Messages

991

Off Topic / Re: ISIS Thread

« on: September 25, 2014, 11:07:32 pm »

If you want ground forces, you have some. They are called Syrian Arab Army and YPG. But our governments will prefer arming the same "rebels" that they have been arming for years now, the famous "moderate" jihadists.

992

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 25, 2014, 10:26:28 pm »

What is Ukraine anyway?

993

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 25, 2014, 08:41:15 pm »

You can debate the definition, but Geopolitics is a historical academic discipline, plus the word itself has a strong meaning since it combines politics and geography. So you can't give whatever definition you want. I have to stress that strategy isn't tactics, it includes politics. So saying that geostrategy is only a part of geopolitics is nonsense in itself.

994

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 25, 2014, 08:14:58 pm »

Because we disagree with Google.

995

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 25, 2014, 08:08:51 pm »

Geopolitics is simply analyzing the correlations between the geographical conditions and the evolution of a conflict.
It Doesn't mean to make politics based off geography.

That's rather what I would call geostrategy, because the historical basis of geopolitics is the idea that the organization and the behavior of a society is above all determined by the geographical environment, and that a country should follow its geographically determined "interests", and build its international policies on its geographical environment. You will find that in the works of the main geopolitical theoreticians (Ratzel, Mahan, Mackinder, Haushofer...). And it's opposed to strategy in general, because a strategy implies political objectives, and those objectives are politicially and ideologically determined. They are not determined by any geographical environement. Thus it's not surprising to see that those who still use this idea of geopolitics either confuse geopolitics and geostrategy or are far-right politicians such as Alexandr Dugin, trying to justify their nationalist/imperialist policies with non-scientific theories. Although you might read on Wikipedia that geostrategy is a derivative of geopolitics, this is totally wrong since many scholars clearly oppose geostrategy to geopolitics.

996

Off Topic / Re: James Foley and ISIS + Steven Sotloff + David Haines

« on: September 25, 2014, 07:49:26 pm »

+ Hervé Gourdel

997

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 25, 2014, 01:47:40 pm »

Indeed it's one of the softer sciences. That's why most people who study history tend to "describe" it. Then you have a few people who try to analyse it, with different methods such as "cultural history" or "historical materialism" (Marxism). But as you can see, unlike mathematics, it's very much ideologized.

998

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 25, 2014, 01:40:11 pm »

"Soft" science is the opposite of "Hard" science, or exact science. For example 1+1=2 is an exact knowledge obtained from a hard science, mathematics. However human organization is much more complex, and to study it you need to build theories from observation, praxis and reflexion. Those theories can be scientific, however they are "soft" because they are less accurate, much harder to modelize, and it's much easier to criticize it on the basic of a different paradigm or of different data or observation. Geography is actually more like an academic discipline than a "science". I would rather say that there is different geographic sciences, such as human geography and soil geography. The latter is probably "harder" than the former.

If you want to analyse international relations on a geographical basis, you will use "geostrategy" as opposed to "geopolitics". Although when people speak about geopolitics, they usually mean geostrategy.

999

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 25, 2014, 10:09:13 am »

Geography is a science. But just like history, or sociology, it's a "soft" science. However making politics on the basis of geography, which is the origin of "geopolitics", it totally non-scientific. The idea that all human relations are above all determined by the geographical environment is especially ridiculous. If you read people like Mackinder, you will just see that their theory are aimed at justifying the imperialist policies of their time, and nothing more. Today a lot of far-right people, like Aleksandr Dugin, use the same concept of geopolitics to justify their reactionary point of view.

1000

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 24, 2014, 10:12:31 pm »

You might have a slight impact in a democratic country by doing protests such as during the war in Vietnam.

At the moment the only people who have a strong impact on the war while maintaining to ability to change the situation dramatically more then anyone else are the people of Ukraine but as-long as a majority of the country supports the Kiev government then well... Good luck.

I guess you mean the western Ukrainians, inhabitants of Lviv and regions like that. Because we don't know what the majority of Ukrainians think exactly. And we can't even be sure about the population of the West. It's certain that a lot of them support Kiev, but how much exactly? We don't know. And they are probably too much affraid of the fascists to protest.

The effects of geography on international relations are very important.

