The Geopolitics Thread | Vital Football

The Geopolitics Thread

BodyButter

BodyButter

Vital Football Legend
I know us football fans love nothing more than a bit of geopolitical debate so let's have at it.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is talking about the UK possibly not being able to rely on the US in future wars.

I can't see the UK engaging in wars around the world alone but it's interesting to see that the powers that be are thinking about a less engaged US in the future.

I've seen this idea floated a few times. The principle idea behind it is that the US is now a net exporter of oil after developments in fracking and shale technology. Oil has been the driving force of US foreign policy since WW2. To ensure the supply of oil to the US, the US Navy oversees security of the world's shipping lanes, encouraging global trade but with the US no longer dependent on foreign oil, shipping may become much more dangerous and expensive.

It will probably create a vacuum which regional wars can grow into without the constant threat of US intervention.

Countries which rely on the US for defence may find themselves in a precarious position (Taiwan and Saudi Arabia are very vulnerable) and we are likely to see new military alliances sprouting up (an EU defence pact is very likely).

Brexit and a US withdrawal from the global stage leaves the UK very isolated. Countries like China and Russia will have a much more free hand to get involved in places like North Africa unless the EU can get their act together.

The big risk isn't invasion but rather that Britain won't be able to defend its economic interests around the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...t-wars-without-us-help-says-defence-secretary
 
Last edited:
On a slightly different tangent, this article states that Iran warned Denmark of the missile attacks 6 hours in advance. They had to have known that anything sent to Denmark was likely to be intercepted or passed on to the US. So they knew those bases would be virtually empty when the missiles struck. It was all political theater. It seems that Iran is much weaker than Fox News would like us to think.

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/wor...warning-of-iranian-attack-on-iraqi-bases---tv
 
While I'm on a roll, the Trident Programme is estimated to cost £2bn per year. That seems like an insane amount of money to spend on weapons which will never be used. Is there a scenario in which another country could nuke Britain safe in the knowledge that Trident had been abolished?

Does having nuclear weapons make you a big dog in the military world or are they just too destructive to every be used?
 
I'd rather the £2bn went on conventional defence budgets, which are severely stretched.

I find it very strange that a few countries, including us, feel it is ok for us to have nuclear weapons but dictate to others that they can't. Who the feck do we think we are!?
 
I'd be quite happy if we stopped interfering in other countries business to be honest. Our and the US intervention in the Middle East hasn't exactly worked out, in any single instance that I can think of, has it?
 
If the US really does retreat into its shell, I'd imagine the Arabs and the Persians would have a massive, bloody war.
 
BodyButter said:
I know us football fans love nothing more than a bit of geopolitical debate so let's have at it.

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is talking about the UK possibly not being able to rely on the US in future wars.

I can't see the UK engaging in wars around the world alone but it's interesting to see that the powers that be are thinking about a less engaged US in the future.

I've seen this idea floated a few times. The principle idea behind it is that the US is now a net exporter of oil after developments in fracking and shale technology. Oil has been the driving force of US foreign policy since WW2. To ensure the supply of oil to the US, the US Navy oversees security of the world's shipping lanes, encouraging global trade but with the US no longer dependent on foreign oil, shipping may become much more dangerous and expensive.

It will probably create a vacuum which regional wars can grow into without the constant threat of US intervention.

Countries which rely on the US for defence may find themselves in a precarious position (Taiwan and Saudi Arabia are very vulnerable) and we are likely to see new military alliances sprouting up (an EU defence pact is very likely).

Brexit and a US withdrawal from the global stage leaves the UK very isolated. Countries like China and Russia will have a much more free hand to get involved in places like North Africa unless the EU can get their act together.

The big risk isn't invasion but rather that Britain won't be able to defend its economic interests around the world.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...t-wars-without-us-help-says-defence-secretary
Click to expand...

A fair few people were in uproar at the European Army which is a myth in terms of what it says on the tin, but I do think we need to work closer and more strategically with the EU states rather than the US.

We do already have fairly close ties with France and Germany in terms of our military Co-operation, but we (the UK) do follow and jump in feet first into the proxy wars of the US. Although I’ve heard of French fighter jets involved and mentioned in conflicts before the UK with the US. The EU as far as I’m aware doesn’t cover anything with regards to military investment though perhaps the EU (and the UK post-Brexit) need to start planning this over the next decade.

