Section D. Analysis and Concluding Risk Remarks, 2024 Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
2024 Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
https://www.rozen-bakher.com/gsr/2024/e/concluding-risk-remarks
Published: 30 April 2024
COPYRIGHT ©2022-2024 ZIVA ROZEN-BAKHER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher: Yearly Rank to Compare the Global Political Power among Countries, Alliances and Coalitions to Survive Long Wars at the Military, Economic, and Political Levels
Rozen-Bakher, Z. Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher https://www.rozen-bakher.com/gsr
Rozen-Bakher, Z. 2024 Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher, 2024 Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher, 30 April 2024, https://www.rozen-bakher.com/gsr/2024/e
Rozen-Bakher, Z. 2023 Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher, 2023 Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher, 29 April 2023, https://www.rozen-bakher.com/global-survival-rank-zrb/2023
Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
Researcher in International Relations and Foreign Policy with a Focus on International Security alongside Military, Political and Economic Risks for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and International Trade
Section D. Analysis and Concluding Risk Remarks, 2024 Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
Section D. - List of Contents
D. Analysis and Concluding Remarks
D1. Analysis of the 2024 Global Survival Rank: Main Outcomes and Implications
D1.1 Coalitions
D1.2 United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
D1.3 Analysing Ongoing Wars by Comparing the Rank of Each Survival Factor (R1-R7)
D1.3.1 Russia-Ukraine War
D1.3.2 Israel-Hamas War
D1.4 Top Up From 2023 to 2024
D1.5 Sovereign States with Colonies
D1.6 Limited International Recognition
D1.7 NATO
D1.8 Counter NATO
D2. Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectives
D. Analysis and Concluding Remarks
D1. Analysis of 2024 Global Survival Rank: Main Outcomes and Implications
D1.1 Coalitions
Looking at the results of the 2024 Global Survival Rank related to Coalitions (Sections E1, E11, E34, E35, E36, E39.9), especially in terms of the share of each coalition (see Table 13), shows that the Russia-China Coalition has a bigger share of 80% in the Top 10, while the USA Coalition has only a share of 20% in the Top 10. Even in the Top 100, the Russia-China Coalition has a bigger share of 70%, while the USA Coalition has a smaller share of 29%. Besides, the USA Coalition has a share of 39% among all countries and colonies included in the 2024 GSR, mainly because of the Low Rank among Colonies. That means that the USA Coalition has less power in terms of Quality and Quantity compared to the Russia-China Coalition, which will impact its survival and ability to win a world war, still, keep in mind that there is a Big difference between Winning a war or Losing a war or Surviving a war. Importantly, comparing Coalitions in relation to each Survival Factor (R1-R7) (see Chart 5) shows that the USA Coalition is stronger in relation to Military Expenditure in Long Wars (R3) and Technology Level (R4a), but their Gaps between the USA Coalition and Russia-China are very small. On the opposite, the Russia-China Coalition is Stronger in relation to Area Size (R1), Population and Army Size (R2), Gas-Proved Reserves (R5), Oil-Proved Reserves (R6), and Food Security (R7), but their Gaps between the USA Coalition and Russia-China are very Big.
