[Political Interest]

I am wanting to know about geopolitical doctrine.

A few questions:

1. What determines geopolitics and foreign policies of a state?

2. Does every state base its foreign policy and geo-strategy on the works of a theorist (MacKinder, Mahan, Spykman, Haushofer etc)?

3. Why does the UK not have many geopolitical options other than an Atlantic alliance?

[Decky]

For number 3 I would say that the UK does have other options but the fact that we are a one party state in all but name means that only one plan will be followed. There is no actual material reason that we could not have a go at lots of diferent things but while Lib-Con-Lab is in we will stick with this half way the EUs vassel state and have way the USAs vassel state thing we have going.

[Crantag]

In terms of the political side of the coin, I think that the most important theorists are still Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thucydides. Political realism, I think, remains the cornerstone in state governance on the international stage. As for the particulars such as containment and military tactical doctrines, I don't really have much to say. Perhaps these are to differing degrees abstractions or deviations (?).

[Igor Antunov]

I am wanting to know about geopolitical doctrine.

A few questions:

1. What determines geopolitics and foreign policies of a state?

2. Does every state base its foreign policy and geo-strategy on the works of a theorist (MacKinder, Mahan, Spykman, Haushofer etc)?

3. Why does the UK not have many geopolitical options other than an Atlantic alliance?

1) *Takes deep breath; Comparative national power in tandem with the extent of sovereignty that the presiding regime enjoys over its prescribed territory determines the propensity for independent foreign policy decision making in a self interested capacity.

For example, although the national power of Japan is far greater than that of Brazil, it's foreign policy options are far more limited due to geographic location, its giant neighbors, presence of US military infrastructure and personnel on its soil, etc. Japan's direction is locked in as it were, it is following a prescribed path dictated to it by larger powers. In short, context. Contextually Brazil is in a far stronger position, just as Russia is in Eastern Europe vs the scattered, bickering elements that are supposed to comprise NATO.

2) No. Controlling interests in a state will use any method to achieve their goals. They will only run into practical limits, there are no moral or ideological barriers to their actions. You have to remember these are not individuals, but organisations. Individuals can be driven by some very specific belief systems, but when part of an organisation that is diluted to nothing. Nobody feels responsible when a drone incinerates a bunch of kids in a school.

3) UK in theory has many options. But in practice the regime does not because it has delegated much of its foreign policy to decision makers in Washington, who in turn represent corporate interests which transcend national boundaries. The west and associated client states are controlled by an international cartel centered in the finance sectors of Europe and North America. The state in this context has become a tool, no longer does it drive policy. This is why sometimes we see counter-intuitive, self-destructive conduct on the part of countries such as the UK in the context of the EU and its trans-Atlantic relationship. Options are evident on the surface, but behind the scenes those bought off puppets in London are tangled up tight.

[SolarCross]

I am wanting to know about geopolitical doctrine.

A few questions:

1. What determines geopolitics and foreign policies of a state?

2. Does every state base its foreign policy and geo-strategy on the works of a theorist (MacKinder, Mahan, Spykman, Haushofer etc)?

3. Why does the UK not have many geopolitical options other than an Atlantic alliance?

1. There are many and diverse factors that determine foreign policy. As implied by the terms geo-politics and geo-strategics, geography plays an important role. Culture, demographics, resources, technology and the attributes of neighbouring states all have influences too.

2. I'd bet none of them do or not by much. Ultimately its intuitive game theory.

3. I'd say the UK has huge geopolitical options but in the context of the empire falling about us, WW2 and the cold war we got locked into the Atlantic Alliance through a combination of loss of confidence, expedience and exhaustion. Things are shifting though. One very long standing geo-strategic imperative for Britain is to prevent a Great Power from emerging on the continent. During the cold war we pursued that objective by helping western europe build itself up against the Soviets who at that time had the potential to become that Great Power on the continent. However now the EU has a life of its own and the Soviet Union is gone, the Great Power emerging on the continent is not Russia but the EU. I believe over the next decade the British establishment, Whitehall and the rest will pull out of the EU and begin actively undermining it as much as they can. If they don't then they will have failed to on that strategic imperative and Britain will surely be absorbed and cease to be a player.

[Harmattan]

1. What determines geopolitics and foreign policies of a state?

2. Does every state base its foreign policy and geo-strategy on the works of a theorist (MacKinder, Mahan, Spykman, Haushofer etc)?