What do you mean by "geography" exactly? The fact that Ukraine is between Germany and Russia? That doesn't look much like a scientifical explanation. Economics and politics are sufficient to explain the main lines of international relations. Geography, however, won't explain the difference between Putin and Kasparov, Yanukovyich and the Chocolate King. If you mean that we should analyse the situation as we would do with a battlefield map, you are right. But that's not what I would call geography.

1001

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 24, 2014, 03:39:25 pm »

I would say that Russia didn't had much choice. For Russia it's just unacceptable that NATO advances towards Russian borders. They already have Poland and the Baltic States and they are building their missile shield in Europe. So this attack on Russian interests from western powers demanded a strong answer, and that's what Putin did. And it worked quite well, because they routed the Ukrainian "army" and their fascist lackeys although all western media were repeating that the "anti-terrorist operation" wouldn't last more than a few days.

1002

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 24, 2014, 09:58:50 am »

There is many causes to this conflict and what you call geopolitics are only a part of it. Anyway I'm not a state and I don't have an army, so why should I care about that? My interest and the interest of the Ukrainian and even Russian populationp is the only thing that matter for me. The rest is quite meaningless. A conflict can have many solutions, including internal solutions. So it's not enough and it's wrong to say that the solution lies in geopolitics. The Ukrainian people, and everyone of us with our limited means, also determine the outcome of this war.

1003

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 24, 2014, 12:16:39 am »

It's obvious that if someone don't agree with those who elected him, he can't "represent" them very well. And there is different kinds of democratic systems. You can have "consensus democracy" in which a tiny minority can oppose a veto, but quite often democracy is rather about the victory of 51% of the population against 49%, and how you reach those 51% depends on the country. If you are right-wing and have a strong far right in your country, your will probably lean to the right. That's not consensus democracy, quite the contrary actually.

1004

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 23, 2014, 09:32:55 pm »

That's rather a problem of democracy. What we usually mean by self-determination is the possibility to determinate as a people or as a nation, i.e. the fact that the internal problems of a people are decided amongst this people and not by foreign powers. The question of who rules inside this country comes after that, it's secondary since democracy would be pointless if your country is ruled by foreign powers. This is true for the Ukrainian eastern regions of course, those guys felt oppressed after Maidan's victory. However we have to recognize that this is also true for the western Galicians, who feel oppressed by Russia. We mustn't forget that, no matter which side we support in this war.

1005

Off Topic / Re: Ukraine

« on: September 23, 2014, 07:37:22 pm »

The right of people to self-determination isn't a question of morale, it's a political principle (or position) and the best way to solve the national question in general. For this very reason we should all support the right to self-determination. Of course both sides can argue that they respect this right, but both don't, and the western side especially doesn't.

The right to self-determination is the right to decide for your own people, and this imply that you can choose separation, autonomy, or something different. The right to self-determination doesn't necessarily mean independance, it means freedom to decide. So as long as you refuse the right of a population to hold a free referendum on its future, with options such as autonomy and independance, or even union, this right isn't respected. A population can't refuse self-determination. They can refuse independance, but they can't refuse self-determination.

Had the eastern Ukrainians been given the freedom to vote at the very beginning of this conflict, the overwhelming majority would have refused secession and probably chosen more autonomy. All opinion polls proved that. Ukraine would have remained united this way. But since the Kievan so-called nationalists refused any kind of compromise, and tried to crush the rebellion with the most violent means, and since they made this crackdown on Russian language, they lost everything. They lost Crimea, and important cities in the East, and above all their national pride. What a pity for a "nationalist"!

Of course imperialist interests in the West, and also in the East, don't care about the right of people to self-determination (except when it's in their interest). But I don't own a coal mine or a pipeline, I'm a simple citizen as probably most people on this forum. So when I defend the right of people to self-determination, it's not a question of morale, it's in my interest, and in the interest of the overwhelming majority of the population of Ukraine.

It's probably not in the interest of the Chocolate King indeed. It's not even in the interest of Russian oligarchs. I understand perfectly why they go at war, but I'm not playing a wargame with them. Also note that in the USSR geopolitics as an academic discipline were forbidden and considered fascist. That's not what you meant of course, but that's probably what the duginists mean when they talk about geopolitics.