ArmA 3's backstory - Geopolitics, Ho!

Party-approved discussion of ArmA 3
User avatar
Ferrard Carson
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:08 am

ArmA 3's backstory - Geopolitics, Ho!

Post by Ferrard Carson »

Stemming from some discussion in the Folk ARPS Skype channel, I started writing an essay about how the modern world might end up in the state of ArmA 3, especially regarding the formation and rise of CSAT. There's some cool geopolitics that could very well lead to CSAT in a plausible manner.

First off, to quote ArmA 3's website:
Formed at the apex of the Canton Protocol summits, this strategic alliance of states is built upon the goals of mutual defense, expanded global influence, and sustained economic growth.

Set against the context of foundering economies and civil unrest across the west, CSAT has risen in prominence over the last decade. Investment in shared civil and military technology and the aggressive pursuit of opportunities and partnerships throughout Asia, South America and North Africa has led to a sharp increase in strategic tension across the globe, as traditional spheres of power and influence are encroached upon.
Second off, here's a map that was posted to the BIS forums prior to A3's release: http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/418/ar ... dblocs.jpg

Let's start our analysis with this - The Iran of 2035 is almost certainly secular. This is basically a requirement for them to be considered a serious ally by China, who has some significant issues with Muslim extremists in the former Central Asian SSRs and Tibetan territories. This is also a major requirement for CSAT to be a sensible choice of alliance for Turkey, whose government is highly secular by hard-fought choice.

Iran turning secular pretty much demands a major upheaval, and I'd say that upheaval could be well on its way - ISIS is throwing a wrench into things, but in general the modern Middle East (specifically Iraq and Syria) is falling into a proxy-war between Saudi-supported Sunni Muslims and Persian-supported Shi'ites. Given the strain this is already placing on Iran's economy, it makes sense for the religiously-backed government to collapse and for Iran to go secular ala Turkey. As mentioned before, this enables Iran to convincingly attract Turkey and China into its corner. Meanwhile, a secular government can step down the anti-Israel rhetoric and begin a period of rapprochement, removing one of the biggest obstacles to westward expansion. Similarly, the Arab League has largely ceased caring about the Israel question, and is more concerned with keeping the religious nutcases from overtaking and subsuming secular governments (I'm thinking most of Egypt and their internal conflict with the Muslim Brotherhood here). Iran's abandonment of a Shi'ite dominated government makes them much more palatable for the Arab League to align with.

China's position is an odd one geopolitically - it is stable, but more or less surrounded. To its north, it has Russia, a largely silent, but ever-present bear that it must keep passive and tolerant. China also has terrorism issues stemming from the aforementioned Muslim extremists in Central Asia, and its interests are increasingly likely to conflict with India's, both in Kashmir and in the Straits of Malacca. Most importantly, it is investing heavily in the stability and economic development of many Central and Southern African nations, while at the same time attempting to establish its dominance in the Spratly Islands and the Asian Pacific Rim in general. China's single largest "adversary" in this matter is the United States who has strongly buttressed Japan and South Korea as regional powers, "wheeled" towards Asia in foreign policy focus, and strongly supported interpretations of international law that favor Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipino, etc. claims to important territory in the waters surrounding China. Australia and its NATO ties through the Commonwealth are also a minor obstacle.

A key thing to keep in mind about China is that it does not follow the Western model of expansion through puppet governments and colonialism, but is more concerned about securing enough breathing room such that other nations cannot interfere with internal Chinese issues in the way that the United States has meddled so extensively in their dealings with Taiwan.

