Geopolitics

[frostbite]

During the Greek economic crisis 10 years ago, I read Opinion pieces that advocated Grexit and their advice to Greece was to refuse to pay any of the debt. Some of these writers were professors of economics at top universities. You can find opinion pieces with all kinds of weird and unorthodox opinions. It doesn't mean much.

[Edit: Obviously, I believe that it would be catastrophic for Greece to follow the silly advice of the Opinion pieces I mentioned above... but I am not an economics professor... ]

 

[neverdie]

Yeah, the NATO opinion is scholarly orthodox though and historically accurate. The Ukrainian war aside, it is all, in that article, literally true. You would have to go line by line to refute it, and I don't see how, because they don't make a biased assessment, or take a side in this or that war, to surmise that it "doesn't mean much".

 

[2cents]

This article compares New York Times headlines concerning the wars in Yemen and Ukraine and provides evidence for what is obvious to us all:

“We find extensive biases in coverage and framing, rooted in peripheralism, culturalism and differential geopolitical US positioning. This results in reduced coverage of the war in Yemen, shielded in neutral language and lacking responsibility attribution—serving to devalue the suffering of victims and condemning the crisis to be functionally forgotten...

...When viewed on their own, NYT headlines on Ukraine undoubtedly demonstrate a clear bias. Yet, when compared to headlines on Yemen, evidence extends beyond an isolated case of bias to a reflection of US foreign policy interests in two separate human security crises in which the US is aiding the respondent to aggression on the one hand and the aggressor on the other."

Nothing mind-blowing, but good to have it laid out as such. The article is behind a paywall, I’ll just quote this one section as an example of its approach:

Spoiler

"From 26 March 2015, the day the Saudi-led coalition began its airstrikes in Yemen, until 30 November 2022, NYT published 50 print and online stories with episodically framed headlines that fell within our search terms for stories on the civilian impact of the conflict. These stories document strikes on: (1) a camp for displaced Yemenis; (2) an airport; (3) markets; (4) hospitals; (5) prisons; (6) a wedding; (7) a school bus; (8) a boat carrying migrants; and (9) various other strikes that killed civilians. There were ten more thematic headlines that referred to ‘war crimes’ or ‘crimes’. Notably, only 18 of the 50 episodic headlines, or 36%, attributed responsibility to the responsible actor, the Saudi-led coalition. This means that 64% of NYT headlines that use an episodic frame do not identify the Saudi-led coalition as the actor responsible for the civilian harm. Perhaps the most egregious example is ‘Yemen Strike Hits Wedding and Kills More Than 20’ because it is difficult to imagine a comparable headline in the case of Ukraine: ‘Ukraine Strike Hits Wedding and Kills More Than 20’. Other examples include ‘Airstrike in Yemen Kills at Least 15 at Doctors Without Borders Hospital’ and ‘Yemen Market Airstrike Kills at Least 16 People’. It is also important to note that eleven of the 50 headlines that use episodic frames passively present the civilian harm by presenting the harm as alleged. For example, ‘Saudi Missile in Yemen Kills 7 at Hospital, Charity Says’...

...From 24 February 2022, the day Russia began its military actions against Ukraine, until 30 November 2022, NYT published 54 print and online stories with episodically framed headlines that fell within our search terms for stories on the civilian impact of the conflict. These stories document strikes on: (1) civilians; (2) civilian targets and sites; (3) evacuees and a civilian convoy; (4) apartments; (5) bridges; (6) hospitals and a maternity ward; (7) a shopping centre; (8) a resort; (9) an airport; and (10) infrastructure, including power, electric, and water. In addition to the 54 episodic headlines, there were 65 thematically framed headlines. These headlines refer to war crimes and atrocities, thus implying civilian harm is part of a pattern of deliberate attacks, and invoke the term genocide, which implies a pattern of attacks on civilians but, in this case, with the intent to destroy Ukrainians as a distinct group.

