U.S. Opens Up "Major Geopolitical War".

The United States Starts a "Major Geographical War"

February 5, 2025, 08:44 Opinion

Author: Vitaly Trofimov - Trofimov, Political Analyst

The territorial claims on Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal are not the only "performances" of the new U.S. president (Trump). According to Donald Trump's orders, the Gulf of Mexico has been officially renamed as the "Gulf of America," and the highest peak in North America — Denali Mountain — has been renamed "Mount McKinley." Trump signed an order to rename these geographical objects on the second day after his formal inauguration, January 21st.

The new president explained his decision by stating that the Gulf of Mexico plays a core role in the U.S. economy, so renaming it is to acknowledge its special importance to the United States.

In the context of imperial conquest and the ensuing civilizational conflicts, disputes over geographical names are common. However, in the 20th century, we made great efforts in the standardization of names and the unification of topographic names. This achievement belongs to the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN), which has been engaged in this work since 1959. However, there are still some differences. For some people, it is the "La Manche Strait," while for others, it is the "English Channel." For some, it is "Spitsbergen (Шпицберген)," while for others, it is "Svalbard (Свальбард)." For some, there exists a fifth ocean — the "Southern Ocean," while for others, there are only four oceans: the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, and Arctic Oceans. But overall, the universal place names we use have the same understanding in different countries, but these names may soon become history. The struggle for geographical names could easily become another "battlefield" of war.

This has practical significance. If the city of Bakhmut is renamed back to Artemovsk, it will be much harder for Ukrainian propaganda to explain their attempt to liberate the "Ukrainian city of Bakhmut," as the name no longer exists on the map. Instead, it becomes the "Russian city of Artemovsk." Explaining to sponsors how they are liberating the "original Ukrainian city of Bakhmut, now the Russian city of Artemovsk, which was once Artemovsk but not Russian, rather Ukrainian, and thus became Bakhmut in 2016," requires quite a bit of "doublethink."

The Gulf of Mexico was named by the Spanish in the 16th century when the entire coastline — from what is now Florida to Venezuela and the Caribbean Islands — was under Spanish colonial rule. To the Spaniards, this gulf was "Mare Internum," the inner sea of the Spanish monarchy. Unilaterally renaming it is undoubtedly a form of territorial aggression with geopolitical implications. One might say, we have claims on your "inner sea" (which is no longer your inner sea for you) — we have claims on America's "our sea (Mare Nostrum)." It is also called the "Gulf of America"? This means it is "our sea," and now we are the rule-makers, setting our own rules and boundaries here.

It is easy to imagine such a scenario: the 66 years of unified naming work done by the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names may go to waste, with each country with territorial claims changing names according to its political preferences, not only within its own territory but also on other countries' territories. As is well known, if there is no reason for something not to exist — sooner or later it will appear in some form!

Ultimately, one can imagine a scenario where military mapping units will be active at the frontlines, not only tasked with obtaining surface data in strategically significant areas and drawing new maps based on that data, but also renaming mountains, rivers, settlements, plains, and lakes according to the new military occupation situation.

Moreover, one can imagine a country that completely lives and thinks according to fictitious geographical concepts, with this fictitious geographical situation fully aligning with its current political tasks. Therefore, no dialogue is possible with such a country. "You say we set rules in some 'Pacific'? But we don't know what 'Pacific'! We sincerely call it the 'Hawaii Ocean,' as it is economically and strategically important to the United States. After all, who else is there? After all, this ocean is named after one of our states! You have no right to tell us what to do: set rules in your own ocean. Call it 'Pacific' or 'Raging Sea,' whatever you wish!" Ultimately, only armed force can bridge the gap between fantasy and reality, and this situation is not uncommon against the backdrop of the U.S. military-industrial complex.

After all, these internal re-namings are an expensive "pastime," requiring enormous expenditures. Changing street names means modifying documents, rewriting databases, and replacing house number signs. Changing names of other places is relatively "cheap"! This "low cost" greatly increases the reasons for re-naming. For example, renaming an entire country could be motivated by psychological therapy. How many "sincere" Americans were worried about "Russian tanks entering Georgia" in 2008? Of course, they weren't referring to the Georgia located in the Caucasus region, 10,000 kilometers away from the U.S. state of Georgia, but that's how things were! This confusion had a negative impact on election results and party support rates. Why not change the name of the Georgian region in the Caucasus? Preferably to something less popular, starting with letters like J, Q, or K. Please avoid names starting with Z.

Currently, if the renaming initiative comes from the object itself being renamed, the process is relatively easier. For example, in 2018, King Mswati III of Eswatini announced his intention to rename the country as the "Kingdom of Eswatini," and this decision was almost universally accepted. One of the reasons for the renaming was to avoid confusion with the phonetically similar "Switzerland (Швейцария)." But if someone else renames you — this is also a form of military aggression, albeit in a low-intensity warfare mode, manifested as terrain warfare. This must also be prepared for according to all the rules of military-political deployment.

For instance, the interdepartmental committee responsible for thinking about how to rename "Lyadino" village and the "Dry Valley" area suddenly became an important military department, tasked with executing offensive operations in the "name wars" field of settlements and geographical objects. The groundwork has already been laid, as there is a topographic committee under the framework of the Russian Geographical Society — this organization solves civilian issues in the terrain domain for military departments. Until recently, the chairman of this committee was the current defense minister. These committees need their own general staff, making decisions on names within Russia's sphere of influence. Some measures have been taken during special military operations in liberated areas, but this is just a rehearsal before the "main event" of the 21st century begins.

Additionally, perhaps this issue needs to be resolved within the framework of BRICS (БРИКС) to maintain a unified understanding of geographical space with our economic and political allies. Let those Western collectivists call the Pacific the "Hawaii Ocean," the Atlantic the "British Ocean," and the Arctic Ocean the "Canadian Ocean"; what's important is that we and related countries — Iranians, Indians, and Brazilians — use the same geographical language, with which we can discuss plans for joint defense against "Earth invasion."

Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7503087673666617856/

Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's views. Feel free to express your attitude by clicking the "Like/Dislike" buttons below.