Section B. Introduction: Why do we need a Global Survival Rank?, 2024 Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher

Written By Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher

2024 Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher

https://www.rozen-bakher.com/gsr/2024/e/introduction

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

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

CV

Section B. Introduction: Why do we need a Global Survival Rank?, 2024 Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher

 

Section B - List of Contents

B. Introduction: Why do we need a Global Survival Rank?

  • B1. Survival in Short War versus Long War

    • B1.1 Area Size (R1)

    • B1.2 Army Size (R2)

    • B1.3 Military Expenditure in Long Wars (R3)

    • B1.4 Technology Level (R4a)

    • B1.5 Distance From Colony to Sovereign State (R4b)

    • B1.6 Energy Security: Gas-Proved Reserves (R5) and Oil-Proved Reserves (R6)

    • B1.7 Food Security (R7)

  • B2. Military Defence Treaty versus Military Support Treaty versus Military Cooperation

    • B2.1 Basic Key Definitions

      • B2.1.1 Multilateral Military Treaty versus Bilateral Military Treaty

      • B2.1.2 Treaty with Equal Commitment to Defend (Two-Directions) versus Treaty with Non-Equal Commitment to Defend (One-Direction)

      • B2.1.3 Active Military Treaty versus Inactive Military Treaty

    • B2.2 Military Defence Treaty

    • B2.3 Military Support Treaty

    • B2.4 Military Cooperation

      • B2.4.1 Military Cooperation Under Multilateral Trade/Economic/Political Alliances

      • B2.4.2 Joint-Intelligence Multilateral Alliance

      • B2.4.3 Ad-hoc Military Coalition

      • B2.4.4 Presence of Military Bases in Foreign Countries

      • B2.4.5 Joint Military Drills

      • B2.4.6 Selling Weapons and Military Training

 

B. Introduction: Why do we need a Global Survival Rank?

B1. Survival in Short War versus Long War

There is a BIG difference in terms of Survival between a Short War that can last for a few weeks to a few months and a Long War that can last for many months to a few years, as happened in World Wars. In a Short War, success depends on the Intelligence ability to predict surprise attacks or to be ready for ‘get-up-and-go’ for a War alongside the readiness of the army in terms of the Active Forces yet with the ability for a fast call for the Reserve Forces, as well as the availability of the right weapons and the right munitions that fit the battlefield conditions and a very good Defence weaponry to minimise destruction and casualties. However, in Long Wars, success depends on the ability to survive daily attacks for many months and even years, so the readiness mentioned above may be a good start, but it will not help if the war drags on for years, especially in the cases of Regional War or World War when the transportation and movement of armies, weapons, energy, goods, and even food between countries are very limited and even not possible. Hence, under the conditions of Long Wars, we need to take into account Crucial Factors that impact the Survival of a country in Long Wars, as presented in this section.

B1.1 Area Size (R1)

The most important factor for Survival in long wars is the Area Size of the country because when an invasion occurs, it is more difficult to takeover on Big countries compared to Small ones, such as what happened in WWII, namely Denmark was conquered by the Nazi Army in a few hours and the Netherlands in a few days because both of them are Small countries, while North-Central France, including Paris, was also conquered by the Nazis, yet South France remained liberated because France is a big country, which eventually allowed France to carry out Resistance from South France against the Nazis.  Nevertheless, the Big Area Size of Russia prevented Hitler from reaching Moscow, which allowed Russia to keep fighting against the Nazi army and eventually win the war against Hitler from North-East Berlin together with the Allies that liberated the occupied territories from South-West Berlin. Nevertheless, the Area Size in the reality of the 21st century is even more crucial compared to the WWII era because of the Missiles and Drones, namely it is easier to wipe out and neutralize Small Countries compared to Big ones with the weapons of the 21st century. Nevertheless, the Area Size in the reality of the 21st century is even more crucial compared to the WWII era because of the Missiles and Drones, namely it is easier to wipe out and neutralize Small Countries compared to Big ones with the weapons of the 21st century. Importantly, under the current reality that Nuclear countries often remind us of their ability to use Nuclear weapons, the Area Size even becomes more critical for survival in the case of a Nuclear Strike in terms of ‘To be or Not to be’. In other words, a Small country will unlikely survive one Nuclear strike, while a Big country has the chance to survive even a few Nuclear Strikes.

