Incomplete Coalitions

Two oceans separate the American continent from the rest of the world. There are three American Groups, Northern A1, Central A2, Southern A3. It is really REASONABLE to have the three AMERICAN Groups in one Subcoalition. But three-Groups Subcoalitions are problematic. They can only be combined with another three-Groups Subcoalition. Some cases were examined in the article "Three Groups Subcoalition".

However, there is a simpler and more flexible solution. SUBCOALITIONS are OPTIONAL. We can FORGET about SUBCOALITIONS and FOCUS on COALITIONS. So are Subcoalitions preferable or not? What ever works out better is preferable. If Subcoalitions work out well, this route should be followed. Otherwise, we can forget about them, form Coalitions and afterwards decide about Subcoalitions. This is top-down approach.

A1, A2, A3 can be together in a Coalition, WITHOUT FORMING a SUBCOALITION. Of course, that COALITION would be INCOMPLETE. There should be six Groups and the American Groups are only three. But it will NOT be INCOMPLETE for ever. This was explained in "Availability and steps". That article focused on forming Subcoalitions, as building blocks of Coalitions. But SUBCOALITIONS are NOT NECESSARY.

Western European Group E1 can't be with Southern American A3 but it can be together with India. This is their choice with the trade deal they made. So we have another INCOMPLETE COALITION. India's and China's Coalitions have two more Groups. So I-E1 Coalition is missing only one more Group. China seems to have an interest in M3 (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan). C-M3 can be a third INCOMPLETE COALITION. One Group will be missing.

A possible scenario is to have E2, R1 and R2 in one Coalition. This will also be INCOMPLETE, three more Groups will be missing. So far, FREE FORMATION was followed. The Groups FORMED INCOMPLETE COALITIONS without the agreement of the rest. FREE FORMATION can be FOLLOWED ALL THE WAY, or it can be COMBINED with a) AGREEMENT b) DMPR or RLS.

So far, we have four INCOMPLETE COALITIONS 1) C-M3 2) I-E1 3) A1-A2-A3 4) E2-R1-R2. These are 2+2+3+3= 10 Groups. So there are 18-10=8 more Groups, M1, M2, R2, R3, S1, S2, S3, S4. Gradually, these four Groups can be added to the INCOMPLETE COALITIONS and make them COMPLETE. One example is shown in the Table below. The three American Groups must be an ocean apart from the other three Groups in the Coalition.

Africa is closer to America (the continent) than Europe or Asia. In terms of distance, M1-S1-S2 is the best match for the three American Groups, as shown in first option. But there is a problem. M1-M2-M3 is the most anti-USA area in the world. Among the three M (Muslim) Groups, M2 is the least anti-USA. In Table A of Appendix 27 are the countries that compose the three M (Muslim) Groups.

Many of the countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Turkiye etc have good relations with USA. Eventhough its is further, only for the relations with USA, it may be preferable to have M2-S3-S4 in the same Coalition with A1-A2-A3 as shown in the second option. There is a another reason this may be preferable which although not as important as the first one but is additional. M1 has all the Arab countries of the Mediterranean.

Byzantine Empire and Hellenistic Kingdoms (or Empires) included a large part of M1 area. As it has been explained, Hellenistic Kingdoms were direct continuation of Alexander's (Hellenic or Greek) Empire and Byzantine Empire was indirect continuation of Hellenistic Kingdoms. Eventhough several centuries have passed, the influence of Byzantine Empire and Hellenistic Kingdoms remains in M1 area.

This seems a good arrangement of Groups in Coalitions. Nevertheless, it is not the only one. Anyone interested can try to find the many other possible alternatives. We will use the arrangement shown in the table above as an example. We assumed that there can be FREE FORMATION all the way. Suppose that the remaining Groups are hesitant to join one Coalition.

The Groups that participate in the incomplete Coalitions could make an agreement and divide the rest of the Groups among them. So each Group not in a Coalition will have a designated Coalition. The Groups in an incomplete Coalition will decide if a new Group can be accepted. If it is not according to the agreement made, the Group's participation can be rejected.

The four incomplete Coalitions will be the four poles that will gather the rest of the Groups until all the Coalitions are complete. A1-A2-A3 seems a very reasonable pole. Also, according to our information, E2-R1-R1 has very good chances of being a second pole. After EU-India trade agreement, it is very clear to everybody that India and Western Europe want very much to be together in a Coalition.

We do not know for sure that China and M3 will be the fourth pole but it seems that China has an interest in M3. Like India, China can have only two more Groups in its Coalition. This is because China and India have very large populations. With two more Groups, they have around 25% of the world's population. The other Coalitions will need six Groups to reach that percentage.

As it can be seen on the map, there is spatial proximity to a great extent. R4-R1-E2-M1-S1-S2 are one next to each other in a semi-circular manner. There is also spatial proximity in M3-C-R3. A1-A2-A3 are next to each other and so are M2-S3-S4. India is next to R2 but they are not next to E1. Nevertheless, they have made their choice with EU-India trade deal. If they did not want to be together, they shouldn't have made the deal.

Eventhough there is spatial proximity, there is also geographic and economic mix. There are Groups from different parts of the world and different levels of economic development. Only China's Coalition does not have geographic mix, Groups from different parts of the world. It they want that, they can choose the Groups accordingly for the incomplete and the complete Coalition.

Once the Coalitions are complete, or decided, Subcoalitions can also be formed or decided. For instance, in R4-R1-E2-M1-S1-S2 there can be two three-Groups (R4-R1-E2, M1-S1-S2) or three two-Groups (R4-R1, E2-M1, S1-S2) Subcoalitions. The first (two three-Groups) seems better. Likewise, A1-A2-A3 and M2-S3-S4 could be two three-Groups Subcoalitions. So we do not forget about Subcoalitions entirely but only while forming the Coalitions.

We have presented several ways to arrange the Groups in Coalitions, (general) agreement, free formation, DMPR or RLS. All Groups or only the available can be considered. Groups can be exchanged. The arrangement can be done at once or in steps. There can be only two-Groups Subcoalitions or a mix of two-Groups and three-Groups. Incomplete Coalitions without Subcoalitions is a simple and flexible alternative. Whatever works out best is preferable and should be chosen.