Geopolitics : News and discussion

https://archive.ph/j7FRv

Observe the silence:

• No condemnation of US authorities’ harsh treatment of migrant protests.
• No acknowledgment of the protests’ peaceful nature.
• No calls for dialogue, no diplomatic visits, no threats of sanctions or cooled relations.
• No warnings about democratic backsliding, no objection to deploying the National Guard against citizens.

Contrast this with recent actions:

• A fiercely condemnatory stance toward Georgia’s government.
• Muted criticism of Turkey during the Istanbul protests.

The pattern? A three-tiered hypocrisy:

• Full condemnation for smaller states (Georgia).
• Tepid murmurs for regional players (Turkey).
• Deafening silence for Western hegemon (USA).

When responses shift this drastically based on geopolitics as opposed to principles, how can the EU claim to champion democracy or rule of law?

https://archive.ph/6wb79

Microsoft has closed its IoT & AI Insider Lab in Shanghai’s Zhangjiang hi-tech zone, marking the latest sign of the US tech giant’s retreat from China amid rising geopolitical tensions.

The Shanghai lab, meant to help with domestic development of the Internet of Things (IoT) and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, closed earlier this year, according to people who work in the Zhangjiang AI Island area.

The lab was dark and unoccupied during a recent visit by the South China Morning Post, with the logo removed and office equipment cleared out.

The area houses the offices of several Big Tech firms, including German chipmaker Infineon Technologies and Chinese internet search giant Baidu.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/27675348

Generated Summary:

Main Topic: The potential for a large-scale war between the United States and Iran, and the perspectives of Scott Ritter and Larry Johnson on the situation.

Key Points:

• Imminent War Threat: Reports suggest an imminent, large-scale US attack on Iran, potentially involving tactical nuclear weapons. This is driven by Iran's possession of 60% enriched uranium, which could be quickly converted into nuclear weapons.
• Iran's Actions: Iran's accumulation of 60% enriched uranium and statements by Iranian officials suggesting a near-term nuclear weapons capability are seen as provoking the US.
• US Justification: The US government views Iran's potential nuclear weapons program as an existential threat to Israel, justifying a preemptive strike.
• Consequences of War: Both Ritter and Johnson warn of catastrophic regional consequences, including potential escalation to a wider conflict involving Russia and China. They also predict devastating consequences for the Iranian people and regime.
• Alternative Perspectives: Johnson argues that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons and that the US has a history of aggression and false justifications for war. He also questions the US's assumptions about the fragility of the Iranian regime and the likelihood of a successful regime change.
• Role of Sanctions: Ritter highlights the weakening effect of long-term sanctions on the Iranian government, potentially making it more vulnerable to internal unrest.
• US Intentions: Both analysts believe the US is not genuinely interested in negotiation and is pursuing a regime-change operation in Iran.
• Russia's Role: Russia has warned against a US attack on Iran, but is unlikely to intervene militarily. The analysts discuss the strategic relationship between Iran and Russia, and how this could influence the situation.
• Unforeseen Consequences: Both analysts warn of unpredictable and potentially disastrous consequences for the entire Middle East if the US attacks Iran, including the potential for regional instability and the collapse of the Iranian regime.

Highlights:

• The passionate and sometimes heated debate between Ritter and Johnson, highlighting their differing perspectives on the situation.
• Ritter's strong warnings about the potential for a catastrophic war and his belief that Iran's actions have made a war more likely.
• Johnson's counterarguments emphasizing the US's history of aggression and the potential for unintended consequences.
• The discussion of the complex geopolitical dynamics involving the US, Iran, Russia, China, and Israel.
• The analysts' shared concern about the potential for massive loss of life and regional instability.

About Channel:

Dedicated to dialogue and peace!

At Dialogue works, we believe there’s nothing more unstoppable than when people come together.

This group’s mission is to create a global community of diverse individuals who will support, challenge, and inspire one another by providing a platform for Dialogue.

We encourage you to share your knowledge, ask questions, participate in discussions, and become an integral part of this little community. Together we can become a better community and provide our members with a much better experience.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave an interview with Megyn Kelly on 30 January 2025 which could signal the beginning of the end of America’s hegemonic security strategy. Rubio recognised that unipolarity, having one centre of power in the world, was a temporary phenomenon that has now passed:

“it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not – that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet”.

Rubio suggested that the hegemonic position of the US resulted in a weakening of the Westphalian system based on sovereign states, and replaced it with a globalist system where the US claimed the role of a world policeman:

“And I think that was lost at the end of the Cold War, because we were the only power in the world, and so we assumed this responsibility of sort of becoming the global government in many cases, trying to solve every problem”.

Rubio is referring to the end of the unipolar world order that emerged after the Cold War, and the need for the US to adjust to multipolar realities.

Arguably it was G. H. W. Bush who declared the start of the “new world order,” after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Something to keep an eye upon.

• Halford Mackinder, 1861–1947
• Nicholas Spykman, 1893–1943
• George Kennan, 1904–2005
• Henry Kissinger, 1923–2023
• Zbigniew Brzeziński, 1928–2017

Probably the first nation to do so.

5 eyes, hard at work.

Russia told everyone about America designs on Bangladesh. No one cared.