Next 100 years: Stratfor-George Friedman

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,657
Likes
3,909
Country flag
One thing the guy has said & I truly agree is "US Navy controls the entire water on the planet".
Can't predict after 100 years from today but atleast for next 50yrs US is going to rule every ocean on the map influencing any geopolitical ambitions. US Navy might is unchallenged so far. They have freaking 11 Aircraft Carriers ready to split fire in any part of the world. And we are still dreaming about Blue Water capabilities. Naval powers means alot in terms of any Nation's influence over the globe.

We can't forget that today China won't take any radical strike on us because we have absolute control over their oil route in IO as our Naval Force is potent & experienced.
Likewise USN has influence over every ocean on the map. USN's response time is very short in any part of globe.
We might develop completely invisible stealth fighter or missile shooting at MACH 10 but as far as Naval experience is considered USN is unquestionably maturest than any other country.

This guy is right about this point & naturally its implications aren't looking obsolete in near future.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,657
Country flag
Is he not the same guy who also named Poland??
Pretty funny wasn't it? He thinks Poland will be the next Korea in power and Israel in defence technology just because they bought a couple squadrons of F-16s and border fake Russian agression. It is rather like saying Pakistan will be the hub of new defence technology just because they are caught in a war zone. lol The prediction must be dated since Poland won't get the interceptors he was hoping for. Poland has signed a couple JV deals with India, but is nothing big. Their defence exports are still just improvements over Soviet design.
 

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,813
Likes
6,657
Country flag
One thing the guy has said & I truly agree is "US Navy controls the entire water on the planet".
Can't predict after 100 years from today but atleast for next 50yrs US is going to rule every ocean on the map influencing any geopolitical ambitions. US Navy might is unchallenged so far. They have freaking 11 Aircraft Carriers ready to split fire in any part of the world. And we are still dreaming about Blue Water capabilities. Naval powers means alot in terms of any Nation's influence over the globe.

We can't forget that today China won't take any radical strike on us because we have absolute control over their oil route in IO as our Naval Force is potent & experienced.
Likewise USN has influence over every ocean on the map. USN's response time is very short in any part of globe.
We might develop completely invisible stealth fighter or missile shooting at MACH 10 but as far as Naval experience is considered USN is unquestionably maturest than any other country.

This guy is right about this point & naturally its implications aren't looking obsolete in near future.

It is pretty obvious the USN dominates the world's oceans today. The question is will the US be able to afford such a huge navy and military with their large debt load. By 2020 the US will be paying $1 trillion in debt payments just to cover the interest. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have drained the procurement budget for big ticket items, another one of their carriers will be retired without replacement in the current QDR. The SSN fleet is being cut in half. The CAGs have squadron shortfalls. The DD(X) are only going to three builds and the CG(X) is all but cancelled. The LCS is just a big expensive corvette that is underarmed. The NLOS-LS that was supposed to go on it is a total failure. The Ticos are being retired with only half the number of DDG-51s to replace them. The SSGNs will not be replaced. That is what is based on a $700+ billion defence budget with a 3% growth curve every year. There is no way they are going to sustain that spending over the coming decades. If they want to get spending under control to stave off a default they will have to cut the budget drastically.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
Stratfor George Friedman in "Next Decade'--about India

The Indo-Pakistani balance is being destabilized in Afghanistan, a complex war zone where American troops are pursuing two competing goals, at least as stated officially. The first is to prevent al Qaeda from using Afghanistan as a base of operations; the second is to create a stable democratic government. But denying terrorists a haven in Afghanistan achieves little, because groups following al Qaeda's principles (al Qaeda prime, the group built around Osama bin Laden, is no longer fully functioning) can grow anywhere, from Yemen to Cleveland. This is an especially significant factor when the attempt to disrupt al Qaeda requires destabilizing the country, training the incipient Afghanistan army, managing the police force of Afghan recruits, and intruding into Afghan politics. There is no way to effectively stabilize a country in which you have to play such an intrusive role.

Unscrambling this complexity begins with recognizing that the United States has no vital interest in the kind of government Afghanistan develops, and that once again the president cannot allow counterterrorism to be a primary force in shaping national strategy.