3. Why does the UK not have many geopolitical options other than an Atlantic alliance?

1) The interests defended by those in power and how they conflict with foreign interests.
2) There are theorists because at some point you must rationalize some aspects of your foreign affairs and issue a long-term strategy. For example the broad lines on how to deal with China, how to address terrorism, when to use your nuclear weapons and how to answer to miscellaneous nuclear threats, etc.

[Emptyskin]

These questions almost seem like week one questions from an undergrad class. I hope the OP is not fishing for hw answers.

1. What determines geopolitics and foreign policies of a state?

Resources and mediating relationships of necessity. See: War and Peace Studies Project. It was conducted just before US entry into WWII and was conducted to determine how the US could compete with a Nazi Europe and a Soviet East Asia. Essentially, the Council on Foreign Relations and the State Department figured out what was the "national interest"; raw materials, finances, shipping, and strategic territories. This has evolved into 'dependence' which i call a 'relationship of necessity' (creating mutual dependence).

2. Does every state base its foreign policy and geo-strategy on the works of a theorist (MacKinder, Mahan, Spykman, Haushofer etc)?

No. I would venture to say that none do. Theorists analyze past events and attempt to generalize their assumptions into theories that are applicable throughout time and space. It is an open debate in the discipline in regards to the scientific merit of the social sciences. In other words, theories have dubious applicable value.

3. Why does the UK not have many geopolitical options other than an Atlantic alliance?

This is not a question that can be affirmed as it is a negative proposition. Why something is NOT the way that it is can be answered with an infinite amount of true statements, none of which hold any merit above any other; it is a reflection of giving into an implicit assumption in the premise that should be justified logically. If this is homework, I'd protest this question.

The UK might have geopolitical 'options' other than NATO. Soft power is pervasive and can be manifested in ways that are not immediately obvious. For instance, English finance capital is used all over the world and can be used in conjunction with geo-oriented things; loans for oil or agriculture are geopolitical.

[Mircea]

2. Does every state base its foreign policy and geo-strategy on the works of a theorist (MacKinder, Mahan, Spykman, Haushofer etc)?

No.

There are three issues here 1) not every State has a geo-strategy; 2) geo-strategies are never based on a theories; and 3) geo-strategy is separate and apart from foreign policy, yet specific foreign policy is designed to further the goals of geo-strategy.

1. What determines geopolitics and foreign policies of a state?

Geopolitics is not the same as geo-strategy, however both require the ability to project hegemony.

A State that cannot project hegemony has no geo-strategy and involvement in geopolitics is limited (see Sweden et al).

One of the major differences between geo-strategy and foreign policy is time-frame. Geo-strategy is far Future, meaning 25-35 years down the road, while foreign policy is the immediate and near Future.

3. Why does the UK not have many geopolitical options other than an Atlantic alliance?

Geography and Economics. The UK doesn't have the ability to succeed in global geo-strategy, unless it sells itself to the US.

The UK could be successful with a regional geo-strategy, but that would be limited to Canada/Europe. The UK could also be successful with threatre geo-strategy (States on the periphery like Iceland, France, Belium, the Netherlands and such).

[Political Interest]

For number 3 I would say that the UK does have other options but the fact that we are a one party state in all but name means that only one plan will be followed. There is no actual material reason that we could not have a go at lots of diferent things but while Lib-Con-Lab is in we will stick with this half way the EUs vassel state and have way the USAs vassel state thing we have going.

Regardless of party politics foreign policy is always variable. It does not exist solely based on ideology or on which party is in government. Would it be because the British security doctrine does not see any other possible alternative to the alliance with America?

In terms of the political side of the coin, I think that the most important theorists are still Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thucydides. Political realism, I think, remains the cornerstone in state governance on the international stage. As for the particulars such as containment and military tactical doctrines, I don't really have much to say. Perhaps these are to differing degrees abstractions or deviations (?).

I agree with you that realism is the most important factor in decision making. Ideology has very little to do with it and there are many cases where two states holding the same ideology can be in conflict. Often the ideology can even be specifically molded to contrast the opposing states ideology, for example China against the USSR during the Cold War.

1) *Takes deep breath; Comparative national power in tandem with the extent of sovereignty that the presiding regime enjoys over its prescribed territory determines the propensity for independent foreign policy decision making in a self interested capacity.

For example, although the national power of Japan is far greater than that of Brazil, it's foreign policy options are far more limited due to geographic location, its giant neighbors, presence of US military infrastructure and personnel on its soil, etc. Japan's direction is locked in as it were, it is following a prescribed path dictated to it by larger powers. In short, context. Contextually Brazil is in a far stronger position, just as Russia is in Eastern Europe vs the scattered, bickering elements that are supposed to comprise NATO.