Table 13. Comparison of Coalitions by Top5, Top10, Top20, Top30, Top75, Top100, Up to150, up to 200, and All Countries and Colonies included in 2024 Global Survival Rank
Chart 5. Comparing Coalitions: Survival Factors (R1-R7) of 2024 Global Survival Rank
D1.2 United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
When we look at the countries that are included in the Top 25 (Table 14) in relation to UNSC, then India that has GSR=4 may be right about its argument that it should get the status of a permanent member in the UNSC because the current structure of UNSC does not reflect the current global order (see Section E38, for results of UNSC). Even Turkey complained about the current structure of the UNSC, namely the UNSC does not include the Region of Middle-East at all (see Table 15), despite that it is the Strongest region worldwide with GSR=70.9 (see Table 17 ), while Europe that has GSR=110.9 has significant representation in the UNSC, so the current structure of the Region of the UNSC is based on the past instead of the present as it should be (see Table 16). The UNSC even lacks Islamic countries as Permanent Members, even though there are 58 Islamic countries around the world (see Table 18), including 3 Islamic Countries in the Top 10 and 9 Islamic Countries in the Top 25 of the 2024 Global Survival Rank (Islam GSR=90.8, Christianity GSR=137.2, Islam-Shia GSR=69.3, Islam-Sunni GSR=92.5). Hence, it's No Surprise that the UNSC is not doing its job in preventing wars worldwide due to the problematic Veto Right alongside the current structure of the UNSC that does not reflect the current Global Order (For more information about the problematic Veto Right in the UNSC, please see Global Risks by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher, 25 February 2023, United Nations: Rubber Stamp? (https://www.rozen-bakher.com/forum/2023/02/25/un)
Table 14. Permanent Members of UNSC in Top 25 of 2024 Global Survival Rank
Table 15. Region Structure of the UNSC versus the Region Structure of the 2024 Global Survival Rank
Table 16. Region Structure of the UNSC in 2024 compared to the Region Structure of the 2024 Global Survival Rank
Table 17. Comparison of Region, sorted by 2024 Global Survival Rank
Table 18. Comparison of Religion Majority, sorted by Number of Countries and Colonies
D1.3 Analysing Ongoing Wars by Comparing the Rank of Each Survival Factor (R1-R7)
Sections E2, E4 and E5 allow us to analyse countries that are involved in a certain war by comparing them not only in relation to their WR of the 2024 Global Survival Rank but even more importantly, by comparing them in relation to the Rank of Each Survival Factor (R1-R7). To illustrate it, comparisons are presented in this section in relation to the Russia-Ukraine War (see Table 19) and the Israel-Hamas War (see Table 20), including the recent Iran-Israel Military Conflict (see Table 21), which each of them has the potential to escalate into World War III.
D1.3.1 Russia-Ukraine War
Looking at the comparison between Russia and Ukraine clearly explains the outcome of the war until now. On the one hand, the Area Size of Ukraine has saved Ukraine from a fast takeover by Russia, but on the other hand, any Military Aid that is provided to Ukraine will not help Ukraine win the war against Russia because Russia has crucial advantages compared to Ukraine, such as Bigger Army Size, Self Military Expenditure without the need for a Military Aid, a higher technology level, plenty of Gas and Oil Reserves, and even better Food Security, so it is only a matter of time until Ukraine will reach the point that it will not be able to continue the war against Russia.
Table 19. Russia-Ukraine War: Comparing Russia and Ukraine in relation to the Rank of Each Survival Factor (R1-R7)
D1.3.2 Israel-Hamas War
The case of the Israel-Hamas War is more complicated because it depends on how many countries are included in the comparison from the 'Arab Coalition’ that have joined the war against Israel (see below). Hence, if we compared the GSR only between Israel and Palestine, then clearly Israel has a big advantage compared to Palestine in relation to all the survival factors, which explains the huge gap in casualties and destruction between Israel and Palestine (see Chart 6). However, since the start of the war, gradually, more countries have joined the war – Hezbollah from Lebanon, Houthis from Yemen and the Islamic Resistance from Iraq and even Syria in a passive way, which reduced the advantage of Israel to the point of Attrition-War between the two sides without the ability to win the war by either side. Nevertheless, if Iran joins the Israel-Hamas war in a full capacity or if a Bilateral war erupts between Iran and Israel, then Israel will be in a disadvantageous position compared to Iran or compared to the ‘Arab Coalition with Iran’, especially in relation to the Area Size and Army Size, and even in relation to Technology Capabilities (Iran-R4a=15, Israel-R4a=33). That means that the Survival Factors of Iran allow Iran to survive a Long war based on its Self-Army Capabilities. Nonetheless, if more countries will join the war, either from the Palestine side or from the Israel side, then it will change the Balance of Power, still, it may lead to an all-out-war in the Middle-East and beyond or even to World War, especially if the USA as a superpower will join the war to help Israel.
Table 20. Israel-Hamas War: Comparing Israel and ‘Arab Coalition’ in relation to the Rank of Each Survival Factor (R1-R7)
Chart 6. Comparing Casualties between Israel and Palestine, 30 April 2024
Source: Aljazeera
Table 21. Israel-Iran Military Conflict: Comparing Israel and Iran in relation to the Rank of Each Survival Factor (R1-R7)
D1.4 Top Up From 2023 to 2024
Looking at the countries that have a significant Positive change in GSR from 2023 to 2024 (Sections E6-E9) reveals that North Korea has the Biggest positive change due to a significant increase in GDP and Technology Capabilities (see Table 22). In the last decade, North Korea has become a ‘Military Superpower’, then likely, that the export of weapons contributed to the increase in GDP of North Korea, which may indicate that North Korea found a way to bypass the Sanctions against the Country. Even Cuba has a significant change in GSR from 2023 to 2024 due to the increase in the GDP and Technology Level.
