Mapping the Multipolar World

[eacao]

This is intended to be exploratory in nature.

1. Russia-Iran-India.
Russia and Iran are united by their pariah status in the eyes of the transatlantic alliance. Their relatively small size (in people and treasure) belies their importance as the gatekeepers through the centre of Eurasia. Through the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), Russia is set to finally achieve its childhood dream of acquiring an overland warm-water port that doesn't exit into Japan or the Dardanelles. This is a rather big deal. I once saw a YouTube comment accurately state that the House Words of the Russian people ought to be, "Looking for warm water port". It's a centuries-long ambition.

India, on the other hand, continues its comfortable strategy of non-alignment. It is a friend to all (except China). Happy with the Americans, happy with the Europeans, happy with the Russians, conversant with the Chinese. To understand India you must understand the balance of power in eastern Eurasia. Russia, India, and China form three points of a triangle and China has metastasised beyond the containment of the other two. For reasons that I'll discuss below, the current U.S. Administration is hell-bent on punishing and reducing Russia in Ukraine. There are myriad arguments for and against this policy, but the result is nevertheless a close Russia-China partnership formed around their common enemy. For India, this development is thoroughly untenable and thus India has gone to risky lengths to engage the Russians over the past 18 months. Cheap energy imports don't hurt, either.

The INSTC binds the Indians, Iranians, and Russians together into a conglomeration down the middle of the continent, but there is a shearing force. Russia and Iran lean towards Beijing while India leans towards Washington. Time will tell whether or not the Indians persist in this tripartite bloc, but given the importance of Russia for Delhi's balancing-act with China, and India's importance for Moscow's feud with NATO, there's good reason to believe that this Mackinder-esque corridor through the centre of Eurasia will represent the most, or among the most, important geopolitical relationships for the three nations.

2. China.
To understand China's ambitions for the future, one must first understand the American-lead system of the past half-century. The United States has treated the world as a single community governed by international law. This international jurisprudence has lead Americans (and American corporate media) to treat disobedient foreign governments as if they were insurrectionists operating illegally in an otherwise lawful worldwide society. China avidly rejects this American global legislature and seeks to build one of its own. China stands alone in the world as being the only other nation that wishes to ascend the final rung and become the new global hegemon. Its ambitions are not quarantined to its neighbourhood and it is increasingly stretching its arms.

The past 30-years have been spent building out the capacity to evict the U.S. from East Asia. The kinetic fight has not yet come, but the options for the U.S. are to acquiesce or go to war. Beijing has released the architecture for its bid for global dominance in the Global Development Initiative (GDI) and Global Security Initiative (GSI), which will form the two instruments (economic and military) that it will employ over the next three decades to muscle-out the old American international system. Beijing hopes this will culminate by 2050.

3. Europe.
It may sound strange if it's your first time hearing this, but the European Union is not a democratic organ in the way we would understand it in Westminster or Washington democracies. The executive and upper house are populated with political appointees rather than elected representatives and it's the executive branch (the European Commission) that holds legislative initiative (the authority to craft and submit laws). The only chamber of the seven EU institutions that is duly elected is the European Parliament (lower house), which again does not hold legislative initiative. The EU is actually a technocracy / political bureaucracy of appointees that involves a popular assembly in a vetting process, but the citizenry do not directly wield legislative initiative through their elected representatives.

Unlike the Chinese system which is entirely top-down and ruled by the autocratic Party (with no material checks-and-balances to speak of), the EU still invites popular consent to its rule (through the lower house), but is otherwise still a top-down system. The unelected executive branch proposes the laws that it wishes to execute but seeks Parliamentary consent before ratification. This differs to the Westminster or Washington systems whose legislative initiative is vested in the House of Commons / House of Representatives and thus legislates (comparatively) from the bottom-up. Quite different approaches to governing.

Within the EU exist four discernible sub-blocs. We have the Scandinavians of the north (Denmark, Sweden, and Finland), the Three Seas Initiative (12 members lead by the Visegrad Group), Club Med, and finally Western Europe proper (Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg). The latter presently wields the majority of economic and political power in the EU.