Very good summary, thank you.

2) No. Controlling interests in a state will use any method to achieve their goals. They will only run into practical limits, there are no moral or ideological barriers to their actions. You have to remember these are not individuals, but organisations. Individuals can be driven by some very specific belief systems, but when part of an organisation that is diluted to nothing. Nobody feels responsible when a drone incinerates a bunch of kids in a school.

But does foreign policy not operate along certain guidelines set by analysis and through foreign policy doctrine?

3) UK in theory has many options. But in practice the regime does not because it has delegated much of its foreign policy to decision makers in Washington, who in turn represent corporate interests which transcend national boundaries. The west and associated client states are controlled by an international cartel centered in the finance sectors of Europe and North America. The state in this context has become a tool, no longer does it drive policy. This is why sometimes we see counter-intuitive, self-destructive conduct on the part of countries such as the UK in the context of the EU and its trans-Atlantic relationship. Options are evident on the surface, but behind the scenes those bought off puppets in London are tangled up tight.

Do you believe the UK could forge a more independent foreign policy in future?

1. There are many and diverse factors that determine foreign policy. As implied by the terms geo-politics and geo-strategics, geography plays an important role. Culture, demographics, resources, technology and the attributes of neighbouring states all have influences too.

Very interesting, thank you.

3. I'd say the UK has huge geopolitical options but in the context of the empire falling about us, WW2 and the cold war we got locked into the Atlantic Alliance through a combination of loss of confidence, expedience and exhaustion. Things are shifting though. One very long standing geo-strategic imperative for Britain is to prevent a Great Power from emerging on the continent. During the cold war we pursued that objective by helping western europe build itself up against the Soviets who at that time had the potential to become that Great Power on the continent. However now the EU has a life of its own and the Soviet Union is gone, the Great Power emerging on the continent is not Russia but the EU. I believe over the next decade the British establishment, Whitehall and the rest will pull out of the EU and begin actively undermining it as much as they can. If they don't then they will have failed to on that strategic imperative and Britain will surely be absorbed and cease to be a player.

Ah yes, Britain must always maintain its balance of power policy.

1) The interests defended by those in power and how they conflict with foreign interests.
2) There are theorists because at some point you must rationalize some aspects of your foreign affairs and issue a long-term strategy. For example the broad lines on how to deal with China, how to address terrorism, when to use your nuclear weapons and how to answer to miscellaneous nuclear threats, etc.

Good answer, thank you.

These questions almost seem like week one questions from an undergrad class. I hope the OP is not fishing for hw answers.

Not at all.

Resources and mediating relationships of necessity. See: War and Peace Studies Project. It was conducted just before US entry into WWII and was conducted to determine how the US could compete with a Nazi Europe and a Soviet East Asia. Essentially, the Council on Foreign Relations and the State Department figured out what was the "national interest"; raw materials, finances, shipping, and strategic territories. This has evolved into 'dependence' which i call a 'relationship of necessity' (creating mutual dependence).

Good explanation.

The UK might have geopolitical 'options' other than NATO. Soft power is pervasive and can be manifested in ways that are not immediately obvious. For instance, English finance capital is used all over the world and can be used in conjunction with geo-oriented things; loans for oil or agriculture are geopolitical.

It will be interesting to see what the future holds.

No.

There are three issues here 1) not every State has a geo-strategy; 2) geo-strategies are never based on a theories; and 3) geo-strategy is separate and apart from foreign policy, yet specific foreign policy is designed to further the goals of geo-strategy.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Geography and Economics. The UK doesn't have the ability to succeed in global geo-strategy, unless it sells itself to the US.

The UK could be successful with a regional geo-strategy, but that would be limited to Canada/Europe. The UK could also be successful with threatre geo-strategy (States on the periphery like Iceland, France, Belium, the Netherlands and such).

Do you believe the UK could pursue relations with Russia or some other continental power? Perhaps it could choose a European path with France?

[Mircea]

Regardless of party politics foreign policy is always variable.

But, of course!

Foreign Policy is akin to your day-to-day affairs. Geo-Strategy is comparable to your Life-Goals.

When we're young [hopefully] we have given some thought to what we want to achieve in life, and that is best done setting short-, mid- and long-term goals. Once we've chosen our goals, we formulate a plan to fulfill them. That plan might require some amount of tertiary education or additional training; relocation to another part of the State or to a foreign State, military service; volunteer work; and many other possibilities.