But the more fundamental recognition necessary for ensuring balance over the next ten years is that Afghanistan and Pakistan are in fact one entity, both sharing various ethnic groups and tribes, with the political border between them meaning very little. The combined population of these two countries is over 200 million people, and the United States, with only about 100,000 troops in the region, is never going to be able to impose its will directly and establish order to its liking.

Moreover, the primary strategic issue is not actually Afghanistan but Pakistan, and the truly significant balance of power in the region is actually that between Pakistan and India. Ever since independence, these two countries partitioned from the same portion of the British Empire have maintained uneasy and sometimes violent relations. Both are nuclear powers, and they are obsessed with each other. While India is the stronger, Pakistan has the more defensible terrain, although its heartland is more exposed to India. Still, the two have been kept in static opposition—which is just where the United States wants them. :mrgreen:

Obviously, the challenges inherent in maintaining this complex balance over the next ten years are enormous. To the extent that Pakistan disintegrates under U.S. pressure to help fight al Qaeda and to cooperate with U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the standoff with India will fail, leaving India the preeminent power in the region. The war in Afghanistan must inevitably spread to Pakistan, triggering internal struggles that can potentially weaken the Pakistani state. This is not certain, but it is too possible to dismiss. With no significant enemies other than the Chinese, who are sequestered on the other side of the Himalayas, India would be free to use its resources to try to dominate the Indian Ocean basin, and it would very likely increase its navy to do so. A triumphant India would obliterate the balance the United States so greatly desires, and thus the issue of India is actually far more salient than the issues of terrorism or nation-building in Afghanistan.

That is why over the next ten years the primary American strategy in this region must be to help create a strong and viable Pakistan. The most significant step in that direction would be to relieve pressure on Pakistan by ending the war in Afghanistan. The specific ideology of the Pakistani government doesn't really matter, and the United States can't impose its views on Pakistan anyway.

Strengthening Pakistan will not only help restore the balance with India, it will restore Pakistan as a foil for Afghanistan as well. In both these Muslim countries there are many diverging groups and interests, and the United States cannot manage their internal arrangements. It can, however, follow the same strategy that was selected after the fall of the Soviet Union: it can allow the natural balance that existed prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan to return, to the extent possible. The United States can then spend its resources helping to build a strong Pakistani army to hold the situation together.

Jihadist forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan will probably reemerge, but they are just as likely to do so with the United States bogged down in Afghanistan as with the U.S. gone. The war simply has no impact on this dynamic. There is a slight chance that a Pakistani military, with the incentive of U.S. support, might be somewhat more successful in suppressing the terrorists, but this is uncertain and ultimately unimportant. Once again, the key objective going forward is maintaining the Indo-Pakistani balance of power.

As in the case of stepping back from Israel, the president will not be able to express his strategy for dealing with Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India openly. Certainly there will be no way for the United States to appear triumphant, and the Afghan war will be resolved much as Vietnam was, through a negotiated peace agreement that allows the insurgent forces—in this case the Taliban—to take control. A stronger Pakistani army will have no interest in crushing the Taliban but will settle for controlling it. The Pakistani state will survive, which will balance India, thus allowing the United States to focus on other balance points within the region.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
Stratfor George Friedman in "Next Decade'--about India-2

INDIA

It is in the context of the western Pacific that we should consider India. Despite its size, its growing economy, and the constant discussion of India as the next China, I simply do not see India as a significant player with deep power in the coming decade. In many ways, India can be understood as a very large Australia. Both countries are economically powerful—obviously in different ways—and in that sense they have to be taken quite seriously.

Like Australia, India is a subcontinent isolated geographically, although Australia's isolation, based on thousands of miles of water, is much more visible. But India is in its own way an island, surrounded by land barriers perhaps less easily passable than oceans. The Himalayas block access from the north, and hilly jungles from the east. To the south, it is surrounded by the Indian Ocean, which is dominated by the United States Navy.

The biggest problem for India lies to the west, where there is desert, and Pakistan. That Islamic nation has fought multiple wars with the predominantly Hindu India, and relations range from extremely cool to hostile. As we saw in my discussion of Afghanistan, the balance of power between Pakistan and India is the major feature of the subcontinent. Maintaining this balance of power is a significant objective for the United States in the decade to come.