It's the nations of the Three Seas Initiative that I find most interesting. With the exception of Austria, the other 11 members joined the EU after 2004 and represent the post-Soviet states of Europe's east. They are socially more conservative than the Western Europeans and on account of their recent history in the USSR, are growing increasingly uncomfortable with apparent authoritarianism in left-wing political philosophy. At the moment, Europe doesn't exactly have a right wing in the way an Anglo might understand. The two major parties of the European Union (the European People's Party, and the Progressive Alliance for Socialists and Democrats) would be considered Progressive Left by the standards of Anglospheric conservatives. More surprisingly, a left-right divide does not clearly involve itself in EU politics in the way it does in the Anglosphere. A divide is more cleanly observed between Major and Minor parties -- demonstrated by the Left-wing S&D and the ostensibly Right-wing EPP forming a coalition to head out the various minor parties. It's contentious to say, but this resembles to my own eyes a single-party system, at least in 2023.

This may change as the Three Seas Initiative shifts the economic balance of power away from Western Europe and towards the East. As the post-Soviet states acquire more economic independence from Berlin, they may begin exercising greater political independence within the EU as well. If Ukraine (with its 40-odd million citizens) emerges victorious in the war and thereafter ascents to the EU and the Three Seas Initiative (if the former, then the latter is almost a foregone conclusion) then the 13 members will collectively represent 150 million European citizens (up from the current 110m) and command perhaps 265 seats (35% of 747) up from the 223 (31% of 705) of today. This would head-out even the 231 seats held by the five Western European states. A victorious Ukraine is likely to be heavily politically indebted to Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and the U.S. and thus would represent a formidable ally to the Visegrad group in internal European politics.

In such a scenario, with the Eastern Europeans beginning to operate in an increasingly equal manner (though the East-West economic gulf is likely to remain broad for decades) Europe may finally acquire a counterbalancing conservative half to the prevailing progressive whole. This may sound wildly unpleasant on this particular forum which tilts progressive left, but a pluralistic and balanced democratic system is eminently desirable in my eyes, especially in one of the four global giants. In the decades ahead, currently minor conservative parties (like the ECR) may find more fruitful land in the East of Europe to challenge the existing progressive major parties. Just as the U.S. maintains progressive coasts around conservative hinterlands, Europe too might acquire an easterly right.

On account of Giorgia Meloni, I can imagine a future wherein Franco-Germany (+ the Netherlands and Belgium) represent the left wing of Europe, the Three Seas Initiative the right, and Club Med occupies the position of swing states. Scandinavia might err left and Italy right. Time will tell.

Of note, as Western Europe pushes for decarbonisation, the members of the Three Seas Initiative have quite tacitly rejected this policy direction and are chasing energy security through LNG. The initiative itself is focused on the areas of energy infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, and digital infrastructure along a north-south corridor from Estonia in the north, to Croatia and Bulgaria in the south -- these infrastructures form the basic nation-building foundations of any nation or supranational group. Energy has been identified as the most pressing of the three infrastructure classes and almost all of the investments heretofore undertaken by the 3SI Investment Fund (3SIIF) are related to LNG. These including LNG power plants, LNG terminals, and LNG pipelines. I'm aware so far of 12 major LNG-related projects but I understand there to be a long list of smaller undertakings also. These nations are expected to require an abundance of baseload power as they develop in the decades ahead, and it appears they have selected LNG to make up the bulk. To this end, Ukraine is of central importance. In 2012, enormous LNG resources (2.3 trillion cubic metres) were discovered under Ukraine's share of the Black Sea, which threatened Russia's dominance in European energy supply. Now in 2023, much of the LNG infrastructure being built-out under the Three Seas Initiative is orientated to take Ukrainian natural gas to Polish pipelines and thence north into the Baltic states. This makes it somewhat easier to understand why Poland would be willing to enter the war (or at least, promise to enter the war [appendix 1]) directly if the situation turns sour for Kiev.

So, if Ukraine emerges victorious and supplies the 3SI with cheap energy, it may accelerate the relative economic growth of Eastern Europe and expedite the rebalancing of political power too. Imho, the 3SI receives far less attention internationally than it ought to.