The vastly larger number of thematic headlines on Ukraine as compared to Yemen over a much shorter period of time is significant because, as Iyengar (1993, 14) writes, thematic framing ‘presents collective or general evidence’. Therefore, coverage of civilian harm in emen from Saudi-led airstrikes is largely event-based, meaning individualised incidents. Of course, there are many event-based stories covering Russia’s actions in Ukraine and their civilian impact, but this is also accompanied by extensive coverage of Russia’s actions as collective evidence of Russia’s criminal actions and intentions. Another notable difference between headlines on Yemen and Ukraine is attribution of responsibility. Recall that only 36% of episodic headlines on Yemen attribute responsibility to the Saudi-led coalition. Of the 54 episodic headlines on the civilian impact of the conflict in Ukraine, 50 of them cover Russian actions in Ukraine. Of these 50 headlines, 44 of them, or 88%, name Russia as the responsible actor. The four remaining headlines deal with Ukrainian actions, none of which attribute the act to Ukraine. Moreover, only five of the 50 headlines, as compared to eleven in the case of Yemen, present the civilian harm as alleged by others. One example includes, ‘At Least 200 Feared Dead in Apartments Hit by Russia, Officials Say’."

​

 

[VorZakone]

This article compares New York Times headlines concerning the wars in Yemen and Ukraine and provides evidence for what is obvious to us all:

“We find extensive biases in coverage and framing, rooted in peripheralism, culturalism and differential geopolitical US positioning. This results in reduced coverage of the war in Yemen, shielded in neutral language and lacking responsibility attribution—serving to devalue the suffering of victims and condemning the crisis to be functionally forgotten...

...When viewed on their own, NYT headlines on Ukraine undoubtedly demonstrate a clear bias. Yet, when compared to headlines on Yemen, evidence extends beyond an isolated case of bias to a reflection of US foreign policy interests in two separate human security crises in which the US is aiding the respondent to aggression on the one hand and the aggressor on the other."

Nothing mind-blowing, but good to have it laid out as such. The article is behind a paywall, I’ll just quote this one section as an example of its approach:

Spoiler

"From 26 March 2015, the day the Saudi-led coalition began its airstrikes in Yemen, until 30 November 2022, NYT published 50 print and online stories with episodically framed headlines that fell within our search terms for stories on the civilian impact of the conflict. These stories document strikes on: (1) a camp for displaced Yemenis; (2) an airport; (3) markets; (4) hospitals; (5) prisons; (6) a wedding; (7) a school bus; (8) a boat carrying migrants; and (9) various other strikes that killed civilians. There were ten more thematic headlines that referred to ‘war crimes’ or ‘crimes’. Notably, only 18 of the 50 episodic headlines, or 36%, attributed responsibility to the responsible actor, the Saudi-led coalition. This means that 64% of NYT headlines that use an episodic frame do not identify the Saudi-led coalition as the actor responsible for the civilian harm. Perhaps the most egregious example is ‘Yemen Strike Hits Wedding and Kills More Than 20’ because it is difficult to imagine a comparable headline in the case of Ukraine: ‘Ukraine Strike Hits Wedding and Kills More Than 20’. Other examples include ‘Airstrike in Yemen Kills at Least 15 at Doctors Without Borders Hospital’ and ‘Yemen Market Airstrike Kills at Least 16 People’. It is also important to note that eleven of the 50 headlines that use episodic frames passively present the civilian harm by presenting the harm as alleged. For example, ‘Saudi Missile in Yemen Kills 7 at Hospital, Charity Says’...

...From 24 February 2022, the day Russia began its military actions against Ukraine, until 30 November 2022, NYT published 54 print and online stories with episodically framed headlines that fell within our search terms for stories on the civilian impact of the conflict. These stories document strikes on: (1) civilians; (2) civilian targets and sites; (3) evacuees and a civilian convoy; (4) apartments; (5) bridges; (6) hospitals and a maternity ward; (7) a shopping centre; (8) a resort; (9) an airport; and (10) infrastructure, including power, electric, and water. In addition to the 54 episodic headlines, there were 65 thematically framed headlines. These headlines refer to war crimes and atrocities, thus implying civilian harm is part of a pattern of deliberate attacks, and invoke the term genocide, which implies a pattern of attacks on civilians but, in this case, with the intent to destroy Ukrainians as a distinct group.

