this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
34 points (100.0% liked)

Geopolitics

420 readers
10 users here now

The study of how factors such as geography, economics, military capability and non-State actors affects the foreign policy of states.

All articles will require a short submission statement of 3-5 sentences.

Use the article title as the submission title. Do not editorialize the title or add your own commentary to the article title.

In this community we encourage long, in-depth submissions. Submissions should not be news articles that merely provide quick updates on current events; instead they should include background information and an explanation as to why the events they describe are occurring.

Submissions should not be about an individual country's domestic policies. Instead, they should be about relationships between different countries and/or relevant international organizations. Things like breakaway politics are permitted in this subreddit, as they are relevant to and could affect the geopolitical system.

Submissions are strongly encouraged to come from reputable sources. When posting from a lesser known source, please check whether the authors have some sort of qualification demonstrating they are knowledgeable of the subjects they discuss.

Sources that include (or solely contain) maps, statistics, or other multimedia (videos, interviews, primary sources, etc.) are permitted and even encouraged in this subreddit.

We encourage discussion and welcome anyone to pose hypotheses and ask questions. We allow self-posts.

We encourage comments to be cited.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Trump administration’s focus with shipping lanes and maritime infrastructure has been most visible in the Western media on the Panama Canal and Greenland but is occurring elsewhere as well. Most indications are that the goal is to push back Chinese influence while cementing US naval dominance so as to be capable of enacting a global maritime blockade of China.

As is often the case with Trump, he is only saying more loudly what has been US policy for some time. The US has for years worked to sabotage China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The US Marines shifted their focus to sea control capabilities as part of an effort to maintain naval dominance over China. [1]

It's a fairly short read and well worth it, it has some great charts showing US bases and the relevant shipping lanes and how they've positioned themselves. Great counter-evidence to anyone trying to sob to you about China trying to control the seas given how extensive this is.

And once again the Republicans may claim not to believe in climate change but their interest in Greenland clearly shows they know otherwise and are actively maneuvering to position US hegemony for the post-climate-change world.

all 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] marl_karx@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Greenland and Iceland are of strategical importance to the US unrelated to the climate change, look up Monroe Doctrine

[–] darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I don't buy this at all. They've been European holdings since before that doctrine was established and right through it. The cartoons I've seen of Uncle Sam drawing a line along the ocean seem to exclude them and start off the east coast of the US, encircle the Caribbean and encircle South America.

Geographically many consider them part of Europe, certainly not part of North America in most maps.

Also US never really cared that much about Monroe Doctrine either. The British came and beat up on the Argentineans over the Falklands. US easily could have thrown up some ships in their way and said "fuck off" or otherwise attempted to dissuade them but didn't care to. It's never been an ironclad rule or commitment.

And as Europe has been in vassalage to the US since WW2 (well all the empire holding parts, certain parts only became vassals after the USSR was destroyed) it shouldn't really matter.

It's more the US just moving in on its vassals colonial holdings because of strategic importance and the fact they want to manage a choke-point like that directly with all the attendant power over the land and building whatever bases they want, bulldozing what they want, etc to meet whatever enlarged capabilities are desired and to fortify these places as necessary.

[–] cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 week ago

I think the U.S. allowed the Falklands conflict because Britain is one of the U.S.'s best allies and they share the same interests.