B1.2 Army Size (R2)

The second important factor for Survival in long wars is the Army Size that is derived directly from the Population size, namely Small Army has difficulty in surviving Long Wars because it lacks sufficient Reserve Forces compared to a country with a Big Population. To remind, in WWI and WWII any healthy man was conscripted to the army due to the unprecedented Casualties, and many armies even reduced the Conscription Age in order to conscript younger ones, while they increased the Conscription Age in order to conscript older ones. Even Ukraine, after two years of war against Russia, imposed a strict new law in trying to conscript more men to the Ukrainian Army because the Ukrainian Army is smaller compared to the Russian Army (Ukraine pressures fighting-age men outside country to replenish force, LA Times, April 25, 2024). Thereby, the importance of the Army Size can be illustrated via two cases, as follows:

  • Small Army Size with a Big Area Size. Small Army Size with a Big Area Size, as in the case of the Colony of Greenland of Denmark that has a Big Area Size (Rank 60) but a very Small population (Rank 218) and a Distance of more than 3,500 km from its Sovereign State, Denmark, which also has a relatively Small Army Size (Rank 114).

Table 4. Denmark and its Colony Greenland - An Example of Small Army Size with a Big Area Size

  • Small Army Size with a High GDP. Small Army Size with a High GDP (Rich Country), as in the case of the rich country Luxembourg, which has the highest GDP per Capita worldwide (GDP-Rank 73) but has a very Small Army Size (Rank 172), so even if Luxembourg has the money to buy the best advanced weapons, yet its Small Army can not survive a long war and doubtfully even a short war, as happened in WWII when the Nazis started the occupation of Luxembourg in the morning and completed it at noon. Thus, Luxembourg as a NATO member depends heavily on the defence of NATO in the case of an attack like the other NATO Members that have a Small Army.

Table 5. Luxembourg - An Example of Small Army Size with a High GDP

B1.3 Military Expenditure in Long Wars (R3)

First, it is important to distinguish between a Military Expenditure based on Aid and a Military Expenditure based on Self-Reliance (GDP), namely Military Aid is given by Foreign Allies, either under a Military Support Treaty or Ad-Hoc, while a Military Expenditure based on Self-Reliance relies on money that the country has based on its GDP. Therefore, the availability of weapons on the ‘Day One’ of war may help to cope with the war in the start phase, but if the country is poor in terms of GDP, then it will be harder for the country to buy weapons during a long war, while a rich country with a high GDP will likely succeed in buying weapons even at high prices in the global market even during a World War. The Russia-Ukraine War is a very good example to illustrate this critical factor for survival in long wars. If we look at their GDP below, then Russia has a Rank of 8, while Ukraine has a Rank of 61, which explains the Big problem of Ukraine, namely Russia has plenty of money to BUY any available weapons and munitions in the global market despite the Sanctions, which indeed has led Russia to start buying weapons and munitions from many sources including from its new Strategic ally, Iran, and even from North Korea, while Ukraine since the start of the war has relied heavily on Military Aid from the USA, UK and the EU, but when started to be a problem to get more Military Aid, then Ukraine started to be in a Big Trouble in terms of Survival, still, this turbulence can be predicted from the start based on this factor.

Table 6. Comparison of Russia and Ukraine - An Example of Gap in Military Expenditure based on Self-Reliance (GDP)

B1.4 Technology Level (R4a)

The Technology Level of a country also plays an important role in surviving Long Wars. Firstly, the Technology Level signals if the country can produce advanced weapons and ammunition via the local defence industry. Secondly, even if a country usually buys weapons from Foreign Military Producers, then in a long war, it is critical that the country will have the technical ability to maintain weapons that were not produced by the local industry because of the difficulty of getting maintenance from Foreign Producers during long wars, especially during World War. Otherwise, without local technological capabilities, the army will not be able to use weapons that suffered even from small damage during the war. Thirdly, the Local Technological Capabilities in terms of Improvising Alternative Solutions for producing and maintaining weapons and ammunition may be the most critical factor for survival in long wars from the technological perspective because, in long wars, it is very difficult to get spare parts for weapons, so the country needs to improvise the spare parts with the local industry. Importantly, even if the country has the money to buy weapons and ammunition, then sometimes, it becomes impossible to buy weapons and ammunition during a long world war, so the country needs to transform civil factories into military factories to produce improvised weapons and ammunition, such as what happened in WWII. For example, Ukraine many times mocked Russia for using improvised weapons and ammunition during the Russia-Ukraine War, but this Technological Capability helped Russia to survive the war during the time frame of limited stock of weapons and ammunition until Russia got new weapons and ammunition, either from Foreign Producers or from Russian Producers. Note, Russia has a Technology Level with a Global Rank of 7, which explains its ability to survive long wars in terms of improvising weapons and ammunition. 