I’m taking for granted we never see a world war on this continent again (any continent hopefully) for a more joined up and strategic EU military superpower. The UK as a military power is insignificant in itself, it’s a drop in the ocean of the US and when you look at the fact China has one soldier for every 20 British adults.

For the UK to remain an influence on the world stage, we have to partner with someone and I don’t think it would be a bad thing for the EU member states to become a more recognised power rather than the 5 or 6 individual powers that we are who run off to back the US.

The reality would be that the EU backs the US and vice versus for the next few decades. If the US does have a long term ambition to pull back (rather than a few more years of Trump saying it for votes), then what’s to say the EU doesn’t become the world peace keeper? China doesn’t seem to want that role because it seems to want to use its power to get back the islands and lands in the Pacific and other areas it claims.

Russia doesn’t have the military size to be a world peacekeeper, and to me seems more bothered about proxy wars where that government buy their defence equipment.

As for the UK, I don’t see a realistic threat of a nuclear attack. For all the propaganda, the Russians wouldn’t bomb the UK for the fact their wealth is in invested here either dirty bank accounts or property. One of the threats from Russia is on resource supply to the EU, causing us economic hardship. Germany rely a lot on Russian gas which is probably the reason the EU punish Russia less than the UK with sanctions. The other very immediate and every day threat from Russia is electronically, as we’ve seen from hacks over recent years.

That’s not to say Russia won’t meddle in the affairs of the Baltic states with physical force one day and for me, one of the reasons why Russia was pro-Brexit was the more it can break up Europe and reduce its power, the easier it is to meddle in other countries and reduces the risk of hard economic sanctions.
 
The Fear said:
I'd be quite happy if we stopped interfering in other countries business to be honest. Our and the US intervention in the Middle East hasn't exactly worked out, in any single instance that I can think of, has it?
Click to expand...

I read a great book called 'small wars in faraway places' it talks heavily about the evolution of the world post WW2.

Basically slated all the interventions in the middle east and how the US learned everything from the British Empire and followed all the same mistakes the British made.
 
Our conventional expenditure is out of balance. We blew a fortune on two aircraft carriers that we don't have the means to defend in a war zone. Putin was right when he described H. M.S. Queen Elizabeth as a nice big target. We need to build up our fleet of destroyers and frigates capable of detecting and killing submarines and having the ability to detect and destroy attacking aircraft. Our maritime patrol ability has been degraded, which is negligent in a maritime nation.
Geopolitically we need to forget about being the world's policeman. We don't have the resources for it and we need to stop thinking of America as our special friend. America looks to its own interests first.
China looks like the biggest threat militarily. It's wealth enables it to build up armed forces, large in number and equipped with increasingly sophisticated hardware. China is expanding its sphere of influence across the Pacific and has bought influence in Africa through aid and trade.
The nuclear question is a difficult one to resolve. It's no coincidence that countries such as Israel, which has atomic weapons, feel more secure from destruction having a weapon of last resort. Middle Eastern regimes which might want to destroy Israel are given reason to refrain from all out military attack.
In the end wars are won by production. The side which can out produce its opponent wins. That's how Germany was defeated and it's how Regan won the Cold War. The Soviets bankrupted themselves trying to keep up with America. The Chinese have the capacity to out produce everyone.
 
The Fear said:
I'd rather the £2bn went on conventional defence budgets, which are severely stretched.

I find it very strange that a few countries, including us, feel it is ok for us to have nuclear weapons but dictate to others that they can't. Who the feck do we think we are!?
Click to expand...
We are responsible nuclear missile users, while they can't be trusted to use them responsibly. I think that's the way it goes anyway.
 
Here's something interesting. Saudi Arabia have been trying to modernise their economy through some highly-publicised mega projects as well as investing billions of dollars into Softbank's Vision Funds.

The mega projects were designed to bring outside investments into Saudi and they are failing.

The billions in the Vision Funds have all gone into high risk tech startups like WeWork and Uber.

The tech bubble bursting in the US will have serious implications for Saudi Arabia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.