4. ANZUK.
The relationship between the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand remains special. Despite occupying near-antipodes on the globe, these three nations retain an effectively familial relationship. In fact, the citizenry retain a literally familial relationship with the largest foreign-born immigrant group in Australia hailing from Britain -- not English descent, I mean individuals born in the U.K. who then flew over to Australia. There is a greater British diaspora living in Australia than in the entirety of the European Union. The former PM of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, not only undertook her political initiation in the United Kingdom by working as a policy advisor for then-PM, Tony Blair, but in retirement has now returned to the island to receive a damehood (the female equivalent of knighthood) and been appointed as trustee for Prince William's Earthshot prize.

Calls for a CANZUK arrangement (ANZUK + Canada) have received some positive reception in Australia's senate, but the relationship between Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. stands a peg above our relationship with Canada (though that is warm and proximal, also). Our former PM, Scott Morrison, previously said that he was receptive to a CANZUK-like arrangement, but wished to focus on the U.K. first, rather than induct Canada from the outset.

Australia and New Zealand possess an effectively free migration policy through the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement, which makes living in Australia as a Kiwi only fractionally more complicated than living in Australia as a natural-born citizen. Just this year, this arrangement was fortified to make it even easier than before. In 2021, the Australia-U.K. Free Trade Agreement (AUKFTA) was signed and included important provisions to further integration, making it simpler to live and work in either nation and recognising qualifications in both countries.

There exists a potential for a supranational arrangement to form between these three islands, similar in some respects to the European Union, but hopefully differing substantially in implementation to more closely resemble a Westminster-style democracy. We represent 100 million citizens between us and together command an economy of $5.5 trillion. This would put us in the same league as Japan in international standing, elevating us firmly into the second-tier of global powers -- a category currently occupied by Japan and Russia. The dispersal of the U.K. and Australia to opposite halves of the globe may in fact prove to be an ANZUK-arrangement's greatest strength, as a company incorporated under ANZUK might gain access to the European market from London and the Asian market from Sydney or Perth (Perth shares a timezone with Singapore and Beijing). If Canada someday accedes to this arrangement then this fourth corner would batten down the North American market -- the last of the three great markets in the world.

The implications here for weight in foreign policy, common market negotiations, and military power are rather evident. Australia presently has to walk a delicate diplomatic line between Beijing and Washington, as appearing excessively loyal to Washington has raised the question of, "why would China negotiate with us directly when they can just speak to the head office?". ANZUK speaking with one voice would go far in placating this dilemma.

Behind that diplomatic force would rest a military plan-B. Already, Australia and the U.K. are pursuing joint naval hardware in the Global Combat Ship (named the Type 26 City Class in the U.K. and the Hunter Class in Australia), and much to my overwhelming delight, Australia and the U.K. have set about jointly developing a new class of nuclear-powered submarines (the AUKUS Class). Japan, the U.K., and Italy are currently engaged in an endeavour to develop and acquire a new 'sixth-generation' (that silly naming convention) air-dominance fighter called the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP). I'm holding out hope that in the years ahead, Australia will enter into this arrangement to mature our domestic engineering capabilities and acquire a dedicated air superiority jet to complement the F-35. I also just posted another thread proposing a joint Japanese-British-Australian reusable launch vehicle program to compete with the U.S. and China.

Note that while the U.S. will remain Australia's most important ally, it is too large to enter into a combined statehood. Freedom of movement, common market, joint trans-national legislation etc is possible between Australia and NZ, and potentially the U.K., but trickier to imagine with a state 15-times our size in population and economy.

5. The United States.
I'm choosing not to write about the U.S. since it's so famous there's little to add.

6. Various minor powers.
Egypt, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, a highly hypothetical East African Federation. If anybody has found the above text interesting then perhaps it will be worthwhile also discussing the regional powers of the new multipolar world.

Appendix
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/polish-ambassado ... 21342.html

[erowind]

The surface treaties and relationships of these nations are accurate in terms of realpolitik but all rather useless and genocidal to the common man. Our world more overtly resembles that of the great war period and empires of old every passing year. Men do not fight wars, men do not clamor to scheme against other men hundreds and thousands of miles away and form political blocs. Only the beast, the state, as a social organism, a mire of grotesque suicidal madness compels men to such ends.