You can characterize Geo-Strategy as 100% proactive, whereas Foreign Policy tends to be very reactive, yet it can certainly be proactive. Things happen. Pregnancy. Marriage. Death. Someone important to you takes gravely ill, and you have to function as care-giver --- temporarily pausing your goals. Or maybe not. Even though there is a sudden change in your life, you may be able to continue moving toward your goals.

Often, opportunities arise, and we may or may not be prepared for them. We might be reluctant to seize an opportunity, but we do so anyway, because we know we have to, or that the opportunity may not present itself again for a very long time (if at all).

As you can see, the life of an individual, is much like a State in many respects. A business would be no different. It would have a long-term strategy and then a plan to function on a daily basis.

It does not exist solely based on ideology or on which party is in government.

That isn't entirely true.

US presidents have no power or control over the matter of Geo-Political Strategy. That is solely within the purview of the Bureaucracy. US presidents only have control over foreign policy, and constitutionally, they aren't even supposed to have that. That's the purview of the Secretary of State (Foreign Minister).

The Cabinet is supposed to function as a Check & Balance against presidential power. So, the Speaker of the House in consultation with the majority and minority party leaders and whips is to select qualified persons not based on their party affiliations, submit those names to the Senate, who then either affirms or rejects the nominees. You could say the Cabinet was intended to represent the People, and not be the president's sycophants. Wilson corrupted the Constitution with his temper tantrums (which is probably why he had a stroke).

Presidents are merely temporary employees. They're there 4 years, maybe 8 years. A bureaucrat come out of one of the prestigious (cough) Ivy League Schools, and spends the next 40 years working in government. During that time, s/he will see anywhere from 5 to 10 presidents.

While I used the analogy of Life-Goals, Geo-Political Strategy is more like a Chess Match.

How do you win at Chess? Simple, see the board and all the possible permutations, and then shape it as you need to win.

A Grand-Master like Gary Kasparov and see 80 moves in advance, plus nearly all permutations. Simply put, when you make your first move, he's already seen the next 80 possible moves in his mind.

Like Chess, once you commit, there is no turning back. If you open with King's Indian, you can't change strategy 20 moves later. You're stuck with that until the bitter end, unless you resign.

The first US Geo-Strategy was the Pacific Plan. That came about after the Spanish-American War, when the US acquired territories in the South Pacific. Africa was Europe's playground. So was the Middle East. Logically, it made sense for the US to continue its "Westward Expansion" without conflict with Europe. And don't forget that the guys who formulated this strategy, were raised in the late 1800s, when Westward Expansion and Manifest Destiny were the paradigms. They were taught/schooled by people who lived that.

By 1965, it was obvious that plan would fail. Korea was going nowhere, and ROC wasn't going to over-run the PRC, and both are stumbling blocks. So was the Soviet Union.

There were other problems as well. Inflation, massive debt, Bretton Woods failed to bury the Soviet Union and fossil fuels were becoming more relevant by the second.

Here is where ideology comes into play.

Trotsky is exiled and flees to Mexico City (Mexico).

A lot of Ivy League people are enamored with Trotsky and they send cables and visit quite often. He helps them found the Young People's Socialist League. That eventually degenerates into two factions: Trotskyites and another (whose name escapes me). The Young People's Socialist League then merges with one of the Social Democrat parties to become the YPSL/Social Democrats. What is important is that during the FDR Administration, these Trotskyites flock into government, mostly into the State Department.

By 1946, they have all moved up in the Bureaucracy, replacing the "Manifest Destiny Crowd." The YPSL part of their name is dropped and they are known simply as Social Democrats. They write most of the legislation that Truman enacts in 1948 creating the CIA and a number of other "Alphabet Agencies." They bring in their own people and dominate an entire section of the Bureaucracy. Eventually, it is they who pen most of the legislation for LBJ's "Great Society."

As that crumbles, they create a new Geo-Strategy focused on MENA (Middle East/North Africa) with the objective being the Kamchatka Peninsula.

One can drive from Tripoli to Kamchatka via Baghdad, Tabriz and Tashkent and see the US Flag flying the entire way.

