Shifting strategic alliances

[BlandOatmeal]

BLAME THE JEWS (yet again)

I mentioned in "THE KERRY AND BERRY SHOW", that it's difficult nowadays to tell who's on who's side. I cited France, the US and Turkey as countries that are so much in political flux, it's probably not good to judge them until the dust settles.

As for France, this is a "Western" country which has sometimes sided with Washington, and sometimes steered an independent course. At present, France is very closely allied to the UK, with whom it shares its military equipment. Politically, however, it has recently made overtures to Israel and Saudi Arabia, and balked at cooperation with the latest Obama darling, Iran. In this, it seems to be alone among the European powers, who, if the press is to be believed, are all hot to trot to start joint business ventures with the Ayatollah.

All that said, I don't know where to place France, because President Hollande has approval ratings worse than Barack Obama's, and people are starting to demonstrate in the streets -- BLAMING THE JEWS FOR THEIR PROBLEMS, as is to be expected in Europe. I think I've said this before; but if I were a Jew, I would not feel safe anywhere but in Israel:

Hate-Filled Protest in France Attracts Thousands; Crowd Chants ‘Jew, France Is Not for You!’ (VIDEO)
January 27, 2014 2:45 pm

-- Hate-Filled Protest in France Attracts Thousands; Crowd Chants 'Jew, France Is Not for You!' (VIDEO) | Jewish & Israel News Algemeiner.com

Marchers abuse Jews as protests against Hollande turn violent

​

Adam Sage Paris
Published at 12:01AM, January 28 2014

-- Marchers abuse Jews as protests against Hollande turn violent | The Times

Zechariah 14
[1] Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
[2] For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

"All" includes France -- AND the US. This is happening today.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

WHOSE SIDE ARE THE RUSSIANS ON?

"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."

George Orwell

-- Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. - George Orwell at BrainyQuote

MAP SOURCE: Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
​

In Orwell's fictional work "1984", the world had three main powers: Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. Oceania was always the most powerful country, though it portrayed itself as eternally locked in an existential struggle with one of the others. Of course, it was always also ALLIED with the "other other"; so in reality, it always enjoyed an easy advantage. In addition to these three powers was a nebulous fifth columnist named Emanuel Goldstein, who was blamed for everything that went wrong in Oceania.

Eurasia today is, of course, Russia; and Eastasia is China (Though with an official word from Washington, Eurasia could morph into the EU and Eastasia into Japan). Emanuel Goldstein is, of course, nameless, faceless "Terrorism", with which all the players are eternally at war. Note that Emanuel Goldstein has a Jewish name, even though most terrorists today are Muslims. That's because the propaganda world we live in today is primarily, as was 1984, fictional. In a few years at most, don't be surprised to see "Terrorism" described as a JEWISH plot -- but I digress. I want to talk right now about Russia and China.

The following article has recently come up:

China and Russia may hold joint naval drill in the Mediterranean

"Russia and China have agreed to conduct a joint naval drill in the Mediterranean Sea, a Russian media report cites the Defense Ministry. The countries’ fleets are currently involved in an intl operation to escort the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile..."

Jan-19-2014

-- LiveLeak.com - China and Russia may hold joint naval drill in the Mediterranean

Should we be afraid, very afraid? Are the Russians and Chinese ganging up on us, in Cold War fashion? I don't think so. Read the article, and see how this "joint naval drill" idea got started. It came from Russian and Chinese crewmen chatting together while carrying out a joint mission in the Mediterranean. That mission was to escort NATO nation ships transporting chemical weapons from Syria for destruction.

Russia and China have also conducted joint exercises in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Those were held last year, when Eastasia was (contrary to Orwell-but only if one considers Eastasia to be China and Eurasia to be Russia) allied with Eurasia. They were allied in a union called the "Shanghai Cooperation Organization" (SCO), drawn up to counter US-European-Japanese domination of the world. Of course, if one were to consider Japan to be Eastasia and Western Europe to be Eurasia, Oceania would have been allied to both -- something very non-Orwellian. As a compromise, we can say that the SCO was "Eurasia", and that we (Oceania) were allied with Eastasia (Japan).

Today, as these Russian and Chinese warships escorting NATO vessels seem to show, nobody is against anyone (except Goldstein, in the "War on Terror"). The reality is, however, that there MUST be an Eastasia or Eurasia with whom we are at war, in order for all parties to keep their citizenry continually in fear. Now, and in the forseeable future, therefore, we are allied with Russia against China. That is what Obama's "Pivot to Asia" is all about; and China has been portrayed as the cause of America's woes in both Presidential elections after the Economic Downturn of 2008.

Some other Russia-NATO exercises:

NATO, Russia hold joint anti-terror exercise in Poland
25/09/13 18:37 CET

-- NATO, Russia hold joint anti-terror exercise in Poland | euronews, Europe

22 January, 09:59
Russia-US military cooperation plan provides for training all arms and services

-- Russia-US military cooperation plan provides for training all arms and services - News - Politics - The Voice of Russia: News, Breaking news, Politics, Economics, Business, Russia, International current events, Expert opinion, podcasts, Video

Russia and NATO to hold joint drills
Published on May 29, 2013

This autumn, Russia and NATO will hold joint military exercise in the Black Sea.

[youtube]FZ2RsENSIwo[/youtube]

-- Russia and NATO to hold joint drills - YouTube
​

NATO and Russia defend the skies together
October 2, 2013 Ivan Nikolaev, RBTH

-- NATO and Russia defend the skies together | Russia Beyond The Headlines

PS. Notice that the Russian spokesperson said the drill was to practice fighting "terrorism" (read, "Goldstein")

 

[BlandOatmeal]

US & ISRAEL: BEST OF FRIENDS??

If one were to judge the goings-on in the world, based on joint military exercises conducted by countries, one would have to conclude that the US and Israel were the best of friends (and ditto for the Russians and Chinese):

Israel holds largest ever joint military exercises together with US-and ...

[youtube]Fnh_s_N8CAU[/youtube]

Israel holds largest ever joint military exercises together with US-and-Greek forces - YouTube
​

I don't see it that way. There is no way that the US can continue embracing friendship with the Iranians, as Mr. Obama has clearly been doing, and at the same time be a true friend of the people Iran has said, over and over again,it wants to destroy -- namely, Israel.

Here's what the Bible says about Obama and his ilk:

2 Tim 3
[1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
[4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
[5] Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Right now, Obama is talking out of both sides of his mouth -- being a friend of Israel one minute, and a friend of Iran the next. In the meantime, a joint exercise was carried out -- by partners who no longer trust one another.

Meanwhile,

Kazakhstan is in orange. Israel, the "superpower that threatens the whole world", is in green. Can you find it?
​

Israel, Kazakhstan sign security cooperation agreement
By YAAKOV LAPPIN
01/22/2014 02:11

-- Israel, Kazakhstan sign security cooperation agreement | JPost | Israel News

Kazakhstan is allied with Russia, who is allied with Iran. It seems that everyone is hedging their bets nowadays.

We live in a wicked world.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

THE ENIGMA OF TURKEY... and everyone else

In the early 1970s, when the Vietnam War and Antiwar Movement were both dying down, I gave my Army uniform to the community freebox, and went to live a hermit-like existence in the temperate rain forest. As far as I was concerned, and many Americans with me, the Cold War had already ended. We were finished trying to prop up petty dictatorships in the name of "freedom"; it was now the Russians' turn to fill that role in places like Afghanistan and Nicaragua.

Life went on after Vietnam. It took the Russians another 15 years or so, to realize that the game had changed; and when they did, hardly anyone really noticed. Reagan and Gorbachev were talking about this and that, new buzzwords like "glaznost" and "perestroika" hit the press; and there were strikes in Poland, followed by disturbances in East Germany. We had seen this all before: Nixon going to Russia in the 1970s, the "Prague Spring" of 1968, yada yada. When the Berlin wall came tumbling down, most people were caught sleeping; and even after that, it took a few years to adjust to the fact that the old regime had passed away.

One thing I noticed, after this "Cold War to End all Wars", was that once the Russians and Americans stopped sniping at one another, the number of wars in the world multiplied. In Africa, over 5 million people died in the 90s and 00s, in an orgy of rape, AIDS, cholera and unabated slaughter of neighbor by neighbor with AK-47s and machetes. In the Middle East, the Egypt-Israel peace accord was followed by years of genocidal fighting between the Iranians and Iraqis. Then, a relatively peaceful Israel made "peace" with the Arabs living among them, only to see years of rocket attacks and suicide bombings by their now "peaceful" neighbors. Finally, the "Arab Spring" turned into the Syria-Iraq-Lebanon Winter.