I don't care about the realpolitik of ANZUK, China, The EU, US, Russia or any other leviathan. To care for such ideology is pure delusion when such beasts would grind one's bones to dust in an instant if it meant expansion of their fleeting power. To any end that one is afforded comfort by them is only as a fragile instrument within them, which is used by them, never as a free man.

The only relationship that matters to understand, and then only for liberation, is that of the states domination of men and its domination of other states, a domination that must end for us to socially evolve. Capital flows from the colonies to the imperial cores as it always has. All roads lead to Rome and so it is said that all roads lead to America, and now China, and Japan, and Moscow. All these petty beasts marching in lockstep to their deaths as every empire has before. None of them able to to see beyond their own birth, age, nor inevitable demise.

Shan't we dance instead of march? Why not sing the songs of brotherhood instead of pledge allegiance to such inhumane demons and find fancy in their black mass? These games are not our own, they provide us nothing and can only take everything that makes us human. If the Leviathan has its way, everything it is able to touch will be turned into wasteland devoid of all life.

[Vakanai]

The surface treaties and relationships of these nations are accurate in terms of realpolitik but all rather useless and genocidal to the common man. Our world more overtly resembles that of the great war period and empires of old every passing year. Men do not fight wars, men do not clamor to scheme against other men hundreds and thousands of miles away and form political blocs. Only the beast, the state, as a social organism, a mire of grotesque suicidal madness compels men to such ends.

I don't care about the realpolitik of ANZUK, China, The EU, US, Russia or any other leviathan. To care for such ideology is pure delusion when such beasts would grind one's bones to dust in an instant if it meant expansion of their fleeting power. To any end that one is afforded comfort by them is only as a fragile instrument within them, which is used by them, never as a free man.

The only relationship that matters to understand, and then only for liberation, is that of the states domination of men and its domination of other states, a domination that must end for us to socially evolve. Capital flows from the colonies to the imperial cores as it always has. All roads lead to Rome and so it is said that all roads lead to America, and now China, and Japan, and Moscow. All these petty beasts marching in lockstep to their deaths as every empire has before. None of them able to to see beyond their own birth, age, nor inevitable demise.

Shan't we dance instead of march? Why not sing the songs of brotherhood instead of pledge allegiance to such inhumane demons and find fancy in their black mass? These games are not our own, they provide us nothing and can only take everything that makes us human. If the Leviathan has its way, everything it is able to touch will be turned into wasteland devoid of all life.

Empires aren't going away, new ones will always rise, and people will never unite to make peace. Best we can do is throw our lot in with the empires that give us the most rights and fight against those that would strip them away. I'm a US citizen and I'll be the first to tell you my empire is crooked, wicked, and full of bull - but I'd rather America, the EU, or ANZUK than China or Russia any day. Seeing how the different empires treat their populace, all may be beasts but some beasts are more dangerous than others.

[erowind]

Empires aren't going away, new ones will always rise, and people will never unite to make peace. Best we can do is throw our lot in with the empires that give us the most rights and fight against those that would strip them away. I'm a US citizen and I'll be the first to tell you my empire is crooked, wicked, and full of bull - but I'd rather America, the EU, or ANZUK than China or Russia any day. Seeing how the different empires treat their populace, all may be beasts but some beasts are more dangerous than others.

Lesser evilism gets us nowhere. All empires also die, should the cycle continue one worse than every empire mentioned above will eventually subsume them. There was a time before empire there will be a time after. The state is not eternal, it is only an infant relative to our species history. It is possible to build community and love for all instead of giving into seeing enemies at the gates, which is exactly what every empire wants of its citizens. There's nothing productive in picking sides in imperial wars.

[Vakanai]

Empires aren't going away, new ones will always rise, and people will never unite to make peace. Best we can do is throw our lot in with the empires that give us the most rights and fight against those that would strip them away. I'm a US citizen and I'll be the first to tell you my empire is crooked, wicked, and full of bull - but I'd rather America, the EU, or ANZUK than China or Russia any day. Seeing how the different empires treat their populace, all may be beasts but some beasts are more dangerous than others.

