Arab Gulf states… a strategic victory without war

[ShapurII]

world would be a better place if Iranians, Arabs and Turks were not at each other throats
i am not the one fighting

Sort of rich coming from a person from a country that is actively suppressing and committing crimes against its own Kashmiri population, don't you think so?

 

[Indos]

and even after all this, they still won't be able to raise a competent defensive force on their own, they will keep paying the americans for that.....and expect nothing in return.
When will they ever learn ?? perhaps never.
However, i still expect the world and its people still to be on edge, specially those in UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait.....if war restarts anytime they;re again the guinea pigs

Gulf states are actually low populated place, despite huge defense spending and modern defense equipment, it has limitation to go against country like Iran with 90 million people ( with people not being spoiled with high income like in rich countries) and large areas. If war does happen, the ground invasion that is the threat for them.

This is why country like Singapore and Malaysia still need defense umbrella of Britain and Australia (FPDA) to deter any possible Indonesian aggressive move

 

[ety]

Gulf states are actually low populated place, despite huge defense spending and modern defense equipment, it has limitation to go against country like Iran with 90 million people ( with people not being spoiled with high income like in rich countries) and large areas. If war does happen, the ground invasion that is the threat for them.

This is why country like Singapore and Malaysia still need defense umbrella of Britain and Australia (FPDA) to deter any possible Indonesian aggressive move

It's the first time I hear that Britain and Australia are defending Singapore and Malaysia in any way, seriously. I thought Singapore is an American military ally for real. The British left long ago and Aussies they can try to defend their own land first.

 

[Indos]

It's the first time I hear that Britain and Australia are defending Singapore and Malaysia in any way, seriously. I thought Singapore is an American military ally for real. The British left long ago and Aussies they can try to defend their own land first.

Ya, there is close cooperation between USA and Singapore and Singapore buy lot of US defense equipment, but it is British and Australia that really willing to defend them during 1960's against Indonesia. I think this is why their trust on both British and Australia pretty high

Actually the 1949 Peace Deal between Indonesia and Dutch didnt cover current Indonesia. Not only Papua Island, but other Islands are the result of Indonesian invasion like in Maluku Island, and later East Timor is also invaded under Soeharto.

USA is more toward global power landscape, so they dont want to go against Indonesia during 1960's due to their rivalry with Communist Power (Soviet and China). Losing Indonesia is big lost to them. Geopolitically it is not in their interest. So that thing could happen as well during the rivalry between USA and China (+Russia) Today. This is why FPDA is still exist despite close relationship between US and Singapore.

But I dont think current British and Australia will act the same like in 1960's. Their willingness during that time is more likely because they still see both Singapore and Malaysia as theirs ( Malaysia and Singapore get their independence peacefully in 1957).

--------------------

FPDA—not fade away​

21 Oct 2014
|Euan Graham

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Dubbed the ‘quiet achiever’ by Carl Thayer, the FPDA’s low profile belies a brisk tempo of multinational air, naval, land and command-post exercises held regularly under its auspices among Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. Boilerplate-text aside, Australia’s 2013 White Paper was surprisingly effusive on the Five Power arrangements, noting that membership ‘provides Australia with a strategically important presence in Southeast Asia that augments bilateral and other multilateral engagement’.

Indonesia’s still the most important external factor bearing upon the FPDA. Although not officially acknowledged, the FPDA was created in the shadow of Confrontation as the successor to the Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement, to provide a non-binding level of deterrence to Malaysia and Singapore against the return of Indonesian demagoguery (the arrangement obliges parties simply to consult in case of external attack on the Peninsula).

As Canberra has embraced Indonesia’s post-Soeharto democratisation, and pursued a bilateral compact with Jakarta as its strategic priority in Southeast Asia, so the FPDA has lost some of its lustre for Australia. Singapore and Malaysia view their larger neighbour with continuing caution and are less sanguine about the prospects for defence engagement. That explains the continuing strong support for the FPDA in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, even as their own improving relationship has rendered the arrangements less important as a conduit for managing cross-Causeway tensions.

FPDA—not fade away | The Strategist

Three years ago the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) celebrated its 40th birthday, an anniversary that sparked a flutter of international curiosity about this most eclectic of regional security frameworks. By way of animal analogy, ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[Proud Thamizhan]

The Arab nations, Iran and even Pakistan should remember their glorious ancient civilized past and realize they do not need the constant approval of western countries. You don;t have to prove your religion , you don't have to show anything. Just make sure your people are treated well and be open to reforming whatever is wrong or unsuitable in your statecraft, religion, culture, labguage, science ..to how humans are evolving. MBS kept wagging his tail only to be called ass kisser, for example.

 

[ety]

Ya, there is close cooperation between USA and Singapore and Singapore buy lot of US defense equipment, but it is British and Australia that really willing to defend them during 1960's against Indonesia. I think this is why their trust on both British and Australia pretty high

Actually the 1949 Peace Deal between Indonesia and Dutch didnt cover current Indonesia. Not only Papua Island, but other Islands are the result of Indonesian invasion like in Maluku Island, and later East Timor is also invaded under Soeharto.