So what would bring Iran and China together to initially form the core of the Canton Protocol Strategic Alliance Treaty? In one word: India. Through arms deals with the Soviet Union / Russia as well as some apparent dealings with NATO (according to the A3 map), India has embarked on a military improvement plan that very much rivals China's, and this military really has two main objectives: Either fend off or finish off Pakistan, and exert Indian influence on the Indian Ocean and any surrounding countries. Their increased activities on the sea and in bordering countries would instantly bring them into a proxy war with China for influence over Southeast Asia, and their increasing anti-Pakistani ability both threatens China's claim to Kashmir and makes Iran very jittery, as Pakistan currently serves as an effective buffer against encroaching influence from the east. An alliance of China and a secular Iran enables them both to cooperate in limiting India's gain of influence in any particular arena.

Aside from India, Iran and China have two disparate goals - China's desire to expand their Pacific influence runs right into American-supported opposition, whereas Iran's westward expansion is met with happiness on the part of the Arab League (yay stability and economic growth!) and consternation on the part of NATO.

Oh yeah - what's going on with NATO? Well, they're not doing too hot. Both the US and the EU are in dire economic straits due to a multitude of issues, and they're bleeding influence heavily. This economic downturn means that they are having difficulty seeing to their worldwide commitments, especially when it comes to combating a resurgent Russia. We see how bad NATO's standing has gotten in that Finland and Poland, both of whom have very important reasons for not wanting to side with Russia, are siding with Russia because (presumably) they have no other choice if they wish to remain autonomous. Similarly, Turkey has left the NATO fold and sided with CSAT, presumably because CSAT has the clout to fend off Russian influence (something the Turks have never been happy with in the first place). They may have also had some mutual interests with Iran, considering there is no Kurdistan on the A3 map.

Speaking of Russkies, Russia is doing fairly well for itself in 2035, if not exactly as well as it would hope. They've cowed Ukraine anew, brought a good number of other former East Bloc members back into the fold and seem intent on continuing to pressure NATO in order to gain more of a buffer-zone between the Bundeswehr and Moscow. They show this desire for continued pressure on NATO in their extensive arms sales to CSAT - arms and equipment that will be used to expand Iranian influence westward and Chinese influence eastwards, putting pressure on NATO on both sides of the globe. The more pressure NATO feels, the more they'll crumble and the less threat the big four (US, Germany, Great Britain, France) pose to the continuation of Russia. The big point to make here is that Russia is not part of CSAT, merely a major trading partner who is supplying CSAT with equipment to further their own goals. I wouldn't be surprised if those T-100 Varsuks are actually Iranian license-built export versions of actual Russian vehicles, thus explaining their lackluster protection.

Interestingly, China's successes in the Pacific and Iran's successes in the Mediterranean are likely drawing Russian concern, for the next logical step for CSAT in general is to turn inwards and convert the former Central Asian SSRs to the CSAT fold, something that will directly threaten Russia's south.

So there we have it:
  • CSAT is active containing India, expanding Iran's influence to the west and expanding China's security zone to the east (both at NATO's expense) while placating the Russian Federation to their north.
  • NATO is marshaling their dwindling resources on the defensive, fending off a dual culture bomb in Europe from both a resurgent Russia and an on-the-rise Iran while trying to retain what little is left of their Pacific influence in South Korea, Japan and Australia.
  • Russia is on the rise again, slowly encroaching into NATO territory to rebuild the Cold War-style buffer between them and the West, and temporarily using CSAT to further their goal of dismantling NATO. They're keeping a wary eye on China and Iran, however.
~ Ferrard
"Take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turnin' of the worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells you she's hurtin' before she keels... makes her home."

User avatar
Sparks
Posts: 545
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: ArmA 3's backstory - Geopolitics, Ho!

Post by Sparks »

...okay, but where do Nod come into it? :confused:
guns.ie ● stochasticgeometry.ie ● weak.ie

Don't tell mom I'm a pilot, she thinks I play piano in a whorehouse

zitron
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: ArmA 3's backstory - Geopolitics, Ho!

Post by zitron »

I think most of that seems very plausible, a secular Iran is something that could easily happen IRL, judging from the way the Iranians I know talk about home. China-Iran alliance also possible, especially if Iran becomes secular, and selling oil to China has been a way to avoid some of the impact of sanctions. I think some pipelines are already in the works.