The vastly larger number of thematic headlines on Ukraine as compared to Yemen over a much shorter period of time is significant because, as Iyengar (1993, 14) writes, thematic framing ‘presents collective or general evidence’. Therefore, coverage of civilian harm in emen from Saudi-led airstrikes is largely event-based, meaning individualised incidents. Of course, there are many event-based stories covering Russia’s actions in Ukraine and their civilian impact, but this is also accompanied by extensive coverage of Russia’s actions as collective evidence of Russia’s criminal actions and intentions. Another notable difference between headlines on Yemen and Ukraine is attribution of responsibility. Recall that only 36% of episodic headlines on Yemen attribute responsibility to the Saudi-led coalition. Of the 54 episodic headlines on the civilian impact of the conflict in Ukraine, 50 of them cover Russian actions in Ukraine. Of these 50 headlines, 44 of them, or 88%, name Russia as the responsible actor. The four remaining headlines deal with Ukrainian actions, none of which attribute the act to Ukraine. Moreover, only five of the 50 headlines, as compared to eleven in the case of Yemen, present the civilian harm as alleged by others. One example includes, ‘At Least 200 Feared Dead in Apartments Hit by Russia, Officials Say’."

​

"This means that 64% of NYT headlines that use an episodic frame do not identify the Saudi-led coalition as the actor responsible for the civilian harm. "

Could it have been the Houthis? I don't doubt there is bias but it would be good to know which events were covered.

 

[2cents]

"This means that 64% of NYT headlines that use an episodic frame do not identify the Saudi-led coalition as the actor responsible for the civilian harm. "

Could it have been the Houthis? I don't doubt there is bias but it would be good to know which events were covered.

Not if "strikes" refers to airstrikes, which was my assumption, but perhaps the authors could be less ambiguous there. They do go on to write:

"While both the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi rebels have committed war crimes, it is important to note that the relevant UN reports repeatedly emphasise the Saudi-led coalition’s crimes. For example, in August 2018, the Group of Eminent Experts on Yemen reported: ‘Coalition air strikes have caused most of the documented civilian casualties. In the past three years, such air strikes have hit residential areas, markets, funerals, weddings, detention facilities, civilian boats and even medical facilities’."

 

[berbatrick]

https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/imran-khan-pakistan-cypher-ukraine-russia/

THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT encouraged the Pakistani government in a March 7, 2022, meeting to remove Imran Khan as prime minister over his neutrality on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to a classified Pakistani government document obtained by The Intercept.

The document, labeled “Secret,” includes an account of the meeting between State Department officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, and Asad Majeed Khan, who at the time was Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S.

The document was provided to The Intercept by an anonymous source in the Pakistani military who said that they had no ties to Imran Khan or Khan’s party. The Intercept is publishing the body of the cable below, correcting minor typos in the text because such details can be used to watermark documents and track their dissemination.

Lu then bluntly raises the issue of a no-confidence vote: “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister,” Lu said, according to the document. “Otherwise,” he continued, “I think it will be tough going ahead.”

Lu warned that if the situation wasn’t resolved, Pakistan would be marginalized by its Western allies. “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar,” Lu said, adding that Khan could face “isolation” by Europe and the U.S. should he remain in office.

 

[crappycraperson]

https://theintercept.com/2023/08/09/imran-khan-pakistan-cypher-ukraine-russia/

THE U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT encouraged the Pakistani government in a March 7, 2022, meeting to remove Imran Khan as prime minister over his neutrality on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, according to a classified Pakistani government document obtained by The Intercept.

The document, labeled “Secret,” includes an account of the meeting between State Department officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, and Asad Majeed Khan, who at the time was Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S.