Table 22. Top Up 25 Countries with a Positive Change in Global Survival Rank From 2023 to 2024
D1.5 Sovereign States with Colonies
Looking at the results of 2024 GSR in relation to Colonies (Sections E10.4, E14, E15) gives a clear indication that holding Distant Colonies poses a Big Risk for Sovereign States in terms of protecting the Colonies against invasion during long wars, and it even creates a big challenge when the Colony heavily depends on the Sovereign State in relation to Food Security and Energy Security. Therefore, if we take into account the GSR of the Sovereign State, including its Colonies, then the UK and the Netherlands have the biggest risk in relation to Colonies, while France has the biggest risk in relation to the distance from the Colonies.
D1.6 Limited International Recognition
The Limited International Recognition is a mirror of the Map of the Ongoing Conflicts and Wars worldwide (see Chart 6 and Chart 7), still, it gives a clear-cut indication of which countries have the prospect of becoming Independent Countries as Full UN Members, while which countries will suffer from uncertainty regarding their sovereignty for long, such as Palestine that has the prospect of becoming a Full UN member in the short-run, while Kosovo is in the Mid-run (Limited International Recognition in Sections E16, E17). However, Taiwan is an example of a Disputed Country that has no prospect of becoming an Independent Country based on its current Limited International Recognition, because Taiwan suffers from ‘Informal International Recognition’ namely, many countries, including the USA do not dare to challenge the 'One China' policy because it will lead to the termination of diplomatic relations with China, so paradoxically, the USA provided a Military Aid to Taiwan without the USA formally recognising the sovereignty of Taiwan (China blasts US military aid to Taiwan, saying the island is entering a 'dangerous situation', AP, 4/24/2024). Nevertheless, despite that Israel has a status of a UN Member for more than 75 years, then Israel still suffers from Limited International Recognition from 29 countries without the prospect of resolving it until the ending of the Occupation of Palestine and implementation of the Two-States Solution, such as Saudi Arabia that declared that the Normalization with Israel depends on the creation of the State of Palestine (Report: Saudis seek largely declarative steps on Palestinian state to forge Israel ties, Times of Israel, 2 February 2024).
Chart 7. Limited International Recognition of UN Members and UN Observer States
Chart 8. Limited International Recognition of Disputed Countries
D1.7 NATO
NATO is considered the Strongest Military Defence Alliance, but looking at the GSR results of NATO (Section 18) reveals a complicated picture if we take into account the ‘Open Door Policy’, Turkey as a Sitting on the Fence Country, and the Colonies of NATO members (see Table 23), as follows: i) The ‘Open Door Policy’ of NATO (see Table 24) impacts negatively the military power of NATO, especially Wave IV that significantly harms the GSR of NATO. ii) Turkey has a GSR rank of 15 with a rank of 3/32 among the NATO Members, but it is unlikely that Turkey will join a war against Russia if a war erupts between NATO and Russia. iii) The Colonies of NATO members impact negatively the GSR of NATO in an unpredicted way, namely instead of GSR=75.8, then the GSR that includes Colonies is 151.4.
Table 23. NATO: All NATO Members versus NATO Members among USA Coalition versus NATO Members with its Colonies
Table 24. The Impact of the ‘Open Door Policy’ on the Military Power of NATO
D1.8 Counter NATO
‘Counter-NATO’ of Russia and China is a composition of Alliances led by Russia and China (see Section E27). Paradoxically, 'Counter-NATO' is considered less powerful compared to NATO, but if we look in-depth at their GSR results (see Table 25), then Counter-NATO is even more powerful compared to NATO, yet it lacks the coherence and cohesion that NATO has, still, keep in mind that some members included in the Counter-NATO may be involved indirectly in the war by providing a Military and Economic assistance, while some Observer States of the Counter-NATO may join the war.