What I don't understand about the A3 background story is why would CSAT start a war with NATO, since it benefits no one. NATO countries combined is China's biggest trading partner, why start a war with your customers?? Also even in 30 years China will not have near enough transport planes and ships to project power globally to compete with the US, let alone Iran. US still out spends everyone else it's not even funny. If the US navy parks just one of the many carrier groups near Altis, how can CSAT do anything? That would be game over.

User avatar
fer
Posts: 1586
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 8:16 am
Location: Emotional wreck

Re: ArmA 3's backstory - Geopolitics, Ho!

Post by fer »


zitron
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 10:18 pm

Re: ArmA 3's backstory - Geopolitics, Ho!

Post by zitron »

WTF :psyboom:

That started out reasonable, then just went completely bonkers.

Aqarius
Host
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:28 am
Location: Hobbiton, The Shire

Re: ArmA 3's backstory - Geopolitics, Ho!

Post by Aqarius »

Code: Select all

NATO  -   NATO allies    -NATO influence
Iran  -   Iran allies    -Iran influence
Russia-Russian satellites-Russian influence
China -       ???        -Chinese influence
As one of my professors used to say, "I state, tendentiously" :roll:

zitron wrote:That started out reasonable, then just went completely bonkers.
"Well, it starts with the present, and ends with us winning, now let's figure out the middle..."
[/allegedly]

User avatar
Ferrard Carson
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 6:08 am

Re: ArmA 3's backstory - Geopolitics, Ho!

Post by Ferrard Carson »

zitron wrote:I think most of that seems very plausible, a secular Iran is something that could easily happen IRL, judging from the way the Iranians I know talk about home. China-Iran alliance also possible, especially if Iran becomes secular, and selling oil to China has been a way to avoid some of the impact of sanctions. I think some pipelines are already in the works.
Good point re: Oil Sales - definitely something that would greatly benefit China, especially as auto usage expands with their economy.
zitron wrote:What I don't understand about the A3 background story is why would CSAT start a war with NATO, since it benefits no one. NATO countries combined is China's biggest trading partner, why start a war with your customers?? Also even in 30 years China will not have near enough transport planes and ships to project power globally to compete with the US, let alone Iran. US still out spends everyone else it's not even funny. If the US navy parks just one of the many carrier groups near Altis, how can CSAT do anything? That would be game over.
First off, if we are to put absolute stock behind that map I linked before, Turkey is the obvious flashpoint, as it is considered part of "The Islamic Republic of Iran" in 2035, which would indicate that CSAT invaded Turkey against its will, Turkey activated NATO's Article 5, and the war was on, and NATO lost. I strongly disbelieve this as a valid theory, because again - an Islamic Republic's interests will directly conflict with those of both China and Russia, and frankly, a secular Iran has no reason to invade a secular Turkey - hell, even a religious Iran has no reason to invade Turkey. Resolving the Peshmerga question to result in the 2035 map doesn't even require much cooperation between them, just COIN operations on both sides of the border.