Lesser evilism gets us nowhere. All empires also die, should the cycle continue one worse than every empire mentioned above will eventually subsume them. There was a time before empire there will be a time after. The state is not eternal, it is only an infant relative to our species history. It is possible to build community and love for all instead of giving into seeing enemies at the gates, which is exactly what every empire wants of its citizens. There's nothing productive in picking sides in imperial wars.

We have words for the time after empire - apocalypse, total societal collapse,extinction level event. That's what it'll take to end states, nothing less. Lesser evilism is all we've got, because that's the world we live in, and we can't change that. And I don't believe it's inevitable a worse will subsume them all - as bad as the American empire is, the US has gotten better over time. Slavery ended, women got the vote, the Civil Rights happened, sure there's been backsliding in recent years, but the conservative's cultural wars are not popular.

We're not going to end the state, and we definitely aren't going to end empires when China wants it all.

[Cyber_Rebel]

Star Trek's Federation of Planets could be labeled an "empire" or state, yet it's one with much better values and ideals for those involved, even with the parallels to previous civilization like Section-31.

What one defines as empires is really a question of human organization and resources. Such organization may simply be natural for many species depending on how they evolved within biological life to begin with. When you have a huge society with many needs, rates of production, need for higher efficiency, etc, then you naturally get to higher orders of management. Having different nation states arising based on that logic, and the fact that homo sapiens spread out across different areas of the planet over time, meant that states arising over a shared identity, values, and needs was an inevitability. Even if one were to magically make every nation state on the planet vanish, a new one would inevitably take its place, due to humans being highly social animals and the logical factors involved concerning our production quotas and material needs. This is also to say nothing of international corporations, which in such a world would likely fill the "void" left over by any lack of government institutions.

It's imperfect because humans themselves are imperfect. The "state" is really just a reflection of the people residing within it, rather than something which has some kind of nefarious mind all its own. This is also assuming that a majority of people would even wish to end such organizations, and it doesn't seem likely they ever would, due to concerns of security and quality of life. A more likely scenario is that we'll move closer to more international treaties, alliances, globalism, based on shared values and interests. This path could end up uniting vast portions of the human population, and perhaps one day, lead to a world government (hopefully managed by superintelligence) where we are viewed more as citizens of the Earth rather than the nations states we sprung up in. I think we'd still have states based on geographical locations and cultural values, but those states would be more globally aligned to handle huge issues such as climate change, inequality, technological advancement and such much better than any could do so alone.

[erowind]

Star Trek's Federation of Planets could be labeled an "empire" or state, yet it's one with much better values and ideals for those involved, even with the parallels to previous civilization like Section-31.

What one defines as empires is really a question of human organization and resources. Such organization may simply be natural for many species depending on how they evolved within biological life to begin with. When you have a huge society with many needs, rates of production, need for higher efficiency, etc, then you naturally get to higher orders of management. Having different nation states arising based on that logic, and the fact that homo sapiens spread out across different areas of the planet over time, meant that states arising over a shared identity, values, and needs was an inevitability. Even if one were to magically make every nation state on the planet vanish, a new one would inevitably take its place, due to humans being highly social animals and the logical factors involved concerning our production quotas and material needs. This is also to say nothing of international corporations, which in such a world would likely fill the "void" left over by any lack of government institutions.

It's imperfect because humans themselves are imperfect. The "state" is really just a reflection of the people residing within it, rather than something which has some kind of nefarious mind all its own. This is also assuming that a majority of people would even wish to end such organizations, and it doesn't seem likely they ever would, due to concerns of security and quality of life. A more likely scenario is that we'll move closer to more international treaties, alliances, globalism, based on shared values and interests. This path could end up uniting vast portions of the human population, and perhaps one day, lead to a world government (hopefully managed by superintelligence) where we are viewed more as citizens of the Earth rather than the nations states we sprung up in. I think we'd still have states based on geographical locations and cultural values, but those states would be more globally aligned to handle huge issues such as climate change, inequality, technological advancement and such much better than any could do so alone.

When I'm speaking of the "state" I'm not talking about organization wholesale or society as a concept. There are stateless societies, there are forms of organization that are not imperial in nature. I'm specifically talking about this imperial monster of a social organism that kills everything in its path mercilessly for pointless wealth accumulation, of which America with its modern gulags and endless wars is in good company. Good company alongside China and Russia though it may not seem that way to some who lives within it, just like it doesn't to many people in China and Russia who live within their empires.

