July 03, 2022 9:39
Home Contact About Academy News Analytical Papers Academy Events Workshops & Conferences Information Resources Forum
Analytical Papers
Contours of geopolitic game 2011

As we know from history, the most simple (does not mean, that the best) a method of an output from a long economic crisis is war. So left crisis, having begun the First world, then the Second and the Third (which many researchers is understood as cold war and the disorder which has followed it of «socialist camp »). Many analysts during last year speak about the fast beginning of the Fourth which will differ appreciably from previous.
If first two wars  passed almost completely in traditionally power manner, the third except for a set of local conflicts (Chile, Cuba, Syria, Vietnam, Afghanistan etc) in many respects passed in information and in economic spaces.
The fourth war in this plan will be similar to the Third, except for that fact, that sides of the conflict will be not so are obviously expressed.
If in the Third war  it was clear, that there is a war between socialism and the capitalism, expressed in opposition of the USA and the USSR in the Fourth centers of influence and contradictory sides will be more (including implicit).
Already world war went to the Second in many respects not for the control over territories, and for the control over resources.
Germany desperately aspired to leave to oilfields and deposits metals, and allies in it actively prevented them.
The third war has been more concentrated in penetration on the markets and their monopolization, and in the Fourth again one of key instants will be (or already is) restriction of a possibility of opponents to get access to power resources (though both commodity markets, and technologies too, undoubtedly, are important).
I shall remind, that, according to Sergey Pereslegin, modern war has three equal directions – military, economic and ontologic (valuable, semantic, information).
So, it is possible to speak with a high degree of reliability that the Fourth world war has begun.
I shall prove it hardly late, but now, to come close to understanding theatre of operations, I shall designate a current disposition, basic "players", a side and a direction of conflicts, as well as "boards" on which they "play".
And also, whenever possible, shall outline an origin of each slice of a mosaic.
The most simple, traditional, model describes oppositions in a triangle of the USA – Russia, the USA – China, Russia – China.
Secondary,  opposition Russia – the European Union (which much was to be seen but which not so is simple as can seem as at Russia in the Europe it is a lot of allies).
Aleksword and the Adventurer fairly enter opposition of the USA – EU.
Which is especially actual after the USA have tried to solve the financial problems due to a robbery and destabilizations of the European markets (then Germany promptly began to improve attitudes with Russia).
Oppositions of the USA – Iran (it is possible to speak about the USA – « the Arabian fundamentalism », but I still think how it to designate) and the USA – Venezuela are indisputable also.
 Lindon Larush enters three new oppositions for  me which fundamentally change a picture of the world.
It is Britain – the USA (and in this light the accident caused by actions «BP», appears any more as accident and as brutal and inconceivable diversion), Britain – Russia (actually this opposition can be traced during centuries) and Britain – China (Britain – India too is meant, but not so it is expressed).
It is already possible to deduce two internal oppositions from them Britain – Germany and Britain – France.
But the picture constructed on these oppositions, will be not fully complete. Therefore it is necessary to allocate also and the unions (stationary and situational).
The first block of the unions which are not raising the doubts, is the USA – Israel, the USA – EU (ambiguous, and all is more negative perceived in the Europe) and the USA – Britain (though Britain always plays the game, and in many respects its actions are directed on destruction of the USA, but in many directions it remains their strategic the ally).
The second block of the unions is Russia – Iran (though Medvedev has made a heap of marasmic actions to please to the western owners that this union to destroy), Russia – India, Russia – Venezuela and Russia – China (here a situation too complex as there are both conflicts of interests, and their concurrences).
The third block is the countries engaging position subordinated to Britain – Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
Also in many respects destiny of a planet the shaped union Russia – Germany (the Russian energy carriers and German technologies) will be defining.
South Korea, Cuba, India, Pakistan, a number of other countries also applies for a role of players of the second plan.
As points of influence and uncertainty of data situation Turkey, Japan, Colombia, Georgia act also (the small and ridiculous Georgian devourer of ties is more, than on a puppet does not pull, and at any moment it is maybe displaced), now and Tunis and Egypt which positions are ambiguous and can change in the near future.
More recently the Chechen Republic and Kirghizia blew up. NINE countries of the European Union, being on the verge of a default, a number of the countries of Latin America, Africa and the Near East are astable also. Also it is not forgotten about zones of operations and occupations – Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Congo, and Somalia.
It’s impossible to consider Ukraine a zone of stability (for rockfall the Ukrainian economy and induction of  disorders to not give the next tranche of IMF enough, just little play with the prices for metal and-or still time to inflate prices on food stuffs and services of housing and communal services).
This review would be incomplete, if we have not designated a zone of interests of various players (at once it is possible to understand both interest, and an area of its embodiment).

Russia is interested in:
1.existence of some the buffer states among themselves and possible opponents;
2.unobstructed transit of hydrocarbons to the Europe and China;
3.an establishment of the control over a shelf in area of North Pole;
4.creation of arrangements with other countries extracting oil and gas (Kazakhstan, Venezuela, Iran, Some African countries etc)
5.Reception of technologies in exchange on raw materials.
About any expansion, gains, imperial ambitions and other horror stories cannot go and speeches – Moscow hardly supervises existing territories. Any attempt of expansion will lead to the further easing of controllability, and the "Kremlin" perfectly understands it.

The USA is interested in:
1.easing of all other players;
2.renewal and strengthening of the control over Latin America, as the resource colonies;
3.the control of the Near East and its stocks of oil;
4.depreciation of the external duty (and «shady deal» with  creditors)
5.Reduction of budgetary deficiency and stimulation of economy (that is maybe reached by several various ways.

China is interested in:
1.deliveries of hydrocarbons from Russia;
2.the American and European markets (something also is desirable to pay off more valuable, than dollar-candy wrapper, – however, They with advantage get rid of them;
3.extension of active investment in progress of deposits across all Africa;
4.an establishment of the control over marine trading ways in South China sea and a part of Indian ocean;
5.realizations of the territorial claims to India and a number of other countries;

Germany (the basic donor of EU) is interested in:
1.deliveries of hydrocarbons from Russia;
2.access on the European markets;
3.Minimization of the donor service in EU.

Britain is interested in:
1.easing of other players;
2.the further reception of profit from a piracy in area Somalia, in South China sea and in several places (proofs of their participation in a piracy – it is full);
3.the control of drug traffic  through Afghanistan, Colombia and other countries;
4.conservation of IMF, IBRD and FRS of USA, As tools of influence on the world finance;
5.Conservation of the control over an establishment of the price for gold (« fixing of the Rothschild »).

The European Union as a whole is interested in overcoming the crisis phenomena and stabilization of a situation. The question on expansion of EU is not necessary, and next few years will not rise.
Iran is interested in progress of the industry and power that will allow to expand the specification of the export goods, and it will make more balanced deliveries in the budget and will lower dependence on fluctuation of the prices for oil.
Having received, thus, more or less comprehensive idea of theatre of operations, we can predict possible versions of succession of events more precisely.
Alexander Rogers for “Academy of Open Society Security”.

© 2009 AOSS (Academy of Open Society Security)