So much for the Post-Cold-War "Peace". It makes one long for the days of the Cold War, when things were more peaceful; and when there were wars, at least you knew who had the white hats and who had the black hats. Now, the lines are so blurred, I've started this thread, just to try to keep track of who's fighting whom. Add to the mix a US President who knows nothing about either Foreign Policy, History, or something we used to call "loyalty"; and I have all I can do, to keep from throwing up my hands and giving up. I am kept from such an act mainly, I guess, because there's nobody to surrender to; they're all fighting one another. Turkey is a case in point, of a country that has no idea who its friends are and who its enemies are:

What Drives Turkish Foreign Policy?
Changes in Turkey
by Svante E. Cornell
Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2012, pp. 13-24

"...In November 2008, [Turkish President] Erdoğan urged nuclear weapons powers to abolish their own arsenals before meddling with Iran. Soon afterwards he termed Ahmadinejad a "friend" and was among the first to lend legitimacy to the Iranian president by congratulating him upon his fraudulent and bloodstained election in June 2009. Turkish leaders then began to publicly juxtapose the issue of Israel's nuclear weapons with Iran's covert program, and in November 2009, abstained from a sanctions resolution at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) against Tehran that both Moscow and Beijing supported. In May 2010, in a display of defiance, Erdoğan and Brazilian president Luiz Inàcio Lula da Silva made a well-publicized appearance in Tehran on the eve of a U.N. Security Council vote on a new round of sanctions on Iran, holding hands with Ahmadinejad and announcing their alternative diplomatic proposal to handle the Iranian nuclear issue. In the scope of two years, Ankara had become Tehran's most valuable international supporter...

"Ankara has repeatedly referred to Sudan as its main "partner in Africa" though it is far from being Turkey's largest trade partner on the continent. Ignoring the growing international outrage over crimes against humanity committed by Khartoum-aligned militia groups in Darfur, Erdoğan voiced support for President Omar Bashir during a 2006 visit, stating he saw no signs of a genocide..."

-- What Drives Turkish Foreign Policy?: Changes in Turkey :: Middle East Quarterly

The last I heard, Turkey was locking horns with the Iranians in Syria, was estranged from nearly every Arab country because of its misreading the Arab Spring, irreconcilably separated from Israel and deserted by the Americans, and grovelling at the feet of an unwilling European Union, asking them to please take back their bad boy. A large Turkish delegation is also visiting Iran, trying to rebuild relations with them. And what about Syria? Syria? WHAT Syria? Four months ago, they were urging the US to fire cruise missiles into Syria, and to overthrow Assad. When the US instead began a dialog with Syria's supporter Iran, ist started sinking in among Turkish leaders that this was a lost cause... that everything was a lost cause, and they needed to strike the best deal they can get. Meanwhile, Turkey itself is being wracked by a corruption and cover-up scandal that makes Watergate look like an example of good governance.

Now, back to my problem of trying to figure out what side Turkey's on: I haven't got a clue.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

WHAT DO WARS HAVE TO DO WITH POLITICS?

I have been trying to group the world's countries, Cold-War-style, into blocs -- realizing, of course, that this probably would not end up in a neat, two-part split, or even a 3- 4-, 5- or 6- part split (I won't allow more than 6, because at least a six-way split can be conceived with a Chinese Checkers board. Beyond that, we simply have world-wide mayhem). No doubt, such a division is possible. For instance, the UNGA votes last year concerning Iran and Syria, on the one hand, and Israel on the other, provide the following spit (I will only show the major countries):

ALWAYS PRO-IRAN/SYRIA:
Russia, China, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela

GENERALLY PRO-IRAN/SYRIA:
India, Brazil, Pakistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Philippines, Malaysia, South Africa, Argentina, Nigeria, Algeria, Colombia, Yemen

GENERALLY PRO-ISRAEL:
UK, France, Germany, S. Korea, Italy, Turkey, Japan, Ukraine, Australia, Poland, Sweden, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Norway

ALWAYS PRO-ISRAEL:
US, Israel, Canada

Only pro- and con- votes were considered; abstain and absent were not counted.

The above lineups have not changed significantly since the days of the Vietnam War, when Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro was a child in Indonesia. I guess you could call this the "habitual" or "reflex" vie at the world. As much as it shapes UN voting, it does not reflect the strategic realities of today -- which is yet another of many indicators, that the UN is obsolete.

I am trying to fathom today's strategic realities; and by "today", I literally mean 30 January, 2014; because today's alliances have literally been changing by the day, sometimes by the hour. As a starting point, let's try to consider what "sides" are involved in current world conflicts. Here is a list, with 2013 deaths in parentheses ():

1. Syrian Civil War (73,455)
Side A: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia, North Korea; militia from Lebanon, Yemen; diplomatic & economic support from China, Algeria, Venezuela
Side B: Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, US, UK, France, Lebanon,Yemen, Israel; militia from Russia, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Gaza, Iraq, Jordan, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Australia, Kuwait; weapons from Croatia, Ukraine, Belgium, UAE; diplomatic support from Spain, Poland, Canada, Belgium

2. Mexican Drug War (11,788)
Side A: Mexico, US
Side B: militia from Mexico, US

3. Iraqi Insurgency (7,818)
Side A: Iraq, Iran, Syria, US
Side B: Saudi Arabia; militia from Syria

4. War in Afghanistan (5,648)

5. War in NW Pakistan (5,366)

6. Nigeria Insurgency (1,007+)

7. Central African Rep. (906+)

SRC: List of ongoing armed conflicts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

​

I will continue this analysis in subsequent posts. Note the disparity in the lists for the "Syrian" War and the "Iraqi" War. In the former, we support Side B; in the latter, we support Side A. That sort of thing is what this thread is all about. Also on Side A in Iraq, but a few years back, were troops from the UK, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Spain, Georgia, Romania, Slovakia and other countries -- many of which are today on Side B in Syria. They were all fighting Saddam Hussein, who was a bitter enemy of the Assads of Syria -- making Saddam a virtual member of "Side B" in Syria. A 180° degree strategic shift in NATO policy thus occurred, approximately during the Obama Administration. Now, this same President Obama seems to be trying to correct the matter by another 180° shift in favor of Iran.

I'm running out of room. I'd better discuss Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Africa in a later post.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

SCHIZOPHRENIC FOREIGN POLICY

In the previous post, I noted that the US and others are backing the Shi'ites in Iraq, and the Sunnis in Syria -- in a war that actually cannot be compartmentalized: The same Sunnis who oppose the US-equipped and trained Iraqi government troops in Iraq, are also fighting Bashar al-Assad's Iranian-equipped and trained government troops in Syria. One of those groups, called ISIS and ISIL, even has declared a "caliphate" spanning across the border. Kurdish groups in both countries, though politically at odds with each other, also look to ultimately uniting in a single country. Let me list the countries I've already mentioned in the last post:

• ANTI-SUNNI IN SYRIA AND IRAQ: Syria, Iraq, Iran
• ANTI-SUNNI IN SYRIA AND ANTI-SHI'A IN IRAQ: US
• ANTI-SHI'A IN SYRIA AND IRAQ: Saudi Arabia

Those are not the three groups I presented in the OP, but perhaps they should be. Let me expand the list for the moment, counting the Iraqi Insurgency from 2001 instead of just during the past year:

• ANTI-SUNNI IN SYRIA AND IRAQ: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia
• ANTI-SUNNI IN SYRIA AND ANTI-SHI'A IN IRAQ: US, UK, Italy
• ANTI-SHI'A IN SYRIA AND IRAQ: Gaza, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, France, Germany

There was clearly a split in NATO, concerning getting involved in the war against Saddam Hussein. NATO then unified with both the US and Russia in supporting the war in Afghanistan, though; so a new scheme could be drawn up:

• CONSISTENTLY ANTI-SUNNI: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia
• CONFUSED: US, UK, Italy, France, Germany
• CONSISTENTLY ANTI-SHIA: Gaza, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia

It seems odd, that the whole world should divide itself, essentially, along Islamic sectarian lines; but that's how it turned out. I'd like to move on now, to the seemingly endless war in Central Africa, fought over the past 20 years from Namibia to Libya. Let's see how the various sides lined up. Let's start with the current war in the Central African Republic (CAR). There, we have:

• Side A: France, CAR
• Side B: insurgents, including Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)

It is the persistence of the LRA that links the CAR conflict with the Second Congo War -- a war most people thought ended in 2003. Thus, we can expand our lists:

• Side A: France, CAR, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi
• Side B: DR Congo, Angola, Chad, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Sudan (alleged)

These conflicts and other spin-offs (the Kivu and Ituri conflicts) were not fundamentally religious in nature, though religious and tribal loyalties have figured into the conflict. The main thing I want to note for the moment, is that Side B includes many countries with close economic ties to China, and with "liberation" movements of the Cold War period.

The Central African wars blend almost seamlessly into the wars in Sudan and South Sudan. Those two countries split from each other in 2011, ending major fighting between them (though conflict continues and has morphed into civil war in South Sudan). The other major part of the war, still unresolved, is the Darfur Conflict in western Sudan. I am interested mainly in what foreign forces were involved. We have:

• Side A: Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda; weapons from Israel, Kenya
• Side B: Sudan; weapons from China, Iran

Now, let's see if we can cobble together a wide-ranging list from all the above:

• Side A: CAR, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Israel, Kenya, US, UK, Italy, France, Germany
• Side B: DR Congo, Angola, Chad, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, China, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Russia
• Side C: Gaza, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia

So far, so good: We have three sides. Note that Eritrea and Ethiopia have also been at war, on and off -- at times directly, in a border dispute; and also by proxy, in Somalia. Let's see where this leads...