To do that, the US has to gracefully bow out of the Pacific, which requires

bombing Hanoi to negotiate from a position of power;
eliminating Taiwan from the UN Security Council
replacing Taiwan with the PRC on the Security Council
eliminating Taiwan from the United Nations
replacing Taiwan with the PRC in the UN
kow-towing to save face for the assassination attempts against Chou En Lai
Kissinger giving PRC the "green-light" to invade India during the 1971 Pakistani-Indian War
supporting the PRC with Task Force 74
sending Nixon to the PRC
unilaterally withdrawing nuclear weapons from ROK -- the Lance Missile System and 8"/203mm AFAPs
exiting Vietnam
closing US military bases in the Philippines and other South Pacific locations
reducing troop strength in ROK
initiating action in MENA, including supporting Ghaddafi in the coup and then providing him with intelligence on coup and counter-coup attempts (also Tunisia)
abandoning the Gold Standard in favor of the Petro-Dollar
and the capping it off with the Carter Doctrine

It was Irving Kristol, William Kristol, Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Abrams et al who created the current Geo-Strategy.

In 1974, Kristol, who created the Great Society is heavily critical of it in an interview in the New York Times. He and his ilk are re-branded as "Neo-Conservative."

Neo-Trotskyite is much more accurate.

There are a few things to be learned from this history lesson.

Democrat Jimmy Carter has Neo-Conservatives -- these Neo-Trotskyites -- on his White House Staff (Brzezinski and Gary Sick to name but a few). They formulate the Carter Doctrine of unilateral US military action in the Persian Gulf Region. Republican Reagan has them. H Bush has them. Democrat Clinton has them. W Bush has them, and so does Obama.

In fact, Obama hired Neo-Trotskyite Tony Lake to be his foreign policy advisor during the 2008 Election Campaign. Lake was formerly the National Security Advisor for Bill Clinton.

Does changing political parties in the White House alter the Bureaucracy?

No, so it doesn't matter which party controls the elected government, what matters is which party/ideology controls [key elements of] the not-elected government --- The Bureaucracy.

That addresses this issue:

Would it be because the British security doctrine does not see any other possible alternative to the alliance with America?

If the British Bureaucracy is linked to the US Bureaucracy, then there is no alternative.

If the British Bureaucracy is not linked to the US Bureaucracy, but is ideologically sympathetic, then there is no alternative.

What I have been reading over the last several years, is that younger people in Britain look more toward Europe than to the Americas, and identify themselves more and more as Europeans instead of as Anglos, or having any other affiliation with the Americas.

If true, then you can only hope that they come to dominate those key parts of the British Bureaucracy that handles Geo-Strategy and Foreign Policy, including the intelligence agencies and national security agencies.

But does foreign policy not operate along certain guidelines set by analysis and through foreign policy doctrine?

Only to the extent that you have the Capital, assets and other resources necessary.

In this Modern Era, no Geo-Strategy can be successful without satellites.

How many States have satellites? How many even have the brain power and the money, to develop satellites? And then to maintain them? And then what about ground-based telemetry stations? That requires having facilities in Foreign States, which requires even more Capital and resources.

The City of Chicago is located within Cook County, Illinois. Cook County has a population that is 200,000 more people greater than the entire Kingdom of Norway.

How is Norway to protect their assets in the Pacific or the Atlantic with their brown-water navy that can't even operate more than 100 miles from Norway's shores?

Very obviously, few States can have a global Geo-Political Strategy. That doesn't preclude them from having a regional or theatre-based strategy, but it does require Capital, assets and resources to engage in that. Regionally would require Signal Intelligence. That's very costly.

As you can see, the majority of States are limited to a strategy based on those States on their borders (or perhaps a State beyond if one of the border States functions as a buffer-State).

Would you play Chess blind-folded? Then why engage in any regional or global strategy blind-folded?

Do you believe the UK could forge a more independent foreign policy in future?

But, of course! It's simply a matter of the UK wanting to do that, but that depends on who ---the ideology -- controls British government Bureaucracy.

[Mircea]

Do you believe the UK could pursue relations with Russia or some other continental power? Perhaps it could choose a European path with France?

I'm not sure I can be objective here, but I'll do my best.

Britain have a few things going for them: isolated by the Channel, a strong currency, naval projection of power and such.

Britain needs to capitalize on its strengths.

The best way to do that, is to decouple from the US completely. That includes dumping the $147 Billion worth of US treasury notes that Britain holds. "Dump" is not a good word, rather Britain should cease future investment, and as their treasury notes come due, to take the money and invest elsewhere, instead of rolling them over in US securities.

Neither France nor Russia will ever take Britain seriously, unless Britain starts investing more heavily in the Euro or Ruble.

An option Britain could exploit using ethnic affinity is aligning itself with Scandinavia.

Another option using ethnic or historical affinity would be aligning with the Netherlands and Germany.