Table 25. Main Sub-Alliances of Counter-NATO, sorted by 2024 Global Survival Rank
D2. Concluding Remarks and Future Perspectives
The 2024 Global Survival Rank brings to light the following conclusions and recommendations to reduce Risks in the case of long wars:
i) The USA Coalition should be more realistic regarding its ability to win a long war or world war against the Russia-China Coalition, so the USA Coalition should be cautious before entering into a Sanction War, a Cold War or worse, a World War against the Russia-China Coalition.
ii) NATO should consider its ‘Open Door’ Policy because clearly it hinders the military power of NATO, especially when too many Weak Countries get in through the ‘Door’, while strong ones stay outside the ‘Door’.
iii) NATO should think what is the best way to handle its 45 Colonies during long wars, which have an average distance of 6,501km from their sovereign states that are Members of NATO. Unreadiness for this significant problem will lead to the situation that NATO will ‘lose’ some Colonies during long wars or that NATO members with plenty of Colonies will be too busy with ‘taking care’ of their Colonies instead of putting maximum efforts into NATO during the war.
iv) Each sovereign state with colonies should be practical about its military capabilities to protect its Colonies, as well as to preserve the Energy Security and Food Security in the colonies during long wars despite the long distance. A Minimal Approach regarding 'Holding Colonies’ is better than a Maximize Approach, especially if a non-strategic Colony wish self-determination, still, a Strategic Colony that lacks full loyalty to its sovereign state may lead to a backfire during a long war, which may not be worth the ‘Strategic Point’ or the ‘Strategic Asset’.
v) NATO should take into account the ‘Sitting on the Fence’ countries, like Turkey, in relation to their willingness to join a war against Russia if a war erupts between NATO and Russia.
vi) Ukraine should be realistic about its ability to win a war against Russia even if Ukraine will get the Maximum Military Aid from its allies, because Ukraine has a small army size compared to Russia, especially as the war drags on, so instead of trying to force conscription to the army via suspension of consular service abroad which signal on the unwillingness of Ukrainian men to continue fighting in this war, then Ukraine should consider compromising via a diplomatic mechanism to avoid a fall apart of the defensive lines due to a shortfall in fighters (Ukraine suspends consular, passport services for military-age men abroad and Polish defense minister: Poland ready to help Ukraine get its military-aged men back, Yahoo, April 23, 2024)
vii) Taiwan and its Western allies should avoid acts that will lead to a military clash or even a war between Taiwan and China because it will harm Taiwan badly due to the huge gap between Taiwan and China in relation to their military capabilities, so any trying to 'help' Taiwan via a Military Aid may lead to the opposite outcome. Nevertheless, currently, only 11 countries dared to challenge China in relation to the International Recognition of Taiwan, so diplomatic efforts should be made to find a diplomatic solution regarding 'China One' instead of giving Military Aid without Recognition of Taiwan.
viii) Israel should be realistic about its capabilities to survive a long war against the 'Muslim-Arab Bloc', especially in the case of All-Out-War. Importantly, Israel should be down-to-earth regarding its ability to continue with the Occupation of Palestine in the long-run without living at the edge namely, continuing with the Occupation of Palestine under the 'One-State Solution’ doctrine will lead Israel to daily casualties of IDF soldiers and Jewish civilians, displacement areas near Gaza and Lebanon, economic and political instability due to the war costs, International isolation due to the mass casualties of Palestinians and even without the prospect that countries in the region will eventually recognize Israel. However, ending the Occupation of Palestine under the 'Two-States Solution’ doctrine will allow Israel and Palestine to find stability and prosperity, which will minimise the number of countries that don’t recognise Israel.
ix) Russia and China have strong alliances with military cooperation and even strong military treaties, yet if we look at them as a composition of Alliances that can act as a Counter-NATO in the case of war against NATO, then NATO will have an advantage in the first phase of the war because Counter-NATO lacks coherence and cohesion compared to NATO that it is used to operating as a unified alliance over many decades.
x) The UNSC should be reformed in order to be relevant in resolving military conflicts and wars worldwide in terms of the Veto Right, the composition of the permanent members, the composition by region and more. Otherwise, the UNSC is doomed to failure.
xi) The UN and the UNSC should develop a mechanism for the Recognition of Disputed Countries when they reach the milestone of International Recognition to prevent a situation in which only one country blocks the self-determination of a nation. This mechanism will prevent a long occupation and ongoing conflict as in the case of Western Sahara.
xii) Among the Superpowers, China has the best Military backup in the case of an attack against its soil compared to the USA that lacks sufficient military backup in the case of an attack against its soil. Thus, the USA should make not only 'One-Direction’ of Military Defence Treaties as it used to do over many decades but also ‘Two-Directions’ of Military Defence Treaties outside NATO, or alternatively, to add new powerful members to NATO.