 

[BlandOatmeal]

FILLING IN THE REST...

So far, we have:

• Side A: CAR, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Israel, Kenya, US, UK, Italy, France, Germany
• Side B: DR Congo, Angola, Chad, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, China, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Russia
• Side C: Gaza, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia

It's time to fill in the combatants in the Afghanistan War. What has always amazed me about that war, is that it pits the armed forces of the entire world against an outlaw religious gang, and has still not been resolved after twelve years of conflict. I won't even bother with it, nor with the related insurgency in Pakistan. The Nigerian insurgency is a similarly fruitless exercise: There may be a religious connection to the Boko Haram insurgency, but they are basically self-seeking hooligan bigots -- very murderous hooligan bigots, like the drug smugglers in Mexico; but functionally, they are the same.

So much for ongoing wars. If nobody else has gotten anything out of this exercise,at least I have. Here's what I've learned:

1. The bloodiest wars do not involve ideological or religious blocs; they are essentially gang wars, fighting over control of the underground economy of drugs, human and commodity smuggling, rape, pillage and plunder. Religious fundamentalism sometimes serves as a recruiting tool, as do tribal, nationalist and "class warfare" ideologies; but basically these are just men and women who find it expedient to live outside the law.

2. So far, I've only come up with three blocs:

• A Sunni Arab block, based on Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt,
• A Shiite - Eurasian bloc, based on Russia, China and Iran, and
• The BIG BLOC, centered on NATO

3. Israel is Obama's lap dog

4. The BIG BLOC is schizophrenic. It is led by President Obama, whose only take on foreign policy seems to be: The US is the biggest, so we get what we want. To Obama, Shiites and Sunnis are all the same, Jews and Arabs are all the same, Indians and Pakistanis are all the same, etc. The world is unipolar, revolving around the White House. Whom he favors depends on his mood: Shiite today, Sunni tomorrow, Jewish the next day; one never knows. The idea is that if you have a big enough hammer, you WILL make the peg go into the hole, even if you have to smash it to smitherins to accomplish this.

Sunni hammer and Shiite peg? Hammer = US. Peg = Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria... It doesn't matter: One size fits all.
​

Shalom shalom

 

[BlandOatmeal]

So far, I've only come up with three blocs:

• Side A: CAR, Australia, Burundi, Canada, Chad, Colombia, Czech Rep, Denmark, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Latvia, Mali, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Slovakia, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda, US, UK
• Side B: Algeria, Angola, China, DR Congo, Iran, Iraq, Namibia, Russia, Syria, Zimbabwe
• Side C: Bahrain, Egypt, Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, U. Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Just rounding off, based on recent conflicts, I think I need to adjust Chad's position. As of 2008, the Chadian government was allied with France and opposed to Sudan. That would put it on "Side A".

Also, some credit should be given countries who suffered significant numbers of battle deaths in Afghanistan alongside the Americans and British. I have put them, for the most part, on "Side A". Those forces were supporting a Sunni regime (Hamid Karzai is a Pushtu Sunni) against the Pushtu Sunni Taliban; though the core leadership of the Taliban and Al Qaeda were Sunni Arabs (the bulk of "Side C").

The Turks lost 14 men to accidents in Afghanistan. Besides this, 17 Turks have been killed fighting against Bashar Assad in Syria ("Side B"). I have therefore shunted them over to Side A. Two Jordanians, likewise, were killed in Afghanistan; however, 22 have died fighting Assad. Because of this, I will keep Jordan on "Side C").

Other countries which have lost nationals in the fight against Assad are:

"Palestinians" (Read, "Gaza". Mahmoud Abbas. leader of the Judean & Samarian Arabs, supports Bashar al Assad) 589-1597, Iraqis 47 (Sunni, non-central-government), Lebanon 41 (Sunni; some Lebanese also died in Syrian air attacks on Lebanon. Shiite Lebanese also have died fighting FOR Assad, mainly with Hizbullah), Somalis 15 (prob. mostly Jihadists), Saudis 14, Egypt 11 (prob. Jihadist and MB), Libya 9, Tunisia 9, Sudan 4, Afghanistan 3, Kuwait 2, Europe, Australia & Japan 15, scattering. LIbya, Yemen and Lebanon have also been involved in smuggling weapons. Few or none of these represent the governments of their countries. I've adjusted Side C to reflect all these.

Qatar is aligned against Assad, while Algeria is for. Morocco hosted an Anti-Assad forum in 2012, so that would put them and Qatar on Side C. Algeria, coincidentally, on Side B, has a dispute with Morocco over Western Sahara. The whole Arab League, save Algeria, Iraq and Syria, supports the Syrian opposition groups; so I've also put them on Side C. Sudan gave weapons to the Libyan rebels in 2011, to overthrow Gaddafi. That would seem to put it on Side A or Side C. However,

Sudanese officials say no arms sold to Syrian opposition
Aug. 13, 2013 at 8:49 AM

DAMASCUS, Syria, Aug. 13 (UPI) -- Sudanese officials denied allegations by Western officials and Syrian rebels that Sudan sold weapons to the opposition to President Bashar Assad...

Such a deal could cause conflict with Sudan's close economic and diplomatic ties to Iran and China, both of which provide military and technical assistance to Sudan and might see such a sale of arms as fuel to the conflict and as a betrayal, the newspaper said.

-- Syrian rebels say they got weapons from Sudan; Sudan denies it - UPI.com

The plot thickens here: The weapons in question included weapons manufactured in China and delivered by Ukrainian aircraft. Turkey and Qatar were said to be delivery stops. It's safe to say, that Sudan has switched sides in the past couple of years -- brought out by the fact that it's begun having joint exercises with the Saudis. I would tentatively put them on Side C.

Mexico & Colombia work with the US in the drug war; and the Mali government was recently freed of insurgents by the French; so I have put all these on Side A.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Moving on with an analysis of recent conflicts, we have.

• Side A: CAR, Australia, Burundi, Cameroun, Canada, Chad, Colombia, Czech Rep, Denmark, Djibouti, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Mali, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Slovakia, Somalia, South Korea, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Uganda, US, UK
• Side B: Algeria, Angola, China, DR Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Namibia, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Zimbabwe
• Side C: Bahrain, Egypt, Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, U. Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Eritrea definitely does not belong on the same side as the US, France, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Yemen, seeing it has had recent conflicts with all these (Qatar is mediating the dispute). The only neighbor it has good relations with is Sudan. Eritrea also uniquely provides bases for both Israel and Iran; and has supported the Al Shabab terrorists in Somalia as a counterweight to Ethiopia.

Concerning Somalia, it is strongly backed by Turkey, as well as Kenya and Ethiopia. That would put it on Side A. Eritrea, therefore, belongs on Side B or C. Eritrea declared itself to be neutral in the Syrian conflict, while diplomatically supporting Iran. It has strong economic ties with Saudi Arabia, in the many Eritreans illegally working there; but they have been mistreated by their masters. On balance, I would put Eritrea on Side B.

US "Reaper" drone, of the type based in Djibouti

​

The US has an important base in Djibouti, which is a staging area for operations throughout East Africa. Djibouti, therefore, belongs on Side A. Speaking of Reapers, the French are using them in Mali, Niger, Chad and the CAR; so all those countries should also be on Side A.

The Boko Haram insurgency in northern Nigeria has brought together the countries round about to oppose it; so that in this conflict, Nigeria, Niger, Chad and Cameroun are all on the same side -- Side A.

The Somali Civil War is the next recent conflict. The belligerents are already distributed according to their sides: Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Eritrea and the US being the main players. On the other side of the world, the Korean conflict is still unresolved; with the North Koreans facing off the mainly US and South Korean forces. Japan is the main American logistical base in the area; so I have placed all these countries in their respective sides.

Time for a break... :sleep:

 

[BlandOatmeal]

IS PAKISTAN OUR FRIEND?

In analyzing the major conflicts of the world today, it would be wrong to simply pass over Pakistan; where a counter-insurgency operation on the scale of our own wr in Afghanistan is taking place -- and against the same enemy, the Taliban. One's first impulse, would be to put the Pakistanis on the same "Side" as the US. This would not accurately describe the situation, though. As I noted before, US foreign policy does not greatly take into account the national or historical interests of our clients (The fact that we are backing opposing teams at the same time in Iraq and Syria bears this out). For the US, the war against the Taliban -- whom we used to support, when the Soviets were fighting in Afghanistan -- is a fleeting fancy. For Pakistan, on the other hand, the Taliban (whom the Pakistanis also used to support, the same time we did) are just one more factor in what Pakistanis see as their PRIMARY strategic interest: and existential and unequal battle against India (who, not coincidentally, is a long-time backer of the Taliban's enemies). The following article bears this out:

Untangling the U.S.-Pakistan Alliance
John R. Schmidt
|
June 17, 2011

"...The Pakistanis decided to crack down. In recent weeks, they have reportedly cut intelligence cooperation across the board, evicted U.S. military advisors and instituted a moratorium on the issuance of visas to CIA officers newly assigned to Pakistan. They have also put increasing pressure on Washington to sharply cut back its drone attacks in the tribal areas. These attacks have overwhelmingly targeted members of the Haqqani network, the major Afghan Taliban group based in the region. This is the very same group the Pakistanis have steadfastly refused to go after—despite relentless U.S. pressure that they do so—because they see them as a hedge against what they fear will be an unfriendly Afghan government allied to their archenemy India once the United States departs the region. Here too the CIA has recruited its own network of local Pakistani informants to help it locate Haqqani network personnel for Predator attacks. Seen against the backdrop of these escalating antagonisms, it is hardly surprising that Pakistan would begin arresting citizens it had reason to believe had helped the CIA carry out the Bin Laden operation. The idea was almost certainly to deter other Pakistanis, particularly army officers, from working for the CIA without ISI permission.

