sees the Ukraine war as a symptom of a collapsing world order dominated by Western liberal hegemony. He argues that the war revealed the dysfunction of this hegemonic system in terms of both power and legitimacy.

He suggests that American policy during the unipolar moment (post-Cold War era of U.S. dominance) laid the groundwork for the current conflict.

In essence, Diesen's perspective places significant responsibility on Western actions, particularly NATO expansion and interference in Ukraine's internal affairs, as primary causes of the war. He frames the conflict within a broader context of shifting global power dynamics and the decline of Western hegemony.

[moka]

https://www.claritypress.com/product/the-ukraine-war-the-eurasian-world-order/

The Ukraine War & the Eurasian World Order by Glenn Diesen

Five hundred years of Western hegemony has ended, while the global majority’s aspiration for a world order based on multipolarity and sovereign equality is rising. This incisive book addresses the demise of liberal hegemony, though pointing out that a multipolar Westphalian world order has not yet taken shape, leaving the world in a period of interregnum. A legal vacuum has emerged, in which the conflicting sides are competing to define the future order.

NATO expansionism was an important component of liberal hegemony as it was intended to cement the collective hegemony of the West as the foundation for a liberal democratic peace. Instead, it dismantled the pan-European security architecture and set Europe on the path to war without the possibility of a course correction. Ukraine as a divided country in a divided Europe has been a crucial pawn in the great power competition between NATO and Russia for the past three decades.

The war in Ukraine is a symptom of the collapsing world order. The war revealed the dysfunction of liberal hegemony in terms of both power and legitimacy, and it sparked a proxy war between the West and Russia instead of ensuring peace, the source of its legitimacy.

The proxy war, unprecedented sanctions, and efforts to isolate Russia in the wider world contributed to the demise of liberal hegemony as opposed to its revival. Much of the world responded to the war by intensifying their transition to a Eurasian world order that rejects hegemony and liberal universalism. The economic architecture is being reorganised as the world diversifies away from excessive reliance on Western technologies, industries, transportation corridors, banks, payment systems, insurance systems, and currencies. Universalism based on Western values is replaced by civilisational distinctiveness, sovereign inequality is swapped with sovereign equality, socialising inferiors is replaced by negotiations, and the rules-based international order is discarded in favour of international law. A Westphalian world order is reasserting itself, although with Eurasian characteristics.

The West’s defeat of Russia would restore the unipolar world order while a Russian victory would cement a multipolar one. The international system is now at its most dangerous as the prospect of compromise is absent, meaning the winner will take all. Both NATO under US direction and Russia are therefore prepared to take great risks and escalate, making nuclear war increasingly likely.

[BDL]

Always thought you had lost the plot moka.

Did maori party sign your voting form for you too?