Cybernetics
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 841
- Reaction score
- 48
- Country
- Location
What should worry China and regional nations is not the economic aspect of this counter belt and road initiative but the security aspect. Economic development will have synergies, especially regarding basic infrastructure. It's a win-win for all involved.
I don't see the economic interests lining up for all nations. The underwriter in this group is undoubtedly the United States, thus interests of this arrangement will be aligned with the US. It is imperative for the US to keep international trade naval (due to its geographic location), keeping nations regional/isolated and maintain balance of power within the Eurasian continent, so long as it is the dominant naval military power.
This counter initiative will likely be aimed at tilting China's initiative vectors more towards the coast, away from connecting the interior (Central Asia), while increasing the naval aspect of development. There is still opportunities for synergies with China's and US's initiatives in this front. On the other hand the US will potentially render Central Asia in future years to become a security focal point rather than economic development by making it unprofitable/costly. This serves 2 main purposes: Realign development and prevent Eurasian integration .
Two main tools to do this: economic incentives (carrot) and military (stick). Belt and road was originally a hybrid of deep continental connectivity and naval trade routes. To be profitable it will depend much on private capital for operations, and private capital is sensitive towards risk adjust returns. With an economic realignment by America, trade routes will be entirely pointing outwards with nearly all value concentrated along the continental coast. Yes, on paper coastal development will be much more profitable but will cause severe structural issues for many countries that reach deep into the continent. Development of the continental interior is a major aspect of BRI. The application of formal military is merely a staging front for covert operations. On the surface nations of the continent and US will be cooperating on the security front (playing good cop), as there is not much choice, unless you want to oppose America. Overtly, the terrorist forces in Afghanistan will be decimated and mostly pushed out of the country (likely going north). Covertly various rebel groups (bad cop) will be supported as a proxy to contain remaining groups and initiate revolutions against Central Asian governments. Eventually creating insurgencies to justify the military presence. Official military presence is a mere logistics/intelligence system, real damage are the proxies who will render Central Asia a no investment zone and that is good enough for the counter belt initiative to be considered successful.
The fallout of military policy in Central Asia will be neighbouring nations locking down their borders and no significant trade through the continental interior will be possible. Not only will trade and investment be redirected towards the American dominated coastal regions, Eurasian political and military coordination becomes difficult as the incentive structure changes.
I don't see the economic interests lining up for all nations. The underwriter in this group is undoubtedly the United States, thus interests of this arrangement will be aligned with the US. It is imperative for the US to keep international trade naval (due to its geographic location), keeping nations regional/isolated and maintain balance of power within the Eurasian continent, so long as it is the dominant naval military power.
This counter initiative will likely be aimed at tilting China's initiative vectors more towards the coast, away from connecting the interior (Central Asia), while increasing the naval aspect of development. There is still opportunities for synergies with China's and US's initiatives in this front. On the other hand the US will potentially render Central Asia in future years to become a security focal point rather than economic development by making it unprofitable/costly. This serves 2 main purposes: Realign development and prevent Eurasian integration .
Two main tools to do this: economic incentives (carrot) and military (stick). Belt and road was originally a hybrid of deep continental connectivity and naval trade routes. To be profitable it will depend much on private capital for operations, and private capital is sensitive towards risk adjust returns. With an economic realignment by America, trade routes will be entirely pointing outwards with nearly all value concentrated along the continental coast. Yes, on paper coastal development will be much more profitable but will cause severe structural issues for many countries that reach deep into the continent. Development of the continental interior is a major aspect of BRI. The application of formal military is merely a staging front for covert operations. On the surface nations of the continent and US will be cooperating on the security front (playing good cop), as there is not much choice, unless you want to oppose America. Overtly, the terrorist forces in Afghanistan will be decimated and mostly pushed out of the country (likely going north). Covertly various rebel groups (bad cop) will be supported as a proxy to contain remaining groups and initiate revolutions against Central Asian governments. Eventually creating insurgencies to justify the military presence. Official military presence is a mere logistics/intelligence system, real damage are the proxies who will render Central Asia a no investment zone and that is good enough for the counter belt initiative to be considered successful.
The fallout of military policy in Central Asia will be neighbouring nations locking down their borders and no significant trade through the continental interior will be possible. Not only will trade and investment be redirected towards the American dominated coastal regions, Eurasian political and military coordination becomes difficult as the incentive structure changes.