I imagine a NATO conflict would be brought about either by an American-puppet / Chinese confrontation in the East, or by Turkey's defection in the West - possibly by an Israeli / Syrian conflict as well. For certain, there's no desire by China to force a direct confrontation with the United States, and no desire by Iran to conquer NATO territory by force - CSAT is doing very well for itself economically, so there's no need to resort to a war-of-conquest to fuel their engines. Therefore, something regional has to spill over into open warfare that is extensive enough for CSAT and NATO to be dragged into the fighting. There are three major possibilities in my mind:
  • The Turkey Question - Turkey is a significant US / NATO ally in the Middle East. So much so that Western nations have typically overlooked the Kurdistan issue in order to maintain a stable ally near the Sandbox, and with which to influence Russia from below. Losing Turkey from NATO is a major blow, and would raise tensions between NATO and CSAT on its own. What's more, Greece is still considered squarely in the NATO column, while Turkey is considered fiercely CSAT - combined with the mere existence of the Republic of Altis and Stratis, this seems to indicate that either Turkey opened a conflict with Greece and as a result broke away from NATO, or Turkey broke away from NATO and then opened a conflict with Greece. This could easily drag NATO into the mix because Greece's military is largely a joke compared to Turkey, and then CSAT because Turkey's military is a joke compared to NATO.
  • Goddamnit, Israel - Israel has always been a thorn in the foreign policy of NATO and the US - they're nominally an ally, but they tend to be an ally who acts first and seeks forgiveness later, something that doesn't endear them to their supporters. In this case, I would posit that as the Syrian Civil War winds down, Israel either launches a preemptive strike against Assad's regime, or Islamic extremists attack Israel as the (il)logical next step and Israel responds predictably. Either way, it triggers a war between Israel and Syria, something that no one wants a part of, but suddenly has to get involved in to prevent Israel from nuking the hell out of Syria or Syria from chemming the hell out of Israel. (NBC proliferation into small, unstable states is a lovely thing, isn't it?) This is a scenario where I can see Turkey being used as a NATO base, CSAT incursions into Turkey to hinder NATO operations, and an Article 5 response to the invasion of Turkey's sovereign soil being invoked to trigger a major conflict between NATO and CSAT. In this case, NATO would initiate the official declaration of war which fits into a declining alliance struggling to maintain its geopolitical standing.
  • The Asian Pivot - The US economy has declined by the time an Asian flashpoint comes around. What's more, is that after years of being influenced by deficit hawks into cutting virtually everything and anything except military spending and corporate subsidies, there's suddenly nothing else to cut except military spending and corporate subsidies. Cuts to military spending necessitate a stagnation in capabilities, allowing China's significant modernization and Blue Water Navy investments to catch up with the US, while cuts to corporate subsidies result in horrific repercussions as "too big to fail" corporate giants end up failing in droves, each one sending huge shockwaves of their own through the economy of the US, EU and China. What's worse for the US's geopolitical position is that during economic crises, Americans tend to elect "Mommy" presidents - domestic-focused leaders who often don't give two rats asses about the military. That stagnation of capability is likely to continue even as China weans itself from a dependence on American markets who just burned them really badly. This results in lessened support to their allies and the Philippines in particular, and when a Chinese frigate challenging the Filipino Exclusive Economic Zone is fired upon by a fed up Filipino gunboat, it forces the US into intervening in a regional conflict against a Chinese military that has basically trained for this express scenario for decades. This ends predictably poorly for the US, and CSAT influence closes the Suez to hinder the longer conflict, a move that draws the European sections of NATO into the war, where Iran comes to the aid of a woefully overmatched Egypt.
Zitron brings up another point though, in that American Carrier Groups are ridiculously powerful, and something not to be discounted. Iran and China, however, have both focused on a very Corbettian view of defeating the US Navy: Both are developing their naval capabilities enough to deny control of the sea to the United States, not to take control of it themselves in the face of American opposition. If a US Carrier Group moved into the West Pacific against Chinese encroachment on Filipino Exclusive Economic Zones, I would expect them to be hounded rather ineffectually by submarines, but taken under fire much more effectively by swarms of missile-boats, air-launched cruise missiles, and even possibly land-based conventional-tipped ballistic missiles. In the Mediterranean, things are even worse for US Carrier Groups - the clutter of commercial shipping and the extensive surrounding coastline mean that it's stunningly easy to hide a swarm of littoral missile boats from US notice. Combined with the confined space allowing the use of shore-launched cruise missiles, the preponderance of CSAT-friendly airbases in the area, and the high utility of diesel submarines in such a tight sea, and it would be a nightmare to defend a US Carrier Group from concerted attack in the Mediterranean, especially from Iran who has prepared for decades to close off the Strait of Hormuz to US shipping, a capability adaptable to the Eastern Mediterranean as well.
"Take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off just as sure as the turnin' of the worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells you she's hurtin' before she keels... makes her home."