France? Just can't see it. I seem to recall recent British monarchs speaking German, not French. When you scratch the veneer, France is not very stable politically or socially, and barely stable economically.

I would like to see Britain and Russia with more friendly relations, but I don't ever foresee either being staunch allies. The British actually have more in common with Romania, than Russia: both were colonized by the Romans; both were settled by retired legionnaires who were given land grants; both grew grapes and exported wine to Rome; both eventually repulsed the Romans, yet retained a great deal of Roman culture; and so on.

Another option would be for Britain to re-establish ties with sub-Saharan African States. Britain could pursue that independent of the US, the EU or BRICS and win, if they follow the example set by BRICS. If Britain continues using its current model, it will fail in sub-Saharan Africa.

There is no way for Britain to ever win, unless Britain totally abandons it current policies and especially the US policies and fully adopts BRICS' policies.

That requires Britain to share profits 50-50 or 60-40, with no games and no accounting shenanigans. It requires Britain to re-invest the majority of the 50% to 60% in profits it gets back into the host-State, instead of bringing those profits back to the UK. That requires building roads and rail roads, electrical power plants, electrical power lines, natural gas lines, water lines, sewage lines, telephone/fiber optics and assisting in the development of legal jurisprudence (which is what many 3rd and 4th World States lack).

The Future of Earth is the Southern Hemisphere, and specifically the Indian Ocean Region.

No one wants to admit that truth and reality, especially Europeans and even more so for Americans.

The 1st World effectively ejaculated prematurely. They're done. Continued relations with EU is pointless for Britain, since the EU is not going anywhere, except down. Britain certainly could ally itself with Russia, but there is no advantage for Britain. Although Russia will never achieve the Standard of Living currently in the EU, it will still rise higher nonetheless, passing the EU as the Standard of Living in the EU declines.

The Great Irony is that BRICS does as Jesus commanded, while the US and UK do everything Jesus said not to do. As an atheist, I find that sort of amusing.

Anyway, if Britain does as BRICS does, and is engaged in sub-Saharan Africa, then that opens the door in 10 to 20 years for Britain to expand to either South America or foster better relations with India.

The goal is for Britain to be able to sell/export goods to the 1 Billion people of sub-Saharan Africa, 1 Billion people in India, and 1 Billion people in South America, plus the 1 Billion Eastern Europeans.

That's not going to happen if Britain persists with US policies, since people making tuppence aren't going to be able to buy goods made by a Brit earning £35/hour.

See, the US policy of taking 100% of the profits back to the US to increase the Standard of Living and Wages for Americans has back-fired in their face, since 91% of the World cannot afford to buy US made goods. And Americans complain bitterly about jobs leaving the US. Too bad. BRICS policy of sharing profits and re-investing is paying off, and will pay-off forever, due to the fact that BRICS is engaging in bona fide nation-building, which increases the Standard of Living and Wages of the people of those States comparably with BRICS, so that BRICS will always have trading partners to export and import goods.

If Britain want to keep its jobs, or keep its Standard of Living, then Britain is going to have to start engaging in real development of States to lift the people of those States up to a point to where they can Buy British. That is not happening under present British policies. Britain needs to change, and fast, like 10 years ago.

I know for a fact that China caught the US totally by surprise.

China was expected to be a non-factor up through 2040-2050. Worse than that, China engaged the Russians and Indians and is working to expand its position. The result is that the US is frantically trying to stop globalization dead in its tracks.

How's that working out for everyone? Not good for Americans. The US always oppressed States politically, economically and socially. BRICS liberates States from the US, causing the Standard of Living and Wages for people in the liberated States to increase. That results in greater demand for commodities, inducing Demand-pull Inflation, which in turn forces the US Standard of Living to decline. And then the globalization itself leaves the US unable to compete globally.

How much longer can the US raise sufficient taxes to finance six carrier battle groups, plus two amphibious assault groups (and the other aircraft carriers under construction)?

It can't.....unless idiot States keep buying US government debt repackaged as securities.

Once the US is forced to mothball two of its carrier battle groups and one of its amphibious assault groups, the ability of the US to project its hegemony is diminished, and snowballs in decline from there.

That's why Britain needs to pursue its own independence and confine its relationships with States in the Southern Hemisphere.

[spodi]

1. Self interest, look at states as humans

2. Sure they may use certain IR theories but they also use concrete strategies that other nations have used that succeeded.

3. I think the U.K. limits their international cooperation because they value their autonomy. Just look at their relationship with the European Union. They're very pragamtic when it comes to situations in which they aren't in full control of.