India is called the democratic China, which, to the extent that it is true, exacts a toll in regional power. One of the great limitations on Indian economic growth, impressive as it has been, is that while India has a national government, each of its constituent states has its own regulations, and some of these prevent economic development. These states jealously guard their rights, and the leadership guards its prerogatives. There are many ways in which these regions are bound together, but the ultimate guarantor is the army.

India maintains a substantial military that has three functions. First, it balances Pakistan. Second, it protects the northern frontier against a Chinese incursion (which the terrain makes difficult to imagine). Most important, the Indian military, like the Chinese military, guarantees the internal security of the nation—no minor consideration in a diverse country with deeply divided regions. There is currently a significant rebellion by Maoists in the east, for instance, just the sort of thing that it is the army's job to prevent or suppress.

On the seas, the Indians have been interested in developing a navy that could become a major player in the Indian Ocean, protecting India's sea-lanes and projecting Indian power. But the United States has no interest in seeing India proceed along these lines. The Indian Ocean is the passageway to the Pacific for Persian Gulf oil, and the United States will deploy powerful forces there no matter how it reduces its presence on land.

To keep Indian naval development below a threshold that could threaten U.S. interests, the United States will strive to divert India's defense expenditure toward the army and the tactical air force rather than the navy. The cheapest way to accomplish this and preempt a potential long-range problem is for the United States to support a stronger Pakistan, thus keeping India's security planners focused on the land and not the sea.

By the same token, India is interested in undermining the U.S.-Pakistani relationship or, at the very least, keeping the United States in Afghanistan in order to destabilize Pakistan. Failing that, India may reach out to other countries, as it did to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Pakistan does not represent an existential threat to India, even in the unlikely event of a nuclear exchange. But Pakistan is not going to simply collapse, and therefore will remain the persistent problem that India's strategic policy will continue to pivot on.

India lags behind China in its economic development, which is why it is not yet facing China's difficulties. The next decade will see India surging ahead economically, but economic power by itself does not translate into national security. Nor does it translate into the kind of power that can dominate the Indian Ocean. American interests are not served by making India feel overly secure. Therefore, U.S.-Indian relations will deteriorate over the next ten years, even as the United States leaves Afghanistan and even as U.S.-Indian trade continues.
 

warriorextreme

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
1,790
Likes
2,484
Country flag
Stratfor George Friedman in "Next Decade'--about India-2

INDIA

It is in the context of the western Pacific that we should consider India. Despite its size, its growing economy, and the constant discussion of India as the next China, I simply do not see India as a significant player with deep power in the coming decade. In many ways, India can be understood as a very large Australia. Both countries are economically powerful—obviously in different ways—and in that sense they have to be taken quite seriously.

Like Australia, India is a subcontinent isolated geographically, although Australia's isolation, based on thousands of miles of water, is much more visible. But India is in its own way an island, surrounded by land barriers perhaps less easily passable than oceans. The Himalayas block access from the north, and hilly jungles from the east. To the south, it is surrounded by the Indian Ocean, which is dominated by the United States Navy.

The biggest problem for India lies to the west, where there is desert, and Pakistan. That Islamic nation has fought multiple wars with the predominantly Hindu India, and relations range from extremely cool to hostile. As we saw in my discussion of Afghanistan, the balance of power between Pakistan and India is the major feature of the subcontinent. Maintaining this balance of power is a significant objective for the United States in the decade to come.

India is called the democratic China, which, to the extent that it is true, exacts a toll in regional power. One of the great limitations on Indian economic growth, impressive as it has been, is that while India has a national government, each of its constituent states has its own regulations, and some of these prevent economic development. These states jealously guard their rights, and the leadership guards its prerogatives. There are many ways in which these regions are bound together, but the ultimate guarantor is the army.

India maintains a substantial military that has three functions. First, it balances Pakistan. Second, it protects the northern frontier against a Chinese incursion (which the terrain makes difficult to imagine). Most important, the Indian military, like the Chinese military, guarantees the internal security of the nation—no minor consideration in a diverse country with deeply divided regions. There is currently a significant rebellion by Maoists in the east, for instance, just the sort of thing that it is the army's job to prevent or suppress.