"It's imperfect because humans themselves are imperfect." "due to concerns of security and quality of life." It's as if Thomas Hobbes is in the room with us now. The fact of the matter stands, there have been mass societies, even urban societies in human history that don't conform to this characterization, moreover disperse societies don't either. Caral existed, Zapitas exists, among many others. The comment about perfection is really commenting about some inherent "selfish violence" or "greedy" nature of humans, it wouldn't accompany statements about concerns over security otherwise. This is untrue, there are no other words than to state again and again it is untrue because it is, undeniably so. Humans can display many traits, we however, have the gift of choice over which traits we cultivate, and I choose to reject those ones and work towards their abolition in favor of common empathy. The most dangerous people in the room are not any given human living their individual life, they are humans who are forced to violence by their societies in one form or another, or as is more often the case today, are incentivized to violence by an inhumane society.

Every motion of progress in this society has come from the common people challenging the state's monopoly on violence directly and demanding a better life, the state itself does not improve life, it only impedes it. Abolition, universal suffrage, the end of some forms of segregation, all the result of militant protest and organization on the part of common people in conflict with the state not in cooperation with it.

(This was a bit of a double post, not just in reply to you Cyber.)

[Vakanai]

(This was a bit of a double post, not just in reply to you Cyber.)

Guessing the other bit's in reply to me then. Look, you have a nice dream and I have nothing against it personally - I just don't see any possible way to make three empires disappear other than some catastrophic event that might kill billions. No argument about how stateless societies can/do work is going to make the US dissolve or keep China from exerting power or have Russia become not a dictatorship. It's just not happening. I got to live my life in the empire I'm in same as everyone else, and I don't really have the inclination to pick a fight with no winning strategy. I hope for peace, because at least to some degree that's feasible in the short term, but beyond that life's what it is.

[erowind]

(This was a bit of a double post, not just in reply to you Cyber.)

Guessing the other bit's in reply to me then. Look, you have a nice dream and I have nothing against it personally - I just don't see any possible way to make three empires disappear other than some catastrophic event that might kill billions. No argument about how stateless societies can/do work is going to make the US dissolve or keep China from exerting power or have Russia become not a dictatorship. It's just not happening. I got to live my life in the empire I'm in same as everyone else, and I don't really have the inclination to pick a fight with no winning strategy. I hope for peace, because at least to some degree that's feasible in the short term, but beyond that life's what it is.

The point is to build community, pick fights where it makes sense, and work towards a better world. To build consensus and direct democracy based organizations and take direct action whenever possible. In my life right now all that means is participating in my intentional community and occasionally a little bit of low-risk shoplifting at large big box stores. (Not asking anyone to do the latter btw.) For others resistance may take more overt forms like outright pipeline blockades, or a protest after the police kill someone. No one expects any given individual to march into Trump Tower and declare war on the world in their lonesome, but the attitude that we are powerless and "got to live my life in the empire" is exactly why all the madness still exists.

And yes, something MythOfProgress is right about is that billions are about to die on the current course. I disagree with their cause of why that's going to happen, and think the process can still be stopped, but none of these empires are going to adapt on their own volition, they are designed against doing that. If we do nothing that conclusion is certain, we are part of the ecosystem we have learn live with a regenerative relationship to it and empires are not capable of doing this. It is genuinely existential to have a paradigm shift in our culture and that has to happen at the individual level just as much as it does the societal level.

Why not build community? Why not garden? Why not guerilla garden?! Why not fight for one's rights? Why not allow ourselves to feel empathy for the animals and non-human life around us and act on that empathy? Why not challenge othering and cliques in our social groups? Why not declare war at least verbally against the evils of our world, word has power! Why not change?



Edit: I understand what you mean with life being the way that it is and that the task is daunting, it feels and looks impossible. I've felt that same intimidation, despair, hopelessness, everyone has. This society presents itself as an unchanging reality, as reality itself. It alienates us from ourselves and the ecosystem in this way. We have to dare to see and work for a better world for it to have any chance of happening. The point isn't certainty of winning! It is to liberate ourselves in the moment and live better in the moment, victory is something that only comes organically when we do this as individuals. And in genuinely feels great when you have little victories in your life! It is soul crushing to do anything less for me, I hope I can ignite this flame in everyone else too.