B1.5 Distance from Colony to Sovereign State (R4b)

Colonialism started in the 15th century as part of the Imperialism and Mercantilism Doctrine, and it reached its peak in WWI, but since then, most of the Colonies became Independent Countries, so currently, most of the remaining 51 Colonies under 11 Sovereign States are small and weak, including isolated islands, with an Average Distance of 6,184 km From the Colonies to the Sovereign States (see below), either with the objective of becoming independent countries or remaining as Colonies. However, a Long Distance from a Colony to a Sovereign State poses a High Risk during Long Wars because the Sovereign State needs to give Military Protection to its Colonies including taking care of their Food and Energy, which becomes a complex task during Long Wars because most the Sea Routes are not Safe for Civil Vessels due to the fighting between rival Navies, while providing food by Civil Air Carriers is very expensive due to the long-distance, regardless of their safety during war. Importantly, there are Military Defence Treaties that do not cover Colonies, so the Sovereign State needs to defend its colonies by its own means in the case of an attack against them, which makes it harder when the Sovereign State has many Colonies with a Long Distance to them.

Table 7. Total Colonies per Sovereign State including their Average Distance to their Sovereign State

B1.6 Energy Security - Gas Proved Reserves (R5) and Oil Proved Reserves (R6)

The Embargo on Oil that was imposed by OPEC against Israel and its allies following the Yom-Kippur War, which lasted for about one year, is a good example of why energy is an important factor in wars and even how the ‘Oil and Gas Weapons’ can impact the Survival in Long Wars. However, in the last decade, the Proved Reserves of Gas and Oil did not increase significantly (see below), which makes today the ‘Oil and Gas Weapons’ even more a critical factor for survival in long wars compared to the past because only a small group of countries have significant Gas Reserves and Oil Reserves, which increases the dependency on these countries. Having said that, the Russia-Ukraine War has led to a situation in which the Gas has even become more privileged compared to Oil because Russia and its allies have significantly more Gas Reserves compared to what the USA and its allies have, resulting in a situation in which the Gas Reserves is more critical for survival compared to the Oil Reserves. Importantly, the problem today is not only which countries have Oil and Gas and which countries have more privilege to buy it, but also if the Gas and Oil Vessels and Tankers can be delivered without 'Sea-Attacks', such as the Attacks by the Houthis against Vessels and Tankers in the Red Sea as part of the Gaza War, which forced many Vessels and Tankers to change their sea route from the Suez canal to the long sea route via Cape Routh around Africa (see map below). However, in the case of World War, there are no ‘Safe’ sea routes, so having Gas and Oil can significantly affect the survival of countries in long wars. The Energy problem may become for some Colonies as ‘To Be or Not to Be’ in Long Wars because most of the Colonies are very far from their Sovereign State (Average Distance of 6,184 KM) without any Oil and Gas reserves, so their survival in long wars depends heavily on whether they will succeed to get Oil and Gas during the war. 

Table 8. Oil Proved Reserves and Gas Proved Reserves, 2010-2020

Source: Energy Institute Statistical Review of World Energy

Chart 3. Oil Proved Reserves and Gas Proved Reserves: USA Coalition versus Russia China Coalition

Map 1. Sea Route From Asia to Europe: Suez Canal Route versus Cape of Good Hope Route

Source: Daily Sun Express

B1.7 Food Security (R7)

Urbanisation alongside globalisation has led to a new era in terms of food, namely less and less Agricultural land, while more and more dependency on imported food, which has increased the Food Insecurity worldwide during wars compared to the reality in WWII. However, even in WWII, Food Insecurity was a critical issue because of the lack of labour to work in Agriculture or because the fields became battlefields amid the war. Hence, under the current reality that many countries rely heavily on Imported Food over local Agriculture, the survival in long wars also depends on whether the country still has enough Agricultural land for Food Security in the case that the circumstances will prevent getting imported food during the war. Importantly, Food Security like Energy Security is like ‘To Be or Not to Be’ for Colonies, because most of the remaining Colonies are distant islands that transformed into Tourism Hubs without keeping Agricultural land, which will lead to Food Insecurity in Colonies during long wars.