"The sharp deterioration in relations to which these developments attest is primarily due to the fundamentally incompatible objectives the United States and Pakistan harbor toward Afghanistan. The Pakistanis have no great love for the Afghan Taliban, but they deeply resent apparent U.S. unwillingness to take their concerns about the substantial Indian presence in their historically unfriendly neighbor seriously...."

-- Commentary: Untangling the U.S.-Pakistan Alliance | The National Interest

With the above in mind, let's see who Pakistan considers their real long-term allies:

"...Since 1947, Pakistan's relations have been difficult with regional neighbors, India and Afghanistan over the geopolitical issues. In fact, India and Pakistan have fought three conventional wars throughout the 20th century over the issue of Kashmir. The continuing dispute over the status of Kashmir inflames opinions in both nations and makes friendly relations difficult. In the 1960s, the problems over the Durand Line escalated with Afghanistan which led to open hostilities in the 1970s...

"...with escalating border tensions leading to the 1962 Sino-Indian war, the PRC [China] and Pakistan formed an alliance. One year after the PRCs border war with India, Pakistan ceded the Trans-Karakoram Tract to the PRC in order to convince the PRC Authorities to be friendly towards Pakistan...

"The bilateral relations between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are historically and internationally close and extremely friendly, occasionally described as constituting a special relationship...

"...[Pakistan's r]ecent difficulties [with Iran] have included repeated trade disputes, sphere of influence, and political position... Nevertheless, the economic and trade relations continued to expand...

"...Pakistanis have generally rated Vladimir Putin's leadership poorly, with 7% expressing confidence in him in 2006, and only 3% in 2012, and for the most part, a plurality of Russians have consistently rated Pakistan's influence negatively, with 13% expressing a positive view in 2008, increasing slightly to 14% in 2010, and falling to 8% in 2013...

"...Since 2011, the intensive criticisms and allegations of each other based on their strategies in the War on Terror have hindered relations. Furthermore, as a result of the Lahore incident and the black operation in the country which killed the al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, followed by the Salala incident, relations between two countries were severely damaged, and was also a crucial point in the history of bilateral relations of both countries..."

-- Foreign relations of Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To sum it all up, Pakistan is anti-India, pro-China (Side B?), pro-Saudi (Side C -- and pro-Arab in general, by the way), ambivalent toward Iran (Side B) and the US (Side A), and generally anti-Russian (Side B). It is also intensely anti-Israel (Side A?). It therefore belongs on Side C.

India, Pakistan's arch-rival, must therefore be on Side A or Side B. In order to determine which, consider India's most recent wars:

1. Kargil War (vs. Pakistan)
2. Operation Cactus (helping Maldives)
3. Sri Lankan Civil War (helping Sri Lanka)
4. Operation Meghdoot (vs. Pakistan)
5. Operation Blue Star (internal - vs. Sikh militants)
6. Amalgamation of Sikkim (vs. Sikkim)
7. Third Indo-Pakistani War (with Bangladesh, vs. Pakistan)
8. Sino-Indian War (vs. China)
9. Invasion of Goa (vs. Portugal)
10. Operation Polo (vs. Hyderabad)
11. First Into-Pakistani War (with Jammu & Kashmir, vs. Pakistan)

All in all, India has had good relations with Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Maldives, horrendous relations with Pakistan (Side C), and poor relations with China (Side B?) and Portugal (Side A). It has generally had good relations with Russia, though, and with Iran. Because Portugal has largely mended fences with India; and because China is a close ally of Pakistan, India must be on Side A.

The list thus becomes:

• Side A: CAR, Australia, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Colombia, Czech Rep, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Maldives, Mali, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Slovakia, South Korea, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Uganda, US, UK
• Side B: Algeria, Angola, Bangladesh, China, DR Congo, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Namibia, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Zimbabwe
• Side C: Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, U. Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Note: I moved Djibouti, Turkey and Somalia.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

WHICH WAY AFGHANISTAN?

I was about to analyze Afghanistan's strategic alliance, when I saw this:

US TROOPS PULLING OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

I noticed two things: (1) The troops and equipment were moving by air via Kyrgyzstan, not by ship from Pakistan; and (2) The Kyrgyz government wants us out of their country by July. Let's pull up the list again:

• Side A: C African R, Australia, Belgium, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Rep, Cyprus, Denmark, East Timor, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Macedonia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uganda, US, UK, Ukraine
  
• Side B: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, DR Congo, Eritrea, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Namibia, North Korea, Pap New Guinea, Russia, Serbia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe
• Side C: Afghanistan??, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, U. Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Right off the bat, I put Kyrgyzstan on Side B. With the US shut out of the air base there, there's no longer any pretense of the courntry being allied with us. They ARE allied to Russia, though, as were all the Central Asian republics before the breakup of the USSR.

"Kyrgyzstan favors close relations with other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States, particularly Kazakhstan and Russia..."

-- Foreign relations of Kyrgyzstan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for Tajikistan, it is joined at the hip to Russia, the latter having 9,000 troops stationed there.

"Foreign relations of Kazakhstan are primarily based on economic and political security. The Nazarbayev administration has tried to balance relations with Russia and the United States by sending petroleum and natural gas to its northern neighbor at artificially low prices while assisting the U.S. in the War on Terror..."

-- Foreign relations of Kazakhstan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the US pullout from Afghanistan, I doubt that Mr. Obama will have any more interest in Kazakhstan. Israel has established a minor foothold there, with Russian permission. China is interested in improving ties with Kazakhstan, but the latter will probably continue in the Russian orbit for the forseeable future. Uzbekistan is a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and hosts the SCO’s Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) in Tashkent. Its main alignment is with Russia.

Armenia is occupied by Russian border guards (Side B), and Azerbaijan has joint military exercises with Turkey (Side C). Turkmenistan is a "strategic partner" of China (Side B). Georgia has its heart set on joining NATO (Side A)... ditto Ukraine. Belarus is close to Russia and China.

America's East Asian allies can go on Side A... I'd better check about Indonesia. There is bad blood between it and East Timor, and possibly with Papua New Guinea (PNG). PNG has good relations with China and Cuba, bad relations with Fiji, so-so relations with Indonesia and on/off relations with Australia. The Fijians don't get along with the Americans, Australians or Chinese; so I guess they should go on Side C. We'll put PNG on Side B with China.

Indonesia seems to get along fairly well with everyone, even East Timor. The border situation with PNG is touchy (Indonesia's treatment of West New Guinea has been described as genocide, and there is a great problem of refugees fleeing to PNG), as are relations with Netherlands -- marred occasionally because Neth. has many refugee Moluccans who, like the Papuans, have been targets of Indonesian genocide. Indonesians -- and Ghanians -- have a favorable view of North Korea -- something so rare, I will put them both on Side B until persuaded otherwise.

Indonesia's treatment of its Christian minorities has been horrific. They deserve the North Koreans as friends, in this department. The US and allies conduct joint military drills with Indonesia, in typical "square peg-round hole" fashion (as mentioned in a previous post).

As long as I'm sweeping around the Indian Ocean, I ought to pick up Singapore and Malaysia. Under PM Mahathir bin Mohamad, Malaysia had famously bad relations with Australia and even worse ones with Israel (i.e. none whatsoever). It has had boundary disputes with neighbors Indonesia and the Philippines; so it probably would get along best with fellow Israel-haters in the Arab League. Side C.

Serbia has the honor of being hated by Malaysians almost as much as Israel! I guess I'll have to look up Serbia's relations... The deciding factor seems to be whether or not a country recognizes Kosovo-Metohija as being part of Serbia, or as being independent. That definitely puts Serbia OUTSIDE of Sides A and C. Side B it is, then.