On the seas, the Indians have been interested in developing a navy that could become a major player in the Indian Ocean, protecting India's sea-lanes and projecting Indian power. But the United States has no interest in seeing India proceed along these lines. The Indian Ocean is the passageway to the Pacific for Persian Gulf oil, and the United States will deploy powerful forces there no matter how it reduces its presence on land.

To keep Indian naval development below a threshold that could threaten U.S. interests, the United States will strive to divert India's defense expenditure toward the army and the tactical air force rather than the navy. The cheapest way to accomplish this and preempt a potential long-range problem is for the United States to support a stronger Pakistan, thus keeping India's security planners focused on the land and not the sea.

By the same token, India is interested in undermining the U.S.-Pakistani relationship or, at the very least, keeping the United States in Afghanistan in order to destabilize Pakistan. Failing that, India may reach out to other countries, as it did to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Pakistan does not represent an existential threat to India, even in the unlikely event of a nuclear exchange. But Pakistan is not going to simply collapse, and therefore will remain the persistent problem that India's strategic policy will continue to pivot on.

India lags behind China in its economic development, which is why it is not yet facing China's difficulties. The next decade will see India surging ahead economically, but economic power by itself does not translate into national security. Nor does it translate into the kind of power that can dominate the Indian Ocean. American interests are not served by making India feel overly secure. Therefore, U.S.-Indian relations will deteriorate over the next ten years, even as the United States leaves Afghanistan and even as U.S.-Indian trade continues.
why he thinks India wants to dominate whole Indian ocean??
we are not USA or China to dominate others...India just wants peace and nothing else...

and secondly we are spending a lot more on navy too but not to dominate whole Indian ocean but just to secure our interests in Indian ocean.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
why he thinks India wants to dominate whole Indian ocean??
we are not USA or China to dominate others...India just wants peace and nothing else...

and secondly we are spending a lot more on navy too but not to dominate whole Indian ocean but just to secure our interests in Indian ocean.
you can secure ur interests in indian ocean only by dominating it otherwise not.Indian ocean is india's backyard so its important for india to dominate it.otherwise u'll be dominated in ur own backyard.At present its usa.if usa goes someone has to fill that power vaccum.
 

warriorextreme

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
1,790
Likes
2,484
Country flag
you can secure ur interests in indian ocean only by dominating it otherwise not.Indian ocean is india's backyard so its important for india to dominate it.
i disagree..
you need not dominate something to secure it...
this dominating mentality is sick.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
i disagree..
you need not dominate something to secure it...
this dominating mentality is sick.
well other countries around u dont think like u.so either u've to dominate or u get dominated.there is no middle go.
 

warriorextreme

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2010
Messages
1,790
Likes
2,484
Country flag
well other countries around u dont think like u.so either u've to dominate or u get dominated.there is no middle go.
other countries around us in indian ocean are so much in their own shit that they cant even dominate their own people...
so india should choose to increase security of her shores..
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
721
other countries around us in indian ocean are so much in their own shit that they cant even dominate their own people...
so india should choose to increase security of her shores..
That coz usa is sitting there in Diego Garcia.And if usa goes there can only be two powers who can fill that gap china or india.India cant allow china to dominate its backyard.
 

sandeepdg

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
2,333
Likes
226
The world is too great a place to compiled in a nutshell by the predictions of one man as to what will happen in the next 100 years !! Though some of his logic is ok, but for most, we can say, that the world changes so fast, nobody can accurately predict as to what will happen tomorrow, forget 50-100 years. Though, what he said, about India, Pakistan and US is true to some extent, but I would love to see that India tilt the balance of power in its favor for the long term, all over the Indian subcontinent and the IOR, even though the Diego Garcia base sits on our backyard, but that doesn't mean we will stand down.
 

mrtopcopy

New Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
4
Likes
0
I just would like to say: maybe it is reasonable and makes sense to predict the things in 10 or 20 years; but if doing the predictions in 100 years, it is the bullshit.
 

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,809
Likes
652
Stupid people! the world is going to end in less than 2 years.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top