 

B2. Military Defence Treaty versus Military Support Treaty versus Military Cooperation

There is a critical difference between a Military Defence Treaty versus a Military Support Treaty versus a Military Cooperation, as presented in this section.

B2.1 Basic Key Definitions

B2.1.1 Multilateral Military Treaty versus Bilateral Military Treaty

A Multilateral Military Treaty includes more than two countries (e.g., NATO), while a Bilateral Military Treaty includes only two countries (e.g. China-North Korea Treaty).

B2.1.2 Treaty with Equal Commitment to Defend (Two-Directions) versus Treaty with Non-Equal Commitment to Defend (One-Direction)

An Equal Treaty (Two-Directions) refers to a Treaty that both sides commit to Defend in the case of an attack (e.g. USA-Canada Treaty), while a Non-Equal Treaty (One-Direction) refers to a Treaty that a Strong Country has the commitment to Defend its Weak Ally, while the Weak Ally has no commitment to defend the Strong Country, such as the China-Solomon Islands Security Pact or the USA-Japan Treaty.

B2.1.3 Active Military Treaty versus Inactive Military Treaty 

Many old Military Treaties, either Military Defence Treaties or Military Support Treaties, are de-facto Not Active, mainly due to transformation in the regime, political circumstances, geopolitics, and global order, such as new leaders that oppose treaties that were signed by former leaders or due to collaboration with New Allies that are considered as Rivals to the treaty. The Military Defence Treaty, Rio Pact, that was signed in 1947 and currently covers the USA and 17 countries from Latin-America is a good example of how a treaty over the years becomes de-facto an ‘Inactive Military Treaty’, namely there are no Yearly Summits, No Joint-Drills, the Alliance has No Active Headquarter, and, importantly, over the years, many members have distanced themselves from the treaty, so if, for example, a war erupts between the USA and Russia, then it's unlikely that Brazil and Venezuela will be involved in a war against Russia to protect the USA, despite that Brazil and Venezuela are formally members of the Rio Pact.

B2.2 Military Defence Treaty

A Military Defence Treaty includes the Crucial Commitment to Defend in the Case of Attack, namely an attack against one member of the treaty will be considered as an attack against all members of the treaty, resulting in a situation in which all the members of the treaty will join the war to defend the member that suffers from the attack. However, there are Military Defence Treaties with a ‘Hard Definition’ regarding the Commitment to defend in the case of attack, such as NATO and CSTO, while there are Military Defence Treaties with a ‘Mid-Definition’ or even with a ‘Soft Definition’ about the Commitment to defend in the case of attack. Still, in all Definitions, the outcome is clear, namely there is a Commitment to defend in the case of an attack, which is opposite to other Military Treaties that lack any commitment to defend in the case of an attack, such as the Military Support Treaties.

B2.3 Military Support Treaty

A Military Support Treaty aims to give support and a Military Aid in the Case of an Attack, but without the commitment to defend in the case of attack, so the country needs to fight alone with its army, yet the country is supposed to get a Military Aid from the country that is party to the Military Support Treaty, such as the Bilateral Military Support Treaty between the USA and Israel, in which Israel should defend its soil with its army, yet the USA has the commitment to give a Military Aid to Israel to handle the war (US military aid to Israel under scrutiny as Biden signs $26 billion in new assistance, Voice of America, April 24, 2024). Notably, the USA indirectly defended Israel when Iran attacked Israel, which was done from the Jordan territory because the USA has Military bases in Jordan. That was done based on the general principle that if a country has Military bases abroad, then it gives the legitimation to protect the soil of the host country or the military bases themselves. Hence, usually, Military Support Treaties are Bilateral Treaties, rather than Multilateral Treaties, such as the numerous Bilateral Military Support Treaties that the USA has with its Allies, either active ones or not. Nevertheless, under a Military Support Treaty, it is possible that Ad-hoc Defence will be given under an attack, but there is no commitment to do it like in the case of a Military Defence Treaty. Importantly, in a Military Support Treaty, there is no definition for how much Military Aid will be given in the case of an attack or ongoing war, which usually depends on the economic and political circumstances, such as in the case of the USA that any Military Aid should be approved by the USA Congress and Senate, which depends on the USA’s internal political-fight between Republicans and Democrats, like the problems that occurred for the Biden Administration to get the latest approval from the USA Congress and the Senate for more a Military Aid to Ukraine, which was dragged over more than 6 months until its approval.