In America specifically there are intentional communities all over the country. If one really feels as I do the door is open to live a better life, and I am working towards this in my own life. I will eventually leave the urban community I'm in and join a rural one. Everyone should be seeking community in some way. Due to our family structures being destroyed by this society over generations many of us like myself can only find community by seeking it intentionally. If anyone here is fortunate enough to have a functional loving extended family than please work to make that family stronger and work with them to build a better world. But if like me you don't, why not build one?

[eacao]

Quick update on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border buildup and notes on the geopolitical context:

(1) Armenia's situation vis-a-vis Azerbaijan should be viewed in the context of the Azeri-Turkish desire to link their borders through the Zangezur corridor, which would require the annexation of the southernmost province of Armenia. Currently, the Armenian-controlled Syunik province borders Iran and separates Azerbaijan from Turkiye.

(2) Armenia has historically been a close ally for the Russians. This is not surprising given the context of its 20th-Century relationship with Turkiye, which was marked by the Armenian Genocide during the First World War, which culminated in perhaps 1-to-2 million dead Armenians (note the current Armenian population is ~3 million). You might view Armenia's situation -- tiny and landlocked -- as analogous to Israel hypothetically being bordered to its west by a victorious Third Reich, and to its east by an ally of the Third Reich. Russia has acted for the past 100 years as Armenia's patron and maintains a permanent military presence in the country. In return, Armenia has heretofore given Russia a loyal foothold in the Southern Caucus region. This relationship is undergoing some turbulence however, as Armenia prepares for military exercises with the United States https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/6 ... -us-troops.

(3) Iran, whose tensions with Turkiye and Israel are well-known (particularly in relationship to the Shia Corridor and Syria), has either pledged or alluded to (depending on the source) assistance for Armenia if Azerbaijan attacks. It may be predominantly driven by the desire to see Azerbaijan and Turkiye separated along its northern border, or the desire to keep the U.S. out of Armenia, or both.
In response, Turkiye has taken the public position that it will meet any Iranian intervention.

(4) India has also pledged some military aid to Armenia. This weapons delivery, amounting to an estimated $250m, is a significant sum given Armenia's post-Kabarakh War military buildup measures in the ballpark of perhaps half-a-billion dollars.
https://caspiannews.com/news-detail/ind ... 3-7-27-17/

Here are a few considerations on this fourth point:
(a) India depends on Israel for many high-end weapons systems. However, Israel is a major arms exporter to Azerbaijan and is unambiguously aligned with Turkiye (and opposed to Iran) on the Zangezur issue.
(b) The International North-South Transport Corridor, which connects Delhi to Moscow via Iran and Azerbaijan is an important geopolitical and economic endeavour for the Indians. It might then be surprising for the Indians to become committed in this conflict in favour of the Armenians, as opposed to retaining its neutrality in the hopes of threading the needle between Tehran and Baku.
(c) It's unclear to me where Armenia sits in NATO's books beyond Turkiye. Prime Minister Pashinyan has been in contact with Sholtz and Macron as the situation on the Azerbaijani border has developed. The Armenian Parliament is also set to vote on the Rome Statute, which would apparently require Armenian authorities to arrest Putin should he land on Armenian soil. This will be quite the development if ratified, considering Armenia is a member of the CSTO.

One reading of the situation might be as follows: Russia's preoccupation in Ukraine has left Armenia exposed. Azerbaijan, Turkiye, and Israel are ready to seize upon this opportunity. Understanding that Russia -- their historical patron -- is unable to guarantee their security, Armenia is speedily attempting to gain favour with the U.S. and Western Europe. Responding to the threat of an American presence on their northern border, Tehran is readying itself to intervene on Armenia's behalf and pick up the burden of the security guarantees that Russia is lapsing on. India has resolved to sustain Armenian independence and Armenian control over the Zangezur corridor, lest NATO acquire the power to unilaterally cut-off the Transport Corridor in the future (cough Nord Stream) in order to isolate Russia from its export markets, which would also cleave India from Russian commodities.