I've gotten sidetracked. Which way Afghanistan? They recognize Kosovo independence, so I suppose I shouldn't put them on Side B. They recognize Palestine as a state, so Side C is possible -- and they don't recognize Israel, so I guess Side C it is. That puts them on the same side as Pakistan, a situation that may not last long. I think this "Israel-Palestine-Kosovo" issue merits further study. I strongly suspect it will lead to yet another "side". So be it.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

ISRAEL, PALESTINE AND KOSOVO

Recognition of the above three is a rather old issue. Even recognition of Kosovo began nearly six years ago, long before the "Arab Spring" that has since turned to Winter. I don't think these are very good indicators, therefore, of the current disposition of strategic blocs. The matter is worth looking into, though. First, three maps to give an idea of what's at issue:

Countries recognizing Kosovo (red), Palestine (green) and Israel (tan)

Now let's group them:

RECOGNIZING KOSOVO, PALESTINE AND ISRAEL:
Turkey, Thailand, Nigeria, Egypt, Peru, Czech Rep, Hungary, Dominican R, Costa Rica, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Jordan, Tanzania, Côte d'Ivoire, Gabon, El Salvador, Uganda, Honduras, Pap New Guinea, Senegal, Iceland, Albania, Burkina Faso, C African R, Burundi, East Timor, Maldives, Malta,

RECOGNIZING KOSOVO, PALESTINE AND NOT ISRAEL:
Saudi Arabia, U Arab Emirates, Malaysia, Pakistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Afghanistan, Brunei, Palestine (PA), Chad, Djibouti, Niger, Somalia

RECOGNIZING KOSOVO, NOT PALESTINE AND ISRAEL:
US, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Poland, Belgium, Austria, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Poland, Ireland, New Zealand, Croatia, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Lithuania, Panama, Latvia, Estonia, Macedonia, Fiji

RECOGNIZING NOT KOSOVO, PALESTINE AND ISRAEL:
China, Brazil, Russia, India, Argentina, South Africa, Venezuela, Chile, Philippines, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Romania, Vietnam, Slovakia, Ecuador, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan, Angola, Guatemala, Uruguay, Tunisia, Lebanon, Ethiopia, Kenya, Serbia, Turkmenistan, Bolivia, Paraguay, Trinidad & Tobago, Cyprus, Zambia, DR Congo, Nepal, Bosnia, Georgia, Congo Rep, Mozambique, Eq Guinea, Botswana, Cambodia, Namibia, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Mongolia, South Sudan, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Laos, Mauritania, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Rwanda,

RECOGNIZING NOT KOSOVO, PALESTINE AND NOT ISRAEL:
Indonesia, Iran, Algeria, Iraq, Bangladesh, Morocco, Cuba, Sudan, Syria, North Korea, Mali

RECOGNIZING NOT KOSOVO, NOT PALESTINE AND ISRAEL:
Spain, Mexico, Singapore, Greece, Israel, Myanmar, Cameroon, Jamaica, Armenia, Eritrea

(NOT A STATE): NOT PALESTINE, NOT ISRAEL
Gaza

Basing blocs on the above would double the number of blocs, from three to six; and it would reflect diplomatic posturing rather than human commitment. Let's see how the "recognitions" compare with the blocs:

• Side A: Afghanistan, C African R, Australia, Belgium, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Rep, Cyprus, Denmark, East Timor, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Macedonia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Uganda, US, UK, Ukraine
  
• Side B: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, DR Congo, Eritrea, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Namibia, North Korea, Pap New Guinea, Russia, Serbia, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe
  
• Side C: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, U Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Yemen

(SIGH) There is a significant correlation: Countries on Side A tend to recognize Israel, whereas those on Side C do not. Those on Side B, moreover, tend not to recognize Kosovar independence. Let's see how this works with Afghanistan: They've (i.e. the Mujahideen predecessors of today's rulers) recently fought a war with the Soviet Union (1979-89, Side B) and also with Pakistan (1996-01, Side C). That ought to put them on Side A -- as allies of the US, which, of course, they are. I am moving them now.

A little more filling in, before I run out of room:

Thailand has most recently fought alongside the US (Side A) in Iraq, and border wars with Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Vietnam also most recently fought against China (Side B) and Cambodia. That should put Vietnam on Side C (along with Malaysia). I'll also tentatively put Thailand on Side A, where it seems to have more connections than with Sides B & C. The rest will have to wait for later posts.
​

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I'll keep posting my country list, on and off, until I finish it. (It annoys me, that it's taken so long):

• Side A: Afghanistan, C African R, Australia, Belgium, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Rep, Cyprus, Denmark, East Timor, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Macedonia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Uganda, US, UK, Ukraine
  
• Side B: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, DR Congo, Eritrea, Ghana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Namibia, North Korea, Pap New Guinea, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zimbabwe
  
• Side C: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, Gaza, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, U Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Yemen

Having noticed that the list neglects South America, I tried to find some recent conflicts the countries have been involved with. The reasoning is that without the shedding of blood, it's hard to gauge one's real commitments; and in this day of covenant-breaking, spying and lies, that holds all the more.

As it turns out, Latin America hasn't been directly involved in any hot wars since the fall of the Soviet Union. Venezuela has reputedly been supplying weapons to Assad in Syria, so I'll put them on Side B. Ecuador and Peru had a brief border spat in 1995. That's all. Back in the Middle East,

"2014
On 18 January, the Libyan air force attacked targets in the south of Libya because of unrest blamed on forces loyal to ousted leader Muammar Gaddafi... The interviewed Libyans claimed to be fighting against a Western-backed "puppet government" with ties to Al-Qaeda, and charged that Qatar was paying Sudanese pilots to bomb their positions."

-- Post-civil war violence in Libya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That puts Libya on Side C.

Qatar (Side C) is said to have supported the antigovernment forces in Mali (Side A) against Chad (A), Burundi (A), Gabon, S. Africa, Rwanda (A), Tanzania, Uganda (A), China (B) and France (A) interventionists. Gabon, South Africa and Tanzania should therefore be on Side A or Side B. Gabon is linked closely with the US and France, which has troops there. Side A. Tanzania appears closely linked with China (Side B)

South Africa's race-motivated Antisemitism AND Anti-Zionism are obvious:

"The 2001 Durban conference against Racism (CAR) meeting was marked by clashes over the Middle East and the legacy of slavery, and coincided with attacks on Israel and anti-Israel demonstrations at a parallel conference of non-governmental organizations. Canada, followed by the U.S. and Israel walked out midway through the 2001 conference over a draft resolution that, in their opinion, singled out Israel for criticism and likened Zionism to racism.

"In 2009 South Africa's deputy foreign minister Fatima Hajaig claimed that "Jewish money controls America and most Western countries." The local Jewish community objected but did not extricate an apology.

"In 2013 ANC Western Cape leader Marius Fransman claimed ninety-eight percent of land and property owners in Cape Town are “white” and “Jewish”. The accusation turned out to be false..."

-- Antisemitism in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They get along fine with China, though -- Side B.

Bear in mind, that all this research is merely a discovery of where world strategic blocs have been UP UNTIL RECENTLY. Things seem to have been radically changing, especially since September. On major change I see coming, as I've said in previous posts, is an attempt to isolate China. Here is an article on that matter:

Japan, Russia considering strengthened defense ties
Jan 13, 2014 John Hofilena

-- Japan, Russia considering strengthened defense ties - The Japan Daily Press

 

[BlandOatmeal]

CITIZENS' ATTITUDES AND STRATEGIC BLOCS

I'm not comfortable with Indonesia's setting. Militarily, Indonesia is (although not allied) closely connected with the US. Trade-wise, China has probably surpassed Japan by now as Indonesia's main partner; but the latter also does much trade with Singapore, South Korea and India -- all, it seems, on Side A. Indonesian-Chinese relations were bad until the fall of Suharto in 1998; but matters have improved considerably since, and...

"...According to a 2013 BBC World Service Poll, the opinion of China among Indonesians remains strongly positive and stable, with 55% of positive view compared to 27% expressing a negative view..."
-- China

On the other hand,

"...29% of Indonesians view Russia's influence positively, with 43% expressing a negative .."
-- Indonesia

Americans score even better than the Chinese (though they don't seem to favor our Indonesian-raised leader much):

"...Indonesia's people have generally viewed the U.S. fairly positively, with 61% of Indonesians viewing the U.S. favorably in 2002, declining slightly down to 54% in 2011. According to the 2012 U.S. Global Leadership Report, 23% of Indonesians approve of U.S. leadership, with 31% disapproving and 46% uncertain. According to a 2013 BBC World Service Poll, 38% of Indonesians view U.S. influence positively, with 44% expressing a negative view..."
-- Indonesia

India also looks very good to them:

"...According to a 2013 BBC World Service Poll, 79% of Indonesians view India's influence positively, with 21% expressing a negative view, one of the most favourable perceptions of India in the world..."

...but their perception of the Jews stinks so badly, they could never fit into Side A:

"According to a 2013 BBC World Service Poll, 70% of Indonesians view Israeli's influence negatively, with only 12% expressing a positive view, one of the most negative perception of Israel in Asia..."
-- Indonesia

Indonesia is an energy exporter, so it has little to do economically with the Middle East. Ditto militarily. Having favorable perceptions of both Iran and North Korea (see below), it belongs on Side B.

Israel ranked third behind Iran and Pakistan for ‘negative influence’ in BBC survey
Americans buck the global trend with increasingly positive attitude to Israel
By Times of Israel staff May 17, 2012, 2:21 am

"...A majority of 54% of Nigerians (up 23 points) rates Israel positively, and the country has moved from being divided to leaning positive in 2012 (54% positive vs 29% negative). In Kenya, negative ratings have fallen 10 points (to 31%), while positive views have risen by 16 points (to 45%)...

