Version : Nov 2023
This brief examines three key geopolitical landscapes: Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, China-Russia-USA and China-Taiwan-USA.
Russia and Ukraine
The situation in Ukraine remains complex, with Russia seeking stability and security on its western borders. Russia does not want to see Ukraine in NATO. This stance is based on the understanding that Russia, like other great powers, prefers not to have another great power encroaching too close to its territory.
When Germany invaded Poland in 1939, it deployed 1.5 million troops, which included more than 2,000 airplanes and over 2,500 tanks, triggering World War II. This was only to conquer the western half of Poland, as the Soviets were set to conquer the eastern half. Hypothetically, if Russia were interested in conquering all of Ukraine, it would need at least 2.5 million, and arguably even 4 million troops.
Ukraine is a large piece of real estate, much larger than Poland, and conquering it would require a significantly larger force than the 190,000 troops Russia sent in 2022. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia is described as a war of attrition. In such a war, two factors matter: the population size of each country and the amount of artillery each side has. The population ratio between Russia and Ukraine is somewhere 3 to 1 in Russia’s favor, and the artillery ratio is estimated to be between 3 to 1 and 10 to 1, also in Russia’s favor.
The West, including the United States and Australia, does not have the capability to produce enough artillery tubes, shells, and tanks to rectify this imbalance. The optimal outcome for Russia would be a stable situation on its western borders. However, the situation could also worsen over time, with Russia potentially seeking to annex more territories and destabilize Ukraine further.
NATO remains committed to supporting Ukraine, and any decision to negotiate peace would be up to Ukraine.
Israel and Palestine
The Middle East crisis, particularly the Israel-Palestine conflict, is one of the most intractable issues globally. The United States and Israel are closely aligned. The relationship between the U.S. and Israel is unprecedented in modern history, with the U.S. supporting Israel almost unconditionally. This support is largely attributed to the influence of the Zionist lobby. This lobby is not exclusive to Jewish individuals or groups; it includes non-Jews and is defined by its political agenda, which is to promote staunch U.S. support for Israel. Hypothetically, no two countries have identical interests all the time. When U.S. interests conflict with Israel’s, the U.S. should be able to act in its own national interest.
The root of the problem lies in the Israel-Palestine conflict, with the failure to establish a two-state solution leading to the current situation. The current government in Israel is largely composed of individuals who don’t support the idea of dividing the region into two separate states – one for Israelis and one for Palestinians. These individuals are strongly dedicated to the concept of a “Greater Israel”, which means they want the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea to be part of a single Jewish state.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has reported that the Occupied Palestinian Territory has significant oil and gas reserves, particularly in Area C of the West Bank and off the coast of the Gaza Strip. However, due to the ongoing occupation, Palestinians are unable to develop these energy fields and benefit from these resources.
In October 2023, the Israeli government, granted 12 licenses to six companies, including BP and Italy’s ENI, for natural gas exploration in the Mediterranean Basin. The newly discovered oil and gas resources in the Eastern Mediterranean are estimated to be worth around $524 billion. However, the UN report suggests that a significant portion of these resources will likely come from the occupied Palestinian territories.
Notably, the situation has drawn attention from international human rights organizations. Amnesty International, along with Human Rights Watch and Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, have produced significant reports labeling Israel as an apartheid state.
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas threatens to escalate, with the possibility of involving Hezbollah, Iran, and conflict in the West Bank. This is due to the interconnected nature of the region’s politics and the alliances between these groups. This would be a “nightmare scenario” that could potentially draw the United States into a full-scale war in the Middle East if not managed properly.
China-Russia and the United States
China’s growth and influence in the region are seen as a challenge by some countries. The United States has somehow pushed Russia into an alliance with China, which is not in the United States’ interest. Russia has been aligning its strategic industries, technological partnerships, transportation corridors, and banking currencies more towards the East since 2014, creating a balanced, multipolar Eurasia.
The United States views China as its main competitor and perceives China’s growing influence as a threat to its own global dominance. China’s goal to become the leading power, initially in the Indo-Pacific region and then globally, is seen as unfavorable by the United States. The United States is also concerned about China’s advancement in cutting-edge technologies and seeks to slow down this growth.
China, Taiwan and the United States
The United States is aware of the potential threat of China’s ambition to reclaim Taiwan and is prepared to respond to any such move. This is a topic of growing interest.
The Taiwan Strait, a large body of water separating China and Taiwan, plays a significant role in this geopolitical tension. The Strait, which is difficult to cross and approximately 180 kilometers wide, makes amphibious operations challenging. This geographical challenge is reminiscent of the American invasion of Normandy in 1944, where the assault on Omaha Beach was a formidable task due to the need to cross a body of water under heavy enemy fire.
China views Taiwan as part of its territory and has expressed its intent to eventually unify with it. However, the United States, while not maintaining formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan, has a robust unofficial relationship with the island and continues to sell defense equipment to its military.
The U.S. has a vested interest in preventing China from taking Taiwan due to strategic reasons. Firstly, losing Taiwan could negatively impact the U.S.’s alliance structure in East Asia, which includes countries like South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, Australia, and New Zealand. These allies rely on the U.S. for their defense, and a failure to defend Taiwan could undermine their trust. Secondly, controlling Taiwan helps to contain the Chinese Navy and Air Force within the first island-chain, preventing them from dominating the waters of East Asia.
In terms of strategy, the ideal scenario for the U.S. would be to deter China from invading Taiwan by ensuring that any potential conflict would result in a lose-lose situation, where neither side would emerge victorious. The U.S. policy of “Strategic Ambiguity” involves being deliberately unclear about whether or how it would defend Taiwan in the event of an attack.
This policy brief is proprietary to Prezytion. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this brief are based on the information available at the time of publication and do not purport to contain or incorporate all the information that may be relevant or necessary for every user. The brief is intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity that downloaded it and may not be copied, shared, sold, or redistributed in any form without the prior written consent of Prezytion. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this brief is strictly prohibited. Prezytion and its affiliates make no representation or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, completeness, or currency of the information in this brief. Users are responsible for assessing the relevance and accuracy of the content of this brief. Prezytion and its affiliates will not be responsible for any damage, loss, or liability incurred as a result of using or relying on the information or recommendations contained in this brief. By using this brief, you agree to these terms and conditions.