The Eastern Mediterranean Sea and the Geopolitical Developments-Part IV

Which is the proper strategy that Western countries must follow to correct all these geopolitical developments in the Eastern Mediterranean area and generally in a global level?

The detailed answer to this question will be given to this last part (Part IV) of this series of analyses with title «The Eastern Mediterranean and the Geopolitical Developments» which we will present below.

In the previous analyses of this issue (Part I, II, and III respectively) we referred to the two major and serious crises between the USA-Turkey (Part I) and Russia-Greece (Part II) which appeared at the same time in the summer of 2018.

Which twin geopolitical crises will change the geopolitical map not only in the eastern Mediterranean but also globally.

The resulting changes that will appear on the global geopolitical chessboard as result of these two twin crises have been reported in detail in the third part (Part III) of these analyses.

by Thanos S. Chonthrogiannis-https://www.liberalglobe.com

The security gaps

The proper strategy that Western countries must follow is consisted from a grid of geopolitical alliances, as much in political, economic and military level which I will try to analyze in individual articles.

However, what is being readily understood is a security gap in the Eastern Mediterranean that creates the conditions for creating disputes both at the expense of the EU and at the expense of all the countries of the Mediterranean basin (in the Mediterranean Sea is also included the Black Sea).

When I am referring in security gap, I mean that:

1) Some countries do not follow the rules of International Law,

2) These countries create unfair claims – positions on expense of the wealth of other neighboring countries,

3) These countries do not respect the human rights as much in their own societies as in the societies of other countries, using the any possible military strength that they have for the unfair control of any geopolitical area in which their state is located etc.

The proper geopolitical strategy

In this case, both USA, EU and UK as well as the total of the Western countries, the only strategy that they have available in their hands for the guarantee of the security in the southeastern borders of Eurozone/EU is the implementation of the strategy which is based on the classic principle of the ancient Rome that ensured the peace.

This strategy guaranteed the security and the long-living of the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean Sea.

This strategy is “the occupation-dominance over the opposite sea coast”.

The EU and USA are obliged, with the same way which this strategy was implemented by the ancient Rome, to implement the same strategy and to dominate upon all the opposite seacoasts of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea (annexation of the total of the Mediterranean countries by the West).

The application of this strategy does not mean mandatory taking a military action given that such issues in nowadays can be solve with the diplomacy and through the political-economic and trade action correspondingly.

The goal of this analysis is not to inspire war and conflicts but to become understandable from all over the world where these geopolitical developments lead to and what must be done from everyone to avoid a big in scale war or much many peripherical wars.

Historic examples of successful application of this strategy

Historic examples of this successful application of the strategy of “the occupation-dominance over the opposite sea coast” are:

1) The Roman Empire (first taught and practicable)

Initially with the action of the best general in all Roman’s Empire history, Publius Cornelius of Scipio the African (235-183) BC and after with the strategy of Gaius Julius Caesar (100-44) BC that conquered the total of the seacoasts of the Mediterranean Sea (opposite seacoasts to the European seacoasts), establishing the longevity and security of the Roman Empire.

2) The British Empire (Pax Britannica)

England implementing the strategy of “the occupation-dominance over the opposite sea coast” of the Roman Empire succeeded to dominant initially along the opposite to southeast England shores, the West seacoasts of Europe. Analytically,

a) on France, with the hundred-year (100 years) war (1337-1453),
b) on Spain, with the English-Spanish war (1585-1604),
c) on Dutch (Holland), with the English-Dutch war (1613-1654).

establishing its strong dominance over the world’s bays and sea passes as well as the sea coasts facing them, such as in the North Sea with Norway, Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Suez, North Africa seacoasts, the Red Sea, Persian Gulf with its islands, Indonesia with its islands, India (Indian Ocean), Australia, New Zealand, Hong-Kong, Falkland Islands.

And later dominating as much on the seacoasts of the Atlantic Ocean both of Western Europe and West Africa as on the seacoasts of the East America- (Northeast and Central east America) securing the longevity and safety of the British Empire (Pax Britannica) in the Atlantic Ocean.

3) Sweden

The King of Sweden Charles IV (1682-1718)-Great commander and military genius, implemented also the strategy of “the occupation-dominance over the opposite sea coast” in the Baltic Sea and North Sea with the Great North war.

Dominating in the opposite shores to Swedish sea coasts, i.e. the seashores of Poland, Denmark and Russia equally creating in his time the Swedish Empire.