"Among the Muslim countries surveyed, perceptions of Israel have deteriorated in Egypt (85% negative ratings, up seven points and the highest negative percentage in the survey), and remained largely negative but stable in Pakistan (9% positive vs 50% negative) and in Indonesia (8% vs 61%)..."

-- Israel ranked third behind Iran and Pakistan for 'negative influence' in BBC survey | The Times of Israel

Just ranking by the poll, I would piece together the following:

Side A: Israel, US, Nigeria, Kenya
Side B: Iran, North Korea, Pakistan
Side C: Egypt, Indonesia, Europe, Australia, Canada, South Korea, Japan, etc.

For my purposes, let me see how losers Israel, North Korea, Iran and Pakistan compare in the eyes of various countries, using a similar poll at

Israel and Iran Share Most Negative Ratings in Global Poll -- Backgrounder

US 62: Israel 55:35 for; Iran 63:21 against; NKor 73:8 against
Kenya 54: Israel 45:31 for; Iran 60:20 against; NKor 40:31 against
Nigeria 42: Israel 54:29 for; Iran 48:31 against; NKor 42:28 for
Italy 40: 1srael 58:18 against; Iran 84:4 against; NKor 70:9 against
Canada 36: Israel 56:27 against; Iran 76:11 against; NKor 74:14 against
------------------------------------------
France 31: Israel 66:17 against; Iran 86:6 against; NKor 75:12 against
UK 21: Israel 65:17 against; Iran 76:7 against; NKor 70:11 against
Portugal 24: Israel 60:12 against; Iran 77:5 against; NKor 68:7 against
Philippines 21: Israel 40:22 against; Iran 55:16 against; NKor 41:21 against
S. Korea 17: Israel 62:22 against; Iran 69:12 against; NKor 78:12 against
Poland 13: Israel 49:7 against; Iran 58:3 against; NKor 56:5 against
Australia 13: Israel 68:16 against Iran 75:10 against; NKor 86:7 against
Argentina 8: Israel 41:12 against; Iran 45:8 against; NKor 37:11 against
Germany 5: Israel 77:10 against; Iran 78:6 against; NKor 87:5 against
Spain: Israel 74* against; Iran 78* against
Japan: Iran 52* against
Hungary 3: Israel 45:6 against; Iran 46:4 against; NKor 50:3 againt
Brazil 1: Israel 72:9 against; Iran 69:5 against; NKor 55:17 against
------------------------------------------
India -2: Israel 24:22 for; Iran 27:23 for; NKor 26:18 for
Russia -4: Israel 40:19 against; Iran 37:20 against; NKor 37:20 against
Chile -5: Israel 57:17 against; Iran 51:16 against; NKor 44:26 against
Peru: Israel 35* against; Iran 41* against
Mexico -9: Israel 31:25 against; Iran 25:22 for; NKor 15:9 against
China -20: Israel 57:15 against; Iran 44:22 against; NKor 39:34 against
Greece -35: Israel 68:11 against; Iran 45:23 against; NKor 42:18 against
------------------------------------------
Turkey -41: Israel 76:2 against; Iran 46:13 against; NKor 31:22 for
Pakistan: Israel 50:9* against; Iran *for
Indonesia -72: Israel 61:8 against; Iran 50:31 for; NKor 40:37 for
UAE -76: Israel 73:7 against; Iran 29:19 for; NKor 29:22 for
Lebanon -77: Israel 85:6 against; Iran 44:42 against; Lebanon 38:27 for
Egypt -106: Israel 78:5 against; Iran 51:18 for; NKor 18:18 tie

SRC for most: http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbccntryview/backgrounder.html
*other source from the others

Greece has excellent military, diplomatic and economic connections with Israel, yet its combined ratings against Israel are 35 points worse than those against Iran. I will therefore use this as a benchmark of the extreme limit of toleration on a side. Germany's 77% negative attitude toward Israel can also be used as a limit. They are militarily quite close to Israel, and their attitude toward Iran and N. Korea are even worse than that toward Israel.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

A RUSSIAN FRIEND IN NATO

I'm still working on the poll details from Israel and Iran Share Most Negative Ratings in Global Poll -- Backgrounder

The poll measures peoples' views on whether a country's influence on the world was mainly positiv or negative. I will use the 77% "negative" benchmark mentioned earlier, to see which countries view which other countries extremely negatively.

1. Greeks are very down on American, 78:12
2. Indonesians are upbeat about the Japanese, 84:9
3. The Chinese are very fond of themselves, 81:6
4. The Russians also like the Russians, 78:2
5. The Lebanese hate Israel, 85:6
6. The Egyptians hate Israel, 78:5
7. The French dislike the Iranians, 86:6
8. The Italians don't like them either, 84:4
9. nor the Germans, 78:6
10. The Germans don't like the North Koreans either, 87:5
11. nor do the Australians, 86:7
12. nor the South Koreans, 78:12

The Greeks are certainly an enigma. Here is their list:

1. US negative 78, positive 12: net -66
2. Israel negative 68, positive 11: net -57
3. the UK negative 63, positive 23: net -40
4. N. Korea negative 42, positive 18: net -24
5. Iran negative 45, positive 23: net -22
6. Russia positive 38, negative 32: net +6
7. Venezuela positive 33, negative 18: net +15
8. India positive 35, negative 20: net +15
9. China positive 44, negative 26: net +18
10. China positive 44, negative 26: net +18
11. Japan positive 59, negative 15: net +44
12. France positive 60, negative 16: net +44

Greece is the only NATO member state that has strong traditional military ties with Russia. The Armies of both countries are co-operating and co-training together in a regular basis, and participate in programmes of defense and military cooperation in the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, as well as giving military support and training to countries that have close relations with, such as Armenia, with Greece often accepting Armenian military officials in the Hellenic Military Academy in Piraeus. In addition, Russian military units are often seen participating in the Greek National Army parades of 25th March Independence and 28th October National Days, and most notably the Russian Landing Ship "Novocherkassk" of the Black Sea Fleet which joined the 2012 national parades in the Greek cities of Thessalonica and Lemnos. Greece, was also one of the few who collaborated with the Soviet Union, despite its membership in NATO. Also, is one of the few pre-1990 NATO member countries (alongside Germany for a time) that makes extensive use of Russian weapons...

-- Greece

All right! Enough! The Greeks go into Side B, NATO or no. That makes me want to reconsider Cyprus' position as well. By the same token, I would have to put Indonesia onto Side A, because of its very upbeat estimation of the Japanese; but let me check Indonesia again:

1. Israel: 71 against, 15 for: net -56
2. US: 71 against, 21 for: net -50
3. Russia: 46 against, 28 for: net -18
4. N. Korea: 40 for, 37 against: net +3
5. Venezuela: 39 for, 21 against: net +18
6. Iran: 50 for, 31 against: net +19
7. UK: 56 for, 30 against: net +24
8. France: 53 for, 23 against: net +30
9. China: 62 for, 27 against: net +35
10. India: 61 for, 19 against: net +42
11. Japan: 84 for, 9 against: net +75

The trouble with this survey, is that it says nothing about what the countries think about the Saudis and Egyptians. Considering the unusually high marks they give to Iran, though, I would think Indonesian marks in this area would be even better towards their fellow Sunni states -- better than those they give the Russians and Americans. I would put them on side C, along with their Malaysian kinsmen.

Without going into further analysis, Let me update the list according to my best guesstimates:

• Side A: Albania, Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia & Herz, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, C African R, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Rep, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican R, East Timor, Equat Guinea, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Laos, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Uganda, US, UK, Ukraine, Uruguay

• Side B: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, DR Congo, Congo R, Cuba, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pap New Guinea, Russia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe

• Side C: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, Gaza, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, U Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Yemen

 

[BlandOatmeal]

I said I would look closer into Cyprus' situation. The only poll data I could find was:

Lillikas and opinion poll indicate Cyprus would rather leave euro than follow troika plan
ekathimerini.com , Thursday March 21, 2013 (11:03)

"...The poll also found that 67.3 percent of Cypriots favored their country’s exit from the eurozone and a strengthening of relations with Russia..."

-- ekathimerini.com | Lillikas and opinion poll indicate Cyprus would rather leave euro than follow troika plan

Cyprus, like Greece, has excellent military ties with Israel, with whom it has a mutual interest in developing undersea gas deposits in the face of Turkish threats. Cyprus' chief trading partners are Greece, Israel, the UK, Germany and Italy, with Greece getting the lion's share. Greece trades mainly with Russia, Germany and Italy. Greece, therefore, has substantial ties with Russia; but Cyprus doesn't.