B2.4 Military Cooperation

B2.4.1 Military Cooperation Under Multilateral Trade/Economic/Political Alliances

Many Trade Alliances or Economic Alliances or Political Alliances have a Formal Military Cooperation, such as Security Summits, Joint Training, and Joint Drills as in the case of SCO and BRICS.

B2.4.2 Joint-Intelligence Multilateral Alliance

There are Military Intelligence Treaties that focus on Joint-Intelligence in terms of sharing Intelligence or Intelligence Joint Operations, such as in the case of the ‘Five Eyes Treaty’ that includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA.

B2.4.3 Ad-hoc Military Coalition

Many times, several allies form an Ad-hoc Coalition to carry out a specific military task, such as the Coalitions that were formed to fight against the Islamic State, like the Coalition 4+1 that includes 4 countries: Russia, Syria, Iran, and Iraq, and plus 1, Hezbollah.

B2.4.4 Presence of Military Bases in Foreign Countries

The presence of overseas Military Bases exists either under Military Defence Treaties as the USA Military Bases in European NATO members based on the NATO Treaty, or under Military Bases Agreements without a Military Defence Treaty with the aim of giving Military Access to Strategic Locations, such as in the case of the USA Military bases in Jordan that were recently used for intercepting Iranian Drones and Missiles during the Iran Attack against Israel.  However, traditionally, many Colonies in the past and even today serve for the Sovereign State as a ‘Military Point’ in strategic locations, such as in the case of the UK Colonies: Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, which are used as Military Bases for the UK on the island of Cyprus, or in the case of the UK Colony, the British Indian Ocean Territory that its main island, Diego Garcia, serves as a Joint Military Base for the UK and the USA. Nevertheless, the desire to get Military Access in Strategic Locations worldwide has led to a trend of 'Rental land for Military Bases’ without any Military Cooperation with the ‘Landlord of the Land’, which is usually the public land of a certain country, such as in the case of several foreign military bases in Djibouti that run under a High-Cost Rental Contract of Land for Military Bases, yet without any Military Cooperation with Djibouti as in the case of the Military Base of China in Djibouti. Note, Djibouti has become an attractive location for foreign Military Bases because of its strategic location at the entrance of the Red Sea.

B2.4.5 Joint Military Drills

Joint Military Drills allow getting ready for an attack scenario by a third party. Joint Military Drills run frequently under Military Defence Treaties as in the case of CSTO or under Military Support Treaties, but they also run under Alliances with Military Cooperation as in the case of BRICS. However, Joint Military Drills can take place without any Alliance but only based on Military Cooperation between two countries or a small group of countries that have similar interests, such as in the case of the joint Military Drills by China and Iran or by Russia and Iran, which started several years before the joining of Iran to the SCO and BRICS.

B2.4.6 Selling Weapons and Military Training

Selling Weapons and Providing Military Training can be carried out between governments without any Treaty or Alliance but only based on minimal Military Cooperation, such as the export of weapons to countries that have diplomatic relations with the country that exports the weapons, still, keep in mind that weapons dealers also engage in selling weapons to foreign countries without any Military Cooperation but only based on creating profits, which explains, for example, how African Military Regimes buy weapons in the global market despite the Arms Embargo on them.

Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher

Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher - A Researcher in International Relations with a Focus on Security, Political and Economic Risks for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and International Trade

https://www.rozen-bakher.com/
Previous

Section A. Highlights, 2024 Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher
Next

Section C. Methodology, 2024 Global Survival Rank (GSR) by Dr. Ziva Rozen-Bakher