4) USA (Pax Americana)

The US, which fully implemented the strategy of “the occupation-dominance over the opposite sea coast” of the Roman Empire but for first time at global level as much

a) during the Second World War (WWII), with their dominance:

• on the opposite seacoasts of the American continent (shores of the Asia continent-Pacific Ocean), controlling sea passes and islands-winning the war on the Imperial Japan.

Imperial Japan losing the Pacific Ocean War from the US-Battle of Midway and Santa Cruz and the Battle of Guadalcanal (1942)-failed to implement the strategy of “the occupation-dominance of the opposite sea coast” along the shores of the Western America continent of the Pacific Ocean and as Imperial Japan implemented successfully but only on the seacoasts of the Eastern Asia (West Asia for Japan) along the Pacific Ocean.

• on the opposite seacoasts of the East America continent (Atlantic Ocean) which are the shores of the West Europe.

Using Britain as excursion base to dominate the opposite to Southeast English shores which are the shores of the West Europe.

As well as using the shores of the North-Mediterranean Africa to conquer-dominate the opposite shores to them, the South European (Mediterranean) shores.

• Winning together with its allies the Germany of Nazi.

b) as after the end of the WWII and during the “Cold War”.

• Since Britain was heavily indebted to the US with more than $250bn during the WWII and did not have the resources to support its former empire, Britain was retired, and US taken up entirely at global level.

For the US, the strategy of “the occupation-dominance over the opposite sea coast” of the Roman Empire was forced to be implemented at global level because the technological developments in military sector made vulnerable USA, which until then were protected by two Oceans as an isolated country-island (the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean equally).

With the advanced technological developments in the military sector, the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean transformed in huge global lakes.

• Aftereffect of the Atlantic Ocean implementation of “the occupation-dominance over the opposite sea coast” strategy of the Roman Empire by USA was the creation of NATO (Organization of North Atlantic Treaty).

Securing the safety, the well-being, the security and the development in both sides-seacoasts of the continents of the Atlantic Ocean.

• Winning together with its allies the USSR and the “Cold War”

The current implementation of this strategy by China

Today, it is China’s ongoing effort to consolidate its sovereignty over the Asian Pacific Ocean coasts (the corresponding acquisitions of Asian coasts that Imperial Japan had during the 2nd World War) as the first stage of its strategy, so to be able to proceed in the second stage of this strategy.

The second stage of this strategy for China is its domination over the US allies and their respective conquests in the Pacific Ocean.

In today’s times, this strategy will be achieved first through the commercial and economic “conquest” of all these Pacific Ocean countries by the Chinese economy.

As a follow-up to this “economic and commercial conquest”, the “military intimidation” of these countries will come through China’s effort to defend its economic and commercial interests throughout the Pacific Ocean.

So that it can then go to the last stage of this strategy. The last stage of this strategy is its domination over the coasts of the American continent of the Pacific Ocean (the occupation-dominance over the opposite Asian seacoasts).

As I mentioned in the previous analysis (see at the analysis, “The Eastern Mediterranean and the Geopolitical Developments” Part-III) and given the exchange facility and support that Turkey will receive from China and generally from BRICS – which translates into Turkey’s political dependence from BRICS, China will be able to acquire in the future military and naval bases at Turkey territory and exit to the Mediterranean Sea.

This strategy will make China able to defend its commercial and economic interests in the EU, transferring its global geopolitical weight apart from the Pacific Ocean, in the Mediterranean Sea and later in the Atlantic Ocean.

This strategy in the Atlantic Ocean will be achieved through the countries of the African continent. Since other Muslim countries of the African continent have also joined this economic bloc of BRICS.

In such case, China will have the ability to implement slowly and steadily together with other nations like Russia and generally BRICS the strategy of “the occupation-dominance over the opposite sea coast” in Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.

The implementation by the Western countries of the strategy of “the occupation-dominance over the opposite sea coast”.

The implementation by the West of the strategy of “the occupation-dominance over the opposite sea coast” historically applied by the Roman Empire will bring peace and prosperity to the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean.

As successful as the implementation of this strategy is, if Turkey leaves from NATO, the West will not be able to control the Eastern Mediterranean.

Only if Turkey remains in the NATO and, more generally, on the West side, this tactic is fully achieved.

But if Turkey remains in the NATO and in West, the only forced way out that Russia has to the Mediterranean Sea is the surprise attack and full occupation of the territory of the European Turkey by achieving full control of the Bosporus straits and the Sea of Marmara.

Russia can achieve this because due to its geographical proximity it can transfer in a very short time strongest military forces unleashing lightning strike.

NATO and the EU cannot respond because they do not have the appropriate military forces in the region. The only thing they can achieve is the delay in the capture of the target by the Russian army.