I'll keep the list updated, as I figure things out:

• Side A: Albania, Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belgium, Bosnia & Herz, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, C African R, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Rep, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican R, East Timor, Equat Guinea, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Laos, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, South Sudan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Uganda, US, UK, Ukraine, Uruguay

• Side B: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, DR Congo, Congo R, Cuba, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, North Korea, Pap New Guinea, Russia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe

• Side C: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Chad, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, Gaza, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, U Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Yemen

I notice that Mali, Niger and Chad, which I've grouped with Side A because of strong ties to France, have broken diplomatic ties with Israel. So has Guinea, which I haven't rated yet. That would probably disqualify them from Side A, so I need to decide between Sides B & C. Let's look first at their imports:

• Chad: China 20.2%, Cameroon 18.2%, France 16.1%, Saudi Arabia 5.6%, US 4.2% (2012)
• Guinea: China 14.2%, Netherlands 7.6% (2012)
• Mali: France 11.2%, Senegal 9.9%, Cote d'Ivoire 8.7%, China 8.6% (2012)
• Niger: France 14.4%, China 11.3%, Nigeria 10.1%, French Polynesia 9.2%, Togo 5.1%, Cote dIvoire 4.5% (2012)

SRC: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2061.html

China has a presence there, but not a strong one. The Saudis certainly don't have much involvement economically, but they connect to them as Sunni Islamic countries. Sharia Law does not apply in any of these places, being a "green" state in the map below:

Sharia Law. See Application of sharia law by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for color-coding.
​

I'll think about it. Application of Sharia Law is a goal of the Islamists; but we've already seen that Islamists are notoriously divided from one another. It wouldn't make much sense, then, to put countries on "sides" based on Sharia. Another factor is that even though those countries I mentioned do not presently recognize Israel, they did at one time; and their current non-recognition is probably a temporary political expedient: Such things are turned on and off at whim in the region. In 2012, they loved Americans:

"...According to the 2012 U.S. Global Leadership Report, 89% of Guineans approve of U.S. leadership, with 8% disapproving and 3% uncertain, the most favorable opinion of the U.S. in the entirety of Africa and the world..."
-- Guinea

"...According to the 2012 U.S. Global Leadership Report, 81% of Chadians approve of U.S. leadership, with 18% disapproving and 1% uncertain, the fourth-highest rating for any surveyed country in Africa..."
-- Chad

...but in January, 2014, they were working with the Sudanese:

Sudan-Chad forces create panic; water pump stolen in North Darfur's → Side C
Kabkabiya 19 Jan [2014]

"The citizens of Kabkabiya locality in North Darfur are living in a state of severe panic and fear of the joint Sudanese-Chadian forces roaming the area since Friday. On Saturday, militiamen robbed Um Laouta village, near Kabkabiya town, of its water pump..."

-- https://www.radiodabanga.org/node/64615

Morocco's Move in Mali What Rabat Gained in the Battle Against Islamic Extremism → Side C
January 14, 2014

-- Morocco's Move in Mali: What Rabat Gained in the Battle Against Islamic Extremism - What Rabat Gained in the Battle Against Islamic Extremism - The Washington Institute for Near East Policy

The US also seems to be loved in Niger:

"...According to the 2012 U.S. Global Leadership Report, 73% of Nigeriens approve of U.S. leadership, with 19% disapproving and 9% uncertain..."
-- Niger

However,

Niger says relations with China most important → Side B
English.news.cn | 2014-01-13 16:29:23 | Editor: An

"NIAMEY, Jan. 13 (Xinhua) -- Niger's Cooperation Minister Bazoum Mohamed said on Sunday that cooperation with China had become more strong, and in this regard, China was "the most important partner in the country's international relations..."

-- Niger says relations with China most important - Xinhua | English.news.cn

I'll take their word for it. Good night. :sleep:

 

[BlandOatmeal]

STILL REFINING...

I've been trying to place Guinea, which has been plagued in recent years by coups and corruption. Over half the country's export dollars come from bauxite ore, and we have:

Guinea Plans to Triple Bauxite Production to Meet Chinese Demand
By Ougna Camara Mar 18, 2013 6:46 AM PT

-- Guinea Plans to Triple Bauxite Production to Meet Chinese Demand - Bloomberg

While surfing, I came across another article on Papua New Guinea -- yes, they are in the Chinese orbit, having been won by the latter in the "beauty contest" it has been waging with Taiwan in the Pacific. Indonesia and Malaysia, moreover, which I place on Side C, both do not recognize Israel -- along with Bangladesh in this. All three rightly belong where they have been placed.
I hope to be able to map this out soon. So far, the world's state actors still fall into three groups as far as conflicts are concerned:

• Side A: Albania, Afghanistan, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia & Herz, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, C African R, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Rep, Cyprus, Denmark, Dominican R, East Timor, Equat Guinea, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Laos, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, South Sudan, Spain, St Lucia, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Uganda, US, UK, Ukraine, Uruguay

• Side B: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, DR Congo, Congo R, Cuba, Ecuador, Eritrea, Ghana, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Lesotho, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, North Korea, Pap New Guinea, Russia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe

• Side C: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Chad, Djibouti, Egypt, Fiji, Gaza, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, U Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Yemen

I was looking up Suriname, and came across this:

"...[current President] Bouterse’s son, Dino, has not been as fortunate when it comes to escaping prosecution for his crimes. He was arrested in Panama and turned over to U.S. officials in August. Among his charges: conspiring to import cocaine into the United States and more seriously, offering material support to Hezbollah to establish a permanent base in Suriname to aid attacks on U.S. targets..."

-- Why travel to Suriname: The former Dutch colony now run by a drug-running dictator is trying to attract tourists.

I think that merits the country being part of Side B (the Hezbollah side). Concerning Montenegro, we have...

"...Russian press claimed in 2012 that Russian citizens own at least 40% of real-estate property in all of Montenegro. In September 2012, Croatian news portal Globus called Montenegro a "Russian colony"..."

-- Montenegro

Montenegro is working on being accepted into NATO and the EU, countries which attacked her 16 years ago. For the time being, at least, it is on Side B... Barbados rates Side A:

"...In 2008 Barbados and the other members of CARICOM signed an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union and its European Commission..."

-- Foreign relations of Barbados - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BlandOatmeal]

MAP COMING SOON

I should be able to cobble together a map pretty soon. A few dozen more lookups, and I should have something:

• Side A: Albania, Afghanistan, Andorra, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia & Herz, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, C African R, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Rep, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican R, East Timor, Equat Guinea, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Laos, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Is., South Korea, South Sudan, Spain, St. Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad & Tobago, Uganda, US, UK, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vietnam

• Side B: Algeria, Angola, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Cambodia, China, DR Congo, Congo R, Cuba, Ecuador, Eritrea, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, North Korea, Pap New Guinea, Russia, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Zambia, Zimbabwe

• Side C: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brunei, Chad, Comoros, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, Gaza, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, U Arab Emirates, Yemen

There is a pretty complete survey of attitudes toward the US (and therefore, roughly, toward Side A) at Chapter 1. Attitudes toward the United States | Pew Global Attitudes Project

Significant notes:

Italy (76:16), Israel (83:16), Philippines (85:13), S. Korea (78:20), El Salvador (79:17), Brazil (73:23), Ghana (83:9), Senegal (81:5), Kenya (81:14), Uganda (73:9) and S. Africa all had very favorable attitudes toward Americans last year.

"Palestine" (79:16), Egypt (81:16), Jordan (85:14) and Pakistan (72:11) had very negative attitudes.

More moderate attitudes were held in Canada, Poland, France, Spain, Britain Czech R. , Germany, Russia, Greece, Lebanon,Tunisia, Turkey, Japan, Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, China, Chile, Mexico, Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, and Nigeria.

The favorables were (if Ghana is included with them) all Side A, and the unfavorables were all Side C. Side B countries were all in the "moderate" group.

Religiously, Jews (90:9), Buddhists (72:15) and Christians (82:8) had the most positive views of us; and Shia Muslims (9:90) had the worst. The rest had moderate views.

The Israelis, Filipinos, Japanese, Australians, South Koreans, Malaysians, Brazilians, Chileans, Salvadorians, Senegalese, Kenyans, Ghanians, Ugandans and Nigerians all saw the US as a friend; the Pakistanis and "Palestinians" saw us as enemies. That looks like a Side A vs. Side C dichotomy.

I need to do something about Vietnam. Nearly all its trade is with neighbors China, Japan, S. Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Malaysia, and with the US and Europe. None of that says "Middle East" (Side C). They have not been at war with anyone LATELY. If I put them on Side C, it's primarily because a conflict MIGHT arise with Side B China and with Side A Philippines, etc. over the Spratleys -- but then, Malaysia & Indonesia (Side C) might be involved as well. Let me just go by the most recent military activity:

Peace will be a miracle if provocation lasts
Global Times | May 09, 2012 01:10
By Global Times

"The standoff over Huangyan Island in the South China Sea continues and Manila appears fully prepared to create more tensions..."

Russia sends ambiguous signal over Vietnam deal
Global Times | 2012-4-12 19:48:00
By Global Times

"State oil company PetroVietnam has signed a deal with Russia's energy giant Gazprom, planning to jointly develop Vietnam's two offshore blocks, which are located in the South China Sea. Despite reports say that the two blocks are not within the area of the sea disputed with China, however, it is an obvious move for Vietnam to strengthen cooperation with Russia in order to gain more chips against its neighbor..."

-- South China Sea Conflict - Global Times

"Vietnam prepares its people for war with China
August 24, 2012 / D.Collins / One comment

"A new National Defense Education Act has been approved by the standing committee
of Vietnam’s National Assembly on Aug. 20 to provide basic military training to
every civilian under 50 years old, according to Duowei News, an outlet run by
overseas Chinese..."