User avatar
Peasant
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:50 pm
Location: UK

Re: ArmA 3's backstory - Geopolitics, Ho!

Post by Peasant »

zitron wrote: If the US navy parks just one of the many carrier groups near Altis, how can CSAT do anything? That would be game over.
My impression (not based on any evidence, just my guess) is that as part of the US draw down/Asian pivot there isn't a US carrier group in the Mediterranean. Presumably, the plan would be to park as many anti shipping missiles and attack jets on Altis and Stratis as possible and have them kill the carriers when they get there.

For an Iran-China axis to work, I don't think there is any requirement for Iran to be secular. If you want to sell something China needs (like oil), China will buy and won't ask questions about where the guy who got it from prays. China shows very little interest in the internal politics of countries it trades with, and Uighurs are Sunni anyway (they pose more of a problem for a Turkey-China alliance, as Turkey has shown a lot of sympathy for the Uighurs (they are ethnically Turkish, more or less)).

I think a lot of the plot holes can be plugged if you have Saudi Arabia implode (which is not unlikely) into a civil war which stops it exporting oil. This- removes Iran's main rival, establishes Iran as an even more important oil exporter and puts the European and American economies (still fairly reliant on Saudi oil) in a hole. It would also reduce the need for US forces to be in the region and encourage US isolationism (the we don't need no foreign oil school) If Saudi oil is not available, then it would also weaken the position of countries in Eastern Europe who would have to revert back to Russian energy resources.

On Turkey switching from a NATO member to a CSAT member, here is a suitably out there theory. This assumes a 'more secular Iran' and relies on the basis that the Turkish army and Turkish secularists would be willing to invite a foreign army rather than see an Islamist Turkey:
1. Turkey, outraged at the NATO invasion of Takistan (for reasons) withdraws from NATO.
2. Turkey becomes more Arab leaning, religious and politically conservative
3. Turkey becomes victim to increasingly powerful Islamist and Kurdish insurgencies as Iran pushes those groups out of their strongholds in Iraq and Libya.
4. Unable or unwilling to obtain assistance from NATO to maintain security, Turkish secularists (including the Turkish army) seize power and turn to Iran, their ally in the fight against Islamists and Kurds.

Its not a good theory but it makes more sense than a simple invasion of NATO-member Turkey by Iran through a particularly difficult and unfriendly mountain chain

User avatar
Kefirz
Posts: 440
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 11:44 am

Re: ArmA 3's backstory - Geopolitics, Ho!

Post by Kefirz »

TL;DR

But, this sounds more like fantasies than anything else. And please stop making everything about oil, there isn't a shortage of it, if crude's price will go up, people will start extracting shale oil or LTO. And with the advances in technology refining and extracting these products will get only cheaper and more efficient.


Also, it's all about business, nobody is going to war with it's biggest economical partner (China), even if they are getting aggressive in the Pacific. And Iran just got a lift in sanctions and increase in oil quotas, why would they risk loosing that all together?
''I am not going against tanks'' - Tryteyker, MAT gunner.
''Downboated so much, it's an u-boat now.'' - Boberro.
''Sorry, I meant hon hon hon baguette baguette Eiffel Tower'' - Mabbott

User avatar
Sparks
Posts: 545
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: ArmA 3's backstory - Geopolitics, Ho!

Post by Sparks »

Kefirz wrote:stop making everything about oil


:P

(That video probably needs a trigger warning for anyone who hasn't properly completed Comrade Fer's reeducation process and fully embraced Party thinking...)
guns.ie ● stochasticgeometry.ie ● weak.ie

Don't tell mom I'm a pilot, she thinks I play piano in a whorehouse

Post Reply