In that case the Russia axis that is created between Crimea-European Turkey-Syria & Libya completely cancels the strategy of West in the Eastern Mediterranean.

In such a case, the Western countries will require from Russia to return to the West the territory of the European Turkey, raging serious conflicts between West and Russia.

But if Turkey leaves NATO and approaches Russia and the BRICS in general, then it is the West (US, EU & UK) that will have to annex the EU’s territory to the full control of the Bosporus straits and the Sea Marmara, permanently excluding the Russian fleet from the Mediterranean Sea.

To avoid all this, will must be normalized the relationships between West and Russia (how to achieve this I will refer to another article).

Today, for the control of the basin of the Eastern Mediterranean, the West (USA, EU & UK) implement a strategic military alliance between Greece, Cyprus (both members of Eurozone/EU), Israel and Egypt for the control of the sea transporting roots of natural gas and oil from the Eastern Mediterranean to the markets of the EU.

This strategic alliance in order to succeed and long-lived will must include:

1) Acquisition of military and naval bases for the West in the territory of Republic of Cyprus

The US and EU should be taught by Pax Britannica’s strategy where for the full control of the Mediterranean Sea it has gained ground in the Mediterranean sea passages.

In Gibraltar (Spain-North Africa), the island of Malta and the island of Cyprus.

Connecting these three points in a map at a notional straight-line, the West can control along the Mediterranean Sea and create the bases at these places for controlling the Mediterranean Sea.

Since US will lose or sub-operate their bases in Turkey, it is vital for the West to have military and naval bases in Republic of Cyprus.

In addition, the island of Cyprus resembles an unspoiled aircraft carrier that can transport infrastructure to any advanced ‘outposts’ of the West in the Middle East (Israel, Jordanian etc.).

That is why the Republic of Cyprus will must become a full member of NATO.

In such a case and given that Cyprus is already a full member of the Eurozone/EU, the Western countries will achieve very soon:

i) the rapid resolution of the chronic Cyprus problem

ii) a direct and long-term pressure on Turkey, which will have first to withdraw its occupying army in Cyprus in order to resolve the Cyprus problem.

NATO can place it on it bases in Cyprus, missile systems and long-range radars exerting permanent pressure on Turkey.

iii) The British bases are automatically transformed into NATO bases, controlling NATO fully the Middle East and the seaways for natural gas transport to the EU.

2) The Key in this alliance for the control of the Eastern Mediterranean

is Egypt and not Turkey, because Egypt,
i) controls the Suez Canal,

ii) supports and cover along the back of the above-mentioned alliance axis between Greece-Cyprus-Israel.

If Turkey had annexed the Egypt in its own Nationalistic and fundamentalist axis, the alliance of Greece-Cyprus-Israel under the umbrella of West would have been “crushed” very easily and West would lose control of the Eastern Mediterranean.

3) The necessary military, political, cultural and economic alliance

These four countries Greece-Cyprus-Israel-Egypt will must be supplied by the West with first-class weapons and their military alliance will must be based on type FMF (Foreign Military Financing) funds, which will come from both the US and the Eurozone/EU.

The military alliance between these four countries does not mean anything if it is not escorted with even more political, cultural and economic alliance/unification between them and not only with military alliance.

The historical retrospection I made about the eastern Mediterranean and, more generally, about Hellenism and Greek space in our previous analyses on the same theme, (see previous analysis “The Eastern Mediterranean and the Geopolitical Developments-Part II), shows a unique way how these countries will come very close to each other.

Since they have many common cultural elements, creating a prototype model of economic, political, cultural and military union for the whole world, irrespective of the religion and nationality of their peoples, by engaging in this association and other states in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean, giving to their citizens the opportunity to prosper.

Only in such way’s peace will come to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Unfortunately, Turkey and especially the coasts and the shores of Mediterranean Turkey are missing from this puzzling union, which due to Turkey’s great idealism chose another way.

But this proper alliance between Greece-Cyprus-Israel-Egypt under the umbrella of West is in danger of being spoiled due to the wretched strategy of the West (USA & EU) against the Russia in the geopolitical space of the Balkans.

While one of these four alliance countries – Greece – belongs to the Balkan Peninsula but does not belong geopolitically to what we call the Balkans, it will be forced to engage in adventures because of its erroneous political stumbling that West follows against Russia, which will affect the alliance of Greece-Cyprus-Israel-Egypt.

In another analysis I will refer to the proper strategy that the Western countries will must follow in the Balkans.

Thanos S. Chonthrogiannis

Ιt is forbidden by the law of intellectual property in any way unlawful use / appropriation of the present article, with severe civil and criminal sanctions for the offender