-- Fish Wars | The China Money Report

None of the above are exceptionally recent; and war obviously hasn't broken out over the Issue.

"16 navies to participate in the Milan exercise at A&N Islands next month
[Jan. 2014]

...The participants are Australia, Bangladesh, Philippines, Cambodia, New Zealand, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia, Maldives, Seychelles, Mauritius, Kenya and Tanzania..."

-- 16 navies to participate in the Milan exercise at A&N Islands next month

Vietnam absented itself. Vietnam looks to be on Side A, with the Philippines. Unlike Malaysia and Indonesia, it recognizes Israel; and it seems more likely to end up fighting China than any other foe.

Concerning Guinea-Bissau, which is a narco-state, its principal trading partners are the EU and India; and Angola has been involved in opposition to the government. The ruling dictatorship does not seem very interested in religion, so I put it on Side A

Gambia's closest relations are with Turkey. Side C.

I just double-checked Chile. They have deep economic ties with China, but deeper military ties with the US:

RIMPAC 2012

RIMPAC 2012 is the 23rd exercise in the series and started on 29 June 2012. 42 ships, including the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68) and other elements of Carrier Strike Group 11, six submarines,[8] 200 aircraft and 25,000 personnel from 22 nations took part in Hawaii. The exercise involved surface combatants from the U.S., Canada, Japan, Australia, South Korea and Chile..."

-- Exercise RIMPAC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brunei does not recognize Israel; so I put it on Side C, with Indonesia & Malaysia.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

THREE NEW BLOCS

The list in my previous post was essentially complete, when considering only three strategic blocs competing with one another. I say "competing" rather than "conflicting", because, just as in the Cold War, the principals seldom if ever confront one another militarily; and the terrible casualties we do see in various conflicts, such as the Mexican Drug War and the Syrian Civil War, are as likely to come from fighting between rival gangs/ jihadist groups as they are between those groups and state forces.

I thought to post a map of the list; and indeed, I have made such a map; but I've already started to transform it, so you will have to wait to see the improved version. The improvement will be the addition of other groups. I noticed that some of the actors who wind up on the same side, namely, India on Side A and China on Side B, are world-reaching nuclear powers who rarely, if ever, fight alongside the others on their side (NATO and Russia, respectively). Even though there is a convergence of interest, then, between China and Russia and between NATO and India, this convergence could change in future. The US may decide, for instance, on a rapprochement with Russia and Iran; and China may consequently seek to build friendships with Saudi Arabia and Egypt. So, I'll keep on researching. Here goes:

• Side A: Albania, Afghanistan, Andorra, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia & Herz, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, C African R, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Rep, Cyprus, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican R, East Timor, Equat Guinea, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Is., South Korea, South Sudan, Spain, St. Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tonga, Trinidad & Tobago, Uganda, US, UK, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vietnam

• Side B: Algeria, Armenia, Belarus, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Palestinian Authority, Russia, Serbia, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela

• Side C: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Brunei, Chad, Comoros, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, Gaza, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, U Arab Emirates, Yemen

• Side D: Bhutan, India, Laos, Maldives, Mauritius, Nepal, Thailand

• Side E: Angola, China, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Cambodia, DR Congo, Congo R, Ecuador, Guinea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Niger, North Korea, Pap New Guinea, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Togo, Zambia, Zimbabwe

• Side F: Israel

This very sort of shift is what I foresaw in the OP.

Side C, likewise, could be split between the Turkish-led camp and the Saudi/ Egyptian-led camp, seeing that those two are currently competing with one another. I want to think about that, though. Their current rift with the Saudis and Egyptians, is over support for the Muslim Brotherhood: Egypt has outlawed the group, but Turkey recognizes them as the true rulers of Egypt (and in fact, the ruling party of Turkey is akin to the MB). In the Islamic world, where honor seems to proceed six paces ahead of common sense, this can be an irreconcilable issue. Still, the two camps are backing the same horse in Syria, and haven't actually come to blows with each other since WWI.

It probably makes more sense, to separate Israel into a group of its own. That would have major repercussions on my classification scheme, since I counted recognition of Israel, or lack thereof, as a criterion for separation. The reason for this, in turn, is the continuing confrontation of several "Side C" states against her in the UN General Assembly, and the use of some -- namely, Lebanon, Egypt and Gaza -- as staging areas for attacks against her. Turkey also confronted Israel militarily in 2010, when they launched a blockade-running expedition against Israel from Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus. Turkey has not broken off official relations with Israel; but "with the scandal over alleged Turkish involvement in exposure of Israeli special agents in Iran in October 2013, the relations between Israel and Turkey have hit a new low" [1].

The US has consistently backed Israel in the UN -- particularly in the Security Council, where it has used its veto power to prevent a collective attack and invasion against her (a la Afghanistan). Even so, the US has joined hands with "Side C" countries in places like Afghanistan, but has consistently shunned doing this with Israel. A poignant example of this was the First Gulf War, wherein Israel was forced by its American "ally" to suffer a missile attack from Iraq without retaliating. The 2010 blockade-running incident, moreover, though embarking from Turkish-occupied territory, originated in large part from other NATO countries (including the US).

[1] Israel

 

[BlandOatmeal]

THE SEDUCTIVE MAGIC OF TURNING AGAINST ISRAEL

I'll start, by displaying the new, six-part, division -- incorporating changes into it as I type:

• Side A: Albania, Afghanistan, Andorra, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bosnia & Herz, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, C African R, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Rep, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican R, East Timor, Equat Guinea, El Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Is., South Korea, South Sudan, Spain, St. Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tonga, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, US, UK, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vietnam

• Side B: Algeria, Armenia, Belarus, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Palestinian Authority, Russia, Serbia, Suriname, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela

• Side C: Bahrain, Brunei, Comoros, Egypt, Fiji, Gambia, Gaza, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tunisia, U Arab Emirates, Yemen

• Side D: Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Laos, Maldives, Mauritius, Nepal, Thailand

• Side E: Angola, China, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Cambodia, DR Congo, Congo R, Ecuador, Guinea, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, North Korea, Pap New Guinea, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Togo, Zambia, Zimbabwe

• Side F: Cyprus, Israel

Separating Israel from Side A produces a particular magic in alignments: On the one hand, dealing with Israel as a "wart" to be removed, it makes us more socially acceptable to the rest of the world (cf the fact that the vast majority of UN resolutions have been against Israel, since the inception of the UN). On the other hand, even our closest friends no longer trust us; because we have turned against our most trusting ally.

Some changes that are instantly apparent under this new scheme, are countries who were excluded from other sides simply because of their animosity toward Israel. These include:

1. Mali, Niger, Chad. These all have garrisoned French Troops during the past year.

2. Turkey and Azerbaijan. Turkey is a NATO member, and Azerbaijan a NATO aspirant that has held joint exercises with the US and Turkey. Azerbaijan is also very friendly to Israel, but it knows on which side its bread is buttered. Both countries are fighting alongside NATO in Afghanistan, an endeavor from which the Israelis are shunned.

3. Indonesia and Malaysia. These have military connections with both India and the US, which I will discuss in a bit. Both are Islamic countries with strong cultural ties to Saudi Arabia; but strategically, I think these take a back seat to America's "shift to Asia" plans to encircle and isolate China (something the US denies, a denial the Chinese would like to see evidence of).

If Turkey is to be included on Side A, then Cyprus must be excluded -- for the same reason that Israel has been separated from that side: namely, that there is a long-standing, unresolved dispute between Cyprus and Turkey, that seems to keep getting hotter rather than cooler. Cyprus, moreover, is Israel's strongest ally among EU countries; so I have placed it on Side F.

Concerning Indonesia and Malaysia, I would like to sort out which joint exercises they have partaken of involving NATO, India, or both:

Air Exercises Nov. 2013: UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia
Joint Infantry, Artillery Exercises Sep, 2013: Malaysia, US
Joint Exercises June, Sep. 2013: Malaysia, Indonesia
Antiterrorism Exercise Sep. 2013: ASEAN, US, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, China, India and Russia
Joint Naval Exercise June 2013: ASEAN, Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, South Korea and the United States

A joint air exercise in Nov. 2013 was cancelled, over a diplomatic tiff over spying between Australia and Indonesia.

US & Malaysian troops during 2013 joint exercise
​

Worth a read:

China and Malaysia To Hold Maritime Exercises: What Gives?

China and Malaysia will conduct their first military exercises next year.
By Ankit Panda
November 15, 2013

-- China and Malaysia To Hold Maritime Exercises: What Gives? | The Diplomat

All in all, it looks as though Indonesia does cooperate with India in multilateral defense cooperation, but has trouble with key Side A player Australia. It therefore belongs on Side D. Malaysia, on the other hand, appears to be deeply enmeshed with the Side A countries (now sans Israel).

By distancing itself from Israel, then, what does the US gain? Apparently, it gains Turkey, Malaysia, Mali, Niger and Chad; and it loses Cyprus -- oh, and it also loses its trustworthiness; but I think Mr. Obama, with help from Mr. Snowden, has made sure that has already been lost. Is that a good deal for Washington? It's a seduction; but I think it's a magic that can turn black.