USA is more toward global power landscape, so they dont want to go against Indonesia during 1960's due to their rivalry with Communist Power (Soviet and China). Losing Indonesia is big lost to them. Geopolitically it is not in their interest. So that thing could happen as well during the rivalry between USA and China (+Russia) Today. This is why FPDA is still exist despite close relationship between US and Singapore.

But I dont think current British and Australia will act the same like in 1960's. Their willingness during that time is more likely because they still see both Singapore and Malaysia as theirs ( Malaysia and Singapore get their independence peacefully in 1957).

--------------------

FPDA—not fade away​

21 Oct 2014
|Euan Graham

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Dubbed the ‘quiet achiever’ by Carl Thayer, the FPDA’s low profile belies a brisk tempo of multinational air, naval, land and command-post exercises held regularly under its auspices among Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. Boilerplate-text aside, Australia’s 2013 White Paper was surprisingly effusive on the Five Power arrangements, noting that membership ‘provides Australia with a strategically important presence in Southeast Asia that augments bilateral and other multilateral engagement’.

Indonesia’s still the most important external factor bearing upon the FPDA. Although not officially acknowledged, the FPDA was created in the shadow of Confrontation as the successor to the Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement, to provide a non-binding level of deterrence to Malaysia and Singapore against the return of Indonesian demagoguery (the arrangement obliges parties simply to consult in case of external attack on the Peninsula).

As Canberra has embraced Indonesia’s post-Soeharto democratisation, and pursued a bilateral compact with Jakarta as its strategic priority in Southeast Asia, so the FPDA has lost some of its lustre for Australia. Singapore and Malaysia view their larger neighbour with continuing caution and are less sanguine about the prospects for defence engagement. That explains the continuing strong support for the FPDA in Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, even as their own improving relationship has rendered the arrangements less important as a conduit for managing cross-Causeway tensions.

FPDA—not fade away | The Strategist

Three years ago the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) celebrated its 40th birthday, an anniversary that sparked a flutter of international curiosity about this most eclectic of regional security frameworks. By way of animal analogy, ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

I think the British and Aussie are unlikely to alone come across the ocean to SEA to fight no walkover Indonesia for the sake of Singapore and Malaysia without US also participating. Unless the British still believe the sun has never set on its empire and it is still a great power if not superpower.

 

[Indos]

I think the British and Aussie are unlikely to alone come across the ocean to SEA to fight no walkover Indonesia for the sake of Singapore and Malaysia without US also participating. Unless the British still believe the sun has never set on its empire and it is still a great power if not superpower.

Yup, time has change. I also see that way.

 

[VCheng]

The umbrella started the war they didn't wanted in the first place and it was on behalf of Israel mostly..that is what I am referring to..mainly the fact that the US has bases in the GCC and used them for logistics and support knowing that Iran will target them..and even a bit beyond..that was the GCC's first concern..not to be dragged to the war..

Interesting, especially when one considers that GCC countries have been very consistent in their message to USA that a nuclear armed Iran was totally unacceptable to them, and that they would be forced to go nuclear as well.

The bases were created as part of that commitment to prevent Iran from going nuclear, and what you say is merely a veneer of pretending to look the other way to appear clear of their own involvement in this whole process.

That will fool only the gullible.

 

[nahtanbob]

Sort of rich coming from a person from a country that is actively suppressing and committing crimes against its own Kashmiri population, don't you think so?

it is one thing to be eliminating your own defenseless citizens. it is another thing to shoot at countries that can shoot back

 

[nahtanbob]

Yes it does so! The Indian society is built such that it calls for total slaughter of and attempts to kill off minorities.

The Indian farmers are still committing "suicides" when they refuse to buy gmo seeds that die every year but the Indians don't report about it either.

If you want to count the numbers, the Christians have killed far, far, FAR greater number of others by 100s of millions.

Just recently the Christians have supported, funded and enabled the Zionists in committing a genocide in front of the whole world. The Christians have committed at least one genocide every 25 to 100 years throughout their history, the one being done in Palestine as the latter example. Is that house being in order?

you can tell anything about you want about India. the world does not see it that way

On Israel most of countries are close to moving on. Israel Arab neighbors have recognized Israel. Turkey has had diplomatic ties. Saudis are all but ready to.

 

[nahtanbob]

They are not..

It would be great if they were not

 

[nahtanbob]

I mean technically you aren’t wrong honestly not that I care about the whole hydrocarbon debate but I guess if you have to go with one or the other I would go with the chemists and not big oil advocates
Though chemists classify pure hydrocarbons as compounds consisting only of hydrogen and carbon (like methane or benzene), energy experts frequently group coal with fossil fuels and include it in broader industrial definitions of hydrocarbon-based energy.

I was surprised some folks included coal as a hydrocarbon. I guess it makes sense since coal is non-renewable like hydrocarbons

In any case coal is not relevant to the article because largest producers are not in the Gulf

 

[VCheng]

I was surprised some folks included coal as a hydrocarbon. I guess it makes sense since coal is non-renewable like hydrocarbons

In any case coal is not relevant to the article because largest producers are not in the Gulf

Some of the largest producers of oil and gas may be currently in the Gulf, but that can always change with a major discovery or two elsewhere in the world. After all, exploration goes all over the world.