The document was provided to The Intercept by an anonymous source in the Pakistani military who said that they had no ties to Imran Khan or Khan’s party. The Intercept is publishing the body of the cable below, correcting minor typos in the text because such details can be used to watermark documents and track their dissemination.

Lu then bluntly raises the issue of a no-confidence vote: “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister,” Lu said, according to the document. “Otherwise,” he continued, “I think it will be tough going ahead.”

Lu warned that if the situation wasn’t resolved, Pakistan would be marginalized by its Western allies. “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar,” Lu said, adding that Khan could face “isolation” by Europe and the U.S. should he remain in office.

Only thing that is not clear to me in this story is that one would expect Pak ambassador to an important country like US to be a PM loyalist. So it does not make sense that this would lead to overthrow of Imran's Govt. More likely that US used their under the radar Army contacts to overthrow him. Thought it questionable how much US was truly bothered by Pak's support for Russia.

 

[Raoul]

Putin can’t catch a break it seems

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Raoul]

Controversial

 

[Gehrman]

Controversial

Doesnt this belong more in a culture war thread? But despite that i think there is a emphasis for countries to teach about their history and heritage, but also colonialism and dominance of European powers is remembered more recently.

 

[Raoul]

Doesnt this belong more in a culture war thread? But despite that i think there is a emphasis for countries to teach about their history and heritage, but also colonialism and dominance of European powers is remembered more recently.

This is more of a geopolitical phenomenon that affects many countries.

 

[Gehrman]

This is more of a geopolitical phenomenon that affects many countries.

I was thinking about the more sudden decolonize everything projects and teachings that seemed to peak after the death of George Floyd in universities. But surely anyone teaching the history of Islam and its impact on the world teaches this.

 

[nimic]

Controversial

Who says they don't? This seems more silly than controversial.

 

[2cents]

Controversial

Dumb question. I’ve studied and taught the topic at Western universities.

 

[Raoul]

Dumb question. I’ve studied and taught the topic at Western universities.

Where is he going wrong here ?

 

[Gehrman]

Where is he going wrong here ?

2cents has taught it at western universities.

 

[2cents]

Where is he going wrong here ?

The assumption that universities in the West don’t teach this stuff.

 

[Raoul]

The assumption that universities in the West don’t teach this stuff.

Ahh ok. I thought you were saying his entire argument was wrong. He should've doubled checked on where it was being taught.

 

[2cents]

Ahh ok. I thought you were saying his entire argument was wrong. He should've doubled checked on where it was being taught.

No idea who he is but I’d guess he’s trying to imply that a sugarcoated narrative of Arab-Islamic imperial history is taught in “woke” Western institutions while Western colonial endeavors are unfairly demonized in the same places.

 

[africanspur]

Ahh ok. I thought you were saying his entire argument was wrong. He should've doubled checked on where it was being taught.

I mean, his entire argument is wrong isn't it? The argument is that Western universities don't teach about this stuff, likely I imagine because they fear a backlash.

Putting aside what he means exactly by that, as American university degrees are structured very differently to European ones and someone studying engineering in Germany is not going to be taught about Arab-islamic colonialism.....or indeed any other form, its just not correct. As @2cents says, it is taught there.

There's also going to be a factor of most students at Western universities not being interested in the history of the middle east, any more than they'd be interested in doing a degree on the history of South East Asia or Latin America, which is also taught far less in the west than European or North American history is.

Looking at his feed though, he's definitely solidifying his status as the next right wing provocateur.

 

[maniak]

I've learned about it in high school, let alone university. There is obviously more focus in the islamic conquest of Iberia and then later them being kicked out, but islamic expansion in north africa is mentioned.

 

[Bert_]

My A-Level history course covered it in some detail. From the early Arab conquests to the siege of Vienna, and the consequences of Ottoman domination of trade routes which eventually lead to European Imperialsim. Not to degree level but my degree was in Computer Science so the topic didn't come up.